UTF, an interesting argument. But if you look at MATS Pt 1 Section 1, Ch5 1.4.1 it seems quite clear to me that you already must aim to provide separation between participating (ie RAS traffic) and non-participating traffic (VFR). So as far as Deconflicton vs. RAS is concerned, nothing has changed. Your quote is from the Approach Services section which essentially gives additional, sensible direction on how to integrate VFR and IFR traffic near an aerodrome outside of CAS. This sort of contradicts, to a degree, the regulations already set down in Section 1 under the definition of a RAS. However, it makes imminent sense from an operational perspective.
So, my reading would be that Deconfliction = RAS (give or take) and I would hope that the Section 3 bit of MATS Pt 1 would still stand allowing controllers to 'absolve' their separation responsibilities by following the described protocols.
Going back a few years, many of us will remember using phrases to RAS traffic along the lines of "Traffic passing down you right hand side, 1nm, same level, visual with you". I don't see that anything has changed. That said, I don't think that CAP774 has simplified anything - something I thought had been one of the aims of the whole ATSOCAS review.
