Only an estimate was passed. There was no agreed co-ordination or at least one of the parties concerned didn't think so, and there was no request for a squawk change to indicate "change of ownership" to all interested parties. I.E. all those different agencies operating outside CAS.
Wishy washy? The alternative was to let the a/c leave CAS as requested, squawk 7000 and suggest that "FIS is available with LONDON INFO". Absolutely NO RADAR service would then be available. A perfectly legit MOP, and enshrined in the LATCC and now LACC part 2. At least in this case a unit who might be in a better position to provide info knew "something" about the flight if it actually called them. There was no requirement for it to do so (even if it was a really good idea to do so)
Flight outside regulated airspace has certain freedoms and certain risks. ALL pilots operating in such airspace, and CLASS G is universal, not just for the UK, should be aware of those freedoms and risks. Ignorance is not a defence. These are ICAO rules, not just UK ones.
I'm interested in what MATS pt1 says about ACC's responsiblities in the vicinity of CAS. It may well not be the same as the LACC pt2 (the overriding document approved by ATSSD). As you will be aware access to the Pt1 is now "difficult" for most operational NATS staff.
Turning to "new" ACC ATCO's awareness of what happens outside CAS, I couldn't agree more. They have little or no conception of ATSOCAs. A result of the recent "rushed" RGAT training? Or the common attitude "Just tell me what I need to know, amongst students? Dunno. But whenever I have trained people I have always made a point of packing them off to a LARS unit to find out.
At least I've achieved what I'd hoped to, and stimulated a little discussion here. It's clear that there are a number of interpretations, all of which have some basis in truth.
Thanks for all the input. .BEX