I agree all should stop over-speculating.
This is not helped at all by Swiss ATC and DHL indulging in blaming others already.
Since Swiss ATC have put their side, I feel the following thoughts:
1. 8-10NM (at 90deg) is far too late to describe as even "less than ideal". As someone else said, will be interesting to say what urgency prefixes were applied to the calls.
2. A Plan B is required here - the second call maybe, and certainly the third call should surely have been to the DHL ac? There are a number of legitimate reasons why the Russian aircraft did not, or could not respond. There is, for instance, a known issue with some radios in our fleets where they "go to sleep" and aircraft have not responded for minutes to call. Advice to us - if you don't hear something for a long time (which would be along time at night), click the Tx key...
3. IMHO, the Russian pilot could only be "blamed" if he read back the instruction, and only THEN did not comply.
4. Leaving it so late to start avoiding action, not only increases the possibility of collision by no response (which did not happen here), but TCAS getting involved.
5. Hard to blame TCAS ?? Basically, the 2 anti collision systems (ATC and TCAS) were both "working" in a "just in time" manner - and unfortunately took the 50:50 worst case. TCAS is designed to be a backstop to ATC, and hence is "just in time". ATC should not be...
I do not like pointing the finger, but am very concerned by Swiss ATC throwing the mud. IMHO, in that they have started throwing it, its alright to throw some back...
NoD