Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
The CI defence elicits a whole host of questions does it not Legalapproach?
When did it begin? This is critical of course-was it before the start of the manoeuvre, or during it? If the pilot felt 'a bit odd' should he not just have abandoned the display, and if he didn't is that not negligence to continue flying it?
If CI was a contributory factor to the event, then what are the odds of a qualified display pilot, who is medically fit and has otherwise shown no similar symptoms over many years display flying, suffering such an event at that very moment, causing the catastrophic consequences it did? Holes. Cheeses. Lots. I would argue a miniscule probability.
And it seems to me (although I am no expert) that this CI incident must have been quite short lived, as it seems that the pilot was pulling quite hard at the end of the manoeuvre, when he realised he was going to end up running out of airspace? Presumably the CI incident was over then, as his judgement seemed to be restored at that point?
Just for the record-I have no connection with anyone affected by the Shoreham incident. I usually attend the airshow (in the airfield) but did not that year. My friend was attending and he messaged me with the details of the incident shortly after it occurred. I am merely interested in the legal process.
When did it begin? This is critical of course-was it before the start of the manoeuvre, or during it? If the pilot felt 'a bit odd' should he not just have abandoned the display, and if he didn't is that not negligence to continue flying it?
If CI was a contributory factor to the event, then what are the odds of a qualified display pilot, who is medically fit and has otherwise shown no similar symptoms over many years display flying, suffering such an event at that very moment, causing the catastrophic consequences it did? Holes. Cheeses. Lots. I would argue a miniscule probability.
And it seems to me (although I am no expert) that this CI incident must have been quite short lived, as it seems that the pilot was pulling quite hard at the end of the manoeuvre, when he realised he was going to end up running out of airspace? Presumably the CI incident was over then, as his judgement seemed to be restored at that point?
Just for the record-I have no connection with anyone affected by the Shoreham incident. I usually attend the airshow (in the airfield) but did not that year. My friend was attending and he messaged me with the details of the incident shortly after it occurred. I am merely interested in the legal process.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Risky
What does money have to do with it? What are you suggesting - that, as I stressed, independent experts are prepared to perjure themselves and risk their reputations if paid enough? Does that also apply to experts paid for by the prosecution? Can the prosecution get people wrongly convicted with a bit of money?
Capt Kremen
Rubbish. Cognitive impairment has been recognised as a potential defence to some offences for decades - it rarely comes up (you would need medical evidence to support it) and the courts continue to convict people.
What does money have to do with it? What are you suggesting - that, as I stressed, independent experts are prepared to perjure themselves and risk their reputations if paid enough? Does that also apply to experts paid for by the prosecution? Can the prosecution get people wrongly convicted with a bit of money?
Capt Kremen
Rubbish. Cognitive impairment has been recognised as a potential defence to some offences for decades - it rarely comes up (you would need medical evidence to support it) and the courts continue to convict people.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I still don't know how AH can live with himself with the defence he offered. My professional open-mindedness was slammed shut when he claimed almost no knowledge and no RAF training with respect to the effects of G when flying high-performance aircraft - including the relatively low G available when flying so slow. These were utterly absurd and untruthful statements that were designed to deceive, yet the prosecution did not have the counter to hand. I understand that he was entitled to defend himself and that the burden of proving a case is with the prosecution but you would struggle to find any RAF or RN fast-jet aircrew who thought his answers on that subject were accurate or truthful.
The chap came close to crashing on take-off on that fateful day - that could have been a better outcome for all concerned. We could then just debate the wisdom of no proper performance calculations and the mystery of accepting a tailwind in an aircraft that he had almost no experience flying.
I totally agree. The fact that AH had been trained and qualified as an RAF fast jet pilot mean that he HAD been trained in G Awareness and all of its facets, be it on aircraft performance or effect on the human body. The fact that the prosecution did not expose these lies makes them negligent in performing their duty. A qualified RAF QFI, past or present, could have testified as to what RAF pilot training involves.
As for
In fact no, that was the allegation made by the prosecution but denied by the defence. The defence produced evidence that the aircraft was not flying a loop. In reaching their not guilty verdicts the jury were not satisfied that a loop was being flown.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige321
In the Hoyle case a hare was set running that the fatal manoeuvre was a loop. This came from an eye witness who had seen a Tiger Moth enter a loop in roughly the location of the accident. During the course of the trial it became apparent that (because of timings) the witness had seen an earlier flight in which it was known a loop had been flown. The timings had never been properly looked into before and so the witness statement had influenced both the AAIB report and the prosecution case with many assuming that she had seen the final flight. She had not and she could not have done because the timings could be pretty well pinpointed..
On the accident flight the pilot described performing a tightish turn and experiencing a rudder restriction which, in attempting to recover, had caused the aircraft to flick into a spin. This was confirmed by experts who attempted to replicate the various possible flight profiles and this scenario was the one that in fact fitted.
