Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow.
The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle.
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself.
It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced.
One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them.
A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all.
That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow.
The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle.
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself.
It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced.
One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them.
A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all.
That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow.
The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle.
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself.
It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced.
One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them.
A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all.
That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".
Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow.
The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle.
Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself.
It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced.
One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them.
A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all.
That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.
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
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all very true and the jury probably returned the correct verdict in response to the evidence as they heard it. However, unlike in Scotland where a third verdict of 'Not Proven' is available, the English verdict of 'Not Guilty' has the broader meaning of either the accused didn't do it or the case against him/her was not totally convincing. I'm a pilot so legal beagles please tell me if I'm talking scribble.
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.
Also the loop was started too low, too slow and outside the display area, before any 'g' was pulled or cognitive impairment induced; even an almost perfect loop could have ended in disaster.
This incident was a tragedy for everyone involved, but I doubt AH intended to crash that day. It's natural for victims to want to blame someone [same with fatal illnesses] and I do wonder what sort of posts we would be reading if AH had not miraculously survived [or indeed if he had ejected and survived - IF he ever was inside the seat's envelope].
Leaving aside the technical issues I think a bit of fear of the media has a role in this. A dreadful and spectacular accident causes several peoples death in the most appalling manner . even so in English law manslaughter cases can be very hard to prove and i think that is the heart of the matter. The reasonable doubt which smart lawyers can introduce into many scenarios puts the conviction at risk but if he had been charged with a lesser offence then the mail and Express and the rest of the gutter press would be baying for the blood of the CPS for being weak and selling out bereaved families
While Uk has a decent legal system it still has many flaws (how much money you have is still too important) as we often see when a large company causes the death of employees or passengers or member of the general public no one ends up getting charged but if you operate fairground machinery-or ina recent case a bouncy castle heaven help you.
While Uk has a decent legal system it still has many flaws (how much money you have is still too important) as we often see when a large company causes the death of employees or passengers or member of the general public no one ends up getting charged but if you operate fairground machinery-or ina recent case a bouncy castle heaven help you.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,557
Received 54 Likes
on
25 Posts
An innocent question, gentlemen.
So if the pilot experienced TIA or CI that rather brings into question his Medical category. Or has that been covered already?
Did the ‘stress/excitement’ of displaying the Hunter actually contribute to the sad events that followed?
So if the pilot experienced TIA or CI that rather brings into question his Medical category. Or has that been covered already?
Did the ‘stress/excitement’ of displaying the Hunter actually contribute to the sad events that followed?
The pilot in this instance has been found not guilty in a court of law of the charges laid against him. I have read the AAIB report in some detail but clearly only the press coverage of the court proceedings. Despite the pilots apparent lack of recall of the events that took place, it seems that his defence counsel has made a very convincing case for cognitive impairment which whilst unproven in an absolute sense was nonetheless suitably convincing for the jury. Quite at what point this impairment took place or may have taken place will remain unknown yet it would seem that mistakes were made by the pilot at an early stage of the display which may have led to a point at which such impairment may have limited the pilots ability to rectify the situation into which he had placed himself and his aircraft.
Surely the recognition of this 'condition' may mean that the CAA will be forced to make even further stringent moves against display flying particuarly involving high speed fast jet aircraft whether or not they fall into the vintage category. A fear that future incidents will be blamed upon cognitive impairment as a standard defence against prosecution may prove unacceptable to the regulatory authorities. Much as I admire the abilities of pilots which are immeasurably greater than my own, I have always harboured the belief that some display flying utilises aircraft carrying out manoeuvres for which they were not designed and as such little room for error; I fear their days may be even more numberered than they already were.
Surely the recognition of this 'condition' may mean that the CAA will be forced to make even further stringent moves against display flying particuarly involving high speed fast jet aircraft whether or not they fall into the vintage category. A fear that future incidents will be blamed upon cognitive impairment as a standard defence against prosecution may prove unacceptable to the regulatory authorities. Much as I admire the abilities of pilots which are immeasurably greater than my own, I have always harboured the belief that some display flying utilises aircraft carrying out manoeuvres for which they were not designed and as such little room for error; I fear their days may be even more numberered than they already were.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my understanding, and the experience of TIA the answer is "no". A TIA can hit anyone at any time. So can a stroke for that matter - lad I was at school with suffered a massive and disabling one at 15!
This 'cognitive impairment' would appear to be a massive can of worms not just for display flying, but for any type of flying. As AvMed courses have long drilled into us, the human body is not designed for the things we do to it in the air. Displays are an extreme example, but even routine operations are full of potential for illusion, error and misjudgement. I had an instructor who reckoned that the successful pilot was someone who left the smallest proportion of their mental faculties on the runway.
If 'impairment' of the sort that leads to flying below minima and missing gate heights is considered grounds for acquittal from criminal charges, it rather undermines the idea that a pilot could be held to account for their actions. Some degree of 'impairment' can always be argued.
