Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Another crash - Helicopter I-EDIC vs Jodel F-PMGV in Italy

Silvaire wrote:

I didn’t know you could prosecute somebody for manslaughter based on their mindset.

Well, perhaps there’s quite a bit about the law that you don’t know! ;-)

In differentiating between and proving the different types of manslaughter it is the (alleged) mindset of the accused that is all important. Did they know what they were doing could kill someone? Were they negligent? Were they reckless? Did they intend to harm but not kill? Was there a duty of care? Questions around recklessness, in most jurisdictions, hinge on what a ‘reasonable person’ would do and are thus all about mindset.

Many other subtleties along those lines. Manslaughter is not a black-and-white charge.

EGLM & EGTN

…. but all of them focus on what is relevant only if what they did or did not do contribute to the act itself …

Just compare that to a similar scenario in a car. An uninsured diver does something a lot worse than not filing a flight plan; this is not a simple paperwork offence, but dodging cost to the detriment of the potential injured. The uninsured driver collides with another car and people are killed in both cars.

The finding of negligent manslaughter will hinge on what happened on how each driver acted. An act that is not manslaughter will not become one just because there is no insurance in place.

I guess that the focus on the “flight plan” is linked to the general disbelief we encounter in the general population when they find out that VFR flights can be done without air traffic control.

Guess being the operational word here – have we actually sight of the judgement?

Last Edited by Cobalt at 05 Feb 18:07
Biggin Hill

Malibuflyer wrote:

Where did the commission ever say that there are no more borders?

I’ve done a bit of googling for you,

It’s written with his name in this eu publication local copy

He does appear to say. “All this is possible without giving borders a second thought”

Silvaire wrote:

I didn’t know you could prosecute somebody for manslaughter based on their mindset.

Well, the question is to what extent an aeroclub president is responsible for the actions of its members. If the member in question is an instructor of a flight school operated by the club and the president was aware of unsafe practises then — depending on the organisational structure of the club — then (s)he could well be held responsible. If the president then had the “mindset” that (s)he wouldn’t interfere then it could at seen as criminal neglect and possibly contributory to manslaughter.

I’m not saying that I think the italian court was correct but you can’t dismiss this line of reasoning offhand.

Do I have to watch out for what I think in the US too,

You have been forced to do that in the not too recent history of the US, at least.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Off_Field wrote:

He does appear to say. “All this is possible without giving borders a second thought”

Which doesn’t mean that there are no borders — only that you don’t have to think about them.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Which doesn’t mean that there are no borders — only that you don’t have to think about them.

Did you read his little paragraph?
“Europeans make over 1.25 billion journeys within the Schengen area every year. A Europe without internal borders brings huge benefits to the economy as well, which shows how tangible, popular and successful the Schengen achievement " …. “Removing borders, ensuring safety and building trust took many years after twodevastating world wars. The creation of the Schengen area is one of the greatestachievements of the EU and it is irreversible”

Cobalt wrote:

I guess that the focus on the “flight plan” is linked to the general disbelief we encounter in the general population when they find out that VFR flights can be done without air traffic control

That does ring true. It is symptomatic of what appears to be total legal incompetence on the government side, coupled I think with a view that government’s interest and role is to aggressively maintain its own power, even when doing so contributes to an accident and provides no other societal benefit given the otherwise open border between France and Italy. A very sad situation.

The case that a club leader on the ground, not participating in the specific flight, nowhere near the scene, in a different country would have any culpability is ridiculous, but perhaps says something further about the lack of aeronautical understanding in relation to the unambiguous role of PIC, pilot qualification based on government check rides and knowledge exams and so on.

The whole thing is a joke.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Feb 20:37

Cobalt wrote:

Just compare that to a similar scenario in a car.

The equivalent of this accident in road traffic would be a driver that turns off headlights at night because it doesn’t have a valid MOT (or TüV or watever technical check document is required) and doesn’t want someone to see it.
If that driver causes an accident because another car or pedestrian can’t see his car at night, the base of any sentence for gross negligence would Always be that he turned off his lights – not the missing MOT.

Comparable to this case, in road traffic there is no definite law stating that “at this time on this road one has to turn on the lights” but only a very General rule that if required the driver has to take care for adequate visibility by using the lights. (As in VFR traffic in uncontrolled airspace there is no explicit rule that a Pilot has to make a specific Radio call at a specific time but only a general rule that he should apply good airmanship, etc.)

The very same I expect here: The FI was sentenced based on the conviction of the court that a) he was the responsible PIC and b) he failed to communicate properly.
If at all, i would expect that the missing flight plan had only quite minor Impact on the sentence – besides the fact that there might be reason to assume that the failure to communicate was a cosncious decision of the Pilot and not simple neglicence.

While a) is a complex legal question that requires much more information of the case to even discuss About I at least hope that we all agree that not communicating properly to cover up a missing flight plan is grossly negligent.

@Silvestre: Please accept that legal Systems in other countries/regions are extremely different to the US legal system. Not judging which one is better (both have massive pros and cons), one can simply not use the experience in one system to comment sentences in the other.
To bring in your experience/Knowledge of the US legal system to the best benefit of this discussion it would be interesting to get your perspective on the following quite comparable case:
A Pilot in the US is doing a flight without the proper paperwork (let’s say no valid CoA) from an uncontrolled airfield to another. It’s really only a paperwork issue as the plane is in a perfectly fine condition esp. all Radios working as they should. As he is, however, afraid about being caught with the inproper paperwork, he decides to sneak into the destination airfield w/o somebody noticing it and therefore not making any air to air traffic Information calls. Unfortunately there is another plane in the pattern (which does everything to the book) that fails to see this plane and it Comes to a crash.
In the US legal system, what would happen with this Pilot who consciously decided not to make Radio calls to get away with the inproper paperwork? (all three Areas: FAA/License actions, criminal convicions and civil lawsuits)

Germany

Silvaire wrote:

The case that a club leader on the ground, not participating in the specific flight, nowhere near the scene, in a different country would have any culpability is ridiculous

Sorry, but that is not even true under US law. The Question if the club has any liability in this case would also in the US relate to the Questions if a) the club knew the their planes are rented for illegal operations and b) if they took adequate measures to Prevent their planes being used for these operations. It’s obviously a Questions to be dabated what “knowing” and “adequate” really means in this case – but the judge has done nothing than ordering that this is evaluated.

Read Roch vs. Ugly Duckling and/or Scmoyer vs. Mexico Forge to see that this would be very simila in the US.

Germany

@Malibuflyer are you not in danger of being your own judge, jury and executioner here, without knowledge of the full facts, unless you have of course, more information than most of us on this forum?
IMO using forums to educate others or make them think how they might have handled such and such a situation and avoid the errors of others in the future is a good thing. But in this case what do we really know other than what is reported in newspapers or on the internet in which case I don’t think trial by forum is a good idea.Different countries have very different judicial systems, France and Italy are very different even more so than Scotland and England.
Do we really know who was PIC and does that correlate with the EASA/ICAO definition of PIC as set out in the SERA definitions section of EASA regulations?
Was the destination glacier of the French aircraft in France or Italy?
Was the helicopter sightseeing over the same glacier?
Did the helicopter communicate air to air?
Etc etc etc
The Italian judge has ruled the way he/she has under Italian law one now has to await the appeal to see if that is upheld. As to whether the President of the aeroclub will be charged is another thing we will have to wait and see, as would for instance under whose jurisdiction would that be. Without all the facts I don’t see how we can be as categorical as in some of the posts here.

France
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top