Alibaba
..and there's a good account in one of the "Air Disaster" books. Read the reports, your link
http://pw2.netcom.com/~asapilot/182.html
says it clearly - they were operating under radar surveillance and control, and the jet had reported having the 172 visual.....but they still collided.
If anyone can consider see and avoid to be an acceptable method of routinely separating high capacity aircraft with other traffic then they are SICK.
Uh, visual separation is used in Oz airspace around towers....frequently heard it used, say, around Gold Coast between lighties and heavies. I'll grant that this is definitely not pure "see and avoid", but neither was the PSA accident.
Ferris
But it
wasn't class E. BTW, does Ozemite keep lunatic fringes in place?
NAMPS
unalerted see and avoid in a radar or non-radar environment is inherently more dangerous regardless of traffic density.
So, would you then argue that
all airspace, regardless of traffic density, should be subject at least to alerted see and avoid? Would you then agree that RPTs should not venture into CTAFs (as they have done for at least a few years)? If not, why not? Just curious.
Safe flying (or safer still, safe controlling.....)