Page 103 of the midair accident report states in part:
The TU-154 AOM contains general recommendations regarding the use of TCAS. The AOM reference draws attention to the fact that manouvering opposite to TCAS can lead to a collision.
The TU-154 AOM stated that manouvering opposite to the RA is PROHIBITED.
Thanks, now I found it. This part can be found more detailed on pages 64, 65. If you read these, you will see, that the quoted section orders the crew with point 1 to get into contact with ATC prior to following the RA and, yes, it states that
it is prohibited to initiate a manoeuvre contrary to the advisory issued by the system.
Perhaps a legal loophole, but the TU154M first got the ATC order, than the TCAS RA and initiated the descend before the RA. In so far, the crew's action was not in contradiction with this part of the AOM.
The actions taken by the Tu-154 captain that night were not rational , they were, to use non-engineering terminology...
F
ing Insane.
So you have a AOM / FOM which in one section states, that ATC has priority over TCAS and that TCAS is only a last-line barrier - and than that you are prohibited from acting contrary to the RA.
And a pilot making a decision based on these contradicting orders is in your opinon not only "not rational" but "[...] insane".
The causes leading up to the RA are irrelevant and could very well be due to different errors in each situation.
In a prior post, you said that you go along with the findings of BFU accident investigators and now you say, that accident investigator's findings are irrelevant.
Our discussion is about how to react to an RA.
No. Our discussion is on "TCAS philosophies". This includes reactions to RA but is not limited to it. This discussion has also to be on how TCAS operates and where its limits are (althogh this part seems to be of no interest for you).