Gyrocopter involved in murder charge

[nigelh]

Just heard that an anti flying a gyrocopter has decapitated a hunt supporter ?

[west lakes]

BBC NEWS | England | Coventry/Warwickshire | Murder probe into aircraft death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7933734.stm)

[SASless]

Usually it is the gyrocopter driver that gets the chop.....this certainly needs investigating.:uhoh:

We had a Bell 412 lop off a photographer's noggin but no charges were filed....that also needs to be investigated.:ugh:

[fisbangwollop]

News film shows the aircraft as GRIFS on BBC news at Ten

[B Sousa]

We had a Bell 412 lop off a photographer's noggin but no charges were filed....that also needs to be investigated.:ugh:
When and where did that occur??

[coldair]

From todays 'Times' newspaper;

Two arrested for murder after hunt follower is killed by gyrocopter - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5877904.ece)

A keen hunt supporter has been killed after being hit by a gyrocopter believed to have been monitoring hunts in the area.
Trevor Morse, 48, died after the incident at Long Marston airfield, near Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, yesterday. Two men were arrested on suspicion of murder and were being questioned by officers in Leamington Spa last night.
Between 80 and 100 huntsmen were out yesterday at the hunt in Moreton-in-Marsh on the last day of the Warwickshire hunt season. The hunt met at the village of Todenham at 11.45am and the gyrocopter, first spotted at noon, followed it for about two hours.
It is understood that an animal rights group, Protect Our Wild Animals, has been monitoring the Warwickshire and the Heythrop hunts from a gyrocopter over the past three weeks. Masters of the hunt told The Times that a gyrocopter had been reported to the Civil Aviation Authority and the police about ten days ago, amid fears that it was upsetting animals. The light aircraft was said to have been swooping in an aggressive manner over the hunt.
The police could not confirm last night whether the same gyrocopter was involved in the accident. The identity of the pilot remained unknown and it was unclear whether any other passenger was on board.
Civil Aviation Authority records show that Bryan Griffiths, of Bed-worth, is the registered owner of the gyrocopter involved in the fatal accident. There is no indication that he was one of those arrested.
Emergency services were called to the airfield just after 3pm yesterday after reports of a collision involving an aircraft and a pedestrian. The victim was pronounced dead at the scene. It is believed that Mr Morse had gone with a friend to the airfield to try to discover who had been piloting the gyrocopter. He and a woman were believed to have approached the aircraft as it was refuelling.
The airfield manager, Anthony Hodges, 57, said: “It was the only aircraft to land all day and I believe the aircraft hit him as it was taxiing on the runway.”
Alastair Jackson, director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, said that he had written two letters to Thames Valley Police after complaints by riders of the Warwickshire Hunt. “There has been a bit of trouble for the last three weeks involving the Warwickshire and Heythrop Hunts and there have been lots of complaints from riders and farmers concerned about their livestock and horses being frightened,” he said. “We had great concerns there would be an accident involving a horse or farmstock, but no one dreamt of anything like this.”
Members of the hunt paid tribute to Mr Morse, a gardener and odd-job man from Alderminster, near Ship-ston-on-Stour. Although not a rider, he was said to enjoy following the hunt in his Land Rover and helping out with the hounds. His wife, Caroline, would not comment last night.
Sam Butler, joint master of the Warwickshire Hunt, said: “Trevor was a countryman of the highest quality. We have lost a friend of the highest order.”
He said that a gyrocopter had been following the hunting activity for three weeks, but would not be drawn on who was piloting it or their motives. “All I can say is that they did not appear to be hunt supporters,” he said.
West Midlands Ambulance Service said: “On arrival at the scene crews found a pedestrian that had been in collision with an aircraft. Crews immediately assessed the pedestrian, a man, but unfortunately nothing could be done to save him and he was confirmed dead at the scene.”
Penny Little, spokeswoman for Protect Our Wild Animals, was unavailable for comment last night. The group’s website says that it “advocates the observance of hunts by use of video and stills cameras to record the cruelty and vandalism of hunting”.
A gyrocopter, also known as an auto-gyro or rotaplane, is a type of small helicopter that can fly slower and lower than regular sport aircraft. It is forbidden to fly them lower than 500ft.

[Droopystop]

I make no apologies for this supposition, but if the gyro copter was piloted by an anti, it beggars belief how someone who claims to be against cruelty to animals can be so cruel to a fellow human being.

Thoughts with the family and friends of Mr Morse.

[Heliringer]

Droopystop,

The article said the Gyrocopter was taxing, so I would assume the Hunt fellow must have approached it in order to be hit by it.

Maybe he ran in to try and stop the machine from taxing and got thumped by the blades, that would not be the pilots fault. A pedestrian should not be on the runway/taxiway.

Anyway I'm sure we will hear all about it when the Cops investigate this properly


Ringer

[Droopystop]

Commander is always responsible for collision avoidance on the ground. If there was a risk of someone rushing out infront of the aircraft, the commander shouldn't have started taxiing.

[Lone_Ranger]

My sympathies to the Pilot

[Mach086]

"James Bond Swoop"

"Pro hunt" etc

The media really gets on my nerves putting in all these different sentences in order to make something sound sinister when it probably could have just been an accident.

Either way we know nothing.

Anyway, condolences to all involved.

[HeliCraig]

Based on the various reports available (Times, BBC, Daily Mail, H&H etc), it does strike me as an accident - not murder. But, perhaps all of the facts are not out in the public domain yet.

There has been suggestions of questionable (low & 'aggressive') flying by this auto-gyro in the past few weeks; and I believe that a report was made to the CAA by the hunt. There has also been a suggestion that the deceased gentleman had gone to the airfield for the purpose of "talking" to the pilot.

I am sure the facts will out, but having lived in Warwickshire all my life, I can safely say that placing your whole hearted belief & trust in Warwickshire Police may result in disappointment. (I can substantiate this with upheld complaints of various natures and IPCC reports into their previous efforts at Major Incident Investigations). Personally, I would attach much more credence to the AAIB report.

Either way, my sincere condolences go out to the family and friends of the deceased chap - whatever happened to "live and let live?".

[deltayankee]

Based on the various reports available (Times, BBC, Daily Mail, H&H etc), it does strike me as an accident


Thinking the same here, too. If he had been on the hunt and the incident had occurred there I would have suspected either malice aforethought or a poorly executed intimidation. But when it happens on the taxiway of an airport... What on earth was a hunter doing walking on a taxiway, and one frequented by his nemesis? Nobody should be on the taxiway without an aircraft around them. Sounds very dangerous.

[HeliCraig]

Nobody should be on the taxiway without an aircraft around them. Sounds very dangerous.

It serves little purpose now of course, but isn't it an offence under the ANO to be on an airfield without good cause / authorisation? I am sure there are signs to this effect around the boundaries of most airfields (there is certainly one on the big metal gate on the way into Sywell!).

[Droopystop]

The ANO does restrict vehicular and person access to "aerodromes". I am not sure whether "aerodrome" means a one that is licensed or would include a private farmers strip. If there is a right of way across any aerodrome, then pedestrians have a right to be there.

But here is a question - how does the right to roam affect this scenario? If Long Marston is un licensed, does the general public have a right to roam, even on taxiways/runways?

Indeed anyone who operates to a private or unsecured site has to be cautious as to who might be lurking......

Accident or otherwise it is not a good day for aviation, hunting or antis.

[HeliCraig]

The ANO does restrict vehicular and person access to "aerodromes". I am not sure whether "aerodrome" means a one that is licensed or would include a private farmers strip.
Not sure if the ANO applies to licenced or unlicenced aerodromes - its all a bit academic anyway in this case; unless Plod decide to charge the friend of the deceased chap who was with him.



If there is a right of way across any aerodrome, then pedestrians have a right to be there.

But here is a question - how does the right to roam affect this scenario?

Funny you should mention that, because I happened to be looking at "The Parish Notices" noticeboard in the village I live in (in Warwickshire) only last week (don't ask why!! :bored:) - where there was a poster from the county council saying that less than 1% of the county was affected by "Right To Roam" legislation. A quick check on the website reveals that Long Marston isn't included; and I can't see a public right of way / footpath either.


Indeed anyone who operates to a private or unsecured site has to be cautious as to who might be lurking......

Accident or otherwise it is not a good day for aviation, hunting or antis.


Absolutely. A truly awful day for everyone!

[Mach086]

Svenestron -

I didn't mean you were a part of the media.

In the Metro today, the article mentioned that the aircraft in use was what the badies use in james Bond movies!!!!

I almost wet myself.

[deltayankee]

Regardless of what the law says, it will always be dangerous for non-pilots to wander around on airfields because they don't know what to look out for and they don't know that they don't know it. I've seen an entire family standing at the approach end of the runway with their backs to the traffic, blissfully unaware of the danger.

This guy should not have been wandering "airside" but I can imagine someone demanding physical barriers to protect people. Not good for smaller fields.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

What a bizarre event. The headlines and murder investigation would imply that the aircraft was deliberately manoeuvred to strike the pedestrian, whether airborne or landing. However, reading the articles it seems that the aircraft was taxying after landing. Now, if the man intended to remonstrate with the crew and stepped into the taxyway to try to force the gyrocopter to stop or entered the rotor disk without clearance or an understanding of the dangers, then the accident would be his own doing. I find it very hard to imagine that any pilot (no matter how 'extremist' his views) would deliberately attempt to kill a person by running them down with his aircraft.

This is of course my own speculation. I will be very interested to see how this investigation continues. The above being an accident would not excuse the alleged behaviour of the crew in the previous weeks. If indeed he was using the aircraft to illegally low fly with the intention of harassing people on the ground, I hope the CAA would take firm action.

[snapper1]

Droopystop asked - 'how does the right to roam affect this scenario?'

The term 'right to roam' is often used in conection with the Counryside and Rights of Way Act (2000 ?) and is very missleading. I think the term was first dreamed up by the jounos or the Rambler Association.

The CROW Act allows access to land usually over 1,200ft (AMSL) on 'unimproved land'. In other words land not cultivated in any way. Our airfield is at 1350 AMSL and we had a visit from an official who believed that the public would be allowed to wander accross it. We tried to convince him it wouldn't be a good idea but he only relented when he twigged that we cut the grass regularly thus making it 'improved' land.

[HeliCraig]

Warwickshire County Council have a good website covering it here (http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/countryside).

[Spunky Monkey]

We don't know if the incident was just after land, before or after fueling etc.
So anything is pure speculation.
The pilot /s were arrested on suspicion of murder.

Could it be that they had had an altercation during fueling, the deceased had tried to stop the gyro copter from taxiing, by blocking the taxyway.
The pilot then manoveared his vehicle in an aggressive manor, striking the pedestrian.

Hence the suspicion of murder, especially if it was witnessed by other people.

Taking sides at this stage is ridiculous. As is my scenario, I am just trying to point out that there are only 2 facts. A man is dead and there was a gyrocopter. We don't even know for sure that the two had an interface.

So save your girlie bleating.

[astir 8]

Certainly strange - it sounds like an accident but the police keeping people in custody for this length of time implies that it's not straightforward.

Tragic

[Fg Off Max Stout]

SS,

Looking at the BBC video at about 0:25 onwards, it looked to me as if the propeller blade in the 7 o'clock position (as viewed from the nose) was damaged and delaminated at the tip. It seems to be fluttering in the wind.

The video's a bit grainy so it's not entirely clear.

BBC NEWS | England | Coventry/Warwickshire | Death gyrocopter 'followed hunt' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7934804.stm)

[coldair]

I am very reluctant to speculate about this, however, should an unauthorised person approach my aircraft I would immediately shut the engine down.

Is it possible that a trespasser came too close and the pilot shut down the engines and the blades descended below head height ?

Just my thoughts, but NO ONE should be trespassing on an airfield for any reason.

The investigation will eventually provide the facts.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00500/gyrocopter2_500886a.jpg

[deltayankee]

Why cover the cockpit and not the whole a/c or rotating parts?



Just a common way to stop the windshield getting dirty and scratched while the machine is parked. Probably just an automatic action like securing the rotor.

...should an unauthourised person approach my arcraft I would immediatly shut the engine down.

Me too, especially someone angry and known to be a non-pilot.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

A photograph of the aircraft on 'ops' from a few weeks ago at the bottom of the page. Of course you can't judge the height, but I guess they wouldn't have taken the picture if it wasn't making a nuisance of itself.

Foxhunting and beagling discussion forum - Monitors in Micro-lights (http://www.hunting-directory.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1230198208/0)

[HeliCraig]

Of course you can't judge the height,


And that is, of course the problem the CAA will have had in doing anything about it. I am guessing it wasn't fitted with a Mode C / S xponder - so not too sure how they would be able to tell its height accurately!

And on the subject of the hunt itself - is it possible we could debate this elsewhere (JetBlast, another forum); other than my general mantra of "live and let live," I'm more interested in the aviation related aspects - if any!

Politics and PPRuNE often don't mix nicely! :ouch:

[vanHorck]

no more talk about murder now, and talk of a collision with the copter....

Police quiz two over gyrocopter death | UK | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE5293UW20090310)


If it was a taxi collision, seems like a sad event but culpability may be on the other side.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

Any question of low flying over farmland/a hunt is in no way directly relevant to the investigation of a fatality which happened on the ground at an airfield. Alleged low flying elsewhere and on other dates could not have been root acuse, contributory or aggravating condition of the fatal accident - so let's not muddy the waters by mingling the two occurences

[Whirlybird]

I just watched the BBC news, and they claimed the prop, which is at the BACK of the gyro, hit the man; they also showed the gyro with a damaged prop. If you were in a gyro and decided to kill someone, how are you going to hit them with something behind you?:confused: It seems to me the man ran into the back of the gyro, and the pilot probably never even saw or heard him.

So unless I've got it all totally wrong, let's have no more emotive talk of murder, pro and anti hunting, and other irrelevancies. It seems like a tragic accident.

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

I can't see how the pilot can be charged with murder whilst taxiing.

If someone stands in the way of the aircraft and tries to force it to stop (other than a marshaller) then it is unlawful interference or an aircraft i.e. hijacking.

The only other alternative is an accident.

If you were in a gyro and decided to kill someone, how are you going to hit them with something behind you? It seems to me the man ran into the back of the gyro, and the pilot probably never even saw or heard him.
Actually you can taxi towards someone and the person would still be hit by the rear pointing propeller as the width of the prop is wider than the gyrocopters fuselage.

[chuks]

I don't quite catch your drift there. If I am taxying or even just sat there parked with the engine or engines running and I see a risk of causing injury to someone then I have an obligation to prevent harm to that person to the best of my ability. If that means that my aircraft has been interfered with then that is something I can take up later but there's a higher duty to preserve life, isn't there?

Many people are completely unaware of the risks posed by aircraft and will put themselves at great risk of a prop or rotor strike or of being ingested by a running jet engine without meaning to do that. I have occasionally had someone decide to make me stop by getting in my way, at great risk to themselves. Guess what? It works! I am not going to try chasing some muppet out of the way, given that he might see no reason to move out of the way of something he cannot see.

Let us hope this was an accident and nothiing more.

[ChrisVJ]

As a minor contribution, I am under the impression that unless they are actually on their take off run or landing run out gyrocopters generally taxi with the rotor blades static or nearly static. It takes flying speed to rotate the blades at a rate that would be dangerous.

On a taxi way a pedestrian could be struck by the body or the propulsion blades and I guess in the wrong circumstances could be killed by either. It would be terrible to learn that the piloit had played chicken with a protester on the ground, on the other hand the brakes on my aircraft, (not a gyro,) are not of the order of auto brakes. From 40 knots it take me maybe 50 or 60 yards to stop, if confronted by someone while moving I might not be able to stop in the kind of distance they might expect.

There have been several instances of accusations of low or 'less than 500'" separation, some of which have cropped up on Pprune, but mostly they have ended up being put down to mis-perception by inexperienced or agenda driven viewers. Part of the problem these days is that people seem to think it is OK to 'stretch' the unmeasurable when it suits their purpose.

Just a comment on the world in general, I was not there, and I just don't know. Why can't these people (both sides) get worked up about global warming and go out and buy some carbon credits!

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

Chuks, you are correct, if you are taxiing or parked with engine running and you see a risk to someones life of course you are obliged to save that persons life if you can. If you didn't take action, I very much doubt you would be charged with murder as the gyro pilot has been though.

If on the other hand, some angry person runs out in front of your aircraft and you fear for you own life/safety why should you stop the aircraft?

Edit:
From the UK ANO, section 146...

"Obstruction of persons
A person shall not intentionally obstruct or impede any person acting in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties under this Order."

[philipnz]

There's only one lesson here. Don't take the law into your own hands :(

[TornadoWilkes]

This is obviously a first post, so please feel free to accept the following or otherwise at your discretion:

From a third hand source and based on an eye witness account, this is what is alledged to have occurred at Long Marston. The hunt supporter is said to have approached from the front of the aircraft after pulling up in his Land ( or Range) Rover with his wife at the fuelling bay. The pilot(s) who were confused by what was going on apparently shouted to the man to move as they were pulling away, he approached the front of the craft shouting back "you are going nowhere." Again it is said that the pilots were heard to shout to move as they were taxiing and again he apparently repeated "you're not going anywhere."

It is then believed that he approached and tripped over the rear wheels where the blade unfortunately struck his head, however he did momentarily stand up, albeit with a severe head wound before falling down backwards to the shock of all present including of course his wife.

As mentioned above, this is third hand and partially chinese whispers so please feel free to fill in the gaps however you feel or even totally disregard the above post as required.....

[SASless]

Homicide is the killing of another person.

Murder requires the proving of intent to kill, or taking some action that could reasonably result in the death of another such as an assault.

