Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
As far as I am aware the term “Cognitive Impairment “ was coined by the defence team and had no legal definition. The AAIB report ruled out physical impairment like g LOC on the grounds that the pilot was making control inputs right up to impact. So the jury was presented with this argument.
The pilot was experienced and professional
This experienced and professional pilot did something really wrong.
The only explanation is that he was “cognitively impaired”
Which explains every mistake any of us have ever made.
If I was Mr Hill, I think I would leave it at that!
The pilot was experienced and professional
This experienced and professional pilot did something really wrong.
The only explanation is that he was “cognitively impaired”
Which explains every mistake any of us have ever made.
If I was Mr Hill, I think I would leave it at that!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 79
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timelord, nicely put. Why does my mind immediately go to a player bouncing his tennis balls......at what point was he "cognitively impaired" - surely not at the top of the manoeuvre, subject to normal 1g. If ever a trial convinced me that there were trials of technical complexity such as to need the jury replaced by "technical assessors/advisors" this was it. Just saying......
Thanks for kind words, Ambient Sheep and 111.
Treble one, you are of course fully entitled to suggest that AH should let this lie. But don’t forget, an inquest is waiting to investigate this tragedy again, so it’s not going to be allowed to lie.
The recent ‘Norfolk’ high court judgement about the helicopter crash addresses the question of Inquests and AAIB reports (see para 56 in particular).
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/forma...2016/2279.html
But anyway, I’m with falcon900 when s/he says
111, you do go on to ask some pertinent questions about when the potential CI occurred. The start point was covered more than once in trial evidence. It was referred to as ‘Point X’, and detailed by some witnesses as time 12:21:49.
Yes, it was before he entered the manoeuvre. Too slow? Expert witnesses said 300K was sufficient. However, why the speed was low is important. It should - and could easily - have been higher. Why wasn’t it? And (height) too low? It was not alleged at trial that he was too low entering the manoeuvre.
Yes. But the question there is why the aircraft was so low on energy. There was some strange flying and a lot of energy destroyed. Why?
Yes - but why did he not recognise it? Over the apex little was done, either correctly or incorrectly. The aircraft did not seem to be flown with any intent – good, bad or otherwise. That was stated by very experienced aviation witnesses in the trial.
Whatever CI there had been, if any, was receding by then – no disagreement.
The AH legal team did not invent the concept of cognitive impairment. I think you’ll find that the issues were well aired beforehand - not least on PPRuNe.
From the evidence of a first responder at the crash site - AH said he “blacked out in the air”. Either he’s a quick thinking liar, or is there something else? He was very near death at that stage - indeed, his life was only saved a few moments later by the quick reactions of another first responder. What might be meant by “blacked out”? A person will not necessarily know if he has been unconscious.
We shall see if the AAIB does decide to reopen their inquiry.
airsound
Treble one, you are of course fully entitled to suggest that AH should let this lie. But don’t forget, an inquest is waiting to investigate this tragedy again, so it’s not going to be allowed to lie.
The recent ‘Norfolk’ high court judgement about the helicopter crash addresses the question of Inquests and AAIB reports (see para 56 in particular).
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/forma...2016/2279.html
But anyway, I’m with falcon900 when s/he says
IF evidence led in the trial contradicts or challenges the AAIB report, this needs to be bottomed out?
Was it before he was too slow and too low entering the manoeuvre?
Was it before he failed to rech (sic) his gate height?
Was it before he failed to recognise this and failed to abandon the manoeuvre?]
Or was it just before his jet hit the ground (whilst he appeared to be pulling for all he was worth)?
I personally think his legal team played a blinder by introducing CI as a possible reason that the accident occurred, knowing that the prosecution were unable to prove it had, or hadn't
From the evidence of a first responder at the crash site - AH said he “blacked out in the air”. Either he’s a quick thinking liar, or is there something else? He was very near death at that stage - indeed, his life was only saved a few moments later by the quick reactions of another first responder. What might be meant by “blacked out”? A person will not necessarily know if he has been unconscious.
We shall see if the AAIB does decide to reopen their inquiry.
airsound
Lets not relive the 22 pages of past comment please....................................
Airsound-we are going to have to disagree on this.
