Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
All valid points but if Mr Hill had ploughed into this junction in a lorry, at the wrong speed and in the wrong lane, we would not bat an eyelid at the thought of him being prosecuted and found guilty. He was not found guilty of course because of a new medical phenomena that nobody had heard of before, or since.
A juxtaposition
AH’s defence team went to great lengths at his criminal trial to have him found not guilty because nobody could prove that cognitive impairment had not happened. The coroner stated that there was no evidence of impairment due to G forces. That is a very interesting clash of legal standpoints.
I realise it is probably too late for anything else to happen now but if I were a family member of the deceased I would still not feel that justice has been done.
We could argue about this until our dying days but the bottom line is that an inexperienced and under qualified individual was doing low level aerobatics at a venue that was unsuitable (at least unsuitable for an inexperienced and under qualified pilot).
I was not at the trial and I have not been through everything with a fine toothed comb but I have watched the videos in the public domain. That aircraft was being flown until impact.
I understand that there are those that still wish to defend AH and all credit to you. But there are those of us that have enough experience of flying jets to still know that a clever legal defence cannot change facts.
BV
I realise it is probably too late for anything else to happen now but if I were a family member of the deceased I would still not feel that justice has been done.
We could argue about this until our dying days but the bottom line is that an inexperienced and under qualified individual was doing low level aerobatics at a venue that was unsuitable (at least unsuitable for an inexperienced and under qualified pilot).
I was not at the trial and I have not been through everything with a fine toothed comb but I have watched the videos in the public domain. That aircraft was being flown until impact.
I understand that there are those that still wish to defend AH and all credit to you. But there are those of us that have enough experience of flying jets to still know that a clever legal defence cannot change facts.
BV
AH’s defence team went to great lengths at his criminal trial to have him found not guilty because nobody could prove that cognitive impairment had not happened. The coroner stated that there was no evidence of impairment due to G forces. That is a very interesting clash of legal standpoints.
I realise it is probably too late for anything else to happen now but if I were a family member of the deceased I would still not feel that justice has been done.
We could argue about this until our dying days but the bottom line is that an inexperienced and under qualified individual was doing low level aerobatics at a venue that was unsuitable (at least unsuitable for an inexperienced and under qualified pilot).
I was not at the trial and I have not been through everything with a fine toothed comb but I have watched the videos in the public domain. That aircraft was being flown until impact.
I understand that there are those that still wish to defend AH and all credit to you. But there are those of us that have enough experience of flying jets to still know that a clever legal defence cannot change facts.
BV
I realise it is probably too late for anything else to happen now but if I were a family member of the deceased I would still not feel that justice has been done.
We could argue about this until our dying days but the bottom line is that an inexperienced and under qualified individual was doing low level aerobatics at a venue that was unsuitable (at least unsuitable for an inexperienced and under qualified pilot).
I was not at the trial and I have not been through everything with a fine toothed comb but I have watched the videos in the public domain. That aircraft was being flown until impact.
I understand that there are those that still wish to defend AH and all credit to you. But there are those of us that have enough experience of flying jets to still know that a clever legal defence cannot change facts.
BV
The flaw with the height of the bar we have fixed in place before someone can be convicted is that some of the guilty walk free. I think we all know this and see this every day in our courts, even if most cases don't make the headlines as this one did. Nothing that Andrew Hill's defence team did was ruled as being wrong or unlawful: had it been, the judge could have intervened to resolve any points of law involved (with the jury out of the court whilst this happened). The judge was content for the evidence of impairment to be heard, and that evidence most probably swung the verdict.
I'm sure there are lots of detailed legal points surrounding both the competence of expert witnesses and whether an expert witness may be biased.
The question this case raises is whether the defence expert witness was competent. My instinctive feeling is that he may have been a very good doctor, and well-qualified, but that he lacked experience of aero-medicine, and that may not have been made clear to the jury.
Folks - we're going back to the original arguments. I don't think any one has changed their minds - whatever conclusion you, personally came to won't chnage
I suggest we don't refight the same issues at enormous length.
I suggest we don't refight the same issues at enormous length.
Asturias
On the contrary. I think we’re all a little more free to say what we really think now. That luxury was not afforded to us previously.
While I’m on the subject don’t you think it’s a bit weird that someone who, by his own admission, is neither ex or current military nor an aviator would hang about in this forum trying to discourage chat about a subject of great interest to ex and current military aviators and non aviators alike?