If this guy was charged with "murder" then the state will have to prove he had an intent to kill. Just running over the guy will in itself not be sufficient to prove "murder".

But then in the UK....if you beat a Burglar's hind end as he sets fire to your house after raping your daughter.....you can find yourself in jail for assault....so who knows.

[mickjoebill]

A manslaughter charge used to literally hang in the balance in the uk.
A detective explained to me if you hit a burglar as he was halfway through a window and he falls dead into the room then self defense can be argued,(lawfull killing) but if he fell dead and is found out of the house self defense cannot be argued and a manslaughter charge can be the norm.
But this law was changed in 2005 after a public outcry of the murder of a jewellers wife in her home. And so it came to pass that it is ok to use reasonable force to protect "yourself and your property" even if such force results in hte death of the intruder.
Homeowners can kill burglars in self-defence, Government says - Crime, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/homeowners-can-kill-burglars-in-selfdefence-government-says-483154.html)

There is far less leeway when one takes action to protect property outside of the home, ie cars or aeroplanes.

If there are no independent witnesses then this tragic case may hinge on the seemingly minor detail of which way the poor chap fell, was he moving toward the aircraft when he fell or was he moving away?

Perhaps pilots as a breed do tend to wait until there is reasonable level of certainty as to the intentions of others rather than to take early avoidance?


mickjoebill

[vanHorck]

If the man did approach the copter (in anger or otherwise) and the pilot warned this man rightly not to approach (due to the danger), the man decides to continue nearing the copter and then trips, it sounds to me like a very unfortunate accident, and that the reason the man came close to the copter (because of his anger?) has very little to do with the accident.

[Heliringer]

I am not aware of any rotorcraft that can stop it's blades instantly. So the arguments for switching it off etc etc hold no weight in my opinion.

[HeliCraig]

I am not aware of any rotorcraft that can stop it's blades instantly. So the arguments for switching it off etc etc hold no weight in my opinion.

Nor I, so I agree - I don't think that would have helped.

It appears (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7936158.stm)) that Warwickshire Police have been given extra time to detain the two persons arrested. There must be more to this than meets the eye!

[deltayankee]

Warwickshire Police have been given extra time to detain the two persons arrested. There must be more to this than meets the eye!

Might be just that they needed more time to find someone who knew enough about gyrocopters to ask the right questions.

And I believe that there is still some value in switching off the engine regardless of rotor momentum: at least the propulsion propeller will become harmless almost instantly and you will be able to talk to the intruder more easily.

According to the nth hand eye witness account above they were going away from refuelling, when you would not expect the rotor to be at speed either, but I suppose that even in the early stage of pre-rotation it is going to hit hard.

[HeliCraig]

Might be just that they needed more time to find someone who knew enough about gyrocopters to ask the right questions.

Absolutely could be. Mind you I thought I read that the AAIB sent two chaps up yesterday morning - so you'd hope they might know a bit. Personally, I am extremely cynical about the motives of Warwickshire Police here; but it will all come out in the wash and at least we can rely on the AAIB to be relatively unbiased.


And I believe that there is still some value in switching off the engine regardless of rotor momentum: at least the propulsion propeller will become harmless almost instantly and you will be able to talk to the intruder more easily.

According to the nth hand eye witness account above they were going away from refuelling, when you would not expect the rotor to be at speed either, but I suppose that even in the early stage of pre-rotation it is going to hit hard.


It wouldn't do any harm, that is for sure. Will be interesting to see in the AAIB report which blade was hit. There was suggestion earlier on here that the rotor blade had some damage, and then later some suggestion that perhaps the rear prop was hit.

Head injuries have been suggested too - so perhaps it was a blade sailing of the main rotor; only time will tell.

(I shall ignore the previous 2 posts, and hope SP deletes them when he has a minute!).

[coldair]

From the 'Coventry Evening Telegraph' ;

Coventry Telegraph - News - Coventry News - Two quizzed over Warwickshire Hunt supporter death (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2009/03/11/two-quizzed-over-warwickshire-hunt-supporter-death-92746-23117909/)



It is believed Mr Morse was watching the Warwickshire Hunt when the tragedy happened. It emerged yesterday that complaints had been made about a gyropcopter following
hunt supporters just days before Mr Morse’s death.
Last night, one pro-hunt campaigner said Monday’s tragedy had been an accident waiting to happen.

What idiot of a journalist could have written this tripe.

[ShyTorque]

Despite the alleged complaint made about previous low flying, it seems the tragic confrontation was made by the main victim himself.

Perhaps the pilot was not aware that the man was about to approach the aircraft. Surely it perfectly reasonable to expect that pedestrians on an airfield are entitled to be there and therefore aware of basic safety issues - such as not approaching a running aircraft without permission.

[astir 8]

A lot of fine lines to this tragedy I should imagine.

Supposing (for whatever reason) you stand in front of a moving car and shout "Oi I want a word with you" or similar

The driver brakes but still flattens you - clearly an accident

The driver accelerates at you - that's getting towards manslaughter/murder

The driver doesn't react either way ??????


And yes, standing in front of a moving car is never a good idea.

[Jackonicko]

"Actually you can taxi towards someone and the person would still be hit by the rear pointing propeller as the width of the prop is wider than the gyrocopters fuselage."

Though with the wheel track and tailplane span, it would be difficult for a pilot to engineer a deliberate prop strike.

I wasn't there, I know nothing of the circumstances, but in my experience, the level of aggression, intimidation and violence shown by vehicle-mounted hunt followers and supporters towards those they perceive as being 'Antis' is astonishing, and quite the equal of anything that we see from the 'Antis' themselves.

I wonder whether the victim didn't simply approach the aircraft with his 'blood up', looking for a confrontation, and then tripped over the landing gear straight into the prop. It certainly seems more likely than 'murder'.

[zardoz]

Or say you stood in front of a stationary (but running) vehicle arguing with the driver over some previous alleged incident, and the driver got angry and deliberately drove at you, knocking you over and into the propulsion system?
What ever's happened either way, it's going to be one for the courts to sort out.

The still photos clearly show damage to at least two of the pusher blades.

[Justiciar]

Murder requires the proving of intent to kill, or taking some action that could reasonably result in the death of another such as an assault.

Murder is causing death with either an intent to kill or to an intent to cause grievous bodily harm; manslaughter is the causing of a death as the result of some other unlawful act. Death resulting from a common assault would not be murder, it would be manslaughter.

The law of self defence has not changed in the last few years (it was codified in 2008) though prosecution guidelines have. Any person may use reasonable force in self defence or preventing a crime. What amounts to reasonable force will depend on the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Obviously, the force you can use to prevent a burglary of you home is going to be potentially much greater than you could use to stop someone dropping litter! In fact courts and juries have been generally quite lenient in judging acts committed in the heat of the moment. The problem with the law is that when applied to a murder charge, if the force is found to be excessive then the person will be convicted of murder, i.e. the self defence argument cannot be used to reduce murder to manslaughter, it is an all or nothing defence.

[Emeraude]

What idiot of a journalist could have written this tripe.


Helen Thomas - she signed it.

[B Sousa]

Sasless, theres a question for you back on page one of this thing. Can we get an answer??

[Maverick Laddie]

At least Miss Thomas gets to air her opinion seems the moderator chose to withdraw my post:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: What next barred for having an opinion.



Your totally offensive and inappropriate post about the ASU and Brazilians was deleted by me. If you want to make inane and stupid posts, find another place to play :=

Senior Pilot
Rotorheads Moderator

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

Comparing this incident to an equivelent incident with cars is not the same.

If the hunt supporter tried to stop a moving aircraft, then it was an illegal interference i.e. hijack. The pilot is well within his rights rights not to stop the aircraft.

Stopping a car 'to have a word with the driver' is also against the Road Traffic Act but not considered anywhere as serious as interference of an aircraft.


Edit: I believe the gyro has a Rotax engine which stops very quickly (say a couple of engine rotations) but if the rotars were already spinning they would continue for a long time after as they are free wheeling.

[TRC]

If you mean your question in post 5, it was answered in post 7.

August 2, 2002, at 1952 central daylight time, Rantoul National Aviation Center-Frank Elliot Field Airport (TIP), Rantoul Illinois,

[Fg Off Max Stout]

CD2M

The pilot is well within his rights rights not to stop the aircraft.


Ludicrous! Do you really believe that? Try telling that to the judge.

[vanHorck]

There is a thread running on Horse & Hound forum, which gives the hunt's supporters side of the story.

It seems the victim chased the Gyrocopter for 12 miles to the airfield where it refueled.

Horse and Hound Online Forum: Warwickshire hunt follower dies in gyrocopter accident (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4133948/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1)

part of balanced reporting why I do this. It seems aviation is caught between the pros and cons of hunting foxes (although I understand this was not a real hunt as it is now illegal in the UK)

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

The hunt felt it necessary to report him to the CAA some weeks earlier for his actions.
I would therefore disagree with your suggestion that prior action is irrelevant as it could be fundamental to the subsequent actions of the pilot and no doubt that will be part of the police investigation of the weeks leading up to the incident.
All in all - it is a mess and somebody lost their life and the police have a responsibility to do their due diligence.

Prior events might give insight to the views/bonhomie of those involved (both hunstsman and pilot), but they don't tell us anything about how 'prop bites man'.

If a man reverses over his kid in the drive, the fact that he bawled out the sprog for not eating his greens an hour earlier would not normally spark a murder investigation!

[SASless]

Bert,

We were asked politely not to go there as I recall.

Out of respect for that request I did not go there.

Why we should not recall that a "Professional Pilot" flying a Bell 412 with a load of Sky Divers at a height low enough to chop off the head of a photographer standing in the middle of a corn field at a time when an amateur Gyrocopter pilot was involved in a fatal accident where an individual died of head injuries escapes me.....but I was being polite.

The fact the FAA and the local authorities not only did not charge the 412 Pilot for any crime, or FAA violation and took no action of any kind should not reflect upon this incident where the Gyro Copter Pilot was immediately arrested on Murder Charges and held in custody.

Perhaps it is all chalk and cheese as the 412 Pilot was only showing his ass by hot dogging with passengers aboard his aircraft in full view of hundreds of folks and did so on multiple flights that day.....should not be considered grounds for criminal, civil, or license action by the authorities. After all....only one fellow got his head lopped off by a main rotor blade.

What the heck....it was an airshow of sorts wasn't it?

The photographer should not have been in the corn field playing gopher amongst the ears of corn and hiding in the tassles.....right? That will teach him to think one can stand upright in the vicinity of an airport.

Sometimes a dark night and a very large stick is the avenue towards positive change within society....shame it did not happen in the Rantoul case.

Sorry, Bert.....but I do not wish to go there.

[Mark Nine]

Pilot has now been charged with the murder.
Warwickshire Police Media Portal - Man charged following death at Long Marston airfield (http://onlinenews.warwickshire.police.uk/appeals/2009311Manchargedfoll)

[rammymicro]

details of the photo are
canon eos 40D
Date 12/02/ 2009 at 13:05:59
focal length 400mm
f/7.1 at 1/2000 sec

a clever person could work out the height

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

Ludicrous! Do you really believe that? Try telling that to the judge.

The Hague Convention and the UK ANO explain it very clearly.

What's the difference (in the eyes of the law) of a hunt supporter trying to stop and aircraft/get to the pilot and a dark skinned man from the Middle East doing the same?

Its hijacking, plane and simple. I would put good money on the pilot that the murder charge will never stick.

[HeliCraig]

Pilot has now been charged with the murder.
Warwickshire Police Media Portal - Man charged following death at Long Marston airfield (http://onlinenews.warwickshire.police.uk/appeals/2009311Manchargedfoll)

The plot thickens....

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

For reference, the 'Aviation and Martime Security Act'

Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900031_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, this applies anyone who enters an aerodrom.

[Blues&twos]

I notice that "another man has been released on police bail pending further enquiries".
Passenger, or a contact on the ground?

Either way difficult to see what crime he could have committed given that he wasn't at the controls.

Mind you, have they said anywhere that it was the pilot who was charged with murder?

[Droopystop]

Whilst I am no legal eagle, reading the ANO clause 73 states that no one should act in such a way to endanger safety of an aircraft, but 74 states that no one should permit an aircraft to endanger life or property.

So whilst the deceased might be considered (depending of course on what actually happened) to have contravened 73, the pilot has certainly contravened 74. Whether he could have actually done anything will depend on the circumstances.

Talk of hijack is poppycock since it does't appear in the ANO and I would have thought hijack implies taking over an aircraft/vehicle/vessel to actually use it unlawfully, not merely to stop it.

[martinbanham]

Section 105 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982:

Means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically.

[Flying Lawyer]

Cabin doors 2 manual

I've often found it frustrating that I'm no longer able to contribute to 'legal' topics, but never more so than when reading your interpretation of the law in your various posts in this thread. :rolleyes:

FL

[ShyTorque]

FL, I agree, your input is sadly missed - but how about "illegal topics"?

[mickjoebill]

Appearing before a magistrate tomorrow on a charge of murder.
Is this a (regretable) aviation first for the UK?

Mickjoebill

[nigelh]

Coldair ....i love the fact that an article that says this intimidation by the gyrocopter was an accident waiting to happen , in your book was complete rubbish !!!! Was she wrong ?? I would always assume that if a pilot is daft enough to fly low level buzzing horses trying to save the planet something bad is going to happen ....it may be a horse bolting an killing somebody or a confrontation like this . She was SO right .
Frustrated flie ...read above . Of course it was a factor . If you turned up on a hunt day and spent all day trying to ruin their sport and at the end of the day got a flat tyre and a punch in the face i have a feeling there may be some connection !!
CabinDoors You are just to daft to reason with . yea of course in gaga land you can run people down in your plane if they walk towards you ....they may be that well known group of "hunting hijackers " we have all heard of ....:rolleyes: From the photos it is quite clear that he is well below 500ft and playing at being robocop . What a twit . Lets hope he goes down for a good time . ( not as in good time ....):D

[Fg Off Max Stout]

CD2M

Flying Lawyer has said it so much better and with so much more expert authority than I could.

You are effectively saying that if some lost rambler or dog walker steps into a taxyway, that you are entitled to kill them by running them down with your propeller because they are effectively hijackers.

Barking mad. You'd be laughed out of the dock and into the cells with a defence like that. I can't believe you're serious.

[VP959]

From the photos it is quite clear that he is well below 500ft and playing at being robocop . What a twit .

Hmmmm......... A simple bit of analysis on that photo of alleged low flying quickly shows that the absolute minimum distance that the gyro could be from the lens was about 1400ft. The most likely distance is around 2000ft. A retraction of the above might be wise.................

I'm not for one moment supporting the actions of the pilot in flying around over a hunt, he may well have been within the letter of the law, but was hardly acting within it's spirit, or in the interest of not disturbing others.

Interestingly, the hunt have privately indicated that Mr Morse went to the airfield to resolve an issue with the pilot regarding a young girl who fell off her pony a week or so earlier. Some members of the hunt have alleged that the girl's fall was caused by the actions of the gyro pilot. Although not badly hurt, the girl's riding confidence has apparently been affected.

Obviously feelings were running high, most probably on both sides. The hunt followers felt aggrieved by the anti-social actions of the gyro pilot. The gyro pilot probably felt strongly that the actions of the hunt were abhorrent - after all, he had been sufficiently motivated to chase the hunt several times over the past few weeks. All told, a recipe for a nasty confrontation, no matter where it may have taken place.

I find it curious that the deceased was reported (in the Times on-line article) as filming the gyro at the time of the incident, as this seems at odds with the account from the person at Long Marston who supposedly saw what happened.

VP

[Justiciar]

Obviously the words "an aerodrome serving international civil aviation " in section 1 escaped your notice :oh:

Murder is not charged lightly. A senoir CPS lawyer will have looked at this in considerable detail before advising such a charge. It is fair to assume that there is therefore some evidece to support such a charge. Whether it is sufficient to convice a jury beyond reasonable doubt, only time will tell.

[deltayankee]

It is fair to assume that there is therefore some evidece to support such a charge.


Given the situation it is not easy to imagine many scenarios other than a confession or a deliberate act such as engaging the pre-rotator. The victim came to the scene himself and a gyrocopter is hardly a practical weapon for deliberate injury.

I still wonder if the murder charge is not just a way to get the defendent to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

[nigelh]

VP i accept your point that the photo ,in itself ,is not proof of low flying over the hunt . I am aware that he in fact did fly low on many occasions with witnesses . I think we can all see that this was always going to end in tears .....

[chuks]

There is an attitude that is easy to fall into, one that leads us to think of ourselves in some way as Sky Gods in our Chariots. Just let something happen, though, as here, and we come back down to earth with a thump!

When we are out there doing our aerial stuff we are usually in a very controlled environment with trained professionals around us. Everyone on a ramp has usually had basic safety training so that they know not to stick their heads into a prop or rotor, for instance, when the risks are not as obvious as falling under a vehicle. That said, how often do people fall under vehicles?

Every so often we find ourselves confronted with someone who probably has no business being out there on the ramp. I always take that as my cue to shut down as the first order of business. (Here I am writing as a fixed-wing pilot but I do know my way around helicopters in a very basic way.) That means that I have removed most of the risk from the situation.

From a selfish, self-interested point of view that risk is to my machine and to my licence. A prop strike is going to ruin the machinery and leave me forced to try and escape the stigma and trauma of having injured or killed someone.

There's a far higher risk to the person out there on the ramp, of course. People end up maimed or dead and often very suddenly, when it is then too late to do anything. You may only have seconds to react, when you need to be thinking about protecting the life of that idiot out there wandering around someplace he may have no business being. You are not set there in that cockpit to teach him the hard way the rules for being on a ramp, say.

Citing some rule against "illegal interference" as justifying having an incident might really mean sitting down and having a "reality check."

