Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

[ORAC]

Andrew Hill has been found Not Guilty by the jury on all counts.

[Above The Clouds]

That is very welcome news.

[air pig]

Interesting result considering the past.

[Onceapilot]

So, what did cause the accident? :uhoh:

OAP

[Satellite_Driver]

This verdict does not of course preclude the families of those killed from bringing a civil claim for damages (although as with many such claims it would really be a claim against the insurers of Hill and the airshow, since both pilot and airshow presumably had public liability insurance.)

[Finningley Boy]

It goes to show the validity of not compromising a trial with foregone conclusions. I think a lot of people were expecting it to be an open and shut case. However, when all is laid bare and argued through, many other facets appear!

FB

[lightbluefootprint]

Interesting verdict as it seems to go against some thoughts about the accident flight and prior non-accident flights, is this a convenient verdict to underline the apparent knee-jerk reactions of the CAA?

[MPN11]

An interesting result, and not what I was expecting from what I've read here. I will be interested to see what detail emerges from the trial. Have to agree with OAP on this one, and I suspect there will be more action to come.

[wiggy]

As ABC has said this is very very welcome news.

[Satellite_Driver]

I think it's important here to bear in mind what this means. This was a criminal trial, to the criminal standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') and to the test used for gross negligence manslaughter, i.e. that the defendant was not just negligent but fell far below the standard expected of someone in his position. No doubt the judge will have directed the jury in terms similar to those approved by the Court of Appeal in the 2016 case R (on the application of Oliver) v Director of Public Prosecution:

"A proper direction to the jury on the issue of gross negligence was held in that case to be that they should be sure that the conduct in question was something ‘truly exceptionally bad and which showed a departure from the standard to be expected’ so as to constitute the very serious crime of manslaughter. The bar is thus set high: perhaps unsurprisingly so, given that such cases ordinarily involve no criminal intent."

An acquittal means that the jury were not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the crash was caused by Hill's flying being so bad as to meet that test.

[Arfur Dent]

12 "Good men and True" who know nothing about display flying. What verdict did we expect? "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" can be a hard taskmaster. Have to agree with OAP - what caused a perfectly serviceable fighter aircraft to crash whilst carrying out low level aerobatic manoeuvres? After all the pilot had 40 hours on type which was enough for the CAA to grant a PDA. Phew!!

[Treble one]

Whilst I'm not wishing any ill to Mr Hill (who has of course the consequences of this to live with for the rest of his days), I'm very surprised at the result based on the facts of the AAIB report. I think its good news for display pilots. I'd heard some dark rumours about the consequences of a guilty verdict in this case.

[Cat Techie]

Beyond reasonable doubt. The Jury thought that it was not, so made their judgement accordingly. Civil actions, if they happen will be less restricted in this score.

[rog747]

An interesting result, and not what I was expecting from what I've read here. I will be interested to see what detail emerges from the trial. Have to agree with OAP on this one, and I suspect there will be more action to come.

Don't believe then what you read on a rumour network with plenty of armchair lawyers, armchair QC's, plus armchair judges and jury !

The Court was not there to decide what caused the accident - That is the AAIB's job.

From BBC news-
Pilot Andrew Hill has been found not guilty of manslaughter over the Shoreham Airshow crash, in which 11 men died.
Mr Hill's ex-military Hawker Hunter jet crashed on to the A27 in Sussex on 22 August 2015.
The ex-RAF pilot denied deliberately committing to a loop manoeuvre despite flying too low and too slow.
Karim Khalil QC, defending, argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment" when the jet crashed.
Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.



The Coroner has to now decide on how the victims died and give her verdict.
She stated that a pre-inquest review into the 11 deaths following the Shoreham air crash due to take place on Monday 26 March 2018 has been postponed.
West Sussex Senior Coroner Penelope Schofield has taken the decision following the CPS decision to bring charges against the pilot. The Coroner set the next review for Friday 22 February 2019, to allow for the criminal proceedings but due to the nature of the charges, the full inquest must now await the conclusion of the criminal case. The Coroner has said she does not anticipate the full inquest will take place until mid to late 2019 and will continue to keep the matter under review to ensure that the inquests take place as soon as is reasonably possible.

[wiggy]

12 "Good men and True" who know nothing about display flying.

But also 12 “Good men and true” who were actually in court and heard all the evidence presented.....

[weemonkey]

BBC reporting jury were told “that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight”

Of course the answer is 42.....

...(Hitchhikers guide reference to the question-the answer to everything)

[Arfur Dent]

Point well made Wiggy…...

[Timelord]

The whole premise of aviation safety is acknowledging that human beings make mistakes. This pilot undoubtedly did that, but if every mistake that led to a fatality was followed by criminal prosecution; what would that do to our hard won safety culture. I hold no brief for Mr Hill but I am happy with the result for the sake of every pilot, controller and engineer in the business. In my view the most worrying aspect of this accident was the display authorisation “process”.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

So, what did cause the accident? :uhoh:

OAP

You are completely missing the point!

Gross negligence was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt so he was, quite correctly, found not guilty.

[Fitter2]

With respect to the BBC, the Defendant's barrister does not have to prove anything; only to introduce sufficient evidence that there is a possibility of something that undermines the prosecution.

[MPN11]

Don't believe then what you read on a rumour network with plenty of armchair lawyers, armchair QC's, plus armchair judges and jury !

<snip>Indeed, and I take everything I read here with a pinch of salt. However, my perception was swayed by those who observed upon the low entry into the manoeuvre and the failure to meet the required gate height. Even my limited flying experience suggested that as likely to end badly.

However, the Jury has decided, and that's the way it works.

[rog747]

Indeed, and I take everything I read here with a pinch of salt. However, my perception was swayed by those who observed upon the low entry into the manoeuvre and the failure to meet the required gate height. Even my limited flying experience suggested that as likely to end badly.

However, the Jury has decided, and that's the way it works.


Indeed - This was one case where had I lived closer to London I would have liked to have spent some time in the visitors gallery and learn from the system.

[Brian W May]

An utter travesty. Problem with smart lawyer and jury that knows diddly squat about flying.

[dynamics]

"Cognitive impairment" sounds like g-lock to me, which is rather surprising given the apparent control the aircraft was under during its final maneuvers. An interesting verdict indeed.

[meleagertoo]

An utter travesty. Problem with smart lawyer and jury that knows diddly squat about flying.
With respct, sir, had you taken the trouble to read posts #10 and #14 plus one or two others you'd have spared yourself the trouble of a smart alec who knows diddly squat about the law posting an utter travesty...

[DaveReidUK]

is this a convenient verdict to underline the apparent knee-jerk reactions of the CAA?

Juries have no obligation to return a verdict that is "convenient" for any party.

[rog747]

The Coroner has to now decide on how the victims died.

She stated that a pre-inquest review into the 11 deaths following the Shoreham air crash on 26 March 2018 has been postponed.

West Sussex Senior Coroner Penelope Schofield has taken the decision following the CPS decision to bring charges against the pilot. The Coroner set the next review for Friday 22 February 2019, to allow for the criminal proceedings but due to the nature of the charges, thus the full inquest must now await the conclusion of the criminal case.
The Coroner has said she does not anticipate the full inquest will take place until mid to late 2019 but was mindful of the victims families distress.

Now the Judicial Court case has been completed she has to now decide on how the victims died and give her verdict.

[BEagle]

Brian W May, I don't know whether you've ever served on a jury, but when I did so, the judge took great pains to explain to the members of the jury that they were ONLY to consider the evidence presented and nothing else. Which includes 'Internet research' et al. So I cannot imagine for one moment that the evidence was presented in anything but a clear manner, sufficient for judge and jury to have full understanding. That the jury might have known 'diddly squat' about flying is frankly nihil ad rem.

When I was foreman of the jury on which I served, I had to remind some members of the judge's statement regarding consideration of evidence, including that we could only discuss the case when all members were present. If someone needed to go to the lavatory, then no discussion of the case could continue.

The jury in Andy Hill's case has given its verdict. Who are you to query that?

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

With respct, sir, had you taken the trouble to read posts #10 and #14 plus one or two others you'd have spared yourself the trouble of a smart alec who knows diddly squat about the law posting an utter travesty...
Beautifully put!

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Brian W May, I don't know whether you've ever served on a jury, but when I did so, the judge took great pains to explain to the members of the jury that they were ONLY to consider the evidence presented and nothing else. Which includes 'Internet research' et al. So I cannot imagine for one moment that the evidence was presented in anything but a clear manner, sufficient for judge and jury to have full understanding. That the jury might have known 'diddly squat' about flying is frankly nihil ad rem.

When I was foreman of the jury on which I served, I had to remind some members of the judge's statement regarding consideration of evidence, including that we could only discuss the case when all members were present. If someone needed to go to the lavatory, then no discussion of the case could continue.

The jury in Andy Hill's case has given its verdict. Who are you to query that?

Quite!

The ignorant prejudice displayed by Brian W May and no doubt others is quite frightening!

[oggers]

Not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. This verdict of a jury who sat through the entire trial seems reasonable to me.

[beamer]

Is it therefore sufficient to say that he made an appalling mistake with tragic circumstances and leave the lawyers to fight another day ?

[weemonkey]

Some quite undignified responses (near gloating in fact) on here.
Perhaps the dead should be shown some respect, gentlemen.

[lightbluefootprint]

Juries have no obligation to return a verdict that is "convenient" for any party.
Of course Dave and no such thing was intended, my thought (poorly served by written text) was that does this verdict perhaps vindicate the perceived draconian reaction of the CAA in the aftermath of the incident?

[rog747]

Mr May, like others here are fully entitled to their opines...That is democracy...We may not agree, or maybe we get outraged at what is said/inferred as did Mr May's view of the Court outcome.

But please be mindful and not let us descend this thread into a game of returning ping pong...It is already going on over at R&N as well after Mr May posted the same comment...

I for one wished I could have spent time in the Visitors Gallery on this case -

I wonder if the 1952 Farnbrorough show accident had any precedent to the defence and any submissions made that accidents do happen ?
It was back then, treated by all as a tragic accident. Different times of course.

[Brian W May]

You perhaps are talking about 'LAW'

I am talking about JUSTICE, wrong height, wrong speed, nobody else involved. Who IS responsible for the deaths then? If Andy Hill had gone sick that day, those poor souls would be alive.

So, with the greatest of respect . . . Foxtrot Oscar

[unmanned_droid]

Yes, it's interesting that the term accident has been replaced with incident in many areas of law enforcement.

[andrewn]

The whole premise of aviation safety is acknowledging that human beings make mistakes. This pilot undoubtedly did that, but if every mistake that led to a fatality was followed by criminal prosecution; what would that do to our hard won safety culture. I hold no brief for Mr Hill but I am happy with the result for the sake of every pilot, controller and engineer in the business. In my view the most worrying aspect of this accident was the display authorisation “process”.


Agree 100 percent. As always in tragedies like this its a swiss cheese scenario and the majority of those holes were already lining up well before Mr Hill stepped foot in that plane on that day.

The CAA palpably failed in their duty of care (to everybody) by not seeing the writing on the wall with regards the proliferation of "vintage" jets; not recognising that performing public aeros in high power, swept wing jets required a specialist skillset and a fair amount of ongoing practice, not consistently applying its own DA rules and oversight as existed at the time, not ensuring the display venues were suitable, not ensuring display routines were pre-briefed, and that only that routine was flown, etc, etc

I'd agree with the jury that the primary cause of the Shoreham tragedy did not lie with Andy Hill, regardless of his airmanship displayed on that particular day.

[Squiffy Pussy]

Not the correct verdict in my opinion but pleased that they didn't lock him up. Nothing to gain. Maybe a private prosecution now. Same result? The families will probably crowd fund or what ever it is called. One will not donate.

[Onceapilot]

The AAIB report requires considerable effort to read. However, I commend it to anyone who posts here. Within a host of concluding observations, the AAIB report states:
"Causal factors • The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height."

OAP

[aox]

Some quite undignified responses (near gloating in fact) on here.
Perhaps the dead should be shown some respect, gentlemen.
Indeed, and perhaps there will be effects in future that some people here and elsewhere in aviation will come to feel less comfortable about.

As I posted in the corresponding thread in the R&N section:

Apart from the bereaved families and friends, so do other people who weren't involved.

From the BBC article:

In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.

"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?

"Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear."

That middle paragraph is a pertinent question, after the defence as presented.

Depending on how future policy and practice responds to that rhetorical point, one person's successful legal defence may arguably have damaged plenty of other aviators.

[Parson]

Brian W May - "jury that knows diddly squat about flying". What do you want then? A jury of a dozen Hunter display pilots? More likely to convict? Hardly. It is precisely because they know little about flying that they were on the jury. That's how the legal system works.

[just another jocky]

After all the pilot had 40 hours on type which was enough for the CAA to grant a PDA. Phew!!


That's ok, I was given PDA after little more than 7 hours on the Hunter!

[Treble one]

It seems that the crux of this case was to do with 'cognitive impairment' and whether or not the pilot had suffered this during the course of the manoeuvre. This was actually one of the main points of the judges summing up.

We can take it then that the defence witness on this matter was either more convincing than the prosecution one, or that the defence team managed to instill enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So well done to the defence brief for playing the only card he had very well indeed.

Ironically, the actual flight profile flown on the day, and the errors in it highlighted by the AAIB report was almost incidental to the outcome. Strange indeed.

