NAStronaut an alarmist statement
I wouldnt say alarmist, but something everyone has to be aware of. And it proves the point. If even RPTs are getting it wrong then there are VFRs out there as well. I've had several reports from RPTs (not airmisses) asking "is that traffic just passing 500' below us on your radar", quite frequently responded with on the lines of "what traffic?".
There is no way to quantify it unless an aircraft has an airmiss or TA/RA. because if theres nothing in the way we dont try and contact them.
I dont see the non-transponder aircraft most of the time (due to poor radar coverage etc). As to how many will infringe if say it was D.
It is a different mindset for pilots who know they can fly through the airspace without a clearance, than if they know they are gonna need the clearance & call ATC.
I concur with what Owen says.
At WLM for example the area frequency split runs around the northern edge of the E airspace - the VFRs, can be switching between the two, or on the CTAF(r), if they are from the south could still be on the Sy Rdr freq (happens a lot of times & vice versa with them on our frequency when in Sy Radar area). Too many unknowns.
But then, you can say that with any class of airspace.
Saying you dont want the higher level of airspace coverage, & safety, just incase of penetrations is , as we say in the UK, arse-about-face. In that case why have C around Sydney, and not just E? VFRs can still penetrate without clearance.
And its not just about the VFRs, the IFRs cant always get it right. Like in the past couple of shifts Ive had an:
1/ IFR climb into E without clearance
2/ IFR-RPT turn direct to finals without clearance