Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:59
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
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.
MPN11 is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:02
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
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.
rog747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 463
An utter travesty. Problem with smart lawyer and jury that knows diddly squat about flying.
Brian W May is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:15
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 17
"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.
dynamics is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:15
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by Brian W May View Post
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...
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,761
Originally Posted by lightbluefootprint View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:17
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 69
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.
rog747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:19
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,657
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?
BEagle is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:19
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
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 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:22
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
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!
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:24
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 685
Not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. This verdict of a jury who sat through the entire trial seems reasonable to me.
oggers is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,878
Is it therefore sufficient to say that he made an appalling mistake with tragic circumstances and leave the lawyers to fight another day ?
beamer is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:38
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 1
Some quite undignified responses (near gloating in fact) on here.
Perhaps the dead should be shown some respect, gentlemen.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:44
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 57
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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?
lightbluefootprint is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:48
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 69
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.
rog747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:54
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 463
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
Brian W May is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:59
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 363
Yes, it's interesting that the term accident has been replaced with incident in many areas of law enforcement.
unmanned_droid is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:02
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post
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.
andrewn is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:05
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
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
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:06
  #40 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by weemonkey View Post
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:

Originally Posted by aox View Post
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.
aox is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.