Aviation is just part of life and not the highest part, so that we have to subordinate it to the higher goal of preserving life. Otherwise you may find yourself in court having this explained to you by the judge or at least having someone from the CAA teach you the error of your ways by grounding you for a while or even forever. Shutting down must be the preferred option whenever there is any doubt, I think.

[JohnCox]

I am a gyroplane pilot (UK PPL(G))
1. There are two words in English to describe this type of aircraft .. "gyroplane" and "autogyro". "Gyrocopter" is the name for a particular brand of gyroplane. The MT03 is not of that brand, so it is not a gyrocopter.
2. In the UK the custom is to taxi with the rotors turning at around 50-80rpm, thereby using rotor lift to relieve the loads on the rotor-head arising from taxi-ing on the generally rough surfaces where gyroplanes operate. (Take-off is around 250-280rpm depending on take-off weight.) In France, where I live and fly, gyroplanes taxi to the holding point with stationery rotors. The French accept the rotor loads, but prefer the increased safety of stationery rotors while taxi-ing.
3. It's beginning to look as though the MT03 was stationery in this incident. However, when taxi-ing the control column is held fully forward, to minimise the possibility of striking the fin. Even so, the rotor disk is still angled rearwards somewhat making a collision between a person in front and the turning rotors highly unlikely.
4. With a pusher gyroplane, like the MT03, the main wheels are generally roughly in line with the prop gear-box, with engine in front and the propellor behind the main wheels .. for C of G reasons.
5. As someone else has noted, a Rotax stops very quickly .. usually just a few blades. The main rotor takes ages to stop even with the use of a rotor brake.

[Basil]

vanHorck,
I'm taking the liberty of posting the following from The Horse & Hound website.
It is already in the public domain.
First of all I'd like to start off by saying I'm a family member of Trevor and thank you to all the kind messages and support that the family have received from people from all walks of life, it is a huge comfort.

I'd just like to point out a few things that have been mentioned in the press and on this forum and others on the internet.

Long Marston air strip isnt an active airfield as such and is used mainly as a strip for a car boot sale at weekends and in the summer for music festivals etc and is the site for where the proposed new eco town is to be built which will be known as Middle Quinton.

The gyrocopter that landed didnt have permission to land and refuel, and Trevor wasnt just walking across the strip at the time. For obvious reasons I cant go into any detail.

In the press its been stated that Trevors wife Caroline was present at Long Marston when he was Murdered and that he leaves Two children. Trevor wasnt even married, he didnt have any children and Caroline ( his long time partner ) wasnt there at the time and was actually at work unaware of what was happening.

The one thing they did get right in the press though was that Trevor really was a gentle giant and the countryside was his life, and the countryside will be a sadder place without Trev.

[vanHorck]

Well done Basil.

Too much speculation and not enough facts so far. The Copter was a means of transport and possibly a weapon in something between two parties. That is not good for our flying community.

Let s hope the truth comes out in due course.

[airborne_artist]

Magistrates court hearing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7937895.stm)

It seems the accused is the registered owned of G-RIFS. and is reported to be an "anti-hunt campaigner".

[airborne_artist]

from the BBCi report:

Trevor Morse ....was struck by a rear-mounted propeller....A post-mortem examination carried out at the University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire revealed he died from severe head injuries. Mr Morse died "virtually instantly", the court heard.

[VP959]

Interesting that the poster from the hunting website quoted above doesn't believe that Long Marston is an airfield. It obviously is, and even has a flying school based there.

This does highlight a certain level of ignorance amongst the general public about aviation, and the provisions contained within aviation related legislation that restrict public access to aircraft operating areas. If the deceased and his friends didn't think that this was an airfield, then they may well have also believed that the provisions of the various bits of law that apply to aircraft operating areas may not apply to them. They may also have been sadly unaware of the hazards associated with such areas - walking on to an active taxyway was still a damned dangerous thing to do even if no one intended to cause harm to another.

I've no doubt that the video evidence is crucial, but one has to ask why the deceased deliberately sought a face to face confrontation with the gyro pilot, and why someone felt that this confrontation should be videoed. If they were expecting some sort of violent reaction (which I assume is why they arranged for the confrontation to be videoed) then why choose to have it out in such a dangerous location?

After all, these people knew the identity of the aircraft, as they had reported it to the police and CAA several days before. They had a very good photo, clearly showing the registration (posted on a hunting website), so obviously knew the name and address of the registered owner (the pilot) as this is freely available via G-INFO to everyone. Why didn't this chap confront the pilot in a safer location, like his home?

I feel very sorry for the family and friends of the dead man, as his death seems to have been avoidable and needless. However, I cannot help but feel that he acted very, very unwisely.

VP

[jumpseater]

Hmmmm......... A simple bit of analysis on that photo of alleged low flying quickly shows that the absolute minimum distance that the gyro could be from the lens was about 1400ft. The most likely distance is around 2000ft. A retraction of the above might be wise.................

How do you come to that analysis? not that I particularly disagree with it.

[VP959]

I think that the deceased shouting at the pilots had been reported earlier. He was alleged to have shouted "you are not going anywhere" to the pilot. Of course, it's debatable if either the pilot or the passenger heard him, as they would almost certainly be wearing helmets and headsets, plus the noise level would have been quite high.

It seems that the unfortunate victim simply didn't realise how much danger he was putting himself in.

The case may hinge on why the gyro turned, if this detail is correct. Certainly the pilot could have made a gentle turn and endangered the deceased (AFAIK a gyro like this won't turn very quickly normally). Then again, with the 20 to 25kt wind that was blowing at the time I guess that it's equally possible that it may have weathercocked around faster than expected.

VP

[VP959]

How do you come to that analysis? not that I particularly disagree with it.

The jpg image includes the camera model and the lens focal length in a data field. Knowing this, the size of the gyro (in pixels) can be compared to the known size of the gyro and the camera sensor. Knowing the lens focal length allows the distance to be calculated, by knowing the true field width of a lens of that focal length.

Using the least optimistic dimensions gives a range from camera to gyro of about 1400ft, so perfectly legal. I'm sure it was very annoying to those on the ground, even though it was probably legal. In my experience, those unfamiliar with aircraft very often grossly underestimate their height.

VP

[VP959]

You are assuming the distance is vertical and have not taken into account any horizontal component.

No I haven't.

1400ft is the distance from the camera to the gyro, along the axis of the camera lens. The rule is 500ft FROM any object, person or structure, so this shows that the gyro was 1400ft FROM the camera. QED

VP

[jumpseater]

You are assuming the distance is vertical and have not taken into account any horizontal component.

The shots not far off the vertical but it doesn't take account of any crop of the original image, the quality doesn't look that good either, so I suspect it may have been cropped to get the detail, making it look (on the web page image), lower than it actually is.

eg original with 400ml lens
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/_B6O2648-1-1.jpg

same image cropped
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/_B6O2648-1.jpg

[VP959]

The image has been cropped, but the assumption is that the number of pixels occupied by the image of the gyro remains the same (which is exactly the case for a simple crop, without additional interpolation).

As we are dealing with ratios (in this case the ratio of the number of pixels the gyro takes up compared to the number of pixels across the camera sensor) the arithmetic remains valid.

If the image had been manipulated to crop and interpolate, increasing the number of apparent pixels in the cropped image, then there should be clear indications of artifacts, that don't seem to be present in that image.

Although it's quite possible to retain the original image meta data in the image after a major Photoshop job, I think it's unlikely that this is the case here. The image records the camera as a Canon EOS40D, with a 3888 x 2592 pixel sensor, fitted with a 400mm (35mm equivalent) focal length lens. The image was later cropped to 1063 x 768 pixels. The cropped part is just a subset of the full sensor image, hence the reason that the ratiometric technique still works.

VP

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

I've often found it frustrating that I'm no longer able to contribute to 'legal' topics, but never more so than when reading your interpretation of the law in your various posts in this thread.

Why can't you contribute? Have you been banned from posting such posts here?

As someone who has very recently witnessed an armed police response to a light aircraft that was thought to have been hijacked you would understand how ANY interference of an aircrafts operation is taking very very seriously by the authorities. Perhaps you also think the Police interpretation of hijacking of light aircraft is also incorrect.

[Sir George Cayley]

I'm confused :confused: dot com

How does a "gentle giant" come to embroiled in an altercation with a "hunt protestor"?

It is so very British to not speak ill of the deceased, but I can't help feeling that anger and frustration on both sides played a part in this sorry tradegdy.

Wish people could live and let live a bit more.:ugh::(

Sir George Cayley

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Not quite CD2M... he's a court Judge and formerly an aviation lawyer and therefore has to be careful about getting involved in 'legal' discussions.

[VP959]

How does a "gentle giant" come to embroiled in an altercation with a "hunt protestor"?

It is so very British to not speak ill of the deceased, but I can't help feeling that anger and frustration on both sides played a part in this sorry tradegdy.

A work colleague is acquainted with the master of the Warwickshire. Mr Morse was described to me by my colleague as being very "passionate" about hunting. He was also, allegedly, upset by an accident to a young girl that happened on the 1st March, which he believed to have been precipitated by the actions of the gyro pilot. Although the girl wasn't badly hurt, it has been alleged that Mr Morse wanted to make his feelings known to the pilot.

Clearly he felt quite strongly about this, as he drove 10 or 11 miles across country to track the gyro down and confront the pilot.

Why on earth he didn't just go and see the pilot at his house instead is a mystery, a question that I would imagine members of his family must be asking themselves over and over again. It had to be so much safer than trying to tackle him in his aircraft on an active taxyway.

VP

[Droopystop]

It is all too easy for us in the know to know where to get information on the owners of an aircraft once its hull registration is known. I doubt many Joe Public will have any idea G-INFO or similar exists so wouldn't go looking for it. It would therefore be understandable for Mr Morse's action in following the aircraft.

What ever happened there after......

But the legality or otherwise of Mr Morse being on the airfield is largely academic, since the pilot has not been prosecuted under the ANO (or at least the main offence seems to be murder, which is not covered by the ANO)

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

Fg Off Max Stout, I can understand him not being able to comment on actual pending cases such as the one being discussed here but if he feels my interpretation of the law is incorrect he is still free to comment why he thinks so.

Why on earth he didn't just go and see the pilot at his house instead is a mystery...
The listed owner on G-INFO may not be the same as the pilot flying, although it was the same person in this case. Also, I doubt many people know about G-INFO or how to go about finding such information.

As a keen horse rider myself, my horse bolted some years ago when a idiot pilot decided to do a dive and a low fly past so he could wave to his daughter also on a horse in the same group. That pilot lost his license after being reported to the CAA. If the pilot of G-RIFS did a similar thing, the CAA would take immediate action if reported, there is no excuse to take matters into your own hands.

[deltayankee]

...doubt many people know about G-INFO or how to go about finding such information.


This is in fact the case. People simply do not expect this level of personal information to be available from a public website. After all you can't look up a car registration. Non pilots would never think of it.

[Droopystop]

CD2M

I am not sure where you get this idea of hijack from and obviously cannot comment on the correlation between your recent experience and this case. But in post no. 40 you cited clause 146 from the ANO and implied it applied to the pilot. I am pretty sure 146 is there to ensure the CAA or other regulator/law enforcement agency is not impeded in performing an investigation/enquiry/prosecution in their duties of enforcing the ANO. Which is why it is under the general section not the Operating of Aircraft Section

[SASless]

The "Ban the Hunt" crowd do seem a bit pushy at times....and the "Hunt" crowd feel rather put upon as a result I guess. When you bottle up your emotions and circumstances prevent sane rational discourse by the parties involved then is it any surprise there are not more dangerous encounters between the two groups.

Watching the BBC video's of such protests and encounters should serve to remind folks there are better venue's than have been used to protest. Perhaps it is just too small a piece of land you folks have to share and it lends itself to these obsessions with poking one's nose into other folks activities even when they are legal activities to begin with.

Why not use the legal system or CAA to address some perceived injury or misconduct?

[nigelh]

VP you seem very determined to put the blame on the deceased . Does this have anything to do with your own views regarding hunting by any chance ??
In my experience these antis have more of a problem with hunting from a class point of view ( they are generally chippy little townies with no knowledge of the workings of the countryside ..but not all ) That is why , in their attempt to stop hunting they are more than happy to do such things as lay traps for horses to break their legs in, make a scent across a main road hoping for an accident etc etc these people are often uneducated and extremely agressive . All of the posts here saying the pilot should have shut down are spot on and if the pilot was frightened of a telling off about his behaviour then he should not have done it .
If i invaded a football pitch to try to stop play because i hate football i would expect a reaction .
CDM still on your planet i see :bored:

[Freewheel]

SAS, Bert,

I made my request on page 1 for 2 reasons;

1. The passion (venom) with which views for and against hunting are held and expressed

2. The poisonous nature of the thread associated with the incident you have since described. The fact that I agree that lack of a prosecution is mystifying has nothing to do with my view that the debate brought significant degradation of this site's credibility.

As I'm not a mod, I made a request. SP has provided the link for those interested.


Back on topic;

It has been reported that the incident was filmed. If so, the content of that recording may be significant in the charge.

In respect of the photos, there is no information available from the photos as to whether the aircraft was manoeuvering at the time the photograph was taken. The photograph in itself doesn't prove anything either way other than the identity of the aircraft at that place in that moment in time.

That there are two people being held is unusual unless both were in the aircraft and dual controls were fitted. There may be more involved.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait until a trial (if one is held) before finding out what the relevant counsels want the court to know.

[Whirlygig]

the content of that recording may be significant in the charge.
There was a video of the incident shown in the court today.

That there are two people being held is unusual unless both were in the aircraft and dual controls were fitted. There may be more involved.
The second person has been released.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait until a trial (if one is held) before finding out what the relevant counsels want the court to know.
The Crown Court hearing will be held on 23 March.

Cheers

Whirls

[turboshaft]

VP you seem very determined to put the blame on the deceased

Pot. Kettle. Black.

What a twit . Lets hope he goes down for a good time . ( not as in good time ....)

Let's hope someone with a cooler head works out exactly what happened first.

[VP959]

You are therefore assuming that the nearest object to the gyro was the camera when in fact the distance from the camera is irrelevant in terms of distance from other possible 3rd party objects which may well have put the aircraft in contravention of rule 5.
There is unfortunately no ground object in the photo that can be used to determine accurately a height.

The photo was, allegedly, being used by the hunt to show that the gyro was breaking the law. In fact it does no such thing, as shown by this simple arithmetic.

The height isn't relevant, as the rule is distance from, not height above, the gyro could perfectly legally be at low level but with adequate horizontal separation, I beleive.

AFAIK there were not enough people in this gathering to impose an absolute height above ground limit.

It may well be that the gyro broke the law at some point, all I have pointed out is that the photograph produced doesn't prove or support this view.


VP you seem very determined to put the blame on the deceased . Does this have anything to do with your own views regarding hunting by any chance ??

I cannot see any evidence to support that view in anything I have posted, nigelh. I happen to be agnostic with regard to the issue of hunting; in my view people should just be allowed to get on with things they enjoy, provided that they do not upset others in the course of their activity.

For the record, I was brought up in the country (on a farm) and still live in a rural area, so am well acquainted with the activities of both sides of the hunting divide and, to some extent, understand their differing views.

VP

[vanHorck]

I would not think flying to follow a hunt, for example to make sure it is a real dummy hunt is in itself illegal, as long as the 500 ft rule is obeyed, just like it is not illegal for a dummy hunt to take place providing the rules are obeyed.

If the Gyro was purposely trying to annoy the people involved in the hunt this would be different, but either way all this talk of the hunt is merely creating the framework for whatever happened at the airfield.

So the question remains, how is it possible for somebody to walk into a blade and be killed.

3 options have been provided:
1. stumbled over a wheel when approaching the craft (accident)
2. unexpected weathercocking of the craft (accident)
3. purpose pointing the blades towards the victim (murder or protection reflex in case the approach of the victim was considered to be threatening)

The aircraft had completed refueling. Unless the fuel is right next to the hanger where it is based and is due to be put away, it would be logical for the engine to be restarted.

Perhaps the hunt issue is the key for the investigation and charge. This is a highly sensitive issue and the prosecution will not want to be seen taking sides, in which case a court case and decision by the judge (either way) will prevent the prosecution being seen to be taking sides.

[tmmorris]

vH

A fourth possibility which occurs to me is:

Altercation between pilot and/or passenger and victim next to ac with engine running; victim is pushed into prop.

Unlikely as I can't see why they would have the engine running when one of them was out of the ac, but possible.

Tim

[Friendof]

I have spent the last 2 days reading a lot of forums, this one and several from the hunting lot. It would seem to me that due to the unique circumstances surrounding this incident that many have forgotten the innocent until proven guilty mantra which applies both to Trevor Morse and to Bryan Griffiths.

Just because one was a hunt supporter and one was 'anti' hunting does not mean that we in a biased state can assume that either one has done anything wrong. On all the forums each person is blaming whichever side they are against - ie pro hunting blame the pilot, anti hunting blame the hunt supporter.

The police have charged a man with murder, we assume with good reason, and from now on it will be up to a jury to decide. Lets stop blaming people and just save our thoughts for Trevor's family.

This post is not meant to accuse anyone, I just think that we are all in danger of loosing site of the biggest issue, a man has lost his life.

