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 28th Dec 2023, 21:01
  #1001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jet_Fan
Would you seek to fly again if it was you in this position? Legally, Iím not sure anything but a medical issue can stop him getting back in the air.
If Mr Hill did get his licence back presumably he would need to obtain insurance of some sort. Do you not think he might find it difficult to do so?
DODGYOLDFART is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 21:08
  #1002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by DODGYOLDFART
If Mr Hill did get his licence back presumably he would need to obtain insurance of some sort. Do you not think he might find it difficult to do so?
No, I donít.
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2023, 22:57
  #1003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,909
Received 358 Likes on 126 Posts
Would you seek to fly again if it was you in this position?
No. Provided that an applicant meets the relevant criteria for licence re-issue, including the relevant medical criteria, it's a matter purely for CAA personnel licensing.

Your stirring isn't helping anyone.
BEagle is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by BEagle:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 00:44
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,820
Received 116 Likes on 49 Posts
I wonder how Mr Hill intends to approach the matter of his susceptibility to, ahem, "cognitive impairment" when asked by the AMO during his renewal examination. After building his criminal defence upon an unpredictable occurrence of the condition (of which remarkably little - nothing? - seems to have been written since), it would be cakeism on almost a Johnsonian scale for him to claim to that he is now safe to fly. I wonder if the CAA is prepared to refuse a medical on the grounds of Hill's "impairment" to see if he will expose himself to ridicule by downplaying the "condition" on appeal?
Easy Street is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 04:37
  #1005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
I wonder how Mr Hill intends to approach the matter of his susceptibility to, ahem, "cognitive impairment" when asked by the AMO during his renewal examination. After building his criminal defence upon an unpredictable occurrence of the condition (of which remarkably little - nothing? - seems to have been written since), it would be cakeism on almost a Johnsonian scale for him to claim to that he is now safe to fly. I wonder if the CAA is prepared to refuse a medical on the grounds of Hill's "impairment" to see if he will expose himself to ridicule by downplaying the "condition" on appeal?
Do you remember Ernest Saunders? He built a defence based on being an Alzheimerís sufferer and then became the only person in the world to fully recover from it.
Jet_Fan is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by Jet_Fan:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 04:45
  #1006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
No. Provided that an applicant meets the relevant criteria for licence re-issue, including the relevant medical criteria, it's a matter purely for CAA personnel licensing.

Your stirring isn't helping anyone.
If he reads this and has second thoughts itís helped the families. If the families read this and see that the vast majority think Hill is being and AH in pursing this, then Iím sure that will come as some comfort.

Your accusation of stirring is inflammatory and uncalled for. This is obviously a matter that millions of people will have a view so I donít know you would seek to close down this thread. Personal interest, maybe?
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 05:53
  #1007 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 962
Received 605 Likes on 363 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
I wonder how Mr Hill intends to approach the matter of his susceptibility to, ahem, "cognitive impairment" when asked by the AMO during his renewal examination. After building his criminal defence upon an unpredictable occurrence of the condition (of which remarkably little - nothing? - seems to have been written since), it would be cakeism on almost a Johnsonian scale for him to claim to that he is now safe to fly. I wonder if the CAA is prepared to refuse a medical on the grounds of Hill's "impairment" to see if he will expose himself to ridicule by downplaying the "condition" on appeal?

Was his defence not that he lost awareness while pulling 4 g ? AFAIK, display flying to the same level has not been banned. What would happen if he got his licence back and had a problem at 3 g.

He should hang up his boots.
B Fraser is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by B Fraser:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 06:15
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 96
Received 27 Likes on 12 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 Hillís wish to fly again; that is a matter for CAA licensing whether he meets all the requirements of the process.
No, normally they don't.

Still less does a driver who is is acquitted of any crime - which is the situation with Mr Hill!

Assuming he passes the required medical and any flight tests that are needed, after how ever many years absence, he is as entitled to a licence as anybody else.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 06:19
  #1009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 835
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
How will he prove that his impairment wonít reoccur again - even in straight and level flight?
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 06:32
  #1010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
No, normally they don't.

Still less does a driver who is is acquitted of any crime - which is the situation with Mr Hill!

Assuming he passes the required medical and any flight tests that are needed, after how ever many years absence, he is as entitled to a licence as anybody else.
Everyone knows this, so why it gets repeated so often is beyond me.

The question is, should he get back in the air given the complete horlicks he made of his last fight?
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 06:35
  #1011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
How will he prove that his impairment wonít reoccur again - even in straight and level flight?
Indeed.
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 06:53
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 96
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
How will he prove that his impairment wonít reoccur again - even in straight and level flight?
Nobody can!

As a CAA medical examiner round here used to say to private pilots "Well I'm pleased to say you have passed but of course that doesn't guarantee you won't die on the way home"!
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 07:59
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 96
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Jet_Fan
Everyone knows this, so why it gets repeated so often is beyond me.

The question is, should he get back in the air given the complete horlicks he made of his last fight?
I would hope they do. However you only have to look a threads like this to see how it suits some peoples' agenda to heap all the blame on one individual rather than look at the whole picture.

