"Don't know why there is so much ill-feeling about protection and safety; regulated airspace merely provides a known traffic environment and is not an exclusion zone."
____________________________________________________
Couldn't agree more, 055.
It does behove ATC to play the game, but morally - never mind all the claptrap from DAP - should not the occupants of an IFR flight flying an instrument approach to an instrument runway, regardless of the number of such movements, regardless of the aircraft type, expect a degree of protection while flying IMC, i.e. separation from other IFR flights and at least a known traffic environment as regards other, VFR, flights?
I think that the correspondence above indicates what a complete pig's breakfast it is conducting IFR flights in Class G airspace, and I do not accept that vectoring traffic, either under RIS or under a necessarily limited RAS on the intermediate and even final approach while still "calling" unknown traffic should be an acceptable method of operation.
This is the aspect that DAP does not seem to appreciate - they seem to actually want airproxes or worse before they will accept that some legal protection is necessary. Do they really think the flying through the holding area at FL35 or making initial contact at 1500 ft crossing final approach at 5 miles final is an acceptable practice?
At the very least, they could do a lot better that the stupid little "feather" on the charts to indicate one end of an instrument runway. It would be useful if there were an indication of each instrument runway final approach, out to about ten miles plus an indication of the airspace commonly used for holding, IAPs and radar vectoring. At least the military aerodromes attract a MATZ, not big enough to enclose all the airspace indicated above, but a start - civil aerodromes in class G have no "line on the map" outside the ATZ.