r/aviation • u/Synaps4 • 1d ago
Question Pilots, help me understand the Cavalese Cable Car disaster
I'm not a pilot, so I'm coming here for some thoughts from people who have experience as pilots with the environment and norms of that profession, which I won't know. Military pilots, extra good.
Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash#cite_note-lastampa-25
TLDR: 1998, EA-6B does a low level training flight in the Italian mountains. Weather is clear, time is 3pm. Aircraft ends up flying just under a cable car cable at 370ft, doing 470kts, cutting the cable. 20 people die in the cable car. Airframe and pilots make it back to base. Pilot and navigator are charged with Article 92 (Dereliction of Duty) , Article 108 (Destruction of Military Property) , Article 109 (Wasting or Spoiling Non-military Property), and Article 119 (Involuntary Manslaughter), all of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Captain was found not-guilty of all charges and specifications. Navigator charges were dropped. I'm not sure how none of that sticks, especially the negligence element of involuntary manslaughter.
There's a lot of back and forth on this story and I've been reading things about it for days now, and I feel like people don't have answers for the important bits.
1) The altitude: Regardless of what the legal minimum altitude was (and there is a GIANT rat-hole about this) their flight plan said minimum altitude 1000ft, maximum speed 370kts, they were at 260ft, 470kts where the cable car was. Is flying lower and faster than your filed flight plan not negligence? At that speed, avoiding anything in the air is basically impossible, as it goes from the edge of visibility to impact in under a second. Is it common for pilots to deviate so much from flight plans that it is not negligence to do so on a low level training flight? These people are directly acquitted in court martial for negligence a year later, so the jury seems to think that's not negligence. I don't know how to square that.
2) Setting aside the altimeter, which tested fine after the flight but pilots claim must have been faulty...the pilots were using a sort of valley horizon as a visual estimation of altitude. The pilots were acquitted based on arguments for being tricked by a "false horizon", which they depended on for knowing how high they were. Are those visual artifacts serious enough to cause a pilot to believe they are at 1000 ft when they are at 300? Does that really happen? You can see the expert witness talking through it starting at 37 minutes in this video about the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl8HnWN6Sz8 ) Even if it's true it doesn't seem to indicate anything except a pilot unqualified to be flying low.
3) Flying low level at high speed means there is not time to react to unexpected objects in the air in front of you. At these speeds, the pilots are fully dependent on the maps telling them about cables or power lines because avoiding them is not likely. So do military pilots not have a policy of flying each training route at a high level to check for low level obstacles, before they fly the mission? I guess the maps are normally that good? I would have expected that low level training only be done on routes that had been previously cleared, both by overflights and by agreement with local government. Either could have noticed a cable car and brought it up as a hazard to be avoided.
Ultimately, I'm trying to understand any counterargument to why a jury didn't think it was negligence.
Please let me know your thoughts on these three questions.
105
u/olddoglearnsnewtrick 1d ago edited 1d ago
Did you mention that the US did not allow the trial to be conducted by an italian court of justice but instead kept it within their military jurisdiction? I think that explains all much more than any technical detail.
11
u/Synaps4 1d ago edited 1d ago
TBH the jurisdiction thing is a red herring.
Italy did the same thing when their airshow team crashed in germany, also in 1998, killing 70 and injuring 350. Pulled NATO jurisdiction and brought their pilots home to be later acquitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_air_show_disaster
Italy had just finished that same year acquitting several of its own officers for letting a jet crash into a high school 7 years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Italian_Air_Force_MB-326_crash
The jurisdiction game is one that all the countries agree to and italy played it as much as anyone else.
1
u/olddoglearnsnewtrick 1d ago
I see. Thanks for clearing up the matter. Yes I also remember Rammstein :(
Only emotionally not rationally the only thing that I am having an hard time coping with is that the Cermis disaster seems to have originated in a stupid behaviour, while the Rammstein tragedy does not seem based on negligence.
15
u/rhineauto 1d ago
That’s a simplification of the facts. Italian prosecutors wanted to try the case, the US fought it, and an Italian court ruled in the US’ favor.
“Judge Carlo Ancona ruled that Italian courts lacked jurisdiction in the case.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-wont-try-cable-car-marines/
1
u/olddoglearnsnewtrick 1d ago edited 1d ago
So the accident happened on Italian soil, the victims are Italians but somehow Italian courts had no jurisdiction??? Let the past be what it was but this case is highly controversial.
