This is the advise from the Crown Prosecution Service to its own reviewing lawyers:
(I have edited out parts which do not arise here).
The CAA regulates the safety of civil aviation. In particular, the Air Navigation Order 2005 (ANO), made under section 61 of the CAA creates a number of offences designed to secure the safety of civil aircraft, some relate to the conduct of passengers and air traffic controllers as well as to aircrew. In particular, you should note the following:
Article 73 prohibits any person acting recklessly or negligently in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person therein;
Article 74 prohibits any person recklessly or negligently causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger any person or property;
You will therefore have a choice of proceeding under the CAA or the ANO. Some offences under the CAA are summarily only, whereas an equivalent offence under the ANO may well be triable either way, such as offences under Articles 73, 74 and 75. You should therefore consider:
the likely disposal of the case
the level of danger, actual or perceived, occasioned by the defendant's actions.
If you are reviewing any case involving the issue of aircraft safety you are strongly advised to consult the Civil Aviation Authority. Such prosecutions can pose difficult evidential problems and the Authority, who have a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area, can offer helpful advice. In the first instance, you should contact the Secretary and Legal Adviser.
Transport Offences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Assuming that advise is followed the views of the CAA will be relevant. The views of the CAA may be influenced by the many benefits arising from air display flying. Such benefits being carefully noted by the AAIB in its report.
Aside from the two relevant offences under the ANO 2015, both of which are punishable with fines and/or terms of imprisonment, the focus in recent posts here has been on whether a charge of manslaughter should/could be brought and proved.
Manslaughter comes in different forms. The only form of it, in my opinion, which is relevant here is as set-out below. I have attempted to reduce it to language which can be readily understood by a non lawyer.
Involuntary Manslaughter arising from the performance of what in ordinary circumstances would be a lawful act, but which becomes unlawful only by reason of the manner in which it was performed. Evidentially it is a difficult charge to prove. The prosecution would have to establish that the conduct in question was "reprehensible" (to quote from recent English case law). To draw an analogy with offences on a highway, it is easy to see that driving a car whilst drunk or at an excessive speed in a built-up area, could be categorised as "reprehensible". However if a motorist was driving within the law but was involved in a fatal accident caused by his momentary inattention, the driving whilst probably careless would not support a more serious criminal charge which required that the driving was dangerous.