Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was surprised by the verdict but hearing the defense it had to be !
We had a car accident locally, the driver lost control on a roundabout mounted the pavement and injured several pedestrians, including one woman with serious head injuries.
His defence was that he had no memory of the accident “cognitive impairment “, he was acquitted of dangerous driving because if you are not in control you are not responsible for your actions. One twist in this case was that his insurance company refused to pay compensation because he was found not guilty and the incident was an “act of god”. After another prolonged court case compensation was paid but the driver was still blameless.
So anyone who looses control can claim they have no memory of the incident and avoid prosecution, even if there is no medical evidence that incapacity existed.
We had a car accident locally, the driver lost control on a roundabout mounted the pavement and injured several pedestrians, including one woman with serious head injuries.
His defence was that he had no memory of the accident “cognitive impairment “, he was acquitted of dangerous driving because if you are not in control you are not responsible for your actions. One twist in this case was that his insurance company refused to pay compensation because he was found not guilty and the incident was an “act of god”. After another prolonged court case compensation was paid but the driver was still blameless.
So anyone who looses control can claim they have no memory of the incident and avoid prosecution, even if there is no medical evidence that incapacity existed.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1748...quest-hearing/
A date has been set for the first inquest hearing after the Shoreham air crash which killed 11 people.
Penelope Schofield, the Senior Coroner for West Sussex, said: "The coroner has noted the outcome of the criminal trial. At the moment the inquest into the death of the 11 people who died at the Shoreham Air Show stands adjourned until the autumn this year. A pre-inquest review hearing has already been set for 10.30am on 8 April at Crawley Coroner’s Court where it is anticipated a decision will be made with regards to the resumption of this inquest and where consideration will be given to the scope and format of the forthcoming inquest. The final dates for the inquest will be set.”
"The criminal trial has concentrated on the actions of the pilot, Andy Hill, but the inquest can consider other issues that are linked to the deaths of the 11 people. The coroner will also need to consider, having heard the evidence, whether or not she needs to make any Regulation 28 Reports (prevention of future deaths reports) relating to the organisation and planning of future air shows."
A date has been set for the first inquest hearing after the Shoreham air crash which killed 11 people.
Penelope Schofield, the Senior Coroner for West Sussex, said: "The coroner has noted the outcome of the criminal trial. At the moment the inquest into the death of the 11 people who died at the Shoreham Air Show stands adjourned until the autumn this year. A pre-inquest review hearing has already been set for 10.30am on 8 April at Crawley Coroner’s Court where it is anticipated a decision will be made with regards to the resumption of this inquest and where consideration will be given to the scope and format of the forthcoming inquest. The final dates for the inquest will be set.”
"The criminal trial has concentrated on the actions of the pilot, Andy Hill, but the inquest can consider other issues that are linked to the deaths of the 11 people. The coroner will also need to consider, having heard the evidence, whether or not she needs to make any Regulation 28 Reports (prevention of future deaths reports) relating to the organisation and planning of future air shows."
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: 80
Posts: 16,777
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Wearing G pants and wearing them properly are two different things. A number of aircrew dress for comfort and to comply with the rules, others dress sensibly. I know you must have seen people wearing for comfort.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
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: 80
Posts: 16,777
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly has AH lied about? Can you seriously doubt that he remembers nothing about the accident? After substantial deceleration forces which would likely have caused intracerebral shearing? After ketamine from the first responders? After a week or so in an induced coma in an intensive care unit?
The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here calls for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?
Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.
Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.
There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said it's that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.
Caramba
The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here calls for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?
Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.
Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.
There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said it's that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.
Caramba
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's sad that no-one on his legal team vetted his speech. "I will remember for the rest of my life"
And the eleven members of the public and their families ?
Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.
He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.
Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?
And the eleven members of the public and their families ?
Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.
He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.
Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?
Gender Faculty Specialist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's my turn
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
How many of the thousands of pilots currently operating aeroplanes do you think have the potential to become cognitively impaired?
Avoid imitations
I was initially trained by the RAF to fly Jet Provosts. Those aircraft were not equipped with "G" suits" but the normal positive "G" limit for the aircraft was 6.5 G. Flown correctly, that was achievable by the average student (and sometimes inadvertently exceeded). I flew Bulldogs as a Qualified Flying Instructor (which included teaching others to fly aerobatics) but most of my 18 years RAF service was as a helicopter pilot and instructor. I was also selected to display helicopters at public airshows on behalf of the RAF. I was made very much aware of the consequences of pulling "G" from a very early stage in my basic training. The phenomenon, latterly known as "G-LOC" was well publicised within the RAF.
Irrespective of organisational or other failures, in civilian terms, the one person responsible for flying the aircraft in a safe way is the pilot.
An interesting parallel is that yesterday I was informed by the CAA that a civilian pilot who caused airliners to go-around from Luton Airport due to cognitive failure (in that he didn't know where he was and entered controlled airspace without clearance) has very recently been fined Ł7576.
Irrespective of organisational or other failures, in civilian terms, the one person responsible for flying the aircraft in a safe way is the pilot.
An interesting parallel is that yesterday I was informed by the CAA that a civilian pilot who caused airliners to go-around from Luton Airport due to cognitive failure (in that he didn't know where he was and entered controlled airspace without clearance) has very recently been fined Ł7576.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Yes.
