Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
It's sad to hear these tales of the AAIB. I speak regularly to a retired senior engineering inspector, who is at pains to point out that (similar to MoD BoIs/SIs) what the public and courts see is seldom what the inspectors write. In both cases there is often a 'political' overrule. For example, the Chinook ZA721 and ZD576 reports seem very odd, until one reads the originals and views images that were removed. It is entirely possible the original inspectors' reports (plural, and they don't necessarily see each other's) from Shoreham bring out many of the issues the final report omits. Perhaps the AAIB headshed, or their bosses, don't want it revisited; but the inspectors do.
G0ULI - you said
Quote:PPRuNe readers are in possession of information and/or experience that was not made available to the jury
airsound
I would like to add a caveat to what you have said. The expert witnesses presented aspects of their knowledge to the jury in response to the questions from the counsels. They have considerably more knowledge than that which was presented but they were not asked to, nor able to, pass that on to the jury. Similarly, some PPRuNers have knowledge that was not presented to the jury.
Leaving aside the tragic circumstances of the Shoreham accident, it has opened up discussion regarding the potential for cognitive impairment due to sustained low g manoeuvres. I most certainly had never heard this discussed before this trial and have never heard of any other incident that was attributed to such a phenomenon. I wonder if any other PPRuNers had ever heard of this prior to the Shoreham trial? To put my knowledge into context, I was one of the facilitators delivering the high onset rate g training to UK military pilots after this training was introduced following the Red Arrows Bournemouth accident and it was not included in the training package. Similarly, it was not covered during RAF centrifuge training. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any of the AAIB investigators were aware of this at the time that they published their report.
Some of my assumptions above may not be valid but I am interested to know if anyone did know about this phenomenon before January this year.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
LOMCEVAK,
I agree with all that you say. I do, however, consider that maybe we all suffer from Cognitive Impairment CI from time to time in every day life and yet we are not aware of it . The condition is known as not concentrating on a task, allowing ones mind to wonder, being too familiar with a situation and so becoming complacent. One would like to believe that a fast jet pilot, every time he strapped into a jet, would NOT suffer from any of these failings. If a pilot of a high performance jet does not maintain the required mental approach he/she should not be there.
I and many others, (maybe yourself included), believe that the lawyers played the game in the AH trial. If the judge had fully understood the personal attributes required to be a professional, successful and safe low level jet aeros pilot the trial would have been conducted in a different way. The expert witnesses would have been requested to explain in detail to the jury the discipline and professionalism required to perform low level areos safely.
To my mind CI is yet another modern day, made up ailment to make an excuse for human failings. We all think that we know what happened in the AH accident. Many of us will have been in similar incidents and only by luck walked away unscathed. We do, however, accept our personal failings and try to learn from them.
I know that what I have written is contentious but IMHO AH should accept full responsibility for his actions.
I agree with all that you say. I do, however, consider that maybe we all suffer from Cognitive Impairment CI from time to time in every day life and yet we are not aware of it . The condition is known as not concentrating on a task, allowing ones mind to wonder, being too familiar with a situation and so becoming complacent. One would like to believe that a fast jet pilot, every time he strapped into a jet, would NOT suffer from any of these failings. If a pilot of a high performance jet does not maintain the required mental approach he/she should not be there.
I and many others, (maybe yourself included), believe that the lawyers played the game in the AH trial. If the judge had fully understood the personal attributes required to be a professional, successful and safe low level jet aeros pilot the trial would have been conducted in a different way. The expert witnesses would have been requested to explain in detail to the jury the discipline and professionalism required to perform low level areos safely.
To my mind CI is yet another modern day, made up ailment to make an excuse for human failings. We all think that we know what happened in the AH accident. Many of us will have been in similar incidents and only by luck walked away unscathed. We do, however, accept our personal failings and try to learn from them.
I know that what I have written is contentious but IMHO AH should accept full responsibility for his actions.
LOMCEVAK,
I agree with all that you say. I do, however, consider that maybe we all suffer from Cognitive Impairment CI from time to time in every day life and yet we are not aware of it . The condition is known as not concentrating on a task, allowing ones mind to wonder, being too familiar with a situation and so becoming complacent. One would like to believe that a fast jet pilot, every time he strapped into a jet, would NOT suffer from any of these failings. If a pilot of a high performance jet does not maintain the required mental approach he/she should not be there.
