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 13th Feb 2023, 13:32
  #981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 257
Received 33 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
Nailed it.
actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..
dagenham is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2023, 15:04
  #982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 650
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by dagenham
actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..
I'm at a loss. Your post has nothing to do with Chugalug's or mine. He replied to a specific point made by someone else and was accurate, and nowhere implies "airworthiness and sign off" are the sole issues on Shoreham. By asking if causality between your 3 points has been proven, you are just repeating what he has already said and is true. I've read the accident report and it mentions all 3 but doesn't attempt to link them. That doesn't mean there is no link. It means the investigation was crap.



dervish is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 13th Feb 2023, 16:13
  #983 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 257
Received 33 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
I'm at a loss. Your post has nothing to do with Chugalug's or mine. He replied to a specific point made by someone else and was accurate, and nowhere implies "airworthiness and sign off" are the sole issues on Shoreham. By asking if causality between your 3 points has been proven, you are just repeating what he has already said and is true. I've read the accident report and it mentions all 3 but doesn't attempt to link them. That doesn't mean there is no link. It means the investigation was crap.
no argument to your last point ….
dagenham is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2023, 06:42
  #984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,753
Received 202 Likes on 65 Posts
Originally Posted by dagenham
actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..
If you run out of argument then create a false one, is that it? No-one is saying that airworthiness should be considered alone. As Dervish has pointed out, I was merely answering D2's somewhat unique idea that having signed for it a pilot is responsible for the entire state of an aircraft including its airworthiness. Unless you share his view, I cannot see that we are in anything other than violent agreement, sorry! Indeed, the thread seems to have moved on from 'lumping' everything into point 3 of your list and now accepts that all three points are interconnected as your post states. Congratulations, we are as one!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2023, 22:15
  #985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 257
Received 33 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
If you run out of argument then create a false one, is that it? No-one is saying that airworthiness should be considered alone. As Dervish has pointed out, I was merely answering D2's somewhat unique idea that having signed for it a pilot is responsible for the entire state of an aircraft including its airworthiness. Unless you share his view, I cannot see that we are in anything other than violent agreement, sorry! Indeed, the thread seems to have moved on from 'lumping' everything into point 3 of your list and now accepts that all three points are interconnected as your post states. Congratulations, we are as one!
chug I will now leave this mortal coil happy 😊
dagenham is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2023, 18:08
  #986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-65779379
Mike51 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2023, 07:14
  #987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 296
Received 29 Likes on 16 Posts
In many ways, for those most immediately involved in this case, this might be for the best, as no verdicts or judgements can alter what happened and its consequences on their lives. For those wondering about civil actions by the families, I suspect the terms of their compensation payments from the insurers will preclude this.
As for the larger issues, it would appear that the band plays on till the next time. All in all a very poor advert for our “system” whereby such a serious catastrophe can be pored over by so many for so long, and yet we end up with so many obvious inadequacies in the process followed. We all have our prejudices and pet theories about what actually happened that day, and why: I would have expected a much more coherent and cogent conclusion to have been reached by now, and would have been at ease with it whether it fitted my hypothesis or not had I been able to accept that a rational process had been followed. Rather than rational, the adjectives which spring to mind are arcane and machiavellian.
falcon900 is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by falcon900:
Old 2nd Jun 2023, 07:36
  #988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,337
Received 351 Likes on 203 Posts
A spokesperson for the West Sussex, Brighton and Hove Coroner said: "Further to the High Court's decision to refuse permission for Mr Hill to proceed with the judicial review, Mr Hill has now advised that he will not be making a request for an oral hearing to challenge that decision."

Sarah Stewart, of law firm Stewarts, who acted for the majority of the families, said the relatives of the deceased could "continue their healing process in peace".

"The families look forward to putting this chapter firmly behind them, safe in the knowledge that their voices have finally been heard," she said.


Maybe we should lock this thread?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 15:32
  #989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Mr Hill is now trying to get his licence back, which seems a trifle insensitive to little old me. I'm surprised there hasn't been a crowd founded, class action, civil case brought against Andy Hill by the bereaved. The burden of proof is lower in a civil action, so he could very well end up with a guilty verdict against his name.

He really should just try to fade into obscurity but his latest action, and the soon too be aired documentary about him, will ensure he remains newsworthy for some time to come.
Jet_Fan is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Jet_Fan:
Old 28th Dec 2023, 15:42
  #990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 91
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Jet_Fan
Mr Hill is now trying to get his licence back, which seems a trifle insensitive to little old me. I'm surprised there hasn't been a crowd founded, class action, civil case brought against Andy Hill by the bereaved. The burden of proof is lower in a civil action, so he could very well end up with a guilty verdict against his name.