[nigelh]

Turboshaft . I think it is absolutely fair to say that the gyro pilot put himself into the position of purposely antagonising the hunt over a period of a few days . He is the instigator of this there is no doubt . Do you think this man would have followed him if he had been just going about his own business ? Of course not . As i said before ..i know that if i go out into the park and interfere with someones football game again and again ....i KNOW something is going to happen ...and when it does I will have caused it . That is a fact .
VP You may be a country squire but ...quote " provided that they do not upset others in the course of their activity." is just quite an odd thing to say ...... football upsets me , especially the players , so should it be banned ?
A lot of imported religeous things upset me ...ban them ? I really dont like moustaches either .........hunting , wearing fur coats , testing drugs on certain animals etc etc are all legal but obviously DO upset people ...and those people just happen to be mainly made up from the less educated in our society and see nothing wrong in using extreme violence in promoting their cause . This all boils down to the good old british class system and , as SAS says ,living on a small island on top of each other .

[staplefordheli]

As this is an active case, one has to be very careful what is posted on here
However lets assume that the facts in the papers are true and this big "gentle giant" hunt supporter goes to confront the said commander of the AC on the airfield,
probably already in taxi flight mode, rather than shutting down, he powers up to escape a potentially violent situation for himself and AC and then swerves around said person causing fatal injuries from the rear pusher prop.(the cause of death is already widely reported)

No different to a car driver accelerating away from a confrontation with someone in the road and striking the said person or for that matter a commercial pilot running over "plane stupid" demo on the taxiway or even as taking off. The fact they shouldnt be there has no bearing just as a train driver has to make some effort to avoid persons standing on the tracks and carrying on at speed would result in some charges being laid

Only a judge and jury can make the call as to wether this was an accident based on the prosecucution and defence cases, however things have changed now and whereas 25 years ago running a burglar over out of fear may have been accepted in a defence case. Today, it would not which is why we have serving police officers now in court on driving charges after pursuits go wrong.
Again it is down to the courts to clear the mess up and common sense to prevail if that is what this is, or deal the ultimate sentance if it was indeed murder.
We await the full facts and implications of this case which will no doubt take at least a year to come to trial but knowing the pro hunt and anti hunt sides, there will be much more of these types of confrontations to come, which for the grace of god have not resulted in more deaths before.
Do not forget that someone lost their life in this case regardless of hunting opinions.

[jumpseater]

nh
I think it is absolutely fair to say that the gyro pilot put himself into the position of purposely antagonising the hunt over a period of a few days

This is where its worth reading Stapleford's post carefully and thinking before you post. The above quoted post is not factual, its an assumption. There is evidence that an aircraft followed hunts, but not that the pilot, purposely antagonised the hunt over a period of a few days. It may have been a different but similar aircraft, different pilot, that is for the court to decide based on the evidence put before them. Allegations such as above may I think be considered predudicial to a fair trial if they become widespread.

[strake]

Rotorheads:
"A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them."

or:

"A forum for the uninformed to try and convince the ignorant of their point of view. Barrack room lawyers, psuedo-pilots and members of The Court Of Public Opinion all welcome"

[deltayankee]

There is evidence that an aircraft followed hunts, but not that the pilot, purposely antagonised the hunt
I can imagine scenarios where a pilot is following a hunt purely for monitoring purposes with no intention to harass but that it might still be perceived as harassment by the people on the ground who are not used to seeing aircraft at 500feet -- especially a noisy gyroplane. Anything less than 1000ft would intimidate many people.

In any case it is in the interests of all pilots to avoid giving a negative impression of private flying. There are plenty of people who would like to see aviation restricted further and this behaviour just gives them more ammunition.

[deltayankee]

Strake:

Fair comment re professional helicopter pilots, but this story never had any relevance to the board anyway unless people are being paid to monitor hunts. It's up to the mods to move it to a more appropriate space.



Thank you for your advice: but we're quite capable of moderating Rotorheads, and this thread :rolleyes:

Senior Pilot
Rotorheads Moderator

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

This is a tragic event and a sad loss to some ones life. However, there are still two sides to the story. In my experience, there is no such thing as a gentle giant. As nice as people are for 99% of the time. There is a point in every ones life when they lose it for one reason or another. In this case perhaps a couple of weeks of perceived annoyance and the scaring of a couple of horses. Has resulted in an opportunity to have words with the pilot. Then during that encounter and a loss of rational thought. The events that unravelled were tragic and very very sad for all involved. Pilot, co pilot, family and any one that may have witnessed it. Let’s not forget how an event like this can affect people.

[chester2005]

Clarification, Fact or Speculation/Hearsay

Fact 1 Someone has died RIP.
Fact 2 An aircraft was seen following/observing a hunt
Fact 3 Access to an airfield is for authorised users only

Speculation; The pilot broke Rule 5/flew below 500ft
The pilot attempted to injure someone

Hearsay; The pilot was harassing the hunt (subjective opinion)

This country does have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty"
and trial by a jury.
Surely it is now up to the legal system to arrive at the correct conclusion?

IMHO it is not right or prudent for people to attempt to propagate opinions through anonymous forums.
IMHO the hunting debate is very emotive and involvement with it risks muddying the waters and hiding the facts of the case.

It is very easy for Pro or Anti hunt supporters to blow off steam and make accusations, speculations and suppositions on here but in all reality when all the opinions and emotions are put to one side what remains are the facts, and that is what judgements should and will be made on and that should be all that matters!!!

Chester:ok:

[VP959]

VP You may be a country squire but ...quote " provided that they do not upset others in the course of their activity." is just quite an odd thing to say ...... football upsets me , especially the players , so should it be banned ?
A lot of imported religeous things upset me ...ban them ? I really dont like moustaches either .........hunting , wearing fur coats , testing drugs on certain animals etc etc are all legal but obviously DO upset people ...and those people just happen to be mainly made up from the less educated in our society and see nothing wrong in using extreme violence in promoting their cause . This all boils down to the good old british class system and , as SAS says ,living on a small island on top of each other .

First off, I'm far from being a "country squire" but even if I was, what would it matter?

Secondly, what's your problem with my perfectly innocent observations?

Finally, just to clarify things, my view is that people should be allowed to partake in whatever pastime they wish (including flying) as long as they do it responsibly and take heed of the need to be considerate to others (which is what I meant by the phrase you chose to misconstrue).

If people want to hunt, then that's fine by me, as long as they don't trample my garden in the process. If people want to protest about what they see as animal cruelty then that's equally fine by me, as long as they don't inconvenience me in the process.

Fact 1 Someone has died RIP.
Fact 2 An aircraft was seen following/observing a hunt
Fact 3 Access to an airfield is for authorised users only

Speculation; The pilot broke Rule 5/flew below 500ft
The pilot attempted to injure someone

Hearsay; The pilot was harassing the hunt (subjective opinion)

This country does have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty"
and trial by a jury.
Surely it is now up to the legal system to arrive at the correct conclusion?

Excellent points. Perhaps now is the time to let the legal system do it's stuff and see what transpires, as you conclude.

VP

[TornadoWilkes]

............... deleted, TW

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

nigelh:
All of the posts here saying the pilot should have shut down are spot on and if the pilot was frightened of a telling off about his behaviour then he should not have done it .

OK, so how do you know that Mr Morse was going there to only 'tell off' the pilot? The pilots action of continuing may be because he thought his life was in danger, as others have posted, it will all come out in the court room.

[vanHorck]

Nigelh

I agree with Doors2Manual. Your comments seem to be more motivated by your feelings regarding the hunt itself than with aviation. It is far too early for such conclusions.

Overflying a football field is not illegal even if it is for an entire game provided you stick to the rule of the air.

The issue remains on the ground, what happened exactly, why was the engine on, who made which moves, and I think it all will have happened in seconds. So we ll see what comes out...

[birrddog]

vanHorck, whether or not you agree with Nigelh's views on hunting, as an aviator I think you should be concerned about aircraft being used to harass or spy on people minding their own (legal) business.

We have enough problems with the noise abatement crowd as it is, and certainly don't need more reasons for people to want to restrict the use of aircraft because someone did the aerial equivalent of stalking.

That being said, is it even possible to get a restraining order against _certain_ people/aircraft from loitering over you or your property?

[rammymicro]

In my previous post I listed the details of the camera. That is held in the JPG file. The focal length was 400, which is quite powerful. Knowing the rotor length the sums are easy.

[vanHorck]

Birddog

Yes I agree with you about not harassing people, but that is a moral issue not a legal one.

For now the information seems to point to a picture which was taken by a strong lens from a distance well over 1000 feet.

So we do not know (apart from the moral issue) if the pilot, when flying, was outside his legal box.

[JanetGeorge]

Overflying a football field is not illegal even if it is for an entire game provided you stick to the rule of the air.

First - I confess - I'm not a pilot! I have a personal interest in this thread and it has helped many of us to understand a little better what MIGHT have gone wrong at Long Marston which led to the death of a very nice man.

The point which pilots might not appreciate - but which 'that' pilot was VERY aware of - is that most horses are seriously frightened of aircraft of any sort - particularly helicopters and similar craft. It doesn't matter to a horse if its 400 feet above it - or 600 feet - it's a MONSTER! And a terrified horse will bolt, or buck repeatedly while the craft is in its vicinity.

THAT pilot must have known that - he'd been low-flying (400 - 600 - 800 - who knows) for weeks above a number of hunts for the purpose of spying on them. He MUST have seen the reaction of horses to his presence.

I'm fortunate in that my farm is on the Cosford flight path and I get all sorts flying low - choppers, fighters, funny big silent dark things (technical description :ok:) and my horses get used to them PDQ - but visiting horses can go absolutely crazy the first time one flies overhead. Fortunately most of them are going so fast that by the time horse has bucked twice - it's gone! (And with luck. I'm still aboard!) To have a small 'whatever' hovering overhead causes havoc in the hunting field - and IMHO that's its primary purpose.

Whether it was an accident - or murder - time and the courts will decide. But if any of you guys see horses below you when flying, if you can climb a bit it will be much appreciated by folk at risk of landing rather hard!:D

[birrddog]

Yes I agree with you about not harassing people, but that is a moral issue not a legal one.


So is noise abatement, but it became a legal issue.

Best to nip these sorts of things in the bud, self regulate if you will, than have the CAA / Government do it for us.

[Just Cruisin]

I am a pilot.
I also happen to not be particularly fond of the "sport" of hunting.
However (and despite avoiding posting anything on this forum over several years of lurking) I felt that someone should acknowledge the measured, moderate tone of Ms George's post.
Well done that lady!

[bast0n]

A.Agincourt - you have a point, but I have found that helicopters of the medium to large variety or those with a noisy wang wang main rotor blades, ie: two main rotor blades DO frighten horses. Believe me I had children and a wife who rode and I was in the parrafin budgie. They do get used to it in part but a sudden noise from low flying aircraft of all sorts really get them going, and not always in the direction intended. I commend Janet Georges post as being very well written and thought out. If in doubt stay away from livestock of all kinds if you can, especially chickens! Boy do they learn to fly really quickly!

[Daysleeper]

They should cross breed all horses with Dartmoor ponys. You have to practically land on the things before they will look up, glare at you and wander about 3 feet away before going back to eating whatever it is they find so tasty on those blasted heaths. The only way you could frighten one with a helicopter is if it was an Apache and you were firing rockets at them, even then I'd give you good odds they'd ignore you.
I've never seen a creature less interested in helicopters, apart from my wife.:{

[coldair]

From the 'Coventry Evening Telegraph,
14th March 2009

Coventry Telegraph - News - Coventry News - Protestor filmed hunt supporter's death, court told (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2009/03/13/protestor-filmed-hunt-supporter-s-death-court-told-92746-23133476/)



THE FINAL moments of a hunt supporter who was nearly decapitated by an aircraft’s propellers were filmed by an animal rights campaigner.
Details about the grim footage were revealed as anti-hunt protester Bryan Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, Bedworth, appeared before magistrates in Nuneaton yesterday, charged with the murder of Trevor Morse.
Griffiths, a 54-year-old heating engineer, is accused of killing Mr Morse in the incident at Long Marston airfield, near Stratford, last Monday.
His gyrocopter – a privately-owned aircraft similar to a small helicopter – had landed to refuel after being used to monitor a hunt in south Warwickshire.
Hunt monitors often use videos and cameras to make sure hunts are acting within the law.
The court heard yesterday Mr Morse, aged 48, a self-employed gardener from Alderminster, near Stratford, died almost instantly after being struck by a blade of the gyrocoptor, which was being controlled by Griffiths.

A volunteer marshall and committee member of the Warwickshire Hunt, Mr Morse was known to regularly help with the smooth running of hunts.
It’s thought he had been watching the Warwickshire Hunt when the tragedy happened.
Mr Morse, who lived with his partner Caroline, was described by Warwickshire Hunt master Sam Butler as a loving partner, son and brother.
Griffiths was remanded in custody and is due to appear at Warwick Crown Court on Monday March 23.
A second man, held on suspicion of murder, has been released on police bail pending further inquiries.

[nigelh]

To all of you who keep going back to the height , was it legal was it not , that is irrelevent . if it was legal , then we have more to worry about as birddog says , we will end up with even more red tape and laws . Is that want we want ? The 500ft rule works quite well as a bench mark and it would be a great shame if the stupidity of others makes it need to be reworked . Obviously you are going to make a nuisance of yourself following people and spying on them , even at 1,000 ft :ugh: If i hovered outside Van whats his names house @ 1,000ft with a zoom lense looking through his bedroom window checking he was doing nothing illegal , or immoral , i guess he would like the power to stop me ?? Do not forget ...these people have every right to hunt just as you have the4 right to fish or indulge in other past times . I have even had a pm from one ppruner who is obviously a rabid anti , yet he shoots and fishes :confused::confused: next time he gets his rod out i will send a squadron of r22,s to hovver over him @ 501 ft :ok::ok:
We, the flying community , either condemn this sort of behaviour without reservation or we may well lose a lot of the freedoms we take for granted .
example . I have to fly an MD 500 ifr , airways ,Min Alt FL 12 to cross Egypt next month , no deviation no vfr . Same for Sudan , Ethiopia etc etc We are very lucky to ave the freedoms we currently have .

[Rightbase]

As a lurker who knows little about horses or helicopters, it seems to me that without appropriate training or safety advice, both are best given a wide berth.

[airborne_artist]

I can't help but be amazed at the increasing desperation of the anti-hunt campaigners. Not content with being able to "monitor" hunting from the ground in their attempts to prove that the hunt is acting outside the law, Mr Griffiths took to the air to (one assumes) gather eyewitness/video/photographic evidence from his gyro. It would be unfair too assume that he took to the air deliberately to harrass anyone on horseback.

Which brings me onto a point - if it could be proved that Mr Griffiths was, perhaps, getting his flying expenses paid by an anti-hunting organisation, would that be in contravention of the ANO and his licence privileges?

[SASless]

AA,

Along that line of thinking....perhaps the Coppers should do a time line analysis and determine if the victim exceeded the speed limit during his cross country drive to the airfield where the mishap occurred. If they determine he was in a "hurry" to get there and violated the speed limits then it would show he was not coldly going to have a civil conversation and would therefore show his state of mind was not that of a normal person.

I will bet you the Defense will be doing that along with other investigations to fully define the situation that existed prior to the Prop Strike. The Police should have done that already and not just look to prove a crime without taking in all of the evidence that both supports and mitigates the charge.

I would suggest if the man is charged with Murder and the charge is proved in a court the taking of money for the flying will become a rather moot point.

[JanetGeorge]

I have always felt that the horse does not get concerned overly if it can hear or see something approach. To be startled suddenly is another matter. It is often the case that a rider [who very often who does not hear the aircraft approach] gets startled and transmits that nervousness or concern to the mount.You are right - to a degree! It depends on the individual horse - and the individual 'something' - and each horse will view that 'something' differently depending on his life experience, training and natural temperament.

The horse evolved as a prey species - flight is his first defence. And ANYTHING he is not familiar with is a potential predator. Now many horses don't react to an aircraft (or a fast car) because while they are obviously 'predators' they are gone so quickly that they are obviously chasing some other poor bu**er! If the 'something' lands - then a loose horse will put a 'safe' distance between himself and it - then stop and watch. If 'it' doesn't move, he will return to investigate (and never leave a light plane or chopper unattended in a field with horses - they'll strip it bare!:eek:)

But a plane or chopper that hovers around above horses is NOT chasing someone else - it's waiting to pounce - and making a lot of noise in the process! If the rider is capable of stopping the horse from running, it is likely the horse will go into 'fight' mode; rearing and bucking to make himself appear bigger and more frightening!

And yes - in many cases it is the rider's fear of what the horse MIGHT do that causes a horse to panic. But if it's your 10 year old on a pony that's bolting towards a busy road, who are YOU going to blame?

They should cross breed all horses with Dartmoor ponys. You have to practically land on the things before they will look up, glare at you and wander about 3 feet away before going back to eating whatever it is they find so tasty on those blasted heaths.I suspect that's familiarity as well as temperament - Dartmoor is used by the military for low flying training (when they're not above my farm!! What ARE those HUGE dark, quiet planes that travel very quietly and slowly??)

[deltayankee]

The horse evolved as a prey species...


What an interesting post. After all the idle speculation about horses it is nice to read some facts from someone who is evidently "certified on type" and can explain horse "systems".

But in any case, legal or not, I do not see how anyone can defend the practice of circling at 500ft over people, animals or property in this way. A/C have no business flying low over the countryside except for the purposes of takeoff/landing or where necessary to comply with airspace limitations. And if you have to fly so low you should always pass through the area as quickly as possible, allowing just the occasional 720´turn to wave at girl/boyfriends.

There is, though, a possibility of extracting a positive outcome from this sorry affair: If every flying club and horse club could arrange reciprocal open days perhaps both sides could understand each other better.

[TRC]

Something that we discovered from balloon flying and low-level helicopter aerial work is, as I think was mentioned earlier horses, cattle, pigs are relatively happy if they can SEE what's making the noise.

Trouble is, these animals are not wired to look UP for danger having never had an airborne enemy.