I and many others, (maybe yourself included), believe that the lawyers played the game in the AH trial. If the judge had fully understood the personal attributes required to be a professional, successful and safe low level jet aeros pilot the trial would have been conducted in a different way. The expert witnesses would have been requested to explain in detail to the jury the discipline and professionalism required to perform low level areos safely.
To my mind CI is yet another modern day, made up ailment to make an excuse for human failings. We all think that we know what happened in the AH accident. Many of us will have been in similar incidents and only by luck walked away unscathed. We do, however, accept our personal failings and try to learn from them.
I know that what I have written is contentious but IMHO AH should accept full responsibility for his actions.
I agree with all that you say. I do, however, consider that maybe we all suffer from Cognitive Impairment CI from time to time in every day life and yet we are not aware of it . The condition is known as not concentrating on a task, allowing ones mind to wonder, being too familiar with a situation and so becoming complacent. One would like to believe that a fast jet pilot, every time he strapped into a jet, would NOT suffer from any of these failings. If a pilot of a high performance jet does not maintain the required mental approach he/she should not be there.
I and many others, (maybe yourself included), believe that the lawyers played the game in the AH trial. If the judge had fully understood the personal attributes required to be a professional, successful and safe low level jet aeros pilot the trial would have been conducted in a different way. The expert witnesses would have been requested to explain in detail to the jury the discipline and professionalism required to perform low level areos safely.
To my mind CI is yet another modern day, made up ailment to make an excuse for human failings. We all think that we know what happened in the AH accident. Many of us will have been in similar incidents and only by luck walked away unscathed. We do, however, accept our personal failings and try to learn from them.
I know that what I have written is contentious but IMHO AH should accept full responsibility for his actions.
CG
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dominator2
You are wrong on a number of levels. Before posting did you read and hear all of the medical evidence? No? Did you read and hear all of the evidence given by the expert witnesses as to what was required of a professional, successful and safe low level jet aeros pilot? No? What makes you say that the judge did not fully understand the attributes required? What makes you say that the witnesses were not asked to explain the discipline and professionalism required to perform low level aeros safely?
As you say "We all think we know..." but that's a long way from actually knowing, based on all of the evidence available to the judge and the jury
I and many others, (maybe yourself included), believe that the lawyers played the game in the AH trial. If the judge had fully understood the personal attributes required to be a professional, successful and safe low level jet aeros pilot the trial would have been conducted in a different way. The expert witnesses would have been requested to explain in detail to the jury the discipline and professionalism required to perform low level areos safely.
As you say "We all think we know..." but that's a long way from actually knowing, based on all of the evidence available to the judge and the jury
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 84
Posts: 159
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post is # 505 and despite all the assumptions and suggestions made, I remain completely puzzled as to who or what killed the innocent people on the ground. The trial in my opinion only clouded this issue further, I pray that when finally the Inquest takes place we will discover the truth and those killed can RIP.
To my mind CI is yet another modern day, made up ailment to make an excuse for human failings
However, I have been to at least 4 Aviation Medicine courses since 2006, with the last being in 2015, run by the military of two different countries (including the RAF) and until this case has not heard of it in an aviation context. Just saying....
Cognitive Impairment is a real thing.
I have suffered from it myself on many occasions.
However, when I tried to use it as an excuse for my piss poor performance, my boss insisted that in fact, I had simply made a mess of what I was doing because I wasn't paying attention/ trying hard enough/ was thinking about something else/ forgotten what I was supposed to do..etc.
CI my ass.
AH clearly made a balls of the manoeuver, probably because he thought for a moment he was in the JP.
Whether it was confusion with his other type, or something else though, isn't the issue.
He simply made a mess of the manoeuvre, and as the aircraft Captain he should fess up and admit his mistake- as we all have to do from time to time.
I have suffered from it myself on many occasions.
However, when I tried to use it as an excuse for my piss poor performance, my boss insisted that in fact, I had simply made a mess of what I was doing because I wasn't paying attention/ trying hard enough/ was thinking about something else/ forgotten what I was supposed to do..etc.
CI my ass.
