Pilots Palermo ATR Crash received 10-year sentences
 

I just read the following article on ANSA

Can someone explain why these guys got ten years for just doing their jobs?
And how will this affect further accident investigations? Because everything you will be used against you. Like we can see here.

It worries me.:\

Tuninter ATR 72 Crash - 6/Aug/2005 - Crew Sentenced to 10 years Jail
 

Italian media are reporting that the flight crew of the Tuninter ATR 72 that ditched off Palermo (LICJ) on 6 August 2005 have each been sentenced to 10 years in jail.

7 other Tuninter maintenance and management employees were sentenced to 7-8 years each.

Considering the aircraft ditched due to a fuel gauging problem following installation of an incorrect part number, it seems bizarre that the flight crew bore the brunt of the punishment.

Discuss.

I'm presuming this is in Tunisia, not Italy? If the latter, appeal to ECHR might be a possibility.

Given the harshness of the sentence (not to mention fundamental injustice), something IFALPA might want to take on board?

No, it's in Italy. A true black spot on European aviation safety for the way it prosecutes following aviation accidents.

However, Good luck to them! Everyone who listened to the leaked CVR tape will know those pilots should be hailed as heroes, not trialed like criminals. Absolutely outstanding job, and textbook CRM work. :D

This is utterly disgusting though: :=

But remember that in Italy you can get sentenced to ten years but that is only the first sentence. Then the trials and appeals drag on for years and in the end everyone is often acquitted. Thoroughly unpleasant, but this means a sentence doesn't have the same meaning it might have in your own country.

There's got to be some kind of petition we can get going, signatures, something?

IFALPA and the local union, with the backing and support of other unions, will hopefully try to throw their weight around.

Fu%ng bureaucrats!

Worst case: they never set foot in Italy again. I can't see them being extradited by Tunesia. Makes your job a lot more difficult though...

I executed a Go-Around at a major Italian airport a couple of years ago because despite being cleared to land the guy in front had yet to clear the runway, and in my judgement had no prospect of doing so. Now I am as happy as the next guy to land with one clearing but this was just not even close to do-able. So we went round and informed ATC as to why.

By the time we landed from the second approach the local CAA deputation were ready to meet us for a complete ramp check and lots of questions as to why we had done what we had done. The aircraft was attended by an inordinate number of 'officials', we counted 16 various flavours of police officers at one stage.

I never got to the bottom of the story as we left 2.5 hours later having satisfied the local authorities by filing an ASR by fax to the company in UK with full details, (company requirement anyway :confused: ). We thought at the time that ATC might have wished to shift the blame for a lack of separation on finals onto us so preemptively called out the local authorities to investigate. Attack is the best form of defence after all! I even invited the officials to download the FDR data to prove we were flying iaw ATC instructions, but they declined. I have no doubt from my experiences that should there have been ANY suggestion of malpractice or contravention on our part we would have been detained in Italy.

You only have to look around the way they operate to see how backward the place is. This BS procedure with CCTV cameras to check you are ready w/tug before you get your ATC clearance. The apparent turf war that seems to be in progress between ENAC and airport authorities about who controls which bit of the concrete...... A conflict that results in no communication between the two and in no way enhances flight safety. The whole place seems to be a job-creation scheme with each and every official exercising his jealously guarded authority to the max. In the event of any accident or incident in Italy their first reaction is to throw everyone in jail and then start asking questions later. When that enquiry finally happens the emphasis is firmly upon 'who can we hang' rather than what can be learnt.

If you need to divert with a problem, I would strongly recommend one of the more enlightened European nations... unless you want to be thrown in jail.

Mind you, a few thousand Euros in an official back-pocket seems to solve virtually all problems :rolleyes:

Regardless of the fairness/unfairness of the judiciary in Italy, what did the accident report say about the cross-checking of the fuel uplift vs fuel gauges? I assume there was a discrepancy?

Not trying to be the devil's advocate here, just not familiar with the details of the accident.

P

I checked the coverage in Italian media. Apparently the position of the court is that it is not the fault of the F/C if the fuel gauge was incorrectly installed but they could have handled the resulting ditching better, saving some lives. The arguments are that they did not warn the pax to prepare for ditching, that they landed with a tailwind across the swells, that the ROD was too high. In addition it was later determined that they could have reached Punta Raisa airport from where they were.

