"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Not true at all.


Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?


Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.





If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance
measures.

It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
around VFR targets which they've been advised of.



Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude, same heading,
5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?



The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished
by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.


He can't see it?


Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.



Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.


No more so than the other participant in the midair.


I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying perfectly
legally.



On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue
through
like they own the place.


Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there
be
for them to comply with?


Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed to
avoid possible conflicts.




Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
not
the other way around.


You have a poor understanding of the system.


On what do you make this assumption? I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?