Dominator 2
Loop
I wasn't talking about the Shoreham crash but the Hoyle case and responding to a comment where someone suggested that Hoyle was another case resulting from a badly flown loop. Please read my post #276 carefully before accusing me of spouting a load of nonesense.
G training
The prosecution called qualified RAF QFI's both past and present and their evidence was consistent with what AH actually said.
In the Hoyle case a hare was set running that the fatal manoeuvre was a loop. This came from an eye witness who had seen a Tiger Moth enter a loop in roughly the location of the accident. During the course of the trial it became apparent that (because of timings) the witness had seen an earlier flight in which it was known a loop had been flown. The timings had never been properly looked into before and so the witness statement had influenced both the AAIB report and the prosecution case with many assuming that she had seen the final flight. She had not and she could not have done because the timings could be pretty well pinpointed..
On the accident flight the pilot described performing a tightish turn and experiencing a rudder restriction which, in attempting to recover, had caused the aircraft to flick into a spin. This was confirmed by experts who attempted to replicate the various possible flight profiles and this scenario was the one that in fact fitted.
Dominator 2
Loop
I wasn't talking about the Shoreham crash but the Hoyle case and responding to a comment where someone suggested that Hoyle was another case resulting from a badly flown loop. Please read my post #276 carefully before accusing me of spouting a load of nonesense.
G training
The prosecution called qualified RAF QFI's both past and present and their evidence was consistent with what AH actually said.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I did my basic training on the JP way back in '65-'66. We had aeromed lectures and practical demonstrations of the effects of G. Only very basic (I was never on FJ), but surely it was retained in the syllabus?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herod
Spot on - that's what AH and others spoke about at the trial. The training back in the day was fairly basic when compared to today's training. That was the only point, all the witnesses agreed. The news reports of his evidence were not complete and not put in proper context.
Spot on - that's what AH and others spoke about at the trial. The training back in the day was fairly basic when compared to today's training. That was the only point, all the witnesses agreed. The news reports of his evidence were not complete and not put in proper context.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Your statement as quoted is not correct. In CAP403 it always has been, and sill is, permissible to commence a loop from the Flypast minima. AH was above his for the final manoeuvre. Where you can fly below SERA 5005 minima and down to your DA minima is a separate issue for which there was considerable ambiguity at the time of the accident. As a Hunter DAE, I consider the minimum entry speed for a singleton Hunter T7 to pull up for a complete loop is 350 KIAS. AH pulled up at 310 +/- 15 KIAS.
Anyone care to amplify this please?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reasonably cognoscente of the effects of "G" on pilot performance and there has been a fair amount of discussion of it on this thread. However I am slightly puzzled by what appears to be AH's claimed knowledge of such and particularly so as whilst in the RAF I believe he served a tour on Harriers as an operational jockey. Plenty of high "G" experience there I would have thought!
All of which would be a fine and dandy argument if display accidents ran at one every 20 years. Sadly not the case.
The unfortunate kneejerk response to display requirements taking much of the flying further away from the crowd and thus outside the boundaries provides even further protection to the crowds, who don't really need it, and increased risk to those outside the airfield, who in some cases are now closer to the aircraft than the paying spectators.
I was both a Hunter and Hawk QFI in the early 80s. I have about 1,000 Hunter hours including 65 sorties on WV372 (bit miffed that ‘my’ jet has been trashed). Looped probably thousands of times. MRTs in the Hawk were ‘pull 6 squeeze 7’ initially then ‘pull 5 squeeze 6’ when it was thought that we might use too much fatigue. We received (and gave) plenty of training on the safe application of high G, both rapid and gradual onset, although expressions such as ALoc and GLoc were probably not in the vocabulary. So I am puzzled that possible incapacitation from high g should be used as an argument by the defence team, especially in a Hunter at 300kts when you're likely to hit the buffet before 4g. Also, it appeared to me that the aircraft was under positive control for the last half of the loop (and it was a loop).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
It was a loop and my comments in a previous post related to a different case. The defence never suggested that it was possible incapacitation from high G. Very few people who are commenting on this case heard any of the evidence that was given at trial. Many have been selective in picking bits read in newspapers and newspapers are themselves selective in what they report "always worth sacrificing the truth for a good headline"
Can I make it quite plain this case was never about high G, it was never about G-LOC it was never about A-LOC please read my post at #132 above where I sought to give an explanation as to what the issue actually was.
Thank you for making the point about the expressions A-LOC and G-LOC were not really used in the 80's. That was what AH said in evidence and has been leapt on by people suggesting he lied when he said he hadn't heard certain expressions because he said he didn't know about the effect of G. He didn't lie, he talked about the limitations of training and imparted knowledge at the time compared with knowledge/training today. Other witnesses, prosecution witneses, confirmed what he said.
