Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Old 11th Mar 2019, 17:20
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 91
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Treble one
I think its naive in the extreme to think that AH shouldn't have been tried when 11 people were killed in an incident where the competence of his flying was was questioned. The AAIB results may not have been able to be used as evidence in court, but the sequence of events, did not paint a good picture of the manoeuvre performed.
I think with respect you are missing the point. I struggle to see how there was a realistic prospect of conviction on the charges that were laid. That is the proper test of whether a prosecution should have been brought, not the number of people who sadly lost their lives. Far worse flying may have brought the plane down on wasteland with no harm to anyone except the pilot. "Better" flying could have gone wrong in a completely different way leading to a far greater tragedy.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 17:28
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 91
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
In the same way as AAIB reports are guaranteed not to attribute blame, defending QCs are guaranteed only to say good things about their client.
In court, yes of course. However it is fairly unusual to see one of the country's leading QCs take to social media to say " it was my privilege to have represented such a remarkable man" after the trial.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 17:31
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 667
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crux of the case was whether or not the pilot suffered Cognitive Impairment whilst flying-as alluded to by the defence. Because no one could prove either way he did or he didn't he was acquitted. If on the other hand the jury had decided that he probably didn't suffer from CI (No previous medical history, no evidence he did, RAF expert saying not) then the prospect of conviction (due to the flying involved) would have been reasonable.

I'm sorry, the public would have been outraged if no charges had been brought in the circumstances. AH has answered these charges, and was acquitted fair and square.
Treble one is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 17:45
  #244 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 74
Posts: 3,691
Received 42 Likes on 21 Posts
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 tim
Thanks dagenham - all also checked scanned etc - one thing about falling over near the doctors'(and NOT near the pub Shy!) is that they grab you and test everything -well, almost everything.

I'm humbly grateful for all tis concern over my health - seriously.

Maybe the Gosport tubes will rise again!
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 18:35
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,788
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
I struggle to see how there was a realistic prospect of conviction on the charges that were laid. That is the proper test of whether a prosecution should have been brought, not the number of people who sadly lost their lives.
There are two tests that a case must satisfy before a prosecution will take place.

The first is the evidential test - the "realistic prospect of conviction" to which you refer. That simply means that, in the view of the CPS, a jury is more likely to convict than not.

The second is the public interest test, which takes into account a number of factors including the amount of loss or harm resulting from the alleged offence. In this case, the fact that 11 members of the public were killed would obviously be one of those factors.

Clearly not all cases that pass those tests result in a guilty verdict, and this wasn't one. Hindsight, after the verdict, is a wonderful thing.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 20:45
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Simple truth is that no-one can prove something didn't have an adverse effect on either his judgement or performance that day.
I can't see that any other verdict was possible.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 20:47
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Comment supporting BV deleted.

Last edited by 207592; 11th Mar 2019 at 20:59.
207592 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 10:08
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 1,074
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
This has already been said/asked...but how on earth can 43 hours on type (gained between 2011-2015) be enough to display an aircraft like the Hunter over populated areas?!!

Forget the dissimilar JP time: circa 10 Hunter hours a year + mishandling the entry to a loop = 11 non-spectators dead.

I don't want to hang AH out to dry, but something doesn't seem right here.
Training Risky is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 11:31
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Ask H Peacock - he thinks it's OK.
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 12:06
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A pretty good discussion here on the verdict by Tim Davies who is a former RN and RAF Pilot.

BVRAAM is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 12:44
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,788
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Ask H Peacock - he thinks it's OK.
Oh dear, still smarting over that "Derry turn" ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 13:23
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Very astute! It's called a "Canadian Break" by the way…...
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 14:42
  #253 (permalink)  
kwh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Carmarthen
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A few people have pointed out that cognitive impairment might easily have led him to fly the Hunter that he had very few hours in like the Jet Provost that he had a lot in. The logic that follows is that if that basic error was the result of mild cognitive impairment then he's not to blame. Should we accept that view, if he is a highly experienced FJ pilot, instructor & ATPL pilot/BA Captain? Surely risk analysis - the risk of not having enough hours to be current enough to safely fly the display he wanted to fly - was entirely his own responsibility. That he had the right ticks in the right boxes was surely nowhere near enough, as demonstrated by the fact that he crashed the way he did, but more than that, he should have _known_ that the risk factors identified here were all holes in a Swiss Cheese that were lining up, waiting for him to have a fuzzy moment & fly a loop in a Jet Provost rather than the Hunter he was actually sitting in... in that interpretation, mild cognitive impairment isn't a defence, it's the mechanism by which his failure to manage his own personal risk factors, through gathering all the right box ticks without any of the reassuring current experience they are meant to warrant & represent, risk factors he had the experience to know about in advance, led to the 11 deaths.

