Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Yes, Treble One, I do believe the Shoreham Herald, because Michael Drummond's account ties in with my own contemporaneous notes. 
On the question of whether the CI became "suddenly 'unimpaired'", I can do no better than quote the evidence of the very experienced Chairman of the Shoreham Flying Control Committee, Derek Davis - who, interestingly, was on the stand as a prosecution witness. He said he thought the aircraft was not being controlled [in the descent from the apex], and that there was something wrong with either the aircraft or the pilot. He went on to say that there had been a violent pitch-up of the aircraft at about 100ft - but it kept going down. That was an indication that the pilot had plenty of back stick. He had a lot more elevator to use, indicating that he hadn’t used it before. Derek Davis thought that at 100ft [the pilot] saw something, and pulled in an attempt to regain control.
airsound
On the question of whether the CI became "suddenly 'unimpaired'", I can do no better than quote the evidence of the very experienced Chairman of the Shoreham Flying Control Committee, Derek Davis - who, interestingly, was on the stand as a prosecution witness. He said he thought the aircraft was not being controlled [in the descent from the apex], and that there was something wrong with either the aircraft or the pilot. He went on to say that there had been a violent pitch-up of the aircraft at about 100ft - but it kept going down. That was an indication that the pilot had plenty of back stick. He had a lot more elevator to use, indicating that he hadn’t used it before. Derek Davis thought that at 100ft [the pilot] saw something, and pulled in an attempt to regain control.
airsound
I don't think we're getting anywhere here - some believe in CI and a lot don't
And there is absolutely no evidence that will turn up that can prove it one way or the other.................
And there is absolutely no evidence that will turn up that can prove it one way or the other.................
Thanks for the links Airsound, I have now read the articles, and having done so, I would have to say that I am not drawn towards the conclusion that they are all unconnected. IMHO, a decent proportion of them could be grouped under the heading of loss/lack of situational awareness. That said, the two glaring exceptions are the power reductions, which go well beyond the counterintuitive and deep into thoroughly irrational territory. These have never been explained, nor adequately dissociated with problems which I am told were experienced with the particular mark of Avon engine whilst in service.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read the articles at the links I am minded to use the examples of Air to Surface weapon deliveries as comparators.
I have graded (and had graded) any number of attacks where any or all of the following would be true: an attack was off LOA, high, low, velocity vector placement questionable, pitch control inadequate, cross wind allowance not quite right, pickle position early or late, comms incorrect, late arm discipline poor, incorrect attack mode, wrong height source, fast, slow, G on recovery inadequate - or even an over stress.
If you look hard enough every single attack will contain some mistake, maybe multiple mistakes; the worst I ever saw was by a squadron CO and test pilot (who still managed a DH).
I find the notion that multiple mistakes can only be explained by CI to be contrary to what I’ve experienced.
I accept the ruling that they may have been caused by CI.
I have graded (and had graded) any number of attacks where any or all of the following would be true: an attack was off LOA, high, low, velocity vector placement questionable, pitch control inadequate, cross wind allowance not quite right, pickle position early or late, comms incorrect, late arm discipline poor, incorrect attack mode, wrong height source, fast, slow, G on recovery inadequate - or even an over stress.
If you look hard enough every single attack will contain some mistake, maybe multiple mistakes; the worst I ever saw was by a squadron CO and test pilot (who still managed a DH).
I find the notion that multiple mistakes can only be explained by CI to be contrary to what I’ve experienced.
I accept the ruling that they may have been caused by CI.
I’ve read through a lot of this and what strikes me most is that it appears, as with everything legal, that the best lawyer wins; and that ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ might be considered a cop-out.
No procrastination or expert opinion (note the word: opinion) will resolve this and I personally don’t buy the CI decision but hey, that’s my opinion.
