[ad_1]
For 44 seconds, the situation at Zurich Airport was unmanageable and many people in danger. The prosecutor draws this image from the events of March 15, 2011. And on Tuesday, he trained an air traffic control pilot in the Zurich High Court. skyguide responsible.
The 36-year-old man had simultaneously given two Swiss machines permission to depart on the cutting tracks. While the pilots of flight SWR 1326 to Moscow launched their Airbus with 135 detainees on runway 16, it allowed them to take off. Barely a minute later, the air traffic controller delivered an Airbus A320 to Madrid with 127 passengers on runway 28.
After 44 seconds and at a speed of about 250 km / h, his pilots spotted the aircraft approaching Moscow on the right. Immediately, they stopped the takeoff just before the pilot ordered them to do so. The machine crew in Moscow did not notice anything and continued his flight. The incident happened lightly for everyone involved.
It is clear for the indictment that the pilot was guilty of negligent disruption of public transit and endangering human lives. Due to start-up times, the machines were dangerously close. And if both had continued their run, the first eddy air whirlwind would have left the second machine out of control. Which would have led to hurt or death. For this reason, the prosecutor's office has for the first time sued an air traffic controller for a near-collision – and demands a conditional fine of 180 per diem rates of 100 francs.
No concrete danger
The Bülach District Court acquitted the man – in December 2016 – five years after the incident. Among other things, he argued that the pilot could not be convicted of anything that had not happened at all and denied any real danger to the occupants of the Airbus.
In addition, at that time "work processes were not completely controllable". There is also a lack of a standard procedure for launches on intersecting runways. It's incomprehensible.
Criticize the makers of Bazl and Skyguide
The judges then criticized the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (Bazl) and Skyguide air traffic control.
If an incident reoccurs, one has to wonder if Skyguide and Bazl decision-makers should be held accountable.
"Bad priorities defined"
The prosecutor did not like the verdict. She continued the business. Tuesday, about fifty air traffic controllers appeared in the high court to support their colleagues. The court again interviewed the accused in the morning. It was learned that the air traffic controller was no longer active as an air traffic controller since the incident, but that he was working in the background, for example in projects. He added that he was currently undergoing training in order to become an air traffic controller again. How a possible guilt would affect his work situation is not clear.
Before the High Court, the prosecutor argued that the pilot had violated his duty of care. Since he had participated in survey flights that had occurred at about the same time, he had not maintained the prescribed "continuous surveillance". "He has poorly defined priorities."
And: "For 44 seconds, the planes were following a collision course, the accused has already created a concrete threat with the simultaneous launch authorization." Only a coincidence allowed the pilots to realize the imminent disaster and cancel the departure. When the pilot responded, it was too late to take a break.
Cross slope as a source of danger
The defense argued vehemently: the pilots of the Airbus in Madrid had in no way discovered the other plane. It was part of his job to look for obstacles in the beginning.
The defender also underlined the criticisms made by the court proceedings and the working conditions of the Skyguide pilots. It is not for nothing that measures have been taken since then: the Federal Office of Civil Aviation, for example, ordered the Zurich airport to submit to a thorough security check. This is how the cross has been designated as a source of danger.
In addition, since the incident, an additional tower has been introduced into the tower during peak hours, and since then, the survey flights have mostly been conducted at night.
The defense lawyer demanded the acquittal of his client and criticized the length of the proceedings. It seemed that seven years and three quarters "had exaggerated the relatively low criminal threat". This raises many doubts about the ability of the cantonal judiciary to judge such events.
National Council demands new responsibilities
Politicians reacted to this at the highest level. National Martin Candinas (CVP) has filed a motion to ensure that the federal government is responsible for all aviation accidents and all serious incidents. Today, only punishable acts are committed on board an aircraft. All other offenses under air law fall within the competence of the cantons – including cases such as the one currently held by the Supreme Court of Zurich.
"These investigations are complex and require strong aviation skills," says Candinas. Moreover, such criminal proceedings are rare. "Only one competent authority would consolidate the business and increase the expertise." This not only shortens the length of the proceedings, but also guarantees the legal security of all involved, Candinas convinced.
The Federal Council has dealt with the request and has recognized the need for it. Once the initiative is taken by the National Council, the Council of States should discuss it during the spring session.
After a long trial, the court decided to "do not break anything" and not yet pronounce judgment. Too complex is the case, in legal and technical terms. The verdict will be opened on December 12th.
No process by 2014
From 2002 to 2014, the Swiss Accident Investigation Bureau (Sust) closely examined 114 serious incidents in which aircraft came dangerously close to each other. But nobody has prompted a prosecutor to lay charges. In December 2014, this first took place in the Bülach District Court.
Another case concerned the second such case, namely the indictment: a few months ago, the Federal Criminal Court of Bellinzona sentenced a Skyguide air traffic controller because two aircraft passengers were too close to Zurich's airspace. An Airbus A319 from the Portuguese company TAP and a Boeing 737 from Ryanair were making crossings in the climb as they approached dangerously. The judges assigned the drivers a conditional fine of 60 days of 300 francs per day.
Noticed the error itself
Recently, the Bülach District Court has negotiated another case in which two machines have come dangerously close to Zurich Airport. This is an incident that occurred in 2012 at Zurich Airport. The responsible air traffic controller is also charged with negligent disruption of public transportation. What seems harmless could have ended tragically on August 22 of the same year: the defendant was on duty in the control tower, as a Sportcruiser sport aircraft and a Saab 2000 from the Darwin Airline company came dangerously close to 18 occupants above the runway.
In the Sportcruiser, a 40-year-old athlete is training with his flight instructor to observe his viewfinder on different slopes to renew his license. The aircraft sat only briefly and then restarted. The pilot requested authorization to do so on runway 16, which the 48-year-old pilot approved. A little later, the pilot stated that the Saab 2000 on Runway 28, which cuts runway 16, was "cleared to take off". As a result, both aircraft were on a collision course.
Moments before the warning system sounded the alarm in the control tower, the air traffic controller reacted and ordered the Sportcruiser crew to make a full turn right. He added his command five seconds later and ordered a tight turn. Saab pilots, alerted by the collision alert system on board, immediately increased the rate of climb. Because the pilot has been life-threatening, the prosecution is seeking a suspended sentence of 14 months for this man.
"Do not wait for the collision to happen"
In addition, the prosecution recently opened a new investigation into a near collision with a tower controller in Zurich. Rolf Jäger, head of the responsible prosecutor's office Winterthur / Unterland, has justified the increase of these processes by security. "The intention of the prosecutor of the Canton of Zurich is not to wait for the collision to occur," he said at the end of the trial of Bülach.
The strategy is rather to carry out a preventive task. "You need to take a closer look at serious incidents, but they should not only be examined internally." An outside point of view is indispensable – this indeed offers Sust analysis. It does not cover the criminal component. "It's the job of the prosecutor." Hunter does not agree with Skyguide's representatives on the issue of culture of error: "We believe that an objective criminal investigation is not a contradiction for Just Culture, but rather a complement. "
Processes have an impact on the reporting culture
"We fear for our culture of error, should do processes like this," said Skyguide spokesman Vladi Barrosa at the end of the recent trial in Bülach. The so-called fair culture is based on the idea of learning from one's mistakes to improve safety. Employees must be able to voluntarily report errors and remain unpunished unless they act with gross negligence or intent.
"The impending criminal proceedings have already had an impact on the reporting culture," continued Barrosa. Although all cases have been reported by 2017, the reporting rate this year is only 50%. (Tages-Anzeiger)
Created on: 27.11.2018, 07:57 hours
Source link