For the record, I am not suggesting that the defence team 'invented' the issue of CI. It clearly is possible. In certain circumstances. My personal opinion is, however, that it would be extraordinarily unlucky and coincidental that it happened at such a critical moment in a flight, in a pilot who has shown no previous indication this may happen. Its just as well the boot was not on the other foot and the defence had to prove it did happen.
The AAIB report was unable to be used as evidence in the trial I am led to believe? In fact from the reporting I saw on the trial, it seems that the nuts and bolts of the whole mishap (in terms of the actualities of the flight profile) were merely skimmed over-which surprised me greatly.
As for AH saying he had 'blacked out'-well that could easily have been GLOC rather than CI. Again, its you bringing up the concept of 'liar'. I didn't.
For the record, I am not suggesting that the defence team 'invented' the issue of CI. It clearly is possible. In certain circumstances. My personal opinion is, however, that it would be extraordinarily unlucky and coincidental that it happened at such a critical moment in a flight, in a pilot who has shown no previous indication this may happen. Its just as well the boot was not on the other foot and the defence had to prove it did happen.
The AAIB report was unable to be used as evidence in the trial I am led to believe? In fact from the reporting I saw on the trial, it seems that the nuts and bolts of the whole mishap (in terms of the actualities of the flight profile) were merely skimmed over-which surprised me greatly.
As for AH saying he had 'blacked out'-well that could easily have been GLOC rather than CI. Again, its you bringing up the concept of 'liar'. I didn't.
Well it looks like the CI might have going going a while.
Southport in the JP? At the very least he needed to have a good hard look at himself after that - or preferably someone else should have.
How about 'choosing' to do low level public aerobatics in a fast jet in which you have very little time or currency - a CI problem?
Downwind take off on the day - CI??
Southport in the JP? At the very least he needed to have a good hard look at himself after that - or preferably someone else should have.
How about 'choosing' to do low level public aerobatics in a fast jet in which you have very little time or currency - a CI problem?
Downwind take off on the day - CI??
Indeed, anything reckless, selfish, unprofessional or indeed anything that involves rule-breaking can now be written-off as a CI even when the individual has shown no previous health issues, felt no onset of symptoms and makes a miraculous recovery from symptoms when their life is clearly threatened.
The idea that evidence of rule breaking can become the sole evidence of cognitive impairment, on the basis that an individual would not break a rule unless medically impaired, is preposterous.
The idea that evidence of rule breaking can become the sole evidence of cognitive impairment, on the basis that an individual would not break a rule unless medically impaired, is preposterous.
That said,
Even if he was found guilty I don't think it should have come with a heavy sentence - it was not a malicious act.
But if I was him, for my soul, I'd spend the rest of my life working as hard as I could for the families of the people that had died.
Even if he was found guilty I don't think it should have come with a heavy sentence - it was not a malicious act.
But if I was him, for my soul, I'd spend the rest of my life working as hard as I could for the families of the people that had died.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just This Once.... and hunterboy
You are quite correct, but evidence of 'rule breaking' was not the sole evidence of cognitive impairment which is why there was expert medical evidence called at the trial.
The idea that evidence of rule breaking can become the sole evidence of cognitive impairment, on the basis that an individual would not break a rule unless medically impaired, is preposterous.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps “Cognitive Impairment" should be considered in the loss of Tornado ZG 708 in September 1994. This cases was only considered by an MoD 'in-house' Board of Inquiry and never found its was to a Scottish court. It is most unlikely that MoD would consider re-opening the inquiry but it could be the subject of an FAI in the light of new evidence.
DV
DV
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the AAIB..
Following a detailed review of the G-forces, the AAIB has decided not to re-open its investigation into the accident near Shoreham Airport on 22 August 2015.
In March 2017, the AAIB published its investigation report into an accident involving a Hawker Hunter aircraft near Shoreham Airport.
Our investigation was wide-ranging, looking at everything from the maintenance of the aircraft and the pilot’s training to how the public was protected through risk management and the governance of air displays.
We made 32 safety recommendations as a result of our investigation, all of which were accepted.
Action to address our safety recommendations is already being taken by the relevant authorities.
In June, the AAIB was presented with further material regarding the potential effects of G-forces on the pilot.
We have considered the material very carefully with a dedicated team of inspectors with extensive expertise in aircraft performance, human factors, fast jet operations and display flying.
