Scuzi
I don't misunderstand pilots - I flew professionally for a number of years before joining NATS.
It's pilots with statements such as
The ATCO is only responsible for the safety of the ATS provided.
who do not understand what we do and what we are governed by law to do.
If you had lost separation in the instance you mention, you would have been suspended, albeit for a very short time. Now I don't care about being suspended if I know it is not my fault, though as you know, it is not the best thing to happen when chances are everyone is working balls out due weather.
If the situation on Sunday had resulted in a LOS, then it would have been more than one controller suspended as aircraft where all over the place flying through sectors they should never have been near. Again, not a consideration for the pilot when it is his or her ultimate responsibility for safety.
However in the LTMA, or any other airspace for that matter, turning an aircraft when you have been told 'no' could at worst, constitute 'endagerment of aircraft' either your (the pilot concerned) own or yours plus others. Now i don't have the ANO on me, but I know that there is a little bit of law about endangerment of aircraft.
You really hit the nail on the head wrt the amount of monitoring required - so it works out for the aircraft that turned, but quite possibly to the detriment of other aircraft in the sky.
Now, a pilot has ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft... ATCOs are however responsible for the safety of many aircraft and a captain would not expect us to reduce the effectiveness of that safety net by focussing on aircraft unevenly.
That's why, as you know, when it's quieter on sector, you are more likely to go for the climb throughs etc because you can devote more time to monitor each aircraft... as it gets busier, you tend to play things 'safer' (in apostrophes because we are always doing things safe, it's just the degree of risk mitigation that changes).
DFC does not seem to be able to understand that point. If a pilots actions result in a LOS and suspension by an ATCO, then an MOR is written. No way round it.
In that MOR it will categorically state facts... Text written stating "... ABC123 turned right after I had refused permission, thus causing a LOS between him and XYZ987 (or even worse an incident elsewhere on sector as you were disatrcted by the actions of ABC123)..." would be included... the pilot of ABC123 would be held to account.
Reckless endangerment?? not really 'reckless' in the eyes of the law, but still possibly endangering aircraft and therefore still on sticky ground.
A lack of appreciation by pilots as to what turning could involve.
I think most ATCOs, PPL/ATPL holders or not, young or old, all know that flying through heavy Cbs is bad... it's not a difficult concept for a layman to understand (and an ATCO is not exactly a 'layman').
The lack of appreciation of traffic flows, sectorisation, coordination and separation requirements by pilots, is more of an issue in this argument - though that is why the ATCO is there we have the bigger picture even though some pilots believe TCAS is as good as a ground based radar... Hence why pilots should understand that the extremely rare 'no' is being used for exceptional reasons and not just for the Hell of it!
We are there to help, and we will do our damndest to do so... but not to the point of possibly endangering yours and other aircraft.