Do you entertain the possibility - just the possibility - that the outcome was worse than if each aircraft had continued its approach
Whatever, thats irrelevant now. You're judging based on events that happened in the 'heat of battle'. What is important is the question; what CASA is going to do about it? There was an incident where primary radio alerted search failed. What defences do we have when this happens and is it good enough taking into account the complex environment for a jet?
It's obvious the pilots of both aircraft didn't know each other were there until the pilots of ZPJ saw the Airvan during base turn. What would you have said LB? "AIRCRAFT ON FINAL LOOK OUT WE'RE ON A COLLISION COURSE!" or would you have said nothing and continued the approach?
I've flown more approaches in my aircraft than the pilot of ZPJ has flown in the type that ZPJ is. Who you you reckon is better able to judge where my aircraft is going to go, how long it will take to get there, how slow it can fly and how quickly it can climb, on approach? The pilot sitting in ZPJ or me sitting in my aircraft on approach?
Who cares?
What matters is the positive outcomes, hopefully a review within CASA of the limitations of see and avoid and alerted search at non-controlled AD's.
"I have 81 pax down the back" does not turn whatever operational 'suggestion' the sentence ends with into an objective truth
What are you on about? It's called positive airmanship. Either pilot can do it, it just so happened that ZPJ saw the conflicting aircraft (XGA) first.
Remember hindsight is always 20/20.