Originally Posted by Shoreham Herald
He was also asked about the prosecution's assertion that the tragic crash was a result of 'extremely bad piloting' and not cognitive impairment.
Dr Jarvis said: "I can’t really accept that.
"Obviously Mr Hill was very experienced as a pilot and it just doesn’t seem credible to me."
I really hope that there are crucial elements missing from that report. One, I hope that Dr Jarvis had many more substantial reasons than 'experience' on which to base his dismissal of the prosecution's hypothesis. Two, I hope that there are many more unrelated errors in the full list of 23, because the sample provided reads to me very much like the sort of mistakes that would be made if an aerobatic routine had got out of shape and the pilot was trying to recover the situation by modifying manoeuvres on the fly and either running out of mental capacity or flying skill while doing so. I say that because a sequence of errors like that would be found in at least half of my occasional attempts at aerobatic sequences, and sometimes in my air combat manoeuvring too (despite being very experienced I'm easy meat for the Sqn QWI, unfortunately, but luckily the only crowd is in the debriefing room and the base height is 5000ft). A lot of crucial facts must be missing from that report.