Hello again Chuck,
I am only trying to point out that not using a GPS is taking an unneccesary risk when there is no valid reason to take said risk.
This is really a quick answer because I'm just off out for the evening. GPS is "effort reduction", not "risk reduction" - from the viewpoint of the ATS. Now, I'm not a specialist in this area and I'm applying my system engineering pronciples to this problem and I'll accept any deeper expalinations... The ultimate objective for the ATS would be something like making sure that us VFR pilots do not bring down an A380 loaded with passengers.
To that end the ATS is designed to keep us apart. There are risks that VFR pilots are going to get lost, so the "system" is designed to cope with this - Class A airspace, air traffic controllers, TCAS and so on.
There are a number of "consequences" (a component of "risk") from an infringement, and each has a probability associated. To illustrate the point, lets invent some numbers - Infringe airspace and the probability that you get called by ATC is going to be close to 1, that you get a letter from the CAA, probably 0.5, that you cause an aitrcraft to deviate 1 in 100 (0.01). That we bring down an A380, we need to have a "system" probability of something like 1*10E-9 per flight hour. This probability needs to cover everything that could conceivably happen, including the GPS equiped plane that does a DCT straight across an ILS.
GPS can reduce pilot work load. GPS can be more accurate - but does a VFR pilot necessarily need that accuracy? Are there no other acceptable means of compliance?
Maybe full of holes, but I hope you get the general thrust of the message!
Best regards,
T