Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Just a numbered other
However, on the balance of probability, and given that the pilot hadnt suffered an eposide like this before during flying numerous aerobatic manoeuvres, over many years, makes it seem like a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses suddenly happened at a very precise and very unfortunate moment in time?
On the balance of probabilities is the criterion in civil cases. There just may be one in the offing.
Never met an RAF Pilot displaying a FJ who had flown such a paltry number of hours.
To argue the toss about Derry vs Canadian is pure "missing the whole point" pedantry.
To argue the toss about Derry vs Canadian is pure "missing the whole point" pedantry.
Im not arguing anything about the manoeuvre at Southport. You incorrectly referred to it as a D Turn; it wasn't !
I had a similar experience at Gatwick last year, having arrived from a long-haul flight ... which I do several times a year without even thinking about it. Left Arrivals for a kerbside cigarette in the Smoking Zone, and suddenly just folded up gracefully to the floor ... my descent being controlled by the OH. It came out of nowhere, and not encountered before or since. SCARY.
Terrifying. My doctor was very calm ........ momentary whatever mumble blood pressure mumble jargon take one of these if it happens again..
Of course he didn't set out to kill anyone. He set out to provide a stunning display to the best of his abilities.
The relatives will not accept that it was just 'one of things that happen'.
Gentleman Aviator
Terrifying. My doctor was very calm ........ momentary whatever mumble blood pressure mumble jargon take one of these if it happens again.
Despite throwing medical insurance at it, with brain scans etc - nothing found, so expensive (but not to me!) consultants said "probably a virus infection of the inner ear - it'll go away". (Which I understand to be docspeak for "haven't a f'ing clue mate"). Happened 3 or 4 times since, but I can now see it coming - it's the "seasickness" following it that's most annoying though.
But I've "hung up my Gosport tubes" for a while, perhaps for keeps..... :-(
How's THAT for thread drift!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bob Viking (The Nip take note)
.
I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.
That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.
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
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
I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.
That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth watching the vid of Mark Hannah in his Duxford Hunter display at post #91. He describes the Duxford site as small for the Hunter, makes pull-ups with full power, flys no loops, does 1/2 Cubans with 200+ over the top and generally seems to fly with plenty of spare energy.
OAP
OAP
Bob Viking (The Nip take note)
.
I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.
That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.
.
I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.
That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.
Last edited by Treble one; 11th Mar 2019 at 12:46.
Bob Viking (The Nip take note)
.
I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.
That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.
.
I have 2000 hours on type. I concur with your opinion. As for the CAA, their rules allowing AH to perform that display are unbelievably lax: in my view it should be taken to task, and should bear some of the responsibility.
That said, the verdict has been delivered. The poor chap will live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. More tragically, so will the relatives of the
bereaved.
I have not stated that AH is responsible. The verdict has been given and I have an opinion which I will keep to myself. (Because it is irrelevant).
My point was/is the word accident. This very word can lead to people not being held responsible for any given situation.
There has been many threads on here, Chinook, Hercules, Red Arrow, where the word accident is used. There is always someone responsible, generally further up the food chain getting paid for that responsibility.
teeteringhead: your symptoms sound a lot like Benign Positional Vertigo caused by loose crystals in the semicircular canals of the inner ear. Google it - it can be treated with simple exercises.
I might have misunderstood?, but I thought that was the comparison point, given Mark even said on the commentary as he pulled up, 'full power', and thus plenty of energy.........whereas I thought there was a question mark over AH not even using full power when he pulled up in the T.7 thus compromising the already reduced energy available...??
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jindabyne,
I have not stated that AH is responsible. The verdict has been given and I have an opinion which I will keep to myself. (Because it is irrelevant).
My point was/is the word accident. This very word can lead to people not being held responsible for any given situation.
There has been many threads on here, Chinook, Hercules, Red Arrow, where the word accident is used. There is always someone responsible, generally further up the food chain getting paid for that responsibility.
In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture.
Gentleman Aviator
teeteringhead: your symptoms sound a lot like Benign Positional Vertigo caused by loose crystals in the semicircular canals of the inner ear.
That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right!
The term "accident" has a special and precise written meaning in air law which defines exactly what is (and isn't) an accident that requires investigation.
In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture.
In terms of accident investigation, which does not seek to apportion blame, it is probably important that it does have neutral connotations. In general, accident investigation is (and should always remain) outside any blame culture.
If nothing else, it causes confusion on web forums, accidentally of course!
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the pilot been killed in this accident there would have been no trial and he would no doubt have been responsible for what happened. AAIB Report.
Surely, you cant have it both ways?
Surely, you cant have it both ways?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
fortunately quite close to the village Doctors' Surgery!
I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented.
For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel....
Thank you to all who helped and supported #AndyHill with his defence in the #ShorehamAirCrash. A tragic case for everyone involved but it was my privilege to have represented such a remarkable man. Our thoughts are with the families who lost their loved ones.
Karim Khalil QC
Karim Khalil QC
Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.
Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending.
Thanks Meikleour.
That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right!
That was suggested by the GP (random otoliths), but the consultant poo-poohed the idea (can't remember why). I've got the exercises from the GP - if it doesn't go away I'll give 'em a go. As we know from these pages, specialists aren't always right!
it is also worth getting the ticker checked out especially if you have seniority- hypotension on standing is not unusual and not always or even commonly related to the inner ear . Worth a read if you have time https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20352548
AAIB reports specifically do not attribute blame, for very good reasons.
I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented.
For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel....
Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.
Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending.
I would go further and say Mr Hill should never have been put on trial based on the evidence that was presented.
For those that have not seen it, there is an interesting Tweet from Mr Hill's leading defence counsel....
Those keyboard warriors seeking to condemn Andy Hill would do well to take Mr Khalil's wise words on board.
Ultimately there is always a risk. Statistically the risk is very small given that this was the first fatal UK airshow accident involving someone other than the aircrew for over sixty years. Ultimately society has to decide if it is prepared to accept that small risk. What makes this particular incident worse is that many of those killed or injured were simply passing by with no interest in the show. To an extent, if you attend a show (or watch from outside) you are choosing to accept some risk but there is no realistic way of limiting the risk to just those attending.