"Dude" wrote in message
...

Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.


That's swell, but it doesn't answer my question.



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?


What do mean by "this warning"? The traffic advisory or the improper ATC
instruction? The traffic is five miles away and moving in the same
direction, there's certainly no imminent threat.



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


So what prevents the Lear from spotting the traffic?



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.


What bet? Does IFR traffic have a greater responsibility than VFR traffic
to see and avoid other traffic? Why do you have the controller issuing
improper instructions in your scenario?



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.


ATC can issue headings and altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C
airspace, in the outer area associated with Class C airspace, and in a TRSA.
Nowhere else.



On what do you make this assumption?


From your statements.



I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?


I have no questions on this subject.