Ahh, the old privatization of ATC argument again...
Yeah, I know that certain airlines, political lobbies and unions favor the idea. They have their reasons.
But there is no good reason to believe this accident would have been any less likely to occur under a private corporation run ATC system than a government run one. In fact, it's the regulations that determine regulatory airspace structure and operating rules. Which entity provides ATC services does not appear to be relevant to this instance. The previous airline vs GA accidents were addressed by airspace and equipments rule changes and appear to have prevented recurrences. Getting speared by military aircraft is a separate issue requiring military regulation changes.
This collision appears to have happened outside of airspace requiring contact with ATC and outside the airspace requiring mode C altitude reporting. It would have been somewhat less likely to have happened with an airliner or bizjet due to the requirement that most such aircraft be equipped with TCAS. US fighter jets and most light aircraft are not required to be so equipped. However most certificated Cessnas of that vintage are equipped with Mode C altitude reporting even though it is not necessarily required if they remain outside airspace requiring it. The area where the collision occurred appears to be one of those areas.
If the Cessna was squawking mode C, the crew of a TCAS equipped aircraft would have received an RA. Without TCAS, an F-16 would rely upon ATC separation, the Mark I eyeball and whichever model of target tracking RADAR they are equipped with. (If switched ON) Older models of F-16 not upgraded with newer RADAR units would have a more difficult time spotting targets below them in the clutter than those equipped with the upgraded units.
My point is that there are holes in the rules that leave the mid-air collision threat wide open in certain situations. To a very high degree, "big sky" theory and the Mark I eyeball remain the last line of defense in those situations. And in some airspace and equipage scenarios, that's all there is folks. In these instances, only extreme vigilance, practiced scanning and some good fortune act to protect one from the collision threat. Venture outside positive control airspace and the rules allow non-participating aircraft that ATC is not required by rule to separate you from. See and avoid is the law of the land and the primary protection in these instances. Until such time as ALL airspace is declared positive control, it will remain so.
The better news is that the ADS-B mandate will close some of the holes. The not so good news is that the emerging UAS industry pressure applied to congress may have the effect of exempting allot of UAVs from those same rules!
Stay sharp.
westhawk