On my side I know instructors that absolutely requires to be right seat when they are in a plane with other pilots.
On this case, it’s been said that plane was over the helicopter, obviously doing landing pattern over the glacier, and as shown in photos, probably doing another approach. The helicopter was climbing right to the rutor peak. The 2 trajectories was perpendiculars the plane lightly descending, and helicopter fast climb. There was very few possibilities for plane people to see the helicopter although the helicopter could have visual on the plane.
In addition to that, I have been in some close to collision situations with pro helicopter in the mountains here, doing frequent update in my position on 130.0, all lights on. The copter passed 30m lower on my right, I have never seen it until 3s before passing as I had the sun in my face. These guys are mostly doing there job as fast as they can to make money – or pushed by management and sometime forget some security rules. It’s not the same thing as the “old instructor” kind.
My mind is done on this case… Of course VFR is “see and be seen”.
One question that might be a bit off-topic: I know about the mountain frequencies in France (130.000) and Switzerland (130.350). What about Italy and Austria?
Are they referenced in the AIPs? I never came across them besides being mentioned by some local pilots….
“my instructors to ask me if it was OK to take control of the a/c if situation turns bad while they are P2 and I’m PIC”
But no Jodel is a 2 crew aircraft, so there was a P1 only.
Would this argument apply to a B777 training captain as a pax somewhere in the rear cabin of a B777?
The surviving FI has apparently been sentenced to 6 years and eight months in prison.
Is there evidence the FI was acting as FI and which seat he occupied?
Google translation:
Would this argument apply to a B777 training captain as a pax somewhere in the rear cabin of a B777?
Not sitting in the cabin, but examiners (not sure about FIs acting as FIs) not sitting in a front seat is something that happens. Multi pilot aircraft is one case. Another is checkrides in “foreign” airspace where the FE doesn’t have the papers to be PIC in that country’s airspace. A typical FAA checkride done in Europe would be like that; the DPE probably doesn’t have EASA papers, and if the candidate is not legally PIC in the actual flight conditions then a local FI has to be RHS and the DPE sits in the back. The UK CAA banned that practice many years ago after a twin crashed while doing that.
My feeling regarding this case is that due to political pressure (a VIP death) they had to find somebody to prosecute, and they did.
Where does the information come from that the FI was sitting in the back?
The preliminary report states that the position of the people aboard was unclear:
http://www.ansv.it/cgi-bin/ita/Preliminary%20Report%20I-EDIC%20and%20F-PMGV.pdf local copy
It was in many press articles just after crash happened. Google that:“ANSA says the instructor reportedly was sitting in the rear of the plane”. It seems it was clear when they reported the accident, but if it would have been in the report, it would ave been difficult to prove he’s guilty…
So actually when you’re a VIP, you can be cleared of any mistake…
Would be interesting to read the actual grounds for the judgement.
BTW the VIP was a passenger of the helicopter.
Supersonic wrote:
BTW the VIP was a passenger of the helicopter.
yep, my mistake!
It’s outrageous.
At least, now we know why he took so much.
Just culture, which is more and more present in official speeches, seems less and less followed.
Could anyone from italy find and translate an article on the trial’s debate ? Or the transcripts ?
