See and avoid? Separate debate / thread really.
Of note maybe- if you keep your eyes moving; as in a scan mode, then I believe that the experts tell us that your peripheral vision is still able to detect an apparently "non moving" target that is a dead ringer i.e same crossing track/ level. Head on - no chance ! This was taught to us on basic Jet provost training many years ago!- I think - or it wasnt - and Ive read it somewhere since ( during the last 20 years). But I would agree with the sentiment that, all things considered, the 'risk" of such an encounter is minimal compared to the efficiency of the system as a whole. But should there suddenly be a dramatic increase in the number of hits v misses would the airspace be changed to class C and ATC expected to separate? I think not. Present system is cheap and relatively effective. Changing anything is expensive and time consuming for all. However UK is unique in that it is blessed with good radar coverage almost everywhere and a mil that offers a LARS based on RIS/RAS which doesnt take any chances with all that ICAO VFR/ IFR stuff. Probably the best system in the world at resolving potential conflictions between particiapting acft OCAS. CANP also helps resolve potential conflicts before they emerge (is it still going?) Should bases reduce further and radar coverage and associated LARS decrease then what?
Of course the number of near misses is ofetn unreported unless an AIRPROX is filed. OCAS filing probably rarely happens as it comes with the territory. But conjested airpsace, different skill / experience levels / changeable weather etc are all loading the dice on a daily basis.
If I were flying around the Uk, I would be listening and looking out very, very carefully in anything less than class C - even when IFR.
Lookout -Attitude - Instruements
DogGone