The work has taken some time as we have been using recently developed analytical tools that have enabled us to determine the aircraft’s flight path in more detail and hence calculate the G-forces more accurately than was previously possible.
We have also undertaken an independent review of the Human Factors analysis presented to us and consulted subject matter experts on aeromedical aspects.
The results confirm that the findings of the AAIB safety investigation published in 2017 remain valid and we will not be reopening the investigation.
However, we will publish a supplement to our Final Report with full details of the review conducted which we hope all parties will find informative.
This will take some time to complete but we will publish the supplement as soon as possible.
We appreciate that this is a difficult time for all those affected by the tragic accident in August 2015.
We are keeping the Coroner and the families of those who died in the accident updated on our work.
In March 2017, the AAIB published its investigation report into an accident involving a Hawker Hunter aircraft near Shoreham Airport.
Our investigation was wide-ranging, looking at everything from the maintenance of the aircraft and the pilot’s training to how the public was protected through risk management and the governance of air displays.
We made 32 safety recommendations as a result of our investigation, all of which were accepted.
Action to address our safety recommendations is already being taken by the relevant authorities.
In June, the AAIB was presented with further material regarding the potential effects of G-forces on the pilot.
We have considered the material very carefully with a dedicated team of inspectors with extensive expertise in aircraft performance, human factors, fast jet operations and display flying.
The work has taken some time as we have been using recently developed analytical tools that have enabled us to determine the aircraft’s flight path in more detail and hence calculate the G-forces more accurately than was previously possible.
We have also undertaken an independent review of the Human Factors analysis presented to us and consulted subject matter experts on aeromedical aspects.
The results confirm that the findings of the AAIB safety investigation published in 2017 remain valid and we will not be reopening the investigation.
However, we will publish a supplement to our Final Report with full details of the review conducted which we hope all parties will find informative.
This will take some time to complete but we will publish the supplement as soon as possible.
We appreciate that this is a difficult time for all those affected by the tragic accident in August 2015.
We are keeping the Coroner and the families of those who died in the accident updated on our work.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The statement would seem to indicate that they discount g-forces as having been a factor in any possible cognitive impairment, but goes no further than that.
The defence in the trial, as reported by the BBC, did not claim g-forces as the possible cause, instead mooting cerebral hypoxia.
Whether that was considered and also discounted by the AAIB will no doubt be covered in the supplement to their report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
The defence in the trial, as reported by the BBC, did not claim g-forces as the possible cause, instead mooting cerebral hypoxia.
Whether that was considered and also discounted by the AAIB will no doubt be covered in the supplement to their report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
The statement would seem to indicate that they discount g-forces as having been a factor in any possible cognitive impairment, but goes no further than that.
The defence in the trial, as reported by the BBC, did not claim g-forces as the possible cause, instead mooting cerebral hypoxia.
Whether that was considered and also discounted by the AAIB will no doubt be covered in the supplement to their report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
The defence in the trial, as reported by the BBC, did not claim g-forces as the possible cause, instead mooting cerebral hypoxia.
Whether that was considered and also discounted by the AAIB will no doubt be covered in the supplement to their report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
He wrote a report for the defence that concluded the level of G-force experienced by Mr Hill during his display may have led to cognitive impairment caused by cerebral hypoxia, the court heard.
Whilst I am not sure that I understand the substantive difference between reopening their enquiry, and writing an addendum, this sounds like a very sensible way forward for the AAIB. It serves no useful purpose for there to be any suggestion that something wasn't properly covered by the AAIB, and the addendum should hopefully put any such notion to rest.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps “Cognitive Impairment" should be considered in the loss of Tornado ZG 708 in September 1994. This cases was only considered by an MoD 'in-house' Board of Inquiry and never found its was to a Scottish court. It is most unlikely that MoD would consider re-opening the inquiry but it could be the subject of an FAI in the light of new evidence.
DV
DV
Originally Posted by AAIB
We have also undertaken an independent review of the Human Factors analysis presented to us and consulted subject matter experts on aeromedical aspects.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd Aug 2019 at 00:00.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was subject to plenty of independent scrutiny
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 3rd Aug 2019 at 10:31. Reason: Emphasis
