Skimmed most of the comments, which are nearly all very sympathetic to AH.

I should bloody well hope so. No amount of good wishes will dilute his angst.

In a tiny tiny way, my father's experience whilst driving gives me some insight. Driving at his usual sober pace in a built-up area, a child's soap-box cart/ bogey [call it what you will] shot out of a side road, having had benefit of a long steep hill. Dad's car hit the cart. The boy was injured.

My dad visited and visited in hospital. The lad made a complete recovery.

I don't think dad did, his driving became even more careful, even apprehensive.

These experiences never go away.

"Out and about"

I'm not sure that's correct. For all we know he might have been photographed
coming out of the doctor's surgery, rather than socialising, or trying to get back to normality.

This is a good example of why we should not be deciding what caused anything, when we don't have many facts. The camera may or may not lie, but it can certainly mislead.

Since when was it the role of the AAIB to "determine any possible negligence" Maybug?

I don't think anyone is in an authoritative position to either confirm or deny that assertion. Perhaps we should all continue to sit on the fence?

The poor man looks aged beyond his years. I note the DM describe him as a former BA pilot. That can't be so, can it? Unless he resigned?

Many weeks ago, various aspects of the 'media' seemed to decide to abbreviate 'former RAF pilot and BA captain' to 'former BA captain'.

Quote from me:
"Whatever the cause of the crash, it was an accident of which he was himself a victim."

Quote from Cows getting bigger:
"I don't think anyone is in an authoritative position to either confirm or deny that assertion."

Which assertion are you questioning, and why?

Airpolice, I was just being generic as one does not know why and where, but he was out of his home and moving about, hence the expression, one did not mean to infer anything negative, I agree with what people say though, he appears to be carrying the world on his shoulders.... Poor guy :sad:

It's a completely understandable news story, it was a very big, public news event just a few weeks ago and the fact that the pilot involved is "up and about" is very newsworthy, and of course very pleasing.
You can call it "trial by media" or you could say it is a pertinent question.
One would hope that he has at least been questioned at great length by the AAIB by now if not the police, all too often in these scenario's the investigators only have eye witness and mobile phone evidence as sadly in many cases the crew perish. In an aircraft with no flight data recorder I would imagine the pilot's testimony would have been a vital priority.
If he hasn't been interviewed then somebody should be asking why?

I believe they also have footage from the cockpit video cameras. one would be surprised if in an incident like this he actually remembers a lot about it.

Not passed medically fit to be interviewed apparently, so he won't have spoken to the AAIB either.

Interviews
 

Just a thought. I wonder if the Privilege against Self-Incrimination is available to relevant persons when being interviewed by the AAIB. I can think of good public policy reasons why AAIB should be allowed access to all evidence and to obtain it using compulsion if required. Am not suggesting it has or has not been invoked in the current case.

The media can't help themselves in publishing sneak photos such as these, no good can come of it, except for their circulation figures.

Often in cases of car or aircraft accident causing brain injury there will be retrograde amnesia. The subject cannot recall events just prior to the accident. There would be no point in interviewing someone who is suffering this type of amnesia. My father fell off a roof at work, landed on his head and was in a coma for a week. All he remembers about the day was having breakfast, then leaving for work.

AAIB interviews
 

MAO Warlingham: interviews by the AAIB aren't taken under oath so the issue of a Privilege against Self-Incrimination is moot. Evidence to be used in court by the Police or HSE is taken under oath and the same questions may be asked then. I believe the answers aren't always the same though...

EAP

Unfortunately, the Rogers Hoyle appeal finding has changed things badly. Anyone giving evidence or making judgements as experts will always now be aware that their words will probably end up echoing in the places that the AAIB has always tried to to stay away from. There is a big difference between giving evidence to try to prevent an accident happening again without blame and finding your words in a litigation case. I suspect a single claim has changed the landscape at the expense of aviation and marine safety.

I don't pretend to know UK law, but in US law ANYthing you say (whether under oath or not) can be used against you in a court of law. So without special protections, any statement made to the FAA, the NTSB, or any other investigating body can be used against you. And that is why in the US there are special protections put in place prohibiting the use of such statements in a court of law.

EAP
Neither interviews with the AAIB nor the police are taken "under oath" as you put it. Evidence to be used in court is not taken under oath in either police or HSE investigations.

Witness statements taken during a police or HSE investigation contain a declaration as to the truth and interviews are conducted under caution.

Live evidence in court is given under oath.

Since Rogers v Hoyle, any person being interviewed by the AAIB where there is a suspicion of negligence on their part would be well advised to seek expert legal advice before doing so and should without doubt be legally represented in any police or CAA investigation by a solicitor who is a specialist in this field.

The position with AAIB reports is that at present they are admissible in civil proceedings but not in criminal proceedings. An interview with a pilot is annex 13 material and not in itself to be disclosed without a court order. Such a statement has not as yet been ruled admissible. The difficulty that arises is that summaries or extracts of the interview often appear in AAIB reports and the contents of the interview may have some bearing on the opinions formed and the conclusions reached.

Can't comment of the specifics but AH has/is being given a lot of support by his professional association. That association offers a legal service/legal advice.

People could also be well advised to man-up and own up when they know they are in the wrong.