I guess I am saying that I believe the services as laid down on a piece of paper are fit
They would be if... they were common to the rest of Europe at least, if not the world.
And I operate as GA IFR and VFR, CAT VFR and IFR
And as a Captain in CAT in G you just have to accept your level of risk is more than inside CAS. And you have to alter your own personal methods to take this into account. I might add it doesn't matter if your dealing with a procedural service or radar service or tower only. Your are on your own and its only your own actions which can help minimise the risk. You will never completely remove it but, by using your flight profile you can minimise your risk exposure. By exposing yourself in the 1k to 5k region for the least amount of time is one of the big ones. Its a mental click with the pilot that they don't have any rights of protection. Its quite hard to get it into new Captains heads when you are line training them that they are on there own even if they are talking to a "radar controller"
So you either have to accept that you can't get a safe service in uncontrolled or you don't operate in uncontrolled.
Now we do have a last ditch mitigation device onboard most CAT aircraft, certainly all that carry scheduled pax ie TCAS but that requires the other aircraft to have a transponder.
With a blankish bit of paper.
You need to look at both sides the way the CAT/IFR is dealt with and also the way that the VFR is dealt with. Currently the IFR is given the same profiles as inside controlled airspace. They need to be pulled in towards the airports and kept higher in G. Unless of course they accept and request to get dropped into dragon country unprotected.
I would slap a 10 radius mile zone of class E+ round each of the airports with scheduled pax. That's without the current gold plating bollocks of requiring radar and a separate approach service. Do it as a country wide consultation and no input from individual airports and the cost goes into the airport licensing costs for the whole of the UK. They have a choice then of either speaking to you or having a transponder working.
The CAT want this environment and should pay for the certification of a cheap functional approved portable transponder which microlights and gliders can carry and any permit aircraft. CoA aircraft have to use the current approved units. 2-3 hours battery life and replaceable battery units aka digital camera type. It only needs to be able to work up to 20 or 30 miles away and 10k feet. And they can turn it off for all I care while away from licensed airports. 5 quid on every landing fee for CAT in the UK will cover it. or if you can get EASA involved a couple of euros on each airways flight.
If there is a radar feed available allow the visual twr control to use it if required. It works in the rest of Europe.
Have minimum decent levels for IFR before the approach even on visual until within a certain range. And ban the practise of clearing airspace in the event of the CAT wanting a straight in visual. Ie give a safety area which all GA pilots know they can go in without getting screwed around. I suggest up to 4k outside 15, 2.5k outside 10 and 1.5 until 6 agl. If the CAT wants to go inside that, that's their problem and should be communicated "You are responsible for your own traffic separation"
The concept of if the VFR traffic can see the IFR traffic it is separated is a fundamental concept and to be honest is the biggest annoying ball ache with the current system. When you can see the sodding thing for miles away, there is zero chance your going to get near it even if you tried or were stupid enough. But no the approach wants to move me out the way at my expense at 3 quid a minute. That happening to me three times in close succession was my breaking point of this whole thing being a pile of w
k.
Have visual approach way points with set heights defined for each runway and one for straight and one on each base. Don't give a visual approach until the CAT is at those points and height. 6 mile final/ 4 mile final with 2 mile dog leg on base at 1.8k. Once its set, a standard way of dealing with it will be put in place by operators. Yes it might mean some of us can't crack in at 200 knts plus to 6 miles. But such is life we can take own traffic separation if we want to do that.
Two services.
FIS and Radar.
FIS is your standard FIS. Don't pretend it is anything more than it is. It is a set standard country wide. Don't try changing the name it just causes confusion.
Radar is the best radar service you can give. I would also put a warning on the Instrument plates the limitations of the service. Ie we will do the best we can but you are responsible for your own separation.
The differential between the current traffic service and deconfiction can be obtained on the first vector.
"Traffic in your 3 o'clock, turn left heading xxx to maintain radar separation"
bigbird "left heading xxx" or "Roger looking for traffic"
If they take the vector continue giving them vectors if they give it the looking for traffic just keep passing them the traffic.
Procedural control should be just that, none of this nonsense of what type of service do you want. If your IFR you getting it like it or not. If you don't want it cancel IFR. It confuses the hell of the foreigners and they don't understand the difference to a basic service. 99% of pilots will do as they are told anyway. And the 1% that don't will be the local regulars who know their poo anyway.
This contract "control" rubbish should just die a death with VFR traffic. You wouldn't believe the amount of stress and work load it gives low experienced pilots. And the huge annoyance factor it gives experienced. Yes you can ask that they report any alterations to their intentions but some controllers are using not replying to calls as a method of locking VFR aircraft on headings and alts as if they were IFR. Quite often with zero appreciation of cloud and terrain. I have given it hey ho off the frequency I go, when I was ignored for 4 calls trying to avoid cloud. Which did trigger a response I might add, it was a scream "remain on my frequency", which got the reply "QSYing good day". Its uncontrolled airspace you will never be able to change that fact.
Currently I think that due to lack of knowledge on how aircraft operate that to much emphasis is given to allowing the CAT free protected range in class G during the approach phase, if they were just kept out of the sub 4k zone until a lot nearer the airport and dog legs used to put them on base to create distance for height loss the amount of clashes with GA would be greatly reduced.
Over 10 years I have had two airprox's both of which have been under a top level radar service in the UK. Both cases the traffic wasn't seen on radar both in the sub 4k zone in G descended I might before I would have preferred.
Over the same period looking after myself and keeping a bloody good look out and cancelling IFR when in VFR conditions I haven't had any issues in G. Quite often I think CAT creates problems for itself by doing full instrument procedures in visual conditions. Instead of taking them to the down wind controllers are taking them out to 10-20 miles away with slant vectors covering vast strafes of airspace sometimes 15-20 miles abeam the field and they clear them down way to early sometimes 20 miles before touch down with sterile space under them. 100 sq Nm by 6-7k thick of airspace. If they were controlling in CAS they wouldn't do that because they would be limited by the CAS dimensions.
Anyway I am sure you ATC types will see gapping holes in my blankish paper scribblings on a Saturday morning after a week of 6 sector days on earlys 4 of which involve instrument approaches in class G which shock horror have only a FISO to give me procedural traffic information.