From the Honeywell TCAS II handbook:
If a TCAS RA maneuver is inconsistent with the current ATC clearence, the pilot:
* Must not delay responding to an RA.
* Must not modify a response to an RA.
* Must follow the RA maneuver, unless 'implementing' Emergency Pilot Authority.
* Must provide a vertical rate that minimizes ATC deviations.
In answer to the questions above:
1. Do you follow RA? -
Yes
2. If you do , why?
See TCAS handbook extract above
3. What is your co. SOP?
Follow the RA
4. What co. do you work for? (or where do they operate from if you are shy) -
Aussie based Company
6. Has your co. issued clarification/guidance since the Bodensee accident?
No
5. Do you believe you are legally justified in following RA, and why? (I don't mean "ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft"- why is following RA safer/better/more reasonable?)
Yes - TCAS II co-ordinates RA's between your aircraft and other TCAS II equiped aircraft. See this thread
here.
You don't know if the conflict aircraft is TCAS II equiped or not. At best one aircraft will climb, the other will descend, at worst, your aircraft will get an RA to climb or descend and the other aircraft, if not TCAS equipped, will maintain course.
The TCAS II system works based on you BOTH following the RA and not ATC. If I was in a RA situation I would hope the other aircraft would follow the RA and not do directly the opposite if commanded by ATC. Why would you want to opposite of what a possibly co-ordinated RA is telling you? Going against an RA is a sure way to increase the chances of conflict!
From a legal point of view, the Australian regs
here state:
Resolution Advisory. In the case of a Resolution Advisory the
pilot will respond in accordance with the collision avoidance
manoeuvre prescribed by the TCAS system.