Violation of air traffic safety regulations
By the verdict of the Turksib District Court of Almaty dated September 24, 2013: G., who had no previous criminal record, was sentenced under part 4 of Article 295 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) (as amended in 1997) to 1 year of restriction of liberty with deprivation of the right to hold positions and engage in activities related to air transport funds, for a period of 1 year with the establishment of probation control over him for the same period. By the verdict of the court of He was found guilty of the fact that, being the commander of the aircraft of JSC "S Airlines", when landing the An-24 RV aircraft at Almaty airport on February 7, 2013 at 00:05 hours, he committed a violation of the rules of air traffic safety, which did not entail, but deliberately created a threat of causing serious and serious injury by negligence. moderate harm to human health or death of two or more persons. The verdict was upheld by the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated December 6, 2013. The judicial acts were left unchanged by the decision of the Cassation Judicial Board dated March 3, 2014. In the submission, the Chairman of the Supreme Court raises the issue of the cassation review of judicial acts in respect of G. By virtue of the presumption of innocence and in accordance with Article 19, part 3 of Article 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), as well as paragraph 18 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court dated April 20, 2018 No. 4 "On judicial verdict", a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and must be confirmed. a sufficient body of reliable evidence. All possible versions of the case should be investigated. Any contradictions between the evidence are subject to clarification and evaluation.
Violation of air traffic safety regulations
Irremediable doubts about the defendant's guilt, as well as doubts arising from the application of criminal and criminal procedure laws, are interpreted in his favor. These requirements of the law have not been fulfilled by the court, and the court's conclusions about proving G.'s guilt in committing the crime charged against him are erroneous, since the accusation has not found its objective confirmation by the evidence examined in court. In support of the conclusions about G.'s guilt The court referred to the conclusion of the commission of the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the investigation of the aviation incident with the An-24 RV aircraft No. UP-AN 416 of S Airlines JSC dated March 16, 2013, the testimony of witnesses – members of the commission to investigate the incident, witnesses from the ship's crew. Indeed, according to the conclusion of the said commission, the aviation incident occurred for 2 reasons: 1) non–compliance by the aircraft commander with the recommended landing speed of the aircraft, according to the Flight Operations Manual (hereinafter referred to as the RLE) of the AN - 24 RV aircraft; 2) failure of the aircraft commander to maintain the direction of the run after landing. At the same time, this conclusion reflects information about supercooled fog, smoke from heating private sector houses nearby the airport. It follows from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Commanders of S Airlines JSC dated November 19, 2013, that the lane was touched at 18:04:41 at a speed of 246 km/h, and not 260 km/h, as indicated in the report, which in principle could not be the reason for rolling out onto the side safety lane. The landing speed is 230 km/h. The REL is installed for standard conditions and in calm situations. In this case, there was a side wind of 4 m/s, which required, according to the REM, an increase in speed by 10 km/h above the recommended one. Lateral deviation from the runway axis (hereinafter referred to as the runway) can occur only in the event of a short-term absolute loss of runway visibility and/or hitting slippery sections of the runway, which actually happened. The loss of visual contact with the runway lights occurred due to the aircraft entering a narrow strip of ground fog mixed with smoke from a stove heating from a private residential area located close to the airport.
It was not possible to identify a narrow band of ground fog mixed with smoke, which worsens horizontal visibility on the runway along its entire length by modern means at the disposal of the meteorological service of the Almaty airport. Despite this, the court did not investigate the versions of the incident and did not evaluate all the evidence in the case. So, according to the accident scheme, the commander of the vessel, G., landed the aircraft on the runway, then, due to fog and errors in piloting, G., the vessel went off to the left in the course of movement. The flight speed was exceeded during landing, instead of the recommended speed of 230 km per hour according to the Flight Operations Manual, p.5.9.1. "approach and landing", the aircraft performed it at a speed of 260 km per hour. It follows from the testimony of witnesses, members of the commission, that during landing, the aircraft commander lost visibility of the runway lights due to hypothermia from fog and smoke from heating private sector houses nearby the airport, as a result of which he left the runway to the left and stopped there. The commission's conclusion contains only a statement of facts about the incident, as well as information about the speeding of the aircraft by the commander of the aircraft G. during landing. However, the court did not establish a causal relationship between G.'s actions to land the aircraft at a speed exceeding the standard and the consequences of these actions. There are no conclusions that it was from speeding during landing that a rollout occurred from the lane in the course of traffic, and there are no calculations in the case. The fact of loss of visibility of the runway lights during the landing of an aircraft due to the presence of smoke and icing of the runway is reflected both in the conclusion of the commission and in the testimony of the crew members – co-pilot D. and flight mechanic T. The fact that the above circumstances could have caused the aircraft to roll out of the runway has not been refuted in the case. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of the local courts in respect of G., the case was terminated due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense in his actions. In accordance with the procedure provided for in Chapter 4 of the CPC, G. was recognized as having the right to rehabilitation and compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of bodies conducting criminal proceedings. The submission of the Chairman of the Supreme Court was satisfied.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
