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.