It was a loop and my comments in a previous post related to a different case. The defence never suggested that it was possible incapacitation from high G. Very few people who are commenting on this case heard any of the evidence that was given at trial. Many have been selective in picking bits read in newspapers and newspapers are themselves selective in what they report "always worth sacrificing the truth for a good headline"
Can I make it quite plain this case was never about high G, it was never about G-LOC it was never about A-LOC please read my post at #132 above where I sought to give an explanation as to what the issue actually was.
Thank you for making the point about the expressions A-LOC and G-LOC were not really used in the 80's. That was what AH said in evidence and has been leapt on by people suggesting he lied when he said he hadn't heard certain expressions because he said he didn't know about the effect of G. He didn't lie, he talked about the limitations of training and imparted knowledge at the time compared with knowledge/training today. Other witnesses, prosecution witneses, confirmed what he said.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
Thank you for making the point about the expressions A-LOC and G-LOC were not really used in the 80's. That was what AH said in evidence and has been leapt on by people suggesting he lied when he said he hadn't heard certain expressions because he said he didn't know about the effect of G. He didn't lie, he talked about the limitations of training and imparted knowledge at the time compared with knowledge/training today. Other witnesses, prosecution witneses, confirmed what he said.
Thank you for making the point about the expressions A-LOC and G-LOC were not really used in the 80's. That was what AH said in evidence and has been leapt on by people suggesting he lied when he said he hadn't heard certain expressions because he said he didn't know about the effect of G. He didn't lie, he talked about the limitations of training and imparted knowledge at the time compared with knowledge/training today. Other witnesses, prosecution witneses, confirmed what he said.
Peter
It was a loop and my comments in a previous post related to a different case. The defence never suggested that it was possible incapacitation from high G. Very few people who are commenting on this case heard any of the evidence that was given at trial. Many have been selective in picking bits read in newspapers and newspapers are themselves selective in what they report "always worth sacrificing the truth for a good headline"
Can I make it quite plain this case was never about high G, it was never about G-LOC it was never about A-LOC please read my post at #132 above where I sought to give an explanation as to what the issue actually was.
Thank you for making the point about the expressions A-LOC and G-LOC were not really used in the 80's. That was what AH said in evidence and has been leapt on by people suggesting he lied when he said he hadn't heard certain expressions because he said he didn't know about the effect of G. He didn't lie, he talked about the limitations of training and imparted knowledge at the time compared with knowledge/training today. Other witnesses, prosecution witneses, confirmed what he said.
It was a loop and my comments in a previous post related to a different case. The defence never suggested that it was possible incapacitation from high G. Very few people who are commenting on this case heard any of the evidence that was given at trial. Many have been selective in picking bits read in newspapers and newspapers are themselves selective in what they report "always worth sacrificing the truth for a good headline"
Can I make it quite plain this case was never about high G, it was never about G-LOC it was never about A-LOC please read my post at #132 above where I sought to give an explanation as to what the issue actually was.
Thank you for making the point about the expressions A-LOC and G-LOC were not really used in the 80's. That was what AH said in evidence and has been leapt on by people suggesting he lied when he said he hadn't heard certain expressions because he said he didn't know about the effect of G. He didn't lie, he talked about the limitations of training and imparted knowledge at the time compared with knowledge/training today. Other witnesses, prosecution witneses, confirmed what he said.
" 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."
Now, I do not know you but, this is absolute bread and butter info to a FJ pilot and you should know it. It is a prerequisite that a FJ pilot can maintain their personal ability to perform across the whole spectrum of the cockpit environment. A personal ability to maintain awareness through technique, physiology, mental awareness, motivation and personal effort is essential. In my opinion, claiming that a qualified FJ display pilot can innocently fall into some sort of "armchair zombie" state shows that either, they should not be qualified as a FJ display pilot or, they have a medical problem or, they were actually flying the aircraft in a negligent manner.
OAP
Necessary Assumption (which may be false)
Poster named Legalapproach is in fact a member of AH defense team.
This Poster won in court, and you did not.
Now think about that for just a minute.
A professional in law did "that law thing" and was successful.
Some of your are playing "armchair lawyer" just like people play "armchair pilot" after a variety of accidents, crashes, and close calls.
And if the assumption is false?
You've all been trolled.
Either way, you are spinning your wheels. Welcome to the internet.
Poster named Legalapproach is in fact a member of AH defense team.
This Poster won in court, and you did not.
Now think about that for just a minute.
A professional in law did "that law thing" and was successful.
Some of your are playing "armchair lawyer" just like people play "armchair pilot" after a variety of accidents, crashes, and close calls.
And if the assumption is false?
You've all been trolled.
Either way, you are spinning your wheels. Welcome to the internet.