He really should just try to fade into obscurity but his latest action, and the soon too be aired documentary about him, will ensure he remains newsworthy for some time to come.
No he couldn't! You cannot be found "guilty" in a civil court. He might (or might not) be found liable in a civil capacity but as any liability would be met by his insurers it would no doubt be vigorously defended.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Dec 2023, 16:06
  #991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 650
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
No he couldn't! You cannot be found "guilty" in a civil court. He might (or might not) be found liable in a civil capacity but as any liability would be met by his insurers it would no doubt be vigorously defended.
Is there a time limit on these things? If there was a civil case is he allowed to produce the evidence that wasn't permitted in the criminal case or inquest?
dervish is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 16:09
  #992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: England
Posts: 505
Received 220 Likes on 110 Posts
He won't fly at an airshow again. As for being tried in a civil court only on a different charge I would have thought.
DogTailRed2 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 16:35
  #993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,337
Received 351 Likes on 203 Posts
This is a terrible mistake - the media will be writing as we speak and you can imagine the words they will use about him.................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 17:14
  #994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
This is a terrible mistake - the media will be writing as we speak and you can imagine the words they will use about him.................
Here's a link: https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/20...g-license-back
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 17:15
  #995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 91
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
Is there a time limit on these things? If there was a civil case is he allowed to produce the evidence that wasn't permitted in the criminal case or inquest?
Yes and yes.

Normally six years (five if it had happened in Scotland)!

Different rules apply and a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. But, just because a tragedy happened and people died doesn't automatically mean that somebody must be liable.

In effect any case would be dealt with by the pilot's and the show organiser's insurance companies. They would weigh the cost of reaching a settlement against the costs and risks of defending the case. It would have little if anything to do with "guilt" but sadly some other posters' seem unable to understand that.

In a way it is a bigger version of a roof tile coming off your house and killing a passer by. If you had unreasonably neglected your roof and it was obvious to a average person that it was dangerous you could be liable and your insurance company would defend or settle the matter more or less as they see fit. If on the other hand you had taken reasonable care of your property and it was just "one of those unfortunate things" it is unlikely there would be any liability.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Dec 2023, 17:32
  #996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
Yes and yes.

Normally six years (five if it had happened in Scotland)!

Different rules apply and a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. But, just because a tragedy happened and people died doesn't automatically mean that somebody must be liable.

In effect any case would be dealt with by the pilot's and the show organiser's insurance companies. They would weigh the cost of reaching a settlement against the costs and risks of defending the case. It would have little if anything to do with "guilt" but sadly some other posters' seem unable to understand that.
Liability, guilt, it's all the same in the court of public opinion.

Of course pilot error was found to be the cause in the official enquiry. Also, the inquest found that all the victims were unlawfully killed. There's no statute of limitations on capital crimes. And, putting aside civil action, anyone can bring a private prosecution against an individual for a criminal offence, within certain criteria.
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 17:58
  #997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 91
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Jet_Fan
Liability, guilt, it's all the same in the court of public opinion.

Of course pilot error was found to be the cause in the official enquiry. Also, the inquest found that all the victims were unlawfully killed. There's no statute of limitations on capital crimes. And, putting aside civil action, anyone can bring a private prosecution against an individual for a criminal offence, within certain criteria.
But, with very few exceptions (which do not apply here) you cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. He was acquitted unanimously by the jury so that is the end of the (criminal) matter.

So that also rules out any private prosecution. In any case, the CPS can, at their absolute discretion, take over any private prosecution then discontinue it if they so please

Any civil claim must be brought within six years.


Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 19:18
  #998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
But, with very few exceptions (which do not apply here) you cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. He was acquitted unanimously by the jury so that is the end of the (criminal) matter.

So that also rules out any private prosecution. In any case, the CPS can, at their absolute discretion, take over any private prosecution then discontinue it if they so please

Any civil claim must be brought within six years.
Six years of when? I would say from the date the criminal trial finished.

New evidence would have to emerge before a trail for the same offence could proceed. I did say within certain criteria.

The facts remain though, found liable by the official enquiry and the unlawful killing verdict of the inquest.

This isn’t over, imo.
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 20:44
  #999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Does a driver convicted of causing death by dangerous driving receive a lifetime driving ban? The emotions of those close to one of those killed in the crash are understandable, but have no bearing on Mr Hill’s wish to fly again; that is a matter for CAA licensing whether he meets all the requirements of the process.
Fitter2 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Dec 2023, 20:50
  #1000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Fitter2
Does a driver convicted of causing death by dangerous driving receive a lifetime driving ban? The emotions of those close to one of those killed in the crash are understandable, but have no bearing on Mr Hill’s wish to fly again; that is a matter for CAA licensing whether he meets all the requirements of the process.
Would you seek to fly again if it was you in this position? Legally, I’m not sure anything but a medical issue can stop him getting back in the air.
Jet_Fan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.