I am caught between two stools here.
But I tend to fall on the side of the GA guys.
Firstly, I have heard the tales of operators insurers stating that it is RAS or nothing. In which case the policy is not worth the paper it is written on since that service can never ever be guaranteed anywhere. I have also seen the Ops Manuals of quite a few operators whose pilots have stated the same case and what the document actually says (in each one I have seen) is that the pilot must take advantage of the 'best service available' or words to that effect. If the best service (to aid an expeditious approach for example) is purely FIS, then that is what the Ops Manual allows ... and what the pilot should accept, or perish the thought, REQUEST. It's all down to intelligent interpretation ... and not blind acceptance. Maybe the problem is a generation of 250 hour ATPLs ???
I think my second point is that pilots of CAT are generally (with strong emphasis on the general part) ignorant of the various services ATC can provide and the restrictions placed on ATC within each in terms of separation, traffic information, etc. As mentioned, under a RAS, regardless of Met conditions, ATC need to aim for a separation standard regardless. With excellent vis and little cloud cover, any pilot knowing the rules and having been passed traffic information could quite safely 'downgrade' to a RIS and get his head out of the cockpit, look for, and avoid, the traffic. In Class G airspace, it's what he/she
should be bloody well be doing anyway even if under a RAS. 'See and avoid' is the over arching rule for everyone. It makes no exceptions. If any CAT operators can't accept this ... then they should make the skies safer for us all and fly in airspace where cotton wool ATC is given ... i.e. CAS of Class C or above (Class E and Class D will still allow VFRs with no 'standard' separation applied.) Alternatively ... wait until all of the route can be flown in CAS.
Finally ... some areas have a good case for more CAS ... others not so. It is for each airfield or operator to make it's relevant case which the CAA will then judge on its merits. What the CAA will look for is for the minimum amount of airspace to be granted to facilitate the safe conduct of flights of traffic in and around the airspace, if it is justified. The fact that those who can't make the case then encounter GA traffic and have to get out of their way sometimes (either because legally the have to in accordance with the Rules of The Air, or because the ATC service they are receiving requires them to) is a fact of life. GA traffic can also cite instances where their ops are hampered by commercial operations. It's a quid pro quo.
I'm afraid the 'Sun' headline stuff about 'ambulance flight delayed by light aircraft' cuts no ice here. Who is to say that the GA aircraft didn't have right of way ... was unsure of position and the pilot panicking a bit ..... had a sick passenger on board who was not used to flying .... was running short of fuel ..... had a dodgy alternator ...... etc, etc, etc, etc. No one ... that's who. If there's a real problem with priority, get the ambulance flight in high to the overhead and then carry out manouevres within the protection of ATZ or CTZ to ensure a safe and controlled approach without having to worry about the rules for flight in 'uncontrolled' airspace.
Outside CAS, there are equal rights (within the limits and requirements of the ANO). If CAT wants preference, they will continue to find it within airspace where the vast majority of GA is excluded ... either by pilot qualification or aircraft equippage. It's called Controlled Airspace
