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

I think you might be over thinking things rather than simply looking at it as a judge’s ruling.
Aggravating factors are a bit like early holes in the cheese. They are usually not “crimes” just things that the judge considered might.have been contributory. Hence the word aggravated in the conviction.
@skydriller in an earlier post wrote that he could not see how a flight plan would have avoided this accident.
If we consider for a moment that a FPL had been filed, it would have gone to Italian ATS, would they have passed the information onto the helicopter pilot? If not who would have been held responsible for the subsequent accident?
But was it illegal to not file a FPL, the judge, obviously, in this appeal could not find a breach of the law. Or decided not to add it to the conviction. One must remember that the Chicago Convention is a set of norms and recommended practices and unless they are written as laws into Italian or EU law they are only advisory or so some would claim
AIUI custom and practice in this area for pilots from all countries around Mt Blanc to cross frontiers of the other countries without FPL.
Perhaps more serious aggravating factor was that it seemed that the pilot of the Jodel was not giving air to air position reports to warn other aircraft of his location. The question then must be asked “On what frequency?” and was the helicopters pilot on the same frequency? and able to hear and understand the pilot of the Jodel was reporting if he had been reporting.
In the airspace concerned was there a legal requirement to announce on a radio?
Remember this was a legal opinion from the judge, not a question of good or bad airmanship.
Someone wrote about pilots turning the transponder off to avoid being spotted doing something they shouldn’t.
Is there any evidence that the Jodel pilot turned his transponder off. It is not a common thing amongst French pilots and most club aircraft are fitted with mode C.
If he had turned the transponder off so as not to be identified whilst committing an infringement, then he would have committed a crime and that would not have been an aggravating factor but a part of the conviction. And the charge might have been very much worse.
But on the point of transponders. If both the helicopters and the Jodel were transmitting mode C why didn’t Italian ATS see the SSR signals and warn both pilots? If the answer is that they cannot interrogate transponders in this region, for whatever reason, how can it be a legal requirement to carry one in that area?
The report of the above was the opinion of a judge in the appeals court which reduced the initial sentence. But just as significant was that the original court imposed a multi million euro compensation for the families of the victims has since been altered, to what we do not know but at present seems to have been agreed with the families.
The appeal court did however uphold the earlier conviction as " Several counts of aggravated involuntary homicide "
Whether there will be further appeals, we do not know at the moment.

Were any of those killed related to any members of the Establishment?

Is the requirement for a written flight plan?

Under SERA, AFIL (airborne filing) is supposed to be supported for all scenarios, but in reality it isn’t… Of course that assumes radio contact

gallois wrote:

One must remember that the Chicago Convention is a set of norms and recommended practices and unless they are written as laws into Italian or EU law they are only advisory or so some would claim

The requirement of filing a flight plan for international flights is written into EU law – SERA.4001(b)(5). However, the requirement can be waived by the states concerned. I know that is the case for flights between Germany and some other countries, but what about France/Italy?

Airborne_Again wrote:

but what about France/Italy?

There are few FPL exceptions France/Italy/Switzerland for some local aeroclubs & gliding clubs but I don’t think this flight was under these

“The requirement of filing a flight plan for international flights is written into EU law – SERA.4001(b)(5). However, the requirement can be waived by the states concerned. I know that is the case for flights between Germany and some other countries, but what about France/Italy?”
This could be argued as discriminatory. How high do you have to be to need a flight plan before crossing the France/Italy border in normal times? We know you can walk, drive, run without FPL. Presumably you can jump, pole vault or cross the border on a hovercraft without a flight plan. What about a human canon ball, does that need an FPL.
I know this might seem flippant but I would imagine that the lawyers will be looking for all sorts of arguments to allow a 2nd appeal if that is what the pilot of the Jodel wants. After all 5 years in an Italian prison is a very serious prospect.
The end result will not only have damaging ramifications for all alpine mountain pilots and their normal habits, but could have serious effects on GA as a whole.

T28 wrote:

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.

That is what I thought from the beginning.

gallois wrote:

The end result will not only have damaging ramifications for all alpine mountain pilots and their normal habits, but could have serious effects on GA as a whole.

As long as I can think back this has been the procedure for every flight across borders. And in the end, that is the status quo, so what should change for GA? If flight plans can be abolished for certain flights or country pairs, then that might be an improvement, but at the moment, the discussion over flight plan requirements is mute, as this is the governing law.

