Originally Posted by
A and C
I know of a number of very good airshow pilots who have given up flying air shows because of the fallout from the Shoreham accident. Their main worry is that should they have an accident their families will end up on the street once the lawyers have finished with them.
(my emphasis)
I don't doubt for a minute that there have been plenty of display pilots following the Shoreham court case with interest. But the use of the term
accident is worth a second look. Insurance is there to pay for accidents. When does an air crash go beyond being an accident?
Leaving courts out of things, the common link between Shoreham and the Sala/Ibbotson example is the question as to whether the actions of either pilot went beyond merely having an accident, and actually entered into the territory of being reckless. Reckless goes beyond being merely careless/negligent and deals with cases with the bad outcome was reasonably foreseeable, but ignored or disregarded by the pilot.
By entering the loop too low and not escaping from it when he failed to achieve the gate height, the argument is being made that Andy Hill was reckless rather than careless. Likewise, if it transpires as is widely suggested that colour-blind David Ibbotson conducted a flight at night in icing conditions without even so much as a night rating or any form of valid instrument qualification, then he might well be judged reckless.
David Ibbotson won't end up in court, but when it comes to insurance, many insurers will argue that their policy is there to pay out to the careless, but not to the reckless.
Display pilots shouldn't give up on the back of Shoreham, any more than any of us should stop flying with passengers. But it does up the ante to make sure that we do things by the book.