I challenge anybody to see a jet from front on at a distance of 5-10 nm.
Go to the airport and look at how small a 737 is from front on when it is at the end of the runway (and you are at the other end). In most cases you would be looking at it from 1 to 1.5 nm away - and you know it is there, and where to look.
Now put yourself in an aeroplane, you are navigating VFR, so I assume that you occasionally glance at WAC's, flight plan, the occasional engine instrument etc.
Now scan through as many degrees as you can, paying particular attention to over your right shoulder.
My jet is to your right, high, and closing at 7 miles a minute.
You are below me, well outside my field of view, and as I approach you I cannot see you, nor due to the geometry of the flight deck windows, as well as the checks etc, will I ever see you.
I will however feel the thump when I run you down.
See and avoid is a crock, and we want DTI to give us at least a fighting chance. If we could get VFR back into the traffic messages we would gladly take that also.
the majority of airports in this country were established to support a commercial air service of some form. This being the case the commercial air services should have a reasonable level of say.
A $60 million dollar jet and 180 passengers (plus 7 cew) is a high price to pay to let people opt out of the system because they don't want to play nice. the airspace isn't exclusive to any one group, and individual groups should not be allowed to opt out and duck their fiscal responsibilities.
We all pay for roads, in some cases in places where we would never consider driving, it doesn't mean we can not pay even though commercial trucking uses the same roads. People don't complain about that, why should the same situation be tolerated in aviation.
Yes it is expensive, but that is the nature of the beast. I have spent many thousands getting my qualifications as a pilot, and I don't begrudge the money, but I didn't expect that I could do it all for free and let the rest of the users pay...