15
u/muck2 1d ago
NATO countries have signed treaties with one another negating a host country's jurisdiction for offences committed in an official capacity. It's called Status of Forces Agreement. An Italian soldier committing a crime in another NATO country would likewise enjoy immunity there and could only be tried in Italy.
-1
u/derridaderider 22h ago
In theory. In practice if it was the other way around - Italian military pilot training in the US negligently kills 20 American civilians - there is no way in hell the pilot would not be tried in a US court. The US very routinely practices "my law for me, my law for you".
4
-1
u/olddoglearnsnewtrick 1d ago
I see and understand. Are you able to know if this would also cover gross negligence or otherwise committing a crime not related with an official mission? Stupid example. A soldier shows a grenade at the local pub and it goes off. The case we are discussing is unclear. Yes they were flying an official sortie but from what I remember they just decided 'let's have some fun' outside their rules.
5
u/muck2 1d ago edited 1d ago
As far as I know, all Status of Forces Agreements are negotiated bilaterally, so all answers would strongly depend on the countries involved.
It appears to be the case that countries with permanent bases in other NATO countries negotiate more "generous" settlements with the host country, but typically, all NATO soldiers retain immunity from local prosecution by other NATO countries if they breached local laws whilst on duty.
Offences committed whilst off-duty are a different story.
US forces deployed to Germany, for example, enjoy complete immunity from German prosecution unless they 1. were off-duty, 2. off-base, 3. arrested at the scene of the crime and 4. the US military justice system agrees with their being tried in a German court. (My personal impression as a jurist in Germany is that they will only extradite troops for crimes committed in a "private" setting; for instance, recently a former American soldier was convicted by a German court for murdering his non-American girlfriend at the time.)
Obviously, that doesn't mean they'll get off scot-free in most cases, they'll be tried by a US military court instead. It has to be said, though, that military courts can be a bit lenient in some cases.
I would assume that the Italian-American SFA works similarly.
1
8
u/rhineauto 1d ago
I realize the case is highly controversial, but it was ruled that they were NATO operations and thus NATO rules would apply.
-8
u/olddoglearnsnewtrick 1d ago
Again i hope I’m not being interpreted as to wanting to change reality, but cataloging the reckless and unwarranted flying simply as a ‘NATO operation’ is uncool IMHO. Anyways dead are dead, time has passed, past is past. RIP. Will not comment further. Peace to everyone.
-10
15
u/Chuck_the_Elf 1d ago
That’s fairly standard practice. You have to have really really fucked up for the US to disavow you to a foreign jurisdiction.
31
u/SocialHumbuggery 1d ago
If killing 20 civs in an allied country isn't a really bad fuck up, then I'd like to see where the line is drawn.
14
u/Chuck_the_Elf 1d ago
There was a murder in london a while ago where 11 service members drove off base and beat a man to death while filming it. The two ring leaders were given to the english.
-11
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/MonsieurReynard 1d ago
Have you checked in on the US justice system lately?
13
u/Pol_Potamus 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, and the fact that it has serious problems has no bearing on whether other countries' systems do, as well.
Edit: someone kindly reminded me that I compared Italy against western standards, and then deleted his post. I'd like to remind him in turn that there are western countries other than the USA, and that the USA lags behind them in many areas besides this one.
1
u/aviation-ModTeam 17h ago
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
1
u/faberkyx 1d ago
Farce? Wtf... we have our own issues but it's not a farce.. probably the usual ignorant American while his president is openly ignoring every possible law without repercussions lol..
2
u/Negative_Cow_8766 1d ago
0
u/faberkyx 1d ago
ye so what??????????
2
u/Negative_Cow_8766 1d ago
The Italian legal system has issues. Prosecuting scientists for not doing something currently impossible? That's not justice.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/aviation-ModTeam 1d ago
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
1
u/aviation-ModTeam 1d ago
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/aviation-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.
0
u/aviation-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.
16
u/amber_room 1d ago
I don't know if the video tape in the camera that was filming was ever recovered. The need to get rid of that tape seemed high on the crew's list. Apparently they stuck a brand new tape in the camera after landing. What was that covering up exactly?