Either those 11 deaths are just one of those terrible downsides of airshows and aerobatics 'being a thing', and we all just have to accept that one day the Red Arrows _WILL_ plunge into a primary school after a Ramstein style mid-air catastrophe, because that's the price of us having air displays over places where people live on & travel over the ground OR this happened because somebody [possibly multiple people] were negligent & failed to do their job of ensuring that this did not happen and/or ensuring that if it did happen, due to the hypothetical impossibility of preventing it, nobody was going to be underneath it when it did.

If Andy Hill had parked himself & his Hunter 6 foot under an empty field, I suspect that this would be a long forgotten incident, but he didn't & it isn't. However, I also can't shake the thought that if it hadn't been Mr Hill & his Hunter, we would at some point have been having a similar discussion about a bird strike afflicted Vulcan hitting a Tesco Extra or a formation of mid-air colliding warbirds at Duxford wiping out a couple of coach parties stuck in traffic on the M11...
kwh is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 14:58
  #254 (permalink)  
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
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Has anyone answered the Why? he was the display pilot?

Was this Hunter a regular event aircraft or flown as rarely as Hill flew it?

If it was a regular display aircraft, where was it's regular pilot?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 15:05
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
Has anyone answered the Why? he was the display pilot?

Was this Hunter a regular event aircraft or flown as rarely as Hill flew it?

If it was a regular display aircraft, where was it's regular pilot?
I seem to remember that CH was supposed to be the pilot for the display but was unavailable, hence AH flew it. I don't know the reason, nor do I know the normal usage for this aircraft.
Tay Cough is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 15:13
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,725
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
Originally Posted by Tay Cough
I seem to remember that CH was supposed to be the pilot for the display but was unavailable, hence AH flew it. I don't know the reason, nor do I know the normal usage for this aircraft.
CH was on his family holiday, IIRC, and thus AH had been in the frame for flying the display instead at Shoreham for about a month previously.
GeeRam is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 16:12
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GeeRam
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...??
Absolutely. GeeRam thanks for making my point more specifically.
DODGYOLDFART is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 16:57
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It might be that the re-occurrence of an event of a similar nature to that being discussed, would be lessened if Historic Aircraft, already a finite source, would of necessity be confined to a more sedate display.

I'm second to none in my liking for, and appreciation of, displays of energetic aerobatics flown with panache but, pulling high G loads does not bode well for the extended lifespan of Historic Aircraft airframes.

The public, by and large, attend air displays with a camera and are thrilled and excited by the appearance of their favourite aircraft. Photo opportunities of Historic Aircraft making sedate passes, wing overs, gentle turns are surely all that is required. Pilots and airframes alike could benefit from more restrained displays, thus providing some additional element of safety to the routine.

Seeing the aircraft in restrained flight is almost as good as seeing it demonstrated exuberantly.
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 17:35
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,231
Received 49 Likes on 18 Posts
Except that seeing a stream of aircraft being flown sedately up and down the crowd line will get very boring very quickly for Joe Public, and probably also for many enthusiasts. We don't all carry several thousand pounds' worth of cameras and lenses as long as a MANPAD, and restrictions such as these would be the end of the air display industry. God knows it's taking a hell of a beating from the Shoreham fallout already.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 17:49
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian
Except that seeing a stream of aircraft being flown sedately up and down the crowd line will get very boring very quickly for Joe Public, and probably also for many enthusiasts. We don't all carry several thousand pounds' worth of cameras and lenses as long as a MANPAD, and restrictions such as these would be the end of the air display industry. God knows it's taking a hell of a beating from the Shoreham fallout already.
I did narrow my suggestion down to Historic Aircraft only. I've been attending air displays only for around fifty years. The clear impression I have is that most carry a camera of reasonable proportions seeking the shot that perhaps justifies their attendance.
Capt Kremmen is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.