Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but how else do two aircraft come to collide in good vis and class G if there isn't an "element of poor lookout" involved? Both were responsible for their own navigation, notwithstanding the fact that at least one was making an approach.
Like many of you, I've seen most of the ways in which other aircraft can remain near-invisible, particularly if they are on a collision course and so have no apparent relative motion. However, safe operation under VFR means see and avoid. I'm in no way apportioning blame, or casting aspersions as to ability, but the fact remains that neither of these competent pilots, both of whom were operating under VFR, saw the other in time to avoid a collision.
Maybe that means that the lookout of both was exemplary but that some other factor caused both pilots to simultaneously experience something that made them unable to avoid the other. We will find out in due course, when the report is published. I'll re-open this thread then and see whether or not my assertion that there was an "element of poor lookout as a causal factor" turns out to be correct. If it isn't, then I will apologise profusely.
In the meantime, it behoves us all to think a little more about how effective our lookout really is, irrespective of the cause of this tragedy. I make no apology for highlighting this aspect, as I know beyond doubt that many of us could keep a better lookout than we do.
VP