Wizofoz reckons :
"The report said it was not an AIRPROX as seperation standards had not been breached, 'CAUSE THERE AREN"T ANY!!
If they don't collide, it wasn't an incident."
Now THAT is a load of BS.
I think you better get new glasses Wizofoz. Howd you ever get a JAR class 1?
Even blind freddy can read what the ATSB report actually said.
On the issue of air traffic control separation standards the ATSB report says :
As no prescribed separation standards are applicable in Class E airspace, there was no infringement of separation standards.
On the completely separate issue of whether or not it was an airprox the ATSB report says :
Based on the factual data the occurrence was not an airprox event.
An airprox event is defined in Regulation 2.2 of the Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003, as:
...an occurrence in which 2 or more aircraft come into such close proximity that a threat to the safety of the aircraft exists or may exist, in airspace where the aircraft are not subject to an air traffic separation standard or where separation is a pilot responsibility.
These are separate concepts. Even blind freddy can see that!