DFC
My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous.
No but it is illegal in class A airspace (which last time I checked...the TMA is!!
) and that is the point you seem to be missing.
Standard separations are exactly that...standard. And my radar colleagues are not allowed to reduce them (I am able to reduce them using reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome laws, but I'm just a glorified parking attendant anyway!!!
) so the minute you get less than 5 (or 3) miles or 1000ft it is a "loss of separation" which can result in immense stress and (probable) suspension for the controller involved!
My point being, the radar bods CANNOT, by law, approve a turn which will reduce separation, regardless of the reason (emergencies aside obviously).
As for
Putting two aircraft parallel with minimum separation in weather avoiding situations can result in the controller having to explain on the MOR / Airporx report why they thought it was safe to apply the minima in that situation.
it is entirely possible that the controller in question didn't have a choice but to apply minimum separation due to the volume of traffic and wx etc in that situation.
And whether you buy it or not, it is a fact...you are responsible for one aircraft whereas the controller is responsible for many. And, has already been mentioned, if he/she/it has to concentrate solely on your impending loss of separation due to an unauthorised turn, while two other aircraft are coming into confliction 50 miles away, it's clear where the blame for that other incident is going to lie...squarely with the pilot making the unauthorised turn in the first incident!!
Quite what the solution is I don't know. Would the pilot in question have accepted an "orbit in present position until advised"?!? Doubtful. Also doubtful if that would even be possible. But I only get paid to say "cleared to land/takeoff" so it's not up to me to find a sloution!!
FB