[Mr Bollo]

I once heard a very senior RAF lawyer give his view that civil criminal juries were always reluctant to convict individuals practising highly complex and difficult jobs (in whatever field) of professional negligence, unless the evidence was absolutely compelling. He then said "and DG MAA (who was in the audience) never likes me telling you that, as he likes to keep you on your toes" (or words to that effect).

[ex82watcher]

BBC 'world at one' programme just reported that the aircraft involved was a 'Hawker Harrier' !!!!!!!!!

[effortless]

Listening to him now, “I lost control”. Well as an uncomfortably close witness, I have to say that it was the most controlled crash I’ve ever witnessed. And, yes, I have seen more than my fair share. He was in control when he commenced too low and he was in control when he missed his first gate. He was in control when he didn’t abort then.

I suggest he does the lottery and I’d like to copy his numbers.

I fear that that a corollary of this verdict, there will be many more restrictions on displays.

[Blacksheep]

The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?

[kbf1]

Brian W May, I don't know whether you've ever served on a jury, but when I did so, the judge took great pains to explain to the members of the jury that they were ONLY to consider the evidence presented and nothing else. ?

Beag's is obviously referring to when he was taking part in Plato's symposium... or was it Aristotle, I think you go back that far...?

The very subtle point has to be made that to be convicted the offence has to be "complete". Much has been made of slippery defence counsel but it has to be remembered that the defence has to do nothing (save challenge and probe the prosecution's case), the prosecution however has to actively prove it's case, and that involves demonstrating that the definition of the charge has been met in the presentation of evidence. Criminally Negligent Manslaughter is incredibly hard to prove for a variety of reasons, and I suspect the real philosophical debate to be had is whether the definition of the crime is too broad or narrow to have captured all of the exigent circumstances in case it were to be repeated in the future, and for the Jurisprudent, what should be the limit and extent of the law?

[aox]

The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?
I believe, though I'm ready to be corrected by people more knowledgeable, that the corresponding by dangerous driving offence was instituted due to difficulties in obtaining verdicts in manslaughter cases on the roads.

As a certain other case discovered in the last year or two, there was no similar offence of ~ by dangerous cycling ...

[sharpend]

The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?

Totally agree.

However, like all those who kill because of a mistake they make (accidental or incompetence) he will have to live with that for the rest of his life.

[DaveReidUK]

It seems that the crux of this case was to do with 'cognitive impairment' and whether or not the pilot had suffered this during the course of the manoeuvre. This was actually one of the main points of the judges summing up.

In fact, even before the start of the trial, the judge had made it clear that the "cognitive impairment" defence could be, in effect, a stay-out-of-jail card.

At the pre-trial hearing, Mr Justice Edis said "The issue is whether Mr Hill was at fault or whether he was disabled by the G force" (the two scenarios being, by implication, mutually exclusive).

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17342844.shoreham-airshow-pilot-will-claim-he-was-disabled-by-g-force/

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

You perhaps are talking about 'LAW'

I am talking about JUSTICE, wrong height, wrong speed, nobody else involved. Who IS responsible for the deaths then? If Andy Hill had gone sick that day, those poor souls would be alive.

So, with the greatest of respect . . . Foxtrot Oscar

You don't know that. A different pilot may have made a different mistake and crashed it into the crowd potentially killing hundreds.

Mr Hill may have made a mistake and very sadly the consequences were tragic. On a different day he, or any other pilot, could have made far worse errors without injuring a hair on anybody's head.

The person who never makes a mistake never makes anything. Every time you or I get in a car there is the potential to kill somebody. That could, under some circumstances be the result of gross negligence but in the vast majority of cases it is simply the result of a mistake.

And finally, the LAW exists to ensure there is justice which is a very different thing from a lynch mob!

[763 jock]

Whether or not one agrees with the verdict, that is how justice is served in the UK. Mr Hill has been tried and acquitted at the Old Bailey following evidence put forward by the prosecution and defence.

Our system isn't perfect, but I for one would rather be tried in the UK than anywhere else. We have to respect the decision made by the jury.

[Super VC-10]

Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.

As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.

Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?

[lightningf2a]

The AAIB report requires considerable effort to read. However, I commend it to anyone who posts here. Within a host of concluding observations, the AAIB report states:
"Causal factors • The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height."

OAP

Seems cut and dried. However, I seem to recall there were admissible evidence issues with the AAIB report and the prosecution said at the outset it would not be using it in evidence.

If my recollection is correct, the jury would not have seen the report of the impartial experts!

[ericsson16]

BBC 'world at one' programme just reported that the aircraft involved was a 'Hawker Harrier' !!!!!!!!!
Well if you can't trust the Beeb who can you trust? Answers on a postcard to Broadcasting House,Portland Place and Langham Place, London,W1A 1AA.

[rog747]

Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.

As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.

Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a conviction?

The other day when the chap who was going to Barra with bird watchers - crashed after take off - overloaded - took money off the pax - no load sheet etc etc He is due to be sentenced on 15 March.

[Ridger]

An utter travesty. Problem with smart lawyer and jury that knows diddly squat about flying.

Might be worth spending some time reading the media coverage of the case... it's not as black and white as you wish it to be

[Dan_Brown]

Whatever came out in court, one thing is for sure. The pilot of that a/c didn't have sufficent, recent time on type and possibly not enough recent relavent experience. Period. I believe he had 40hours in 4 years on type. Not enough IMHO. Airline type flying has no relevance what so ever.

There was a pilot, years ago, who was very experienced and current in a particularly dangerous type of aviation. One of the very best and a master of his trade.He gave it up and bought a restaurant. He said he was unable to live without the flying. After a few years away from that particular type of flying, went back to it, part time, then a short period later he was killed after making an gerror of judgement.

Whether currency, or lack of, had a part to play in this tradgety, will be difficult to prove one way or the other. I believe it would have been a contributory factor.

[beardy]

For a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence, the jury had to be satisfied that Hill’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.
The jury were not satisfied.

[clareprop]

Not specifically regarding this issue but I would remind that a criminal trial requires a jury to convict or acquit on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high bar for the prosecution to overcome. A civil trial (or lawsuit) on the other hand, requires a verdict on the balance of probability - a very different proposition.

[Albert Driver]

Worth thinking about:
Any pilot at any time can find him/herself involved in an aircraft accident whether they made a mistake or not.
In this age such an event could lead to any of us having to defend ourselves in court, whether responsible for the event or not.
Whether you believe so or not, you could be next.

Without commenting on the facts of this case, this was a masterclass in defending oneself.
Keep your mouth firmly closed outside of court, appear contrite, disappear as far as possible,

And let the lawyers do all the talking.

[tucumseh]

I find this odd, from the BBC's website;

Rebecca Smith from Irwin Mitchell lawyers, which represents 17 people affected by the crash, including some bereaved families and of the injured, said: "Attention will now to turn to the inquest where the entirety of the Shoreham Airshow tragedy can be fully examined."

This implies details were withheld, or IM were prevented from presenting them. Has the Coroner already said he will allow such evidence? And will the Health and Safety Executive pursue soemone?

[ivor toolbox]

Whilst I'm not wishing any ill to Mr Hill (who has of course the consequences of this to live with for the rest of his days), I'm very surprised at the result based on the facts of the AAIB report. I think its good news for display pilots. I'd heard some dark rumours about the consequences of a guilty verdict in this case.

I don't think its good news for display pilots at all; you will now probably see some consequences as to 'cognitive impairment during aerobatics' appear from the Campaign Against Aviation. It might have been better for future public airshows if he HAD been found guilty in the long run.

Ttfn

[dastocks]

You perhaps are talking about 'LAW'

I am talking about JUSTICE, wrong height, wrong speed, nobody else involved.


On the "nobody else involved" point: would it be reasonable for the Display Director to have observed and judged the entry to the fatal manoeuvre to have been at the "wrong height, wrong speed" and put out a STOP call?

[Brian W May]

Just a note.

Whether right or wrong, some folks seem incensed and resentful that I'm openly stating my belief regarding this case

Your opinions would carry a little more weight if you used your names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms. BEagle you're well out of the RAF, so why not come clean?

Or is that the deal, you can say what you want and not bear any responsibility for your views?

[ivor toolbox]

On the "nobody else involved" point: would it be reasonable for the Display Director to have observed and judged the entry to the fatal manoeuvre to have been at the "wrong height, wrong speed" and put out a STOP call?

Its what the Display Director should have done maybe. But as this was the initial manoevre in the sequence, (from the radar track that was publicised after the event) would a stop message have been too late. Was he/she called as witness, haven't seen mention of it.

Ttfn

[SandyW]

Amazing what a clever lawyer and a lay jury can come up with. Anyone who knows how to loop a Hunter safely at low level could tell you the cause of this accident, and the logical legal verdict to the charge.

[Treble one]

I don't think its good news for display pilots at all; you will now probably see some consequences as to 'cognitive impairment during aerobatics' appear from the Campaign Against Aviation. It might have been better for future public airshows if he HAD been found guilty in the long run.

Ttfn
Its good news in the sense that a lot of people won't be lost to display flying-however, as you say, the CAA will get their teeth into this, and we will no doubt face more restrictions. Its funny because reading the trial reports, its seemed that the prosecution Aviation Medicine Expert had 'trumped' the defence one. In my own mind anyway.

[clareprop]

the logical legal verdict to the charge.
For the reason I stated above, the 'logical legal verdict' was Not Guilty because the prosecution case was not proved.

[Mogwi]

Not specifically regarding this issue but I would remind that a criminal trial requires a jury to convict or acquit on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high bar for the prosecution to overcome. A civil trial (or lawsuit) on the other hand, requires a verdict on the balance of probability - a very different proposition.

Actually Clare, as one who has recently been pinged for jury service I can tell you that it is no longer "beyond reasonable doubt" but simply "sure". There was some discussion over the precise meaning of that. Whatever the wording, the jury has spoken and he is not guilty. As you say, it might be a different outcome in a civil court.

Mog

[PiggyBack]

" I'd agree with the jury that the primary cause of the Shoreham tragedy did not lie with Andy Hill, regardless of his airmanship displayed on that particular day. "

That is NOT what the jury decided. They decided that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the the pilot had committed gross negligence manslaughter which is a very high bar to prove far beyond establishing that Andy Hill was the primary cause of the accident.

I am not a pilot but I am responsible for safety engineering and it should be hard to establish gross negligence manslaughter because real incidents are the result of multiple failures generally by multiple parties none of whom are acting with malice. A blame culture and a safety culture are probably not compatible and I would rather have a culture in which incidents and near incidents are openly and honestly evaluated than one where people are too scared to be honest. In the real world there are many degrees of responsibility and negligence but a court decision is binary. I am concerned that what Andy Hill has said of the accident is governed by a concern about his legal position rather than supporting an effort to understand and thereby avoid similar incidents in the future.

[763 jock]

It seems to me that "justice" is similar to "democracy". A lot of people are all in favour of it until such time as the outcome is not to their liking.

[weemonkey]

Well if you can't trust the Beeb who can you trust? Answers on a postcard to Broadcasting House,Portland Place and Langham Place, London,W1A 1AA.

tatatatata..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342

There why you can trust the BBC, they'll even tell you why

[Satellite_Driver]

Regarding the question of whether there should be an offence of 'causing death by dangerous flying', I seem to recall this being raised after the acquittal in 1996 of the Hercules pilot who had been charged with the manslaughter of a soldier hit whilst standing on the roof of a truck during a low flyby after a practice drop at South Cerney.

Yes, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced because it was so rarely possible to prove such a level of negligence as to make out a manslaughter charge in fatal RTAs. I'm sure a corresponding offence could be created for aviation (and perhaps other forms of transport) but it would be a case of finding parliamentary time and will.

[aox]

I find this odd, from the BBC's website;



This implies details were withheld, or IM were prevented from presenting them. Has the Coroner already said he will allow such evidence? And will the Health and Safety Executive pursue soemone?
You might be overthinking that. I doubt there is suppression.

This trial examines the case as brought against and defended by Mr Hill.

An inquest can examine other circumstances which weren't necessarily directly relevant to Mr Hill's conduct, but are part of the background context, such as airworthiness standards, organisational aspects, including display authorisations, and so on.

​​​​​​For instance, it would hardly be relevant to whether someone is allegedly acting negligently that they were acting in accordance with procedures they were permitted, and laid down by someone else. Thus not at this trial, by don't be surprised if the inquest makes recommendations about future air displays.

[Arkroyal]

Perhaps if Air Marshall’s Wratten and Day had been on the jury we’d have a different result.

My emotional response is that the verdict is wrong. Andy Hill is responsible for these deaths and that most were entirely innocent bystanders makes one bay for blood. But the law is rightly about facts and not emotions.

Having been a small part of the campaign to clear the Chinook pilots one has to look at why the result is what it is.

I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’

Was there a lesser, more proveable, charge which could have been brought? I don’t know. Over to the lawyers.

The charge is is all important. A young man some years ago managed to blag his way into flying a commercial helicopter with only a PPL and no type rating. The CAA prosecuted under the charge of ‘Obtaining pecunery advantage by deception’.

He was never paid, so the case collapsed. An easy day in court for our own ‘Flying Lawyer’.

And no! It wasn’t me.

[gpbeck]

Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'

Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!

[weemonkey]

Having just watched [and then rewatched] the coverage of the acquitted words on the steps of the court,
I am driven towards those wise words of "if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't"

So I wont.

[Arkroyal]

Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'

Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!

