I’ll try to explain my first point this way, Cap’n.
If someone fires a howitzer, the objective probabilities of you being hit by the round in the air are the same, whether you know about the round or not. However, in the case of howitzer rounds that are objectively going to hit you, your chances of avoiding being hit are increased if you are alerted to the fact that you are going to be hit.
The probablilities of you being hit by a howitzer round in the air are, objectively, infinitesimally small. However, because of the consequences to you of being hit by a howitzer round, your perception of the probabilities of being hit is many orders of magnitude higher than the objective probabilities. This is natural. Accordingly, you want a system that will alert you to every howitzer that’s fired near you.
That system doesn’t exist.
The airspace equivalent doesn’t exist and will never exist. Birds, drones, technical failure and human error will ever be thus. There are no airspace arrangements that are free of collision risk.
I’m happy with most of the current airspace and frequency arrangements. I think some of them are unjustified by the objective risks. The dimensions of the airspace in which the YPPD AFIS procedures apply is one example.
I think the greater risk is posed by change fatigue and the general resort to whatever version of the procedures with which individuals happen to be comfortable.