Indeed, and perhaps there will be effects in future that some people here and elsewhere in aviation will come to feel less comfortable about.

As I posted in the corresponding thread in the R&N section:

Brian W May - "jury that knows diddly squat about flying". What do you want then? A jury of a dozen Hunter display pilots? More likely to convict? Hardly. It is precisely because they know little about flying that they were on the jury. That's how the legal system works.

That's ok, I was given PDA after little more than 7 hours on the Hunter!

It seems that the crux of this case was to do with 'cognitive impairment' and whether or not the pilot had suffered this during the course of the manoeuvre. This was actually one of the main points of the judges summing up.

We can take it then that the defence witness on this matter was either more convincing than the prosecution one, or that the defence team managed to instill enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So well done to the defence brief for playing the only card he had very well indeed.

Ironically, the actual flight profile flown on the day, and the errors in it highlighted by the AAIB report was almost incidental to the outcome. Strange indeed.

I once heard a very senior RAF lawyer give his view that civil criminal juries were always reluctant to convict individuals practising highly complex and difficult jobs (in whatever field) of professional negligence, unless the evidence was absolutely compelling. He then said "and DG MAA (who was in the audience) never likes me telling you that, as he likes to keep you on your toes" (or words to that effect).

BBC 'world at one' programme just reported that the aircraft involved was a 'Hawker Harrier' !!!!!!!!!

The verdict was perfectly correct given what he was charged with . . .
. . .but to draw a parallel with driving a road vehicle, is there such an offence as causing death by dangerous flying? If not, should there be?

Beag's is obviously referring to when he was taking part in Plato's symposium... or was it Aristotle, I think you go back that far...?

The very subtle point has to be made that to be convicted the offence has to be "complete". Much has been made of slippery defence counsel but it has to be remembered that the defence has to do nothing (save challenge and probe the prosecution's case), the prosecution however has to actively prove it's case, and that involves demonstrating that the definition of the charge has been met in the presentation of evidence. Criminally Negligent Manslaughter is incredibly hard to prove for a variety of reasons, and I suspect the real philosophical debate to be had is whether the definition of the crime is too broad or narrow to have captured all of the exigent circumstances in case it were to be repeated in the future, and for the Jurisprudent, what should be the limit and extent of the law?

I believe, though I'm ready to be corrected by people more knowledgeable, that the corresponding by dangerous driving offence was instituted due to difficulties in obtaining verdicts in manslaughter cases on the roads.

As a certain other case discovered in the last year or two, there was no similar offence of ~ by dangerous cycling ...

Totally agree.

However, like all those who kill because of a mistake they make (accidental or incompetence) he will have to live with that for the rest of his life.

In fact, even before the start of the trial, the judge had made it clear that the "cognitive impairment" defence could be, in effect, a stay-out-of-jail card.

At the pre-trial hearing, Mr Justice Edis said "The issue is whether Mr Hill was at fault or whether he was disabled by the G force" (the two scenarios being, by implication, mutually exclusive).

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1734...ed-by-g-force/

You don't know that. A different pilot may have made a different mistake and crashed it into the crowd potentially killing hundreds.

Mr Hill may have made a mistake and very sadly the consequences were tragic. On a different day he, or any other pilot, could have made far worse errors without injuring a hair on anybody's head.

The person who never makes a mistake never makes anything. Every time you or I get in a car there is the potential to kill somebody. That could, under some circumstances be the result of gross negligence but in the vast majority of cases it is simply the result of a mistake.

And finally, the LAW exists to ensure there is justice which is a very different thing from a lynch mob!

Whether or not one agrees with the verdict, that is how justice is served in the UK. Mr Hill has been tried and acquitted at the Old Bailey following evidence put forward by the prosecution and defence.

Our system isn't perfect, but I for one would rather be tried in the UK than anywhere else. We have to respect the decision made by the jury.

Whether or not you agree with the jury's verdict, it must be respected. It could not have been easy for any of them to have to sit through seven weeks of, often harrowing, evidence.

As Hill himself has said, he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.

Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?

Seems cut and dried. However, I seem to recall there were admissible evidence issues with the AAIB report and the prosecution said at the outset it would not be using it in evidence.

If my recollection is correct, the jury would not have seen the report of the impartial experts!

Journalism
 

Well if you can't trust the Beeb who can you trust? Answers on a postcard to Broadcasting House,Portland Place and Langham Place, London,W1A 1AA.

The other day when the chap who was going to Barra with bird watchers - crashed after take off - overloaded - took money off the pax - no load sheet etc etc He is due to be sentenced on 15 March.

Might be worth spending some time reading the media coverage of the case... it's not as black and white as you wish it to be

Whatever came out in court, one thing is for sure. The pilot of that a/c didn't have sufficent, recent time on type and possibly not enough recent relavent experience. Period. I believe he had 40hours in 4 years on type. Not enough IMHO. Airline type flying has no relevance what so ever.

There was a pilot, years ago, who was very experienced and current in a particularly dangerous type of aviation. One of the very best and a master of his trade.He gave it up and bought a restaurant. He said he was unable to live without the flying. After a few years away from that particular type of flying, went back to it, part time, then a short period later he was killed after making an gerror of judgement.