AH clearly made a balls of the manoeuver, probably because he thought for a moment he was in the JP.
Whether it was confusion with his other type, or something else though, isn't the issue.
He simply made a mess of the manoeuvre, and as the aircraft Captain he should fess up and admit his mistake- as we all have to do from time to time.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 73
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that too many of the people posting here are conflating (both wilfully and accidentally) 'Justice' and 'The Law', when we all know they are VERY different things.
As someone who watched the defence’s comprehensive demolition of the prosecution case in the Old Bailey trial, and also someone who heard evidence from several prosecution witnesses that seemed to support the defence case, I would like to agree with everything Legalapproach says at post #505 above.
On the question of the existence or otherwise of CI in an aviation context, this is my understanding, which I hope might be helpful. I should stress that I am no expert on the subject.
Cognitive Impairment (CI)
CI is a not a medical condition - it is a symptom of one or more medical conditions.
Most, if not all, professional pilots are aware of CI, since it is the main symptom of altitude hypoxia, even if they have not heard the term.
Other causes of CI include alcohol (which some professional pilots are aware of!), and Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) (more medical).
At the trial, cerebral hypoxia leading to CI was covered. Cerebral hypoxia again requires an underlying cause.
Whilst CI is not, or was not, a widely familiar term, I am aware of it's being quoted in MoD records around 2003.
The Service Inquiry into the death in 2011 of Flt Lt Jon Egging, Red 4, describes CI. It points out that it can occur in the recovery phase from G-LOC, and quotes examples.
A-LOC can involve, or lead to CI, although the Old Bailey trial highlighted differing opinions and research findings on the exact definition of A-LOC in ‘G impairment’.
As I understood the trial defence, AH’s pattern of mistakes and errors bore the characteristics of CI. The defence did not identify a specific cause of that CI; that would be for accident investigators to consider. The defence did raise the possibility that it could have been G-induced.
Hope that helps
airsound
On the question of the existence or otherwise of CI in an aviation context, this is my understanding, which I hope might be helpful. I should stress that I am no expert on the subject.
Cognitive Impairment (CI)
CI is a not a medical condition - it is a symptom of one or more medical conditions.
Most, if not all, professional pilots are aware of CI, since it is the main symptom of altitude hypoxia, even if they have not heard the term.
Other causes of CI include alcohol (which some professional pilots are aware of!), and Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) (more medical).
At the trial, cerebral hypoxia leading to CI was covered. Cerebral hypoxia again requires an underlying cause.
Whilst CI is not, or was not, a widely familiar term, I am aware of it's being quoted in MoD records around 2003.
The Service Inquiry into the death in 2011 of Flt Lt Jon Egging, Red 4, describes CI. It points out that it can occur in the recovery phase from G-LOC, and quotes examples.
A-LOC can involve, or lead to CI, although the Old Bailey trial highlighted differing opinions and research findings on the exact definition of A-LOC in ‘G impairment’.
As I understood the trial defence, AH’s pattern of mistakes and errors bore the characteristics of CI. The defence did not identify a specific cause of that CI; that would be for accident investigators to consider. The defence did raise the possibility that it could have been G-induced.
Hope that helps
airsound
More from the AAIB: https://assets.publishing.service.go...ment_02-20.pdf
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words - "We still have no idea ?" 
Last edited by ExSimGuy; 19th Dec 2019 at 12:47.
In other words, the AAIB have just used 31 pages to stick two fingers up at Steve Jarvis.....
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 84
Posts: 159
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DODGYOLDFART, you ask
. But the AAIB specifically says (on page 10 of the supplement)
So presumably not
airsound
had this new AAIB evidence been available at the trial would it have had a significant affect upon the verdict?
None of the information was assessed to be new and significant evidence
airsound
The evidence wasn’t significant to the AAIB because it didn’t cast doubt on the AAIB findings. It doesn’t follow that the same would have been true in court, where the findings were different. In particular, the weight of aeromedical opinion against CI might have made a difference.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 84
Posts: 159
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence wasn’t significant to the AAIB because it didn’t cast doubt on the AAIB findings. It doesn’t follow that the same would have been true in court, where the findings were different. In particular, the weight of aeromedical opinion against CI might have made a difference.
