Nearly crashed before the yodelling festival: Patrouille Suisse flew without permission

class=”sc-29f61514-0 icZBHN”>

The city of Zug did not give Patrouille Suisse permission to hold an air show and training in mid-June on the occasion of the Federal Yodeling Festival. Mayor André Wicki puts it clearly: “We have not received a request from the army, nor has the city of Zug issued a permit.” That is amazing. An army spokesman had previously claimed upon request that the DDPS had received written permission from the city of Zug. Confronted with Wicki’s statement, he withdrew. “Our investigation has shown that there was no explicit permission in the case of the yodelling festival in Zug.”

The military needs an explanation

“The army failed to take action and obtain the explicit consent of the organizer – also due to a misunderstanding.” The organizing committee presented the army with the insurance certificate and the sound publication. Therefore, she assumed that approval for the training and flight was also available.

However, Stephan Schleiss, OK President and Zug SVP Government Councilor, emphasizes: “The Air Force only communicated and requested evidence from the insurance company and the noise publication as requirements.”

Air Force Chief Claims “Implicit” Approval

The matter is spicy. During a training flight for the planned show at the yodelling festival, two Patrouille Suisse aircraft collided in the border area of ​​Baar and Zug on June 15. A ‘tiger’ hit another plane. Debris ended up on the site of raw materials giant Glencore. The whole thing could have ended fatally. Only with a little luck could a catastrophe in Baar and the surrounding area be prevented.

The military justice system is currently investigating the case. It is unclear when a final report can be expected.

The air force has not fulfilled its duty of inspection here, Peter Merz, head of the air force of the army, admits when asked. “We did not check whether the OK of the Federal Yodeling Festival had received explicit approval for the Patrouille Suisse flight demonstration.” But then the air force chief tries to limit the damage: “Because the OK had submitted an application for approval for the event, including the program, to the city of Zug and this was approved, we could assume that this approval implicitly also applies to the flight demonstration of the patrol. Suisse applies.”

The head of the air force and the army’s communications officers take the position that both the air show at the yodelling festival and the associated training flights were allowed to take place despite the lack of explicit permission from the city of Zug.

Contradictory to VBS instructions

Simply: there is a DDPS directive that regulates the participation of military aircraft in air shows and special events. The wording of these regulations leads to a very different conclusion than the one the military is trying to present. The directive, signed by VBS head Viola Amherd, states: “For military flying demonstrations involving jet aircraft, the Air Force must ensure that the applicant obtains official approval from all communities adjacent to the airfield.”

An army spokesperson confirmed that in this context ‘airport’ means the place where the event in question is being held. In the case of the Federal Yodelling Festival, this was the city of Zug. The same army spokesman also confirms that official approval must be given in writing.

Two law professors interviewed assessed the situation very differently from the military. “I share the opinion that there must be specific permission for such a flight demonstration,” said Bernhard Rütsche, professor of public law at the University of Lucerne. In other words, the Air Force’s attempt at justification is flawed.

“The demonstrations contradicted the instructions of the VBS,” says Rütsche. The planned air show and associated training should not have taken place at all. Constitutional law professor Markus Müller from the University of Bern comes to the same conclusion.

Consent from neighboring communities would have been necessary

It is also incomprehensible why the army’s communications department and air force chief Peter Merz claim that consent from the communities surrounding the city of Zug – for example the community of Baar – was not necessary. “The event took place on the ground in the city of Zug,” said Air Force Chief Merz.

The above-mentioned DDPS provision makes it clear to the two experts Bernhard Rütsche and Markus Müller that the army should also have obtained permission from the neighboring communities of the city of Zug. But the mayor of Baar, Walter Lipp, knows nothing of such a request. “The municipality of Baar has not granted approval. As far as I know, no one has been sought.” It seems clear that the Patrouille Suisse also flew over the municipality of Baar on June 15.

That day, Hans Peter Roth followed the training flights of Patrouille Suisse from his apartment in Baar. In a letter to the editor he expressed his anger about the ‘noise terror’. Roth says these overflights were clearly training flights, namely multiple times and in formation.

Conclusion: The Air Force did not comply with its own department’s regulations on important points. When asked through a spokesperson, VBS head Viola Amherd said the military had already explained the lessons it had learned from the case. The head of the VBS was informed about this.

Issue of liability

The behavior of those responsible for the military could have had insurance consequences in the event of a claim. “It would have resulted in a state liability case,” says Bernhard Rütsche. Under military law, the federal government is liable for damage unlawfully caused by members of the armed forces to third parties, regardless of their fault.

There is a precedent from 1997 in which the Federal Court confirmed that the federal government was liable for a collision between a military and a civilian aircraft. “In this case there would have been even more liability,” Rütsche summarizes.

Source:Blick