Must have gone sick during the North Luffenham course!!!!!

[aox]

Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'

Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!

Good question, and the prosecution has a chance to ask it, in cross examination or redirect, as applicable.

(I haven't read the proceedings to find out)

[Treble one]

This is a direct report from the BBC regarding the Judge summing up to the Jury.

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight.

"You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said.

"It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."

How can you PROVE that Cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot? I suggest that the Jury had no choice to find Mr Hill not guilty based on this direction from the Judge.

Whether this direction was correct in legal terms, then I will leave it to m'learned friends to decide.

Summing up from Prosecution/Defence Barristers below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415

Defence Aviation Med expert below;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182

[standbykid]

From BBC news-
Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.


Low and slow going into the fatal maneuver and continuing with it. How is that not negligent?
I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career?

[ASRAAMTOO]

Arkroyal,

"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’"

Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.

[The Nip]

Yes, it's interesting that the term accident has been replaced with incident in many areas of law enforcement.

Yes because it takes away responsibility.

[Caramba]

The prosecution failed in several ways.

it attempted to cast AH as a cavalier, negligent, and over-confident pilot. It adduced as evidence to upport this view an overflight of the M11 at less than 500 feet. Wrong - the limit was 200 feet. He crossed the crowd line at Duxford. Again wrong, it wasn’t where the prosecution witness said it was. Flying a dangerous manoeuvre at Southport and had to be told to stop. Wrong. He fell out of a Derry turn in poor visibility and had knocked off before the stop call. He overflew Lancing College in 2014. Wrong. The supposed CAM expert on G-Force failed some basic calculations, as did the star prosecution witness.

the Defence Barrister maybe very good, but he was left with several open goals. The Prosecution Barrister was clearly flailing around by the time he got to summing up, and managed several factual inaccuracies.

Further, there may well be problems with the conduct of air shows, the issuing of DA’s etc, but those are not AH’s fault. He complied with the rules and requirements as they were on the day.

Personally I cannot imagine that a pilot of this level of ability and experience would commit to a manoeuvre that clearly was going to end in tragedy, for himself and others, if he was in command of his faculties. I believe the jury came to the correct verdict.

Caramba

[michaelbinary]

So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?

IMHO it should be NO.

He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.

[Treble one]

So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?

IMHO it should be NO.

He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.

It appears tha AH is a bit of a whizz with the design of digital Flight manuals/systems from some reports today. Perhaps thats a way forward for him now within the industry?

Its inconceiveable, surely, that AH could return as a commercial or display pilot in the circumstances? There has to be a doubt over his medical fitness to perform the role given the trial verdict, and the reason for the acquital. And the announcement from the front to passengers 'welcome to BA flight XXXX, this is your captain, Andy Hill speaking', may not go down especially well with the passengers?

[Echo Romeo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGl7onm34Gg

[langleybaston]

As a reasonably well-informed layman I am surprised by the verdict.

Clearly it has sharply divided those qualified by experience and training to comment.

It is therefore hardly surprising that a jury of laypersons decided that the prosecution had not made its case.

As an aside, has this thread established a Forum record of posts per hour thus far?

[andrewn]

Fascinating vid ER, of a much missed aviator, that just serves to remind what a demanding and unforgiving environment FJ display flying is.

I'll say it again, for the last time, the majority of fault for the tragedy that day lay not with AH but with the overly permissive rules and regs and lax governance and oversight. It was an accident waiting to happen - the Gnat at Carfest a few weeks before was a timely reminder which went largely ignored as Joe public escaped, by pure luck, from that one.

[ExSimGuy]

It was a really awful day for all of those concerned, the victims on the ground and their friends/family, the pilot, the owners of the aircraft, and for Andy, who has had the results of the event on his mind ever since he came-to in the hospital some time later and heard of all of the innocent deaths:ooh:. The acquittal will never stop him thinking back to the day, any more than those left behind will stop remembering the victims. My heart goes out to all concerned.
As for whether (as someone asked) he will now go back to his "day job" with his old airline -- Will the company want to return someone who could need to put out a cabin announcement "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain AH speaking . . ." ? How would he feel about stepping into any cockpit ever again?
My view is that Andy has suffered enough and I'm glad that this step is no longer hanging over his head and I pray that he will recover (mentally) soon.
Brian May -- .I'm not hiding behind my "Forum Name"; I'm Stu Nutt (really!) and I was a flight sim engineer with Singer-Link-Miles and a sim maintenance engineer at Cranebank (LHR) quite a few years ago. Some of the older BA old-timers may recognise my name.

[dastocks]

Its what the Display Director should have done maybe. But as this was the initial manoevre in the sequence, (from the radar track that was publicised after the event) would a stop message have been too late. Was he/she called as witness, haven't seen mention of it.

Ttfn
According to this report he was:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17367286.pilot-committed-cardinal-sin-during-shoreham-airshow-stunt/

The court also heard that none of the airshow’s flying committee - which organised and oversaw the event - sent out a “stop, stop, stop call” to bring Hill’s display to a halt.

Rodney Dean, one of the organisers responsible for the safety of displays at the show, known as the flying display director (FDD), said he did not see the crash because he was talking to pilots in another part of the airfield.

Giving evidence, he said: “I saw the (Hawker) Hunter arrive. I saw it do its flight past which didn’t concern me at all.”

He said he did not see or hear the crash but as soon as he learned about it over the radio system he returned to the area, adding that it was “immediately” clear after seeing smoke that it was a “major disaster”.

[Jet_Fan]

Low and slow going into the fatal maneuver and continuing with it. How is that not negligent?
I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career?

'Flying a cargo plane full of rubber dogsh*t out of Hong Kong'? Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.

[Homelover]

Looks like AH had Bob Massingbird working the defence for him:

"Remember the case of the Bloody Knife? A man was found next to a murdered body, he had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police arrived he said, “I’m glad I killed the bastard.” Massingbird not only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year’s Honors list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood washed out of his jacket." (Credit Richard Curtis and Ben Elton)

I personally hope AH gets his DA back - I'd go and watch him display. But only at seafront venues.....��

[Finningley Boy]

Just been listening to a criminal defence lawyer, not sure if it was AH's or not, but he was damning air shows, well certainly aerobatics displays, claiming the verdict, which exonerated AH, was evidence that this form of entertainment, a phrase he said he use advisedly, could not go on and that felt this would now be the case. I couldn't help feeling he wasn't a fan from he outset. But then if he defended AH, and accepting that justice is blind, would he have taken up the cudgels if he felt he couldn't remain impartial defending an aerobatics display pilot?

FB

[Warren Peace]

Just a note.

Whether right or wrong, some folks seem incensed and resentful that I'm openly stating my belief regarding this case

Your opinions would carry a little more weight if you used your names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms. BEagle you're well out of the RAF, so why not come clean?

Or is that the deal, you can say what you want and not bear any responsibility for your views?

Oh come on... How many people on here do not know Beagle's real name?

He's hardly hiding is he?

[Arkroyal]

Arkroyal,

"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’"

Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.

Ok. That’s a fair point. But maybe the prosecution lawyer might have at least read it and used its contents to help him shape his questions

[Homelover]

Oh come on... How many people on here do not know Beagle's real name?

He's hardly hiding is he?

I don’t, but I’m guessing Diplodocus or Brontosaurus?

[Whipstall]

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight.


I have been making this point to a number of my non-aviation friends, who have asked my opinion of the verdict. The reality is that having set the threshold this high it would have been virtually impossible for the prosecution to have persuaded 10 of the remaining 11 jurors beyond reasonable doubt that cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot.

I do, however, have a personal problem with the use of cognitive impairment as a defence. In my own experience (20+ years of domestic and international aerobatic competition and display flying - all piston engine singles) I have suffered from cognitive impairment in different forms on a number of occasions and witnessed it on many more. For me this has ranged from "black out" (often wrongly confused with G-LOC) - where all vision is lost but you have the remaining four sense intact - through to complete loss of consciousness. In the case of the former, vision is normally restored after a few seconds provided the G loading is reduced through elevator input. In the case of the latter, which happened to me after an aggressive "sleeper" combination (high negative G figures followed immediately by high positive G), the stick is always released as it is "loaded" by reason of the positive G. What happens next depends on how the aircraft is trimmed, how quickly the pilot wakes up...and how high you are.

My difficulty is this: you only push the envelope, which was when I had my own impairment experiences, at altitude in as safe an environment as possible. This does not include low level, public aerobatic displays.

As pilot in command we all accept that we have responsibility for the safe undertaking of any flight. As aerobatic pilots we are acutely aware of the risks we are exposing both ourselves and others to. This includes the risk of cognitive impairment whether caused by poor sequence design, poor execution, physical condition (which may include lack of current G tolerance) or state of mind. If there is any doubt at all about anything you are doing in this context, you simply don't do it. Or accept the consequences.

[DODGYOLDFART]

Right or wrong verdict? I cannot believe that the verdict will in anyway will be seen as justice by the families and friends of those that died.

[Onceapilot]

Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP

[Pontius Navigator]

Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?

That's easy, last month.

[unmanned_droid]

Yes because it takes away responsibility.

I would have said the presumption of responsibility...but yeah...that.

[Pontius Navigator]

Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'

Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!
When were we first made aware of G-LOC?

Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s.

The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G.

[DaveReidUK]

Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?

You will never know.

Jury deliberations are considered secret, even after a trial has ended.

[Whipstall]

Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP
Juries are not required to give reasons for an acquital. No-one, other than the 11 jurors in this case, will know either the reasoning they used, the evidence they accepted or whether the decision was unanimous or a majority verdict.

[Treble one]

Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. "You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said. "It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."

So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment

[Onceapilot]

When were we first made aware of G-LOC?

Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s.

The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G.


Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken?

OAP

[Onceapilot]

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. "You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said. "It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."

So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment

Yes, this is interesting Trembles.......I believe Andy Hill describes having no recollection of the events, so simply agreeing in court that he would not have aimed to fly the manoeuvre at the wrong parameters would imply (rightly or wrongly) that he was impaired, despite the fact that he has no recollection and seemed to have little knowledge of the safety gates and recovery proceedure.

OAP

[Lima Juliet]

A few have posted that Hill has to live with the thoughts of those he killed for the rest of his life. Well I don’t give two hoots about that, it is the families of those that perished that I truly feel sorry for as they will have equally long lives to remember those poor people.

I also think the Law is an ass in these types of instances - prosecution seems so very rare when it is quite obvious that they have negligently done things. So it seems you can arrive too low, fly a bent loop without making your gate height and then wipe out 11 souls and injure others on a main road. You can also knock off a trooper’s head with with the ramp and antenna of your transport aircraft and also get away with it. Or you can break someone’s back and injure others whilst you fiddle with your seat and your camera jams the controls, then apparently try to cover it up, and then be acquitted. But only if you fly a helicopter recklessly and kill your co-pilot, crewman and one of your Army passengers can you expect to be prosecuted. If the helicopter pilot had claimed “cognitive impairment” in the last seconds would he have got away with it?

Whilst I agree that the Law was upheld today, I fear that Justice was not. I look forward to reading what the Coroner finds.

[DaveReidUK]

Juries are not required to give reasons for an acquital. No-one, other than the 11 jurors in this case, will know either the reasoning they used, the evidence they accepted or whether the decision was unanimous or a majority verdict.

It was a unanimous verdict. That fact is stated in open court and is not considered confidential.

[twothree]

14,000+ hours is a lot of experience, not only operating civilian aircraft in the civil aviation world but also continuing to fly military type aircraft and displaying them.

Years in the "seat" plus knowing your own personal parameters and the aircraft capability you are flying, gives the experienced pilot a prior sense of a situation that if not corrected at that time could become a bigger problem later. Most of the time a minor "correction" applied at the time nullifies any future problem.

100 knots at the top of a loop at 2,600' in a Hunter. Applying the thought of the sentence above, when did the cognitive impairment take place?

[Bob Viking]

It’s interesting that you drew parallels with the Voyager incident because I thought the same thing.

As pilots I don’t believe we should automatically close ranks and defend ‘one of our own’ every time.

I’m sure the jury reached the correct verdict on the strength of the evidence prevented but I still cannot excuse the actions of Andy Hill.

From my perspective, I am a current and pretty experienced Hawk pilot (2500+ hours on type). If someone asked me to perform a low level aerobatics routine tomorrow I would say no way. I fly aerobatic type manoeuvres (along with weapons, BFM, low level etc) on a daily basis in my job and I would not want, or expect, to go and fly the kind of manoeuvres he flew on that fateful day. Added to that, the fit of the aircraft was unfamiliar (I have flown Hawks in pretty much every conceivable fit including the heavier configurations) so, by comparison, if someone said “hey, BV, go take that Hawk with drop tanks and fly a low level display in front of thousands of people” I wouldn’t dream of it.

For the life of me I can’t work out why so many people want to excuse his actions.

I don’t know how I think he should be punished, since it hasn’t affected me directly, but I don’t think he should get off Scott free and I don’t think you can lay the entirety of the blame with the CAA.

Obviously many of you will disagree with me but such is life.

BV

[Cows getting bigger]

Are there any Big Brains out there who could describe how Cognative Impairment offering could ever be disproved.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken?

OAP
Which means that someone who left military could state accurately that they had not been trained in G-Loc. If phrased differently I think it would be very difficult to deny know if the effects of G.

