Originally Posted by
mike rondot
No he didn't, he pleaded Not Guilty and his artful brief got him off on the novel defence of a brain fart that baffled the brain(s) of the jury.
Your endless arguments about airworthiness indicate that you might not understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and give me the impression that you are apologising for the pilot and attempting to shift the blame for the fatalities onto others.
In case you did not know, the captain of an aircraft is responsible for deciding whether the aircraft is serviceable and fit to continue on its planned flight. If he decides it is not serviceable, he always has the immediate option of discontinuing his mission and landing at the nearest suitable airfield. All other arguments about airworthiness or maintenance or management are irrelevant and serve only to fog the primary issue. This captain decided to continue with his routine when inverted at the top of a looping manoeuvre.
It is sometimes better to read the facts.
The pilot pleaded not guilty to gross negligence manslaughter. He admitted the errors in the manouevre, but couldn't explain them except for the CI defence. These are quite different issues and it is disingenuous to conflate them.
You criticise me for 'endless' arguments. Two things must then be true:
1. Given my arguments have been proven valid in legal reviews and in courts, but the failings are still recurring, then those responsible are still not doing their job, but still making false declarations that they are. Do you have a similar pop at those responsible for that? If not, please tell us why. If you have, I'd be interested in their reply.
2. As you say 'endless', that implies you have read some of my posts, which will have revealed I know the difference between attaining and maintaining airworthiness, serviceability, and fitness for purpose; and how to do all four in practice; and on both aircraft and equipment. I can only infer, therefore, you believe it acceptable that the accident aircraft should not have been flying, but was declared airworthy, etc. If you do not think that a mitigating factor, even if the pilot were found guilty, then you are entitled to your opinion.
I have never commented on the airmanship aspects of the flight. I am in no position to. But I certainly do not think it reasonable that Mr Hill should have been expected to know, for example, that his master airspeed indicator and g-meter were unserviceable, and the fuel pump diaphragm rotted, if this was not declared to him. And how many pilots here can honestly say they could look at the Airworthiness Approval Note (reproduced by the AAIB) and realise that it was based on an entirely false premise (a premise that was NEVER true, even when in military service), and so there could be no airworthiness or serviceability audit trail? I'd hazard a guess very few. Similarly, the CAA and MoD didn't spot it; and if the AAIB did, they didn't say anything, yet pointed out other reasons why it wasn't airworthy. Have you written to the regulator to ask why they issued such an Approval Note, and if they have checked others to see if it's a widespread cockup?
There have been many threads here over the years that have revealed the same thing. Chinook ZD576. Nimrod XV230. Tornado ZG710. Sea Kings XV650 & 704. Hawk XX177. Hercules XV179. Not one of them airworthy, to varying degrees, yet false declarations made to the pilots that they were. (The Sea Kings were the closest, and ironically that is the only one where the Board of Inquiry spelt it out in detail). Only in the Chinook case is it known the aircraft captain suspected as much, but was in no position to prove it. In EACH case others met their duty and reported the failures, but their concerns were rejected. Have you had a pop at those who decided to lie to aircrew and passengers, or those who knew but did not report it? Their names are known in each case. Write to them and again let us know what they say. I'm not sure they'll give you the courtesy of a reply, as I do.