Or should this forum fully degrade into somewhere to discuss BBQs and nothing else?
BV
While I’m on the subject don’t you think it’s a bit weird that someone who, by his own admission, is neither ex or current military nor an aviator would hang about in this forum trying to discourage chat about a subject of great interest to ex and current military aviators and non aviators alike?
Or should this forum fully degrade into somewhere to discuss BBQs and nothing else?
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 21st Dec 2022 at 11:27.
On the contrary. I think we’re all a little more free to say what we really think now. That luxury was not afforded to us previously.
While I’m on the subject don’t you think it’s a bit weird that someone who, by his own admission, is neither ex or current military nor an aviator would hang about in this forum trying to discourage chat about a subject of great interest to ex and current military aviators and non aviators alike?
Or should this forum fully degrade into somewhere to discuss BBQs and nothing else?
BV
While I’m on the subject don’t you think it’s a bit weird that someone who, by his own admission, is neither ex or current military nor an aviator would hang about in this forum trying to discourage chat about a subject of great interest to ex and current military aviators and non aviators alike?
Or should this forum fully degrade into somewhere to discuss BBQs and nothing else?
BV
The Coroner is obliged to rule on what, in her opinion was the underlying cause or causes. That she has now done.
This gives some clarity to the victims' relatives and friends, unlike the rather poorly handled criminal trial. This verdict seems to accord with the views of quite a number of people with appropriate & relevant aviation experience, sadly.
It is, I think, quite feasible that civil prosecution(s) of Mr Hill could follow, perhaps either to try to get fuller acknowledgement from him or for damages. Not necessarily very useful, but possible.
This gives some clarity to the victims' relatives and friends, unlike the rather poorly handled criminal trial. This verdict seems to accord with the views of quite a number of people with appropriate & relevant aviation experience, sadly.
It is, I think, quite feasible that civil prosecution(s) of Mr Hill could follow, perhaps either to try to get fuller acknowledgement from him or for damages. Not necessarily very useful, but possible.
Although the difference in our industry between safety and legal process is narrowing (society in general); discussions should avoid intermixing the views.
One view learns, or should learn; the other punishes, then claims to have learnt.
One view learns, or should learn; the other punishes, then claims to have learnt.
The 'beyond reasonable doubt' factor was the key to the accquital in the criminal trial of course. Whether the supposed cognitive impairment met that criteria can certainly be argued, but obviously the jury thought so.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North of East, South of West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The legal process has had its say whether you agree with the outcome or not. Only AH may have the full facts, regardless he will have to live with events of the day for the remainder of his time.
As a non-pilot I am in no position to comment on airmanship; and won’t, except to repeat something said before, that the pilot fully admitted he screwed up, but didn’t know why. Hence his defence, which I can’t comment on either.
But there is no way the Coroner conducted a thorough investigation. She was hidebound by the restrictive High Court ruling regarding the AAIB report, making the scope of her Inquest very narrow. She could take no account of the prior negligence set out in the report. There is no ‘balance’ to her ‘balance of probabilities’ test, as mitigating evidence was not allowed to be heard. Hers is judicial truth, not the actual truth. One needs the latter to prevent recurrence, which is meant to be one of her primary aims.
As an engineer I’d like to see a comprehensive Inquiry into why the pilot was given an aircraft that had no valid airworthiness or serviceability certification, and was not fit for purpose. Any engineer reading the AAIB report will tell you one thing. That aircraft should not have been flying. The state of the fuel pump diaphragm alone tells you that.
Perhaps the RAF (not MoD) could have offered as a witness a member of its Hunter Design Authority team? Sarcastic? Yes. But fundamental. What complete **** allowed that premise through the certification process?
But there is no way the Coroner conducted a thorough investigation. She was hidebound by the restrictive High Court ruling regarding the AAIB report, making the scope of her Inquest very narrow. She could take no account of the prior negligence set out in the report. There is no ‘balance’ to her ‘balance of probabilities’ test, as mitigating evidence was not allowed to be heard. Hers is judicial truth, not the actual truth. One needs the latter to prevent recurrence, which is meant to be one of her primary aims.
As an engineer I’d like to see a comprehensive Inquiry into why the pilot was given an aircraft that had no valid airworthiness or serviceability certification, and was not fit for purpose. Any engineer reading the AAIB report will tell you one thing. That aircraft should not have been flying. The state of the fuel pump diaphragm alone tells you that.
