Ledsled,
You ARE a stuck record
...a very careful reading of the ATSB report has the information. You need to look at the flight paths of each aircraft very carefully.
Pray tell us what your thoughts are on this. There is nothing untoward about what either crew did.
Maybe you have all forgotten about this review panel.... Almost all the "incident reports" were filed by "professional pilots" in larger aircraft against smaller aircraft --- usually, as it turned out, also flown by "professional pilots".
Irrelevant. Stop your Dick-Smith "I think all RPT crews that are not Skygods are w@nkers" rants and stick to the topic.
My memory also tells me there were more RAs in C airspace during the same period, look for it in the ATSB records --- but RAs in C don't , do they, because C is "safe".
Who said? This has been covered before in the thread. You have obviously forgotten. Oh and yes, you talk about statistics. How about you advise the volume of unsurveilled C around Australia vs the volume of E? Maybe that's one of the reasons there was more RAs in C?
What you blokes are completely unable to grasp is that, once the separation assurance standard is reached, no additional services will further reduce the residual risk.
Stating the bleeding obvious again.
That C is "safer" than E, when analysis only requires E, is a devoutly supported myth, but no matter the sincerity of your devotion to the notion, it is still a myth.
Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that your "analysis"
includes the two E airproxs, still resulting in a "vanishingly small" collision risk, is breathtaking.