[dagenham]

Brian - please stop playing the man and play the ball

the main issue here is the standard of evidence required for a conviction. If you cannot prove fault conclusively and culpable actions then it will always end up this way.

there are two options

1. The standard gets lowered and accidents stop and everything becomes blame and claim

2. Accept that Andy will always have this on his mind and that is probably worse than any sentence that can be given.

I drove by Shoreham the morning of the show and there where signs everywhere on the road saying no spectating and airshows are dangerous. That does not excuse the lose of life on the road, but there where needles casualties because the law was also ingnored. Not popular I know but it is a fact

Anyway any of these are are not the best outcomes in finding an answer. Let’s hope everyone learns and piss poor prep etc ad Infinitum

[Pontius Navigator]

Are there any Big Brains out there who could describe how Cognative Impairment offering could ever be disproved.
I probably have more awareness of the meaning of G-Loc than CI.

[BEagle]

How many posters in this thread have flown a Hunter and experienced the startle effect of the anti-G system running out of air? I don't know whether Andy Hill wore an anti-G suit for his displays, but I recall once pulling off a strafe run at Pembrey (around 100' agl) when the anti-G ran out of puff. You suddenly experience unexpected grey-out and for a brief moment wonder WTF has happened...

Not so in the Hawk, which had a bleed air anti-G system, as did the Gnat.

G-LOC was not briefed in my fast jet training days (last time being 1980), involving quite a few aircraft type training courses at North Luffenham, whereas grey out and black out certainly were.

This article https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1986/1986%20-%201585.PDF which concerns Jim Hawkins' fatal Hawk 200 accident, gives an excellent account of the effects of G-LOC. I suspect that AMTC started including G-LOC in its Ruddles appreciation courses following this accident in 1986.

[DaveReidUK]

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. "You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said. "It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."

So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment.

Er no, it was about cognitive impairment because that was the basis of the defence case.

The judge was simply doing his job - explaining to the jury what the law was in relation to that and, consequently, what it was that they had to decide in reaching a verdict.

A more valid criticism of the judge would be if he had failed to allow in his summing up for the possibility that g-induced cognitive impairment was a consequence rather than a cause of the badly-performed loop. You would need to ask someone who was in court whether that was the case.

[andrewn]

AH was flying high intensity low level aeros in a public arena in a high performance swept wing jet that he had less than 40 hrs total time on type, spread over the last 5 years. He left the RAF and regular service FJ flying 13 years previously, during that time for the day job he "flew" a FBW passenger plane, he had also regularly flown a lighweight single-prop for display flying over a prolonged period, his current cat G DA was attained (lawfully) by performing a "tail chase" routine as one of a pair of JPs yet that same DA was deemed sufficient for him to perform high energy public displays in a Hunter, the A27 was a known risk at the venue (I'm pretty sure the Reds struck it off their list of approved venues some time ago for that reason), some of the key rules and regs were unclear / not adhered to, e.g. "guidance concerning the minimum height at which aerobatic manoeuvres may be commenced is not applied consistently and may be unclear", "Training and assessment procedures in place at the time of the accident did not prepare the pilot fully for the conduct of relevant escape manoeuvres in the Hunter" (quotes from AAIB reports), he was potentially flying an unbriefed (but still perfectly legal) display routine, he's not that young, it was the hottest day of the year. How many more holes in the cheese do you want?

This discussion shouldnt be about legal mumbo jumbo, this was a failure of "the system", plain and simple for all to see. AH has had his time in the spotlight, rightly so, whilst the faceless bureacrats that allowed this tragedy to unfold just get off scot free.

Just my opinion of course.

[Treble one]

Er no, it was about cognitive impairment because that was the basis of the defence case.

The judge was simply doing his job - explaining to the jury what the law was in relation to that and, consequently, what it was that they had to decide in reaching a verdict.

A more valid criticism of the judge would be if he had failed to allow in his summing up for the possibility that g-induced cognitive impairment was a consequence rather than a cause of the badly-performed loop. You would need to ask someone who was in court whether that was the case.

Dave I agree. When did this cognitive impairment begin? Before he took off? On his way to the show? At the start of the display? At the top of his loop? On the way down?

So when did it happen? Know one knows because no one knows if it happened or not. Theres no evidence it did. But more importantly, no one can prove it didnt either.

A blinder from the defence team.

[Onceapilot]

How many posters in this thread have flown a Hunter and experienced the startle effect of the anti-G system running out of air? I don't know whether Andy Hill wore an anti-G suit for his displays, but I recall once pulling off a strafe run at Pembrey (around 100' agl) when the anti-G ran out of puff. You suddenly experience unexpected grey-out and for a brief moment wonder WTF has happened...



Read the AAIB report Beagle, says he was wearing them and aircraft was equipped. Also, the target G for the pup into the loop from the report is approx 4G, not very much. BTW, you might want to revisit your G tolerance training, you should have been quite capable of a strafe recovery w/o turning trousers, you brace into the loading not relying on the troos! :)

OAP

[andrewn]

It’s interesting that you drew parallels with the Voyager incident because I thought the same thing.

As pilots I don’t believe we should automatically close ranks and defend ‘one of our own’ every time.

I’m sure the jury reached the correct verdict on the strength of the evidence prevented but I still cannot excuse the actions of Andy Hill.

From my perspective, I am a current and pretty experienced Hawk pilot (2500+ hours on type). If someone asked me to perform a low level aerobatics routine tomorrow I would say no way. I fly aerobatic type manoeuvres (along with weapons, BFM, low level etc) on a daily basis in my job and I would not want, or expect, to go and fly the kind of manoeuvres he flew on that fateful day. Added to that, the fit of the aircraft was unfamiliar (I have flown Hawks in pretty much every conceivable fit including the heavier configurations) so, by comparison, if someone said “hey, BV, go take that Hawk with drop tanks and fly a low level display in front of thousands of people” I wouldn’t dream of it.

For the life of me I can’t work out why so many people want to excuse his actions.

I don’t know how I think he should be punished, since it hasn’t affected me directly, but I don’t think he should get off Scott free and I don’t think you can lay the entirety of the blame with the CAA.

Obviously many of you will disagree with me but such is life.

BV


Bob - AH obviously loved flying, that seems clear to me - in one form or another he had devoted his whole life to it. What's less clear is why he deemed some of the things he did tha day acceptable - I agree with you there.

However, Shoreham was a result of a set of circumstances that led to a tragedy (that involved AH), for which the warning signs that this type of thing could happen had been been there for some time, years in fact. Most fundamentally the whole DA process was woefully inadequate to cope with the increasing use of "vintage" (but high performance) jets being flown by ex-mil, or never mil, or otherwise part time jet jocks, with a system in place where you could basically get your mate to sign off your DA for you by performing a routine of sorts in a totally differnt aeroplane. You were then free to go out and ply your trade in front of thousands of people in high performance swept wing jets like the Gnat and Hunter with appaling low levels of currency and total time on type. It was a regulatory disaster zone with wholly inadequate oversight, checks and balances.

None of the above was solely down to AH - different day, different jet, different pilot, different venue with potentially the same result but for the grace of God as the saying goes. It just so happened it turned out to be AH when the luck ran out

[DODGYOLDFART]

IIRC G-Loc (Gravity induced loss of consciousness) and Cognitive Impairment where two terms introduced during the late 1980's/early 90's when rules and a better understanding around the subject of "Human Factors" were being established/revised. At that time I was a member of the Applied Psychology Dept. of the College of Space and Aeronautics at Cranfield Institute of Technology and was involved on the periphery of the discussions. Which I might add were at times quite heated and particularly over the term Cognitive Impairment (CI). This was because I seem to remember CI was seen as a bucket term to cover many different physical/mental conditions which could affect the efficiency of a pilot to function effectively.

IIRC the whole of this programme was under the auspices of the CAA rather than the RAF but I could be wrong.

[Cat Techie]

Bob - AH obviously loved flying, that seems clear to me - in one form or another he had devoted his whole life to it. What's less clear is why he deemed some of the things he did tha day acceptable - I agree with you there.

However, Shoreham was a result of a set of circumstances that led to a tragedy (that involved AH), for which the warning signs that this type of thing could happen had been been there for some time, years in fact. Most fundamentally the whole DA process was woefully inadequate to cope with the increasing use of "vintage" (but high performance) jets being flown by ex-mil, or never mil, or otherwise part time jet jocks, with a system in place where you could basically get your mate to sign off your DA for you by performing a routine of sorts in a totally differnt aeroplane. You were then free to go out and ply your trade in front of thousands of people in high performance swept wing jets like the Gnat and Hunter with appaling low levels of currency and total time on type. It was a regulatory disaster zone with wholly inadequate oversight, checks and balances.

None of the above was solely down to AH - different day, different jet, different pilot, different venue with potentially the same result but for the grace of God as the saying goes. It just so happened it turned out to be AH when the luck ran out
I know BV and have known him shout out the words "Come on Boss, Hard at Us!" I filmed what he was shouting at. He is totally correct in his opinions IMHO. The CAA has never been a Campaign Against Aviation, far from it. A intermediate ex military jet crashed 3 weeks before AH in a very public accident. I spoke to a FJ mate whom knew the fellow involved and he made his opinions clear. CAA have been chopped at in the age of austerity, the experts are leaving because their T and C are being killed. This field was ignored as the pot will go so far. What it proves is the usual story that self regulation gets abused. And innocent die because of it. Oh, the hertiage jets bloke on the BBC as well. The sport of kings he says on his bio. He is not a professional pilot BTW.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

For Me, The impairment defence is 'impaired' in itself for the following reasons:

AH was described and proposed as an Experienced (Ex) RAF Fighter Pilot (Harrier) and Instructor (JP3/5) RAF-1984/1996; as such, he should have been easily able to display a:

1. Good understanding of the effects of 'G' and other in cockpit physical effects (Hypoxia etc). Irrespective of terminology.
2. Proper understanding of aircraft performance under manoeuvre, relating to aerobatics: Base Ht, Top Ht, Min Spd, Max G, AUW etc and everything else in the ODM (or PDM as it is today)
3. Concepts such as 'Stall', 'G' Stall, 'Wing' Drop etc, (and, if an Instructor, be able to explain them and describe Recovery Actions.)
4. Integrity.

I personally think the defence won, against all of these.

Advo

[Arfur Dent]

Bob Viking
Exactly right mate!! Well said. Mr Hill had 40 hours on type and was cleared by someone (?) in the CAA to do low level aeros in front of thousands?? Really??

Must've been that good old "get out of jail" card - "cognitive impairment."
What should AH have got?? A couple of years inside IMHO.
Anyway - he has his own demons to deal with as have all the Families of the people he so needlessly killed. RIP of course.
ANDREWN Good points also. Who was it who authorised AH to fly low level displays on 3 completely different types of aircraft whilst he was a BA captain on the 4th type? Did they think the guy was some kind of aviation genius???

[Legalapproach]

I am not going to get into debates with people, many of whom appear know much more about the case than me, despite not having read any of the evidence, expert reports etc nor having sat through about seven or so weeks of that evidence being given in court. However, I am going to provide some information about the evidence. AH never claimed that he knew that he suffered from cognitive impairment. He remembers nothing about the accident and the fact that he suffered amnesia was never challenged by the prosecution. It would not be surprising bearing in mind the nature of the accident, injuries he sustained and his treatment (given Ketamine at the scene a known side effect of which is amnesia). In researching potential causes of the accident (and the 'cascade' of errors as descibed by a Human Performance Factors expert) issues of cognitive impairment were looked into (as indeed they were by the AAIB). The case was never about A-LOC or G-LOC, although that was all that was considered by the AAIB; neither defence nor prosecution experts said such had or may have occurred. However, there is a potential area of impairment below this. It is not widely known but involves relatively low levels of Gz that do not prevent blood circulation to the brain but do involve a reduction of oxygenation to the blood. The physiology is interesting. Gz straining involves muscles consuming more oxygen thus depleting the normal amount in the blood. G suits restrict the diaphragm reducing lung expansion. Low levels of Gz have a pooling effect in the lungs which, coupled with the diaphragm issue, results in less oxygenation of the blood in the lungs. This in turn results in a de-saturation of oxygen in the blood that continues circulating. The subject can continue to function, particularly with regard to learnt motor skills, but has reduces judgement and the ability to deal with abnormal situations. This was the evidence presented from eminently qualified experts by the defence and was the issue in the case.

[langleybaston]

The very nature of trial by jury ensures that some verdicts are unexpected, and some unpopular. Yes I too am uneasy about the case and the verdict.

Talk of retrial, as indeed of a second referendum on Brexit ,is deeply disturbing to this old-fashioned democrat. The idea that we should keep asking a question until we get the answer that we want is corrosive.

[overstress]

It would seem to me that several posters in this thread are placing themselves at risk of legal action.....

Cognitive impairment could have taken place during the pull up into the manoeuvre. The AAIB report mentions unusual throttle movements at that point. AH would normally have slammed the throttle fully open there, not moved it randomly.

A great pity that some cannot agree with the verdict or see the wider implications for aviation in general had he been found guilty.

Amnesia is a well-known side-effect of being placed in a coma, which I believe is what happened to AH.

