Atco/Chillie,
Probably not the right thread to make the point ref more controlled airspace = more chance of VFR nearmisses/collisions.. But whow you can call that comment utter tosh is beyond me. In my humble opinion - more CAS = less class G = more VFR a/c trying to use a smaller parcel of airspace. For example, 2 weeks ago I was in the "Popham Gap". Asked for a RIS then a FIS - both unavailable due to controller workload but was warned that he had 25 a/c on his scope and to keep a bloody good eye out. Wonderful - now how do you justify my comment as being utter tosh...?
Another time asking for a zone transit across a well known lump of class D on the south coast - again none available due to controller workload. All VFR traffic routed around - again lots of VFR a/c in very small bits of airspace. Can you again justify this?
Pudnucker
During my Career I have been a safety adviser to Airspace Change Proposals, advisor to and member of the UK Airprox Board and served in the MOD in Aviation Safety.
Any proposal to increase the amount of CAS is stringently staffed with all operators/airspace users having input into the process. Obviously, the proposer always presents the 'Rolls Royce' solution first off and this is negotiated down to a more workable solution as part of the process. When it is clear that a potential bottleneck will occur it is often a pre-condition of the airspace change that a crossing service is made available for all airspace users.
Taking into consideration ALL of the changes to airspace that have taken place during the aviation explosion of the past 10 years we are still a long way off creating significantly greater 'choke points' than those that already occur. Personally, you wouldn't catch me flying between Booker and Princess Risborough without a team of Owls with me
Accordingly more Class D does not equal mid air collisions....it could be one of a number of factors but is only ever going to be contributory not causal.
Dipping my toe into the world of Safety Management, the potential for a mid-air collision is reduced by mitigating the risk by introducing layers of safety. Now these layers of safety could be receiving a radar service, having TCAS installed, legislation mandating the carriage of transponders or something as simple as not flying in marginal weather conditions. But, the very, very last layer of safety is see and avoid. If you fly with just that one layer of safety and that layer is marginalized by other factors then you are significantly increasing your chances of a mid air and all this has very little to do with the proliferation of CAS.
I didn’t mean to be antagonistic, but people have got to be realistic about airspace expansion. BUT, I share you frustration with regard to the lack of services available to GA, but 'who pays for LARS' is a debate not for this forum and controllers are not a surplus commodity these days.