Let’s see what happens on appeal. In many ways this sounds similar to the geologists case. The prosecutor and lower court had lots of opinions on how things should have been done. Both the appeals court and the supreme court found them just to be opinions without basis in law.
I‘m not sure what the problem with the sentence actually is:
- Not only from this thread it is crystal clear that doing such operations without the proper air to air calls is gross negligence. Doesn‘t even matter if the calls have been avoided to camouflage illegal border crossing or because they forgot
- Without any reasonable doubt one can assume that the accident would not have happened, if the PIC would have done such communication
- Key – and almost only – question is on the role of the FI who now got sentenced. If it was a training flight (as the preliminary accident report stated), again it is w/o question that he was responsible for proper communication. If it was no training flight, things are much more difficult as the role of FIs. „that happen to be“ in a plane but not in an instructor role is heavily debated
All of this is the same in Italy ans it would be in front of a German court – and I guess it would be the same in most jurisdictions across Europe.
The investigation against the club president would also not only happen in Italy: If the Club knew that their plane was used for „illegal“ cross border operations and that in such operations pilots keep radio silence, one would very closely look at what the president has done to prevent this (from making announcments to banning pilots who did this from renting club planes). And in Germany it would be exactly the same as obviously in Italy that it is not only the club but also the presidents personally that would be liable if they neglegted their duty to prevent such behaviour.
President of an Aeroclub is no fun job from a liability point of view…
Malibuflyer wrote:
doing such operations without the proper air to air calls is gross negligence
Are air-to-air calls legally required (mandatory) in the Class of airspace in which the operation occurred?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Without any reasonable doubt one can assume that the accident would not have happened, if the PIC would have done such communication
In the US, most airports rely on pilot to pilot communication to coordinate traffic. Obviously mid-airs around those airports occur regardless.
Malibuflyer wrote:
And in Germany it would be exactly the same as obviously in Italy that it is not only the club but also the presidents personally that would be liable if they neglegted their duty to prevent such behaviour. President of an Aeroclub is no fun job from a liability point of view…
I’m sure that is very encouraging and beneficial to all concerned.
This may be the most brainless legal situation I’ve ever seen in aviation, but having considerable personal experience in Italy I would guess that after the drama has subsided, the actual outcome will be very different. I think the the only real legal issue here is crossing the border without a flight plan and given that people can walk, ride their bicycles, drive large trucks where physically possible etc across the border without any formalities, one would hope that the situation would highlight how stupid it is to require little planes to file flight plans to do the same. If it’s true that this ridiculous situation motivated the pilot not to make blind calls, even more so.
Silvaire wrote:
Are air-to-air calls legally required (mandatory) in the Class of airspace in which the operation occurred?
The way I understand it they are common practice and part of the curriculum of mountain flying. An experienced mountain flying instructor should not only know this but also know that he puts his and other people’s lifes at risk by not issuing them. Therefore the absence of them can certainly be considered negligent at the least or if the intention was to cover up that they were without a flight plan, even worse.
Silvaire wrote:
I think the the only real legal issue here is crossing the border without a flight plan and given that people can walk, ride their bicycles, drive large trucks where physically possible etc across the border without any formalities, one would hope that the situation would highlight how stupid it is to require little planes to file flight plans to do the same.
I agree that one key point in why the prosecution was pretty harsh certainly has to do with the factor that they did not file a flight plan as required by law and, quite possibly, knowingly and systematically avoided air to air calls in an area they knew to be frequented by other airplanes in order not to get caught.
Filing flight plans crossing the border has been a requirement for long enough that everyone should know it. Apart from that, for flights within mountainous areas it makes a lot of sense safety wise to do so. I am aware that in the US the requirements for filing plans is different, nevertheless quite a few people file volontary plans in order to improve their outlook should they require SAR to look for them. In Europe, most countries require the filing of flight plans for cross border flying. It is also a commonly known fact that many people forget that when doing flights in the Alps and inadvertedly cross borders e.g. when sight seeing in that very area.
I see the possible prosecution of the president of that aeroclub as a clear sign that the judge wants to address a problem which happens on a regular basis and for which the aeroclub appears to be known for. It probably also should serve as a warning for others.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Key – and almost only – question is on the role of the FI who now got sentenced. If it was a training flight (as the preliminary accident report stated), again it is w/o question that he was responsible for proper communication. If it was no training flight, things are much more difficult as the role of FIs. „that happen to be“ in a plane but not in an instructor role is heavily debated
I agree fully. That is indeed the key point of this whole affair. Let’s see if the written verdict will shed some light into this.
