I have read of previous cases of an aircraft's TCAS giving itself an RA. Same thing, the RA traffic was colocated with the aircraft receiving the RA. Perhaps the equipment in the back, as the person posting suggests, was causing some sort of malfunction. There have been many reports over the years of electronic equipment causing interference with electronic equipment in aircraft especially claims by pilots that a cellphone left on interfered with nav equipment. Worrying indeed, however I would think the pilots still use their nav equipment for navigation and low instrument approaches as they were designed to be used.
The reality is that if the equipment is written up, it will either be released as ground checked serviceable, or perhaps replaced and checked as serviceable and put back in an aircraft.
Sorry if you have found this thread becoming tedious, I hope you have not instructed your two coworkers not to post here. I still would like to know if bsieker recommends pilots always follow an RA. I have given up on expecting any engineering facts on visual avoidance of aircraft but if you care to actually conduct an analysis, I am happy to give you some starting information.
This is from a Canadian accident report which references actual research on the subject.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...8/a95h0008.asp
1.9.9 Pilot Avoidance Techniques
Assuming that a pilot will be capable of visually detecting another aircraft in flight and determining that the closing geometry represents a mid-air threat, then the final stage in the see-and-avoid sequence is to initiate an effective avoidance response. The aim of that response will be to increase the miss distance between the aircraft. The effectiveness of that response is dependent on a number of factors; in general, either pilot can alter the geometry of a collision by changing some combination of aircraft speed, altitude, and heading. Because each of these actions will affect the geometry differently, it is essential that the pilot choose an appropriate combination of actions that will merge to achieve a corresponding effect.<7>
The optimum avoidance response will differ depending on the time to impact. There is research evidence<8> to indicate that, outside 10 seconds to the point of closest approach, the pilot should use compatible manoeuvres combining speed, altitude, and heading change. However, once the aircraft are inside the range of approximately 10 seconds to impact, the pilot should employ an altitude change only. This conclusion is based on an argument that, when two aircraft are confined in close quarters, the essential action is to minimize the relative cross-sectional areas of each aircraft. Under these circumstances, it has been generally found that any application of bank will increase the relative cross- sectional area and thereby increase the probability of impact.<9>
As an example, a Piper Navajo aircraft similar to the one involved in this occurrence will have a vertical cross-section of approximately 13 feet when in level flight. At bank angles in the range of 45 to 60 degrees, the vertical cross-section will be in the range of 28 to 34 feet. The final value of the vertical cross-section will be dependent on the aircraft's wing span and on the applied bank angle.
An Australian study on midair collisions referenced this as well.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
3.2 Evasive manoeuvre may increase collision risk
James Harris in his paper "Avoid, the unanalysed partner of see" focuses attention on the ‘avoid’ side of seeing and avoiding (Harris 1983). He stresses that an incorrect evasive manoeuvre may cause rather than prevent a collision. For example, in a head-on encounter, a bank may increase
the risk of a collision. Figure 17 illustrates this. In the top diagram, two (stylised) high-wing aircraft are approaching head-on with wings parallel. There is a limited number of ways in which the aircraft can collide if they maintain a wings-level attitude, and the area in which the
two aircraft can contact or the ‘collision cross-section’ is relatively small. However, if the pilots bank shortly before impact, as in the lower diagram, so that the aircraft approach each other with wings perpendicular, then there is a much larger collision cross section and consequently, a higher probability of a collision. This is not to suggest that banks are always inappropriate
evasive manoeuvres, but that in some cases, evasive action can be unsuccessful or even counterproductive. At least one foreign airline accident has been attributed to an unnecessary evasive manoeuvre (Civil Aeronautics Board 1966).
Yet the parts of James Harris study that I have seen do not even discuss the possibility of an evasive manouver by an aircraft being incorrect due to misjudged trajectories as would appear to have happened in the JAL and DHL cases. Perhaps you have considered this. If so please let us know.
If you need any more assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. I am happy to have been able to provide some information on this subject to those who are reading this thread.