Monsieur Berenger Saunier,
You talk about JUSTICE in bold letters but you obviously are another person that does not know what he is talking about.
In the Western world (since you want to make a difference) you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty . The final collision report is not yet out and the court case has not started yet either.
Who can assume PN was guilty of anything and decide to pass a death penalty on him , and execute the sentence himself ?
Is that your idea of JUSTICE (in bold letters) ?
You said you landed in FDH just prior the collision, were you by chance one of the pilot of the AEF 1135 ?
Because the main reason for allowing one person ond duty a ZRH was based on the fact that airports served by ZRH are closed at night. Someone requested a derogation for AEF and one of the main reasons why PN was overworked was that FDH unsheduled ( late ) inbound .
To paraphrase Wedge : No AEF inbound FDH at that time : no crash...
Gunship :
Since the collision ICAO had a frenzy of meetings and the procedures are now revised ( published since Nov 2003 ) now it clearly says that in case of contradiction between an ATC clearance and an RA , pilots should follow the RA. ( this was not mentionned as such before )
Also whatever you do you should never manoeuvre in the opposite sense of an RA ( that was always the case ) as there is at the moment a known flaw in the TCAS logic that will make things worse if you do so.
If you want to know more PM me.