If you surprise these animals, say by flying low over a field bounded by high trees, they go bonkers - usually trying to go straight through the fence or up the nearest tree.

We conducted several experiments so that we could operate with the least disturbance to these animals. The first was a herd of young cattle, the helicopter, with G/A radio contact approached the field from some distance fairly flat and I stood in the herd "talking to" the girls (well, not IN the herd but near enough to get away if it went pear-shaped). They were fine, couldn't care less.

The second time was with a group of Highland cattle. They were lying down doing what cows do. We did the same flat bomber command approach and landed 50 yards from them. They didn't even get up. Horses seem to act in a similar way if they can see what's going on. I can't guarantee that this will work all the time, but it was interesting.

As I say, if you surprise them and they can't see what's going on - all hell can break loose.

There was a video made by a farmer/balloonist about 10 years ago aimed at sport and GA flyers to get them to understand the issues, don't know if it's still available. I will try to find out.

[deltayankee]

There was a video made by a farmer/balloonist about 10 years ago aimed at sport and GA flyers to get them to understand the issues, don't know if it's still available. I will try to find out.

If you can get this on YouTube and post a link it will be appreciated.

[TRC]

deltayankee - et al...

If I recall, it was intended to be sold through flying clubs, G/A airfield shops, etc.

I will try to see if it is either still around as a VHS or maybe even on DVD.

[airborne_artist]

I would suggest if the man is charged with Murder and the charge is proved in a court the taking of money for the flying will become a rather moot point.

Would the CAA leave the guy alone, if found he was guilty on the murder charge, even if there was enough evidence to charge the accused with aviation offences?

[grizzled]

Re your question . . .

Who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. Does it really matter?

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I grew up riding horses around the Middle Wallop area, The horses didn't take any notice of the helicopter activity, because as mentioned they seemed to know it was on its way somewhere else and not chasing them. They can get used to anything with the right training, take police horses for example. But you give them something that makes them feel threatened and they can bolt and that can kill themselves and their rider.

When I was dairy farming in a different part of the country the cows just dozed and chewed their cud when low level RAF aircraft went over. But one day a hot air balloon went over, put on it's hot air or whatever it is they do right over the herd...the cows went completely nuts, fences broken, all over the road, car crashes, injuries, lost milk yield, aborted calves.... Probably because it was so sudden, they didn't hear it "Approaching" and weren't used to it. Believe me it takes a lot to spook a dairy cow!

If livestock weren't spooked by low level aircraft then the mustering folks here in Aus in their R22s wouldn't get much work done!

[rsuggitt]

A general point... but there's a lot of difference between horses in stables or grazing in a field, and horses that are out hunting. The latter are likely to be much more excitable and thus more prone to spooking, bolting, etc if they see/hear something that disturbs them. Added to that, horses out hunting are not necessarily going to be in familiar terrain, which will add to their spook-ability.

[SASless]

For Horse people.....I sure hear some silly comments!

Plain language....Horses run around looking for something to be scared of!

Mules for instance are far more sure footed and are no where as prone to go ape s**t for no good reason.

Just as flying has its inherent risks so does riding horses.

Humans have been thrown from horses from the very first day they began riding the things and will continue to be thrown and thrown for all manner of reasons.

Trying to blame horse's desire to buck and bolt on flying machines is just flat silly.

I found the English Horseman's mindset confusing based upon exposure to them years ago. A pack of them were riding down the paved road and got all snotty whenever approached by a car at any speed or proximity.

That observation was made based upon several weekends while sat at a country pub and watching the antics for entertainment.

[B Sousa]

Sorry, Bert.....but I do not wish to go there
Sasless, since you took up a couple paragraphs not going there, I think you had better go back and check on the circumstances. First of all the Photographer had been previously warned NOT to Get anywhere near the Helipad, (was not in the Cornfield)
Pilot may have been showing his ass, but on a place of danger even in the best circumstances. Probably the main reason he was not charged by anyone and civil suit went down the toilet.
I know those who were there so I do not wish to go there also.
In this case you cant fix stupid.

[bast0n]

Trying to blame horse's desire to buck and bolt on flying machines is just flat silly

No one is, you old colonial you! It is just one of many. Horses appear to have brains about the same size as a pheasants. (sorry to any pheasants on this thread)

[VP959]

Horses, and livestock in general, do become accustomed to disturbance. Here in the South of England, where helicopter low flying is a normal everyday occurrence, horses and other livestock quickly get used to the noise.

The one thing that I know really does spook even a well-acclimatised horse, is the sudden arrival of something noisy. If they hear it coming from afar, they seem not to be particularly perturbed as a rule.

We've lost livestock (cattle) from being spooked. They've run into fences en masse and suffered severe injuries, usually badly torn udders from running into barbed wire. The main culprits have been very low flying military jets, which appear to come from nowhere, although the occasional very, very low flying Chinook has caused the odd problem.

Generally, if aircraft stay above about 1000 to 1500ft I really don't think most animals will be too bothered, although I certainly believe that we are well-advised (in the interest of being good neighbours) to keep as far away from livestock as we reasonably can.

VP

[SASless]

bast0n,

That is Ex-Colonial if you please.:=

Recall, we asked you very nicely to leave and after a bit of debate , we showed you and your Hessian friends to the door and handed you your hat and coat. :E

[Basil]

I thought the post by JanetGeorge illuminating.
They are fairly stupid creatures (horses, not girls), less controllable than a motor cycle but just as exhilarating to ride.
Like a motor bike they'll buck, they'll top end you, bite you, trash you BUT, I've never ridden a bike which refuses to pass a kid's bicycle lying on the road, or is upset by a kid up a nearby tree or won't start despite being in as new condition and fully fuelled or which goes faster on the way home or apropos nothing just stands on your foot.
. . or perhaps, as a pretty rubbish rider of both, it's just me :O

[whoateallthepies]

Thought I'd posted this already.


You had. It wasn't funny then, and it still isn't :hmm:

Senior Pilot
Rotorheads Moderator

[Whirlygig]

Yes, you did. And it got deleted, just as, hopefully, it will get deleted again!!

Cheers

Whirls

[airborne_artist]

Bringing this back OT. I'm told that the video is horribly clear. The aircraft set off, from a standstill, towards him, and mowed him down head-on. The aircraft passenger is a well-known animal rights activist with a long and repulsive list of convictions.

The video was shot by a third anti, who was doing a ground support/handling role.

[herman the crab]

Sorry - off topic and my bold...

I have to fly an MD 500 ifr , airways ,Min Alt FL 12 to cross Egypt next month , no deviation no vfr . Same for Sudan , Ethiopia etc etcHave to eh? Hard life for some :)

HTC

[heli1]

Hmmmm....bearing in mind the cost of props and rotor blades ,would any sane person risk deliberately damaging them ??
Just a thought.

[airborne_artist]

Hmmmm....bearing in mind the cost of props and rotor blades ,would any sane person risk deliberately damaging them ??

Who says he was sane at the time? It sounds like it could be a horrible attack of red mist, if the story I have been told is true.

[Whirlygig]

bearing in mind the cost of props and rotor blades ,would any sane person risk deliberately damaging them ?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Would any sane person decapitate another?

If what is rumoured is true, then the cost of his blades was not top of his priority list; neither was the consequences of taking another man's life so violently.

Cheers

Whirls

[SASless]

It takes two to fight!

Just because you decide to jump into a well does not mean the Good Lord is bound to fetch you out!

Either/Both parties involved could have avoided this event by using a bit of commonsense.

I fault both of them equally in that regard.

Perhaps both sides in the Hunt/No-Hunt camps will take note of the loss of a life and come to their senses otherwise this will not be the last person killed or maimed as a result of gross stupidity on both sides.

[Keith_P]

I haven't read the whole of this topic as I don't have that much free time. Have tried to get through the majority of the 'neutral' information and ignore the 'obviously biassed' where possible. This leads me to the question of how on earth will it be possible to get a 'neutral' jury if this is going to court as a murder trial. From those who have posted on here, I would suggest the majority have a view which is already biassed because of their existing views on hunting.

[Basil]

SASless,
Perhaps both sides in the Hunt/No-Hunt camps will take note of the loss of a life and come to their senses otherwise this will not be the last person killed or maimed as a result of gross stupidity on both sides.
Unless proved otherwise, the hunt were going about their lawful business and appear to have been harrassed by people who once hid behind the shield of 'animal welfare'. They no longer have that excuse and clearly just HATE 'toffs on horses'.

[ANW]

Bringing this back OT. I'm told that the video is horribly clear. The aircraft set off, from a standstill, towards him, and mowed him down head-on.

An alternative reading of your wording might be ...... the aircraft was taxiing and the huntsman, totally and irresponsibly oblivious to any danger, continued to advance towards it to have the aforementioned confrontation with the occupant. No sane person would venture anywhere near one when the engine is running, for obvious reasons. It is extremely foolish to do otherwise.

Long Marston airfield - ICAO code EGBL, and its in the vfr flight guides as a long establish airfield.


Subject to adhering to the operational legalities of the ANO, any aircraft can be used to monitor activities. The Antis may have had a good reason to check the activities of this particular hunt, acting on information they have received. Radar equipped Fishery protection and quota monitoring aircraft are low flying daily, gathering shipping information for possible infringements and prosecution. So why not a hunt surveillance fleet, paid for by the government, if police authorities claim their budgets will not allow them to do this work? Gathering evidence by use of any aerial or ground platform is perfectly legal. That the subject(s) being filmed won't like it, is another matter. The Courts and the Government ask for evidence of wrong-doing before they will act. How is one to obtain said evidence? Especially if the Police, as servants of the Law will not act?

There is an assumption being made here (and elsewhere) that the Gyro 'buzzed' the hunt. This conjures up scenes of James Bond and Little Nellie zipping through the hedgerows, guns a blazing, which some newspaper reporters would have the casual reader believe. Did it? I don't know. Was it following the hunt at a legal height? I don't know, I was not there. Were you? The pilot will be aware of the height rules and would be a fool to break them in this situation, where he knows witnesses are present. The Government have said they want evidence: this is one legitimate way to gather such evidence; the Police could have used their helicopter, but they appear to prefer to leave it to others to gather evidence for them - conveniently at other people's expense. Would the hunt complain about the police aerial surveillance of their activities? After all such aerial and ground monitoring of crowds takes place, for example, every weekend at top league football matches.


As to monitor events. The Police air support units and other agencies do this everyday of the week 24/7/365. Bringing it down to ground level, we are surrounded by CCTV cameras checking how many times we sneeze. No Nigelh, if the Police cannot or more likely, will not, monitor all activities to gather evidence, not just hunting related, then it is left to the individual or others to do the work the police are paid to do. Just like a friend of mine has installed CCTV overlooking the neighbourhood area he resides in which, for 10 years of police in-action, has been the scene of drug dealing. Despite residents informing the local police and passing on car registrations, nothing has been done (10 years). With the installation of private initiative CCTV, the dealers and customers (in their nice Bentleys, Range Rovers etc) moved elsewhere, when confronted and informed of the CCTV monitoring. Now it is someone else's problem in a different area. Meanwhile the Chief Constable had other things on his mind (www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1081853_todd_linked_to_38_women).

Aerial monitoring has been around for decades. Local councils use this to check on illegal buildings in your back gardens which do not have planning consent. The tax man uses it to check on local farmers who are storing caravans over winter and not declaring their income for doing so - and I know of one girl who is employed full time by the Revenue just to read newspaper adverts and follow up as a pretend caravanner to see if the farmers are declaring their additional income. Aerial monitoring is and has been a fact of life since the Battlefields of WWI and earlier. Some here say it is a form of harassment. Then so is a gang of policemen manning revenue earning speed traps cameras - harassed motorists of course being easy pickings, unlike having to expend police funds to deal with drug dealers.

Talking of heated revenge, anyone recall the incident when the Merseyside Police helicopter was set on fire on the main terminal apron at Liverpool Airport, by the bad guys it had been monitoring? Similarly a parked helicopter, identical to the one in use by the Manchester police at the time, was peppered with gun shot whilst parked at Barton airfield - only it was not the police machine, but a night-stopping private owner, who happened to have a similar machine. It is not only 'height' that people cannot get right.

This video may be of interest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvJNwMETHSY).

[SASless]

Basil,

Excuse me but when did the airfield become a part of the hunt site?

The man drove cross country to beard the pilot at his aircraft did he not?

ANW,

Despite agreeing with most of what you said....just why is it imperative for anti-hunters to perform aerial surveillance upon the Hunt? If they have a complaint then call the Police.

If they are worried about animals being killed perhaps they could save far more by getting involved in rescuing abandoned domestic critters that are facing the death penalty if not adopted.

[vanHorck]

Who are we to judge on hearsay of what is on a video?

The way thing are told leave as much impression as the words themselves.

The aircraft set off, from a standstill, towards him, and mowed him down head-on. The aircraft passenger is a well-known animal rights activist with a long and repulsive list of convictions.

Was the engine already running? Did it start off on the taxi way? Was the intention to avoid the upcoming fight and take off? How much time elapsed from the moment the gyro started moving till the collision occurred? Did either party take avoidance action? Did the terrain allow for avoiding action?

Or was it how the wording was selected above?

It s a horrible situation but neither the hunter nor the hunted should be convicted at this time

[JanetGeorge]

Perhaps both sides in the Hunt/No-Hunt camps will take note of the loss of a life and come to their senses otherwise this will not be the last person killed or maimed as a result of gross stupidity on both sides.

One would hope that would be the case - sadly, I fear not - particularly when an AR activist on another site posted: "the tactic of scaring a horse so it will throw the rider is I believe legitamate, but I would never purposefuly hurt them."

Gathering evidence by use of any aerial or ground platform is perfectly legal. That the subject(s) being filmed won't like it, is another matter.

Try going to your local park and filming young children at play and see how long it is before a policeman turns up to arrest you. These so-called monitors are constantly filming children out hunting (and screaming foul-mouthed abuse at them!) Funnily enough, their parents DON'T like it!

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Crikey ANW, that was quite a post!

I don't particularly object to professional pilots representing lawful authority enforcing the law through aerial surveillance.

I do object to amateur pilots representing extremist groups enforcing their own personal agendas through vigilanteism and using aircraft to harass other citizens.

Without even wanting to get started on the pro/anti hunt debate, I think this sort of vigilante air force is a recipe for disaster and I hope that the police, CAA, and all responsible members of the aviation community would stamp hard on this sort of activity before it becomes commonplace.

[deltayankee]

I don't particularly object to professional pilots representing lawful authority enforcing the law through aerial surveillance. I do object to amateur pilots representing extremist groups enforcing their own personal agendas through vigilanteism and using aircraft to harass other citizens.



I am surprised it took so long to get round to this point, but I think it is the most interesting. I agree entirely, and I am surprised that they allow it today. If this sort of thing isn't stopped quickly you will have situations like pro-lifers hovering over abortion clinics, then pro-choicers monitoring them -- a recipe for mid air collisions. Today it is a small number, probably because people with licenses prefer to pass their time doing other things, but if political groups see that it works they will start sending their people to get flying lessons.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Aaah, a return of sponsored flying training - not all bad then! [JOKE]

[staplefordheli]

Without stating the obvious, this is a live case and there is a serious danger of this thread becoming predudicial to a forthcoming trial which could cause action to be taken against the individuals posting the information and also the forum. Be very careful in posting anything relating to live trials, especially evidence. If it is not already in the papers (who employ teams of lawers to ensure they dont predjudice), then it should not be posted. To my knowledge, the content of the video has not been released and will be pivotal to a forthcoming trial. Any jury reading some of the above posts above would have already had their minds made up for them!

I know we all want to know what happened but i am afraid that will have to wait till the trial and jurys outcome, probably many months away.
Remember numbers of the media along with (no doubt) Crown court judges are members of this forum.

[VP959]

Regretfully, there are hunts that are blatantly disregarding the Hunting Act (and I am not saying that was the case with this hunt on this occasion).

Equally regretfully, various police forces have made it clear that they do not have the resources to prosecute hunts for breaches of the HA and have no intention of checking hunts for compliance with this law.

Under these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that those who feel passionately that hunting is wrong (and I am not amongst them) might consider that they need to take on the role of collecting evidence of possible wrongdoing.

It seems that the deceased was equally reluctant to rely on the police and CAA to resolve the complaint from a week or so previously, and, rather like the anti-hunt people, decided to take direct action.

Irrespective of who was legally to blame, an unpleasant outcome was inevitable from such an encounter. It's just tragic that this encounter ended in someone's death, rather than just a few sharp words or a bit of fisticuffs.

VP

[tmmorris]

Excuse me but when did the airfield become a part of the hunt site?

The man drove cross country to beard the pilot at his aircraft did he not?

That has been reported. I can say though that there is another story - which I heard from a colleague who was a personal friend of the victim - that he had in fact driven to Long Marston to film the pilot in order to get evidence of identity, as they were aware of who owned the ac but not who was flying it. According to that version, the film was made by a hunt supporter, therefore.

I offer that purely because things are being discussed as 'fact' - as above - when in fact they are opinion.

Tim

[vanHorck]

VP959 post, an addition

Governments try to regulate and sometimes have to allow or disallow something that the community is divided on. Thats why we have police.

To introduce a law (in this case the hunting ban) and then not enforce it is asking for trouble. That s not a criticism of the police forces but one of the legislators.

[VP959]

VP959 post, an addition

Governments try to regulate and sometimes have to allow or disallow something that the community is divided on. Thats why we have police.

To introduce a law (in this case the hunting ban) and then not enforce it is asking for trouble. That s not a criticism of the police forces but one of the legislators.

I couldn't agree more. I have occasionally wondered quite how our legislators ever intended our police to enforce this law. The only effective way of ensuring compliance would be to follow hunts across country, which would almost certainly mean the use of some form of aerial asset, at considerable expense to taxpayers.

