Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Just a numbered other
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!
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!
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!
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!
(I haven't read the proceedings to find out)
This is a direct report from the BBC regarding the Judge summing up to the Jury.
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."
How can you PROVE that Cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot? I suggest that the Jury had no choice to find Mr Hill not guilty based on this direction from the Judge.
Whether this direction was correct in legal terms, then I will leave it to m'learned friends to decide.
Summing up from Prosecution/Defence Barristers below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415
Defence Aviation Med expert below;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
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."
How can you PROVE that Cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot? I suggest that the Jury had no choice to find Mr Hill not guilty based on this direction from the Judge.
Whether this direction was correct in legal terms, then I will leave it to m'learned friends to decide.
Summing up from Prosecution/Defence Barristers below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415
Defence Aviation Med expert below;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto
Age: 59
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career?
Arkroyal,
"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’"
Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.
"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’"
Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prosecution failed.
The prosecution failed in several ways.
it attempted to cast AH as a cavalier, negligent, and over-confident pilot. It adduced as evidence to upport this view an overflight of the M11 at less than 500 feet. Wrong - the limit was 200 feet. He crossed the crowd line at Duxford. Again wrong, it wasn’t where the prosecution witness said it was. Flying a dangerous manoeuvre at Southport and had to be told to stop. Wrong. He fell out of a Derry turn in poor visibility and had knocked off before the stop call. He overflew Lancing College in 2014. Wrong. The supposed CAM expert on G-Force failed some basic calculations, as did the star prosecution witness.
the Defence Barrister maybe very good, but he was left with several open goals. The Prosecution Barrister was clearly flailing around by the time he got to summing up, and managed several factual inaccuracies.
Further, there may well be problems with the conduct of air shows, the issuing of DA’s etc, but those are not AH’s fault. He complied with the rules and requirements as they were on the day.
Personally I cannot imagine that a pilot of this level of ability and experience would commit to a manoeuvre that clearly was going to end in tragedy, for himself and others, if he was in command of his faculties. I believe the jury came to the correct verdict.
Caramba
it attempted to cast AH as a cavalier, negligent, and over-confident pilot. It adduced as evidence to upport this view an overflight of the M11 at less than 500 feet. Wrong - the limit was 200 feet. He crossed the crowd line at Duxford. Again wrong, it wasn’t where the prosecution witness said it was. Flying a dangerous manoeuvre at Southport and had to be told to stop. Wrong. He fell out of a Derry turn in poor visibility and had knocked off before the stop call. He overflew Lancing College in 2014. Wrong. The supposed CAM expert on G-Force failed some basic calculations, as did the star prosecution witness.
the Defence Barrister maybe very good, but he was left with several open goals. The Prosecution Barrister was clearly flailing around by the time he got to summing up, and managed several factual inaccuracies.
Further, there may well be problems with the conduct of air shows, the issuing of DA’s etc, but those are not AH’s fault. He complied with the rules and requirements as they were on the day.
Personally I cannot imagine that a pilot of this level of ability and experience would commit to a manoeuvre that clearly was going to end in tragedy, for himself and others, if he was in command of his faculties. I believe the jury came to the correct verdict.
Caramba
So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?
IMHO it should be NO.
He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?
IMHO it should be NO.
He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.
So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?
IMHO it should be NO.
He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.
So what happens next ?.
Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ?
IMHO it should be NO.
He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment.
If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail.
Its inconceiveable, surely, that AH could return as a commercial or display pilot in the circumstances? There has to be a doubt over his medical fitness to perform the role given the trial verdict, and the reason for the acquital. And the announcement from the front to passengers 'welcome to BA flight XXXX, this is your captain, Andy Hill speaking', may not go down especially well with the passengers?
As a reasonably well-informed layman I am surprised by the verdict.
Clearly it has sharply divided those qualified by experience and training to comment.
It is therefore hardly surprising that a jury of laypersons decided that the prosecution had not made its case.
As an aside, has this thread established a Forum record of posts per hour thus far?
Clearly it has sharply divided those qualified by experience and training to comment.
It is therefore hardly surprising that a jury of laypersons decided that the prosecution had not made its case.
As an aside, has this thread established a Forum record of posts per hour thus far?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating vid ER, of a much missed aviator, that just serves to remind what a demanding and unforgiving environment FJ display flying is.
I'll say it again, for the last time, the majority of fault for the tragedy that day lay not with AH but with the overly permissive rules and regs and lax governance and oversight. It was an accident waiting to happen - the Gnat at Carfest a few weeks before was a timely reminder which went largely ignored as Joe public escaped, by pure luck, from that one.
