Legal approach, you are correct. I am well aware that the cornerstone of our legal system is that one is only guilty by trial, if the jury believes that it is beyond reasonable doubt. The person under trial did not take off from North Weald with any intention of hurting anybody. He was going to fly a display in an aircraft that he had PDA to display. There was no intent to commit a crime.
The CPS believed the case was strong enough to raise charges for a trial. Nobody has ever been tried for causing death by gross negligence by an aircraft crashing into people in the United Kingdom before. No surprising that the last time a death on the ground by a flying display crash was by John Derry aircraft exceeding its design limits (although didn’t the Vulcan crash at Syerston kill servicemen on the ground a year later?) The defence team did what they were paid to do. Defend their client. The prosecution should have seen any pitfalls in their case and covered all angles. They did not.
My first aero experience was in a Chipmunk at the age of 14. I can remember when G effects come into play from my first flight in a loop. I have done so since in a Tucano with the same effects and in an Extra 300 (that has been the most fun I have ever had sitting in an aircraft). I have had the privilege of FJ trips on my time on Jags included G pull ups to the maximum of 4.5G that as a Cat B passenger as the P1 was allowed to put me under (and dropping a 1000 pound dumb bomb in a dive attack and recovery, the loading is not short, it is several seconds and I could tell you as I was filming the attack at the time). Maximum effect of course was always at the bottom with Earths attraction, hardly anything at the top.
A lack of FDR information for an old war bird was always going to hinder the investigation for accurate information. It has been an issue with all military FJs for many years until recently. However, the radar information is accurate enough to tie to the video for the AAIB to track the flight path. There are enough ex and current Hunter pilots on here that have said the facts of the SOP for Hunter aeros. Errors were made from the start, before any extra forces to the body were applied.
The BCAR system he was operating under was so full of the swiss cheese holes compared to the military system that Bob and I worked under. That is also true as far as engineering was concerned as it is massively weaker than the commercial aviation sector I work in. Flying an aircraft with life limiting parts out of date does invalidate the insurance on the aircraft I maintain, and I have grounded aircraft when dates have been missed by others. That Hunter had seat carts that were outside of the OEM use by shelf and fitted life dates. The OEM defines safe life in my book, not an engineer that has never been in the process of design and certification to make that decision or define such. The Thunder City Lightning crash reinforces my view on such matters. That is of course not in the scope of the pilot to decide, bar he should be aware of the state of his aircraft from the tech log of his aeroplane and he carries the responsibility of anything after he has signed the acceptance document. I could be totally wrong of course if BCAR section A states otherwise, however my understanding is that any PtF ex military aircraft should use similar recording documentation to when it was in service. A Form 700 with the F705 / F725 sector recording forms as a base line. It should have (if not computer controlled as commercial operators have to as a minimum) a forecast of maintenance dates and life limiting parts. A failure of the CAA regulations or the CAMO for the airframe? The pilot signing for an aeroplane should perhaps asked the question, where was the information? End of the day, was that aircraft within the policy of its insurance to fly? I doubt the insurers will argue that.
I am aware of how commercial pilots operate their aircraft. They must be dynamic and also passive as too much dynamics is bad for the self-loading freight. “Autopilot Inoperative” is almost at no go for the airlines I have worked for. It is almost a last resort to release the aircraft with AP/YD inop. Most Captains will not take such an aircraft will that system deferred from use. Soon as V2 is called, positive rate of climb and gear is retracted, the AP is selected. It will not be deactivated until landing depending on the CAT state of the aircraft and Decision Height. The joke that 1000 airliner hours is worth 1 hour of Fast Jet time, certainly for the old school does have a grain of truth. Currency for an RAF pilot PDA is not measured in months, it is measure in having currency in days.
End of the day, 11 people died on a Saturday afternoon due to a person that was controlling a vehicle hitting them. The inquest with the evidence will decide if it was accidental, open, misadventure or unlawful. It will be legal with no jury so up to the presiding coroner to judge the evidence. I assume depending on the result will be if civil actions may be taken. I heard that the aircraft owners’ insurers had admitted liability ages ago but have no idea if they had settled out of court with the affected. None of my business to enquire further.
I was down at NW last year, chatting to a civil FJ owner about things and Shoreham came up. He was damming about AH and that day, the unprofessionalism of the flying. Entry and gate heights and the lack of recognition to bail out of the sequence as it was going pear shaped. That was from PPL jet flyer. I didn’t disagree. If I killed someone on the road by not driving my car correctly, I doubt cognitive impairment would be believed by any Jury trying me. Just my opinion.