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, 13:05
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Rochelle.
Age: 44
Posts: 487
Not specifically regarding this issue but I would remind that a criminal trial requires a jury to convict or acquit on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high bar for the prosecution to overcome. A civil trial (or lawsuit) on the other hand, requires a verdict on the balance of probability - a very different proposition.
clareprop is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:10
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Worth thinking about:
Any pilot at any time can find him/herself involved in an aircraft accident whether they made a mistake or not.
In this age such an event could lead to any of us having to defend ourselves in court, whether responsible for the event or not.
Whether you believe so or not, you could be next.

Without commenting on the facts of this case, this was a masterclass in defending oneself.
Keep your mouth firmly closed outside of court, appear contrite, disappear as far as possible,

And let the lawyers do all the talking.
Albert Driver is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:19
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,911
I find this odd, from the BBC's website;

Rebecca Smith from Irwin Mitchell lawyers, which represents 17 people affected by the crash, including some bereaved families and of the injured, said: "Attention will now to turn to the inquest where the entirety of the Shoreham Airshow tragedy can be fully examined."
This implies details were withheld, or IM were prevented from presenting them. Has the Coroner already said he will allow such evidence? And will the Health and Safety Executive pursue soemone?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:21
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cardiff
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Treble one View Post
Whilst I'm not wishing any ill to Mr Hill (who has of course the consequences of this to live with for the rest of his days), I'm very surprised at the result based on the facts of the AAIB report. I think its good news for display pilots. I'd heard some dark rumours about the consequences of a guilty verdict in this case.
I don't think its good news for display pilots at all; you will now probably see some consequences as to 'cognitive impairment during aerobatics' appear from the Campaign Against Aviation. It might have been better for future public airshows if he HAD been found guilty in the long run.

Ttfn

ivor toolbox is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:25
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 55
Posts: 50
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.
On the "nobody else involved" point: would it be reasonable for the Display Director to have observed and judged the entry to the fatal manoeuvre to have been at the "wrong height, wrong speed" and put out a STOP call?
dastocks is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:26
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 463
Just a note.

Whether right or wrong, some folks seem incensed and resentful that I'm openly stating my belief regarding this case

Your opinions would carry a little more weight if you used your names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms. BEagle you're well out of the RAF, so why not come clean?

Or is that the deal, you can say what you want and not bear any responsibility for your views?
Brian W May is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:31
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cardiff
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by dastocks View Post
On the "nobody else involved" point: would it be reasonable for the Display Director to have observed and judged the entry to the fatal manoeuvre to have been at the "wrong height, wrong speed" and put out a STOP call?
Its what the Display Director should have done maybe. But as this was the initial manoevre in the sequence, (from the radar track that was publicised after the event) would a stop message have been too late. Was he/she called as witness, haven't seen mention of it.

Ttfn
ivor toolbox is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:39
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Lost somewhere near the final frontier
Posts: 15
Anyone who knows..........

Amazing what a clever lawyer and a lay jury can come up with. Anyone who knows how to loop a Hunter safely at low level could tell you the cause of this accident, and the logical legal verdict to the charge.
SandyW is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:47
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by ivor toolbox View Post
I don't think its good news for display pilots at all; you will now probably see some consequences as to 'cognitive impairment during aerobatics' appear from the Campaign Against Aviation. It might have been better for future public airshows if he HAD been found guilty in the long run.

Ttfn
Its good news in the sense that a lot of people won't be lost to display flying-however, as you say, the CAA will get their teeth into this, and we will no doubt face more restrictions. Its funny because reading the trial reports, its seemed that the prosecution Aviation Medicine Expert had 'trumped' the defence one. In my own mind anyway.

Last edited by Treble one; 8th Mar 2019 at 14:17.
Treble one is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:49
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Rochelle.
Age: 44
Posts: 487
the logical legal verdict to the charge.
For the reason I stated above, the 'logical legal verdict' was Not Guilty because the prosecution case was not proved.
clareprop is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 13:53
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 350/3 Compton
Age: 72
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by clareprop View Post
Not specifically regarding this issue but I would remind that a criminal trial requires a jury to convict or acquit on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high bar for the prosecution to overcome. A civil trial (or lawsuit) on the other hand, requires a verdict on the balance of probability - a very different proposition.
Actually Clare, as one who has recently been pinged for jury service I can tell you that it is no longer "beyond reasonable doubt" but simply "sure". There was some discussion over the precise meaning of that. Whatever the wording, the jury has spoken and he is not guilty. As you say, it might be a different outcome in a civil court.

