433...
I am intrigued by your definition of a "False RA". I would define a "False RA" as one that was given, when if no further action was taken by the one/both aricraft, no risk of collision would occur.
You seem to say that if you clear, say a climber to FL150, and an opposing descender to FL160, or even FL170, then if an RA is generated it is "false" because your clearance would separate the aircraft. True, your clearance would, but only if BOTH pilots follow your clearance. If one fails, a collision may result...
What to do about this? It comes down to the airmanship of the pilots - we need to avoid high rates of climb / descent, particularly close to the assigned FL / Altitude. In the USA they brought in a rule something like >1000'/m until ~1000' to go, then 500'/m. This would avoid most of these RAs. In addition, most RAs are preceded by a TA, and if that is not a clue to reduce the RoC/D, then I do not know what is.
Please remember (both pilots and controllers) what TCAS is for - it is the backup system for when the ATC system fails - which may be for all sorts of reasons (aircraft or ground induced). There seem a few posts here a bit "anti TCAS" - having flown with it for some years now, I had an aircraft the other day without it, and felt very vulnerable.
However, as has been stated, it is not an alternative to ATC. Quite often it does not "display" proximate aircraft we are visual with. Anyone who decides they can propose an alternative course of action based on TCAS is being unfair to the ATCO. On the other hand, ATC should not mind an instruction being queried if TCAS shows the instruction may be hazardous - that's the value of a backup system...
All IMHO of course!
NoD