|
"What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless."
Sorry my fault for sure but I'm not sure I quite understand the point you're making.. I should make it clear that I haven't read any of the transcripts, the AAIB report or anything else in any detail so I'm reluctant to comment on the facts of this ghastly affair. What does seem clear though is that the pilot messed up big time; hence the test 'truly exceptionally bad'. And sure he put his own neck on the line much like a driver indicted for the same offense but that, as per the facts in Misra,, is an irrelevance for a conviction. I should add that though I was a lawyer in a past life (now gladly retired !), I never was involved in criminal cases so my knowledge is somewhat limited. Ironically though I was involved in a depressingly large number of medical negligence cases and one or two quite high profile aircraft accident cases. |
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
(Post 11384461)
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.
|
Originally Posted by Gordomac
(Post 11384482)
but I stand by my view that Hill did not set out to kill himself or any innocent bystanders.
|
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11384490)
...The elephant in the room here isn't pilot CI, or even what he ate for breakfast. It is the fact that he was flying an ex-military FJ that was already unairworthy when it received its permit to fly and remained so until it crashed alongside the A27...
|
Two's in, I agree entirely with your point about pilot currency and indeed with all the many shortfalls that litter this tragedy. All I'm trying to encourage is more awareness of every factor involved and of how they should all be dealt with to avoid recurrence. Simply concentrating on any pilot deficiency merely gives those others who failed in their duties a free pass and more importantly the certainty of similar failures in the future, particularly of Regulation in all its forms.
|
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
(Post 11384461)
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.
The fact that Hill didn't attempt to crash in an unoccupied area does not mean that he intended to kill the bystanders. (Had he tried to do something like that he certainly would have died). In the final stages he was taking the course of action most likely to avoid a crash, and very nearly succeeded; however the lack of intent to kill anyone else and the genuine effort to avoid crashing do not by themselves exclude manslaughter. |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 11384574)
Intent, or its absence, is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Even lay people understand that, so your argument has no resonance whatsoever. Manslaughter very clearly means *unintentional* unlawful killing.
'Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups: 1. Voluntary manslaughter - where the offender INTENDED...... 2. Involuntary manslaughter - where the offender DID NOT INTEND....' (See above) I was citing in the first instance the difference between negligence and gross negligence: "Negligence is commonly defined as ‘the inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk’. Whereas, gross negligence is ‘a conscious act or omission in disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party’. (Ormerod D. Smith 8 Hogan’s Criminal Law (11th edition))." Logically (so doesn't necessarily apply to the law) to pursue Gross Negligence Manslaughter, one must first satisfy the Gross Negligence criteria? It's certainly a difficult area, and legal opinion differs greatly. But, from the above sources, it would seem the decision to prosecute the pilot for GNM followed a decision by the CPS (?) that there was intent of some kind. All complicated by the sentencing guidelines changing in 2018. My brain hurts. |
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11384490)
Thread titles, on this forum at least, tend not to survive thread content, and later events and developments cause the discussion to move on. Thread drift perhaps, but tolerated by our esteemed mods and no more apparent than in that most celebrated thread of all, and now a sticky, that of obtaining an RAF Pilots Brevet in WWII. This one though seems obstinately to be obsessed with the trial that is the OP subject. I know little about legal process other than it be arcane and unpredictable but trying to rerun it in these pages seems to me to be bordering on the pointless.
The tragedy of Shoreham must never be repeated. There at least we are surely all in agreement. Aviation has a history of far too many fatal accidents, but each one is an opportunity to learn from in order to avoid repetition. There are many lessons to be learnt from Shoreham and professional aviators need to consider them all. Once again we find that many of the factors involved were not 'discovered' in the air accident investigation and it has fallen on others to expose them and seek formal consideration. That the 'authorities' seem reluctant to do so says more about our national institutions than it does about proper air accident investigation. The glaring shortfall on this occasion is a classic one, that of the relationship between Air Regulator and Accident Investigator. If ever there were proof of the necessity of a complete separation and independence of the two then it is here. Instead of hints and nudges of problems there needs to be outright condemnation of any regulatory negligence. It has been the curse of UK Military Aviation for over thirty years. It must not be allowed to infect our civil aviation as well. The elephant in the room here isn't pilot CI, or even what he ate for breakfast. It is the fact that he was flying an ex-military FJ that was already unairworthy when it received its permit to fly and remained so until it crashed alongside the A27. Just as with Mull, the worst military example of this syndrome, we don't know if the lack of airworthiness caused the tragedy because, just like Mull, no-one felt disposed to seriously consider that. I find that to be the glaring omission in the subsequent investigations by the AAIB, the High Court, and the Coroner. That is a scandal in my view and will encourage repetition if not corrected. |
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11384673)
the CAA and AAIB are separate and independent. I‘lol have to check, but I’m pretty sure his aircraft was on the civilian register.
