I agree with the consensus that the RA must be followed.
Given the extent to which the industry has researched the operation of such safety systems I continue to be surprised by the number of pilots who wish to out think them – EGPWS, Windshear, ACAS. These warning systems represent the only real need for memory drills - immediate action (excepting RTO or GA); their relative priorities, resultant flight paths, and range of scenarios have been well thought out. A RA will not fly the aircraft into the ground, it provides the safest option for the situation, including other aircraft and their flight paths; similarly windshear recovery systems will not stall the aircraft.
During development and initial in-service operation, many systems have glitches, ACAS more than most, but overall the industry has benefited from their introduction, flying is safer and will remain so provided crews do not invent or visualise highly unrealistic scenarios which they may never encounter. No system is perfect, but they are considerably more reliable than the crews who use them.
With GPWS there were many accidents which could have been avoided if crews had followed the warning; there were many background circumstances to these behaviours, but with ACAS the industry cannot allow these human issues to be repeated. With the advent of EGPWS and many reported ‘saves’, the industry not only has an improved safety record, but also an indicator that the underlying human error causing close encounters with terrain still remain. Thus EGPWS has transitioned from a terrain warning system to human error recovery system; ACAS should be viewed similarly.
--------------------
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.