While not
necessarily efficient (and gets my vote for improvement area with the
highest "bang/buck ratio"), procedures exist to inform FSS of the status of
these routes which can be queried by pilots near them.

It's not a question of efficiency. It's a question of effectiveness. I
am often unable to determine the status of a route or area by calling
the FSS, or Center, or whatever is printed on my charts. IN fact, I
often get a response that they know nothing about it. Lots of good that
does me crossing a mountainous area with an overcast crossed by an MTR
filled with camoflauged fast aircraft backed by military lawyers who, if
"contact" occurs, will be sure to blame me for "not looking", and to
smear my reputation as surely as my airplane.

I want to avoid reducing combat realism in military training.

I don't.

I want to avoid UNNECESSARILY reducing combat realism. I think that
this reduction in realism is necessary.

Is it asking too much for GA aircraft to climb to 3000 AGL near
MTRs (adding a 1500' safety margin)?

Yes. Sometimes the aircraft cannot climb that high. Sometimes there
are clouds or ice in the way. And sometimes the route is empty but we
can't tell. Then we have to unnecessarily alter our operations, just
like you folks don't like to unnecessarily alter yours when a pilot
transits an MOA uncoordinated.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.