Whether one system is better than the other is arguable but insignificant .If you are charged with a crime in France, Italy, UK or USA it is in their courts that the case will be fought.So you have to play by their rules.
Sure, but in the context of this judgement from an Italian court, and a suggestion that the inquisitional approach delivers better justice, and especially reading some of the posts further back in this thread, it doesn’t look like justice is more likely to be delivered, and indeed it looks like it hasn’t. It looks like something out of a kangaroo court. This is “flying planes” after all, and very occassionally they collide, and it is an accident which is the result of pure chance.
172driver wrote:
The only thing the French pilot did wrong in a legal sense was the non-filing of a flight plan. That’s it.
I think that is putting it too easy. The primary reason for the accident was a lack of airspace surveillance, aggravated by the fact that the Jodel did not do the usual communication, alerting others to his presence. By the looks of it, the court deemed the non-filing of a flight plan (legal requirement) and the lack of communication linked in the sense that the Jodel omitted it’s reports because they knew they were there illegally and did not want to expose that.
I doubt that the non-filing of the flighplan alone would have had any consequences beyond a fine if caught, however, the whole conduct, blasé about legal requirements and then trying to hide by not using the radio e.t.c. and the fact that the court appears to be very aware that this was a common practice rather than an individual exception, which lead them to put their foot down hard, not only to punish the guy but also to make a clear sign to others.
Without any connection to the legal outcome, collision avoidance is a very hot topic with many people looking at such accidents. The fact of the matter is, collisions are at times much more likely to happen than the usual pilot’s perception would make him think. It is notoriously difficult to see other airplanes, often enough almost impossible if angle and light are in your disfavour. Hence, accident investigators are very eager to point out that all due methods to avoid airproxes and collisions should be used to the fullest extent: Radio your position, be identifyable (leaving landing lights on, using strobe lights, e.t.c) but also more and more use anti collision devices such as ADSB and Mode C based avoidance and for the lack of a better device Flarm.
Sneeking into places, avoiding radio calls for detection, switching off transponders to avoid being seen missing out on an airspace infringement, all these things are irresponsible acts which can very fast lead to much grief and lasting damage. This accident was a clear example of that and there are many others to prove the point.
It will be interesting to see if the ADSB mandate in the US will have an impact on airborne collisions. With it anyway, the FAA has mandated a very open way for collision avoidance using ADS-B based collision warners.
@Mooney_Driver you keep repeating that the Jodel pilot was not giving position reports (true) but you go on to say that he didn’t because he was trying to hide that he was doing something illegal. Do you have evidence for this very serious accusation?
Secondly, you also accuse the Jodel pilot of either having no surveillance device eg mode C or not using it. Do you also have evidence to back up this accusation?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It will be interesting to see if the ADSB mandate in the US will have an impact on airborne collisions.
It has. It already saved me from one prob90 and another one 100%.
As for this accident: agree with @gallois above. What you – and obviously the court – do is pure conjecture. I would expect a court of law to stick to facts and to the law. I know that’s asking a bit much in some countries (Italy being quite notorious in this regard), but that’s how it should be.
I think this all a bit over the top.
Car analogy: if two cars collide, one driver survives, and the prosecution believes that both drivers were careless. The surviving driver will be put on trial. The dead one obviously won’t.
The problem here [as in the Mooney-hits-glider case] is more the criminalisation of accidents which are, given the fallibility of “see and avoid”, really caused by the archaic system than by any of the unfortunate participants.
Hasn’t Italy a history of strange judgement?
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember one where geologists were convicted for failing to predict an earthquake. I have a vague recollection of another one where ATC (or was the the met service?) were convicted in equally questionable circumstances.
Having said that, I imagine a lot of pilots in Italy don’t feel so comfortable after this ruling. Nobody goes out expecting t have a mid-air accident. But the thought that, if you survive it, you might end up spending a long time in jail, isn’t pleasant!
Not only that; you will get asset-stripped. Your family home gone, etc. Normal aviation liability insurance should cover that, up to its limit, but maybe not if you are a convicted criminal who was negligent – see this. I don’t know if Italy has a similar provision of “gross negligence”.
Peter wrote:
Hence my earlier Q is whether any of the deceased had high level political connections, or something like that. The further south one goes in Europe, the more that becomes a factor.
Anyone remember the speedboat accident on the Thames? The girl killed had family in the judiciary. I didnt understand why the guy did a runner until I heard this. Its not just southern Europe.
Reading about it that is a possibility but it could be for any other reason too. It didn’t work 