Given that a breach of this law is, at best, likely to result in no more than a metaphorical slap on the wrist for those engaged in hunting, then it seems inevitable that police forces would opt to put enforcement of it at the lower end of their list of priorities.

We have far, far, too many examples of poorly thought through laws, created for political expediency rather the the overall good of the people. Unfortunately there seems to be no easy way to get useless law repealed. If a political party made (and provided some assurance that they would honour) a pledge to review and repeal the plethora of ill-thought through and unenforceable legislation in their first term in office then they'd get my vote.

VP

[deltayankee]

Getting back to aviation... As I understand it the pilot in this incident was not a commercial pilot. Is it really permitted within the terms of a PPL to practice this sort of activity? And why is this only happening now? Is it just that most PPLs value their priveleges and don't want to risk losing them, or has enforcement of abuses somehow been neglected. I ask for information, not for any sort of rhetorical purpose.

[Whirlygig]

The pilot was the owner and, unless the passenger or "organisation" was paying the full cost of the flight, PPL privileges would not have been exceeded.

Cheers

Whirls

[deltayankee]

Thank you. So as long as he paid his own fuel and everything then no law was broken.

But surely there múst be some public interest in restrictions on loitering in the same place for a long time without some professional need. Free speech is fine but flying free speech sounds dangerous and not something we want to encourage. Imagine the chaos if every pressure group had its own airforce.

[RatherBeFlying]

If the pilot's lawyer can demonstrate that the pilot was in fear of the pedestrian and steered away, but the pedestrian then ran at the crew of an in motion aircraft, he can then argue that the pedestrian was the author of his own misfortune.

Haven't seen the video, nor do I really want to, but that's what the defendant's lawyer will be looking for -- that or an unexpected movement by the pedestrian.

Most pilots seeing a loose animal or child nearby would immediately shut down. But there is an assumption that an adult is not about to kill himself.

[vanHorck]

Although immediately shutting down the engine is the best way, we as humans have a flee instinct too.

If the pilot felt seriously threatened, his instinct reaction could have been to apply throttle rather than shut down.

We just don't know. I am quite sure both the vast majority of pro and anti hunters will have never wished this to happen.

More importantly the outcome is what nobody who is serious about flying wishes to happen. Aviation is involved here in a feud between two large and passionate minorities as the utensil of either an accident or murder or something in between.

[deltayankee]

...and on the other hand if I were being pursued by a gyrocopter I would flee, too, heading for some solid cover like a tree. If there is no cover before it has accelerated to my best running speed I would lie down on the ground. But this was not a normal situation and people who are upset do not always think things through.

In any case this is an extremely rare occurrance and probably we will not see another case like this as long as we live. What is much more likely is to see an incident caused by a pilot more interested in observing the ground that flying his/her A/C.

[VP959]

I can recall two or three occasions when people have approached my aircraft when I've been sat on the ground, engine running. One was potentially quite dangerous as the chap had a dog with him (not on a lead).

On each occasion my response was to yell a warning to keep clear. I honestly can't recall thinking about shutting the mags off, although with the blessed hindsight that this incident has given I rather think I will consider it in future.

I've discussed this with a few aviating friends, who, like me, fly from isolated rural strips. We all agreed that shutting the engine down was one of the last things we would instinctively do. One raised the point that, as his engine took a long time to warm the oil, he'd be quite focussed on waiting for the temperature gauge to come up before taxying, and may not be as aware as he should be of his surroundings (like the accident aircraft his engine is a Rotax 912S, that is quite slow to warm up in cold weather).

As for the view that this chap was "chased" by the gyro, all I can say is that the limited manoeuvrability, restricted steering accuracy and limited stability makes this challenging for the gyro to do. I would imagine it steers on the ground rather like a flexwing microlight, which has the ground handling capability of a child's soapbox cart.

VP

[deltayankee]

On each occasion my response was to yell a warning to keep clear. I honestly can't recall thinking about shutting the mags off,...

I think nobody thinks of it until they have had a close call and realized that people really are oblivious to the risk and yelling does no good. People with no fear of a spinning prop are like toddlers who don't understand why running into the road is dangerous.

[Basil]

ANW,
Radar equipped Fishery protection and quota monitoring aircraft are low flying daily, gathering shipping information for possible infringements and prosecution. So why not a hunt surveillance fleet, paid for by the government
Well, I'd have to say "Cost benefit." There's a shortage of fish, which we eat but no dearth of foxes, which we don't. :)

Noticed the farm strip had a little electric fence - still got a bit of 'stuff' on the windscreen though. I think, other than when filming, I'd have used a steeper approach.

I'd seen the story of the poor old bonking bobby - obviously got himself in too deep.

[airborne_artist]

One wonders what the insurers would think if advised in advance by a PPL(G) that some of the intended flying would be to monitor hunting. It's not quite the same as conventional "social, domestic and pleasure" flying, really, is it?

[Basil]

AA,
It's not quite the same as conventional "social, domestic and pleasure" flying, really, is it?
Did you mean: "socialist, domestic and pleasure" flying? ;)

[rsuggitt]

"I've discussed this with a few aviating friends, who, like me, fly from isolated rural strips. We all agreed that shutting the engine down was one of the last things we would instinctively do. "

We're trained what to do if the aircraft stalls (or whatever a gyrocopter might do)....
.... when we encounter unusual attitudes
.... when there's a power failure in cruise
... when there's a power failire at take off
... if there's an engine or electrical fire.
.... if we get lost
.... if we encounter IMC
.... etc

but there's no training on what to do if someone approaches the aircraft. Having the presence of mind to shut down isnt something that would be automatic.

[vanHorck]

some further information:

Having posted a link to the Horse and Hound forum, here is a link to the organization who organises the monitoring of hunts. Press Releases (http://www.powa.org.uk/pressreleases.html)


Something else that surprised me when googling the subject is that several news-sites are quoting the manager of the airfield as saying

The aircraft collided with the victim after refuelling whist taxiing ON THE RUNWAY

To me this suggest the gyro was preparing to take off, the pilot therefore in my mind completely focussed on this technical aspect. I don't know how you people feel about this but I would not be thinking of the reason of my flight at that stage (in his case the hunt), I would be be 100% focussed on my checklists and actions to complete.

Jeeze, I do hope this was a genuine accident....

[bigfoot01]

I always check the runway is clear. For those of you who would have pressed on regardless of angry man on the runway, probably worth noting that a chap has been banged up charged with murder. While I appreciate what you may have done prior to this, it might be worth ammending the approach in future, in light of this

While this related hunting, I can see simlar things with noise abatement and people worried that you have been watching teenage daughter sunbathing etc... A number of people are anticipating a silly summer for one reason or another, I for one am going to keep my eye out.

[chopjock]

Whirlygig The pilot was the owner and, unless the passenger or "organisation" was paying the full cost of the flight, PPL privileges would not have been exceeded.

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls,
I don't think that is entirely correct. I am under the impression that if any money is paid for the purpose of the flight then it's aerial work...:)

[Whirlygig]

Cost sharing amongst PPL pilots is allowed. If an hour's flight costs £300 and I fly with me Mum and she gives me £150, then that's OK.

Cost sharing, as long as the passengers' contributions does not exceed "their equal share" and the flight is not "advertised", then contributions are allowed.

Cheers

Whirls

[nigelh]

I dont think that is strictly true whirls .....you can only share the running costs and NOT the fixed costs . As a gyro would really only cost a few quid in fuel and oil then the share could only be 50% of a few quid . Once again if this issue is pushed then no doubt that loophole will be another one closed . This i guess was designed for enthusiasts to share the flying and not for a hard line bunh of activists to "hire " the machine to do their dirty work . The police dont monitor this law because they think it is daft ( i have that from the horses mouth , so to speak, from a chief constable )
Hopefully i havent said anything in this post to merit it vapourising ???::{
I still do not see how you could line up on a runway and not notice someone coming towards you ...it is not as if the grass is THAT tall :ugh:

[Bronx]

Do we really want to get side-tracked into who paid for the flight and how much? :confused:
Possible illegal public transport is the least of this pilot's problems.

It must be very exceptional for a pilot to be charged with Murder following a death caused by contact between an aircraft and a person on the ground. Manslaughter maybe, in a bad case.

The DA has charged this pilot with Murder. Before making that decision he would have considered all the eye-witness accounts of what happened and watched the video if there is one. The decision wouldn't have been made lightly.

The charge may not stick at trial but the DA obviously thinks there's enough evidence to charge murder or he would have charged manslaughter or not charged the pilot at all.

Strange how some folk here are so convinced it wasn't murder when they haven't seen any of the evidence so they can't possibly know. :rolleyes:


B.

[SASless]

Bronx,

It beats heck out of listening to the Hunt/No Hunt drivel.

That is sort of like listening to your Bloomberg wanting to do away with salt on food in your Big Apple!

[Whirlygig]

If the owner/pilot of the gyrocopter wanted to take a passenger free of charge, (as he may well have wanted to do if they shared a common interest), then there are no implications in the Public Transport/Aerial Work rules.

Cheers

Whirls



Nigelh ... you sure????

[VP959]

This incident did not take place on the runway. Here is a photo showing the location that was posted on another forum:

http://www.bmaa.org/forums/attach.aspx/3821/accident.jpg

VP

[TRC]

Quote:
There was a video made by a farmer/balloonist about 10 years ago aimed at sport and GA flyers to get them to understand the issues, don't know if it's still available. I will try to find out.
If you can get this on YouTube and post a link it will be appreciated.

I have been in contact with the company that made this video.

They have run out of stock and, to make matters worse, have mislaid the master. They promised to let me know if it turns up.

Sorry.

[Basil]

This from BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7958969.stm)
Bryan Griffiths, 54, from Bedworth in Warwickshire, was remanded in custody at Warwick Crown Court and is due to appear there again on 27 May.

[vanHorck]

Why is it you Brits publish full names and full on photographs of people who are accused but not (yet) convicted? I find it distasteful.....

Even more peculiar in a country where a jury needs to be found who can decide.....

[VP959]

Why is it you Brits publish full names and full on photographs of people who are accused but not (yet) convicted? I find it distasteful.....

Even more peculiar in a country where a jury needs to be found who can decide.....

A very good question indeed. We tend to allow the press freedom to report whatever they feel they can make money from, a policy that both promotes openness and is itself open to abuse.

I have long been of the view that anyone arrested or charged with any alleged crime should be granted anonymity. Only if found guilty should identities be revealed and publication of the full story be allowed.

However, as we now live in a global community, where national restrictions on reporting are increasingly becoming a bit toothless, I don't see that there is much that can be done to restrict things. If a story was suppressed under UK law, then it would almost certainly be reported elsewhere in the world, free from any restrictions.

VP

[STBro]

First, regarding livestock ... helicopters are used to drive herd animals, so both bovine and equine stock will indeed respond to a rotorcraft. That includes horses, burros and cows ...
http://www.fund4horses.org/pdf/HelicopterRemovalsPictorialJune2007.pdf

Second, the issue of the pilot's behavior or the pedestrian's during events prior to the time proximate the encounter on the ramp are irrelevant from an aviation standpoint, although they may have a bearing on judicial proceedings and decisions.

Third, it would seem that the issue in question is why the pilot in command did not adhere to UK CAP 768 Ch 10 Annex 1 regarding ground operations and ramp safety. There really are only two alternatives: 1. the pilot operated in an unsafe manner and collided with the victim or 2. the pilot intentionally used the aircraft to collide with the victim. Since the authorities have responded with a murder investigation, it seems that they believe there is sufficient evidence for alternative 2.

IMO the gyro plane is one way that a larger number of private individuals can become members of the aviation family. It is unfortunate when some choose to behave irresponsibly or criminally and cast a bad light on the rotorcraft community. It would be a shame if this event led to increased restrictions on the UK rotor sport community...

[mary meagher]

Brian Griffiths is due to enter a plea in Warwick Crown Court at noon today.

Ever since his encounter with a hunt supporter at Long Marston airfield, he has been held in prison on a murder charge.

Video evidence is the key.

Without going back over the thread, forgive me, mods, can anyone tell me how you could murder somebody with a gyroplane?????

[airborne_artist]

Just the same way as you could with any vehicle that you control.

[Munnyspinner]

Originally Posted by vanHorck
Why is it you Brits publish full names and full on photographs of people who are accused but not (yet) convicted? I find it distasteful....

A good point. This will only occur where the identity of the accused is not likley to be challenged in court. In this case the accused was the pilot of the aircraft which was involved in the incident and that is not being challenged by his lawyers. Whether a crime was committed and, if so, what that crime was is now a matter for the courts to decide. The charge is one of murder and a plea of not guilty has presumably been lodged. The press will not be able to report anything that isn't already factual or isn't presented in court as evidence. It is open to the court to apply or lift reporting restrictions at any time during trial.

Is it fair to the accused? My view is that it probably is although, I'm not really sure whether it is in the public interest. My reasoning is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty - a general presumption at law. The bruden of proof is on the prosecution who, in this case would need to convince a jury , beyond reasonable doubt ( i.e. any doubt that a reasonable person ( the man on the Clapham omnibus) might have that the crime for which they have been indicted was committed.) The evidence is presented by the prosecution and tested by the defence. If found guilty then the full identity of the accused is normally revealed publically. If acquitted, the legal status of the accused is the same as it is now ( innocent) but with the burden of the trial removed and with the benefit of knowing that he has been cleared of the charge.

Whether it is better to remain anonymous throughout the trial process is a matter for debate. Sometimes it may be better to be open to publicity because it measn that an acquittal will be more public also. There should be and , in law, can be, no stain on anyone who has faced a trail and been acquitted - although, OJ simpson might not agree.

I do not know and would not comment on the specifics of this case but where the accused is already well known locally there is often nothing to hide. If acquitted, it will help spread the word if people know who he/she is.

[Overt Auk]

'Tis an odd thing. No doubt an itinerant flying lawyer could correct me, but I believe that under English law it is perfectly permissable to report anything (with the odd "alleged" thrown in) up to the moment someone is charged, but at that point the case becomes 'sub judice' and nothing further may be said, to protect the innocence of the Jury. Under Napoleonic law, as practiced in much of Europe, the exact opposite is true.

O.A

[TornadoWilkes]

Does anyone know how he pleaded?

[HeliCraig]

He didn't enter a plea, as his lawyers are making a separate application to have the murder charge struck out.

More info from local rag here (http://www.leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news75768.html).

[Road_Hog]

The above link on the court case has disappeared, here is the article.


Doubts over gyrocopter charge

Court Reporter

28 May 2009

A MURDER charge facing a pilot accused of killing a hunt supporter with the tail propeller of his gyrocopter could be thrown out.
Lawyers for Bryan Griffiths, accused of killing hunt supporter Trevor Morse at Long Marston airfield in March, are to apply for the murder charge against him to be dismissed.
The charge follows an incident when 48-year-old Mr Morse, a hunt supporter from Alderminster, was struck by the rear propeller of the gyrocopter 54-year-old Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, Bedworth, was piloting.
It had landed to refuel at the airfield after being used to monitor a hunt in the area.
Mr Morse, a self-employed gardener and a volunteer marshal for the Warwickshire Hunt, died ‘virtually immediately’ from severe head injuries after being struck by the tail propeller.
Griffiths’ case was listed at Warwick Crown Court for a plea and case management hearing – but at the request of his barrister the murder charge was not put to him.
Peter Lownds, defending, explained that there was to be 'an application to dismiss' the murder charge so the case was adjourned and Griffiths was granted conditional bail.
Mr Lownds asked Judge Richard Griffith-Jones to set a timetable for both the defence and prosecution to serve ‘skeleton arguments’ prior to a hearing at which the application to dismiss the charge will be made.
The Judge pointed out the murder case must be heard by a High Court judge, and it had been released to him only for the plea and case management hearing.
He ordered the defence should serve its argument by June 26, with the prosecution response to it by July 24, with a hearing on the application to dismiss the charges some time in October.
Judge Griffith-Jones said: "The issue will be whether there is a prima facie case of murder. The issue of manslaughter will be another matter altogether."
Mr Lownds confirmed there would still be a trial even if the defence application to dismiss the murder charge is successful.
The Judge said the court staff would be asked to find a slot for the trial to take place, possibly at Birmingham Crown Court in January next year.

[coldair]

Latest news from the BBC

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Coventry/Warwickshire | Man denies killing hunt supporter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8291539.stm)

Man denies killing hunt supporter

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46500000/jpg/_46500430_bgriff226.jpg

A man has denied the manslaughter of a hunt supporter who was killed by the rotor blades of a gyrocopter.
Bryan Griffiths, 54, is alleged to have killed Trevor Morse unlawfully at Long Marston airfield, near Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, on 9 March.
Mr Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, Bedworth, spoke only to enter his plea at Birmingham Crown Court.
He is expected to return to court for trial on 1 March next year at a venue to be fixed. Mr Morse, a committee member with the Warwickshire Hunt, was pronounced dead at the scene of the incident after suffering severe head injuries.

[John R81]

So his application for summary dismissal of the murder charge was not successful.

[Nige321]

So his application for summary dismissal of the murder charge was not successful.
Or was it...

It was a murder charge, but he answered a manslaughter charge in court...?

N

[Bronx]

BBC News - Hunt supporter died 'instantly' from gyrocopter blade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8546071.stm)

Hunt supporter died after pilot Bryan Griffiths drove gyrocopter at him - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7047104.ece)

[HeliCraig]

Now, I don't know anything about the a/c involved, but were the rotors really spinning at 200mph as stated in the times?

[Whirlygig]

Probably not a million miles out but it depends what the tail rotor RPM was i.e. whether it was running up or down.