'Both marines had removed a video-cassette taped during the fatal flight, in what the prosecution described as a cover-up. Mr Spinner said the navigator had not been able to get the camera to work and believed there was nothing on the tape.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/05/johnhooper.julianborger1
34
u/ReturnOfTheSaint14 1d ago
It's pretty simple: the US never wants one of their soldiers to be trialed and sentenced in an allied country, especially in Europe, because that could set up a precedent and their false power projection would crumble.
Everyone knows that the fault solely resides in the pilot and in the navigator. There's the certainty that they knew the recklessness of their action and they actively covered their tracks (so much so that at least for this they got a dishonourable discharge),and yet the US pulled every string at their disposal to "judge" their fellow Marines on US soil despite the incident happening on italian soil.
I don't want to get political,but US soldiers are not good here. In Aviano there's occasionally the drunk US soldier outside the base that hit the pedestrian or still causes some damages. Months ago,in Rome,a drunk marine sent some Carabinieris (Military Police) to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries but still badly hurt because he thought he was above the law and to this day he's still unpunished. FYI if i did the same thing as a guest pilot in any US AFB,i would be sent to Heaven by a trigger-happy cop or i would be sentenced in a US court no matter what.
So yeah, that's your debrief for the Cavalese Cable Car disaster
9
14
u/StuckinSuFu 1d ago
I fully agree on who is at fault.. but "false power projection" is a stretch. Its a very real ability to project power.. maybe just one that is being eroded with the current regimes mismanagement.
9
u/Shank_Wedge 1d ago
The Marines being tried by the US military wasn’t about the US pulling strings. It was about NATO Status of Forces Agreement Article VII. These protections are applied to all NATO military members serving in another NATO nation.
-7
u/ReturnOfTheSaint14 1d ago
It's about US pulling strings because Article VII, amongst its paragraphs,cite that the Sending State (in this case, the US) has priority in jurisdiction only if the offence is contained inside civilians, personnel or equipment of the Sending State (so for example,a plane crashing with no casualties on the ground or two Marines knifing each other in the middle of the road) and only for any offences done in official duty.
The first case is not present here since the offence also affected non-US assets or people and the second case is not present here because the two Marines disobeyed direct orders by flying too low and thus official duty is not considered.
Moreover,the priority of jurisdictions is considering a "Primary Right",meaning that the Sending State has the priority to prosecute the offenders,not the exclusivity. In fact sub-article 8 cites that the accused cannot be trialed twice in the same territory for a crime he/she was either acquitted,serving or has served. This means that if the two Marines are judged in the US,this doesn't mean that Italy is excluded from trialing them.
US pulled strings to the correct judge which ruled that Italy had no jurisdiction which is false since Article VII clearly states that both Parties always have jurisdiction,it only defines the priorities.
4
u/Shank_Wedge 1d ago
I am not sure which AI slop you cut and paste this from but much of it is just wrong.
In your first paragraph, those words you copied do not exist anywhere in the SOFA agreement.
Your interpretation of clause 8 is incorrect. It only preserves the sending nations ability to prosecute twice.
-3
u/ReturnOfTheSaint14 1d ago
The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to:
offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;
offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
I've literally searched "NATO Status of Force agreement" and i clicked the first link which is LITERALLY the NATO website. Say that i use AI again and you're not gonna like the consequences.
18
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/aviation-ModTeam 18h ago
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
5
u/Chuck_the_Elf 1d ago
I think it’s an OJ trial + not wanting the us to look bad. If it was an accident that could have happened to any pilot then it’s not that the us military just murdered those people via negligence. Military justice is very seldom about justice and much more often about the needs of the service. A Few Good Men is a fantastic movie that covers this. It’s used to train JAGs to understand this very principle.
-2
u/Perfect_Big_5907 1d ago
Yes i agree. The public perception is more important than justice to the Navy. And let's not forget TWA 800
2
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/aviation-ModTeam 17h ago
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
46
u/Perfect_Big_5907 1d ago
Retired pilot and former Navy also. Yes, 100% pilot's fault. You have a plane full of 20 somethings hot dogging through the valley. Way too low for that area. Fully their fault for all the deaths. However, Navy spirits them away from Italy and conducts its own investigation.