G0ULI - you said
Quote:PPRuNe readers are in possession of information and/or experience that was not made available to the jury
Sorry but that's just not true. Many people gave evidence who have plenty of experience of fast jets, display flying in all its aspects, and the rest. In particular, there were two prosecution expert witnesses, and one defence expert witness, with oodles of time on fast jets - on ops as well as in displays. And the judge was meticulous in ensuring that all witnesses spoke clearly and without technical jargon, and making sure that the jury understood.
airsound
airsound,
I would like to add a caveat to what you have said. The expert witnesses presented aspects of their knowledge to the jury in response to the questions from the counsels. They have considerably more knowledge than that which was presented but they were not asked to, nor able to, pass that on to the jury. Similarly, some PPRuNers have knowledge that was not presented to the jury.
Leaving aside the tragic circumstances of the Shoreham accident, it has opened up discussion regarding the potential for cognitive impairment due to sustained low g manoeuvres. I most certainly had never heard this discussed before this trial and have never heard of any other incident that was attributed to such a phenomenon. I wonder if any other PPRuNers had ever heard of this prior to the Shoreham trial? To put my knowledge into context, I was one of the facilitators delivering the high onset rate g training to UK military pilots after this training was introduced following the Red Arrows Bournemouth accident and it was not included in the training package. Similarly, it was not covered during RAF centrifuge training. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any of the AAIB investigators were aware of this at the time that they published their report.
Some of my assumptions above may not be valid but I am interested to know if anyone did know about this phenomenon before January this year.