https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1819...-without-jury/

Shoreham Airshow inquest to be held without a jury

The coroner who will probe the deaths of 11 men in the Shoreham Airshow crash has vowed to carry out a “fearless and impartial” investigation.

The highly anticipated inquests into the 2015 tragedy in which a Hawker Hunter jet exploded into a fireball on a busy dual carriageway are to take place in September 2020, it has been decided.

Speaking on Wednesday, senior coroner Penelope Schofield thanked families for their patience and acknowledged it would be five years since the tragedy before the inquests actually got under way.

A pre-inquest review at Centenary House in Crawley on Wednesday was told that the inquests would take place in a six-week window from September 14. Mrs Schofield also said it was her decision that the inquests would not have a jury.......

Can anyone tell me why?

I can't tell you why but my guess would be a combination of the fact that the case has received so much publicity that an untainted jury would be impossible to find and that the volume of specialist and technical information would prove difficult for many to understand.

Juries can ask awkward questions. There'll be a few sighs of relief in the CAA, AAIB, HSE and MoD!

When the police were asking the High Court for access to AAIB Shoreham witness statements (which the Court refused), the judges were also looking at a spat with the Norfolk Coroner, who wanted access to the CVFDR for the Lord Ballyedmond AW139 accident. The Lord Chief Justice added to the judgement in that case by stating:

“In the absence of credible evidence that the investigation into an accident is incomplete, flawed or deficient, (my bold) a Coroner conducting an inquest into a death which occurred in an aircraft accident, should not consider it necessary to investigate again the matters covered or to be covered by the independent investigation of the AAIB. […] [T]he findings and conclusions should not be reopened.”

It will be interesting to see how Ms Schofield interprets that direction.

Thank you both for your swift and judicious replies.

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1854...ack-year-2021/

Shoreham Airshow disaster inquest put back a year to 2021

I for one am very glad that at last the CAA is getting round to investigating the issues surround the term cognitive impairment. However delaying the inquest for another year I fear will be much regretted by all concerned.

Absolutely agree; the sooner they ‘file’ CI where it belongs the better!

I note the article mentioned CAA review of CI. I fear that might not take long... Some proper research into the area is needed.

Ridger AFAIUI ever since the trial several recognised "authorities" have been turning summersaults in an attempt to come up with an agreed definition of what CI is and how it should be applied to aeronautical situations. Whilst everyone I have discussed this with seems to agree that finding an agreement on the specific terms involved is bad enough but then when you turn to the issue of how such terms may be applied the famous "can of worms" starts to be mentioned. One thing that clearly stands out with hindsight, is that the defence team really played a flanker when they got the Court to buy into the CI concept.

What ever happens now I do not envy the people who will be involved with the Inquest. However in my advanced years I hope I will be able to get my brain around whatever they come up with.

One must bear in mind that the AAIB report left the CAA without a name, and the judge was less than impressed with some prosecution witnesses. In fact, it is by no means certain the pilot would have been found guilty even if CI had not been raised. Yes, it must be looked at by regulators, but I suspect the CAA (and MoD) will be hoping it serves as a diversion.

As ever, Tucumseh makes some good points.

I’ve spent quite a lot of the last few decades watching and commenting on aerobatic displays at air shows, and I also sat through most of the Old Bailey trial. I have to say that one of the more extraordinary moments of the trial for me was when I first saw the film of the start of the fatal manoeuvre. My immediate reaction was ‘what on earth is he doing?’ It didn’t make sense. And my professional knowledge of Andy Hill was as a very competent display pilot.

So the question raised for me then - a question which remains unanswered to this day - was, why did he do that? I suggest, nobody knows. And we probably never will.

airsound

I completely agree - CI is far too broad to agree on in a specific acute context. De-coupling from the accident, I would say that is a major reason to motivate research, perhaps of assessing cognition at sub A-LOC levels in a centrifuge. If meaningful data were produced it would add another solid reason to not erode safety margin...

I don’t think it takes much of a leap to imagine what that research might find. As Gz increases, more and more cognitive capacity will be devoted to resisting its effects (mainly the anti-g straining manoeuvre, but also things like planning how to position head and neck). Physical discomfort will also have an effect on spare mental capacity. Taken to an extreme well beyond Shoreham, at +9g in old-style kit there isn’t much of it left!

In the context of culpability, the effects I mention are all ‘known knowns’ and trained for. Pilots, and especially display pilots, should not be able to *choose* to expose themselves to the high ‘g’ environment and then claim that its entirely predictable effects excuse them from responsibility.

At issue, I think, is whether unpredictable ‘medical’ CI is distinguishable from the predictable effects of Gz. The research will need to be very carefully designed to separate those things, if indeed it is possible to do.

This whole CI argument is very circular. Military operators have understood for many years the stresses, strains and limitations of human physiology when exposed to extreme G forces. That's why FJ pilot selection is as rigorous as it is, that's why age is known to be a key factor in maintaining the physiological performance required and that's why fundamentally, it's a young person's domain. I genuinely don't understand the apparent surprise and confusion that putting an individual into this environment who is almost certainly not performing to the same physiological standards as they were 20 years ago, may lead to issues with Cognitive Impairment.

Yes, I am proposing that age should be a discriminator in high performance flying. A lengthy study on the instances and effects of Cognitive Impairment could be avoided altogether by a quick check of display pilot's birth date and flying recency.

I hope you mean ‘high performance display flying’ (in which case I could be persuaded to agree) and not other areas of high performance flying where the consequences of momentary lapses are better mitigated. Andy Hill was 51 at the time of crash: capping high performance aviation at an age below that would have a huge impact on air forces’ training throughput requirements and, to compound that, availability of instructors. And unless MFTS sorts its act out it’d reduce RAF fast jet pilot careers to less than a decade! :E

Ah, I see - so you only crash after a certain age? This is great news for young pilots everywhere!

i dont want to state the obvious or be accused of being a modern day witch finder general - but there is a simple solution.

If Andy is capable, willing and able why not strap him into a centrifuge and see what happens.......the trial is done and it could really help with the science and the benefit could be significant?

am i too optimistic ?

I can’t believe we are still going round and round this debate. Surely everybody who has ever strapped into an ejector seat ( which excludes all of the lawyers and most of the doctors) and has read the AAIB report knows exactly what happened. He was no where near current or experienced enough in the Hunter to be displaying it in a confined area. He was signed off for displays by a few old mates and on the day screwed it up. Just like most of us have screwed up at some time but, by the grace of God, without these consequences.