I'll say it again, for the last time, the majority of fault for the tragedy that day lay not with AH but with the overly permissive rules and regs and lax governance and oversight. It was an accident waiting to happen - the Gnat at Carfest a few weeks before was a timely reminder which went largely ignored as Joe public escaped, by pure luck, from that one.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a really awful day for all of those concerned, the victims on the ground and their friends/family, the pilot, the owners of the aircraft, and for Andy, who has had the results of the event on his mind ever since he came-to in the hospital some time later and heard of all of the innocent deaths
. The acquittal will never stop him thinking back to the day, any more than those left behind will stop remembering the victims. My heart goes out to all concerned.
As for whether (as someone asked) he will now go back to his "day job" with his old airline -- Will the company want to return someone who could need to put out a cabin announcement "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain AH speaking . . ." ? How would he feel about stepping into any cockpit ever again?
My view is that Andy has suffered enough and I'm glad that this step is no longer hanging over his head and I pray that he will recover (mentally) soon.
Brian May -- .I'm not hiding behind my "Forum Name"; I'm Stu Nutt (really!) and I was a flight sim engineer with Singer-Link-Miles and a sim maintenance engineer at Cranebank (LHR) quite a few years ago. Some of the older BA old-timers may recognise my name.
. The acquittal will never stop him thinking back to the day, any more than those left behind will stop remembering the victims. My heart goes out to all concerned.As for whether (as someone asked) he will now go back to his "day job" with his old airline -- Will the company want to return someone who could need to put out a cabin announcement "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain AH speaking . . ." ? How would he feel about stepping into any cockpit ever again?
My view is that Andy has suffered enough and I'm glad that this step is no longer hanging over his head and I pray that he will recover (mentally) soon.
Brian May -- .I'm not hiding behind my "Forum Name"; I'm Stu Nutt (really!) and I was a flight sim engineer with Singer-Link-Miles and a sim maintenance engineer at Cranebank (LHR) quite a few years ago. Some of the older BA old-timers may recognise my name.
Its what the Display Director should have done maybe. But as this was the initial manoevre in the sequence, (from the radar track that was publicised after the event) would a stop message have been too late. Was he/she called as witness, haven't seen mention of it.
Ttfn
Ttfn
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1736...airshow-stunt/
The court also heard that none of the airshow’s flying committee - which organised and oversaw the event - sent out a “stop, stop, stop call” to bring Hill’s display to a halt.
Rodney Dean, one of the organisers responsible for the safety of displays at the show, known as the flying display director (FDD), said he did not see the crash because he was talking to pilots in another part of the airfield.
Giving evidence, he said: “I saw the (Hawker) Hunter arrive. I saw it do its flight past which didn’t concern me at all.”
He said he did not see or hear the crash but as soon as he learned about it over the radio system he returned to the area, adding that it was “immediately” clear after seeing smoke that it was a “major disaster”.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like AH had Bob Massingbird working the defence for him:
"Remember the case of the Bloody Knife? A man was found next to a murdered body, he had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police arrived he said, “I’m glad I killed the bastard.” Massingbird not only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year’s Honors list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood washed out of his jacket." (Credit Richard Curtis and Ben Elton)
I personally hope AH gets his DA back - I'd go and watch him display. But only at seafront venues.....��
"Remember the case of the Bloody Knife? A man was found next to a murdered body, he had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police arrived he said, “I’m glad I killed the bastard.” Massingbird not only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year’s Honors list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood washed out of his jacket." (Credit Richard Curtis and Ben Elton)
I personally hope AH gets his DA back - I'd go and watch him display. But only at seafront venues.....��
Just been listening to a criminal defence lawyer, not sure if it was AH's or not, but he was damning air shows, well certainly aerobatics displays, claiming the verdict, which exonerated AH, was evidence that this form of entertainment, a phrase he said he use advisedly, could not go on and that felt this would now be the case. I couldn't help feeling he wasn't a fan from he outset. But then if he defended AH, and accepting that justice is blind, would he have taken up the cudgels if he felt he couldn't remain impartial defending an aerobatics display pilot?
FB
FB
Just a note.
Whether right or wrong, some folks seem incensed and resentful that I'm openly stating my belief regarding this case
Your opinions would carry a little more weight if you used your names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms. BEagle you're well out of the RAF, so why not come clean?
Or is that the deal, you can say what you want and not bear any responsibility for your views?
Whether right or wrong, some folks seem incensed and resentful that I'm openly stating my belief regarding this case
Your opinions would carry a little more weight if you used your names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms. BEagle you're well out of the RAF, so why not come clean?
Or is that the deal, you can say what you want and not bear any responsibility for your views?
He's hardly hiding is he?
Just a numbered other
Arkroyal,
"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’"
Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.
"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’"
Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
