Woss
But given that two aircraft in IMC are flying converging tracks neither of which are receiving separation from an ATC unit, it would seem that there is a risk of collision even if thankfully it did not occur.
But you didn't say that originally. You said
but I have knowledge of several instances recently where collisions appear to have been narrowly avoided. Circumstances varied but some were saved by TCAS, some by timely radio calls coincidentally and some by radar.
And I stick by my original answer. It's not daft unless refuted by
FACTS and hearsay doesn't constitute fact. If you
know of such circumstances then by all means enlighten us - but 'knowing' and 'summising' which is what, to be honest, your original statement is nearer to I would think, are two totally separate things. Your use of the word 'appear' would back that up.
I mentioned simulation/modelling of the events to derive information on whether the collision would have happened. That's because that is what the UK Airprox board is there for and what they do. Leaving them as the final arbiters of whether a collision would have taken place rather than summising whether it would is a far more sensible idea in my honest opinion. If those reports are what you're referring to as the possibles that you know of then fair enough - but if you're referring to other events then we're back to the summising verses fact situation.
Just because aircraft aren't separated doesn't mean that they're going to hit. There was such a thing on my procedural course as a 'technical' loss of separation. The aircraft may have been 20 miles apart - but if you didn't have in place a laid down method of separation as per MATS pt 1 then it was deemed a technical loss, even though they wouldn't hit in a month of sundays.
Facts count, nothing else.