Coming back to my earlier comment about collision risk in class E vs class G:
I flew a number of instrument approaches into EDFM on a fully CAVOK day today and I had various VFR traffic around me from 3000 to 6000 ft, including various gliders. During one of the approaches, I had to fully zoom into the picture on the G1000 TAS page to be able to keep the contacts apart as there were 7 in a 6-mile radius somewhere along my path when I was at 5000 ft. This doesn’t include gliders which are not transponders given that they are exempt from mandatory transponder carriage.
Although you have the see-and-avoid principle for traffic apply in VMC, I think the relative collision risk was higher today than on an IMC day in either class E (in Germany) or class G (in the UK), which is why I keep thinking that the IMC in class E vs class G debate is pretty much based on a moot point. As ATC sees only transponding traffic in class E, there were two occasions where I had to tell ATC what headings I needed to avoid other VFR traffic, up to the point where I was told by Langen Radar “please feel free to turn north if you need to, just tell me if you are changing heading”.
There is one brilliant guy in PPL/IR who is also employed by EASA – it’s obvious from his posts above who it is 
I was a member until a couple of years ago, supporting them with loads of articles in their mag and even making one £1000 donation to help those who were doing the good work. I left due to bizzare internal politics centred on their forum. I don’t think the formation of EuroGA helped… That’s history of course, but history forms a big part of present perception for most people. I have nothing but admiration for the said guy who I have known for at least 15 years, though to be fair a lot of the recent progress has been facilitated by several pragmatic people popping up in the right place at the right time. In politics, to get difficult things done, you need to form an “axis” so you need several players in key positions to make thing work. Long may it last!
On this topic, it would not have been possible for one country to simply ban IFR in Class G when SERA allows it. It is just too big and visible a middle finger to stick up to the EU.
And that applies even if the said country’s airspace makes it much less useful than it is in say the UK, where it is positively brilliant; I flew 450nm yesterday, mostly in Class G and mostly in IMC, with no flight plan and partly with no ATC service
I wonder which one. I mentioned this AIC to 2 organisations and never got a reply :-/
@bookworm, how did you know?
No comment.
Cobalt wrote:
Good. i wonder how this magic in the background works – gow does one go about putting an uppity (almost-ex) regulator in its place without ruining the relationship?
You join an organisation that has a reputation for lobbying constructively.
Lovely !
Good. i wonder how this magic in the background works – gow does one go about putting an uppity (almost-ex) regulator in its place without ruining the relationship?
Cobalt wrote:
This AIC is completely outrageous.
I think you might see the AIC undergo a significant change at some point not too far in the future.
Oops, I meant to say “Am happy to be corrected in my thinking that class G vs class E minima make no significant difference when it comes to avoiding mid-air collisions between IFR and VFR traffic.”
Wolfgang
Am happy to be corrected in my thinking that class G vs class E minima make a significant difference when it comes to avoiding mid-air collisions between IFR and VFR traffic.
At least 50% of conflicting traffic one sees on TCAS is never spotted visually (in CAVOK conditions) so I doubt it makes any difference.
And if you are in IMC, almost no GA is flying anyway; the traffic density is perhaps 1% of what it would be in VMC. Flying enroute in IMC is very safe.
