[ad_1]
The military court is listening to the pilot of the F / A-18 plane that crashed in France in 2015. It seems he was wrong. But was he also negligent?
The crash site in the French Jura on October 14, 2015 (Photo: Keystone / Jean-Christophe Bott)
Just a few seconds. A few seconds to make life and death decisions. That was the situation in which the military pilot H. unexpectedly found himself on October 14, 2015, high above the French Jura. H. made his decisions. And now, five years later, he’s on trial.
The crash of the F / A-18 fighter plane that day in October also caused a sensation because it took place abroad. The pilot of the crash aviator had fought a practice battle with two Tiger-5 machines in the joint French-Swiss training area. – a call «Dog fight», a dog fight, above the fog. All normal, all routine. TO «it is» it happened shortly after 11:25 am and the F / A-18 ended up as a charred pile of debris near a forest not far from the village of Glamondans.
TO «I was» happened? That is one of the main issues that will be addressed in these three days of trial before the Aarau military court. For the auditor of military justice the case is clear: the multiple «negligent breach of service rules» by pilot H. caused the loss of the aircraft. And the Swiss Confederation caused damage of 55 million francs. Therefore, the prosecution is also in «negligent misuse and waste of material».
The Glamondans crash is not the first nor the only serious accident involving a Swiss fighter jet, by no means. H. is also not the first accident driver to see himself as the cause of the accident. However, unlike most of the others, he did not die in the event. He had it when he gave him the The situation seemed desperate, with the ejector seat catapulted from the plane. He is a survivor – and thus could become the accused.
“Investigation” maneuvers
Inevitably, a lot of technical details of aviation are at stake on this first day of negotiations. The prosecution’s hypotheses are verified: H., as mission commander, first set flight altitudes that were too low, against regulations. Through aggressive maneuvers during the training that followed, he eventually caused problems with his machine’s left engine, but the aerial fight still started. «investigation» Way continued. As a result, he had partially lost control of the machine. In this situation, you did not have to follow the prescribed and specially defined procedures («Immediate actions») answer back. As a result, the F / A-18 sank below the cloud line. There, with no natural sight, only with the impending crash in mind, the pilot finally activated the ejection seat.
H. says little about this to this day. He sits there in a tense posture, barely showing emotion, always looking at the person speaking – showing that concentration without which one would not survive for long in his extreme work, where dealing with enormous physical forces is part of everyday life. Sothers do prechen: witnesses, experts. Everyone knows each other, the panorama of military aviation is clear. The president of the court asks him how he relates to the accused. «Friendly»says one of the two pilots who trained with H. on the day of the accident – He always uses nicknames about H., who is the same age. «A business relationship»says the second of the pilots, «Camaraderie in a way». «A fellow aviator»says the Colonel of the General Staff who wrote one of the reports on the case. When H. has the floor to ask him some questions, he responds in his terms.
You feel sorry for him
The most prominent speaker on this day, SVP Government Councilor Res Schmid of Nidwalden, is also familiar with the accused. Schmid is a veteran military pilot, he was also entrusted with an expert opinion. In principle, experts agree: with the right reaction, H. could have prevented his machine from failing. In hindsight he acted wrong – But, was he negligent, as the prosecution thinks? Schmid affirms it several times: he does not want to convict the accused, he would have reacted in the same way at this or at that time. It sounds very similar with the other respondents.
It is the quasi-philosophical question that always resonates on this day: How Can you expect a lot of appropriate reaction from a person who is in an extremely stressful situation? In those few seconds that can make the difference between life and death?
Pilot H. will be questioned Thursday. The verdict will be announced on Friday.
