punkalouver,
I'm starting to wonder if you have a serious problem understanding written words.
We have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly misquoted us or simply ignored that:
1) When one choice is "rational" that does neither mean that it is
- the only rational choice
nor
- the best choice
nor
- the safest option
2) Rationality has nothing to do with what hindsight tells you about the danger.
3) It can be argued just as soundly that the DHL crew's action were extremely dangerous. Had they not followed the RA, no collision would have occured.
4) More generally, without TCAS, Ueberlingen would not have been an accident, but merely a later-than-usual separation by ATC. A non-event.
ad 1)
Yet you say we had claimed it was safer to do as they did, instead of following the RA. You also repeatedly ignore that fact, that they received the ATC order, and started manoeuvering according to it, before they received the RA. Meaning they never initiated a manoeuvre opposite the RA.
The interaction between ATC and TCAS is one of the key points of discussion, and this accident, more clearly than anything, shows that the premise of TCAS specifications, that it is only active when ATC is out of the picture, does not hold. It is very serious and must be addressed. Simply ignoring it will not make it go away.
ad 4)
This, too, is a serious matter when discussing what TCAS can do, what it cannot do, what its shortcomings are, and that and how they should be made known. Simply ignoring them will not make them go away.
Repeating your mantra of "Follow the RA" will not make any of the problems go away, either.
Despite what you think and what EC bulletins tell you with pretty pictures, they are not always simply caused by reckless crews acting against RAs.
And in case it got lost again: We do not advise not to follow an RA, even if you seem to think so.
Bernd