To the public these perhaps sound reasonable arguments, but there is clearly plenty of room for appeal -- especially the flawed logic about what might have been done. A better lawyer might have helped.

For Italian speakers, there is a detailed summary of this in "ATR, Le Cause della Tragedia" from La Repubblica at Atr72, le cause della tragedia | Palermo la Repubblica.it

Permafrost, if I recall correctly from coverage at the time, it was reported that the crew signed off a fuel uplift of something like just 90 litres for their return trip from Italy to Djerba. So yes......this suggests a discrepancy which could/should have been picked up on before the flight.

According to today's summary of the case in La Repubblica the actual figure was 250kg.

I didnt know that the crew survived..:rolleyes:

Final Report
 

Good day to all,

Here is the final report of ANSV (Italian Aviation Safety Board)
"Accident involved aircraft ATR 72, registration marks TS-LBB
Ditching off the coast of Capo Gallo (Palermo – Sicily), August 6th 2005":

http://www.ansv.it/cgi-bin/eng/FINAL...20ATR%2072.pdf

Good continuation,
Paolo

Good idea. One of our CPT´s is not able to fly to Italy, as he would go to jail because
of some security bullsh... some years ago.

Well I've just read the conclusions of the report linked to Vonbag and its difficult to justify 10 years from that.

yes the crew did not follow correct procedures (and in particular feathering which would have reduced the rate of drop). But the report admits that although the aircraft theoretically could have made palermo, with only standby instruments and whilst trying to re-start etc it would have been very difficult to do so in practice. The report also concludes that is not clear which direction the plane landed with respect to swell and that the pilot could not determine swell direction and changed course towards some boats to aid rescue efforts (which seems sensible).

Good luck to any appeals

so you're telling us that your "airline" has convicted criminals masquerading as captains actually flying passengers around? :ooh:

who do you work for again?



;)

The old hindsight bias or what? Lot easier after the fact.

Yup. I am not surprised that the prosecution tried this but I am amazed they made it stick. This kind of sim session only makes sense to learn lessons for the future.

this accident is to be broadcast on national geographics "air accident investigations" next monday. It will be interesting to see how the flight crew are portrayed in the film.

I hope the italian authorities see sense on this one, but I doubt it :* :ugh:

Judging by the comments on this thread already, I doubt the news article I'm pasting below is accurate. Where did they get that the pilot was praying from??

Italy convicts crash pilot who paused to pray - The Irish Times - Tue, Mar 24, 2009

Possibly, but what he was praying for is irrelevant. A professional pilot trained to deal with emergency situations starts praying at a time when he is needed most.

I'm amazed there hasn't been more discussion about this on here:eek:

another outcome of this accident
 

Deltayankee wrote: After this accident it became law in Italy that cabin crews have members who speak Italian. It seems that the passengers weren't able to understand the commands from the flight attendants before impact and after. I don't know if they were speaking English to them or not but for ENAC it doesn't matter. Italian speaking crew members are required for flights inbound or outbound in Italy.

PE

Do you think that the SLF in Italy shall pass a ICAO level 4 proficiency test before boarding the plane?

I have not heard this rule before. Has anyone documentary evidence as to its veracity?

That Reuters article is appaling, and I'm sad to see the BBC has picked up the same nonsense.

The problem with that statement is that there are a great many of us who know, for a fact, that if Reuters' version of the prosecutor's claim is true (important caveat!), then the prosecutors are lying. The last five minutes of CVR recording (the actual recording, not the transcript) was leaked and was available on the web for a brief while. Lots of people had time to listen to it. As unacceptable as that is, at least it allows us to see right through the prosecution's "case".

From listening to the recording, you can tell a great many things, for instance:

- There was no "praying out loud". That is a downright lie. There are some low whispers, the last few seconds before the ditching, that might be prayers (I don't speak Arabic so I can't tell). But the crew was still flying at the time.

- There is absolutely nothing on the CVR that even with the most absurd degree of imagination could be indicative of "panic".

- The flight crew warned the cabin three times in the last few minutes before the crash, in French and in English ("brace for impact"). The cabin crew, and at least some of the passengers, would have understood the calls.