"A chain is a strong as its weakest link" is a popular saying and of course it is true. However it may well not be the the whole truth. If the weakest link snaps the chain fails, maybe with disastrous consequences, but that does not mean the rest of the chain was fit for purpose. In my opinion there were a whole raft of issues that could all have potentially lead to a catastrophe and many of them have not been properly addressed as there was a convenient scapegoat.

Do you remember the far less debated crash of a Gnat at a show not that long before Shoreham? Because "only" the pilot was killed and the plane crashed in deserted woodland there was relatively little publicity. It should have raised all kinds of questions about the wisdom of operating these kinds of aircraft in civilian hands and them being flown quite legally by pilots, however experienced in the past, with very little (or virtually zero) currency on type.

20:20 hindsight now requires the B road that passes the end of Old Warden's runway to be closed on 10 days a year for their airshows, much to the annoyance of the local residents. Old Warden shows are 99.9% prop driven aircraft flown conservatively by some of the most experienced pilots in the country. They will have vastly more currency on the type of aircraft they are displaying than could ever be the case with a historic fast jet.

However, it was thought fit to run the show at Shoreham with multiple fast jets passing directly over a busy A road that was kept open. No effective steps were taken to prevent "freeloaders" congregating by the road, several of whom were killed.

Duxford however, despite having had fatal accidents immediately either side of the M11 motorway in the past, continues to have multiple large shows each year with the motorway remaining open. It has however taken elaborate steps to stop a relatively few photographers and enthusiasts congregating in the so called "naughty fields" to the south of the runway!

People really need to look at the whole picture!
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 08:36
  #1014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 86
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
I would hope they do. However you only have to look a threads like this to see how it suits some peoples' agenda to heap all the blame on one individual rather than look at the whole picture.

"A chain is a strong as its weakest link" is a popular saying and of course it is true. However it may well not be the the whole truth. If the weakest link snaps the chain fails, maybe with disastrous consequences, but that does not mean the rest of the chain was fit for purpose. In my opinion there were a whole raft of issues that could all have potentially lead to a catastrophe and many of them have not been properly addressed as there was a convenient scapegoat.

Do you remember the far less debated crash of a Gnat at a show not that long before Shoreham? Because "only" the pilot was killed and the plane crashed in deserted woodland there was relatively little publicity. It should have raised all kinds of questions about the wisdom of operating these kinds of aircraft in civilian hands and them being flown quite legally by pilots, however experienced in the past, with very little (or virtually zero) currency on type.

20:20 hindsight now requires the B road that passes the end of Old Warden's runway to be closed on 10 days a year for their airshows, much to the annoyance of the local residents. Old Warden shows are 99.9% prop driven aircraft flown conservatively by some of the most experienced pilots in the country. They will have vastly more currency on the type of aircraft they are displaying than could ever be the case with a historic fast jet.

However, it was thought fit to run the show at Shoreham with multiple fast jets passing directly over a busy A road that was kept open. No effective steps were taken to prevent "freeloaders" congregating by the road, several of whom were killed.

Duxford however, despite having had fatal accidents immediately either side of the M11 motorway in the past, continues to have multiple large shows each year with the motorway remaining open. It has however taken elaborate steps to stop a relatively few photographers and enthusiasts congregating in the so called "naughty fields" to the south of the runway!

People really need to look at the whole picture!
Hill was at the sticks, so the primary responsibility is his. The AAIB report is damning of Hill but less so of the organisers.

Personally, I don't believe for one minute that he suffered a metal impairment on the day but in his attempts to get closure for himself he's certainly suffered a moral one ever since, as have those who seek to deflect blame with weak whataboutary.

One fact remains, that being the verdict of unlawful killing. In the face of that, any attempt to get back flying is a repugnant abomination, imo.
The police aren't looking for anyone else to prosecute because they got their man. Hill's airmanship on the day was dreadful, right up there with that B52 pilot at Fairchild. Hill should keep a low profile but, every the showman, he manages to keep himself in the news.
Jet_Fan is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by Jet_Fan:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 08:42
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 11 Posts
At the time Shoreham happened I reviewed the incident for World Airshow News; also as a back engineered study for Des Barker's excellent book on airshow accident history, "An Anatomy of Airshow Accidents", distributed by ICAS.
Here is that review;

Dudley Henriques

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VSP...ew?usp=sharing
DAHenriques is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by DAHenriques:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 10:42
  #1016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lost again...
Posts: 924
Received 149 Likes on 59 Posts
I've tried to stay away from this but feel the need to add my thoughts now.

I will preface this with the fact that there seems to be no verified source quoted for the fact that AH is attempting to get his licence back, but assuming that those reports are correct:

AH for whatever reason made a grievous error that killed 11 people and devastated the lives of countless others.

When held to account for it he offered a medical defence that he was cognitively impaired for some undefined medical reason. This defence was accepted by the jury and he was acquitted.

