One point which I believe was very much overlooked in this whole accident was the matter of ATC not being willing to turn the long way round because of unknown aircraft.
Once again we have an IFR flght operating in Class G airspace getting a higher level of separation than is required in class D or E controlled airspace.
Would the same situation have occurred if Southend had Class E airspace since all other IMC flights in that area would be known to ATS and all unknown aircraft would be VFR and thus leaving ATS with no requirement to separate and with no RAS available in class E we would not have as one poster commented a high workload in the event of a missed approach by the IFR flight.
The other point little commented on in the report is the fact that once electing to complete a visual approach and being given traffic information on a preceeding VFR flight it is the responsibility of the NUmber 2 pilot to arrange the appropriate separation.........and if they muck it up go around. Not to penalise the number one aircraft for poor positioning by ther number 2.
Where I come from solo students must be established on final no lower than 400ft AGL and must not turn croswind below 400ft AGL or when in the clean climb configuration whichever is later. They are well trained in missed approaches which must be straight ahead until above 400ft AGL and clean.
In simple terns a missed approach involves a climb straight ahead while the aircraft is reconfigured to the clean climb configuration at the appropriate speed. Only after that is completed can any tought of turning be made.
If ATC request something different, they are politely told negative. Students at qualification are reminded that they can at any time tell ATC negative and it is up to ATC to come up with an alternative safe clearance that can be accepted.
They are also told to just because ATC say something silly they should not assume it is a student or low time ATCO
Regards,
DFC