It was operating under a Permit to Fly. Airworthiness was a dog's breakfast. The CAA knew SFA about the Hunter in terms of airworthiness. It was not certified, hence operating under a P t F. The MoD weren't much interested either. Both seem to have engaged in arse covering of the first order after the accident. Nothing to do with this accident, but highlights the general lack of competence when it comes to airworthiness of former military aircraft. |
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
(Post 11384674)
It was operating under a Permit to Fly. Airworthiness was a dog's breakfast. The CAA knew SFA about the Hunter in terms of airworthiness. It was not certified, hence operating under a P t F. The MoD weren't much interested either. Both seem to have engaged in arse covering of the first order after the accident. Nothing to do with this accident, but highlights the general lack of competence when it comes to airworthiness of former military aircraft.
out of curiosity, who certified the spitfires flown by civvies? What’s the safety case? |
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11384681)
well, then perhaps the military obvious answer is there shouldn’t be any civilians flying former military aircraft?
out of curiosity, who certified the spitfires flown by civvies? What’s the safety case? |
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
(Post 11384686)
Spitfires aren't certified either. They are all (except the BBMF I think) operated under a Permit to Fly. Loads of aircraft operate in the UK without any formal airworthiness certification, as such. A Permit to Fly isn't carte blanche to avoid all safety regulation. Just means there is no formal certificate of airworthiness for the type. Examples of types without certification are all ex-military types, microlights, home built aircraft, flying replicas, paramotors, balloons, some gliders, and probably a few others.
|
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11384694)
and thus unsafe to fly.
Doesn't mean they were unsafe. Arguably the safety record for loads of uncertified aircraft proves beyond doubt that having an airworthiness certificate is a marginal benefit. Plenty of certified aircraft crash. |
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11384673)
the CAA and AAIB are separate and independent. I‘lol have to check, but I’m pretty sure his aircraft was on the civilian register.
|
and thus unsafe to fly |
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
(Post 11384715)
Arguably the safety record for loads of uncertified aircraft proves beyond doubt that having an airworthiness certificate is a marginal benefit. Plenty of certified aircraft crash.
|
Going round in circles.
I think we are all in broad agreement and just arguing similar points. From my personal perspective, the one body that could and should have regulated this whole sorry tale better is the CAA. Putting such an inexperienced (on type) pilot in the position of flying low level aerobatics for a huge crowd and over innocent bystanders was utter madness. The other points we can argue about until the cows come home.
BV |
Originally Posted by dervish
(Post 11384853)
A certificate must go hand in hand with a competent regulator. It is meant to provide confidence. If the regulator is incompetent what confidence can we have?
Spot on, and in this case there wasn't a competent regulator. As it happens it most probably didn't play a role in this accident. The investigation has highlighted something known of for years and which has been kicked into the long grass. When an airworthiness authority disappears for an old type there doesn't seem to be a way to create a competent replacement. |
Putting such an inexperienced (on type) pilot in the position of flying low level aerobatics for a huge crowd and over innocent bystanders was utter madness BV, No one forced AH to fly this or any other display. The pilot must take the ultimate responsibility for accepting a display venue and adapting the display to suit the venue and conditions. If not able to do so the pilot should not "attempt" to fly the display. That said, the whole "system" is totally lacking any effective control. If the CAA are responsible they must take control. With that comes responsibility. No hiding behind organisations, it comes down to individuals. There can be no doubt that there are a few highly paid individuals within CAA who have not taken responsibility. As an observer it sounds as though there has been a lot of ducking and diving. Tucumseh, Whilst I agree with many of your questions about the airworthiness issues with some of these display aircraft they did not, as far as we know, effect this accident. As mentioned previously, when signing for an aircraft the Captain accepts that aircraft for the flight as planned. In doing so the Captain accepts responsibility. Despite all of the other distractions, AH was, IMHO, responsible for the outcome of this flight |
Originally Posted by Dominator2
(Post 11384919)
.