- The crew worked together very efficiently throughout the event. The captain handled flying and communication, the first officer handled checklists. In particular, it was a pleasant change to actually hear a ditching or forced landing checklist being actioned. That is quite rare; crews faced with an off-airport landing usually get stuck in the first emergency checklist they action, and never progress to the relevant forced landing checklist. This first officer started actioning the ditching checklist on his own initiative as soon as the captain informed ATC they would be ditching. That included taking the relevant actions, and reading out loud the advice on attitude etc from the checklist to the captain.

This conviction is an absolute disgrace. :*

Yes I do agree. A couple of points
1) Why the warning was not made also in Italian? At least from the FA?
2) Instead of blaming the judiciary system, why do not blame the defense lawyer, which was not able to provide the proper evidence to prove the innocence? Is part of a judiciary system to accuse someone and to prove or not such accusations, IMHO the blame shall go to the defense lawyer.

Perhaps neither of the two spoke enough Italian.

I also agree that the defense lawyer did a very poor job but Italian legal practice has some oddities. One is that it seems in many cases that the first sentence -- called "not definitive" -- is extremely harsh but after the appeals they hand down a definitive sentence that is quite often the exact opposite. Maybe the lawyer is waiting for the next phase before making a serious effort.

I also agree that the Reuter's piece was outrageous. There is enough serious news in this story to fill a whole paper and they focus on one racist insinuation. Perhaps the "praying" they describe was nothing more than the "Jesus wept" you might hear in any flight deck when things go pear shaped.

One other thing that struck me about this case is that they seem to assign the blame 50/50 to the captain and F/O. Is this correct, and if it is does this mean that they do not recognize the responsability of the captain in making the decisions?

here you can listen to the last 5 minutes of the CVR :

YouTube - They were doing their job as professionals till the end

im really angry with Reuters article and the italian court :*:*:*

Just listened to the CVR. The "news" stories are total crap. I can't comment on what the pilots coulda and shoulda done to achieve a better outcome but the Captain and FO appear to have been trying to do their jobs given the extreme circumstances. Isn't the airline to blame for not rostering crews that can communicate effectively with pax? The sentence seems unduly harsh!

This is probably a dumb question....but is there a pilots' association that ever gets involved in trying to bring public attention to something that seems to be an obvious injustice?

Latearrival, the answer is No.

Pilot who paused to pray in crash-landing sentenced to 10 years in jail
 

Pilot who paused to pray in crash-landing sentenced to 10 years in jail




A Tunisian pilot who paused to pray instead of taking emergency measures before crash-landing his plane, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by an Italian court along with his co-pilot.



Pilot who paused to pray in crash-landing sentenced to 10 years in jail - Telegraph



Is that a good enought reason for you??

Pilot who paused to pray in crash-landing sentenced to 10 years in jail
 

...A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame but prosecutors said the pilot had succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport...

I've never heard of that rule, but if it is true then it is up there with the most stupid rules I have ever heard of in my entire life.

Having read the report, I think Rome and Palermo ATC have a lot to answer for - seemingly badly handled from their side, but nary an adverse comment ......

Simple answer to this, anyone flying to, from, or overflying Italy, pull your CBs for CVR and FDR.

It's absolutely outrageous this nonsense from quite possibly the most corrupt and awful country in the EU (if not the World).

What is the main reason for having FA? Safety.
If they cannot communicate in an emergency with the SLF safety is compromised.
Otherwise I am the most stupid SLF on earth.

Listening to the CVR I really found the ATC to be obtuse to put it mildly. They were told we are going in, get help moving and they keep coming back with useless babble.
To be fair you have two groups communicating in a second language so this is difficult but I would gives the flight crew much higher marks than ATC.
All things considered I do think the crew did a good job with the emergency
(They are getting one hell of a pass on the fuel uplift - shades of the Gimil glider)

20driver

Interesting side note. This site is always saying the pilots are being shafted with the release of CVR. Anyone one see a bit of hypocrisy in that? Would everyone be happier with an "official" summary of the transcript in this event.

You'll find that all emergency instructions on board are illustrated.

If the PAX are too thick to understand that, then that is their problem. Do you expect two FAs to speak every language on the planet ??

Think about the logical conclusion to this argument. BA flight LHR-PEK, the rostered FA who speaks Chinese goes sick at the last minute. What do you do, delay the flight as it has 50/50 English/Chinese speakers as PAX ????

Pilot jailed for Sicily air crash