If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.
Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.
Intentionally ditching a plane in region known for catastrophic forest fires is close to ecologic terrorism.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism#:~:text=Internatio....
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
You can't just call anything terrorism from a legal standpoint, though many try.
Unfortunately not everyone agrees with the FBI's definition of terrorism. The FBI's definition of International terrorism depends on a list of organizations more-or-less arbitrarily assembled by politicians. Their definition of domestic terrorism is even looser.
Basically, both definitions are "violent criminal acts [waffle]". That definition is circular, because terrorism is criminal.
The word should be banned from newspapers and from political and legal discourse. Broadly speaking, it means "political activities of which we disapprove".