I have nothing against abolishing it if it helps some people in what they do and maybe prevents people from hiding in airspace they don’t belong in. But as long as it is the law, there is nothing which excuses the systemathic violation of the flight plan regulations by some people.

And hiding from misdemeanour by switching of transponders of radios is not something which is acceptable. Neither in the French mountains nor in UK airspace or elsewhere.

Hence my post above about possibly not having decent legal representation. Some verdicts, like this one, really smell of that. Personally I am quite familiar with the “cheap lawyer” issue, though not from the aviation sphere. Most people think a street corner lawyer will automatically do a good job but that is rarely true. To the lawyer you are just another client, passing by, never to be seen again, and he won’t upset relationships with politicians, chamber of commerce people, or the prosecutor who is in the same golf club / masonic lodge. So he will just stand up, read the obligatory defence, ask the obligatory questions, throw you to the lions, and send you his bill.

As always, the devil is in the details.

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.

That is not what the report actually said.

I quote:

Im Zeitraum zwischen 12:18:35 und 12:18:47 Uhr, das heisst 17 bis 5 Sekunden
vor der Kollision, war die Sicht für den Piloten zum Segelflugzeug durch die linke
Cockpitverstrebung verdeckt.
Abbildung 4: Rekonstruktion der geometrischen Sichtverhältnisse aus Sicht des Piloten
auf dem linken Sitz der HB-DFP um 12:18:47 Uhr. Zwecks Sichtbarmachung des Modelles
des Segelflugzeuges wurde in der Cockpitverstrebung eine Aussparung (weisser Kreis)
eingezeichnet.
Für den Piloten auf dem rechten Pilotensitz wurde die geometrische Sicht auf das
Segelflugzeug in derselben Zeitspanne durch die Mittelstrebe der Frontscheibe,
respektive durch den dort angebrachten Magnetkompass, verdeckt.
Verändert man die virtuelle Position des Kopfes des Piloten auf dem linken Sitz
um jeweils 10 cm nach links oder rechts, wird das Modell des Segelflugzeuges
links und rechts neben der linken Cockpitverstrebung geometrisch sichtbar. Für
den Piloten auf dem rechten Sitz wurde das Modell des Segelflugzeuges bei ana-
logen Veränderungen der Kopfposition links und rechts der Mittelstrebe sichtbar.

In other words, yes the view was obstructed but they could have seen it, if either pilot moved his head a bit around.

Further:

Es deutet vieles darauf hin, dass die Aufmerksamkeit der Besatzung bei der In-
struktion der Systeme sowie der Bedienung des Autopiloten lag. Deshalb über-
rascht es kaum, dass die Besatzung die Segelflugzeuge 2 und 3 (vgl. Anlage 3)
und die HB-3373 nicht gesehen hat. Das Flugzeugmuster Mooney verlangt durch
die eingeschränkte Sicht aus dem Cockpit und die hohe Reisegeschwindigkeit eine
aktive Luftraumüberwachung durch die Besatzung.

It is apparent that the crew was engrossed in systems instruction and autopilot operation. Therefore they did not see neither the impacted glider, nor two others. The Mooney requires active airspace monitoring given the high cruise speed and limited field of view from the cockpit.

So, no, it is neither a representation problem, nor a “judge knows better” problem.

but they could have seen it, if either pilot moved his head a bit around.

Could have…

On that basis, prosecute any survivor of any mid-air.

The Mooney requires active airspace monitoring

The Mooney is a slow piston plane from the 1950s. 10 years older and it would be from WW2. It is slow. Just like all civilian SEPs. It isn’t an F16. Look at any of my flying videos from the Alps. 150kt GS. Not much is happening and certainly nothing is happening fast. And being on autopilot means you have loads of time to look around.

Then there is potential ELP. On one flight near the Matterhorn, ATC told me there is an “Evolution” but actually (I was told by a French speaker watching the movie) it was French for “aerobatics”. Never saw the other guy…

Sh*t happens, and this time it happened.

I reckon this was a case where somebody well connected made sure of the “desired outcome”, and ignoring FP requirements (totally irrelevant to the collision) gave them a hook to hang their coat on.

And as with most accident investigations, “the system” will never be implicated.