The report on the Falcon/Mooney airprox has some interesting elements. I have often stated that the ability to give accurate, succinct and pertinent traffic information is one of the "arts" of this job. As by definition the circumstances are always different, it is not as easy as it may seem sometimes, especially in the heat of the moment when there might be a lot going on. One little slip, one little word slightly out of place and you could be in trouble. With that remark in mind - which is based on operational experience - one has to wonder at the comments from the Board: "the controller could therefore more accurately have described the Mooney as ‘converging’ rather than crossing, thereby further assisting the Falcon pilot to make a decision to give way. Additionally, the controller’s blind call to the Mooney pilot, that traffic in the left 10 o’clock would cross ahead left to right, may have helped to form an incorrect mindset in the Falcon pilot that he was ‘ahead’ and that he did not need to give way to the Mooney, " Seems to me the ATCO did a decent job and are we really to expect more? Easy to sit and pontificate on it in the cold light of day.....
Where I work we had a TCAS RA sometime ago where a big causal factor was less than optimum traffic info. Indeed, the controller pointed the pilots to the wrong place by using "left to right" - which it was slightly - rather than a more apt "head to head". But what about the perceptions? There must be a difference in human perception from a bloke behind a radar (there might be a "lag") to the pilot looking out of his bug-smeared window. A fine art and a delicate skill - easy to get just that bit wrong and create those false impressions.
As to giving way in the "final stages of approach", well please! Would it not be helpful if that was defined? I bet many pilots would have trouble considering that in those circumstances. (I believe Lydd had something similar recently with inst app traffic not giving way on "final" and they are operating procedurally!!)