Treble One - you ask if anyone finds this a little distasteful, and you suggest that Andy Hill should just keep quiet.
I wonder if you were in court for the 8-week manslaughter trial. Experts there demonstrated that something unusual and, so far largely inexplicable, happened. The jury of eleven people took most of a day to consider their verdict, and were unanimous in their ‘not guilty’ verdict. They had considered a lot of complex evidence, which had taken the judge two days to sum up.
As you say, all the defence had to do was show that the prosecution had failed to prove that cognitive impairment did not occur. But, as the defence QC said in his opening remarks, the defence could, and did, go much further.
More relevant to this debate is that much of the expert evidence, both prosecution and defence, was in conflict with the AAIB report.
Private Eye (of which I’m a huge fan) is wrong in one respect. The defence adduced a cascade of errors, starting at a specific time and position, which could only be explained by some form of, so far unspecified, cognitive impairment. G-forces were only one potential cause, whether total or partial.
A glance at
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...lation/18/made
will show, under
Reopening of safety investigation
18.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), where, following publication of a final safety investigation report relating to an accident or serious incident, evidence has become available which, in the Chief Inspector’s opinion, is new and significant, the Chief Inspector must cause the safety investigation to be reopened.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), following publication of a final safety investigation report relating to an accident or serious incident, the Chief Inspector may cause the safety investigation to be reopened for any other reason where the Chief Inspector considers it appropriate to do so.
(3) The Chief Inspector must not reopen a safety investigation into an accident or serious incident in respect of which the task of conducting the safety investigation has been delegated to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, ….. without first obtaining the consent of the head of the investigation authority which so delegated that task.
I don’t think (3) applies. (1) and (2) are clear that the only person who can decide is the Chief Inspector, and (1) relies on ‘new and significant’ evidence. I suggest that the evidence from the trial is clearly ‘new and significant’. Are you, Treble One, suggesting it should be ignored?
As far as I’m concerned, having sat through most of the trial, there was evidence, presented by both sides, that left the AAIB report unsupportable. So I, for one, am not surprised that the AAIB are considering reopening.
airsound