Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
But isn't that how it's supposed to work? As has frequently been stated here and elsewhere, the defence have to prove nothing.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,633
Received 82 Likes
on
39 Posts
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.
...
...
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...
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV - a bit rich coming from you
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
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
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.
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?
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.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
This is the defence/prosecution witnesses for the issue of CI. I missed this earlier.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...eporting-story
And this is an opinion regarding the in cockpit video.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47150079
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...eporting-story
And this is an opinion regarding the in cockpit video.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47150079
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,507
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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,
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.
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.
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?
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?
a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?
to be fair, that sounds very like "an accident" does it not?
to be fair, that sounds very like "an accident" does it not?
Im assuming that this episode of CI was short lived because the pilot was pulling hard to prevent CFIT prior to impact?
Last edited by Treble one; 10th Mar 2019 at 20:53.
I read this in another place today.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
If I may quote Rhymenoceros to get this back to a nuts and bolts discussion ...
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?
This goes into the planning of the event and of the maneuver, as well as the execution.
@legalapproach: thanks, great post.
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. {sic} Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft.
@legalapproach: thanks, great post.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
OAP
