I also learned before GPS, and while I get this type of question a lot, and have to answer with the textbook answer, I have come to realize that the question isn't a bad one at all. And, while it is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person isn't capable of flying without it. On the contrary, asking this question, to me, shows an attempt at correlating different rules and capabilities.
This most basic type of VOR approach is designed for aircraft with only VOR receivers, and even only one of them. The reason you have to fly all the way to the VOR, turn around and go out on the PT is precisely because with only VOR receivers, you don't know how far you are from the VOR until you are directly over it. And that's a very important consideration, of course.
But if you're flying in an airplane with GPS, that handicap of not knowing exactly where you are is an interesting academic discussion, but difficult to understand why it applies in the "real world".
Like I mentioned before, it's a simple matter with GPS (or even just DME), to know exactly how far you are from the VOR on this approach. The whole reason the rules require you to go all the way to the VOR to do the PT is simply because you don't know your distance from it except when you're directly over it. But if you do know exactly how far you are, then this reason disappears in practical application. Now you are going all the way to the VOR not because of any equipment or technology limitation, but just due to a rules limitation.
A student who leads me down this road of reasoning is, in my opinion, showing a good grasp of correlation of various considerations.
about the ridiculous overuse of incomprehensible mnemonics as a substitute for learning.
