It is possible for parts of an AAIB report to be used as evidence in a criminal trial if the content is deemed admissible and the required parts are presented formally as a witness statement. In AH's trial, one example was that 'Annex H - Report on Data Gathering Flying Related to the Accident to G-BXFI' from the AAIB report was presented by the author and thereafter was available to the court. At this point, the author, who had been working for AAIB as an advisor, became an expert witness for the trial.

H Peacock,
I am not suggesting that we can live in a world which is risk free, but simply that there are sometimes consequences which are so unpalatable that the risk of them occurring has to be demonstrably extremely small to allow the activity to rationally take place. I would respectfully submit that civil aviation operations around busy airports are demonstrably very low risk, whereas display flying particularly of vintage fast jets is not.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see vintage aircraft put through their paces, but the venue has to be appropriate to the intended display. I don't think Shoreham was, and I don't think that is down to the pilot.

As far as the UK goes fatalities and accidents at air shows generally have been through a spate in the last 20 or so years. Biggin Hill saw two in as many days in 2001, a Hurricane was lost with the Pilot at Shoreham a few years ago, there have been others, all so far have involved vintage ex military types. Back in the late forties and early fifties, every annual Battle of Britain 'At Home' day would see at least two fatalities! But then we're looking at around 70 odd similar events on the same day! Something else to make the modern mind boggle.

FB

Even the best practised are not immune from errors, though in this case he had a safe place in which to crash. The Hunter test pilot, Bill Bedford, demonstrating the aircraft to the Swiss made the error of forgetting he was displaying at a high altitude airport and on the down line of a loop realised he may not make it, but did.

If it wasn't a loop, what was it...?!

As much of this post involves discussion of loops, to keep the record straight I believe that Bill's event that you describe was actually during the recovery from an intentional spin, not a loop.

I feel that there is little correlation between these statistics and the Shoreham accident. You have to look at why the accident rate was as it was in the '50s and '60s. There is nothing to indicate that at Shoreham there was any causal factor related to the aircraft type or its era. There are certainly factors related to it being a swept wing jet but those apply equally to types that are in production today. The Hunter has generally very good, benign flying qualities. Its main (only?) deficiency is that it is easy to exceed the g limit during manoeuvres involving rapid g onset rates but that will not cause air display accidents. The main consideration with aeroplanes of this era is that for flying in IMC the instruments, unless updated, require 'old skills' and are unreliable. However, as the aircraft that are displayed are cleared for VMC only that is not a safety factor in this context.

One more point of accuracy with respect to 'In the time of the Hunter ..', the Hunter remained in RAF service until 1994 and MAA registered ones are still flying today!

Thanks for the education Mr Lomcevak, I am sorry, I didn’t realize posts were being graded on this thread. I assumed comment was still allowed. I’ll run the next post past my lawyer.

Oddly enough even with my lack of SA, when I was flying in close with a Hunter in the 90s, I actually spotted it was still flying. But then as 6 crashed on the same day in 1956, I reckon that carries more weight. Using your logic, we still live in the time of Bleriot seeing as the Shuttleworth collection get one out every now and then.

So, on the topic of Dad's ....mine kept the newspaper cuttings from most of the 50s air crashes and I recall the six Hunter article - my recollection is it was weather related, with most of the jets running out of fuel after trying to find somehwere to put down in thick fog.

See following link.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=58328

It would seem a dangerous precedent has been set - have a defence of cognitive impairment that is impossible to prove either way (but the burden of proof is on the prosecution) and you can basically do anything in an aircraft and get away with it - frankly sir the law is an ass!

Digression but this may be of interest.
I joined the Met Office that year. The West Raynham Hunter debacle was infamous, but I never understood why the purveyor of the rubbish forecast was not himself/ herself infamous ........ cock ups much less serious were embedded in the folklore, such as losing 1000 racing pigeons.or suggesting that Holme on Spalding Moor would be a good div.
Perhaps losing aircraft to rubbish forecasts was all in the day's work.

I have to say Legalapproach, that you and your colleagues played an absolute blinder by introducing the Cognitive Impairment aspect to the defence. With no way of proving that it did or didn't happen via medical evidence, then strictly by the book, there is no way a conviction could have occurred under the burden of proof.

Job done. Forget about everything else. 1-0 to the defence.

If a true jury of peers drawn from suitably qualified pilots had sat for this case I wonder if the verdict would have been different. Juries always seem to struggle with more specialist cases (eg Mike Morison) and now high-performance aviation and aviation medicine can be added to the list of troublesome topics.

I still don't know how AH can live with himself with the defence he offered. My professional open-mindedness was slammed shut when he claimed almost no knowledge and no RAF training with respect to the effects of G when flying high-performance aircraft - including the relatively low G available when flying so slow. These were utterly absurd and untruthful statements that were designed to deceive, yet the prosecution did not have the counter to hand. I understand that he was entitled to defend himself and that the burden of proving a case is with the prosecution but you would struggle to find any RAF or RN fast-jet aircrew who thought his answers on that subject were accurate or truthful.

The chap came close to crashing on take-off on that fateful day - that could have been a better outcome for all concerned. We could then just debate the wisdom of no proper performance calculations and the mystery of accepting a tailwind in an aircraft that he had almost no experience flying.

Hi LOMCEVAK, all the references I've seen say loop when demonstrating the aircraft to the Swiss, during one course the event was used as an example of the effects of DA on performance, and as an example of even the best are capably of screwing the pooch without any help. The spin event was another item on Bill's CV.

Just This Once
When the defence lawyers receive material from the prosecution etc they go to independent experts to confirm the accuracy or not of the material and whether any opinion based on the material is correct/whether there is a conflicting body of opinion, whether there are areas that have not been properly investigated etc etc. Sometimes the independent expert will say "I agree" sometimes they will say "No it is wrong and for this reason". This is what happens in many many cases. It is what happened here. AH remembers nothing about the flight , he never put himself forward as a medical expert. His defence was not created by him nor by his lawyers but put forward by independent expert witnesses.

As to G knowledge I am afraid that you base your opinion on what was reported in the newspapers. This was not completely accurate and taken out of context. Prosecution witnesses had already given evidence that G knowledge and training has changed dramatically in recent years. At the time AH was trained, there was limited (mostly classroom based and brief) G training, no centrifuge training, no use of the expression A-LOC etc. If you and then many like you accuse AH of telling deliberate lies then the prosecution witnesses must have been likewise perjuring themselves. This evidence was unchallenged by the prosecution because many of their own witnesses confirmed it.
Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. I read reports of KKQC cross examining particular witnesses and the xx apparently reported verbatim including his name. Those witnesses were called on a day when AFAIK KK was in New York and some other bloke was doing the XX!

Nice to see that with a bit of money you can buy your way out of any trouble you cause. I must remember that one.:mad:

Defence lawyers everywhere may well be smacking their lips ! A plea of cognitive impairment means that no one will ever be guilty of anything !