In article ,
says...

It restricts you in the alternate airport choice.

One can argue this two ways: legally and from the POV of systems
reliability. (And I know *you* are not in the USA )

(text cut for brevity)

A lot of European VFR flying (and probably a fair bit of US VFR
flying?) is done without radar assistance; often without any
assistance whatever.

There are quite a few services available in the US - new and old - that have
never existed in Europe (HIWAS, TWEB, WAAS, LAAS, many types of briefings)
however general flight information service (VFR Flight Following) is available
in most places, and VFR pilots may elect to use it or not, as in the US.


I am a great fan of GPS and use my IFR KLN94/KMD550 for navigation
100% of the time, but I also like my VOR, DME and ADF. The ADF is
mandatory in much of Europe anyway, and there are large stretches of
France, Spain, etc, where you can't pick up a VOR but can pick up some
NDB, so you still have a nav backup to the GPS. In the 3rd world, an
ADF is a must. Also, for those who like to route via navaids for the
above backup reasons, the ability to route via an NDB gives you
additional VFR route planning options.


I do not see many places in Europe where you don't have several VOR's
available, and I don't know of any places where one must use NDB's for en-route
navigation. On the other hand, there are quite a few NDB approaches, at many
smaller airports the only instrument approach will be an NDB - and even
though there is usually a perfunctory GPS overlay, the Europeans have basically
elected to trash free GPS in order to benefit from the priviledge of waiting
another ten years and paying high user fees for Galileo, so the whole
constellation of GPS-based services for IFR approaches is simply a non-starter
in Europe.

GF