[Monarch Man]

First of all, I’m no expert in low level display flying, and it’s been a good 20 years since I was last sat in a seat that went bang.
With whats being said, I have to ask myself what did some of you want/expect from the criminal case? It seems abundantly clear to me that for some nothing short of a hung drawn and quartered outcome will suffice.
Is this really the way you want this resolved? I don’t know AH personally, I’ve never come across him in civvy or mil life, but what is obvious to me is no punishment meted out by the victims families or the courts would even come close to his own personal hell.
We have all at some point been in a position to fall foul of physiology and physics, we are all imperfect and yes...we make mistakes.
The criminal process might be flawed but it is the process you all live by, if you can’t accept that then by all means get it changed.
Trying to prove gross negligence was the CPS playing the blame game when really we need to be in the prevention game, moreover I suspect that some of you would have preferred AH to have perished along with the 11 other unfortunate souls that day to make it a lot simpler and cleaner to apportion responsibility

[Gipsy Queen]

Brian W May - "jury that knows diddly squat about flying". What do you want then? A jury of a dozen Hunter display pilots? More likely to convict? Hardly. It is precisely because they know little about flying that they were on the jury. That's how the legal system works.

Exactly so..

The jury system is to have a body whose composition is representative of society in its broadest sense and able to judge a defendant as a peer. A jury is not required to have any knowledge specific to the action being heard; it's almost certainly better off without it. I think it would be very easy for a juror with some understanding of basic aeros to think "Mr Hill should have realised he was too low to complete the loop and therefore should have rolled off the top" or whatever. This is facile thinking, possibly to dismiss such expert evidence as might have been presented.and would be a classic example of a little knowledge . . .

It is the function of the advocates to provide the evidence and arguments to support their contentions in a manner easily understood by a layman. All the jury has to do is weigh those arguments and deliver a verdict; specialist knowledge is neither required nor necessary and there is no reason to suppose that this jury has done anything different. That this particular judgement might not sit easily with many (including me) perhaps is understandable, but as Parson suggests, that's how the system works.

[Thomas coupling]

The jury's hands were tied. By the true definition of involuntary manslaughter they were forced to make a binary decision.
I am however, confused by their decision not to find him guilty of recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft et al.....

Andy Hill is/was the focal point of everything that was wrong with air shows in those days:
Appalling standards within the display authorisation world. (DA's).
Slack or absent governance by Flying Control Committees.
Complacency by FDD's and Accountable Managers.
Incompetent supervision by the CAA.

Some or all of these ingredients were present on that fateful day.

Victims need someone to blame - it's part of the grieving process. Given time and understanding, I hope they will come to terms with the result. AH didn't set out that day to cause harm, he may have been in the wrong place, at the wrong speed, at the wrong height - but he didn't do it malice aforethought.

We now turn to the inquest to seek "justice" for those still confused and frustrated - to add another piece to the jigsaw. The "system" was to blame and since the accident, the system has tried to heal itself. Pilots are better authorised, FDD's better trained and qualified, FCC's better briefed, Accountable managers more risk aware...I fear the CAA still has to complete that journey, however.
Progress has been made, airshows are much safer, it's not totally in vain that 11 innocent people died that day. It is just very very sad that it had to end this way.
RiP.

[Loose rivets]

I wonder if the 1952 Farnborough show accident had any precedent to the defence and any submissions made that accidents do happen ?
It was back then, treated by all as a tragic accident. Different times of course.

I pulled James Hamilton-Paterson's, Empire of the Clouds off the bookcase intending to mention something that had stuck in my mind for many years. Death at Farnborough, an early chapter, I knew said something about how we seemed to accept disaster, accept our pain, when it was in the nation's interest. I was again transported, gripped by the imagery, but at the same time becoming aware it would be inappropriate to make comparisons with those "different times" while discussing a specific case. But perhaps just a few words, mine, not direct quotes.

Derry's widow, for less than 60 seconds, said quietly, There is no hope, is there?' The next flights were initiated while people, dead and near to dead were still being carted away.

Nearly 70 years of determined improvement to safety, yet still lives are lost. Modern science and engineering should bring us at least close to perfect safety, but it seems the human factor is still a wild card. The rate of attrition in early test pilots was bewildering, yet the chaps kept coming forward to get the job done. It's in the nature of the man.

I don't think it's possible to make comparisons, and then judge, on a level playing field, people who devote their lives to exceptional tasks. Yes, laws are made, and laws are made for good reason, but unfortunately the law is formed in the same mould for all men. We wouldn't have an aviation industry, or an air force if it wasn't for the very different nature of that type of pilot. I'll avoid the arguments about modern civil pilots and the magenta line.

Rules, and free spirit. I was surprised, to say the least, when I recently read a biography of Sir Frank Whittle. I never imagined him being so spirited. It was made quite clear that he got off one charge because 'they were looking for the kind of person that took risks.'

Every day, thousands of aircraft overfly huge cities, yet we know a 777 landed dead stick with little prior knowledge of that systems danger. Can we carry on subjecting thousands of people to this kind of risk?

I can not conclude this post demonstrating any sound logic. It's not possible. We can't allow the slaughter of innocent people, yet we can't let our national spirit be strangled by rules that are aimed at perfect safety.

[Super VC-10]

The jury's hands were tied. By the true definition of involuntary manslaughter they were forced to make a binary decision.
I am however, confused by their decision not to find him guilty of recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft et al.....

That charge was not put before the jury. Mr Justice Edis formally acquitted him.

[zkdli]

We are all talking about cognitive impairment. So are we referring to cognitive impairment due to spatial disorientation? If so this is a subject of a few experiments and papers from the beginning of this century but it appears that it was able to be overcome by regular exposure to the causes I. e. repeated exposure to the manoeuvres of a display sequence etc.
​​​​​​Or is this a different type of cognitive impairment, due to fatigue or some other cause?
Was this established in the trial?

[Fortissimo]

The Inquest will be interesting as the Lord Chief Justice has previously directed that Coroners may not re-open investigations conducted by (eg) AAIB unless they have reason (evidence) that the specialist investigation was fundamentally flawed or incomplete.

That ruling resulted from the Norfolk Coroner’s demand that the AAIB released the CVR/FDR to her as part of the Inquest into the AW139 accident (Lord Ballyedmond).

[Pittsextra]

Looking at this in 2019 you'd hope that the passing of time allows the angry to be less angry to avoid becoming bitter and twisted. AH has certainly dealt with more than his fair share and with the intelligent mind that he has, an obvious passion for all things flying, it would seem that his entire world is broken. I think for the sake of humanity a supportive arm around the shoulder would seem the kinder thing and the right thing.

Dragging things into a civil court will achieve what? To replay the same narrative for a few quid? Surely so called "guilt" proved to a lesser standard is hardly the justice those who claim to speak for victims seek. Justice for the victims should be based on positive outcomes. They have had one and that is not to pile all of this on the shoulders of one man.

The next positive would be a legacy based upon focus at the CAA and root and branch reform there. The CAA is not a faceless or unaccountable entity. We can all read the names of the executive and we can see what compensation they get for that role. The Head of GA at that time has gone, one imagines not entirely independent of this accident but there should be - one hopes - wider acceptance that these issues are far bigger than one or two individuals. It hardly seems appropriate to be so angry at AH who is merely an individual who was led to the point of this accident with the guidance and practices that existed at the time. You can't melt away at the first sign of trouble.

[Deltasierra010]

I was surprised by the verdict but hearing the defense it had to be !

We had a car accident locally, the driver lost control on a roundabout mounted the pavement and injured several pedestrians, including one woman with serious head injuries.

His defence was that he had no memory of the accident “cognitive impairment “, he was acquitted of dangerous driving because if you are not in control you are not responsible for your actions. One twist in this case was that his insurance company refused to pay compensation because he was found not guilty and the incident was an “act of god”. After another prolonged court case compensation was paid but the driver was still blameless.

So anyone who looses control can claim they have no memory of the incident and avoid prosecution, even if there is no medical evidence that incapacity existed.

[ORAC]

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17487496.shoreham-air-crash-coroner-confirms-date-for-first-inquest-hearing/

A date has been set for the first inquest hearing after the Shoreham air crash which killed 11 people.

Penelope Schofield, the Senior Coroner for West Sussex, said: "The coroner has noted the outcome of the criminal trial. At the moment the inquest into the death of the 11 people who died at the Shoreham Air Show stands adjourned until the autumn this year. A pre-inquest review hearing has already been set for 10.30am on 8 April at Crawley Coroner’s Court where it is anticipated a decision will be made with regards to the resumption of this inquest and where consideration will be given to the scope and format of the forthcoming inquest. The final dates for the inquest will be set.”

"The criminal trial has concentrated on the actions of the pilot, Andy Hill, but the inquest can consider other issues that are linked to the deaths of the 11 people. The coroner will also need to consider, having heard the evidence, whether or not she needs to make any Regulation 28 Reports (prevention of future deaths reports) relating to the organisation and planning of future air shows."

[DaveReidUK]

I think it would be very easy for a juror with some understanding of basic aeros to think "Mr Hill should have realised he was too low to complete the loop and therefore should have rolled off the top" or whatever.

You mean if he/she had reached the same conclusion as the AAIB ?

[Pontius Navigator]

he was wearing them and aircraft was equipped.

OAP
Wearing G pants and wearing them properly are two different things. A number of aircrew dress for comfort and to comply with the rules, others dress sensibly. I know you must have seen people wearing for comfort.

Just a thought.

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking at this in 2019 you'd hope that the passing of time allows the angry to be less angry to avoid becoming bitter and twisted.
PE, time is demonstrably not a healer evidenced by other news.

[Caramba]

What exactly has AH lied about? Can you seriously doubt that he remembers nothing about the accident? After substantial deceleration forces which would likely have caused intracerebral shearing? After ketamine from the first responders? After a week or so in an induced coma in an intensive care unit?

The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here calls for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?

Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.

Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.

There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said it's that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.

Caramba

[sarabande]

It's sad that no-one on his legal team vetted his speech. "I will remember for the rest of my life"

And the eleven members of the public and their families ?


Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.

He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.

Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?

[Chesty Morgan]

How many of the thousands of pilots currently operating aeroplanes do you think have the potential to become cognitively impaired?

[ShyTorque]

I was initially trained by the RAF to fly Jet Provosts. Those aircraft were not equipped with "G" suits" but the normal positive "G" limit for the aircraft was 6.5 G. Flown correctly, that was achievable by the average student (and sometimes inadvertently exceeded). I flew Bulldogs as a Qualified Flying Instructor (which included teaching others to fly aerobatics) but most of my 18 years RAF service was as a helicopter pilot and instructor. I was also selected to display helicopters at public airshows on behalf of the RAF. I was made very much aware of the consequences of pulling "G" from a very early stage in my basic training. The phenomenon, latterly known as "G-LOC" was well publicised within the RAF.

Irrespective of organisational or other failures, in civilian terms, the one person responsible for flying the aircraft in a safe way is the pilot.

An interesting parallel is that yesterday I was informed by the CAA that a civilian pilot who caused airliners to go-around from Luton Airport due to cognitive failure (in that he didn't know where he was and entered controlled airspace without clearance) has very recently been fined £7576.

[Dan_Brown]

It's sad that no-one on his legal team vetted his speech. "I will remember for the rest of my life"

And the eleven members of the public and their families ?


Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.

He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.

Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?

Would the poor guy want to fly again? I wouldn't if one person was killed, as the result of an accident, while I was at the controls of the accident a/c concerned.

5aday. Re your post #132. Have you ever got anything wrong?. Ever screwed up?

Monarchman. Excellent post.

[Treble one]

There are some extraordinary posts on here but I`'ll pick on this one:



What exactly has AH lied about? Can you seriously doubt that he remembers nothing about the accident? After substantial deceleration forces which would likely have caused intracerebral shearing? After ketamine from the first responders? After a week or so in an induced coma in an intensive care unit?

The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here cal;s for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?

Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.

Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.

There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said its that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.

Caramba

When you kill 11 people in an accident, whatever the circumstances, a few questions need to be answered.

When you do it flying an ill judged aerobatic routine outside of the set parameters agreed in your DA, then you have to answer those questions in a court of law.

[Cows getting bigger]

Pittsextra, I tend agree with the general tenor of your post in so far as we have to look forward. Perhaps the first step should be thorough Display Auths (already implemented?) whereby someone is signed-off on the type concerned, demonstrating the proposed display routine, rather than a formation display flight in another type of aircraft where the examinee is fundamentally following the examiner around the sky? PS. Interesting to note that a DA was signed-off during a public display (Duxford).

The other ‘hole’ must be the ATRE where someone was signed-off on type and then didn’t necessarily have to undertake annual renewals/revalidations. In my world I have to undertake annual renewal/revalidation for a class rating (MEP) but I guess my 750hrs/yr on class and 8000+hrs total doesn’t class as enough experience for a ‘rubber stamp’ revalidation because I don’t do aerobatics?

I knew little about display flying oversight before this accident - now I see how such an accident could have occurred. Aviation failed to deliver at Shoreham and, regardless of legal wrangling, we need to pull our socks up.

[sharpend]

Actually, being a pilot and a magistrate, I have a little insight into both flying and trials. A person is always innocent until proven guilty. In a civil court, the evidence only has to satisfy 'On the balance of probabilities'. If this had been a civil court, he may have been found guilty. But this was a criminal court and then the evidence has to satisfy 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. This is often more difficult to prove. In this case, given that the jury were almost certainly not aircrew (but were advised about technicalities such as G-Loc), they have never experienced G in an aeroplane or flown a fast jet. So they made the best decision they could; Not guilty; not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In Scotland, there actually is a verdict of 'Not proven'.