Whether currency, or lack of, had a part to play in this tradgety, will be difficult to prove one way or the other. I believe it would have been a contributory factor.

The jury were not satisfied.

Not specifically regarding this issue but I would remind that a criminal trial requires a jury to convict or acquit on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high bar for the prosecution to overcome. A civil trial (or lawsuit) on the other hand, requires a verdict on the balance of probability - a very different proposition.

Worth thinking about:
Any pilot at any time can find him/herself involved in an aircraft accident whether they made a mistake or not.
In this age such an event could lead to any of us having to defend ourselves in court, whether responsible for the event or not.
Whether you believe so or not, you could be next.

Without commenting on the facts of this case, this was a masterclass in defending oneself.
Keep your mouth firmly closed outside of court, appear contrite, disappear as far as possible,

And let the lawyers do all the talking.

I find this odd, from the BBC's website;

This implies details were withheld, or IM were prevented from presenting them. Has the Coroner already said he will allow such evidence? And will the Health and Safety Executive pursue soemone?

I don't think its good news for display pilots at all; you will now probably see some consequences as to 'cognitive impairment during aerobatics' appear from the Campaign Against Aviation. It might have been better for future public airshows if he HAD been found guilty in the long run.

Ttfn

On the "nobody else involved" point: would it be reasonable for the Display Director to have observed and judged the entry to the fatal manoeuvre to have been at the "wrong height, wrong speed" and put out a STOP call?

Just a note.

Whether right or wrong, some folks seem incensed and resentful that I'm openly stating my belief regarding this case

Your opinions would carry a little more weight if you used your names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms. BEagle you're well out of the RAF, so why not come clean?

Or is that the deal, you can say what you want and not bear any responsibility for your views?

Its what the Display Director should have done maybe. But as this was the initial manoevre in the sequence, (from the radar track that was publicised after the event) would a stop message have been too late. Was he/she called as witness, haven't seen mention of it.

Ttfn

Anyone who knows..........
 

Amazing what a clever lawyer and a lay jury can come up with. Anyone who knows how to loop a Hunter safely at low level could tell you the cause of this accident, and the logical legal verdict to the charge.

Its good news in the sense that a lot of people won't be lost to display flying-however, as you say, the CAA will get their teeth into this, and we will no doubt face more restrictions. Its funny because reading the trial reports, its seemed that the prosecution Aviation Medicine Expert had 'trumped' the defence one. In my own mind anyway.

For the reason I stated above, the 'logical legal verdict' was Not Guilty because the prosecution case was not proved.

" 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. "

That is NOT what the jury decided. They decided that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the the pilot had committed gross negligence manslaughter which is a very high bar to prove far beyond establishing that Andy Hill was the primary cause of the accident.

I am not a pilot but I am responsible for safety engineering and it should be hard to establish gross negligence manslaughter because real incidents are the result of multiple failures generally by multiple parties none of whom are acting with malice. A blame culture and a safety culture are probably not compatible and I would rather have a culture in which incidents and near incidents are openly and honestly evaluated than one where people are too scared to be honest. In the real world there are many degrees of responsibility and negligence but a court decision is binary. I am concerned that what Andy Hill has said of the accident is governed by a concern about his legal position rather than supporting an effort to understand and thereby avoid similar incidents in the future.

It seems to me that "justice" is similar to "democracy". A lot of people are all in favour of it until such time as the outcome is not to their liking.

tatatatata..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342

There why you can trust the BBC, they'll even tell you why

Regarding the question of whether there should be an offence of 'causing death by dangerous flying', I seem to recall this being raised after the acquittal in 1996 of the Hercules pilot who had been charged with the manslaughter of a soldier hit whilst standing on the roof of a truck during a low flyby after a practice drop at South Cerney.

Yes, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced because it was so rarely possible to prove such a level of negligence as to make out a manslaughter charge in fatal RTAs. I'm sure a corresponding offence could be created for aviation (and perhaps other forms of transport) but it would be a case of finding parliamentary time and will.

You might be overthinking that. I doubt there is suppression.

This trial examines the case as brought against and defended by Mr Hill.

An inquest can examine other circumstances which weren't necessarily directly relevant to Mr Hill's conduct, but are part of the background context, such as airworthiness standards, organisational aspects, including display authorisations, and so on.

​​​​​​For instance, it would hardly be relevant to whether someone is allegedly acting negligently that they were acting in accordance with procedures they were permitted, and laid down by someone else. Thus not at this trial, by don't be surprised if the inquest makes recommendations about future air displays.

G-LOC
 

Court Report:


Hill, speaking for the first time since the crash, said: 'I can't recall G-LOC being part of formal aircraft training either way.

'We were aware that there was a phenomenon called G-LOC, quite how I came to be aware of it I don't know.'

Mr Khalil asked him: 'Was cognitive impairment in use when you were training in the RAF?'

Hill, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and dark blue tie, replied: 'Not at all.'

Wonder what those funny blow up trousers are for!