Italy cannot cancel a DGAC issued license. It also cannot prosecute a French aeroclub president. He will need to stay out of Italy.
There is no “EU police” (for that I am exceedingly thankful; the likely lowest common denominator is not hard to work out).
The rest, I just don’t know what to think of it. The death of the VIP probably ensured a heavy sentence; that (heavy pursuit of politically provocative events) is normal practice everywhere. Well, the pressure for it is normal everywhere; what actually happens depends on the transparency of the said society. We don’t have enough detail…
Peter wrote:
Italy cannot cancel a DGAC issued license.
It is a question if they can do so via EASA, but it will be a very interesting detail to observe.
Peter wrote:
It also cannot prosecute a French aeroclub president.
Sure they can prosecute and sentence the guy and then issue an international warrant via Interpol. The very least they will achieve is that the guy should never enter Italy or face arrest or whatever they sentence him to.
Peter wrote:
The death of the VIP probably ensured a heavy sentence
My take is that this problem of French airplanes entering Italy illegally and do whatever they want on those glaciers with disregard of local common practice (or even legal requirements) was at the forefront of this. I recall that after the crash this was a discussion which came up quite immediately.
The very same might happen to people who try to hide airspace busts by flying without a transponder, were anyone to come to grief.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Therefore the absence of them can certainly be considered negligent at the least or if the intention was to cover up that they were without a flight plan, even worse.
Negligence by whom? The government for making it 100% legal to omit making blind calls?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In Europe, most countries require the filing of flight plans for cross border flying. It is also a commonly known fact that many people forget that when doing flights in the Alps and inadvertedly cross borders e.g. when sight seeing in that very area.
The elephant in the room is that flying puddle jumper airplanes is the only form of personal transport for which ‘plans’ are required to be filed to cross a border within the Schengen zone. Its archaic nonsense, justifiably ignored by many.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I see the possible prosecution of the president of that aeroclub as a clear sign that the judge wants to address a problem which happens on a regular basis and for which the aeroclub appears to be known for. It probably also should serve as a warning for others.
The responsibility for these two colliding flights was with both PICs, including see and avoid for both. I think its completely dumb to pursue the president of a club who was nowhere in the vicinity of the flight – that is behavior as bad as an ambulance chasing lawyer desperate to build a civil case in order to line his pockets. In this situation I think there are zero criminal issues except crossing the border without a flight plan, which I think a good attorney could probably defend on the basis of it being common practice, leading one would hope to a change in the silly rule that requires it only for flying and no other form of transport.
I think a proportional response to this accident would be a civil case against the pilots (both pilots estates) by the relatives of the deceased, plus a small symbolic fine for breaking a dumb and archaic law that requires a flight plan for no logical reason. Also a lot of sorrow in relation to accidents happening, as they do in flying and always will.
Let us ignore, as people who have never done much contact flying in the Alps might well do, the sheer impractical absurdity of filing a flight plan for possibly crossing and re-crossing FIR boundaries on a track which will be governed by weather and topography in a mountain range with no FIS or ATC radio coverage.
Filing flight plans crossing the border has been a requirement for long enough that everyone should know it.
Well, I’m not so sure whether such an alleged requirement – or border – exists between the French and Italian FIRs.
In the words of Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos:
”On a continent where nations once shed blood to defend their territories, today borders only exist on maps” and we can visit our neighbours ”without giving borders a second thought”.
In the context of citizens of the European Union exercising our treaty rights to move freely within what the European Commission calls a Europe without borders=, what is the purpose of such a requirement to file a flight plan?
Is that purpose so clear and essential that an obstacle to free movement can thereby be justified under the European legal principle of “proportionality”?
Looking at this from a practical point of view how should one file a flight plan with no radio contact and possible no cell phone at the glacier to close the plan? Maybe filing a round trip flight with a long EET to avoid search and rescue and put the glacier part in the remarks. Then the pilot might open the plan at the home base and close it there also. This solution is not 100% perfect but probably good enough not to get into much legal trouble…
Regarding the radio if the pilot was really afraid to send his call sign all over the place why not do it like the Americans and simply announce the type of aircraft? “Low wing on short final”. Should be good enough to provide safety and also avoid legal trouble.
This press article local copy, now over a year old, explains how and why, by custom and practice tacitly accepted by the Swiss, French, and Italian authorities for half a century, we do not file flight plans for local flights around the Mont-Blanc massif.
