So, there were two known, potentially conflicting routes established within the pre-planning of one company, at least in the horizontal. The obvious question follows: Were there any height max/min limits in place to ensure vertical separation at or around the crossing point, precisely because the two pre-planned tracks coincide? The interim report makes clear further work is ongoing, so I am sure all such things are being considered. I hope so, on all accounts. If it turns out there were no vertical profiles in place I fear the lawyers will quickly put this one into the 'accident waiting to happen' category, and with some justification, especially given the high-cycle nature of the flight profiles being sold and the ever present 'A-post blindspot' potential affecting all vehicles approaching on anything like a 90degree relative converging path. Several contributors to this thread pointed out early-on that this incident may well boil down to company SOPs rather than anything else. My sense today is they were/are right. But...only time and the final report will decide. For that we must wait.