Carpediem :
I will take that to be driven by the long-established hatred for my future proffession
Not really, but after having been scr..wed a few times , relying on the ethics of your future profession could be assimilated to masochism...
Back to the subject :
Am i correct that this document was not ammended as such before Ueberlingen?
Correct > the old version was not clear and explicit about this situation. It was changed after Ueberlingen.
The Russian Pilots were not at fault technically as they followed ATC before the RA started. After that, according the rules published at the time , it was left to the pilot to judge to follow the RA or not .
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?
Yes they had to : the B757 pilot did it, but very late ( after 23 seconds ) and that message was blocked out by another transmission, so the controller did not get it .The Tu154 pilot did not advise ATC, (fact) probably because they never followed the RA.( my supposition)
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?
Not common knowledge but a fact stated at the beginning, but on whose insistence I do not know. The company that built the TCAS software is the MITRE Corporation , on contract from the FAA. whether it is the Manufactures, the FAA or the MITRE lawyers that insisted on the change I cannot say. The first manufacturers were both Allied Bendix and Sperry/Dalmo Victor. They might also have influenced the change of terminology . Check their web sites and ask questions if you want to pursue that question .
I would be personally very interested to have the answer if you find it. . ( you can PM me or post it here )
Good luck .