Originally Posted by
Chris Scott
However, I fail to see that the Misra case can be considered analogous to that of a lone display pilot, who has no more than a few seconds to identify any problem, consider whether an escape manoeuvre or other change of plan is required, and initiate it.
Hill's failings can't be reduced to the single fateful mistake of continuing the loop. As has been recounted, he had made mistakes in previous displays and should have had some awareness of his own shortcomings of experience, training and currency as a result of them. He had days/weeks/months in which to realise that displaying a high performance swept wing aircraft in a confined site was not wise. The fact that regulations allowed him to reflects poorly indeed on the regulator, but it doesn't absolve Hill of primary responsibility.
As for whether the fateful action was 'intended', well of course he didn't intend to crash or kill people. But he did intend to fly the display while inadequately prepared (having not practised the requisite escape manoeuvre) and, excepting the remote possibility that he did so involuntarily while incapacitated, he did intend to continue the loop having entered low and apexed below gate height. Those actions alone might be judged to reach the balance of probabilities test for gross negligence manslaughter, and in that sense the Coroner had enough to reach her verdict.