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 8th Mar 2019, 10:07
  #1 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 65
Posts: 9,678
Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Andrew Hill has been found Not Guilty by the jury on all counts.
ORAC is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:11
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,030
That is very welcome news.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 62
Posts: 1,122
Interesting result considering the past.
air pig is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,734
So, what did cause the accident?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 88
This verdict does not of course preclude the families of those killed from bringing a civil claim for damages (although as with many such claims it would really be a claim against the insurers of Hill and the airshow, since both pilot and airshow presumably had public liability insurance.)
Satellite_Driver is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:19
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 58
Posts: 1,132
It goes to show the validity of not compromising a trial with foregone conclusions. I think a lot of people were expecting it to be an open and shut case. However, when all is laid bare and argued through, many other facets appear!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 56
Posts: 41
Interesting verdict as it seems to go against some thoughts about the accident flight and prior non-accident flights, is this a convenient verdict to underline the apparent knee-jerk reactions of the CAA?
lightbluefootprint is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:27
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,084
An interesting result, and not what I was expecting from what I've read here. I will be interested to see what detail emerges from the trial. Have to agree with OAP on this one, and I suspect there will be more action to come.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,162
As ABC has said this is very very welcome news.
wiggy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:34
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 88
I think it's important here to bear in mind what this means. This was a criminal trial, to the criminal standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') and to the test used for gross negligence manslaughter, i.e. that the defendant was not just negligent but fell far below the standard expected of someone in his position. No doubt the judge will have directed the jury in terms similar to those approved by the Court of Appeal in the 2016 case R (on the application of Oliver) v Director of Public Prosecution:

"A proper direction to the jury on the issue of gross negligence was held in that case to be that they should be sure that the conduct in question was something ‘truly exceptionally bad and which showed a departure from the standard to be expected’ so as to constitute the very serious crime of manslaughter. The bar is thus set high: perhaps unsurprisingly so, given that such cases ordinarily involve no criminal intent."

An acquittal means that the jury were not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the crash was caused by Hill's flying being so bad as to meet that test.
Satellite_Driver is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,094
12 "Good men and True" who know nothing about display flying. What verdict did we expect? "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" can be a hard taskmaster. Have to agree with OAP - what caused a perfectly serviceable fighter aircraft to crash whilst carrying out low level aerobatic manoeuvres? After all the pilot had 40 hours on type which was enough for the CAA to grant a PDA. Phew!!
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 570
Whilst I'm not wishing any ill to Mr Hill (who has of course the consequences of this to live with for the rest of his days), I'm very surprised at the result based on the facts of the AAIB report. I think its good news for display pilots. I'd heard some dark rumours about the consequences of a guilty verdict in this case.
Treble one is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 20
Beyond reasonable doubt. The Jury thought that it was not, so made their judgement accordingly. Civil actions, if they happen will be less restricted in this score.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Age: 61
Posts: 519
Shoreham Airshow pilot acquitted over crash deaths

Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
An interesting result, and not what I was expecting from what I've read here. I will be interested to see what detail emerges from the trial. Have to agree with OAP on this one, and I suspect there will be more action to come.
Don't believe then what you read on a rumour network with plenty of armchair lawyers, armchair QC's, plus armchair judges and jury !

The Court was not there to decide what caused the accident - That is the AAIB's job.

From BBC news-
Pilot Andrew Hill has been found not guilty of manslaughter over the Shoreham Airshow crash, in which 11 men died.
Mr Hill's ex-military Hawker Hunter jet crashed on to the A27 in Sussex on 22 August 2015.
The ex-RAF pilot denied deliberately committing to a loop manoeuvre despite flying too low and too slow.
Karim Khalil QC, defending, argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment" when the jet crashed.
Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.



The Coroner has to now decide on how the victims died and give her verdict.
She stated that a pre-inquest review into the 11 deaths following the Shoreham air crash due to take place on Monday 26 March 2018 has been postponed.
West Sussex Senior Coroner Penelope Schofield has taken the decision following the CPS decision to bring charges against the pilot. The Coroner set the next review for Friday 22 February 2019, to allow for the criminal proceedings but due to the nature of the charges, the full inquest must now await the conclusion of the criminal case. The Coroner has said she does not anticipate the full inquest will take place until mid to late 2019 and will continue to keep the matter under review to ensure that the inquests take place as soon as is reasonably possible.
rog747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,162
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent View Post
12 "Good men and True" who know nothing about display flying.
But also 12 “Good men and true” who were actually in court and heard all the evidence presented.....
wiggy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:50
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 3
BBC reporting jury were told “that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight”

Of course the answer is 42.....

...(Hitchhikers guide reference to the question-the answer to everything)

Last edited by weemonkey; 9th Mar 2019 at 09:27.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,094
Point well made Wiggy…...
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 311
The whole premise of aviation safety is acknowledging that human beings make mistakes. This pilot undoubtedly did that, but if every mistake that led to a fatality was followed by criminal prosecution; what would that do to our hard won safety culture. I hold no brief for Mr Hill but I am happy with the result for the sake of every pilot, controller and engineer in the business. In my view the most worrying aspect of this accident was the display authorisation “process”.
Timelord is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
So, what did cause the accident?

OAP
You are completely missing the point!

Gross negligence was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt so he was, quite correctly, found not guilty.
Thoughtful_Flyer is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:55
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,004
With respect to the BBC, the Defendant's barrister does not have to prove anything; only to introduce sufficient evidence that there is a possibility of something that undermines the prosecution.
Fitter2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.