To claim that a non-published approach offers the same "mid air collision protection" as a published approach is in my view frankly a ridiculous statement.
Did someone say that ?
I must have missed it, and no I am not being sarchastic, it was certainly not my intention to imply it.
My point is a published approach outside controlled airspace might offer more protection but it does not and cannot guarantee protection while others are bimbling around IMC in the vicinity.
I have been invited to leave a previousjob because I was not willing to push on where some others would (I did not however ever kill the boss or hit anything with his helicopter, or damage it any way), perhaps my replacement may well be the person this thread started about, I really don't know.
Can these let downs be done with a similar level of risk and safety to published approaches, I think they probably can but the circumstances are different and involve the pilot on a much more personal level, he must know the area well, must operate to much higher minima (in my opinion). Having a locally trusted contact can help to ensure the approach does not have anything newly erected in it.
Down to 200ft though I agree pretty much with all the people opposed to this concept, there are too many variables and the approach path cannot be considered to be free of all obstacles all the time.
Would less people be opposed to the idea if minima of 500ft AGL were considered, its above the height at which notification would be required to the CAA for any 'local erection's :-) and could be done under some kind of 'Radar Service' if one was available. It still does however offer no protection from the popup traffic that might be just below the cloudbase.
There are enough airfields in this country with commercial ops and little or no radar cover, it must be only a matter of time until a commercial flight hits popup traffic as it descends, outside controlled airspace there is little protection from this at low level, consider the pilot who is just over 2miles from an airfield at 650ft just outside the atz and the commercial flight that might break cloud at this level and find the offending pilot in front of him.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do know there is no panacea, approved or not they both involve risk, as does all of out flying it is up to us to mitigate that risk and sometimes we get it wrong.
[edited to say JJ is correct, it just took me 20 minutes to write this and I have just seen his post, I am indeed talking about outside controlled airspace]