Rome, 28 May 2022 – Cockpit of the plane e control center French they haven’t communicated for over 10 minutes, perhaps due to a fall asleep, an alarm triggered and then, once on the ground, an explanation that does not stand up to internal investigation. For this the commander of the Ita flight and New York to Rome Fiumicino of April 30 was fired from the company who spoke of a failure of the “relationship of trust” although she was quick to specify that the safety of the flight “has always been guaranteed”.
The episode, anticipated by Republic, it happened in the middle of the night between April 30 and May 1 and can be placed, explain sector insiders, in that case called Ploc (Prolonged Loss Of Communication) or an absence of communication of more than 10 minutes. Infrequent but possible episodes which, in fact, involve one set of international and internal procedures. After entering the French airspace, the Ita plane, after 5 in the morning, did not respond to requests from the French control center which alarmed the Italian counterparts and the company whose control center then managed to get in contact. At that moment in the cabin, which in the flights to Ny has two pilots and not three like long-haul flights of longer duration, one of the two, the first officer sleeps as per procedure but the other, the commander in fact, does not respond. One of the hypotheses, not confirmed, is precisely that of a stroke of sleep. On a theoretical level, it is emphasized, these are not very rare cases in situations where long distances and the effects of jet lag can be felt, especially on personnel of more advanced age and less accustomed to long haul. In the case in question, however, there would not have been, explains Ita, an alarm that would trigger the take-off of the air defense fighters: “There is no evidence relating to external air activity during the flight in question”, the company pointed out. After the arrival of the plane in Fiumicino, an internal investigation started and here, in fact, they emerged “strong inconsistencies between the statements made by the Commander and the outcome of the internal investigations “on the functioning of the on-board equipment. Hence the dismissal for the flight commander.