Did you actually read the CHIRP objectives which I posted earlier in this thread and which appear on the CHIRP website?
Yes, thankyou. I read them and I do fully understand them too - I have been in receipt of the paper bulletins for over 15 years and have been a contributor a few times. I was taking a realistic viewpoint of what it might achieve in these circumstances. CHIRP away, it's a free country
.
Where ATC have no legal requirement to provide any separation against any another "VMC" pilot nor any requirement to separate from the IFR go around other than to call the traffic to the IFR pilot.
I agree, I said nothing about a separation service given. I was simply making the point that it would need another aircraft to be there in similar circumstances, not being given a separation service. It could be argued that complying with the ATC instruction to fly at a set altitude was the safest option.
If you want my
opinion, which so far I haven't given, I think ATC could have reminded the pilot to advise if he couldn't maintain VMC, which might have been the case. The pilot
should have advised ATC that he couldn't accept a VFR crossing because he was not in VMC, if that was indeed the case.
A question, for general discussion: Who is responsible for collision avoidance in a situation such as this - the "VFR" pilot or the IFR pilot?