The "incredibly complex" statement needs to be seen and understood in the context of international airspace regulations and practices. Taking the UK-blinkers off for a moment you have to question the wisdom of what has become routine and why the Board failed to mention some basic fundamentals - and yes, I have been a Board member.
Class G airspace is defined by ICAO. Fundamentally it is uncontrolled airspace, with shared usage, no requirement for ATC or, when flown VFR, no requirement for a radio to even be fitted. The 'see and avoid' principle reigns supreme with encouragement to use an ATC traffic service where available and appropriate. The F-15 crews met or exceeded all requirements.
The "incredibly complex and congested" part of UK airspace is that you can be happily flying at medium level in open airspace and have groups of people ballistically descending through your flightpath. These people-shaped objects are quite heavy, are sometimes strapped together, have no radios, transponder, TCAS, lights or any meaningful ability to alter their flight path.
The Board, correctly in my view, has formally acknowledged that the pilots were unlikely to see ballistic people and take avoiding action. This is quite a change from Boards that I have sat on who often opined that see-and-avoid was possible and that aircraft should therefore give-way to parachutists.
So the big in-your-face question mark is the regulatory wisdom of allowing uncontrolled objects/people to ballistically descend through unprotected airspace. The tone of the Airprox Board is that aircrew should avoid such areas. Well, guess what, aircrew do just that when the activity is surrounded by protected airspace. But this activity was not taking place within protected / restricted airspace.
Buried in the AIP somewhere is a statement to the effect that the mere listing of a drop zone does not imply any right to a parachutist to use that DZ. Military Free Fall parachuting takes the view that NOTAM'ed restricted airspace or operations in dedicated danger areas are more appropriate methods of achieving safe separation. Civilian parachuting cloaks itself in the hope that pilots will avoid bits of otherwise open airspace that may or may not have parachutists zipping through it.
Nothing here is new. Over 20 years ago I was part of a pair recovering to Marham, operating intermittent IMC at around FL110 under Radar Advisory when we nearly hit 2 men, one of which was dressed as a clown. What is new is that there has been a massive growth in sports parachuting in the UK, operating in Class G airspace, yet unable to comply with the rules of the air. Covering the UK charts with an overlapping blanket of advisories and potential aviation activity information provides no meaningful measure of safety.
This soap-box is slippy, so stepping off now.
Last edited by Just This Once...; 13th Sep 2019 at 11:13.