NAS - Not Absolutely Settled. It says its written by Paul Phelan, but like the besieged DHS on another thread I doubt this identity. Using a new nom-de-guerre to go with the previously used Wes Willoughby?
First I offer the following extracts from a certain Lancair pilot that had a good look at a B737:
ATC asked me to report sighting a Virgin 737... I did so, and continued to monitor his progress afterwards. ...(later) I confirmed I had him in sight. ...He went past, closer than what one would prefer...
I hadn't read this bit before, and consider it an appalling example of what happens when you deliver avoiding "bangs" to the lowest common denominator. There was no need for ATC to identify this guy, at least until the projected flight following service is implemented (and how clever an idea was it to implement one without the other???), there was no need for ATC to enquire if EITHER had sighted the other. The service applicable to a VFR aircraft in E is clearly indicated in MATS 9.1.1.1 & AIP 1.4:
Separation service: Nil. Service provided: RIS on request
If anybody doesn't know what this means look at AIP gen 3.3 1.2:
At pilot request, and, if possible, a controller providing radar services will suggest a course of action to avoid other aircraft. Ultimate responsibility for aircraft and terrain avoidance rests with the pilot in command.
Why was separation not applied by ATC? Because Dick Smith (or Paul Phelan) had implemented a system that does not apply separation in this case. Instead of applauding ATC providing the service NAS had REQUIRED him to HE'S WHINGING AGAIN, while still saying anything ATC have to say against the system has nothing to do with safety but is an attempt to make jobs or return to the 1950's
Paul (or Dick) quotes MATS 5.2.1.2 (as Dick has before on this forum) to justify the Yuppie-killer (Lancair) pilot's assumption he was recieving a separation service, despite repeatedly reporting sighting the other traffic (making separation unneccessary in ANY US bug-smasher airspace). The options include:
a. traffic information; or...
The aircraft under radar control had traffic, so ATC had no need to proceed to b. or c. or invent his own d. Regardless the ATC then proceded to overservice by:
Indentitying and verifying the Yuppie-killer,
Passing traffic to the Yuppie-killer without a pilot request,
Enquire into whether they had sighted each other,
Retaining ident and providing an ongoing service and updating the traffic repeatedly.
And Dick (or Paul) calls the ATC "criminal", and has not apologised, unless it counts that he now doesn't like what the Virgin crew did either.
By the way, I notice c. in the article is followed by "(my underlining)", just like it did in Dick's post on this forum. More evidence that Paul is really Dick. Or at least A dick.
The article concludes with a fairy story about what is being introduced in NOV04. Have you talked to anybody lately Mike?