Cheers

Whirls

[Helinut]

For once it sounds like the media may have got the terminology correct - it would normally be the propeller on the back of the aircraft that was turning. The overhead rotor would not normally be rotating during a taxi. The rpm driven by the Rotax would be anywhere between around 1,500 to 5000 +, depending upon where the throttle was set. Prop diam is around 1.73 m, so you can do the math if you want. 200 mph is a good way for a prosecuting brief to indicate the hazard, I suppose. The linear velocity close to the root is much less of course.

[ShyTorque]

Probably not a million miles out but it depends what the tail rotor RPM

Eh? Gyrocopter, tail rotor? Pusher prop, mebbe!

[coldair]

From the Daily Mail UK;

Gycrocopter blade 'cleaved head of hunt supporter from top to bottom' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254886/Gycrocopter-blade-cleaved-head-hunt-supporter-bottom.html)

Hunt supporter died after 'his head was struck by gyrocopter propeller blade during row with pilot'




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254886-088615AA000005DC-871_233x423.jpg Gyrocopter: Bryan Griffiths leaves Birmingham Crown Court where he is accused of killing a hunt supporter

A fox hunting supporter's head was cleaved from 'top to bottom' by the blades of a gyrocopter after he tried to confront the pilot for tracking his hunt, a court heard today.

Jurors watched in horror as a gruesome video showing the last seconds of Trevor Morse's life were played to a hushed courtroom.

Mr Morse, 48, was killed instantly after being hit by the rear propellers of the gyrocopter, being piloted by Bryan Griffiths, which were rotating at 200mph.

Birmingham Crown Court heard that Mr Morse had been trying to stop Griffiths from taking off again after he stopped to refuel.
Griffiths had been monitoring the hunt from his gyrocopter - a small open helicopter - and was confronted by Mr Morse and another hunt supporter.

Mr Morse refused to move out of the way as Griffiths went towards him and the rear propeller of the gyrocopter cut Mr Morse's head from top to bottom, the court heard.
Prosecutor Gareth Evans QC told the court: 'Just under a year ago, on March 9, 2009, a 48-year-old man called Trevor Morse, who was deliberately trying to stop a gyrocopter taking off, was killed.
'He was killed when his head was struck by the rear propeller blade of the gyrocopter.

'That gyrocopter was being driven by this defendant along the runway of Long Marston airfield in Warwickshire.

'The blade of the rear propeller cleaved Mr Morse's head from top to bottom.

'Mercifully, death was instantaneous.

'The prosecution say that this man, the defendant, is criminally liable for this death.

'We say that he is guilty of manslaughter, we say that he caused Trevor Morse's death by his own gross negligence.'
Mr Evans said Griffiths deliberately drove the gyrocopter at Mr Morse, with the rear propeller spinning at a speed approaching 200mph.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254886-088360D1000005DC-983_468x286.jpg Tragedy: The scene at Long Marston airfield near Stratford-Upon-Avon where a gyrocopter hit and killed keen hunt supporter Trevor Morse

He said: 'Doing so, we say, was reckless in the extreme because the manoeuvre carried with it a very, very real risk that Mr Morse would come into contact with the revolving, unguarded rear propeller blades of the gyrocopter.'
The court heard Mr Morse was acting as a road monitor on March 3 last year during the last day of the hunting season for the Warwickshire Hunt.
Mr Evans said Griffiths owned the gyrocopter and although he was not an anti-hunt activist, had previously flown the machine above the hunt to monitor their actions, often with a passenger filming them.
On that day, when Mr Morse spotted the gyrocopter heading off towards Long Marston airfield to refuel, he got in a Land Rover with a fellow hunt supporter to confront the pilot.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254886-088360C5000005DC-968_233x250.jpg Hit:Trevor Morse died when the blade from a gyrocopter hit his head

When they were at the airfield, Mr Morse tried to stop Griffiths taking off by standing in front of the gyrocopter.

He refused to move out of the way, and as Griffiths drove forwards in the gyrocopter the rear propeller caught Mr Morse, cutting his head from top to bottom.

The jury was shown an edited video of the stand-off between Mr Morse and Griffiths - caught on camera by the pilot's passenger.

As he refuses to move out of the way, a voice can be heard to say to Mr Morse: 'You are obstructing him taking off, you have no right to do that, you have no right to do that.'
The video shows Mr Morse enlisting the help of the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, to come and stand in the way of the gyrocopter.

The propellers can be heard to speed up, followed by a bang.

The video shown to the jury was cut at the point the propeller hit Mr Morse, then cut again to see him lying on the ground.

A voice can then be heard to say: 'Oh dear, the t*** didn't stand clear of it.'
Mr Evans said it was quite clear Griffiths wanted to leave, and also clear Mr Morse was not willing to let him leave.

He said: 'There is no doubt about it. His intention was stopping that gyrocopter from taking off.
'He was not standing there for the good of his health.

'At one stage he moved the Land Rover closer to the gyrocopter to stop it getting away in an attempt to block its getaway.

'He made it plain that he was obstructing that gyrocopter's take-off and when asked to get out of the way he refused to do so.'
Mr Evans said Griffiths had not gently inched towards Mr Morse, but had travelled at speed.

He said: 'This was not a general nudging movement. It was carried out, we say, at speed. This was no inching movement.'
The trial continues

[MightyGem]

Probably not a million miles out but it depends what the tail rotor RPM
Now come on Whirly, you know better than that.

[bladegrabber]

Whirls

Gyro's dont have tail rotars just pusher props and as it was probably turning at 2000 rpm im sure brightspark could do the maths to work out the tip speed of the prop blades?

BG

[coldair]

From The BBC ;
BBC News - Man denies killing hunt supporter with gyrocopter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8544128.stm)

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Man denies killing hunt supporter

A man has denied killing a hunt supporter by flying a gyrocopter towards him at speed.
Bryan Griffiths, 54, of Bedworth, Warwickshire, pleaded not guilty to a new charge of the manslaughter of Trevor Morse by gross negligence.
Mr Morse, a committee member with the Warwickshire Hunt, died at Long Marston Airfield, Stratford-upon-Avon, on 9 March.
A jury has been sworn in for the trial which has been adjourned until Tuesday. Mr Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, had previously been charged with manslaughter.
_______________________________________________________

From The Daily Record ;
Hunt supporter's head was chopped in two by gyrocopter rotor, court hears - The Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/03/03/hunt-supporter-s-head-was-chopped-in-two-by-gyrocopter-rotor-court-hears-86908-22082497/)

Hunt supporter's head was chopped in two by gyrocopter rotor, court hears

Mar 3 2010 (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/03/03/) By Rod Chaytor
A HUNT supporter had his head cut in half when he tried to stop a gyrocopter flown by an anti-hunting pilot from taking off, a court heard yesterday.
Trevor Morse died instantly when the rear propeller "cleaved his head from top to bottom".
Anti-hunting protester Bryan Griffiths, a qualified pilot, had been watching the Warwickshire Hunt near Long Marston airfield on March 9 last year.
Hunt supporters claimed that his swooping gyrocopter was upsetting livestock.
Hunt-follower Morse, 48, tried to prevent Griffiths taking off when the pilot allegedly taxied towards him at speed.
Jurors at Birmingham Crown Court gasped as they were shown video footage of the incident.
They heard commentary on the film - being shot by another member of the anti-hunting group - which said: "Oh dear, the t**t did not stand clear of it."
Gareth Evans QC said: "He deliberately flew the gyrocopter at Trevor Morse.
"Doing so is reckless in the extreme because the manoeuvre carried with it a very real risk that Mr Morse was going to come into contact with the revolving rear blade."
Griffiths, a plumber, later said in a police interview that he feared he could have been set upon by hunt supporters.
Griffiths, 55, from Bedworth, Warwickshire, denies manslaughter by gross negligence.
The trial continues.
_________________________________________

From Horse and Hound;
Pilot of hunting death gyrocopter in court for manslaughter - Equestrian news, equine news, horse news - Horse & Hound (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/295437.html)



Pilot of hunting death gyrocopter in court for manslaughter

http://imagebank.ipcmedia.com/imageBank/g/gyrocopter.jpg
Abigail Butcher, H&H head of news
1 March, 2010
[/URL]
Bryan Griffiths, the man accused of the [URL="http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/278379.html"]manslaughter of hunt supporter Trevor Morse (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/redirect/?link=295448&code=newstext), appears court today.


Griffiths, of Bedworth, Warwickshire, will appear in Birmingham Crown Court in a case that is scheduled to last between two and three weeks but may be over much sooner.

Griffiths was initially accused of murdering Warwickshire hunt supporter Trevor Morse, but the charges were reduced to manslaughter at a hearing last October, at which Griffiths pleaded not guilty (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/290197.html).

Mr Morse was hit by the propeller of Griffiths's gyrocopter at Long Marston Airfield in Warwickshire on 9 March 2009. He suffered severe head injuries and died at the scene.

Countryside Alliance spokesman Chloe Finch said witnesses for the prosecution will include Warwickshire master Antony Spencer and the female hunt supporter who was with Trevor when he was killed.

"We also expect both Peter Bunce of the POWA [Protect Our Wild Animals campaign] who filmed the whole incident and convicted animal rights extremist John Curtin, who was Griffiths' co-pilot, to appear as witnesses," she said.

A police spokesman told H&H: "We do not plan to release the video [of the incident] at this stage."
For regular updates on the case, visit www.horseandhound.co.uk (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/).

[Three Blades]

With 1 meter prop radius and 1000 rpm, tip speed is about 230 miles per hour.
So no, not a million miles off.

[Maverick Laddie]

Would this be the same Bryan Griffiths who worked for Rolls Royce at Ansty in the early 80's :confused:

[richiem]

assuming a prop diam of 1.73m (Helinut #216) you can use this formula for a quite accurate estimate.

rpm/5 = tip mph.

[Whirlygig]

Slip of the brain .... alright ... fast, spinny thing at the back. Still think 200 mph wasn't far out! :}

Cheers

Whirls

[Nige321]

Whirlygig

Err... You might want to slightly adjust the first four words of your post...:=

N

[heli1]

So is the CAA prosecuting the hunt followers for endangering an aircraft ,trespassing on the airfield or something else under the ANO ?

[HeliCraig]

I doubt it.

Interestingly, in this months GASIL (here (http://is.gd/9JE5T)), they talk about the accident stats for 2009, and this comment is made:

and 2 (including one which is unlikely to be recorded as an aircraft accident) involving Gyroplanes).

I am assuming that one is this incident!

[chopjock]

So is the CAA prosecuting the hunt followers for endangering an aircraft ,trespassing on the airfield or something else under the ANO ?I'm not sure that standing in front of an aircraft is actually endangering it. Also nothing in the ANO about trespassing.:) There might be something about interfering with an aircraft's progress though.

[coldair]

BBC News - Warwickshire gyrocopter pilot 'feared hunt attack' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8550144.stm)

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Gyrocopter pilot 'feared attack'

An animal rights supporter accused of killing a hunt supporter in a gyrocopter thought he had been shot at and could be attacked, a court heard.
Bryan Griffiths, 55, of Wiltshire Close, Bedworth, Warwickshire, denies the manslaughter by gross negligence of Trevor Morse in March last year.
He died instantly when he was struck by the high-speed propeller at an airfield as he tried to stop it taking off.
The court heard Mr Griffiths stopped to refuel when the stand-off occurred.

“ He said that he believed that he had been shot at three times while he was flying the autogyro ”
Michael Tipping, aviation enthusiast

He had been monitoring the Warwickshire Hunt, of which Mr Morse was a committee member, from the air.
Birmingham Crown Court has heard hunt master Anthony Spencer and Mr Morse had a plan to stop the gyrocopter from taking off when it landed to refuel so they could confront the pilot.
Before Mr Morse arrived in his vehicle, with the intention of parking in front of the gyrocopter, Mr Griffiths had been speaking to "aviation fanatic" Michael Tipping, the court was told.
Mr Tipping said Mr Morse was "intrusive and aggressive" when he got out of his vehicle and started taking photographs.
'Beat me up'
"When I spoke to him asking what he took pictures of my car for, my mind said to me, 'you don't want to mess with this man'," he said.
Mr Tipping said Mr Griffiths had asked him to stay at the airfield, near Stratford-upon-Avon, as he felt trouble was imminent.
"I thought: 'Oh crikey, don't say this is blinking drugs'," Mr Tipping said in a statement read to the court.
"He (Griffiths) said I think he (Mr Morse) is trying to hold me up you know, because I think there's a gang coming for me to beat me up.
"He said that he believed that he had been shot at three times while he was flying the autogyro." The trial continues

[coldair]

From the BBC ;

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Gyrocopter pilot 'feared danger'

An animal rights supporter accused of killing a hunt supporter in a gyrocopter felt "there was imminent danger" to himself, a court heard.
Bryan Griffiths, 55, from Bedworth, Warwickshire, said Trevor Morse was speaking on a mobile and he feared severe injury "if others turned up".
Mr Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, denies the manslaughter by gross negligence of Mr Morse in March 2009.
He had been monitoring the Warwickshire Hunt, of which Mr Morse was a member.
Mr Morse died at Long Marston Airfield, Stratford-upon-Avon.
'Extremely agitated'
Mr Griffiths told Birmingham Crown Court that Mr Morse was in a Land Rover which Mr Morse moved to partly block the gyrocopter.
He said that he "politely asked" Mr Morse to move out of the way.
Asked what Mr Morse's response was, Mr Griffiths said Mr Morse replied "'you are going nowhere'".
Mr Griffiths said: "I was extremely agitated. I wanted to get away as quickly as possible, because I felt there was imminent danger to myself, my passenger and my aircraft.
"I desperately felt that we had to get away from there and this man [Trevor Morse] was clearly trying to stop us.
"I had no doubt in my mind that if others turned up, we would suffer severe injury."
Mr Morse was a committee member with the Warwickshire Hunt. The case continues.

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC News - Warwickshire gyrocopter pilot 'feared danger' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8562794.stm)

Published: 2010/03/11 17:23:48 GMT

© BBC MMX
_____________________________________________________

From the Coventry Evening Telegraph ;

Pilot tells trial of his fear of attack by hunt supporter at Long Marston airfield

A GYROCOPTER pilot has told a jury how he feared for his safety during a confrontation with a hunt supporter at an airfield near Stratford.
Bryan Griffiths, 55, told Birmingham Crown Court he thought he would be attacked if he had not got away. He said he was ‘very frightened’’.
Warwickshire Hunt member Trevor Morse, 48, died on March 9 last year at Long Marston airfield when he was hit by gyrocopter’s propeller blades as Griffiths was trying to take off.
</SPAN>Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, Bedworth, denies manslaughter by gross negligence.
He said he knew some hunt supporters were “absolutely livid” that he was helping to monitor the hunt and that he felt he would be targeted after discovering photographs of his gyrocopter posted on pro-hunt websites.
He said: “It certainly made me realise that if ever I was in a position that they had me or my aircraft things were not going to be good.’’
Mr Morse had been following the last day of the Warwickshire hunt season when he spotted Griffiths’ gyrocopter head off to refuel.
Mr Morse and a passenger raced to the airfield to confront Griffiths as part of a plan to try to detain the pilot and confront him.
But after a tense stand-off he was struck by the propellor blade of Griffiths’ gyrocopter which was rotating at 200mph.
The impact killed Mr Morse instantly.
A video of the incident, shot by animal rights protester Peter Bunce, was shown to jurors at the start of the case.
Griffiths had been using his gyrocopter to allow anti-hunt protestors to allow a passenger to film what was going on below.
While not a member of anti-hunt group he was not paid for the service and funded the fuel costs himself.
Before he landed to refuel, Griffiths told the court that he thought that hunt supporters had taken four shots at his aircraft.
He said: “I saw a puff of light grey smoke coming up from the ground. My first thought was that it was a shotgun. It made me feel nervous.”
Describing the moments after he landed and was confronted by Mr Morse, Griffiths added: “My first reaction was that he has found me. He knows where I am and now he’s telephoning for other people.”
“He was walking up and down on his mobile phone. He was a big man. I felt very frightened.”
“I thought he was bringing other people to the airfield. My anxiety at that point was through the roof.
“My primary concern was to get myself and the aircraft out of there as quickly as possible.”
.......................................

The case continues.

[nigelh]

" I saw a puff of white smoke " Who does he think he is kidding ? Does he think they were shooting at him with black powder ? At 500ft or even 400ft the pellets wouldnt even reach you .:ugh:

[Fly_For_Fun]

Smoke screens more like!

[normalbloke]

Cleared!

BBC News - Gyrocopter pilot cleared over huntsman death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8571913.stm)

[heli1]

Excellent....will the CAA now prosecute the other hunt objectors with endangering an aircraft or trespass on an active airfield ??????

[61 Lafite]

I'm glad to see he was found not guilty.

I can't imagine that the CAA would see it as in the public interest to pursue it much further: even if there were technical breaches of aviation law in any part of the situation by the pilot (and I have no idea if there were or there weren't) it would be somewhat vindictive to pursue them.

As for prosecuting the hunt supporters, again, there's not a lot to be gained when they've lost a friend. Hopefully the lesson is learned: if you stand that close to a propellor moving at 200mph, it's a very risky place to be.

Will the insurers feel it's in their interests to sue the dead man's estate for the damage to the machine? now there would be a brave insurer!

Lafite

[nigelh]

Heli I gather from your post you are also a tree hugger , thats not your fault its just your upbringing at fault , however you seem confused when you ask if a "Hunt objector" will be prosecuted for trespass etc :confused: It was always likely that this idiot would get away scott free ,and i doubt if we have seen the last of the great unwashed flying around trying to catch the hunt doing something wrong . This will inevitably play into the hands of people who would like to restrict our flying :D I am very tempted to fly over a football pitch to see if i can spot some yobbo doing something he shouldnt be doing :=

[znww5]

I'm not sure which story 'nige' is following, but the fact is that this particular 'yobbo' raced across country to intentionally interfere with an aircraft and got considerably more than he bargained for.

