I always like those who have no time to read but want immediate answers,and now it includes future lawyers !
I will take that to be driven by the long-established hatred for my future proffession
I had indeed read almost all posts yet i couldnt find what i was looking for.So i figured i'd post first before i finished my reading of all 9 pages of the thred
And one more random comment: you have no idea how difficult it is to follow your posts with all these details and terminology, it sometimes feels as if i am reading chinese hehe.
The answer to your question is simple and was already given to you : ICAO PANS-OPS Doc 8168
Yep i did find the document and it is indeed what i was looking for. Am i correct that this document was not ammended as such before Ueberlingen? Hence if it indeed existed as such, fault could technically be attributed to the pilot who did not follow the RA, correct? Also, both the pilots of the aircraft, didn't they have to inform the ATC that there was a TCAS-descend for the one and a conflicting order for the other? I am not sure that i read something that clearly states so in the posts of the thread.
And one last question to ATC Watcher. I read in a few of your posts that when TCAS II came out, the manufacturing company for obvious liability reasons used the name advisory instead of command for the RA. Is there any document or article etc of the time that i can find this written on, or is it just a rumour/common knowledge in the world of the air?