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, 14:33
  #81 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 67
Posts: 1,153
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  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:38
  #82 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 157
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!
Good question, and the prosecution has a chance to ask it, in cross examination or redirect, as applicable.

(I haven't read the proceedings to find out)
aox is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:44
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 607
This is a direct report from the BBC regarding the Judge summing up to the Jury.

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight.

"You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said.

"It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."

How can you PROVE that Cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot? I suggest that the Jury had no choice to find Mr Hill not guilty based on this direction from the Judge.

Whether this direction was correct in legal terms, then I will leave it to m'learned friends to decide.

Summing up from Prosecution/Defence Barristers below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415

Defence Aviation Med expert below;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
Treble one is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:45
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto
Age: 54
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
From BBC news-
Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.
Low and slow going into the fatal maneuver and continuing with it. How is that not negligent?
I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career?
standbykid is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:46
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Arkroyal,

"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?’"

Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.
ASRAAMTOO is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:49
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by unmanned_droid View Post
Yes, it's interesting that the term accident has been replaced with incident in many areas of law enforcement.
Yes because it takes away responsibility.
The Nip is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 14:52
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 26
The prosecution failed.

The prosecution failed in several ways.

it attempted to cast AH as a cavalier, negligent, and over-confident pilot. It adduced as evidence to upport this view an overflight of the M11 at less than 500 feet. Wrong - the limit was 200 feet. He crossed the crowd line at Duxford. Again wrong, it wasn’t where the prosecution witness said it was. Flying a dangerous manoeuvre at Southport and had to be told to stop. Wrong. He fell out of a Derry turn in poor visibility and had knocked off before the stop call. He overflew Lancing College in 2014. Wrong. The supposed CAM expert on G-Force failed some basic calculations, as did the star prosecution witness.

the Defence Barrister maybe very good, but he was left with several open goals. The Prosecution Barrister was clearly flailing around by the time he got to summing up, and managed several factual inaccuracies.

Further, there may well be problems with the conduct of air shows, the issuing of DA’s etc, but those are not AH’s fault. He complied with the rules and requirements as they were on the day.

Personally I cannot imagine that a pilot of this level of ability and experience would commit to a manoeuvre that clearly was going to end in tragedy, for himself and others, if he was in command of his faculties. I believe the jury came to the correct verdict.

Caramba



Caramba is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 15:17
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kent
Posts: 12
So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?

IMHO it should be NO.

He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.
michaelbinary is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 15:27
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by michaelbinary View Post
So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?

IMHO it should be NO.

He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.
It appears tha AH is a bit of a whizz with the design of digital Flight manuals/systems from some reports today. Perhaps thats a way forward for him now within the industry?

Its inconceiveable, surely, that AH could return as a commercial or display pilot in the circumstances? There has to be a doubt over his medical fitness to perform the role given the trial verdict, and the reason for the acquital. And the announcement from the front to passengers 'welcome to BA flight XXXX, this is your captain, Andy Hill speaking', may not go down especially well with the passengers?
Treble one is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 15:30
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 241
Echo Romeo is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 15:48
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,590
As a reasonably well-informed layman I am surprised by the verdict.

Clearly it has sharply divided those qualified by experience and training to comment.

It is therefore hardly surprising that a jury of laypersons decided that the prosecution had not made its case.

As an aside, has this thread established a Forum record of posts per hour thus far?
langleybaston is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 15:55
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 198
Fascinating vid ER, of a much missed aviator, that just serves to remind what a demanding and unforgiving environment FJ display flying is.

I'll say it again, for the last time, the majority of fault for the tragedy that day lay not with AH but with the overly permissive rules and regs and lax governance and oversight. It was an accident waiting to happen - the Gnat at Carfest a few weeks before was a timely reminder which went largely ignored as Joe public escaped, by pure luck, from that one.
andrewn is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 16:03
  #93 (permalink)  


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: 687
It was a really awful day for all of those concerned, the victims on the ground and their friends/family, the pilot, the owners of the aircraft, and for Andy, who has had the results of the event on his mind ever since he came-to in the hospital some time later and heard of all of the innocent deaths. The acquittal will never stop him thinking back to the day, any more than those left behind will stop remembering the victims. My heart goes out to all concerned.
As for whether (as someone asked) he will now go back to his "day job" with his old airline -- Will the company want to return someone who could need to put out a cabin announcement "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain AH speaking . . ." ? How would he feel about stepping into any cockpit ever again?
My view is that Andy has suffered enough and I'm glad that this step is no longer hanging over his head and I pray that he will recover (mentally) soon.
Brian May -- .I'm not hiding behind my "Forum Name"; I'm Stu Nutt (really!) and I was a flight sim engineer with Singer-Link-Miles and a sim maintenance engineer at Cranebank (LHR) quite a few years ago. Some of the older BA old-timers may recognise my name.
ExSimGuy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 16:08
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 54
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by ivor toolbox View Post
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
According to this report he was:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1736...airshow-stunt/

The court also heard that none of the airshow’s flying committee - which organised and oversaw the event - sent out a “stop, stop, stop call” to bring Hill’s display to a halt.

Rodney Dean, one of the organisers responsible for the safety of displays at the show, known as the flying display director (FDD), said he did not see the crash because he was talking to pilots in another part of the airfield.

Giving evidence, he said: “I saw the (Hawker) Hunter arrive. I saw it do its flight past which didn’t concern me at all.”

He said he did not see or hear the crash but as soon as he learned about it over the radio system he returned to the area, adding that it was “immediately” clear after seeing smoke that it was a “major disaster”.

dastocks is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 16:16
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by standbykid View Post
Low and slow going into the fatal maneuver and continuing with it. How is that not negligent?
I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career?
'Flying a cargo plane full of rubber dogsh*t out of Hong Kong'? Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 17:07
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 34
Looks like AH had Bob Massingbird working the defence for him:

"Remember the case of the Bloody Knife? A man was found next to a murdered body, he had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police arrived he said, “I’m glad I killed the bastard.” Massingbird not only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year’s Honors list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood washed out of his jacket." (Credit Richard Curtis and Ben Elton)

I personally hope AH gets his DA back - I'd go and watch him display. But only at seafront venues.....��
Homelover is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 17:17
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 58
Posts: 1,157
Just been listening to a criminal defence lawyer, not sure if it was AH's or not, but he was damning air shows, well certainly aerobatics displays, claiming the verdict, which exonerated AH, was evidence that this form of entertainment, a phrase he said he use advisedly, could not go on and that felt this would now be the case. I couldn't help feeling he wasn't a fan from he outset. But then if he defended AH, and accepting that justice is blind, would he have taken up the cudgels if he felt he couldn't remain impartial defending an aerobatics display pilot?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 17:32
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Brian W May View Post
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?
Oh come on... How many people on here do not know Beagle's real name?

He's hardly hiding is he?
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 17:34
  #99 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 67
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by ASRAAMTOO View Post
Arkroyal,

"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?’"

Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.
Ok. That’s a fair point. But maybe the prosecution lawyer might have at least read it and used its contents to help him shape his questions
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 17:37
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Oh come on... How many people on here do not know Beagle's real name?

He's hardly hiding is he?
I don’t, but I’m guessing Diplodocus or Brontosaurus?
Homelover is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.