[robdean]

We are all talking about cognitive impairment. So are we referring to cognitive impairment due to spatial disorientation? If so this is a subject of a few experiments and papers from the beginning of this century but it appears that it was able to be overcome by regular exposure to the causes I. e. repeated exposure to the manoeuvres of a display sequence etc.
​​​​​​Or is this a different type of cognitive impairment, due to fatigue or some other cause?
Was this established in the trial?

The trial neither was tasked with any such finding nor in a position to adjudicate in such a manner.
Relevant to guilt/innocence is simply the question: 'Can it be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that no form of cognitive impairment could have been a significant causal factor'. In other words, if the jury think the pilot was most likely being an irresponsible dick, but it remains reasonably possible, albeit far less likely in their view, that the cause was cognitive impairment, then they must, by law, return 'Not Guilty'.

Of course, though, the jury is sacrosanct: it can be challenged if there is evidence rules were broken in the jury room (maybe googling the accused or citing PPRuNe posts to other jurors), but otherwise the jury cannot be held to account for their verdict. Thus it is always possible for a jury to vote according to prejudice, or to return a verdict which perhaps they feel is 'just' even if apparently at odds with the legal checklist they were instructed they had to be able to complete before returning such a verdict.
Let’s say three witnesses saw an accused shoot a notorious paedophile and the accused was arrested holding the smoking gun shouting 'He got what was coming to him!': If the jury return with 'Not Guilty' then under most circumstances that’s game over, legally, save for appeals which themselves must pass a legal checklist to be approved (you can’t just ask for a do-over because you think the jury were taking the mickey). And of course a jury could go 'Guilty' in such an off-piste manner too... & even if the case can be appealed, the original jury cannot be asked to justify their original verdict or held to account for it.

[Legalapproach]

Sarabande - Having read out the names of the deceased, what he said was "................, they I will remember for the rest of my life"

[Caramba]

When you kill 11 people in an accident, whatever the circumstances, a few questions need to be answered.

When you do it flying an ill judged aerobatic routine outside of the set parameters agreed in your DA, then you have to answer those questions in a court of law.

Well, he has answered the questions in court and been found not guilty.

What I don’t understand is the accusation of lying, level of anger, calls for a retrial, and demands for retribution that characterise a number of the posts here.

Caramba

[Treble one]

Well, he has answered the questions in court and been found not guilty.

What I don’t understand is the accusation of lying, level of anger, calls for a retrial, and demands for retribution that characterise a number of the posts here.

Caramba

Indeed he has. I was referring to you previous post where you stated that someone thought that the trial should never have taken place.

[Ridger]

If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?

Post 133 puts it most succinctly. The cognitive impairment described was short term physiologically driven event. It's not an ongoing health condition like epilepsy.

[Echo Romeo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwhLSHpeiE8 This very nearly ended in tragedy!

[pr00ne]

And he was permitted to carry out public displays after that!?

[Squiffy Pussy]

Very good point Sharpend. Hope your delightful young wife, aircraft and flash car are still OK, in that order. PDR

[Bravo Alpha One]

I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow.
The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle.
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself.
It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced.
One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them.
A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all.
That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".

[Air Snoop]

I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow.
The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle.
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself.
It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced.
One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them.
A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all.
That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".
This is all very true and the jury probably returned the correct verdict in response to the evidence as they heard it. However, unlike in Scotland where a third verdict of 'Not Proven' is available, the English verdict of 'Not Guilty' has the broader meaning of either the accused didn't do it or the case against him/her was not totally convincing. I'm a pilot so legal beagles please tell me if I'm talking scribble.
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.

[Pontius Navigator]

Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.

Exactly what BA1 was postulating, non-G related Cognitive Impairment.

[Bravo Alpha One]

This is all very true and the jury probably returned the correct verdict in response to the evidence as they heard it. However, unlike in Scotland where a third verdict of 'Not Proven' is available, the English verdict of 'Not Guilty' has the broader meaning of either the accused didn't do it or the case against him/her was not totally convincing. I'm a pilot so legal beagles please tell me if I'm talking scribble.
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.

Indeed, as I understand it, but in England the court can only consider the charge the accused is indicted with. "Not Guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it means the prosecution has failed to prove that specific charge. Usually, the CPS will bring the charge they are most confident they can prove. If they fail to do so, because there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is Not Gulity.
This incident was a tragedy for everyone involved, but I doubt AH intended to crash that day. It's natural for victims to want to blame someone [same with fatal illnesses] and I do wonder what sort of posts we would be reading if AH had not miraculously survived [or indeed if he had ejected and survived - IF he ever was inside the seat's envelope].

[pax britanica]

Leaving aside the technical issues I think a bit of fear of the media has a role in this. A dreadful and spectacular accident causes several peoples death in the most appalling manner . even so in English law manslaughter cases can be very hard to prove and i think that is the heart of the matter. The reasonable doubt which smart lawyers can introduce into many scenarios puts the conviction at risk but if he had been charged with a lesser offence then the mail and Express and the rest of the gutter press would be baying for the blood of the CPS for being weak and selling out bereaved families

While Uk has a decent legal system it still has many flaws (how much money you have is still too important) as we often see when a large company causes the death of employees or passengers or member of the general public no one ends up getting charged but if you operate fairground machinery-or ina recent case a bouncy castle heaven help you.

[MPN11]

An innocent question, gentlemen.

So if the pilot experienced TIA or CI that rather brings into question his Medical category. Or has that been covered already?

Did the ‘stress/excitement’ of displaying the Hunter actually contribute to the sad events that followed?

[DaveReidUK]

Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent')

The loop was always intended to be "bent" as part of the display routine. That's simply a reference to exiting the loop on a different heading from that on entry.

[beamer]

The pilot in this instance has been found not guilty in a court of law of the charges laid against him. I have read the AAIB report in some detail but clearly only the press coverage of the court proceedings. Despite the pilots apparent lack of recall of the events that took place, it seems that his defence counsel has made a very convincing case for cognitive impairment which whilst unproven in an absolute sense was nonetheless suitably convincing for the jury. Quite at what point this impairment took place or may have taken place will remain unknown yet it would seem that mistakes were made by the pilot at an early stage of the display which may have led to a point at which such impairment may have limited the pilots ability to rectify the situation into which he had placed himself and his aircraft.

Surely the recognition of this 'condition' may mean that the CAA will be forced to make even further stringent moves against display flying particuarly involving high speed fast jet aircraft whether or not they fall into the vintage category. A fear that future incidents will be blamed upon cognitive impairment as a standard defence against prosecution may prove unacceptable to the regulatory authorities. Much as I admire the abilities of pilots which are immeasurably greater than my own, I have always harboured the belief that some display flying utilises aircraft carrying out manoeuvres for which they were not designed and as such little room for error; I fear their days may be even more numberered than they already were.

[PhilipG]

It will be interesting to see what findings come out of the Inquests.

[Bravo Alpha One]

An innocent question, gentlemen.

So if the pilot experienced TIA or CI that rather brings into question his Medical category. Or has that been covered already?

Did the ‘stress/excitement’ of displaying the Hunter actually contribute to the sad events that followed?

From my understanding, and the experience of TIA the answer is "no". A TIA can hit anyone at any time. So can a stroke for that matter - lad I was at school with suffered a massive and disabling one at 15!

[Easy Street]

This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. As AvMed courses have long drilled into us, the human body is not designed for the things we do to it in the air. Displays are an extreme example, but even routine operations are full of potential for illusion, error and misjudgement. I had an instructor who reckoned that the successful pilot was someone who left the smallest proportion of their mental faculties on the runway.

If 'impairment' of the sort that leads to flying below minima and missing gate heights is considered grounds for acquittal from criminal charges, it rather undermines the idea that a pilot could be held to account for their actions. Some degree of 'impairment' can always be argued.

Besides, isn't being aware of the potential for impairment, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate, an essential part of piloting? Just the act of beginning that display was arguably reckless given the currency and experience issues.

[overstress]

Running in below ‘aerobatic’ minima. It’s my understanding that this is legal, as the definition of an aerobatic manoeuvre is not reached until one is above the 500’. There are plenty of examples of that.

Those who ignore the possibility of TIA and condemn AH for recklessness and demanding his head on a plate are misguided.

Taking the example of TIA/stroke, thinking of three examples of pilots I have known personally, one died, one lost his medical and the other is a current airline captain.

BravoAlphaOne has it summed up correctly I believe.

[MPN11]

Thanks, all, it’s a new can of worms for defence of anything you might do in everyday life!

[Steepclimb]

I think Bravo Alpha one pretty much nails it. I mentioned it to someone who had the same issue and it fits. Can we please put away the flaming torches and pitchforks?

[biscuit74]

This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. .

That surely must be a major worry. 'Chesty Morgan' earlier on in this thread asked "How many of the thousands of pilots currently operating aeroplanes do you think have the potential to become cognitively impaired?". The answer would appear to be all of us/any of us, unpredictably, just as anyone may at any time suffer a stroke or other health impairment.
Bravo Alpha One highlighted another aspect of these same issues.
For those who would like to prevent, inhibit or reduce aviation these are yet more sticks they can use to beat us with. Depressing.

[Brian W May]

https://www.flyingwithoutfear.com/16038/

Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.

Class action offing?

[Dan_Brown]

"Flying without fear".?

It is fear that keeps one alive. If you have no fear you won't last long, especially outside the rigid confines, of airline flying for e.g.

I have a fear of flying into the ground, when not intending to land. I have a fear of bad weather etc., etc.

[Steepclimb]

https://www.flyingwithoutfear.com/16038/

Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.

Class action offing?
Eric Brown merely pointed out the reality of what happened. He didn't say why. Most pilots understood what happened. It was blatantly obvious. It's no secret. The why is not explained. Alpha Bravo provided a possible explanation the Jury in their wisdom took that into account and made a decision
Perhaps you'd like to lynch the man. But luckily the English justice system doesn't allow for that.


​​

[stickstirrer]

Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But....

First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision.

Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t.

Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ;
understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied;
and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to...
For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding.
standing by for the flak.....

[oldpax]

How was his defence paid for?Presumably the Hunter was insured for accidents etc?

[Arkroyal]

Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But....

First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision.

Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t.

Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ;
understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied;
and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to...
For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding.
standing by for the flak.....

No flak! Absolutely spot on. Excellent post!

[Dan_Brown]

How was his defence paid for?Presumably the Hunter was insured for accidents etc?

I would think BALPA picked up the tab, for the legal fees.Just a guess.

Arkroyal. Ditto.

[Jet_Fan]

Indeed, as I understand it, but in England the court can only consider the charge the accused is indicted with. "Not Guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it means the prosecution has failed to prove that specific charge. Usually, the CPS will bring the charge they are most confident they can prove. If they fail to do so, because there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is Not Gulity.
This incident was a tragedy for everyone involved, but I doubt AH intended to crash that day. It's natural for victims to want to blame someone [same with fatal illnesses] and I do wonder what sort of posts we would be reading if AH had not miraculously survived [or indeed if he had ejected and survived - IF he ever was inside the seat's envelope].

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty is the bedrock of our criminal justice system.

[Homelover]

Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But....

First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision.

Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t.

Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ;
understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied;
and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to...
For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding.
standing by for the flak.....
No flak. You’ve nailed it.

[meleagertoo]

A question about use of flap.

My (incomplete) reading of the vast report suggests flap on the Hunter could be deployed to 38' up to 300Kts, above that speed it progressively stows aerodynamically but can cause slippage of trim clutches suffiicient to give control problems (I'm paraphrasing here).

Why then would AH have flown the bent loop with flap deployed? Do we know when flap was deployed? His entry speed gate was 350Kts, apparently well above the limiting speed quoted. Or am I misunderstanding something?

The test pilot who researched the bent loop also referred to flaps stating various 'notches' selected so this is presumably normal but no mention (that I found) made of the speed limitation. Is flap avaiable incrementally between 'notches' or is ir notch one or two only?

If you decided to fly the manoeuvre slower in order to make it more compact knowing the display area was limited in size might you extemporise by using flap and a lower speed?

Thoughts?

[teeteringhead]

Arkroyal
I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. But isn't that how it's supposed to work? As has frequently been stated here and elsewhere, the defence have to prove nothing.

[DODGYOLDFART]

This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. As AvMed courses have long drilled into us, the human body is not designed for the things we do to it in the air. Displays are an extreme example, but even routine operations are full of potential for illusion, error and misjudgement. I had an instructor who reckoned that the successful pilot was someone who left the smallest proportion of their mental faculties on the runway.

If 'impairment' of the sort that leads to flying below minima and missing gate heights is considered grounds for acquittal from criminal charges, it rather undermines the idea that a pilot could be held to account for their actions. Some degree of 'impairment' can always be argued.

Besides, isn't being aware of the potential for impairment, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate, an essential part of piloting? Just the act of beginning that display was arguably reckless given the currency and experience issues.

Back in the day (40+ years ago) when CI was being researched and considered for inclusion in he Human Factors examination for Civil licencing, TIA's were not much known about then but Vertigo was ranked high on the list as a major cause of pilot impairment (CI). Vertigo is of course a result of a fault in the Vestibular System (VS) and can be brought on by something as common as a mild cold or ear infection. I am sure that many experienced pilots on here have at some time had a problem with their spacial awareness and particularly those doing aerobatics.

[oldmansquipper]

Stick stirrer.

Thank you for that well reasoned and clarifying (for me) post.

A laymans view: Given an inability to 'prove or disprove' the TI theory it seems a 'not guilty' verdict was is the only one possible. I guess Mr Hill will be the only one who MIGHT know for sure.

