Originally posted by joernstu
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.........No. Our discussion is on "TCAS philosophies".
Afraid not. You just are not understanding what I am saying over and over.
1) FOLLOW THE RA
2) The actions of the TU-154 crew was not rational and neither was the JAL captains. They were extemely dangerous decisions.
3) your statement
"I cannot decide, what kind of action would induce the lowest risk - following an RA, not following an RA or flying without TCAS at all as the basis for my risk evaluation would be episodes. I think the same goes for you as your information basis is still only episodes." is irresponsible.
My opinions only. I agree with what the Japanese report says. I never said their findings were irrelevant. I am giving you an example of how visual manouvering against the RA around traffic is not necessarily a safe thing to do(whether it is due to a conflict from ATC error, pilot error or in uncontrolled airspace).
Originally posted by joernstu
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. 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".
According to the accident report...
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.
If you get or have much real world flying experience outside the office, you will find that or already know there are actions that are illegal yet safe to perform and actions that are legal but unsafe to perform(eg.
engineering facts that say it is within limitations to land on a contaminated short or crosswind affected runway but you know better). Also actual contradictions of rules and regulations. We can't easily change these rules and procedures. That is when judgement comes into play and knowledge through experience, reading etc allow you to hopefully make a rational decision. As for the insanity statement, I'm sure it crossed the minds of the crews properly following their RA.
Finally concerning visual manouvering against the RA around conflicting traffic...
Originally posted by bsieker
However, this has nothing to do with "engineering facts", it is part of the argument why the Tupolev crew's actions were rational. A refutation has to offer more than "always follow the RA, because Eurocontrol says so in their marketing brochures, and I believe them, and it is also SOP.
After reading this statement and considering that PBL(your coworker) said
"The engineering facts which you choose not to like, inter alia that, given the decision presented to the Tu-154 crew, it would have been rational for them to choose to go against the TCAS RA, were discovered, as far as I can tell, by me..."
I am starting to wonder if the so called rational decision to descend and visually manouver around conflicting TCAS RA traffic which is quite possibly attempting to manouver around you is based on an assumption. An assumption that this is a safer action, rather than being based on any study or engineering facts that this really is a safer action. I have no data to prove or disprove this. Only two unsuccesful examples.