Appeal process

Friend dead because gliding instructor reacted wrongly?

Emergency services and investigators at the crash site.

(Bild: Martin Oberbichler)

The drama cost a friend (43) his life. But there is also the criminal aspect: a gliding instructor (57) appealed against the initial verdict, according to which his misconduct was the cause of the fatal accident. The Innsbruck Higher Regional Court (OLG) has now ruled.

The gliding instructor (57) was sitting in a glider with a second man at the Nikolsdorf airfield in East Tyrol in June; it was being towed by a single-engine plane, with the 43-year-old at the controls.

Cockpit canopy suddenly opened
Suddenly, the cockpit canopy of the rear aircraft opened. Had the defendant not locked it properly? In any case, he grabbed the canopy with both hands without heeding the "first fly the aircraft" principle, i.e. continuing to concentrate on flying in the event of an incident.

The fundamental question arises as to whether the factual basis was sufficient for a conviction.

Der Verteidiger

Was the glider still easy to control?
In the appeal proceedings, the defense lawyer questioned the statements of the original expert witness. The European Aviation Safety Authority had warned that the lock could also be released by mechanical forces during the flight. It was also doubtful that the open canopy "did not significantly" impair controllability, meaning that the defendant could have simply continued flying if he had reacted correctly.

The airfield in Nikolsdorf in East Tyrol.

(Bild: Martin Oberbichler)

Fatal consequences
The glider rose into the air uncontrollably, causing the motorized aircraft to crash. The glider, however, was able to release and land in time.

The senior public prosecutor emphasized, among other things, that it was only necessary to decide on the findings of the first instance, as a counter-expert opinion had never been submitted.

Judgment of the first instance confirmed
In the end, the senate of the Higher Regional Court in Innsbruck confirmed the first-instance verdict: six months' conditional imprisonment and a fine of 6,000 euros. There were no doubts about the previous assessment of the evidence and the violation of the "first fly" principle constituted gross negligence, it said. The expert opinion was also "conclusive and free of contradictions".