Whilst I agree with many of your questions about the airworthiness issues with some of these display aircraft they did not, as far as we know, effect this accident. As mentioned previously, when signing for an aircraft the Captain accepts that aircraft for the flight as planned. In doing so the Captain accepts responsibility. Despite all of the other distractions, AH was, IMHO, responsible for the outcome of this flight |
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11384940)
Responsible for what? The airworthiness of the a/c? How is he supposed to know if it is anything other than fully airworthy? That is the default assumption that all pilots have to make unless they know to the contrary. By your reckoning the Captain of the ill fated Afghanistan Nimrod was responsible for the loss of his crew and its grossly unairworthy a/c when it spontaneously exploded after AAR. Utter rubbish. Your 'as far as we know' is at the very core of this argument. What we know now differs from what we were told by the accident report. That has to be considered formally, hopefully by Hill's JR.
|
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 11384891)
I think we are all in broad agreement and just arguing similar points. From my personal perspective, the one body that could and should have regulated this whole sorry tale better is the CAA.
BV But broad agreement? There are people here making assertions that are factually inaccurate, who persist even when taken to the evidence. |
Originally Posted by dervish
(Post 11384985)
Nailed it.
1. airworthiness and sign off 2. accreditation and sign off 3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ? everything cannot be lumped only into point 1….. |
Originally Posted by dagenham
(Post 11385093)
actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here
1. airworthiness and sign off 2. accreditation and sign off 3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ? everything cannot be lumped only into point 1….. |
Originally Posted by dervish
(Post 11385139)
I'm at a loss. Your post has nothing to do with Chugalug's or mine. He replied to a specific point made by someone else and was accurate, and nowhere implies "airworthiness and sign off" are the sole issues on Shoreham. By asking if causality between your 3 points has been proven, you are just repeating what he has already said and is true. I've read the accident report and it mentions all 3 but doesn't attempt to link them. That doesn't mean there is no link. It means the investigation was crap.
|
Originally Posted by dagenham
(Post 11385093)
actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here
1. airworthiness and sign off 2. accreditation and sign off 3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ? everything cannot be lumped only into point 1….. |
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11385469)
If you run out of argument then create a false one, is that it? No-one is saying that airworthiness should be considered alone. As Dervish has pointed out, I was merely answering D2's somewhat unique idea that having signed for it a pilot is responsible for the entire state of an aircraft including its airworthiness. Unless you share his view, I cannot see that we are in anything other than violent agreement, sorry! Indeed, the thread seems to have moved on from 'lumping' everything into point 3 of your list and now accepts that all three points are interconnected as your post states. Congratulations, we are as one!
|
|
In many ways, for those most immediately involved in this case, this might be for the best, as no verdicts or judgements can alter what happened and its consequences on their lives. For those wondering about civil actions by the families, I suspect the terms of their compensation payments from the insurers will preclude this.
As for the larger issues, it would appear that the band plays on till the next time. All in all a very poor advert for our “system” whereby such a serious catastrophe can be pored over by so many for so long, and yet we end up with so many obvious inadequacies in the process followed. We all have our prejudices and pet theories about what actually happened that day, and why: I would have expected a much more coherent and cogent conclusion to have been reached by now, and would have been at ease with it whether it fitted my hypothesis or not had I been able to accept that a rational process had been followed. Rather than rational, the adjectives which spring to mind are arcane and machiavellian. |
A spokesperson for the West Sussex, Brighton and Hove Coroner said: "Further to the High Court's decision to refuse permission for Mr Hill to proceed with the judicial review, Mr Hill has now advised that he will not be making a request for an oral hearing to challenge that decision."
