My suggested "solution" was not a "solution" at all. At no point did I say it was a potential solution. It was hardly petulance on my part - forgive me but it seems that this is merely the ludicrous extreme to which your argument is heading.
No, Class G airspace is not "see and avoid". Those are the rules for VFR flight. There is a difference. You may like to look them up. While you're about it, check up the rules for flying IFR as well.
An interesting paragraph. Almost entirely fictional, but interesting all the same. My Manual of Air Traffic Services has the following to say about "see and avoid":
"In Class E, F and G airspace, conflicting traffic may not be known to ATC and so it is necessary for all flights to make use of the see and avoid principle."
ALL flights. Irrespective of flight rules. Aw, shucks Hugmonster, you haven't been flying through class G all these years with your eyes glued to the instruments have you? My manual also has the following to say about classifications of airspace:
Class: G
Flight Rules: IFR and VFR
Aircraft requirements: None
Minimum services by ATC Unit: None.
Which more or less backs up what I have been saying all along. There CAN be anyone in class G, and they don't have to be talking to anyone. In fact, if the military are too busy to handle your flight, they can deny you a service altogether. You could be out there all alone squawking 7000, with your eyes in the cockpit, because you're IFR. Hope you're feeling lucky.
You do have one thing correct: Yes, you do have as much right to be in class G airspace as a fast-jet, or any other aircraft for that matter. It is just extremely ill-advised to expect the same level of protection and separation in class G airspace as you would get from a civilian ATCO in class A airspace.
Even if we were to stamp out the alleged lack of professionalism which you insist is rife in military air traffic circles (it is not), you still have to avoid all the non-military traffic that may be there. Or are you immune to airmisses and collisions with GA traffic? Not with your head in the cockpit, you aren't.
By your own admission airspace does not meet the needs of either the military or civilian operations.
I didn't actually say this either. I said that the airspace was one big compromise. Neither the MoD or the CAA got exactly what they wanted out of the deal, but they thrashed out an agreement. The airspace DOES meet the needs of a majority of users; it would meet the needs of everyone if a few penny-pinching airlines swallowed the bitter pill that is a 40-50nm increase in track mileage to their destination.
PH-UKU (interesting name), the "original grumble" stems from an incident in the documentary which is the title of this thread, which occurred in class G airspace.