If this thread was about a crew's response to a GPWS alert: "Whoop Whoop PULL UP!", which involved pushing the stick forward instead of back, would there be much in the way of technical discussion required?
Interesting point .Because , if we go back in time, there are similarities indeed . If one remembers the introduction of GPWS, the early systems were prone to many false alarms, which worked against crew acceptation. ( remember for instance the Air Inter decision in France with their new A320 fleet, and the discussions that followed after their Mt St Odile CFIT )
I do not have precise archive data at hand , but I remember there were quite a few CFIT accidents in the late 80’s /early 90s , where GPWS alerts were ignored by pilots. ( the Independent air Boeing 707 in Santa Maria /Azores in 1989 , or the Thai International A310 in Katmandu in 92 are just two that come to my mind for instance )
So the “ philosophies ‘ ( how to deal with automation ) do apply for both systems, in their early phases.
In 2007, GPWS , and especially EGPWS could be considered mature. Not TCAS.
TCAS is, despite its age, still in its early phase , as we now on version 7.0 of its development, and that after a collision and a good dozen of very,very near calls , we are most probably going to have a version 7.1 in a few years. That might resolve partially the flaws that contributed to those accidents/incidents.
What we do in the meantime( i.e. until that new version comes ) , is part of the debate here.