Mog
Mogwi is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:00
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 33
" 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. "

That is NOT what the jury decided. They decided that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the the pilot had committed gross negligence manslaughter which is a very high bar to prove far beyond establishing that Andy Hill was the primary cause of the accident.

I am not a pilot but I am responsible for safety engineering and it should be hard to establish gross negligence manslaughter because real incidents are the result of multiple failures generally by multiple parties none of whom are acting with malice. A blame culture and a safety culture are probably not compatible and I would rather have a culture in which incidents and near incidents are openly and honestly evaluated than one where people are too scared to be honest. In the real world there are many degrees of responsibility and negligence but a court decision is binary. I am concerned that what Andy Hill has said of the accident is governed by a concern about his legal position rather than supporting an effort to understand and thereby avoid similar incidents in the future.


PiggyBack is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:01
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 606
It seems to me that "justice" is similar to "democracy". A lot of people are all in favour of it until such time as the outcome is not to their liking.
763 jock is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:05
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by ericsson16 View Post
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.
tatatatata..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342

There why you can trust the BBC, they'll even tell you why
weemonkey is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:10
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 88
Regarding the question of whether there should be an offence of 'causing death by dangerous flying', I seem to recall this being raised after the acquittal in 1996 of the Hercules pilot who had been charged with the manslaughter of a soldier hit whilst standing on the roof of a truck during a low flyby after a practice drop at South Cerney.

Yes, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced because it was so rarely possible to prove such a level of negligence as to make out a manslaughter charge in fatal RTAs. I'm sure a corresponding offence could be created for aviation (and perhaps other forms of transport) but it would be a case of finding parliamentary time and will.
Satellite_Driver is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:17
  #76 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by tucumseh View Post
I find this odd, from the BBC's website;



This implies details were withheld, or IM were prevented from presenting them. Has the Coroner already said he will allow such evidence? And will the Health and Safety Executive pursue soemone?
You might be overthinking that. I doubt there is suppression.

This trial examines the case as brought against and defended by Mr Hill.

An inquest can examine other circumstances which weren't necessarily directly relevant to Mr Hill's conduct, but are part of the background context, such as airworthiness standards, organisational aspects, including display authorisations, and so on.

​​​​​​For instance, it would hardly be relevant to whether someone is allegedly acting negligently that they were acting in accordance with procedures they were permitted, and laid down by someone else. Thus not at this trial, by don't be surprised if the inquest makes recommendations about future air displays.

aox is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:26
  #77 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
Perhaps if Air Marshall’s Wratten and Day had been on the jury we’d have a different result.

My emotional response is that the verdict is wrong. Andy Hill is responsible for these deaths and that most were entirely innocent bystanders makes one bay for blood. But the law is rightly about facts and not emotions.

Having been a small part of the campaign to clear the Chinook pilots one has to look at why the result is what it is.

I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’

Was there a lesser, more proveable, charge which could have been brought? I don’t know. Over to the lawyers.

The charge is is all important. A young man some years ago managed to blag his way into flying a commercial helicopter with only a PPL and no type rating. The CAA prosecuted under the charge of ‘Obtaining pecunery advantage by deception’.

He was never paid, so the case collapsed. An easy day in court for our own ‘Flying Lawyer’.

And no! It wasn’t me.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:29
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wolvrhampton, UK
Posts: 3
G-LOC

Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'


Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!
gpbeck is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:32
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 1
Having just watched [and then rewatched] the coverage of the acquitted words on the steps of the court,
I am driven towards those wise words of "if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't"

So I wont.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:33
  #80 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by gpbeck View Post
Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'


Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!
Must have gone sick during the North Luffenham course!!!!!
Arkroyal 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.