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's sad that no-one on his legal team vetted his speech. "I will remember for the rest of my life"
And the eleven members of the public and their families ?
Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.
He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.
Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?
And the eleven members of the public and their families ?
Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.
He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.
Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?
5aday. Re your post #132. Have you ever got anything wrong?. Ever screwed up?
Monarchman. Excellent post.
Last edited by Dan_Brown; 9th Mar 2019 at 08:18.
There are some extraordinary posts on here but I`'ll pick on this one:
What exactly has AH lied about? Can you seriously doubt that he remembers nothing about the accident? After substantial deceleration forces which would likely have caused intracerebral shearing? After ketamine from the first responders? After a week or so in an induced coma in an intensive care unit?
The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here cal;s for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?
Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.
Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.
There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said its that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.
Caramba
What exactly has AH lied about? Can you seriously doubt that he remembers nothing about the accident? After substantial deceleration forces which would likely have caused intracerebral shearing? After ketamine from the first responders? After a week or so in an induced coma in an intensive care unit?
The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here cal;s for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?
Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.
Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.
There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said its that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.
Caramba
When you do it flying an ill judged aerobatic routine outside of the set parameters agreed in your DA, then you have to answer those questions in a court of law.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra, I tend agree with the general tenor of your post in so far as we have to look forward. Perhaps the first step should be thorough Display Auths (already implemented?) whereby someone is signed-off on the type concerned, demonstrating the proposed display routine, rather than a formation display flight in another type of aircraft where the examinee is fundamentally following the examiner around the sky? PS. Interesting to note that a DA was signed-off during a public display (Duxford).
The other ‘hole’ must be the ATRE where someone was signed-off on type and then didn’t necessarily have to undertake annual renewals/revalidations. In my world I have to undertake annual renewal/revalidation for a class rating (MEP) but I guess my 750hrs/yr on class and 8000+hrs total doesn’t class as enough experience for a ‘rubber stamp’ revalidation because I don’t do aerobatics?
I knew little about display flying oversight before this accident - now I see how such an accident could have occurred. Aviation failed to deliver at Shoreham and, regardless of legal wrangling, we need to pull our socks up.
The other ‘hole’ must be the ATRE where someone was signed-off on type and then didn’t necessarily have to undertake annual renewals/revalidations. In my world I have to undertake annual renewal/revalidation for a class rating (MEP) but I guess my 750hrs/yr on class and 8000+hrs total doesn’t class as enough experience for a ‘rubber stamp’ revalidation because I don’t do aerobatics?
I knew little about display flying oversight before this accident - now I see how such an accident could have occurred. Aviation failed to deliver at Shoreham and, regardless of legal wrangling, we need to pull our socks up.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lechlade, Glos.UK
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, being a pilot and a magistrate, I have a little insight into both flying and trials. A person is always innocent until proven guilty. In a civil court, the evidence only has to satisfy 'On the balance of probabilities'. If this had been a civil court, he may have been found guilty. But this was a criminal court and then the evidence has to satisfy 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. This is often more difficult to prove. In this case, given that the jury were almost certainly not aircrew (but were advised about technicalities such as G-Loc), they have never experienced G in an aeroplane or flown a fast jet. So they made the best decision they could; Not guilty; not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In Scotland, there actually is a verdict of 'Not proven'.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are all talking about cognitive impairment. So are we referring to cognitive impairment due to spatial disorientation? If so this is a subject of a few experiments and papers from the beginning of this century but it appears that it was able to be overcome by regular exposure to the causes I. e. repeated exposure to the manoeuvres of a display sequence etc.
Or is this a different type of cognitive impairment, due to fatigue or some other cause?
Was this established in the trial?
Or is this a different type of cognitive impairment, due to fatigue or some other cause?
Was this established in the trial?
Relevant to guilt/innocence is simply the question: 'Can it be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that no form of cognitive impairment could have been a significant causal factor'. In other words, if the jury think the pilot was most likely being an irresponsible dick, but it remains reasonably possible, albeit far less likely in their view, that the cause was cognitive impairment, then they must, by law, return 'Not Guilty'.
Of course, though, the jury is sacrosanct: it can be challenged if there is evidence rules were broken in the jury room (maybe googling the accused or citing PPRuNe posts to other jurors), but otherwise the jury cannot be held to account for their verdict. Thus it is always possible for a jury to vote according to prejudice, or to return a verdict which perhaps they feel is 'just' even if apparently at odds with the legal checklist they were instructed they had to be able to complete before returning such a verdict.
Let’s say three witnesses saw an accused shoot a notorious paedophile and the accused was arrested holding the smoking gun shouting 'He got what was coming to him!': If the jury return with 'Not Guilty' then under most circumstances that’s game over, legally, save for appeals which themselves must pass a legal checklist to be approved (you can’t just ask for a do-over because you think the jury were taking the mickey). And of course a jury could go 'Guilty' in such an off-piste manner too... & even if the case can be appealed, the original jury cannot be asked to justify their original verdict or held to account for it.
Last edited by robdean; 9th Mar 2019 at 09:06.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don’t understand is the accusation of lying, level of anger, calls for a retrial, and demands for retribution that characterise a number of the posts here.
Caramba
Indeed he has. I was referring to you previous post where you stated that someone thought that the trial should never have taken place.
If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?
