NavList:

Dear Geoffrey, I don't want to be argumentative: we are all free to use whatever sight reductions methods we like; and as an author, you certainly have the right to include your preference (or rather, Starpath's) in your esteemed LTA. But FWIW, the majority opinion on NavList seems to agree that NA tables are rather more prone to silly operator errors than various alternatives.

'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'; and again, I am currently unaware of evidence confirming your feeling that (outside NavList) the NA tables are in widespread use for practical navigation.

Re: S-table and long term almanacs
From: Hanno Ix
Date: 2015 Feb 9, 08:40 -0800

I sense there are some extraneous reasons for the use of those tables: they may be the favorite method of a prominent club or training center, maybe because of some didactic concern or the availability of study material. 

Hanno makes a good point. It may well be that the USPS prefers the NA tables merely because it means they don't have to invest funds in multiple copies of HO229, HO249, etc. for students' use ... less material for the poor old instructors to carry around and store at home, too!

Given that the USPS courses are essentially pure training exercises and almost none of those students will ever put theory into practice, ease of use is likely a secondary concern.

Best wishes, Roger