Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
As I posted in the corresponding thread in the R&N section:
Apart from the bereaved families and friends, so do other people who weren't involved.
From the BBC article:
In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.
"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?
"Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear."
That middle paragraph is a pertinent question, after the defence as presented.
Depending on how future policy and practice responds to that rhetorical point, one person's successful legal defence may arguably have damaged plenty of other aviators.
From the BBC article:
In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.
"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?
"Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear."
That middle paragraph is a pertinent question, after the defence as presented.
Depending on how future policy and practice responds to that rhetorical point, one person's successful legal defence may arguably have damaged plenty of other aviators.
Brian W May - "jury that knows diddly squat about flying". What do you want then? A jury of a dozen Hunter display pilots? More likely to convict? Hardly. It is precisely because they know little about flying that they were on the jury. That's how the legal system works.
It seems that the crux of this case was to do with 'cognitive impairment' and whether or not the pilot had suffered this during the course of the manoeuvre. This was actually one of the main points of the judges summing up.
We can take it then that the defence witness on this matter was either more convincing than the prosecution one, or that the defence team managed to instill enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So well done to the defence brief for playing the only card he had very well indeed.
Ironically, the actual flight profile flown on the day, and the errors in it highlighted by the AAIB report was almost incidental to the outcome. Strange indeed.
We can take it then that the defence witness on this matter was either more convincing than the prosecution one, or that the defence team managed to instill enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So well done to the defence brief for playing the only card he had very well indeed.
Ironically, the actual flight profile flown on the day, and the errors in it highlighted by the AAIB report was almost incidental to the outcome. Strange indeed.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once heard a very senior RAF lawyer give his view that civil criminal juries were always reluctant to convict individuals practising highly complex and difficult jobs (in whatever field) of professional negligence, unless the evidence was absolutely compelling. He then said "and DG MAA (who was in the audience) never likes me telling you that, as he likes to keep you on your toes" (or words to that effect).
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to him now, “I lost control”. Well as an uncomfortably close witness, I have to say that it was the most controlled crash I’ve ever witnessed. And, yes, I have seen more than my fair share. He was in control when he commenced too low and he was in control when he missed his first gate. He was in control when he didn’t abort then.
I suggest he does the lottery and I’d like to copy his numbers.
I fear that that a corollary of this verdict, there will be many more restrictions on displays.
I suggest he does the lottery and I’d like to copy his numbers.
I fear that that a corollary of this verdict, there will be many more restrictions on displays.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very subtle point has to be made that to be convicted the offence has to be "complete". Much has been made of slippery defence counsel but it has to be remembered that the defence has to do nothing (save challenge and probe the prosecution's case), the prosecution however has to actively prove it's case, and that involves demonstrating that the definition of the charge has been met in the presentation of evidence. Criminally Negligent Manslaughter is incredibly hard to prove for a variety of reasons, and I suspect the real philosophical debate to be had is whether the definition of the crime is too broad or narrow to have captured all of the exigent circumstances in case it were to be repeated in the future, and for the Jurisprudent, what should be the limit and extent of the law?
As a certain other case discovered in the last year or two, there was no similar offence of ~ by dangerous cycling ...
However, like all those who kill because of a mistake they make (accidental or incompetence) he will have to live with that for the rest of his life.
At the pre-trial hearing, Mr Justice Edis said "The issue is whether Mr Hill was at fault or whether he was disabled by the G force" (the two scenarios being, by implication, mutually exclusive).
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1734...ed-by-g-force/
You perhaps are talking about 'LAW'
I am talking about JUSTICE, wrong height, wrong speed, nobody else involved. Who IS responsible for the deaths then? If Andy Hill had gone sick that day, those poor souls would be alive.
So, with the greatest of respect . . . Foxtrot Oscar
I am talking about JUSTICE, wrong height, wrong speed, nobody else involved. Who IS responsible for the deaths then? If Andy Hill had gone sick that day, those poor souls would be alive.
So, with the greatest of respect . . . Foxtrot Oscar
Mr Hill may have made a mistake and very sadly the consequences were tragic. On a different day he, or any other pilot, could have made far worse errors without injuring a hair on anybody's head.
The person who never makes a mistake never makes anything. Every time you or I get in a car there is the potential to kill somebody. That could, under some circumstances be the result of gross negligence but in the vast majority of cases it is simply the result of a mistake.
And finally, the LAW exists to ensure there is justice which is a very different thing from a lynch mob!
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not one agrees with the verdict, that is how justice is served in the UK. Mr Hill has been tried and acquitted at the Old Bailey following evidence put forward by the prosecution and defence.
Our system isn't perfect, but I for one would rather be tried in the UK than anywhere else. We have to respect the decision made by the jury.
Our system isn't perfect, but I for one would rather be tried in the UK than anywhere else. We have to respect the decision made by the jury.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.
As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.
Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?
As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.
Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB report requires considerable effort to read. However, I commend it to anyone who posts here. Within a host of concluding observations, the AAIB report states:
"Causal factors • The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height."
OAP
"Causal factors • The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height."
OAP
If my recollection is correct, the jury would not have seen the report of the impartial experts!
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.
As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.
Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a conviction?
As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.
Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a conviction?
Whatever came out in court, one thing is for sure. The pilot of that a/c didn't have sufficent, recent time on type and possibly not enough recent relavent experience. Period. I believe he had 40hours in 4 years on type. Not enough IMHO. Airline type flying has no relevance what so ever.
There was a pilot, years ago, who was very experienced and current in a particularly dangerous type of aviation. One of the very best and a master of his trade.He gave it up and bought a restaurant. He said he was unable to live without the flying. After a few years away from that particular type of flying, went back to it, part time, then a short period later he was killed after making an gerror of judgement.
Whether currency, or lack of, had a part to play in this tradgety, will be difficult to prove one way or the other. I believe it would have been a contributory factor.
There was a pilot, years ago, who was very experienced and current in a particularly dangerous type of aviation. One of the very best and a master of his trade.He gave it up and bought a restaurant. He said he was unable to live without the flying. After a few years away from that particular type of flying, went back to it, part time, then a short period later he was killed after making an gerror of judgement.
Whether currency, or lack of, had a part to play in this tradgety, will be difficult to prove one way or the other. I believe it would have been a contributory factor.
Last edited by Dan_Brown; 8th Mar 2019 at 20:20.
The following users liked this post: