I think GPS is great and use one with a moving map display in one of my aircraft. Its not a very fancy one, a Pilot GPS III. I only know how to do "GOTO" havent bothered looking for anything more complex, but it suits my purpose, which is really to give an overview of where I am, as an aid to map reading. If I have to track closely around controlled airspace, I will do this by refering to the map and making sure I know where I am.
In the other old slow aircraft with no electrical system, I just use the map and this is fine too, but I wouldnt want to have to navigate too closely to controlled airspace, unless the features are very good. I remember a trip to Schaffen one year trying to navigate between the Brussels and Antwerp zone thur that 2 mile gap, where there are so many canals, motorways etc its hard to know where you are- much easier with the GPS!
I would totally agree that use of GPS should be in all PPL sylabuses, much more useful than ADF tracking! However, I would imagine GPS also causes quite a few infringements particularly for low time pilots relying on it too much. With poor preparation, its easy to just hit GOTO XXX and it seems that the route is fine, but with a long route and by the time you have been blown off track, your new GOTO route, takes you thru the edge of controlled airspace. Or with worse planning it went through the controlled airspace anyway without your flying being inaccurate.
I remember quite a few years ago at a PFA rally at Wroughton, when we asked someone in a large Cessna, why he had just flown right through the Lyneham zone, he said he was just following his GPS!
Using GPS is certainly advantageous, and I tend to agree that errors in the GPS position are very small and very rare. Its the user input that can be the problem!
I think the UK charts are excellent and generally very good for navigation, only bettered by the French IGN charts- agree with whoever said it that the powerlines are very useful. On both of these it is reasonably easy to figure out the controlled airspace. However I have found that the Jeppesen charts are very poor for this, it often takes a long time to find the altitude limits of complex bits of controlled airspace and the presentation just isnt very good. I wonder if a lot of people are using these nowadays, resulting in more infringements.
I also think that the differences between ATC "services" is a problem. Paris info etc has a radar, knows where you are and warns you of controlled airspace. London info is a completely different service, really it is just a frequency on which you can ask for information. I wonder how many foreign pilots think they are getting a radar service from London info and go busting through controlled airspace. I know that some do. Some ATC units even seem to think so, as they suggest you to call London info when being handed over from their zone. There is no point, unless you need to contact them for specific information.
In France you are also very rarely "cleared to enter controlled airspace" once you have called up and said where you are going, they might ask you to report somewhere, but hardly ever issue a clerance, but you are implicitly cleared through, whereas in the UK you must not enter unless given a specific clearance.
Some ATC units in the UK seem to spend time asking me what kind of service I require wanting to give me Flight Information Serivce or whatever. In most cases I am not interested in this, I just want permission to cross the zone that they have established in the way of the route I want to fly. I wonder how many times someone has been told "Flight information service" and assumed this to mean cleared to do what he asked for. I know this is incorrect, but an easy assumption to make.
It seems to me, that in some cases Controlled airspace is far too big. Now if commercial operators who want this CAS had to pay for it, into some fund kept for GA who they keep out, then maybe it wouldnt be so large! Perhaps this fund could be used to pay for extra controllers who could spend more time giving GA aircraft clearance through the zone, rather than telling them to standby, or avoid controlled airspace.