Germany Liable For Russian Plane Crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germany Liable For Russian Plane Crash
July 27, 2006
A German court ruled on Thursday that Germany wrongly subcontracted its airspace control to a private firm and was liable for a 2002 crash between a Russian passenger jet and a cargo plane that killed 71 people.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Bashkirian Airlines over the mid-air collision involving a Bashkirian plane and a DHL cargo aircraft over the German village of Ueberlingen close to the Swiss border.
The court said Germany breached its constitution by subcontracting airspace control to private Swiss firm Skyguide and Germany was responsible for compensation for the crash.
"The sovereign task of securing air space has never been effectively transferred to Switzerland," the court said in its ruling.
"This means Germany cannot say that it should be Skyguide's liability," the court added on its web site.
Germany's Transport Ministry declined to comment immediately on the possible implications of the ruling on air traffic control procedures.
On July 1, 2002, Skyguide was operating with a single air traffic controller who told the pilot of the Russian Tupolev plane to descend to avoid a collision, even though early-warning instruments aboard the plane had told the pilots to climb.
The DHL Boeing 757's automatic anti-collision system also instructed its pilots to descend to the same level.
The plane's tail fin sliced open the Russian passenger jet and both aircraft disappeared from radar screens 15 seconds later. Sixty-nine people on the Russian jet, most of them children, as well as two pilots on the German plane were killed.
Skyguide operated with "severe organizational deficiencies" while controlling air space over much of southern Germany, the court said.
"This would have led eventually to the overload of the only air traffic controller working at the time and ultimately would have caused the collision between the planes," the court said.
It added that it had not yet decided on the amount of compensation to be paid to Bashkirian Airlines for the crashed plane which was flying from Moscow to Barcelona.
(Reuters)
A German court ruled on Thursday that Germany wrongly subcontracted its airspace control to a private firm and was liable for a 2002 crash between a Russian passenger jet and a cargo plane that killed 71 people.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Bashkirian Airlines over the mid-air collision involving a Bashkirian plane and a DHL cargo aircraft over the German village of Ueberlingen close to the Swiss border.
The court said Germany breached its constitution by subcontracting airspace control to private Swiss firm Skyguide and Germany was responsible for compensation for the crash.
"The sovereign task of securing air space has never been effectively transferred to Switzerland," the court said in its ruling.
"This means Germany cannot say that it should be Skyguide's liability," the court added on its web site.
Germany's Transport Ministry declined to comment immediately on the possible implications of the ruling on air traffic control procedures.
On July 1, 2002, Skyguide was operating with a single air traffic controller who told the pilot of the Russian Tupolev plane to descend to avoid a collision, even though early-warning instruments aboard the plane had told the pilots to climb.
The DHL Boeing 757's automatic anti-collision system also instructed its pilots to descend to the same level.
The plane's tail fin sliced open the Russian passenger jet and both aircraft disappeared from radar screens 15 seconds later. Sixty-nine people on the Russian jet, most of them children, as well as two pilots on the German plane were killed.
Skyguide operated with "severe organizational deficiencies" while controlling air space over much of southern Germany, the court said.
"This would have led eventually to the overload of the only air traffic controller working at the time and ultimately would have caused the collision between the planes," the court said.
It added that it had not yet decided on the amount of compensation to be paid to Bashkirian Airlines for the crashed plane which was flying from Moscow to Barcelona.
(Reuters)
OK - faulty ATC put 2 aircraft in the same place at the same time.
But the Bashkirian captain clearly had no idea of the correct way to respond to the safety device installed precisely to prevent such an accident happening following ATC cock-ups, even though his co-pilot did. It was the Bashkirian captain's incorrect response to the TCAS RA which killed 71 people.
Sadly the controller, Peter Nielsen, was later murdered by Vitaly Kaloyev, whose wife and two children had been killed in the collision.
But the Bashkirian captain clearly had no idea of the correct way to respond to the safety device installed precisely to prevent such an accident happening following ATC cock-ups, even though his co-pilot did. It was the Bashkirian captain's incorrect response to the TCAS RA which killed 71 people.
Sadly the controller, Peter Nielsen, was later murdered by Vitaly Kaloyev, whose wife and two children had been killed in the collision.
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ruling, and indeed this thread, is not so much about who was at fault at causing that sad accident. The events have been covered extensively elsewhere on PPRuNe.
The court ruling is about who can legally control airspace in Germany. It is the court´s understanding that the German state, represented by its government, was not in a position to "outsource" ATC to a Swiss, and private, firm because this was a breach of its constitutional liability.
The court ruling is about who can legally control airspace in Germany. It is the court´s understanding that the German state, represented by its government, was not in a position to "outsource" ATC to a Swiss, and private, firm because this was a breach of its constitutional liability.
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eurocan, with all respect, we are not talking here about what went wrong in the cockpit. This has been discussed exteeensively elsewhere.
The question that has come up now is who can, and under which circumstances, legally control airspace in Germany, or Europe for that matter. It seems it was the court´s conviction that it was illegal for a non-governmental and non-German institution to control German airspace. The relevant contracts with Skyguide did not meet German constitutional law, and the management of German airspace would have had to remain under governmental supervision, which was not the case. Therefore, so the ruling, the German government shall be liable to cover all (!) claims for damages.
This, of course, may well open a can of worms...
The question that has come up now is who can, and under which circumstances, legally control airspace in Germany, or Europe for that matter. It seems it was the court´s conviction that it was illegal for a non-governmental and non-German institution to control German airspace. The relevant contracts with Skyguide did not meet German constitutional law, and the management of German airspace would have had to remain under governmental supervision, which was not the case. Therefore, so the ruling, the German government shall be liable to cover all (!) claims for damages.
This, of course, may well open a can of worms...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
Hmm! That may just be a little bit unfair! I thought that the concurrent Eastern Bloc SOPs (which were being followed) were at fault?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the german liability is simply that there was no contract in place for the control from skyguide over southern germany. as no contract was in place (only an agreement), the two parties (german state and skyguide) never legally agreed on liability and, as an example, on costs, which are taken solely by skyguide.
I think this might be an important case for all parties involved and probably for the future "single sky"-idea...
I think this might be an important case for all parties involved and probably for the future "single sky"-idea...
Relatives are from Russia. They tell me (as I can't read it myself) that the Russian media, fed from their industry sources, concentrates entirely on the ATC aspect of the accident and never, ever, has mentioned the non-compliance with TCAS or even that such equipment exists. The line is universally "the pilots do what the controller tells them to".
Only half a speed-brake
And basically they are correct. That is the system in place in Russia (not East Bloc, thank you) and it works well. It may not be able to handle traffic as dense as we see over west and perhaps not as effective too.
TCAS is a last effort system designed around a western rules pilot.
TCAS is a last effort system designed around a western rules pilot.
Germany may well be liable to Bashkirian according to applicable law.
But then, Germany would then have a cause for action against Skyguide to recover the damages Germany has to pay to Bashkirian.
Perhaps some sharp lawyers may be able to dodge the legal consequences engendered by the incompetent Skyguide management
But then, Germany would then have a cause for action against Skyguide to recover the damages Germany has to pay to Bashkirian.
Perhaps some sharp lawyers may be able to dodge the legal consequences engendered by the incompetent Skyguide management