Perhaps the RAF (not MoD) could have offered as a witness a member of its Hunter Design Authority team? Sarcastic? Yes. But fundamental. What complete **** allowed that premise through the certification process?
As a non-pilot I am in no position to comment on airmanship; and won’t, except to repeat something said before, that the pilot fully admitted he screwed up, but didn’t know why. Hence his defence, which I can’t comment on either.
But there is no way the Coroner conducted a thorough investigation. She was hidebound by the restrictive High Court ruling regarding the AAIB report, making the scope of her Inquest very narrow. She could take no account of the prior negligence set out in the report. There is no ‘balance’ to her ‘balance of probabilities’ test, as mitigating evidence was not allowed to be heard. Hers is judicial truth, not the actual truth. One needs the latter to prevent recurrence, which is meant to be one of her primary aims.
But there is no way the Coroner conducted a thorough investigation. She was hidebound by the restrictive High Court ruling regarding the AAIB report, making the scope of her Inquest very narrow. She could take no account of the prior negligence set out in the report. There is no ‘balance’ to her ‘balance of probabilities’ test, as mitigating evidence was not allowed to be heard. Hers is judicial truth, not the actual truth. One needs the latter to prevent recurrence, which is meant to be one of her primary aims.
The criminal trial may not have been the verdict that many biased by news snippets and rumour wanted to hear but 'poorly handled' it was not. I get it, we want someone to pin all the blame for a tragedy, that is human nature, and the pilot who ultimately caused the crash is the obvious person. This coroner's verdict saves the complexity of investigating those that set up an unsafe environment for which only a public enquiry could have the time and resources to explore.
However, If you mean 'poorly handled' is listening to a broad range of experts and witnesses under cross-examination by the UK's best QCs in front of an impartial judge and jury then I would suggest you views of the criminal trial is bizarrely warped. Did this coroner seek a broad range of SMEs with different analyses and opinions and did she, or the lawyers represented, cross examine them? Did she only seek those experts who had a purpose to hide their own (or their organisation's) deficiencies which set up the inevitable tragedy? I don't know as I've only read news snippets.
However, If you mean 'poorly handled' is listening to a broad range of experts and witnesses under cross-examination by the UK's best QCs in front of an impartial judge and jury then I would suggest you views of the criminal trial is bizarrely warped. Did this coroner seek a broad range of SMEs with different analyses and opinions and did she, or the lawyers represented, cross examine them? Did she only seek those experts who had a purpose to hide their own (or their organisation's) deficiencies which set up the inevitable tragedy? I don't know as I've only read news snippets.
What I read of the trial suggested that some of the 'expert' testimony was dubious at best - and didn;t seento be challenged satisfactorily. That is all I meant. The whole thrust of the defence was flimsy, but a good (and probably expensive!) lawyer ensured that just enough doubt was sown in the minds of those concerned with making the decision. That is the job of the defence lawyer; its up to the prosecution - or the judge if felt necessary - to deal with that.
I think Bob Viking's posts sum it up well.
There may be civil claims for damages but there cannot be a "civil prosecution". Very rarely there can be a "private prosecution" but not in this case. With very few exceptions, which wouldn't apply here, you cannot be prosecuted again having been found not guilty by a jury.
Does his defence of cognitive impairment not open the door for this "defence" to be trotted out for all sorts of (thinking RTC's) scenario's now? I can't imagine the relatives have some sense of "closure".......more a sense of injustice! His very skilled defence team won........doesn't mean it's the right verdict!
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does his defence of cognitive impairment not open the door for this "defence" to be trotted out for all sorts of (thinking RTC's) scenario's now? I can't imagine the relatives have some sense of "closure".......more a sense of injustice! His very skilled defence team won........doesn't mean it's the right verdict!
.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....As an engineer I’d like to see a comprehensive Inquiry into why the pilot was given an aircraft that had no valid airworthiness or serviceability certification, and was not fit for purpose. Any engineer reading the AAIB report will tell you one thing. That aircraft should not have been flying. The state of the fuel pump diaphragm alone tells you that....
But discussing only the final act, in the face of accepted evidence the aircraft should not have flown, flies in the face of all proper investigative protocols and natural justice. As I said, the aims of the Inquest could not be met, therefore the entire process was tainted. I suppose she could have followed the lead of (for example) the previous NW Wales Coroner, by simply refusing to hold a mandatory Inquest. The Chief Coroner allowed that, so why not here? Politics I'm afraid.