Narrative:

During approach for landing at palm springs, while on vectors from approach control, we were given a traffic advisory for our 10 O'clock position, 2 mi, northbound 8400'. We were at our assigned level of 9000'. I reported that 'we're looking but it's quite hazy'. Being anxious for descent I reported 'we have the field in sight'. We were cleared to descend to 4000'. The pilot flying elected to hold his altitude in order to slow up before descending. At that moment I saw an small aircraft at 1 O'clock passing left to right about 200' below and 200' ahead. I called approach control and told him of the traffic. He said 'I thought you said you had the traffic in sight'. I said 'no, I said we were looking for him'. He then asked if we had the airport in sight and I said 'yes we reported that earlier'. We were then cleared for the approach. I think the controller mistook our report of 'field in sight' for 'traffic in sight'. There is a real need for standardizing the terminology in reporting, and replying to reports of conflicting traffic. 'Tally ho', 'we've got 'em', 'negative contact', 'contact', 'no contact', 'in sight', all can lead to one hearing what he wants to hear and a breakdown in communication. I feel that is what happened in this case.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC. UNKNOWN VFR TRAFFIC IN TRSA.

Narrative: DURING APCH FOR LNDG AT PALM SPRINGS, WHILE ON VECTORS FROM APCH CTL, WE WERE GIVEN A TFC ADVISORY FOR OUR 10 O'CLOCK POSITION, 2 MI, NBOUND 8400'. WE WERE AT OUR ASSIGNED LEVEL OF 9000'. I REPORTED THAT 'WE'RE LOOKING BUT IT'S QUITE HAZY'. BEING ANXIOUS FOR DSCNT I REPORTED 'WE HAVE THE FIELD IN SIGHT'. WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO 4000'. THE PLT FLYING ELECTED TO HOLD HIS ALT IN ORDER TO SLOW UP BEFORE DSNDING. AT THAT MOMENT I SAW AN SMA AT 1 O'CLOCK PASSING LEFT TO RIGHT ABOUT 200' BELOW AND 200' AHEAD. I CALLED APCH CTL AND TOLD HIM OF THE TFC. HE SAID 'I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT'. I SAID 'NO, I SAID WE WERE LOOKING FOR HIM'. HE THEN ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND I SAID 'YES WE REPORTED THAT EARLIER'. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR THE APCH. I THINK THE CTLR MISTOOK OUR REPORT OF 'FIELD IN SIGHT' FOR 'TFC IN SIGHT'. THERE IS A REAL NEED FOR STANDARDIZING THE TERMINOLOGY IN REPORTING, AND REPLYING TO REPORTS OF CONFLICTING TFC. 'TALLY HO', 'WE'VE GOT 'EM', 'NEGATIVE CONTACT', 'CONTACT', 'NO CONTACT', 'IN SIGHT', ALL CAN LEAD TO ONE HEARING WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR AND A BREAKDOWN IN COM. I FEEL THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.