Dick,
Thank-you for taking the time to reply to my post.
I'll ask the question from a different perspective. From what you've said the FAA prescribes procedures known as A, yet the controllers follow procedures known as B due to the fact that they use 'common sense', it's part of their 'service oriented culture', its adds to safety, whatever. Would it not then be prudent for the FAA, in order to protect their controllers from litigation, to simply adopt/prescribe procedures B?
Let me demonstrate with a hypothetical:
A controller is responsible for a volume of airpsace which contains both E and G Classes. On this particular day he has a fairly solid amount of traffic going, but he's functioning well within his capabilities. A nasty 3-way IFR confliction evolves in a part of his G class airspace where, IAW the airspace classifiacation, he could provide directed traffic with updates or use 'common sense' and take control of the situation and start separating these aircraft using some vectors and other fancy stuff. He knows it will add to his workload and take up a not insignificant portion of his scan but hey, 'I'm using my initiative by providing a better service and adding to safety'. Meanwhile, in another part of his airspace, one or more of the following occurs:
an IFR aircraft in Class E accidently commences descent without requesting it (perhaps he thought he was in Class G) and swaps paint with the IFR aircraft 1000FT below, opposite direction. The Conflict Alert goes off, but there just wasn't time; or
another IFR aircraft in G Class airspace whom, for any number of reasons, the controller is no longer providing a service to, deviates from it's flight planned route. The controller is alerted by the route adherance monitor (RAM) but thinks, 'He's just tracking for 5 mile final like the 25 other times in a shift I see the RAM go of. Besides, I've got my butt hanging out with this other conflict going on. I need to concentrate on that'. Next thing the Minimum Safe Altitude Warning goes off and CFIT.
Years later in a Federal Penitentiary, with his wife and children destitute, the controller thinks to himself, 'If only...'.
From a personal perspective, it's not losing the job that worries me as I've got the knowledge and skills to find something else. The criminal negligance case and the ensuing civil suit from the mother of the pilot(s) really does. If you thnk I'm being a bit 'Henny Penny the sky is falling' or hiding behind my 'culture', then do some research on controllers currently in gaol around the world, even where they followed all applicable rules and regulations, let alone a violation similar to the above. The rules and duty of care are all I have.
I find it difficult to believe that a controller would retain his/her freedom let alone his/her job when flagrantly disregarding procedure in a society a litigous as that of the USA, just because he/she was using 'common sense' or adding to safety at the expense of duty of care.
What is the point of prescribing procedures when they are routinely violated? Why not make procedure A resemble Procedure B? What obligation is an IFR aircraft in Class G airspace under to comply with a control instruction, even if it is for separation? I don't mind change, however, if my 'culture' makes me not want to adopt a system that prescribes rules that aren't really meant to be followed, then perhaps my 'culture' isn't so bad. Perhaps that's what you're up against Dick. What is it the CRM guys say? Culture change is a generational thing, not an overnight thing?