Originally Posted by
10JQKA
So could it not be possible that with our G providing a higher service level as a hybrid than of ICAO G that in fact there is no need to provide low E and is a waste of time and resources and will only cause delays compared to current G operations ?
This idea that ATC would cause delays keeps recurring. What it means is that either pilots do a better job of separating aircraft in IMC than ATC do (which I do not believe), or that class G operations operate without standards on a basis of "if no-one saw it, it didn't happen".
There have been a number of instances where pilots completely screwed up separation in IMC. Some instances in addition to Mangalore:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2008-030/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-108/
The first is RPT, a 737 and a A320.
I am sure there are many we never hear about for every one that results in a report.
I am not convinced the extra workload would be as much as is being made out. In many cases there is only 1 IFR aircraft, it seems like "No reported IFR traffic" becomes "cleared XYZ approach" with the only additional requirement the need to keep track of the clearance.
Traffic information is not efficient with multiple aircraft, I heard on area an instance where 5 IFR aircraft were each being given traffic information on the other 4 aircraft. This didn't seem to be an efficient process to me. To make it harder, it was a twin behind 4 C172 all on the same track. That would be hard to sort out if it was actually IMC, e.g. with levels limited by icing. In IMC, a controller with a plan would make things much easier.