PDA

View Full Version : Shoreham Hunter pilot not guilty


fantom
8th Mar 2019, 10:28
Report on BBC.
See also Mil thread.

Brian W May
8th Mar 2019, 11:00
Travesty of justice

"I'm truly sorry for the part I played in their deaths." Is what he said. "Part" . . . who else was involved?

richardthethird
8th Mar 2019, 11:11
Completely disappointed in the outcome, particularly for the families involved. Cognitively impaired, my arse.

c53204
8th Mar 2019, 11:15
Aircraft 100% serviceable. No known or declared medical conditions... truly awful outcome for the families of those killed.

ciderman
8th Mar 2019, 11:24
One of our old VL Hunters. Perfectly good aircraft. He has to live with this the rest of his life no matter what the verdict.

beamer
8th Mar 2019, 11:27
Surprising verdict.

Jet_Fan
8th Mar 2019, 11:28
If ever there was a man living in denial and totally obsessed with his own self preservation itís Andy Hill, in my opinion, allegedly, of course.

Mike Flynn
8th Mar 2019, 11:28
Surely time to ground these ex military jets being flown by civilianís?

antisthenes
8th Mar 2019, 11:28
If you are 30kts slow and only 2/3 of your gate height, then not to abort wasn't negligent it was suicidal and I don't believe he was intending to commit suicide.

aox
8th Mar 2019, 11:34
One of our old VL Hunters. Perfectly good aircraft. He has to live with this the rest of his life no matter what the verdict.
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.

Ian W
8th Mar 2019, 11:34
Aircraft 100% serviceable. No known or declared medical conditions... truly awful outcome for the families of those killed.

Like AF447 you mean?
Are you seriously wanting criminal convictions for every pilot error? That is contrary to all the flight safety, NTSB and ASRS philosophies.

Procrastinus
8th Mar 2019, 11:35
Karim Khalil QC, must be some defence lawyer!

nevillestyke
8th Mar 2019, 11:40
So, as was quoted, it means that any hand flown activity has an omnipresent risk of cognitive impairment. Should we all be grounded, for the safety of all?

Paul852
8th Mar 2019, 11:43
So will Mr Hill now be back on the job for BA?

biscuit74
8th Mar 2019, 11:51
It shows, again, what a lottery our 'justice system' can be. Find the right angle to sow doubt, add an impressive medical expert and enough smoke and mirrors soon exists for a good defence lawyer to work with. Mr Hill got some very good and no doubt expensive advice and stuck to his story rigorously throughout. Enough doubt was sown. .

I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.

His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.

Above The Clouds
8th Mar 2019, 11:56
It shows, again, what a lottery our 'justice system' can be. Find the right angle to sow doubt, add an impressive medical expert and enough smoke and mirrors soon exists for a good defence lawyer to work with. Mr Hill got some very good and no doubt expensive advice and stuck to his story rigorously throughout. Enough doubt was sown. .

I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.

His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.

So you are saying every jury should be qualified in the role they are being asked to assess ? what a load of tosh.

biscuit74
8th Mar 2019, 11:59
So, as was quoted, it means that any hand flown activity has an omnipresent risk of cognitive impairment. Should we all be grounded, for the safety of all?

That I suspect is one of the greater worries this produces for airshow pilots and planners in the UK going forward. The NIMBY and OTT HSE crew will likely use this to dramatically inhibit future shows.
I'd expect it should be readily possible to knock back any more general negative concerns, but this shows how some of the outcomes of our justice system can have awkward and doubtfully sensible implications, often unexpected. Thanks Mr Hill - your impairment argument may cost some or all pilots a great deal of additional future hassle.

lightningf2a
8th Mar 2019, 12:01
40 hours on the Hunter over 4 and a half years, 30 kts down and 1000ft below gate. Hmm, where was his thumb?

RAF fast jet pilot, A cat QFI, Station aerobatic pilot and never made aware of effects of G?

Above The Clouds
8th Mar 2019, 12:03
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.

I have no interest in golf, why are we allowing any form of golf games to be conducted in this country, I could get hit by a 100mph golf ball while passing one of these dangerous courses, I think all golf courses should closed and all forms of golf should be banned immediately.

biscuit74
8th Mar 2019, 12:04
So you are saying every jury should be qualified in the role they are being asked to assess ? what a load of tosh.

No, I am saying that a result such as this is more to be expected in any case where some moderate level of experience or technical background knowledge would enhance the jurist's ability to accurately judge the arguments being made, in context. Many lawyers will tell you that - it is part & parcel of the lottery which is our justice system.

That said, this result is about 'beyond reasonable doubt' on a charge of 'gross negligence'.. I doubt many - any? - of us would consider that a fair charge. An honest mistake, or series of mistakes, is not necessarily negligence. Perhaps the more important question is what happens next.

Senior Pilot
8th Mar 2019, 12:13
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/619209-shoreham-airshow-crash-trial.html