This is quite an extraordinary statement to make. It rather sets the tone for the rest of the post.
Why is it? It is fact. Even under IFR "see and avoid" still applies. Remember the Reno Hawker 800XP and glider collision? Neither "saw" the other, had the glider had a transponder turned on of course then the collision would probably not have happened. They were both responsible for See and Avoid being in VMC.
If you want to bet your life on that rather than having a look out of the window, then that's fine.
If you read my post again I said:
and so if I see another target I have not visually acquired then I'll make sure there is some offset in altitude.
That's fine if you rely 100% on what TCAS and your own altimetry is telling you. If you want to bet your life on that rather than having a look out of the window, then that's fine. Just don't go betting other people's lives on it as well. All it takes is a mis-set altimeter and bang - that's all she wrote.
I don't use my own altimeter, I use the difference in height from the traffic system. If it tells me there is 400' difference then that is better than just ignoring an aeroplane you cannot see!
Situational awareness should have alerted you to a very real and significant danger of collision. I suggest that you should have taken action well before the other aircraft got that close.
I did. In the few seconds we had after heading the tower tell them they were cleared, I visually acquired the target with the eyes and on the screen, I tried to determine whether it was going to pass behind us (as ATC had radar they normally would clear this action if it was safe) and which direction it was actually heading. Also he must have heard us depart so it would have been safe to assume that he'd have know about us. By that time things were happening quickly so I fail to see how one could have taken any further action "well before".
I'm sure you are a TCAS SkyGod but please tell me out of all the collisions in recent history how many have happened in VMC conditions (and hence see and avoid apply, even under IFR) and how many in IMC (where see and avoid is not applicable). I can't think of one having happened in IMC which leads me to the conclusion that the "Mk 1 eyeball" has its failings as well as any other system. Combine them both and you have the best of both worlds, though your first post seemed to indicate that you were an "anti-technologist" who thinks that all things TCAS and GPS are evil....