2sheds:
they might be flying in cr@p weather conditions. However, it will cease to seem like a Good Idea when they are required to climb another 5000 ft and probably go into IMC
So let me get this right. Are you saying that someone flying in marginal VMC on a BS from a radar-equipped unit would ask for a PS in order to get better traffic info? That really doesn't make any sense. First of all, radar units with serviceable radars won't offer anyone a PS because they've got better and easier things to offer. Second, even if the alleged VFR was given a PS, they'll only get traffic info on other PS traffic, not on unknowns. If they ask for a TS they'll get all the traffic info they need but won't be sent on wild goose chases around the sky.
If on the other hand you're saying our marginal VFR friend will only ask for PS at non-radar units, then why is he not doing this now? Asking for a PS in the conditions you state is effectvely a request to change to IFR. They can do that now. The only difference is that now it doesn't really have an official name (although ICAO calls it 'Procedural Control').
But go to Carlisle, Dundee, Cranfield, Oxford and you'll see people getting a procedural service all the time. But none of them will be VFRs looking for better traffic info, now or in future.
Bennyclub:
traffic believed to be you has traffic...o'clock.....miles...." Can't see that one being used on BS or PS!
It
can't be used on a PS because the controller won't be giving radar-based traffic info and only gives tfc info on participating traffic. But there's no reason why a controller can't give that sort of warning to BS tfc if he believes there's a risk of collision, just as he would do currently when there's a perceived risk of collision with FIS traffic.
NS