I take no pleasure in the loss of life, but the fact remains that the situation was of his own making and as far as I am aware, the pilot contravened no law. I just hope that others will learn from this incident.

I am however, very pleased that the pilot was found to be not guilty.

[mary meagher]

I hardly think he got away scott free. He spent some time in choky, and a year waiting for trial, first for murder, then for manslaughter.

Locking him away would only be an additional expense for the taxpayers.

The countryside rituals of hunters and protestors can now carry on in the same old ways, hopefully without aircraft involved at all.

I just hope the pilot whose carelessness has resulted in a really nasty accident will retire from the scene entirely.

[Bronx]

znww5I just hope that others will learn from this incident.

Most pilots don't need to learn that you don't taxy aircraft so close to pedestrians that you might hit them. They already know.

Maybe the next idiot who does it and kills someone won't be so lucky with his jury. :rolleyes:

[znww5]

znww5 Quote:
I just hope that others will learn from this incident.
"Most pilots don't need to learn that you don't taxy aircraft so close to pedestrians that you might hit them. They already know."

Perhaps I was a little ambiguous, I was actually referring to 'pedestrians'. Although bearing in mind the details of the case, I doubt that 'pedestrian' is the appropriate word.

[coldair]

From todays Daily Mail ;

Animal rights enthusiast cleared of killing hunt supporter with gyrocopter blade


By Fay Schlesinger (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Fay+Schlesinger)
Last updated at 6:37 PM on 17th March 2010



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/17/article-1258694-08C1032A000005DC-18_233x255.jpg Victim: Hunt supporter Trevor Morse died when his head was 'cleaved from top to bottom' as he was hit by a gyrocopter

An animal rights activist who killed a fox hunt supporter by driving a gyrocopter at his head walked free from court today after being cleared of manslaughter.
Bryan Griffiths, 55, was piloting the aircraft when its 200mph blade cleaved the head of Trevor Morse from top to bottom.
Mr Morse, 48, died instantly after refusing to move out of the way of the gyrocopter, which was being used to film the Warwickshire Hunt on March 9 last year.
Today a jury took seven-and-a-half hours to find Mr Griffiths not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence after a two-week trial at Birmingham Crown Court.
The verdict was met with ecstatic applause and cheers from his family and friends.
But the Countryside Alliance condemned animal rights campaigners for taking the law into their own hands.
Chief executive Simon Hart said: 'It is not for animal rights activists to police the Hunting Act or any other law, especially not using clearly unsafe methods such as using a gyrocopter or any other aircraft.
'This was about harassing people who hunt. We expected justice and I have to say I am not entirely sure justice has been done.'
Previously the trial heard how Mr Griffiths, who runs a heating business in Bedworth, Warwickshire, drove the aircraft along the ground towards Mr Morse following a stand-off at Long Marston airfield.
Jurors were shown horrifying footage of the moment the rear propeller sliced through his head, killing him instantly.
Mr Morse, a hunt marshall, had driven to the airfield where Mr Griffiths was refuelling on the final day of the hunt season, to prevent him from flying overheard to monitor whether foxes were being killed illegally.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/17/article-1258694-08C1062F000005DC-178_468x286.jpg
Investigation: The scene at Long Marston airfield after Mr Morse was hit by the aircraft's blades

Mr Morse parked his Land Rover in front of the gyrocopter and got out before a tense confrontation broke out between the two men.
Mr Griffiths repeatedly warned he was going to take off and told 6ft 2in Mr Morse to stand clear of the aircraft, the court heard.
But he refused to move and stood at the nose of the aircraft while waiting for other hunt members to arrive to confront the pilot.
The defendant claimed he feared violence would erupt if he did not get in the air as there was a 'mutual distrust' and 'friction' between the pro- and anti-hunting camps.
The prosecution alleged Mr Griffiths deliberately drove the 6ft-wide gyrocopter at the victim and rejected his claim that he attempted to steer through a small gap by Mr Morse.
Gareth Evans QC said: 'He deliberately drove the gyrocopter at Trevor Morse with the rear propeller at a speed of 200mph.
'Doing so we say is reckless in the extreme because the manoeuvre carried with it a very very real risk that Mr Morse was going to come into contact with the revolving rear blade of the gyrocopter.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/17/article-1258694-08C26947000005DC-820_233x423.jpg Cleared: Bryan Griffiths, who piloted a gyrocopter which killed a hunt supporter, was today found not guilty of manslaughter

Joint master of the hunt Anthony Spencer was accused by the defence of hatching a criminal plan with Mr Morse and other huntsmen to stop Mr Griffiths and his passenger John Curtin.
Mr Curtin is a notorious activist who was once jailed and then released without charge over a plot to dig up the remains of the tenth Duke of Beaufort in a protest over hunting.
But Mr Spencer told the court they simply agreed to block the gyrocopter from taking off while details were taken from the pilot and photographs taken to pass to the Civil Aviation Authority and police.
He told the jury: 'The intention was then to let it go about its business.'
Otis Ferry, a master of the Shropshire Hunt and son of pop star Bryan Ferry, arrived at the airfield minutes after Mr Morse was killed, after being bailed from Gloucester Crown Court over allegations of robbery and assault.
During the trial, Mr Griffiths told the court he did not feel responsible for the death.
He said: 'I feel regretful about what happened. I obviously feel regret and sadness for Mr Morse's family.
'In my opinion this was something that could have definitely been avoided but given the fact he had been told several times to move out of the way, not only by myself and others, and had clearly been told the aircraft was going to take off, I feel that all the things that could have been done were done.
'I do not actually feel responsible.'
He declined to comment after walking free from court today.
Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said tonight: 'This is a difficult time for Trevor Morse’s family, partner and friends. As a result of animal activists one man is dead and another has faced very serious criminal charges.
'If there is one outcome from the horrific events of this case it must be that the activity which led to Trevor Morse’s death is not repeated. It is for police forces to enforce the Hunting Act and the laws of the land.'
But Judy Gilbert, a hunt monitor from Buckinghamshire, said: 'We have always believed in Mr Griffiths' innocence. He is one of the most decent, honest and straight people I have met in my whole life and I am so sad to see him go through this trauma in the


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258694/Animal-rights-enthusiast-cleared-killing-hunt-supporter-gyrocopter-blade.html#ixzz0iVpidrPQ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258694/Animal-rights-enthusiast-cleared-killing-hunt-supporter-gyrocopter-blade.html#ixzz0iVpidrPQ)

[heli1]

Nigelh...my apologies to you and all who read this thread....I am afraid I mixed up my fox with my hounds and it was the hunt supporters not objectors who trespassed on the aerodrome.That doesn't mean I am a tree hugger...far from it ...but aren't there are regulations about anyone wandering across an active aerodrome and interfering or endangering aircraft ?

Having myself had to abort a landing for that very reason I feel quite strongly about it and so would you if next time it is some anti-noise or airport protester walking in front of your aircraft and causing an accident or worse.

This prosecution was one-sided and the CAA and/or police should have acted accordingly in my view.

[Dodo56]

Having seen some of the things hunt supporters get up to when they think they aren't being watched I'd say it was understandable the pilot wanted to make an exit when confronted by an aggressive burly farmer taking pictures and blocking him in waiting for rent-a-mob to arrive.

If these hunting people hadn't been engaged in a deliberate attempt to circumvent or downright break the law none of this would have happened. And if Morse deliberately stood in the way of a taxiing aircraft more fool him, he deserved what he got.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

DODO 56 - Sorry mate but your last post is really insensitive,- "Mr Morse deserved what he got" - I don't think standing up for what you beleive in means you should die even though I do not agree with hunting myself.

I think hunting is a cruel, indefensible sport.

The fox is the last predetor of any decent size we have on these islands. It amazes me why people think it is OK to kill them all.

Have these people not heard of playstation, where you can kill almost anything (virtually of course).

[Dodo56]

The man deliberately stood in front of a taxiing aircraft in a high-stakes game of chicken. Regardless of any pro- and anti- hunting arguments that is quite simply a monumentally stupid thing to do.

[Bronx]

znww5 Perhaps I was a little ambiguous
Perhaps you were. I wasn’t. Most pilots know you don't taxy aircraft so close to pedestrians that you might hit them. Whether the people should or shouldn’t be there is irrelevant, despite what some morons here appear to believe.

Dodo56 And if Morse deliberately stood in the way of a taxiing aircraft more fool him, he deserved what he got.
That statement is beneath contempt.
It says a lot about you. that is quite simply a monumentally stupid thing to do.
Maybe, but so is taxying an aircraft when a monumentally stupid person is in close proximity.

The gyrocopter pilot said 'given the fact he had been told several times to move out of the way, not only by myself and others, and had clearly been told the aircraft was going to take off, I feel that all the things that could have been done were done’
No responsible pilot would agree with that.
If moving your aircraft will or even might hit someone, you don't move.

[HeliComparator]

Bronx

I think you are failing to take into account that the pilot was feeling under personal threat. Looking at the rather thuggish photo of Morse I can see why!

Presumably it was Morse's intention to physically restrain the aircraft from taking off - that in itself says a lot about the tone of his behaviour during the encounter.

Of course, living in New York you are used to routine street violence including guns as the norm, but here in the UK we are not used to that sort of thing, certainly not in leafy Warwickshire anyway. I am sure it was a difficult decision for the pilot, but if he felt he was being unlawfully detained with a view to a beating or worse, I can sympathise with his desire to get airborne.

HC

[John R81]

I agree with Bronx. The pilot has (in my view) a duty to shut down, and call police assistence (if needed) for any threat he feels or law he thinks may have been broken.

To act otherwise may lead to a person loosing their life. That is an unacceptable option. for any Pilot.

I respect the decisions of the court, though I don't always agree with them, and remember that they don't always form precedent (being, as in this case, fact based and Jury tried). So, here in the UK, if you find a pedestrian (or other obstruction) in your way and you don't take the safests option (ie shut down) you may also have your day in Court to justify your decisions.

[SilsoeSid]

The case is over and the jury has decided.

Despite a lot of things that were said during this trial, two main things that don't sit quite right with me are;

1. Despite feeling threatened, why did he carry on with the taxi/take off when he recognised that there was risk to life?

2. If it really was because he felt threatened, and also remember that he said he felt ' extremely agitated', (equivelant to road rage to mortals);

Griffiths, a plumber, later said in a police interview that he feared he could have been set upon by hunt supporters.


May I suggest then that when undertaking such contraversial flights, he remembers at which address and in whose name the aircraft is registered!

[SilsoeSid]

I also agree with Bronx.

Lets have a scenario where one has have landed somewhere for whatever reason,... lets say so that your 'pax' could drag a child from a frozen lake.

The child is now away in a land ambulance.

If during your preparations to leave the scene, the aircraft is approached by what looks like a local thug and a mate with sticks and stones (a situation I would consider to be more dangerous to you, your crew and the aircraft than a video camera), what should you do?

a. Should you shut down/abort the take off and discuss the situation with the local thugs?
b. Should you continue your actions and hope to fly away from the situation, despite the dangers to those on the ground approaching the aircraft and also potentially to the aircraft itself and those on board??

As an extra, would your decision change if the frozen child was on board your aircraft? (just to add an 'extremely agitated' side to the scenario)

[John R81]

Whatever your decision, should it lead to injury or loss of life you will get your opportunity to explain yourself to the Court. If they side with you - you go free. If not, you go to jail - potentially for a long time. Either way you live with the knowledge that your actions led to the death of someone who "might" have been trouble, or might not.

You can construct fanciful situations as you like. Eventually you will get to a construct where I will agree that I would lift & flee. If in doing so I kill someone, then I am going to have to face a Court and explain my actions.

With no more information at my disposal than the newspaper articles, in his situation I would have shut-down.

No sticks.
No stones.
Only threatening behaviour was to "stand in the way"

I would have shut-down and he would be alive and I would not be in court on charges that could lead to 10 yrs in Jail.

If you see it different - not a problem for me.

[JanetGeorge]

Despite a lot of things that were said during this trial, two main things that don't sit quite right with me are;
1. Despite feeling threatened, why did he carry on with the taxi/take off when he recognised that there was risk to life?
2. If it really was because he felt threatened, and also remember that he said he felt ' extremely agitated', (equivelant to road rage to mortals);

Good points! I don't believe he DID feel so threatened that he needed to 'get away' - whatever the consequences. He had John Curtin in the cockpit with him, who is no stranger to violence, being one of the founders of the so-called Hunt Retribution Squad which planted incendiary devices under hunt members cars, sent letters out booby-trapped with razor blades in the envelope fold - and a lot more! And Peter Bunce on the ground. Mr. Morse was one man, with a female friend!

The most telling thing was the verbal reaction to the death of Mr. Morse - recorded on video. " “Oh dear. The t*** didn’t stand clear of it. I just . . .” (I would have liked to have known what followed the 'I just...' - but there was clearly no remorse or concern.)

Claiming a 'fear of violence' from hunt supporters was no doubt a successful tactic in this case. And - of course - there was the nonsense about the alleged shooting at the gyrocopter! It all added up to the jury believing he acted out of fear.

But it's over now - one might hope the CAA might see things a bit differently and take action against the pilot. One might hope that the pilot will have learned a lesson and stay away from so-called 'hunt monitoring' in the future. All I can hope is that it is the last tragic and unnecessary death related to the ongoing disputes about hunting.

[Mish Nish]

@ Maverick Laddie:"Would this be the same Bryan Griffiths who worked for Rolls Royce at Ansty in the early 80's"

Looks like it may be, yes:

"Mr Griffiths, who trained as an engineer at Dunlop Aviation and worked at Rolls-Royce"

from the Timesonline story:

Pilot Bryan Griffithsis cleared over death of huntsman Trevor Morse hit by gyrocopter - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7065843.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)

Also in the above article is the completed sentence taken from the video of the incident that JanetGeorge quotes "I just couldn't...":

"On the tape, two thuds could be heard after the picture was cut. When the images resumed, Mr Morse was lying dead. “It was so shocking, the impact and the noise,” Mr Tipping added. “I just couldn’t move. Then it was deathly silence. No one screamed. No one said anything at all.”

A horrible story altogether, and I can't believe Mr Griffiths is getting away with taking another man's life, never mind the politics of the situation.

[heli-cal]

Morse was determined to prevent the aircraft taking off, which he did.

His zeal in driving to the airfield and repeatedly preventing the lawful operation of the aircraft by willfully intimidating the pilot and instigating the incident which led to damage to the aircraft and his own death is wholly his own responsibility!

Morse behaved in the manner of a thug and died by his own actions.

I had no doubt that the pilot would be cleared, once the facts were known to the jury.

The pilot has endured a truly horrible experience and will hopefully be able to get on with his life without further intimidation.

He should sue for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution!

[Fly_For_Fun]

Bryan Griffiths was at the controls of an aircraft that hit a man and killed him. Bryan Griffiths had the choice of not taxiing his aircraft and it looks like to me that he has got away with murder to coin a phrase. He has the blood of Trevor Morse on his hands and will have to live with that for the rest of his life. A very sad event that I am sure Bryan Griffiths regrets.

[Bronx]

He has the blood of Trevor Morse on his hands and will have to live with that for the rest of his life. A very sad event that I am sure Bryan Griffiths regrets.
Any decent person would, but this pilot doesn't see it that way - 'given the fact he had been told several times to move out of the way, not only by myself and others, and had clearly been told the aircraft was going to take off, I feel that all the things that could have been done were done. I do not actually feel responsible.'

But I guess decent people wouldn't take this man flying: The Times can reveal today that Mr Griffiths’s passenger was a convicted animal rights extremist. The jury was not told that John Curtin, 49 had been jailed for two years for planning to dig up the remains of the 10th Duke of Beaufort and send the head to the Princess Royal. His part in the 1980s plot was intended, he said, to give fox hunters, whom he called “blood junkies”, a “taste of their own violent medicine”.

Mr Curtin, who had led the campaigns at Huntingdon Life Sciences’ laboratories and was questioned by police in connection with robbing the grave of Gladys Hammond, a relative of owners of a farm breeding guinea-pigs for experiments, was the first to volunteer to sit in the back of the gyrocopter. A few months later the two took to the air together, dividing their time between the Warwickshire and neighbouring Haythrop hunts.
Easy to see why the defense didn't want the jury to know that.
I wonder if the jury would have been as sympathetic to the pilot's story if they had known.


heli-cal I had no doubt that the pilot would be cleared, once the facts were known to the jury.Good for you.
In the end, the jury weren't sure the pilot was guilty but it took them 7.5 hours to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He should sue for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution! If you were able to look at the facts objectively you'd be able to see that the pilot has no grounds to sue for any of those things. :rolleyes:

[Tallguy]

Just my tupence worth, and yes I realise the case is over so this is purely to add to the discussion.

We are all aware of the Emergency Services coming under attack on a daily basis from what is extremely violent behaviour, and whilst they are responding to life threatening events, yet I don't recall reading of a fire engine driving over a group of yoofs who are hurling bricks et al at the members of the services. Equally I am sure we have all heard of more then one Air Ambulance engaged on a job whereby people have threatened the crew and/or climbed on the aircraft, again I am not aware of any AA starting up regardless so putting pedestrians lives at risk even when they have the casualty on board.

My point is I would class these types of situations as threatening yet the crews react accordingly either attempting to placate the situation or calling in the cavalry as required, they do not blindly carry on ignoring the fact that death is likely using the excuse 'well I asked them to get out of the way'.