Originally Posted by
sharpend
A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?
Sorry, I must not have previously been clear enough...
The fact that the WHOLE manoeuvre was badly flown (for want of a better term - so don't tke this literally), commencing too low and slow suggests to me that the pilot could
already have been impaired on the run in. I cannot agree with the frequent assumption that if any impairment was present it must have come on
after pull up due to G; indeed it could have started at any time after take off. Therefore, I really don't think we can conclude that AH "deliberately broke the rules".
Also, as I recall it was reported that video from inside the cockpit is/was available to the authorities and might provide evidence we haven't seen, but is/was not for public release.
IF (a big word, I agree) IF he had had a TIA he could still have functioned "mechanically" but incorrectly. For example, to someone sitting next to him he would have appeared completely normal, but to him the world around him wouldn't be making much sense. Such an event can occur without any apparent immediate cause or stimulus, and can last anywhere from a few seconds to, say, 15/20 minutes.
If you had one while driving you might be lucky and find yourself a bit further down the road wondering what the hell just happened in the last few seconds, or you might drive into the back of a truck without reacting to it.
That's what "cognitive impairment" due to a TIA is, and in order to defend against a charge of negligence (or any other charge!) all that is necessary is for the defence to raise a reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove anything - it is up to the prosecution to prove their case.