Snarek
It is very hard to contribute to this thread. As you would know, most of us are constrained from revealing facts which are known to us by virtue of the position we hold. So, from what I do know, I will point out those parts of your ‘truth’ which are incorrect.
Cessna was given code and turned right 90 degrees from the direct Canty ML track under ATC control! This turn directed the Cessna closer to the Virgin.The Cessna flies three minutes more under ATC control.
Most of this statement is wrong.
Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).
Both your interpretation and the reference to separation
at the time of the TCAS RA are incorrect.
So it certainly wasn't a NAS problem because both aircraft were being separated in exactly the same way they would have in C …….
This is entirely incorrect.
As to the greater question of whether or not this was a NAS failure, this will be determined by the investigation. The indisputable fact is that this incident
could not have occurred on the 26th of November, as the Cessna could not have ended up ‘sandwiched’ between the two IFR levels. The Cessna’s original clearance (to get into that position) would have included
planning, taking into account separation, sequencing and other factors.
By its very nature, Class E means that the ‘unexpected/unplanned’ will occur more frequently, thereby leading to more last minute changes of plan, more delays and more expense.
PS: Your continued attacks on the pro-safety (anti-NAS) side as 'union scare-mongering' etc. are bringing you dangerously close to 'Winstunianism' - a tag I am sure you would be keen to avoid.