What is clear is that there were unfortunate deaths and whilst the loss of the individuals is inexcusable, the effects on families and friends can only amplify the loss, hurt and anger. AH knows what happened inside and, obviously, he is either innocent (as proposed by his brief), or guilty. I’m always reminded of sitting in Whittle Hall some thirty-odd years ago, covering values and standards and that often over-looked but oh so important word: integrity. I might have exhibited some terrible behaviour as a young officer but I can honestly say that in thirty two years of commissioned service that I have always performed my duties and carried the responsibilities assigned to me. If AH is innocent then I really feel for him having to carry the burden of these lives for the rest of his; if, however, he was to blame, then think about the integrity word and make the right decision, away from the umbrella of your lawyer.
No procrastination or expert opinion (note the word: opinion) will resolve this and I personally don’t buy the CI decision but hey, that’s my opinion.
What is clear is that there were unfortunate deaths and whilst the loss of the individuals is inexcusable, the effects on families and friends can only amplify the loss, hurt and anger. AH knows what happened inside and, obviously, he is either innocent (as proposed by his brief), or guilty. I’m always reminded of sitting in Whittle Hall some thirty-odd years ago, covering values and standards and that often over-looked but oh so important word: integrity. I might have exhibited some terrible behaviour as a young officer but I can honestly say that in thirty two years of commissioned service that I have always performed my duties and carried the responsibilities assigned to me. If AH is innocent then I really feel for him having to carry the burden of these lives for the rest of his; if, however, he was to blame, then think about the integrity word and make the right decision, away from the umbrella of your lawyer.
Could someone save me the trouble of searching and tell me who introduced this concept of CI please? Where does it originate? As an experienced long-term FJ pilot and QFI, until this trial I had never heard of it.
And what was Dr Jarvis' professional credentials?
Not pre-judging, just trying to find out some facts.
Thanks.
And what was Dr Jarvis' professional credentials?
Not pre-judging, just trying to find out some facts.
Thanks.
Could someone save me the trouble of searching and tell me who introduced this concept of CI please? Where does it originate? As an experienced long-term FJ pilot and QFI, until this trial I had never heard of it.
And what was Dr Jarvis' professional credentials?
Not pre-judging, just trying to find out some facts.
Thanks.
And what was Dr Jarvis' professional credentials?
Not pre-judging, just trying to find out some facts.
Thanks.
The pilot was prosecuted, found not guilty, end of.
I think it is absolutely appalling that this debate is being allowed to continue. It is noting but a thinly disguised character assassination.
We have a system in this country. If your guilt is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 good (wo)men and true (who have actually heard ALL the evidence) then you are innocent.
Also, as this was not a murder charge, the matter cannot be re-opened in a criminal court in the future.
As you say, end off!!!
I merely asked for some information that is likely held within these pages but wondered if some kind soul could point me in the right direction to save me trawling through page after page.
Where did I say I wanted to change a Court verdict?
Part of me would like tear you a new one......but some of us are a little more considered than that. In future, read the ******* post before making unfounded accusations.
Last edited by just another jocky; 8th Aug 2019 at 06:25.
Just a thought, this discussion may become very relevant, the age of display pilots seems to be increasing and the effects of ci may become a wider concern
my own take is that ci is being taken to be a form of TIA or transient ischamic attack, a heart attack of the brain of you will. This is caused by either a clot caused by any element of vichod’s triad or good old fashioned congestion of the arteries. If a TIA has occurred the medical history of brain scans may show this. It will of course be complicated by any head trauma and I understand there was a lot. However, the signs may well still be there. Would the board have had access to this?
my own take is that ci is being taken to be a form of TIA or transient ischamic attack, a heart attack of the brain of you will. This is caused by either a clot caused by any element of vichod’s triad or good old fashioned congestion of the arteries. If a TIA has occurred the medical history of brain scans may show this. It will of course be complicated by any head trauma and I understand there was a lot. However, the signs may well still be there. Would the board have had access to this?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just another jocky - basic qualifications are:
PhD, MSc, BEd(Hons), CErgHF, MIEHF, FRAeS, Editor and Principal Author CAP737 (CAA Human Performance Factors Manual)
The qualifications of the defence principal medical expert were
BSc, PhD, MB ChB, DAvMED, MRAeS, FFOM, ASCAB, Principal Medical Advisor QinetiQ
CI is a recognised medical condition that can arise from a number of factors. For the physiological issues in this case see my post at #132 above.
