FullWings,
I'm coming from the real world and thinking I'm sat there with only a limited amount of information to go on. I know there's conflicting traffic somewhere and I also know there has been a breakdown of ATC.
Industry standard or no, silence from ATC up until the point of the RA does not mean that you
know ATC has broken down.
I get an RA: I know I'm not in possession of all the facts so I have very little choice but to follow it - I have very little reason to disbelieve the proffered escape advice; even if I did, do I think that with my limited view out and lack of a complete picture that I could do any better than TCAS? Not really.
I don't think anybody is debating that scenario.
And I would dare say that all agree that if there is no word from ATC, by all means, follow the RA. It's the best information you have, and in all likelihood will avoid the traffic.
The problem is when you get conflicting advice from ATC and TCAS, particularly if in the order:
- ATC advice
- starting following ATC
- TCAS RA
Which I do not see you considering at all. You seem to be stuck in the scenario where ATC has in fact failed. But the premise that that has always happened at the time TCAS issues an RA does not hold.
We know late ATC intervention happens, and just because it is not "industry standard", you cannot simply ignore it when looking at the entire socio-technical system, which includes two flight crews, two aircraft with TCAS, and ATC with primary and secondary radar.
Bernd