Sarah Stewart, of law firm Stewarts, who acted for the majority of the families, said the relatives of the deceased could "continue their healing process in peace". "The families look forward to putting this chapter firmly behind them, safe in the knowledge that their voices have finally been heard," she said. Maybe we should lock this thread? |
Mr Hill is now trying to get his licence back, which seems a trifle insensitive to little old me. I'm surprised there hasn't been a crowd founded, class action, civil case brought against Andy Hill by the bereaved. The burden of proof is lower in a civil action, so he could very well end up with a guilty verdict against his name.
He really should just try to fade into obscurity but his latest action, and the soon too be aired documentary about him, will ensure he remains newsworthy for some time to come. |
Originally Posted by Jet_Fan
(Post 11563380)
Mr Hill is now trying to get his licence back, which seems a trifle insensitive to little old me. I'm surprised there hasn't been a crowd founded, class action, civil case brought against Andy Hill by the bereaved. The burden of proof is lower in a civil action, so he could very well end up with a guilty verdict against his name.
He really should just try to fade into obscurity but his latest action, and the soon too be aired documentary about him, will ensure he remains newsworthy for some time to come. |
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
(Post 11563387)
No he couldn't! You cannot be found "guilty" in a civil court. He might (or might not) be found liable in a civil capacity but as any liability would be met by his insurers it would no doubt be vigorously defended.
|
He won't fly at an airshow again. As for being tried in a civil court only on a different charge I would have thought.
|
This is a terrible mistake - the media will be writing as we speak and you can imagine the words they will use about him.................
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11563411)
This is a terrible mistake - the media will be writing as we speak and you can imagine the words they will use about him.................
|
Originally Posted by dervish
(Post 11563399)
Is there a time limit on these things? If there was a civil case is he allowed to produce the evidence that wasn't permitted in the criminal case or inquest?
Normally six years (five if it had happened in Scotland)! Different rules apply and a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. But, just because a tragedy happened and people died doesn't automatically mean that somebody must be liable. In effect any case would be dealt with by the pilot's and the show organiser's insurance companies. They would weigh the cost of reaching a settlement against the costs and risks of defending the case. It would have little if anything to do with "guilt" but sadly some other posters' seem unable to understand that. In a way it is a bigger version of a roof tile coming off your house and killing a passer by. If you had unreasonably neglected your roof and it was obvious to a average person that it was dangerous you could be liable and your insurance company would defend or settle the matter more or less as they see fit. If on the other hand you had taken reasonable care of your property and it was just "one of those unfortunate things" it is unlikely there would be any liability. |
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
(Post 11563426)
Yes and yes.
Normally six years (five if it had happened in Scotland)! Different rules apply and a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. But, just because a tragedy happened and people died doesn't automatically mean that somebody must be liable. In effect any case would be dealt with by the pilot's and the show organiser's insurance companies. They would weigh the cost of reaching a settlement against the costs and risks of defending the case. It would have little if anything to do with "guilt" but sadly some other posters' seem unable to understand that. Of course pilot error was found to be the cause in the official enquiry. Also, the inquest found that all the victims were unlawfully killed. There's no statute of limitations on capital crimes. And, putting aside civil action, anyone can bring a private prosecution against an individual for a criminal offence, within certain criteria. |
Originally Posted by Jet_Fan
(Post 11563439)
Liability, guilt, it's all the same in the court of public opinion.
Of course pilot error was found to be the cause in the official enquiry. Also, the inquest found that all the victims were unlawfully killed. There's no statute of limitations on capital crimes. And, putting aside civil action, anyone can bring a private prosecution against an individual for a criminal offence, within certain criteria. So that also rules out any private prosecution. In any case, the CPS can, at their absolute discretion, take over any private prosecution then discontinue it if they so please Any civil claim must be brought within six years. |
Originally Posted by Thoughtful_Flyer
(Post 11563450)
But, with very few exceptions (which do not apply here) you cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. He was acquitted unanimously by the jury so that is the end of the (criminal) matter.
So that also rules out any private prosecution. In any case, the CPS can, at their absolute discretion, take over any private prosecution then discontinue it if they so please Any civil claim must be brought within six years. New evidence would have to emerge before a trail for the same offence could proceed. I did say within certain criteria. The facts remain though, found liable by the official enquiry and the unlawful killing verdict of the inquest. This isn’t over, imo. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:49. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.