[BEagle]

meleagertoo , the Hunter has 8 notches of flap. 2 notches corresponds to 23 deg flap and 4 notched corresponds to 38 deg flap. More than 4 notches is unlikely to be used for anything except landing.

It was very common indeed to fly loops at lower speed using 2 notches - all students were taught this. Also in ACM we often flew with full power, one hand on the control column and the other on the flap selector as judicious use of flap helped instantaneous pitch rate.

[H Peacock]

If you decided to fly the manoeuvre slower in order to make it more compact knowing the display area was limited in size might you extemporise by using flap and a lower speed?

Absolutely not. The whole point of the gate window and practice is that the manoeuvre is perfectly safe and repeatable. Start to modify it and it all goes awry usually with the inevitable disasterous consequences.

[Arfur Dent]

Well said Stick stirrer!
As I said before, 40 hours on a FJ like the Hunter is not enough to perform at any show. The derry turn in a JP at Southport looked very hairy indeed. The CAA has a lot to answer.

[maxred]

Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.

No he did not. An aeroplane crashed in a tragic accident and people were killed and injured. It was the result of errors and events that had a tragic accidental outcome. I really do wish people would wise up a bit instead of trying to be simple.

[H Peacock]

As I said before, 40 hours on a FJ like the Hunter is not enough to perform at any show. The derry turn in a JP at Southport looked very hairy indeed. The CAA has a lot to answer.

I don't agree that you need that many hours on type to safely display an aircraft. The Hunter crashed because the manoeuvre was continued despite below the pilot's gate height/speed.

The JP at Southend was also very poorly flow, but that manoeuvre was a Canadian Break - not a Derry Turn!

[India Four Two]

Do we know when flap was deployed?

Some flap was clearly already deployed on the way up into the loop:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/365x227/screen_shot_2019_03_10_at_21_57_18__51e880c11d91245e680ca3ec ae00b47f60c57c64.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vyzS5rp7M4

[Bob Viking]

I’m not sure I can wholeheartedly agree with your post. I agree it was an accident. AH never set out to hurt anyone. However, I don’t consider him blameless.

I honestly don’t know what outcome I think would be just in this case. I don’t think I can get upset at people for being angry at AH any more than I can at others for getting upset at the first category of people. If the Defense successfully argued the CI case then well done to them. It clearly hasn’t provided the desired closure for many people though.

My second observation regards the quoted parameters at the top of the loop. Let me state that I have never flown the Hunter and have never been a display pilot. Most people know my background though.

If the 2600’ and 100 knots I have read above are correct, my mind is well and truly boggled. I realise a Hawk and Hunter cannot be compared directly but I find it hard to imagine ANY fast jet can complete a loop from that height and speed. I am happy to be proven wrong.

From what I remember of the fateful day there was no low cloud base to contend with. So why not ease the first half of a loop in order to gain more height and allow for a relaxed second half.

I know that display pilots can be purists at times but in this instance (displaying a legacy aircraft with limited experience on type) the crowd won’t notice or care if the loop is a little larger than the aircraft is capable of. They just want to see the graceful swooping and hear the engine noise.

Just my two penn’th of course.

BV

[GeeRam]

I know that display pilots can be purists at times but in this instance (displaying a legacy aircraft with limited experience on type) the crowd won’t notice or care if the loop is a little larger than the aircraft is capable of. They just want to see the graceful swooping and hear the engine noise.

Indeed.
It was interesting by way of comparison to see that cockpit clip posted a few pages back of the Hunter display by the late Mark Hanna (I seem to recall Mark was on the last TWU Hunter course?)

[Flying Palm Tree]

It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?

[VerdunLuck]

Stick stirrer.

Thank you for that well reasoned and clarifying (for me) post.

A laymans view: Given an inability to 'prove or disprove' the TI theory it seems a 'not guilty' verdict was is the only one possible. I guess Mr Hill will be the only one who MIGHT know for sure.



I can certainly vouch for a sudden onset of vertigo with no apparent cause. Last November I got up and attempted to walk to the bathroom; the room then spun crazily quickly resulting in a view of the carpet at close range. There was no warning before and I felt fine up until the moment it started. There is no way I could have controlled an aircraft while it was happening.

I am not suggesting in any way that that was AH's problem, it clearly wasn't, but I say it to show that the human brain can do some very odd things with no warning. TIAs have already been mentioned above. Probably the only way any form of flying can be protected from the hundreds of rare, but sudden medical problems that can afflict and impair us, is to have two pilots. If we want to continue with single pilot operation, I think we have to accept that every now and again there will be an accident down to a temporary or permanent brain failure.

In general, the aircraft are more reliable than a single pilot is.

[sharpend]

A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?

[tucumseh]

But isn't that how it's supposed to work? As has frequently been stated here and elsewhere, the defence have to prove nothing.

On the face of it most would agree, but as far as I can see it's increasing a grey area. If one looks at the Red Arrows Cunningham case (same QC acting for families in both cases, and not very well in my opinion) it was often asked how on earth the HSE could prove MoD hadn't received the information that would have prevented the accident. But it was never asked to - it just made a series of accusations which were accepted by the Coroner and Judge; despite verbal, written and video evidence proving them outright lies. The HSE has since admitted it made no attempt to review this evidence, but told both Lincs Police and Judge it carried out a full review and deemed it 'irrelevant'. (Both have recently reaffirmed they are content with this). Today, I'm thoroughly dazed and confused by our legal system. There is no consistency at all.

[MPN11]

I can certainly vouch for a sudden onset of vertigo with no apparent cause. Last November I got up and attempted to walk to the bathroom; the room then spun crazily quickly resulting in a view of the carpet at close range. There was no warning before and I felt fine up until the moment it started. There is no way I could have controlled an aircraft while it was happening.

... I had a similar experience at Gatwick last year, having arrived from a long-haul flight ... which I do several times a year without even thinking about it. Left Arrivals for a kerbside cigarette in the Smoking Zone, and suddenly just folded up gracefully to the floor ... my descent being controlled by the OH. It came out of nowhere, and not encountered before or since. SCARY.

[biscuit74]

It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?

To some extent that is addressed by the review, post accident, of the Risk Assessment and associated mitigations. That could have been a mitigation. (Applied by the organisers - not sure how the police and local authority involvement worked) Obviously it wasn't done, I have no idea whether it was considered, nor how difficult it might have been to do then, legally. - the AAIB report doesn't show that level of detail.

The CAA have reviewed and strengthened their Risk Assessment advice, following critique by the HSE (I think) Of course, hindsight is always excellent, so critiquing after the fact is fairly easy...

[JetCrazy]

Bob

As you are a serving RAF officer and well-regarded regular on Pprune, who has passionately defended MFTS at Valley against those that troll you about its alleged failure, you should know better than to spout ill-informed nonsense with regards to an emotive accident that you clearly haven't either read up on - other than from sensationalist press snippets - and a court case you could not have attended due to your dislocated desert location. Considering that families of the deceased will likely be reading this thread, your input is most unhelpful.


JC

[DaveReidUK]

It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?

If temporary traffic lights had been installed, they would not have been where the Hunter came down.

From the accident report:

A change of ground track during the manoeuvre positioned the aircraft further east than planned producing an exit track along the A27 dual carriageway.

[Rhymenoceros]

A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?

The pilots DA permitted minimum flypast height for Category G aircraft was 100ft with 500ft being the minimum for aerobatics. It was (and still is) permitted to commence a climb into a vertical manoeuvre from 100ft so long as the manoeuvre can be safely completed by the 500ft minimum. This is now clearly defined in CAP1724 in that you should not exceed 30 degrees pitch angle before your minimum aerobatic height and that safe recovery should be assured by your minimum aerobatic height, before you can start relaxing the recovery down to the flypast altitude if necessary.

Bottom line: a smooth pull into a loop from 100ft was not a violation of his DA and should not have been a risk to its safe execution had the aircraft had enough energy to complete the manoeuvre by at least 500ft AGL.

Airshow aerobatics should be flown with necessary margin ie. a looping manoeuvre should not be flown by ‘max performing’ the aircraft. Instead the aircraft should have excess energy in which the pull can be somewhat relaxed, allowing for increased altitude over the top (gate) and thus ample margin on the way back down. These techniques are not ‘taught’ during military flying training or if one was doing competition aerobatics. It is specific to the safe execution of display flying where one is looking to show off the aircraft in an attractive manor. Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft.

[Bravo Alpha One]

A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?

Sorry, I must not have previously been clear enough...
The fact that the WHOLE manoeuvre was badly flown (for want of a better term - so don't tke this literally), commencing too low and slow suggests to me that the pilot could already have been impaired on the run in. I cannot agree with the frequent assumption that if any impairment was present it must have come on after pull up due to G; indeed it could have started at any time after take off. Therefore, I really don't think we can conclude that AH "deliberately broke the rules".
Also, as I recall it was reported that video from inside the cockpit is/was available to the authorities and might provide evidence we haven't seen, but is/was not for public release.

IF (a big word, I agree) IF he had had a TIA he could still have functioned "mechanically" but incorrectly. For example, to someone sitting next to him he would have appeared completely normal, but to him the world around him wouldn't be making much sense. Such an event can occur without any apparent immediate cause or stimulus, and can last anywhere from a few seconds to, say, 15/20 minutes.
If you had one while driving you might be lucky and find yourself a bit further down the road wondering what the hell just happened in the last few seconds, or you might drive into the back of a truck without reacting to it.
That's what "cognitive impairment" due to a TIA is, and in order to defend against a charge of negligence (or any other charge!) all that is necessary is for the defence to raise a reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove anything - it is up to the prosecution to prove their case.

[Treble one]

This is the defence/prosecution witnesses for the issue of CI. I missed this earlier.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47337835?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp8xygek8r7t/shoreham-airshow-plane-crash&link_location=live-reporting-story

And this is an opinion regarding the in cockpit video.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47150079

[Warren Peace]

Is it therefore sufficient to say that he made an appalling mistake with tragic circumstances and leave the lawyers to fight another day ?

No, not if you believe his evidence, supported by experts.

When a person is incapacitated, they can't make mistakes.

The notion of Andy Hill effectively passing out during the turn, and carrying on, in the midst of a slow and partial recovery, through the run in, pull and loop, is both attractive and possible.

People who want more bloodshed will say that it's very convenient, the other side will say that as it is possible and has not been disproved, then it has to be accepted.

Let's hope that things now move on, and prosecutions follow for the other "potentially guilty" people who had a hand in this tragedy.

[Tashengurt]

It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?

Temp traffic lights on a dual carriageway? Would've been carnage even without the Hunter.

[Easy Street]

I sincerely hope that other forms of ‘cognitive impairment’ than g-induced cerebral hypoxia were suggested by the defence. Mitigating for that condition is part and parcel of everyday flying in fast jets, and most certainly for displaying them. AH did not set out to kill anyone, but if he failed to complete a positive check of gate height due to that wholly predictable condition and not some transient medical issue then he is surely culpable to some degree. The absence of equivalent charges to ‘death by careless/dangerous driving’ is an interesting point.

[dastocks]

It should be asked why the police/local highways/organisers did not insist that temporary traffic lights were installed away from the approach/display line so that safe traffic management could have been co-ordinated with aircraft approaching the field?
You quite clearly are not familiar with the location. What you suggest is about as practicable as clearing the M25 for every arrival/departure at Heathrow,

[Arfur Dent]

HPeacock
Never met an RAF Pilot displaying a FJ who had flown such a paltry number of hours.
To argue the toss about Derry vs Canadian is pure "missing the whole point" pedantry.

[Treble one]

I fully accept that some sort of CI may be possible during flying a high performance jet.

However, on the balance of probability, and given that the pilot hadnt suffered an eposide like this before during flying numerous aerobatic manoeuvres, over many years, makes it seem like a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?

[langleybaston]

a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10412806)

to be fair, that sounds very like "an accident" does it not?

[Treble one]

a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10412806)

to be fair, that sounds very like "an accident" does it not?

It does. But the defendent was almost wholly relient on this very precise set of circumstances occuring to prevent a conviction. And on the balance of probability, the chances of this CI occuring at that precise moment....?

Im assuming that this episode of CI was short lived because the pilot was pulling hard to prevent CFIT prior to impact?

[Warren Peace]

I read this in another place today.

It is worthy of note, that the UK's top fast jet test pilot, with thousands of hours on Hunters, and still current on them, had a "mishap" while he was "proving the escape manoeuvre" that he and those on the ground were lucky to get away with.

This alleged lapse of judgement, occurred during a low height loop with flap, which had a premeditated escape aileron roll just after the apex, at a similar height and speed as the Shoreham accident aircraft. He made a cognitive error and pulled through at max alpha and bottomed out around 200ft. If he had done this during the pressure altitude of that fateful day, it has been suggested that he would not have been here to tell the tale.

Not only does this prove that even the finest pilots suffer HF mistakes, it is alleged that both the AAIB and an individual involved in this purposefully withheld this information, until it was forced out of them by a whistle blower after the pre-trial hearing.

Remember we are all here for the grace of God, and we are only human.

Now, as for the provenance of this claim, I'm keen to see that made public. I'm also keen to see an explanation for it having been suppressed. Like many others on here, I know people who know Andy Hill, in the display circus and in the airline world. Poles apart describes the ways in which he is described by each group.

My own desire is for the truth to emerge. Have the public been denied the opportunity to see Andy Hill get a fair trial? Has it denied the familes the chance to see justice done for the victims?

