Bob Viking
Many of us believe that lack of experience, currency and recency (on type) could be just as likely an explanation
But as you will have seen from the Conclusions of the AAIB report
(a) Findings
Operational aspects
1. The pilot was licensed and authorised in accordance with the requirements existing at the time of the accident to operate the Hawker Hunter at flying displays.
2. It was the pilot’s fifth aerobatic display in a Hunter during the 2015 season and the only public display he carried out that day. He met the recency requirements specified in CAP 403.
Also, from the Prosecution's 53-page opening handout which I referred to in post #589
8. Mr Hill had been flying the Hawker Hunter since 2011 and held an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption (ATRE) for the Hawker Hunter Jet aircraft from June 2011. This covered him to fly the Hunter, a Jet Provost Mk 1-5 and Strikemaster aircraft. The required certification had been renewed as required and was valid at the time of the Shoreham display.
13. Mr Hill also held a European Union Class 1 Medical Certificate with no limitations, issued on 20 January 2015. It is clear that Mr Hill had all the necessary permits and authorisations to perform the planned aerobatic display and that he was medically fit to fly the Hawker Hunter at the Shoreham Air Show.
14. Several witnesses know Mr Hill and we expect he will be described as a highly competent and experienced pilot. Rod Dean (Sp.1), the flying director at Shoreham knew him and also knew the other man who used to pilot the Hunter, Chris Heames. Mr Dean describes Andy Hill as a competent and professional display pilot with whom he was completely comfortable. Chris Heames, Andy Hill’s friend and Chief Pilot of this aircraft who recruited Mr Hill as co-pilot describes him as an extremely competent and skilful pilot (Heames Sp.11). Other witnesses may describe him in similar terms.
So neither the AAIB, nor the Prosecution, support your view. Indeed, the Prosecution charge relied on AH's being suitably experienced and qualified to fly the display – inexperience cannot equate to negligence.
You are, of course, entitled to differ in your opinion. But are you restricting your view to the pages of PPRuNe? Some might think that you have a moral obligation to express that view to the coroner. I am aware from the hearing two weeks ago that unsolicited communications have been received, and are being taken into account. And, august as PPRuNe is, I doubt it forms part of the Coroner's reading.
airsound