"However the fact remains that at present you cannot use GPS for approaches,"
Lille - although of course I did make the point that my comments excluded approaches.
"Let me reverse the question, and ask for three reasons why you think it is so great compared to other methods."
1. Excellent situational awareness,
2. No requirement to be in range of a VOR (particularly useful at low level as is common for most GA ops),
3. Enables almost instant flight planing on the hoof without the need for time spent with you head in the cockpit.
GPS is happily up to the challenge of stating its advantages - so come on having reveresed the question without having answered it, lets have three good reasons for using any other form of navigation (approaches excluded for the sake of this discussion).
"Neither does any other form of tracking aid. That is why a map must also be carried and used."
I would encourage everyone to read the posts when following a thread. Your GPS may well show you the position of the masts - many now do.
"If someone cannot achieve a satisfactory letdown using an ILS they should fail their IMC test."
Maybe - but how many during their IMC flew an approach down to the legal minima NOT the minima people so often wronly assoicate with the IMCR? How many passed their IMC with an ILS approach which was OK down to 600 feet but knew full well it was a big ragged at the edge? How many know that the standard of their ILS approach for the IMC may have secured a "pass" but would have not done so for an IR? My point was that just as with a PPL or an IMCR or even for that matter with an IR the test and training achieves for the pilot a minimium standard but that does not mean you stop learning.