For him now to suggest that he would like his licence and medical to be restored to him despite the fact that he suffers from some undefined condition that leads to sudden cognitive impairment (not to mention the subsequent massive medical trauma of the accident including a significant head injury) strikes me as unreasonable.

I would imagine that it will seem unreasonable to the CAA medical branch as well! (Bearing in mind how difficult they have made the lives of certain of my colleagues who suffer from considerably less worrying conditions than AH reportedly suffers from).

I personally feel that AH has dodged a major bullet here and that if he had any concern for the wellbeing and reputation of our industry, the welfare of the people who continue to live the the consequences of his actions, or indeed a reasonable measure of common decency then he would bow out as gracefully as he can and fade quietly into the background.

Should he attempt to regain his licence I feel he will fully deserve the outcry, anger and further vilification that will certainly follow.


OvertHawk is online now  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 11:37
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: England
Posts: 675
Received 376 Likes on 176 Posts
Would the laws on corporate manslaughter and medical exemption prevent a person medically impaired to operate a machine?
These laws were brought into place after the Glasgow refuse vehicle crash. Now all drivers (and I would assume also pilots) need to declare any medical conditions.
Then if said organisation was to approve them getting behind the wheel, stick and that person was to kill someone the person signing the relevant paperwork is liable to be charged with corporate manslaughter.
DogTailRed2 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 11:54
  #1018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,781
Received 88 Likes on 46 Posts
Originally Posted by OvertHawk
I've tried to stay away from this but feel the need to add my thoughts now.

I will preface this with the fact that there seems to be no verified source quoted for the fact that AH is attempting to get his licence back, but assuming that those reports are correct:

AH for whatever reason made a grievous error that killed 11 people and devastated the lives of countless others.

When held to account for it he offered a medical defence that he was cognitively impaired for some undefined medical reason. This defence was accepted by the jury and he was acquitted.

For him now to suggest that he would like his licence and medical to be restored to him despite the fact that he suffers from some undefined condition that leads to sudden cognitive impairment (not to mention the subsequent massive medical trauma of the accident including a significant head injury) strikes me as unreasonable.

I would imagine that it will seem unreasonable to the CAA medical branch as well! (Bearing in mind how difficult they have made the lives of certain of my colleagues who suffer from considerably less worrying conditions than AH reportedly suffers from).

I personally feel that AH has dodged a major bullet here and that if he had any concern for the wellbeing and reputation of our industry, the welfare of the people who continue to live the the consequences of his actions, or indeed a reasonable measure of common decency then he would bow out as gracefully as he can and fade quietly into the background.

Should he attempt to regain his licence I feel he will fully deserve the outcry, anger and further vilification that will certainly follow.
We don't know what type of licence he's trying to get, (if he is - it is the Sun after all) and we are assuming its one that does require a Class 1 or 2 medical....(which surely in the circumstances would be a no-no) but, it maybe he's just seeking to get a NPPL which doesn't need a medical and would restrict him to Part 21 aircraft only....?
Given what happened I'm surprised he'd even want to do that of course...!
GeeRam is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2023, 12:28
  #1019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Cheshire
Age: 72
Posts: 12
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
This is just information. It is not an opinion and although I followed the Shoreham disaster in the national press I have not read any official reports. Once I had to interview a man thankfully recovering from being totally buried in a deep trench the side of which had collapsed over him. He was dug down to and then pulled out unconscious after several minutes. It was clear that he was not responsible for his own accident. It was penny pinching by his employers not being prepared to pay for trench support. I met him a little later on and he said he could remember nothing at all of that day's events except that he remembered going to work and waking up in hospital.
Twenty years later I had a car accident three miles from my place of work, rolled the car completely and woke up to see a paramedic standing at my feet while I was lying in the road next to the upside down car. It must have taken at least 10 minutes for the ambulance to arrive, let alone the time taken for a call to be made. In addition I had switched off the engine while upside down, undone the seat belt, dropped to the roof of the car, fracturing my spine, before escaping from the car through the boot as the drivers door was un-openable. I have no memory of the accident until the paramedic was there. Later in hospital I recalled seeing in the driving mirror a car in sunlight arriving at a junction behind me located just before the accident site and thought that was the last memory. I learned it was raining at the time I had my accident by a member of my company staff who went to the scene. My professional life in accident investigation teaches me to be extremely cautious about the evidence that people unconscious at some point during the incident may be be asked about.

Last edited by UWAS; 29th Dec 2023 at 15:22. Reason: missed out word and clarity
UWAS is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by UWAS:
Old 29th Dec 2023, 13:41
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Devon
Age: 72
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
This is my personal view. I worked on the Hunters, when they were based at Exeter and Andy Hill used some of the T-7s, when he was trying to become current on the Hunter. None of the guys thought he looked confident, or knowledgeable and we were all very surprised when the chief pilot passed him as qualified to fly the jet. The guys at Exeter often wonder if he should have been passed after such a short time and maybe those eleven guys would still be alive, if he hadn't been passed, so quickly? Andy Hill should go back to Shoreham and read the names of the eleven victims on the plaque and then hang his head in shame.
hunty is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by hunty:

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.