There was no issue that they were both highly qualified to act as experts and give the evidence/opinions they did.
A number of people have remarked that the best/most expensive lawyers won. Whilst extremely flattering, the prosecution lawyers are both highly respected, capable barristers who could only act with the hand they were dealt. They dealt with the case doggedly and professionally and I retain nothing but the highest respect for them. They suffered from an inherent lack of aviation knowledge and more importantly a lack of such amongst some of the people who were advising them. As a result the prosecution proceeded on a number of false assumptions including a number of criticisms of AH's previous flying that they subsequently had to abandon. There were further criticisms that they had to withdraw before ever getting to the jury as a result of representations we made to the prosecution and the trial judge.
Both sides were on publicly funded rates and I expect paid pretty much the same.
PhD, MSc, BEd(Hons), CErgHF, MIEHF, FRAeS, Editor and Principal Author CAP737 (CAA Human Performance Factors Manual)
The qualifications of the defence principal medical expert were
BSc, PhD, MB ChB, DAvMED, MRAeS, FFOM, ASCAB, Principal Medical Advisor QinetiQ
CI is a recognised medical condition that can arise from a number of factors. For the physiological issues in this case see my post at #132 above.
There was no issue that they were both highly qualified to act as experts and give the evidence/opinions they did.
A number of people have remarked that the best/most expensive lawyers won. Whilst extremely flattering, the prosecution lawyers are both highly respected, capable barristers who could only act with the hand they were dealt. They dealt with the case doggedly and professionally and I retain nothing but the highest respect for them. They suffered from an inherent lack of aviation knowledge and more importantly a lack of such amongst some of the people who were advising them. As a result the prosecution proceeded on a number of false assumptions including a number of criticisms of AH's previous flying that they subsequently had to abandon. There were further criticisms that they had to withdraw before ever getting to the jury as a result of representations we made to the prosecution and the trial judge.
Both sides were on publicly funded rates and I expect paid pretty much the same.
just another jocky - basic qualifications are:
PhD, MSc, BEd(Hons), CErgHF, MIEHF, FRAeS, Editor and Principal Author CAP737 (CAA Human Performance Factors Manual)
The qualifications of the defence principal medical expert were
BSc, PhD, MB ChB, DAvMED, MRAeS, FFOM, ASCAB, Principal Medical Advisor QinetiQ
CI is a recognised medical condition that can arise from a number of factors. For the physiological issues in this case see my post at #132 above.
There was no issue that they were both highly qualified to act as experts and give the evidence/opinions they did.
A number of people have remarked that the best/most expensive lawyers won. Whilst extremely flattering, the prosecution lawyers are both highly respected, capable barristers who could only act with the hand they were dealt. They dealt with the case doggedly and professionally and I retain nothing but the highest respect for them. They suffered from an inherent lack of aviation knowledge and more importantly a lack of such amongst some of the people who were advising them. As a result the prosecution proceeded on a number of false assumptions including a number of criticisms of AH's previous flying that they subsequently had to abandon. There were further criticisms that they had to withdraw before ever getting to the jury as a result of representations we made to the prosecution and the trial judge.
Both sides were on publicly funded rates and I expect paid pretty much the same.
PhD, MSc, BEd(Hons), CErgHF, MIEHF, FRAeS, Editor and Principal Author CAP737 (CAA Human Performance Factors Manual)
The qualifications of the defence principal medical expert were
BSc, PhD, MB ChB, DAvMED, MRAeS, FFOM, ASCAB, Principal Medical Advisor QinetiQ
CI is a recognised medical condition that can arise from a number of factors. For the physiological issues in this case see my post at #132 above.
There was no issue that they were both highly qualified to act as experts and give the evidence/opinions they did.
