Hi Ferris,
I'm not trying to start a intra-nationality bum-fight here. I can just see from, previous experience, a few tweeks that could do a lot in improving the service.
Its not all airspace, internal ASA needs looking at. There is no staff, no morale, there is no communication between management & ATCOs. Procedures get forced on ASA & ATCOs from CASA/DAP despite the ASA safety case against it.
And no the UK isnt perfect, nor the US, Canada, Germany, UAE or any other country you care to pick.
I'll try and address your points/questions in turn...
Protection from what
Both VFR & IFR in the free for all airspace. CFIT I dont see as a major issue due to well published LSALT/RouteLS etc. Although the potential is always there, be it with self-separating from other traffic or TCAS RA's. but Im guessing that the terrain alarm would go off in turn (GPWS?, from memory)
Is it just an opinion
Of course. I have a different background to most/some. Where I spent the first 7 years controlling we had Controlled airspace protection for 99% of RPT traffic for their entire trip. (only exception I can think of without looking at maps is Newcastle, where they spend about 10track miles in G before entering D class CTZ - whilst in G they will be under Radar Advisory Service, so ATC provide vectors around traffic on radar (including primary paints)). So to see it here with a lot of RPT traffic mixing it in a free for all, is offputting (&scary) sometimes.
Anyway, I can only give opinions/advice. I have no policy making position
within ASA.
half of the "US system" will address this 'problem'
Honestly, No.
I dont see E as a big enough step up from G. It is not/does not seem to aid in the unknown traffic situation. or aiding the pilots of aircraft in situation awareness at all. As for climbing into it VFR until get IFR clearance, Once again I can see how it helps an aircraft get above the LSALT, but not with traffic separation. It will just cause more headaches for ATC, possibly more RAs/TAs, and probably a lot of ill will from ATCers. I know from WLM that most reasons a pilot doesnt get clearance immediately is because of conflicting traffic. And not on taxi because of how quickly traffic can change (weather avoidance in the summer for example).
My own, humble, opinion is that if you want to significantly increase the safety advantages then D would be a better option. All traffic is known (VFR & IFR), they are under clearances, you know level & routing/intentions. you can provide alternate clearances to the VFRs with less hassle. Yet you still have the flexibility of see & avoid for VFR (but with known TI). And yes if a pilot really wanted to climb in VFR as opposed to IFR, he can with a clearance & TI (once again known TI).
The UK had very little E. I think only Belfast & Glasgow(?). and although VFR didnt have to announce themselves, it was strongly recommended that they got themselves identified to the controlling ATSC. I dont know how this worked because I was London TMA.
Am I advocating a UK based system. No. The UKs is deisgned around a lot of major aerodromes tucked into little corners, with a lot less space & a lot more aircraft. But that doesnt stop me thinking that D is a fair compromise between safety, IFR flight, VFR flight & Controller Workload management. (If too busy VFRs have to go around).
complexity is increased trying to pander to Dick's dreams.
I was trying to get the thread away from the his & hers dreams and onto sensible discussion, so wont comment on that bit.
Complexity was increased. With it being E down to 4500' it squidges any conflictions in G into less space than they had before. Outbounds initially have to climb to a level below the LSALT (outside 25nm to the N/NW), please dont start on IFR pick-up, anyone I think we;ve done that to death!
Most RPT flights are only gonna climb IFR.
I dont think its done a huge amount to increase safety (most ATCOs agree), its forced the conflixtions into sfc-4500 rather than sfc-8500.
It has reduced flexibility of the RPTs as if there is a VFR at, i.e. 6000', on a crossing track to an inbound on descent from flight levels. ATC will clear the RPT to leave CAS descending, control service terminates passing 4500', traffic is (unknown VFR, etc etc). The pilot may/or may not sight this aircraft and where he'd maybe normally just turn around it, if he's above 4500' he has to get an amended route clearance from ATC. Or if he levels off it will set the CLAM (Cleared level adherence monitor) in ATSC off and as well as looking for the traffic he'd be answering our calls on confirming he's levelled off. Because we have to check in case he misheard the clearance. (Or like one RPT today didnt readback the clearance to leave CAS, except with just "Roger", twice - I was too busy and gave up)
Once again, my opinions....
i hope this answers your questions