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, 17:56
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 81
Posts: 117
Right or wrong verdict? I cannot believe that the verdict will in anyway will be seen as justice by the families and friends of those that died.
DODGYOLDFART is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 18:24
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 18:27
  #103 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,696
Originally Posted by Super VC-10 View Post
Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?
That's easy, last month.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 18:39
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by The Nip View Post


Yes because it takes away responsibility.
I would have said the presumption of responsibility...but yeah...that.
unmanned_droid is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 18:44
  #105 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,696
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!
When were we first made aware of G-LOC?

Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s.

The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G.


Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 18:58
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,761
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?
You will never know.

Jury deliberations are considered secret, even after a trial has ended.

DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 19:14
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP
Juries are not required to give reasons for an acquital. No-one, other than the 11 jurors in this case, will know either the reasoning they used, the evidence they accepted or whether the decision was unanimous or a majority verdict.
Whipstall is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 19:22
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP
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."

So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment
Treble one is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 19:36
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
When were we first made aware of G-LOC?

Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s.

The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G.

Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 19:52
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Treble one View Post
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."

So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment
Yes, this is interesting Trembles.......I believe Andy Hill describes having no recollection of the events, so simply agreeing in court that he would not have aimed to fly the manoeuvre at the wrong parameters would imply (rightly or wrongly) that he was impaired, despite the fact that he has no recollection and seemed to have little knowledge of the safety gates and recovery proceedure.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 19:52
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,973
A few have posted that Hill has to live with the thoughts of those he killed for the rest of his life. Well I don’t give two hoots about that, it is the families of those that perished that I truly feel sorry for as they will have equally long lives to remember those poor people.

I also think the Law is an ass in these types of instances - prosecution seems so very rare when it is quite obvious that they have negligently done things. So it seems you can arrive too low, fly a bent loop without making your gate height and then wipe out 11 souls and injure others on a main road. You can also knock off a trooper’s head with with the ramp and antenna of your transport aircraft and also get away with it. Or you can break someone’s back and injure others whilst you fiddle with your seat and your camera jams the controls, then apparently try to cover it up, and then be acquitted. But only if you fly a helicopter recklessly and kill your co-pilot, crewman and one of your Army passengers can you expect to be prosecuted. If the helicopter pilot had claimed “cognitive impairment” in the last seconds would he have got away with it?

Whilst I agree that the Law was upheld today, I fear that Justice was not. I look forward to reading what the Coroner finds.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 19:58
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,761
Originally Posted by Whipstall View Post
Juries are not required to give reasons for an acquital. No-one, other than the 11 jurors in this case, will know either the reasoning they used, the evidence they accepted or whether the decision was unanimous or a majority verdict.
It was a unanimous verdict. That fact is stated in open court and is not considered confidential.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:02
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 562
LIma J - post 113
your quote:
’ But only if you fly a helicopter recklessly and kill your co-pilot, crewman and one of your Army passengers can you expect to be prosecuted. If the helicopter pilot had claimed “cognitive impairment” in the last seconds would he have got away with it?’

Are you referring to Catterick? If so, check your facts. Big style.
high spirits is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:03
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: outernet
Posts: 37
14,000+ hours is a lot of experience, not only operating civilian aircraft in the civil aviation world but also continuing to fly military type aircraft and displaying them.

Years in the "seat" plus knowing your own personal parameters and the aircraft capability you are flying, gives the experienced pilot a prior sense of a situation that if not corrected at that time could become a bigger problem later. Most of the time a minor "correction" applied at the time nullifies any future problem.

100 knots at the top of a loop at 2,600' in a Hunter. Applying the thought of the sentence above, when did the cognitive impairment take place?
twothree is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:12
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,764
LJ

It’s interesting that you drew parallels with the Voyager incident because I thought the same thing.

As pilots I don’t believe we should automatically close ranks and defend ‘one of our own’ every time.

I’m sure the jury reached the correct verdict on the strength of the evidence prevented but I still cannot excuse the actions of Andy Hill.

From my perspective, I am a current and pretty experienced Hawk pilot (2500+ hours on type). If someone asked me to perform a low level aerobatics routine tomorrow I would say no way. I fly aerobatic type manoeuvres (along with weapons, BFM, low level etc) on a daily basis in my job and I would not want, or expect, to go and fly the kind of manoeuvres he flew on that fateful day. Added to that, the fit of the aircraft was unfamiliar (I have flown Hawks in pretty much every conceivable fit including the heavier configurations) so, by comparison, if someone said “hey, BV, go take that Hawk with drop tanks and fly a low level display in front of thousands of people” I wouldn’t dream of it.

For the life of me I can’t work out why so many people want to excuse his actions.

I don’t know how I think he should be punished, since it hasn’t affected me directly, but I don’t think he should get off Scott free and I don’t think you can lay the entirety of the blame with the CAA.

Obviously many of you will disagree with me but such is life.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:14
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,831
Are there any Big Brains out there who could describe how Cognative Impairment offering could ever be disproved.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:17
  #117 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,696
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken?

OAP
Which means that someone who left military could state accurately that they had not been trained in G-Loc. If phrased differently I think it would be very difficult to deny know if the effects of G.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:26
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 179
Brian - please stop playing the man and play the ball

the main issue here is the standard of evidence required for a conviction. If you cannot prove fault conclusively and culpable actions then it will always end up this way.

there are two options

1. The standard gets lowered and accidents stop and everything becomes blame and claim

2. Accept that Andy will always have this on his mind and that is probably worse than any sentence that can be given.

I drove by Shoreham the morning of the show and there where signs everywhere on the road saying no spectating and airshows are dangerous. That does not excuse the lose of life on the road, but there where needles casualties because the law was also ingnored. Not popular I know but it is a fact

Anyway any of these are are not the best outcomes in finding an answer. Let’s hope everyone learns and piss poor prep etc ad Infinitum

dagenham is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:30
  #119 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,696
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger View Post
Are there any Big Brains out there who could describe how Cognative Impairment offering could ever be disproved.
I probably have more awareness of the meaning of G-Loc than CI.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 20:34
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,657
How many posters in this thread have flown a Hunter and experienced the startle effect of the anti-G system running out of air? I don't know whether Andy Hill wore an anti-G suit for his displays, but I recall once pulling off a strafe run at Pembrey (around 100' agl) when the anti-G ran out of puff. You suddenly experience unexpected grey-out and for a brief moment wonder WTF has happened...

Not so in the Hawk, which had a bleed air anti-G system, as did the Gnat.

G-LOC was not briefed in my fast jet training days (last time being 1980), involving quite a few aircraft type training courses at North Luffenham, whereas grey out and black out certainly were.

This article https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%201585.PDF which concerns Jim Hawkins' fatal Hawk 200 accident, gives an excellent account of the effects of G-LOC. I suspect that AMTC started including G-LOC in its Ruddles appreciation courses following this accident in 1986.
BEagle is online now  

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.