Besides, isn't being aware of the potential for impairment, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate, an essential part of piloting? Just the act of beginning that display was arguably reckless given the currency and experience issues.
If 'impairment' of the sort that leads to flying below minima and missing gate heights is considered grounds for acquittal from criminal charges, it rather undermines the idea that a pilot could be held to account for their actions. Some degree of 'impairment' can always be argued.
Besides, isn't being aware of the potential for impairment, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate, an essential part of piloting? Just the act of beginning that display was arguably reckless given the currency and experience issues.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running in below ‘aerobatic’ minima. It’s my understanding that this is legal, as the definition of an aerobatic manoeuvre is not reached until one is above the 500’. There are plenty of examples of that.
Those who ignore the possibility of TIA and condemn AH for recklessness and demanding his head on a plate are misguided.
Taking the example of TIA/stroke, thinking of three examples of pilots I have known personally, one died, one lost his medical and the other is a current airline captain.
BravoAlphaOne has it summed up correctly I believe.
Those who ignore the possibility of TIA and condemn AH for recklessness and demanding his head on a plate are misguided.
Taking the example of TIA/stroke, thinking of three examples of pilots I have known personally, one died, one lost his medical and the other is a current airline captain.
BravoAlphaOne has it summed up correctly I believe.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,557
Received 54 Likes
on
25 Posts
Thanks, all, it’s a new can of worms for defence of anything you might do in everyday life!
Bravo Alpha One highlighted another aspect of these same issues.
For those who would like to prevent, inhibit or reduce aviation these are yet more sticks they can use to beat us with. Depressing.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.flyingwithoutfear.com/16038/
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.
Class action offing?
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.
Class action offing?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Yes.
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flying without fear".?
It is fear that keeps one alive. If you have no fear you won't last long, especially outside the rigid confines, of airline flying for e.g.
I have a fear of flying into the ground, when not intending to land. I have a fear of bad weather etc., etc.
It is fear that keeps one alive. If you have no fear you won't last long, especially outside the rigid confines, of airline flying for e.g.
I have a fear of flying into the ground, when not intending to land. I have a fear of bad weather etc., etc.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.flyingwithoutfear.com/16038/
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.
Class action offing?
Perhaps simply, he was charged with the wrong thing. He still killed and maimed all those innocent folks.
Class action offing?
Perhaps you'd like to lynch the man. But luckily the English justice system doesn't allow for that.
CI or Plain Error?
Lightning nails it for me. One cannot rule out the ‘mini stroke’ thesis so CI cannot be disproved therefore legally only one conclusion to the charge. But....
First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision.
Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t.
Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ;
understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied;
and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to...
For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding.
standing by for the flak.....
First ; I know many ‘mates’ in current FJ flying practice who question the wisdom of long in the tooth and/or ex mil and/or non current pilots and/or those with little or no past experience of flying high performance older aircraft, FJ or quirky warbirds(FW109?) in public displays. Without many hours on the aircraft previously and/or current practice it is asking for trouble. Tightening the experience or training, and currency rules is an obvious first step allied to knowledgeable experienced pilot(s) recommending or amending over ambitious or risky display sequences. The CAA Display Authorities shoulder a lot of responsibility for their lax supervision.
Second point; AH regularly flew the JP, his Shoreham loop entry gate speed, min inverted Gate Height are roughly what you would expect to see in that aircraft. IMHO his cognitive failure, induced possibly by complacency, stress, medical problem or whatever, led him to fly the manoeuvre using the ‘wrong model’ almost to completion not recognising his situation until ground rush broke the ‘model’ . Wing rock in the last 100’ where ground rush becomes obvious indicated spatial awareness at the very end. I have supervised 6 Display pilots through the training regime required by the RAF and flown displays myself. I always insisted that gate speeds, (min/max) , inverted/ vertical heights , max speeds were written on kneepad for instant reference- where base heights changed during work down training it was imperative that no confusion could be made when adding or subtracting 500’ 1000’ or 1500’. In flying two different types with different energies and performance as a basic precaution I would have had those applicable to the Hunter immediately available. Any aerobatic display pilot will confirm that while awareness of display lines is important, the altimeter and ASI (energy management) are the most important instrumented aids- linked to attitude and horizon - to keeping safe. The ground has a high Pk, infringing the crowd line hasn’t.
Getting those parameters wrong from the very beginning at 1g was unforgivable if consciously ignored ;
understandable but negligent in preparation if ‘wrong model’ was applied;
and if medically impaired/ induced: God help the single pilot aviation community as a whole from the implications that this leads to...
For AH I hope it was this impossible-to- find-after-the-event TI because the other two explanations lead to an uncomfortable judgement about his professionalism. His very poorly flown Derry Turn at Southport doesn’t show me a pilot at the top of his game....poor horizon notwithstanding.
standing by for the flak.....
