Indeed, and I take everything I read here with a pinch of salt. However, my perception was swayed by those who observed upon the low entry into the manoeuvre and the failure to meet the required gate height. Even my limited flying experience suggested that as likely to end badly.

However, the Jury has decided, and that's the way it works.

Indeed - This was one case where had I lived closer to London I would have liked to have spent some time in the visitors gallery and learn from the system.

An utter travesty. Problem with smart lawyer and jury that knows diddly squat about flying.

"Cognitive impairment" sounds like g-lock to me, which is rather surprising given the apparent control the aircraft was under during its final maneuvers. An interesting verdict indeed.

With respct, sir, had you taken the trouble to read posts #10 and #14 plus one or two others you'd have spared yourself the trouble of a smart alec who knows diddly squat about the law posting an utter travesty...

Juries have no obligation to return a verdict that is "convenient" for any party.

The Coroner has to now decide on how the victims died.

She stated that a pre-inquest review into the 11 deaths following the Shoreham air crash on 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, thus 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 but was mindful of the victims families distress.

Now the Judicial Court case has been completed she has to now decide on how the victims died and give her verdict.

Brian W May, I don't know whether you've ever served on a jury, but when I did so, the judge took great pains to explain to the members of the jury that they were ONLY to consider the evidence presented and nothing else. Which includes 'Internet research' et al. So I cannot imagine for one moment that the evidence was presented in anything but a clear manner, sufficient for judge and jury to have full understanding. That the jury might have known 'diddly squat' about flying is frankly nihil ad rem.

When I was foreman of the jury on which I served, I had to remind some members of the judge's statement regarding consideration of evidence, including that we could only discuss the case when all members were present. If someone needed to go to the lavatory, then no discussion of the case could continue.

The jury in Andy Hill's case has given its verdict. Who are you to query that?

Beautifully put!

Quite!

The ignorant prejudice displayed by Brian W May and no doubt others is quite frightening!

Not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. This verdict of a jury who sat through the entire trial seems reasonable to me.

Some quite undignified responses (near gloating in fact) on here.
Perhaps the dead should be shown some respect, gentlemen.

Of course Dave and no such thing was intended, my thought (poorly served by written text) was that does this verdict perhaps vindicate the perceived draconian reaction of the CAA in the aftermath of the incident?

Mr May, like others here are fully entitled to their opines...That is democracy...We may not agree, or maybe we get outraged at what is said/inferred as did Mr May's view of the Court outcome.

But please be mindful and not let us descend this thread into a game of returning ping pong...It is already going on over at R&N as well after Mr May posted the same comment...

I for one wished I could have spent time in the Visitors Gallery on this case -

I wonder if the 1952 Farnbrorough show accident had any precedent to the defence and any submissions made that accidents do happen ?
It was back then, treated by all as a tragic accident. Different times of course.

You perhaps are talking about 'LAW'

I am talking about JUSTICE, wrong height, wrong speed, nobody else involved. Who IS responsible for the deaths then? If Andy Hill had gone sick that day, those poor souls would be alive.

So, with the greatest of respect . . . Foxtrot Oscar

Yes, it's interesting that the term accident has been replaced with incident in many areas of law enforcement.

Agree 100 percent. As always in tragedies like this its a swiss cheese scenario and the majority of those holes were already lining up well before Mr Hill stepped foot in that plane on that day.

The CAA palpably failed in their duty of care (to everybody) by not seeing the writing on the wall with regards the proliferation of "vintage" jets; not recognising that performing public aeros in high power, swept wing jets required a specialist skillset and a fair amount of ongoing practice, not consistently applying its own DA rules and oversight as existed at the time, not ensuring the display venues were suitable, not ensuring display routines were pre-briefed, and that only that routine was flown, etc, etc

I'd agree with the jury that the primary cause of the Shoreham tragedy did not lie with Andy Hill, regardless of his airmanship displayed on that particular day.

Not the correct verdict in my opinion but pleased that they didn't lock him up. Nothing to gain. Maybe a private prosecution now. Same result? The families will probably crowd fund or what ever it is called. One will not donate.

The AAIB report requires considerable effort to read. However, I commend it to anyone who posts here. Within a host of concluding observations, the AAIB report states:
"Causal factors • The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground, because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
• An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height."

OAP