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, 12:07
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 628
Brian W May - "jury that knows diddly squat about flying". What do you want then? A jury of a dozen Hunter display pilots? More likely to convict? Hardly. It is precisely because they know little about flying that they were on the jury. That's how the legal system works.
Parson is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:07
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,071
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent View Post
After all the pilot had 40 hours on type which was enough for the CAA to grant a PDA. Phew!!

That's ok, I was given PDA after little more than 7 hours on the Hunter!
just another jocky is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:11
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 645
It seems that the crux of this case was to do with 'cognitive impairment' and whether or not the pilot had suffered this during the course of the manoeuvre. This was actually one of the main points of the judges summing up.

We can take it then that the defence witness on this matter was either more convincing than the prosecution one, or that the defence team managed to instill enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So well done to the defence brief for playing the only card he had very well indeed.

Ironically, the actual flight profile flown on the day, and the errors in it highlighted by the AAIB report was almost incidental to the outcome. Strange indeed.
Treble one is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:18
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Age: 56
Posts: 9
I once heard a very senior RAF lawyer give his view that civil criminal juries were always reluctant to convict individuals practising highly complex and difficult jobs (in whatever field) of professional negligence, unless the evidence was absolutely compelling. He then said "and DG MAA (who was in the audience) never likes me telling you that, as he likes to keep you on your toes" (or words to that effect).
Mr Bollo is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:20
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Surrey
Age: 63
Posts: 103
BBC 'world at one' programme just reported that the aircraft involved was a 'Hawker Harrier' !!!!!!!!!
ex82watcher is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:22
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 978
Listening to him now, “I lost control”. Well as an uncomfortably close witness, I have to say that it was the most controlled crash I’ve ever witnessed. And, yes, I have seen more than my fair share. He was in control when he commenced too low and he was in control when he missed his first gate. He was in control when he didn’t abort then.

I suggest he does the lottery and I’d like to copy his numbers.

I fear that that a corollary of this verdict, there will be many more restrictions on displays.
effortless is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:25
  #47 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 72
Posts: 3,116
The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?
Blacksheep is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:29
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
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. ?
Beag's is obviously referring to when he was taking part in Plato's symposium... or was it Aristotle, I think you go back that far...?

The very subtle point has to be made that to be convicted the offence has to be "complete". Much has been made of slippery defence counsel but it has to be remembered that the defence has to do nothing (save challenge and probe the prosecution's case), the prosecution however has to actively prove it's case, and that involves demonstrating that the definition of the charge has been met in the presentation of evidence. Criminally Negligent Manslaughter is incredibly hard to prove for a variety of reasons, and I suspect the real philosophical debate to be had is whether the definition of the crime is too broad or narrow to have captured all of the exigent circumstances in case it were to be repeated in the future, and for the Jurisprudent, what should be the limit and extent of the law?
kbf1 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:31
  #49 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?
I believe, though I'm ready to be corrected by people more knowledgeable, that the corresponding by dangerous driving offence was instituted due to difficulties in obtaining verdicts in manslaughter cases on the roads.

As a certain other case discovered in the last year or two, there was no similar offence of ~ by dangerous cycling ...
aox is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:32
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lechlade, Glos.UK
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?
Totally agree.

However, like all those who kill because of a mistake they make (accidental or incompetence) he will have to live with that for the rest of his life.
sharpend is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:36
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,761
Originally Posted by Treble one View Post
It seems that the crux of this case was to do with 'cognitive impairment' and whether or not the pilot had suffered this during the course of the manoeuvre. This was actually one of the main points of the judges summing up.
In fact, even before the start of the trial, the judge had made it clear that the "cognitive impairment" defence could be, in effect, a stay-out-of-jail card.

At the pre-trial hearing, Mr Justice Edis said "The issue is whether Mr Hill was at fault or whether he was disabled by the G force" (the two scenarios being, by implication, mutually exclusive).

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1734...ed-by-g-force/
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:40
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Brian W May View Post
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
You don't know that. A different pilot may have made a different mistake and crashed it into the crowd potentially killing hundreds.

Mr Hill may have made a mistake and very sadly the consequences were tragic. On a different day he, or any other pilot, could have made far worse errors without injuring a hair on anybody's head.

The person who never makes a mistake never makes anything. Every time you or I get in a car there is the potential to kill somebody. That could, under some circumstances be the result of gross negligence but in the vast majority of cases it is simply the result of a mistake.

And finally, the LAW exists to ensure there is justice which is a very different thing from a lynch mob!
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:41
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 606
Whether or not one agrees with the verdict, that is how justice is served in the UK. Mr Hill has been tried and acquitted at the Old Bailey following evidence put forward by the prosecution and defence.

Our system isn't perfect, but I for one would rather be tried in the UK than anywhere else. We have to respect the decision made by the jury.
763 jock is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:44
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 57
Posts: 593
Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.

As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.

Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:44
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 77
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
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
Seems cut and dried. However, I seem to recall there were admissible evidence issues with the AAIB report and the prosecution said at the outset it would not be using it in evidence.

If my recollection is correct, the jury would not have seen the report of the impartial experts!
lightningf2a is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:49
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Journalism

Originally Posted by ex82watcher View Post
BBC 'world at one' programme just reported that the aircraft involved was a 'Hawker Harrier' !!!!!!!!!
Well if you can't trust the Beeb who can you trust? Answers on a postcard to Broadcasting House,Portland Place and Langham Place, London,W1A 1AA.
ericsson16 is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:50
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by Super VC-10 View Post
Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.

As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.

Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a conviction?
The other day when the chap who was going to Barra with bird watchers - crashed after take off - overloaded - took money off the pax - no load sheet etc etc He is due to be sentenced on 15 March.
rog747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:50
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Brian W May View Post
An utter travesty. Problem with smart lawyer and jury that knows diddly squat about flying.
Might be worth spending some time reading the media coverage of the case... it's not as black and white as you wish it to be
Ridger is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:57
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,115
For a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence, the jury had to be satisfied that Hill’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission.
The jury were not satisfied.
beardy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:00
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 7
Obviously this is the week for making all great decisions.

So its either its got to be diabolus ex machina or the victims fault for being in the vicinity of an airshow. That makes sense !

. . . . . .And the original RAF advice to bog-standard service pilots regarding looping the Hunter . er . . words to the effect . . . don't do it below 10,000 feet. There must have been a sound reason for issuing such advice . . er . . . back in the less safety conscious 1950s. One wonders whether Mr Hill came across this advice during his 40 hours (Civilian) on type. Not even a conversion course.

Maybe ex-service pilots should be restricted in their post service flying of fast-jet types to the types that they actually qualified in whilst in the services and maybe, ex-services pilots aspiring to do civilian exhibition flying of fast jets should qualify on type, before going on the air show cicruit, by doing a paid for ETPS course + type refresher.

And should an aircraft that was built in the late 1950s, and rated for 7 G turns, still be so rated today.

And should antique rebuild/conversion (Remembering this one was a conversion (F4 to T7) following an engine fire and loss of tail pipe) be allowed to do aerobatics.

By that standard the Vulcan should be still flying.

Great this joined-up government.

N.

Last edited by NAROBS; 8th Mar 2019 at 13:23.
NAROBS 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.