Apologies for the multiple consecutive posts. I read this thread from the beginning for the first time, and was commenting on things as I encountered them. Given that "the way things are done in the US" seems to be a pretty common theme in this discussion, I thought it would be useful to address some of the misconceptions which are being advanced about the US system. FWIW, There is no mandatory enroute VFR frequency in the US. I have spent a fair amount of time operating in Northern Canada, and I like their system 126.7 being the enroute frequency for everywhere (or at least in the Northern Domestic Airspace I've operated in) However, it works in Northern Canada, because the area is huge, and the air traffic very sparse. A similar "one frequency everywhere" system would be completely unworkable in most of the continental US because the frequency congestion would render it completely useless. Also FWIW, there is a completely different philosophy regarding ATC and VFR traffic. As far as ATC is concerned, VFR traffic is something they need to keep IFR traffic from hitting, and that's about it. I have no doubt that an Enroute Air Traffic Controller would be saddened to learn that 2 VFR aircraft collided in class E airspace within his sector, much as he'd be saddened to learn that someone he didn't know died in a traffic accident a block from his home. Apart from that, ATC has no obligation to keep VFR traffic from running into each other, nor are they given any means to accomplish that. The only proviso, would be if the VFR aircraft had contacted him, and requested VFR flight following, in which case ATC would give traffic advisories "on a workload permitting basis" meaning, there is no obligation to do so, and the request may be denied.