Originally Posted by
Thoughtful_Flyer
AAIB reports specifically do not attribute blame, for very good reasons.
I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented.
For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel....
Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.
Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending.
I think its naive in the extreme to think that AH shouldn't have been tried when 11 people were killed in an incident where the competence of his flying was was questioned. The AAIB results may not have been able to be used as evidence in court, but the sequence of events, did not paint a good picture of the manoeuvre performed.