I've followed the aftermath of this crash with interest, because I like Tiger Moths, I'm an aerobatic pilot and Compton Abbas was my local airfield when I used to visit my mother near Shaftesbury.
In the poorly written Bournemouth Echo article, there is a reference to Mr. Hoyle being 6' 2" tall and weighing 18 stone. For non-Brits, that's 252 lb / 115 Kg in the back seat! It caused me to re-read the accident report, paying attention to the weight and balance.
According to the AAIB, the gross weight was 815 Kg, which was 13 Kg less than the maximum gross weight, but 13 Kg MORE than the maximum gross weight for aerobatics. The CG was 0.1" forward of the aft aerobatic limit. As an aside, the report points out that the CG location should not have had a significant effect on the spin recovery characteristics.
In the report, the following statements were made about Mr. Hoyle:
1) he had not had the aerobatic training offered by the syndicate's instructor;
2) he had not spun the Tiger;
3) he did not know the correct spin recovery technique;
4) he admitted knowing about HASELL checks and the 3000' AGL recovery floor, but didn't offer any reason as to why he performed aerobatics below this height;
5) he admitted to looping but claimed it wasn't an aerobatic maneuver;
6) on the first flight, he looped the aircraft at a height of 1200' AGL;
7) on the second flight, several witnesses (including a retired commercial pilot) saw the aircraft enter a loop (at 1400' AGL or less) at exactly the same place as on the first flight and then spin out of the top of the loop;
8) however, Mr. Hoyle claimed that he didn't perform a loop - he claimed that the rudder had jammed and in his attempt to recover, had pulled the stick back.
I was very surprised by the not-guilty verdict, given the details in the report. I would be very interested to read a transcript and see what instructions the judge gave to the jury.
I wasn't aware that this was the second trial. What happened in the first one?
I completely disagree with pulse1's post. This is exactly the sort of case that should be pursued by the CPS.
There is an interesting article pertaining to this trial, concerning whether the AAIB report was admissable in evidence:
Rogers v Hoyle: legal victory for claimants in UK aviation claims