A reduction of sentence from 7y to 4.5y,
Im still finding it really hard to understand how filing a flight plan would have prevented this mid-air, which is pretty much the premis of the italian court for blaming the accident on the french pilot alone, otherwise, in class G both aircraft are responsable for visual separation.
skydriller wrote:
Im still finding it really hard to understand how filing a flight plan would have prevented this mid-air
I think the argument was he did not file a flight plan. To cover up this fact he did not make radio transmissions (and maybe did fly without transponder, but that is just a guess) which could have prevented the accident.
A bit related to this case where the actual offense was not so bad but switching off the ADSB was the major crime:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bridge-stunt-leads-to-ads-b-revocation/
Imagine a mid air in that case. It starts with a little offence and gets worse and worse because of consequences of the required cover up actions. Not to get off topic but the typical sequence of big political scandals…
Sebastian_G wrote:
A bit related to this case where the actual offense was not so bad but switching off the ADSB was the major crime:
Quite interesting indeed. Might warrant a thread of its own. Particularly the following:
The agency used a new section of its Legal Enforcement Actions guidebook for FAA staff, which calls for revocation of a certificate for “operating an aircraft without activated transponder or ADS-B Out transmission (except as provided in 14 C.F.R. § 91.225(f)) for purposes of evading detection.” The section was added in a package of other amendments in January of 2020, just after ADS-B became mandatory in most controlled airspace The agency used a new section of its Legal Enforcement Actions guidebook for FAA staff, which calls for revocation of a certificate for “operating an aircraft without activated transponder or ADS-B Out transmission (except as provided in 14 C.F.R. § 91.225(f)) for purposes of evading detection.” The section was added in a package of other amendments in January of 2020, just after ADS-B became mandatory in most controlled airspace
The conviction is for " Involuntary multiple homicides" brought about by (my simplification) "undue care and attention " ie Imprudent and negligent flying above a glacier in Italian territory without due care for other aircraft.
There are two aggravating factors which the judge considered relevant.
1) No flight plan was communicated to the appropriate authorities
2) No messages were made in flight to warn other aircraft of his presence.
( These are aggravating factors in the judges mind as he knew of no legal requirement to do either of these things)
gallois wrote:
These are aggravating factors in the judges mind as he knew of no legal requirement to do either of these things
Do I understand correctly that he was essentially convicted because the crash occurred (i.e., he should have ‘seen-and-avoided’ the helicopter)?
And the ‘aggravating factors’ then justified a higher sentence?
Is that the summary of the written verdict? If so, it corresponds pretty much to what we made out of it earlier.
I guess the whole thing had a lot to do with the attitude displayed, not only by this pilot but apparently also others from that club. They never bothered with flightplans and, to cover up that fact, did not use radio in the target area and possibly(?) would not use the transponder either. I would think that in the mind of the judges, this combined set of facts would be seen as aggravating to over simple carelessnes. As you write, imprudent and negligent flying without care for the other airplanes.
Has it finally been determined if the obligation to file a flight plan for crossing into Italy is still there? It certainly still is instructed this way in Switzerland and also violated a lot, particularly during sight seeing flights (e.g around the Matterhorn, which is illegal without a flightplan). I also wonder, has the practice now changed? Or is the Aeroclub of Megeve and others simply now staying away from Italy?
In a judges mind, the chain of events would appear to start with the neglect to file a flight plan and be aggravated by the attempt to cover up that illegal act by not using the agreed frequencies to communicate their presence. Hence a harsh verdict and a clear message to others that such behaviour will have consequences.
The new American practice of revoking licenses (not only suspending, revoking, such as you are back to student pilot!) for similar cover up attempts disabling ADS-B shows in which direction things are moving. And that is America, not “anti GA Europe”. I think it is only a question of time until similar action is seen in Europe too against people who try to hide illegal activities by switching off transponders or similar.
Cobalt wrote:
Do I understand correctly that he was essentially convicted because the crash occurred (i.e., he should have ‘seen-and-avoided’ the helicopter)?And the ‘aggravating factors’ then justified a higher sentence?
That is how I understand it as well.
We had a similar case in Switzerland, however, there was no aggravating factors there. A Mooney and a glider collided, with all participants surviving. Both pilots were condemned for negligence and got a massive fine, despite the SUST report stating it was almost impossible for the two to see each other.
One of the involved pilots was involved in a 2nd airborne collision, which caused 1 death and 1 permanent injury. That case won’t be tried in a criminal court as the pilot has died in the mean time from unrelated causes. If he had been tried again, a prison sentence would have been very likely, despite the fact that there was no aggravating factors such as in the Italian case in both cases.
Has it finally been determined if the obligation to file a flight plan for crossing into Italy is still there
I think that’s not a very hard determination to make.
AIP ENR 1.2 for VFR specifies:
1.2.12 : Franchissement des frontières de la France métropolitaine selon les règles d vol à vue (VFR)
Plan de vol : Tout pilote d’aéronef ne peut effectuer, selon les règles VFR , un vol comportant le franchissement , dans l’un ou l’autre sens , des frontières terrestres ou maritimes de la France métropolitaine que si il a , au préalable déposé un plan de vol.
