James_Chan wrote:
Well, ATC is already provided in Class G in some weird parts of the world.
Australia. Weird? Perhaps. Probably 90% of the airspace below 18000’ is Class G. I only fly fairly short routes, but still regularly fly 350nm through Class G to arrive in Class C at the last minute.
James_Chan wrote:
Instrument approaches in Class G should be banned full stop in my opinion.
Why?
Errr… For flight safety and fuel efficiency?
In class G anyone can and has every right to cross or hover on the approach path, non-radio and non transponding.
That could be lengthy go-arounds for some or an airprox. I have been on both sides of the fence myself.
Controlled airspace provides a known traffic environment and separates IFR from other IFR, at a minimum.
But obviously if you believe Class G should be preserved and they should maintain those rights then fair do – don’t complain when I’m crossing your path next time! ;-)
The biggest challenge with this issue is that a VFR pilot will probably not know the track of an IAP. It isn’t always just the feathers. Paralleling the feathers can be just as bad. If you have options to avoid the area it is good airmanship to do so but it isn’t always feasible in busy airspace.
James_Chan wrote:
Instrument approaches in Class G should be banned full stop in my opinion.
Why not allow them BUT make it clear to IFR pilots that they don’t have any sort of priority and should deviate if needed, and VMC pilots that they should expect there could be more traffic there? An approach is just a path in space that has been certified as safe to fly when no visibility.
Should we also remove VORs because “there is more likelihood of traffic there” due to people practicing holds and approaches early in Instruments training?
Obviously one should not exclude VFR traffic around all these OCAS approaches, and one cannot practically speaking get a lot of UK pilots to switch on their transponders, (and if they do it is Mode C OFF so busting CAS is ok 
) and since even some schools fly with TXP=OFF it isn’t like to get taught either, so what can be done? A TMZ? That would help only active-TCAS equipped traffic, which there is little of, and there is a huge resistance to TMZs. An RMZ?
Again that would be a pain if you add approaches. In my dream of “an LPV for every runway at every airfield”, that doesn’t really work.
I always fly transponder, and almost always radio, but have flown without (plane didn’t have a transponder), and had tons of fun. I don’t think we should ban non-radio / non-transponder.
The “you don’t have priority, keep your eyes open in VMC” should just work for uncontrolled approaches. Then if we add approaches everywhere, the VFR crowd doesn’t care, while the IFR crowd will be happy. If they can’t accept the risk, they can fly into the bigger / controlled airfields.
Mid-air collision is anyway one of the lowest risks in aviation. Last I looked, there had been about 1 fatal collision per decade between 2 (powered) fixed-wing.
The realistic, medium term solution is mandatory ADS-B for all, which will provide accurate, low-cost, low-power and potentially universal traffic information.
I see no reason in the near future to have a very small device that can plug (Bluetooth) into your phone and even use it’s GPS if needed, that can be used as ADS-B in/out for even paragliders and drones.
Look at the uavionix products, they are making massive progress in a very short time frame. It’s going to happen if the redtape is kept to an acceptable level (a paraglider shouldn’t need TSOd SBAS GPS for example)
The solution for the problem is controlled airspace and mandatory use of transponder. Otherwise, your’re intercepted and grounded 
Yes, and use of well designated VFR corridors, where we tell birds and clouds not to go ;)
