After 25 pages of posts on this subject can we get back to a very simple proposition indeed:
The function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft.
Aircraft in VMC are (usually) able to see and avoid other aircraft, particularly if given relevant traffic.
Aircraft in IMC can NOT self separate under most circumstances even if they are given traffic.
Mangalore was a prime demonstration of this truth.
The aircraft were given traffic.
An aircraft on an instrument approach is legally required to fly the approach as published (or to go around, climbing but not deviating from the lateral confines of the published approach).
An aircraft on an IFR departure, particularly a training one is firstly required to have a pre-determined safe route to reach LSALT so is at least to some degree and maybe wholly constrained against lateral manoeuvering.
And is likely dealing with a simulated engine failure or such since that is what IFR training is all about.
Intelligent people responsible for safe aircraft operations in developed countries have determined that ATC must provide separation for all aircraft operating in IMC since they can not always do it themselves.
Airservices fails to grasp this simple concept.
This may be in part because Airservices no longer employ qualified, current IFR pilots who can tell the ATC staff what is required.
CASA, and OAR, as I have previously demonstrated are not compliant with their legal requirements.
I support the implementation of the US system of airspace classification and usage.... all of it.... the way they do it in the USA, not some local invention by those who do not know how to do it right.
Some folk on here like Dick, Geoff Fairless and LeadSled have the picture, fortunately.
Further, I have demonstrated why it is less costly (less workload) for ATC to provide separation than to provide traffic.
Why is the history of aviation in this country such that safety improvements only occur when there are enough dead bodies to cause an outcry?