Ok - give me just three reasons why GPS isnt the best way
I am not having a go at GPS, I simply said it is one of many means. However the fact remains that at present you cannot use GPS for approaches, so it is less useful than the others. Let me reverse the question, and ask for three reasons why you think it is so great compared to other methods.
You are mixing things up a bit
Don't think I am. VFR minima is 1500m. CPL holders are allowed to fly VFR in these conditions whether old UK or new JAA. PPL holders with IMC/IR can also fly VFR in these conditions. Anything less is IMC and requires IMC/IR rating.
No, we are talking about a plain PPL here. An instrument qualified pilot (IMCR or IR) has far better ways to navigate, and isn't going to be kerb crawling in 1500m or 3000m looking for villages, hedges, roads, lakes...
That was kind of my point.
My GPS doesn't show me the position of the masts near my home airfield
Neither does any other form of tracking aid. That is why a map must also be carried and used. I know this is what you mean FFF, but it does highlight the problems caused by over-reliance on GPS, and why it does not protect people from incursions etc.
In theory after an IMC course you should manage an ILS let down to minima, however in reality you are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory performance.
If someone cannot achieve a satisfactory letdown using an ILS they should fail their IMC test. Granted they may struggle with an NDB approach, but an ILS? The problem afterwards is lack of practice. Instrument skills degrade very quickly. There is a huge difference between those who actually use the IMC rating and those who do not. Those that do develop good instrument skills and are better pilots for it. Others who do not use it and come back for renewals tend to be of a poor standard after two years of neglect and need further training.
Regarding PPL drop-out after training, this has always been the case. The reasons are numerous, and not just down to training standards.