Hello!
> SLFguy: Is there anyone who is going to post "I would have
> made the same descion/s as the Capt."?
If my calculations - or instuments that I have learned to trust -would have indicated that the fuel was sufficient, I would have done the same. I already have made a similar mistake once, but in a much smaller aircraft (Cessna Golden Eagle) and luckily with some lbs of fuel (not many though) still in the tanks after landing: I had relied on the figures of a fuel totaliser (accurate to the last digit during several years of flying this aircraft!) that were incorrectly entered by someone else.
> SLFguy: Was/is there any way the F/O could have releived the Capt. of his command?
If he had bothered to calculate the endurance exactly, based on actual consumption figures (!), and thereby proven to the Captain that they wouln't make it to Vienna; and the Capt. had still tried to press on, then maybe. But he didn't and surely the Capt. would have believed him, if he had (my guess).
> broadreach: Can anyone elucidate on the trial procedure in Germany?
I will give it a try, but I'm more familiar with aviation terms than with juridical ones!
> broadreach: Presumably it won't be a selection of people off the street.
But it will!
Jurors are always 'selected from the street' here. More precisely, they are elected by a comittee for four years from a preselected 'cross section' of the population in a way, that all groups/sexes/ages/professions are represented in more or less equal numbers, one of the few prerequisites being of course that they are german citizens.
In a trial like this one, there are usually two jurors and one judge, all three have equal weight when it comes to decide on the verdict. None of them needs to know anything about the subject of the trial, but if they do, this is _not_ a reason for excluding them from the trial. Therefore, it does not matter at all if details of the case have been reported by the press or not.
> Which would mean that the trial is really about establishing what punishment should be meted out to the crew.
Exactly. But a punishment has already been established before the trial, however: The Captain has received a summons (I hope, that 'babelfish' gave me the correct translations for 'Strafbefehl'!) over 10 months imprisoment on probation. This is intended to save the taxpayer and the accused the time and expense of a court case. Only an option in 'minor' cases though.
He has elected not to accept this summons, therefore he has to face trial now. I assume, that his lawyer (defendent) sees a fair chance of getting a better verdict than the 10 months, otherwise he would have talked him into accepting the summons. Lawyers are not paid so well here that they will go to court in any case, like in the US for example, so there is no big financial interest on part of the lawyer in this trial.
Therefore we can consider these 10 months as the absolute maximum he will possibly get (and since it was 'on probation' in the first place, he will definitely NOT got to jail!); if his lawyer is worth his money, he may get away with a fine or even an 'innocent' verdict in the end!
The 'experts' mentioned by broadreach will be questioned as witnesses during the trail, but they have nothing to do with the verdict itself. And, if I have read my newspaper correctly, not 'the crew' is under accusation, but the Captain alone. The First Officer will be heard as witness only.
I hope I got everything right...
Greetings, Max
Last edited by what next; 6th May 2004 at 14:07.