This new "information" makes it look that way.

[Legalapproach]

Warren Peace - the defence was aware of that information and used it in the trial.

As an aside Pprune commentators may be interested to know (not in regard to this case as it has now concluded) for the future that the police had trawled through social media aviation sites and had screen shots of Pprune threads/ Flyer forums etc etc. Sadly, in cases such as this defence lawyers are no longer paid by the hour for preparation otherwise they would have been paid for reading endless paged of Pprune disclosed by the police.

The police had actually contacted some for the "experts" on those threads in the hope that they were, indeed, experts. The police received a wide range of expert opinion ranging from some well informed guesswork through to the positively barking - I kid you not there was one suggestion that the crash had been caused by alien involvement ( and 2015 being 'pre-brexit' the expert was not talking about migrants nor was it written in green ink although I have only seen a black and white photocopy).

[Lonewolf_50]

If I may quote Rhymenoceros to get this back to a nuts and bolts discussion ...
Bottom line: a smooth pull into a loop from 100ft was not a violation of his DA and should not have been a risk to its safe execution had the aircraft had enough energy to complete the manoeuvre by at least 500ft AGL. The pilot at the controls has to make that assessment on time and on task if the decision to initiate (for whatever reason) was to begin at 100'. (And for planning ahead, build some energy, eh?) Was it rehearsed that way? "Practice the way you are going to play!" Was that adage complied with?
Airshow aerobatics should be flown with necessary margin ie. a looping manoeuvre should not be flown by ‘max performing’ the aircraft. Instead the aircraft should have excess energy in which the pull can be somewhat relaxed, allowing for increased altitude over the top (gate) and thus ample margin on the way back down. These techniques are not ‘taught’ during military flying training or if one was doing competition aerobatics. It is specific to the safe execution of display flying where one is looking to show off the aircraft in an attractive manor. {sic} Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft. This goes into the planning of the event and of the maneuver, as well as the execution.

@legalapproach: thanks, great post.

[Onceapilot]

Worth watching the vid of Mark Hannah in his Duxford Hunter display at post #91. He describes the Duxford site as small for the Hunter, makes pull-ups with full power, flys no loops, does 1/2 Cubans with 200+ over the top and generally seems to fly with plenty of spare energy.

OAP

[Arkroyal]

However, on the balance of probability, and given that the pilot hadnt suffered an eposide like this before during flying numerous aerobatic manoeuvres, over many years, makes it seem like a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?

And the Jury may be in full agreement with you. However the standard of proof in criminal trials is ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’.

On the balance of probabilities is the criterion in civil cases. There just may be one in the offing.

[H Peacock]

Never met an RAF Pilot displaying a FJ who had flown such a paltry number of hours.
To argue the toss about Derry vs Canadian is pure "missing the whole point" pedantry.

dent. AH was not an RAF pilot displaying a Fast Jet. He knew perfectly well how to fly a safe repeatable loop in the Hunter.

Im not arguing anything about the manoeuvre at Southport. You incorrectly referred to it as a D Turn; it wasn't !

[langleybaston]

I had a similar experience at Gatwick last year, having arrived from a long-haul flight ... which I do several times a year without even thinking about it. Left Arrivals for a kerbside cigarette in the Smoking Zone, and suddenly just folded up gracefully to the floor ... my descent being controlled by the OH. It came out of nowhere, and not encountered before or since. SCARY.

Yes, this may well be a MeToo thing for retired folk. Out of bed for the mandatory pump ship, but the carpet was not visible because I manoeuvre in the dark.

Terrifying. My doctor was very calm ........ momentary whatever mumble blood pressure mumble jargon take one of these if it happens again..

[The Nip]

I’m not sure I can wholeheartedly agree with your post. I agree it was an accident. AH never set out to hurt anyone. However, I don’t consider him blameless.


In what way was this incident an 'accident'? Are you saying that no one should be held responsible?
Of course he didn't set out to kill anyone. He set out to provide a stunning display to the best of his abilities.
The relatives will not accept that it was just 'one of things that happen'.

[teeteringhead]

Terrifying. My doctor was very calm ........ momentary whatever mumble blood pressure mumble jargon take one of these if it happens again. Not nice at all the old vertigo (pace Hitchcock NOT a fear of heights). Had the first instance just over a year ago - fell over in the street - fortunately quite close to the village Doctors' Surgery!:ok:

Despite throwing medical insurance at it, with brain scans etc - nothing found, so expensive (but not to me!) consultants said "probably a virus infection of the inner ear - it'll go away". (Which I understand to be docspeak for "haven't a f'ing clue mate"). Happened 3 or 4 times since, but I can now see it coming - it's the "seasickness" following it that's most annoying though.

But I've "hung up my Gosport tubes" for a while, perhaps for keeps..... :-(

How's THAT for thread drift!!

[jindabyne]

Bob Viking (The Nip take note)

I’m sure the jury reached the correct verdict on the strength of the evidence prevented but I still cannot excuse the actions of Andy Hill.

From my perspective, I am a current and pretty experienced Hawk pilot (2500+ hours on type). If someone asked me to perform a low level aerobatics routine tomorrow I would say no way. I fly aerobatic type manoeuvres (along with weapons, BFM, low level etc) on a daily basis in my job and I would not want, or expect, to go and fly the kind of manoeuvres he flew on that fateful day. Added to that, the fit of the aircraft was unfamiliar (I have flown Hawks in pretty much every conceivable fit including the heavier configurations) so, by comparison, if someone said “hey, BV, go take that Hawk with drop tanks and fly a low level display in front of thousands of people” I wouldn’t dream of it.

For the life of me I can’t work out why so many people want to excuse his actions.

I don’t know how I think he should be punished, since it hasn’t affected me directly, but I don’t think he should get off Scott free and I don’t think you can lay the entirety of the blame with the CAA.

I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.

That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.

[DODGYOLDFART]

Worth watching the vid of Mark Hannah in his Duxford Hunter display at post #91. He describes the Duxford site as small for the Hunter, makes pull-ups with full power, flys no loops, does 1/2 Cubans with 200+ over the top and generally seems to fly with plenty of spare energy.

OAP

Excellent display by Mark H (RIP) but do bare in mind that he was flying a fighter version of the Hunter ( F6 or later) which had more power than the T7.

[Treble one]

Bob Viking (The Nip take note)

.

I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.

That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.

CAP 403 which governs Civilian Air Displays has been strengthened considerably post Shoreham (unsurprisingly). It is worth stating that AH was current in all requirements (as laid out then) to perform his display on the day.

[The Nip]

Bob Viking (The Nip take note)

.

I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.

That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.

Jindabyne,
I have not stated that AH is responsible. The verdict has been given and I have an opinion which I will keep to myself. (Because it is irrelevant).

My point was/is the word accident. This very word can lead to people not being held responsible for any given situation.
There has been many threads on here, Chinook, Hercules, Red Arrow, where the word accident is used. There is always someone responsible, generally further up the food chain getting paid for that responsibility.

[Meikleour]

teeteringhead: your symptoms sound a lot like Benign Positional Vertigo caused by loose crystals in the semicircular canals of the inner ear. Google it - it can be treated with simple exercises.

[GeeRam]

Excellent display by Mark H (RIP) but do bare in mind that he was flying a fighter version of the Hunter ( F6 or later) which had more power than the T7.

I might have misunderstood?, but I thought that was the comparison point, given Mark even said on the commentary as he pulled up, 'full power', and thus plenty of energy.........whereas I thought there was a question mark over AH not even using full power when he pulled up in the T.7 thus compromising the already reduced energy available...??

[VerdunLuck]

Jindabyne,
I have not stated that AH is responsible. The verdict has been given and I have an opinion which I will keep to myself. (Because it is irrelevant).

My point was/is the word accident. This very word can lead to people not being held responsible for any given situation.
There has been many threads on here, Chinook, Hercules, Red Arrow, where the word accident is used. There is always someone responsible, generally further up the food chain getting paid for that responsibility.



The term "accident" has a special and precise written meaning in air law which defines exactly what is (and isn't) an accident that requires investigation.

In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture.

[teeteringhead]

teeteringhead: your symptoms sound a lot like Benign Positional Vertigo caused by loose crystals in the semicircular canals of the inner ear. Thanks Meikleour.

That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right!

[just another jocky]

The term "accident" has a special and precise written meaning in air law which defines exactly what is (and isn't) an accident that requires investigation.

In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture.

Indeed, but since the police sensibly stopped using the term accident to describe something that may not be accidental (RTA - Road Traffic accident, now known as RTC - Road Traffic Collision), perhaps the aviation community should start using a more suitable term than accident.

If nothing else, it causes confusion on web forums, accidentally of course!

[3wheels]

Had the pilot been killed in this accident there would have been no trial and he would no doubt have been responsible for what happened. AAIB Report.

Surely, you cant have it both ways?

[ShyTorque]

fortunately quite close to the village Doctors' Surgery!https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

How far from the pub? :E ;)

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Had the pilot been killed in this accident there would have been no trial and he would no doubt have been responsible for what happened. AAIB Report.

Surely, you cant have it both ways?

AAIB reports specifically do not attribute blame, for very good reasons.

I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented.

For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel....

Thank you to all who helped and supported #AndyHill with his defence in the #ShorehamAirCrash. A tragic case for everyone involved but it was my privilege to have represented such a remarkable man. Our thoughts are with the families who lost their loved ones.

Karim Khalil QC



Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.

Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending.

[dagenham]

Thanks Meikleour.

That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right!


it is also worth getting the ticker checked out especially if you have seniority- hypotension on standing is not unusual and not always or even commonly related to the inner ear . Worth a read if you have time https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/orthostatic-hypotension/symptoms-causes/syc-20352548

[DaveReidUK]

Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.

In the same way as AAIB reports are guaranteed not to attribute blame, defending QCs are guaranteed only to say good things about their client.

[Treble one]

AAIB reports specifically do not attribute blame, for very good reasons.

I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented.

For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel....





Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.

Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending.

I think its naive in the extreme to think that AH shouldn't have been tried when 11 people were killed in an incident where the competence of his flying was was questioned. The AAIB results may not have been able to be used as evidence in court, but the sequence of events, did not paint a good picture of the manoeuvre performed.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

I think its naive in the extreme to think that AH shouldn't have been tried when 11 people were killed in an incident where the competence of his flying was was questioned. The AAIB results may not have been able to be used as evidence in court, but the sequence of events, did not paint a good picture of the manoeuvre performed.

I think with respect you are missing the point. I struggle to see how there was a realistic prospect of conviction on the charges that were laid. That is the proper test of whether a prosecution should have been brought, not the number of people who sadly lost their lives. Far worse flying may have brought the plane down on wasteland with no harm to anyone except the pilot. "Better" flying could have gone wrong in a completely different way leading to a far greater tragedy.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

In the same way as AAIB reports are guaranteed not to attribute blame, defending QCs are guaranteed only to say good things about their client.

In court, yes of course. However it is fairly unusual to see one of the country's leading QCs take to social media to say " it was my privilege to have represented such a remarkable man" after the trial.

[Treble one]

The crux of the case was whether or not the pilot suffered Cognitive Impairment whilst flying-as alluded to by the defence. Because no one could prove either way he did or he didn't he was acquitted. If on the other hand the jury had decided that he probably didn't suffer from CI (No previous medical history, no evidence he did, RAF expert saying not) then the prospect of conviction (due to the flying involved) would have been reasonable.

I'm sorry, the public would have been outraged if no charges had been brought in the circumstances. AH has answered these charges, and was acquitted fair and square.

[teeteringhead]

it is also worth getting the ticker checked out especially if you have seniority- hypotension on standing is not unusual and not always or even commonly related to the inner ear . Worth a read if you have tim Thanks dagenham - all also checked scanned etc - one thing about falling over near the doctors'(and NOT near the pub Shy!) is that they grab you and test everything -well, almost everything.

I'm humbly grateful for all tis concern over my health - seriously.

Maybe the Gosport tubes will rise again!

[DaveReidUK]

I struggle to see how there was a realistic prospect of conviction on the charges that were laid. That is the proper test of whether a prosecution should have been brought, not the number of people who sadly lost their lives.

There are two tests that a case must satisfy before a prosecution will take place.

The first is the evidential test - the "realistic prospect of conviction" to which you refer. That simply means that, in the view of the CPS, a jury is more likely to convict than not.

The second is the public interest test, which takes into account a number of factors including the amount of loss or harm resulting from the alleged offence. In this case, the fact that 11 members of the public were killed would obviously be one of those factors.

Clearly not all cases that pass those tests result in a guilty verdict, and this wasn't one. Hindsight, after the verdict, is a wonderful thing.

[Tashengurt]

Simple truth is that no-one can prove something didn't have an adverse effect on either his judgement or performance that day.
I can't see that any other verdict was possible.

[207592]

Comment supporting BV deleted.

[Training Risky]

This has already been said/asked...but how on earth can 43 hours on type (gained between 2011-2015) be enough to display an aircraft like the Hunter over populated areas?!!

Forget the dissimilar JP time: circa 10 Hunter hours a year + mishandling the entry to a loop = 11 non-spectators dead.

I don't want to hang AH out to dry, but something doesn't seem right here.

[Arfur Dent]

Ask H Peacock - he thinks it's OK.

[BVRAAM]

A pretty good discussion here on the verdict by Tim Davies who is a former RN and RAF Pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1fVvajFhzk&t=2550s