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: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,155
Received 1,461 Likes on 660 Posts
Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Andrew Hill has been found Not Guilty by the jury on all counts.
ORAC is online now  

Top Answer

16th Jan 2024, 06:25
Bob Viking
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,355
Received 428 Likes on 109 Posts
Shoreham verdict

Let’s be honest here. Despite any evidence given in court and suggestions of temporary medical events there are those of us, mainly those that have flown aerobatics in fast jets, that are never going to accept the verdict. He and his friends can argue until they’re blue in the face but we will always believe what we believe.

AH doesn’t belong in prison but I for one would be happier if he, and anyone like him who thinks his display was a good idea, never again got the opportunity to display a vintage jet infront of a crowd.

As I have said before I grew up going to air shows and my love of jets as a kid gave rise to a 23 year RAF fast jet career. Since the Shoreham accident though I have never been tempted to take my family to an air show where vintage jet aircraft are displaying.

BV
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:11
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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: 67
Posts: 1,338
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
Interesting result considering the past.
air pig is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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: 63
Posts: 1,848
Received 73 Likes on 41 Posts
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: 61
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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: 79
Posts: 7,780
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
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 online now  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
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
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
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: 667
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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: 392
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 789
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
Shoreham Airshow pilot acquitted over crash deaths

Originally Posted by MPN11
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: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
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: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Point well made Wiggy…...
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
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: 66
Posts: 91
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
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: 1,139
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.