A number of people have remarked that the best/most expensive lawyers won. Whilst extremely flattering, the prosecution lawyers are both highly respected, capable barristers who could only act with the hand they were dealt. They dealt with the case doggedly and professionally and I retain nothing but the highest respect for them. They suffered from an inherent lack of aviation knowledge and more importantly a lack of such amongst some of the people who were advising them. As a result the prosecution proceeded on a number of false assumptions including a number of criticisms of AH's previous flying that they subsequently had to abandon. There were further criticisms that they had to withdraw before ever getting to the jury as a result of representations we made to the prosecution and the trial judge.
Both sides were on publicly funded rates and I expect paid pretty much the same.
As an aside, I did not mean to give the impression that I was doubting his ability to act as an expert witness.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quirks of the justice system require that the jury makes a judgement purely on the evidence laid before them. Many "facts", opinions and matters of public record can be suppressed during a court hearing following various legal precedents. Based on the evidence admitted, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and that is legally the end of the matter.
Pilots with aerobatic experience will have arrived at their own judgement as to what happened but they along with all the other PPRuNe readers are in possession of information and/or experience that was not made available to the jury. We are all guilty of bad decision making at times. Mostly we don't end up being called to account for a moments madness and it gets filed away in the don't do that again folder.
Pilots with aerobatic experience will have arrived at their own judgement as to what happened but they along with all the other PPRuNe readers are in possession of information and/or experience that was not made available to the jury. We are all guilty of bad decision making at times. Mostly we don't end up being called to account for a moments madness and it gets filed away in the don't do that again folder.
A criminal trial and an air accident investigation are two very different things. If the Hunter had crashed in a field and no-one was killed, would CI have even been mentioned? Probably not.
just another jocky - You'll find even more on Steve Jarvis at Steve | Jarvis Bagshaw Ltd
G0ULI - you said
Sorry but that's just not true. Many people gave evidence who have plenty of experience of fast jets, display flying in all its aspects, and the rest. In particular, there were two prosecution expert witnesses, and one defence expert witness, with oodles of time on fast jets - on ops as well as in displays. And the judge was meticulous in ensuring that all witnesses spoke clearly and without technical jargon, and making sure that the jury understood.
airsound
G0ULI - you said
PPRuNe readers are in possession of information and/or experience that was not made available to the jury
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 8th Aug 2019 at 14:31. Reason: adding defence witness
Where I think the discussion has a valid purpose, and maybe needs to carry on in a differently-titled thread without specific reference to AH, is on the implications for medical standards and screening, AvMed training for AMOs and aircrew, flying supervision, discipline and accountability. For instance what would the position be if, despite a claim of CI, a military pilot was found to be negligent in an occurrence, disciplined, and then took redress in civil law against the effect of the disciplinary action on their career? What does a claim of CI mean for their future flying career, anyway? Lots of questions to hamster wheel over...
My final thought in this thread. Many experienced aircrew, on here and in my personal acquaintance, have real-life experience of making rapid sequential and unrelated errors while flying high-performance jets, typically under some form of pressure or distraction. With no slight intended to Dr Jarvis and his impressive body of work, I do wonder whether this area would benefit from more research given that a scenario he found incredible appears quite credible to many practitioners. Improvements in reporting culture in recent years might make fast jet pilots more willing to share details of their ‘low average’ moments with HF researchers if asked on a rigorous survey (of the sort routinely done by RAFCAM for disorientation and G-LOC). Out.
Last edited by Easy Street; 8th Aug 2019 at 20:04.
We are in possession of the information that the AAIB has not seen fit to change its findings in the light of the court verdict,
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter2
Similar happened in the Hoyle case. AAIB were presented with defence evidence and invited to reconsider their report and re-investigate. AAIB declined. In the subsequent trial the jury rejected the AAIB evidence.
Similar happened in the Hoyle case. AAIB were presented with defence evidence and invited to reconsider their report and re-investigate. AAIB declined. In the subsequent trial the jury rejected the AAIB evidence.
