Now, you can call me any names you like
So far, I believe you are the only one doing any name calling. Sure, I have implied you are a bit slow, but you have to call them as you see them. I also gave you an out: either you were a bit slow, or being disingenuous, or a combination. Still undecided on that. However,
So the point is...... that the descent of the 737 had been stopped at FL180
. Why had the descent been stopped? Because the controller saw the ModeA only?
No!!!! The point is that the descent was stopped by
chance . Do you understand that point? It was
chance that the 421 pilot called up at that moment, and his altitude became apparent. What if he hadn't, or what if his transponder was not selected on at all, or U/S. How would the controller, and hence the jet, have known about him at all? A VFR isn't supposed to use the radio
at all under NAS (Dick suggests VFR enroute pilots should listen to CDs. A call was made because he was requesting a clearance. Is this lost on you? This is an example of NAS at work. The ATSB report is basically saying that "it was all according to the rules". It
doesn't say the "rules are good".
Jets and lighties shouldn't be in the same airspace without clearances.
TBT
half of the movements into a GAAP would not be safe either
Half of them aren't.
You aren't demonstrating an understanding of standards. If the controller was seperating, the lateral standard is 5nm. Does 5nm look like a lot when you're in the cockpit? Sure does. Does 5nm look like a lot on a radar screen? Definately not. Does 1.5nm look like a lot on a radar? I'd say the symbols would almost be overlapping, depending on what scale was being used. Using arguments about distances when you are talking
jet speeds is totally misleading to anyone who doesn't understand the situation (you, by the sounds of it).
A TCAS RA is an incident. To have it brushed off like this is, well, politically expedient.