Having just watched [and then rewatched] the coverage of the acquitted words on the steps of the court,
I am driven towards those wise words of "if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't" So I wont. |
Originally Posted by gpbeck
(Post 10410574)
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! |
Originally Posted by gpbeck
(Post 10410574)
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! (I haven't read the proceedings to find out) |
This is a direct report from the BBC regarding the Judge summing up to the Jury.
Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. "You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said. "It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing." How can you PROVE that Cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot? I suggest that the Jury had no choice to find Mr Hill not guilty based on this direction from the Judge. Whether this direction was correct in legal terms, then I will leave it to m'learned friends to decide. Summing up from Prosecution/Defence Barristers below. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415 Defence Aviation Med expert below; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182 |
Originally Posted by rog747
(Post 10410328)
From BBC news-
Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft. I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career? |
Arkroyal,
"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’" Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident. |
Originally Posted by unmanned_droid
(Post 10410423)
Yes, it's interesting that the term accident has been replaced with incident in many areas of law enforcement.
|
The prosecution failed.
The prosecution failed in several ways. it attempted to cast AH as a cavalier, negligent, and over-confident pilot. It adduced as evidence to upport this view an overflight of the M11 at less than 500 feet. Wrong - the limit was 200 feet. He crossed the crowd line at Duxford. Again wrong, it wasn’t where the prosecution witness said it was. Flying a dangerous manoeuvre at Southport and had to be told to stop. Wrong. He fell out of a Derry turn in poor visibility and had knocked off before the stop call. He overflew Lancing College in 2014. Wrong. The supposed CAM expert on G-Force failed some basic calculations, as did the star prosecution witness. the Defence Barrister maybe very good, but he was left with several open goals. The Prosecution Barrister was clearly flailing around by the time he got to summing up, and managed several factual inaccuracies. Further, there may well be problems with the conduct of air shows, the issuing of DA’s etc, but those are not AH’s fault. He complied with the rules and requirements as they were on the day. Personally I cannot imagine that a pilot of this level of ability and experience would commit to a manoeuvre that clearly was going to end in tragedy, for himself and others, if he was in command of his faculties. I believe the jury came to the correct verdict. Caramba |
So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?. Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ? IMHO it should be NO. He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment. If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail. |
Originally Posted by michaelbinary
(Post 10410628)
So, surprisingly AH has been found not guilty.
So what happens next ?. Can he apply for his license/medical to be reinstated ? IMHO it should be NO. He has been acquitted of the deaths of 11 people by way of cognitive impairment. If he had it once, he can have it again, so any medical should be a fail. Its inconceiveable, surely, that AH could return as a commercial or display pilot in the circumstances? There has to be a doubt over his medical fitness to perform the role given the trial verdict, and the reason for the acquital. And the announcement from the front to passengers 'welcome to BA flight XXXX, this is your captain, Andy Hill speaking', may not go down especially well with the passengers? |
|
As a reasonably well-informed layman I am surprised by the verdict.
Clearly it has sharply divided those qualified by experience and training to comment. It is therefore hardly surprising that a jury of laypersons decided that the prosecution had not made its case. As an aside, has this thread established a Forum record of posts per hour thus far? |
Fascinating vid ER, of a much missed aviator, that just serves to remind what a demanding and unforgiving environment FJ display flying is.
I'll say it again, for the last time, the majority of fault for the tragedy that day lay not with AH but with the overly permissive rules and regs and lax governance and oversight. It was an accident waiting to happen - the Gnat at Carfest a few weeks before was a timely reminder which went largely ignored as Joe public escaped, by pure luck, from that one. |
It was a really awful day for all of those concerned, the victims on the ground and their friends/family, the pilot, the owners of the aircraft, and for Andy, who has had the results of the event on his mind ever since he came-to in the hospital some time later and heard of all of the innocent deaths:ooh:. The acquittal will never stop him thinking back to the day, any more than those left behind will stop remembering the victims. My heart goes out to all concerned.
As for whether (as someone asked) he will now go back to his "day job" with his old airline -- Will the company want to return someone who could need to put out a cabin announcement "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain AH speaking . . ." ? How would he feel about stepping into any cockpit ever again? My view is that Andy has suffered enough and I'm glad that this step is no longer hanging over his head and I pray that he will recover (mentally) soon. Brian May -- .I'm not hiding behind my "Forum Name"; I'm Stu Nutt (really!) and I was a flight sim engineer with Singer-Link-Miles and a sim maintenance engineer at Cranebank (LHR) quite a few years ago. Some of the older BA old-timers may recognise my name. |
Originally Posted by ivor toolbox
(Post 10410528)
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 https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1736...airshow-stunt/ The court also heard that none of the airshow’s flying committee - which organised and oversaw the event - sent out a “stop, stop, stop call” to bring Hill’s display to a halt. Rodney Dean, one of the organisers responsible for the safety of displays at the show, known as the flying display director (FDD), said he did not see the crash because he was talking to pilots in another part of the airfield. Giving evidence, he said: “I saw the (Hawker) Hunter arrive. I saw it do its flight past which didn’t concern me at all.” He said he did not see or hear the crash but as soon as he learned about it over the radio system he returned to the area, adding that it was “immediately” clear after seeing smoke that it was a “major disaster”. |
Originally Posted by standbykid
(Post 10410601)
Low and slow going into the fatal maneuver and continuing with it. How is that not negligent?
I wonder where Mr. Hill will end up if he continues his career? |
Looks like AH had Bob Massingbird working the defence for him: "Remember the case of the Bloody Knife? A man was found next to a murdered body, he had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police arrived he said, “I’m glad I killed the bastard.” Massingbird not only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year’s Honors list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood washed out of his jacket." (Credit Richard Curtis and Ben Elton) I personally hope AH gets his DA back - I'd go and watch him display. But only at seafront venues.....�� |
Just been listening to a criminal defence lawyer, not sure if it was AH's or not, but he was damning air shows, well certainly aerobatics displays, claiming the verdict, which exonerated AH, was evidence that this form of entertainment, a phrase he said he use advisedly, could not go on and that felt this would now be the case. I couldn't help feeling he wasn't a fan from he outset. But then if he defended AH, and accepting that justice is blind, would he have taken up the cudgels if he felt he couldn't remain impartial defending an aerobatics display pilot?
FB |
Originally Posted by Brian W May
(Post 10410520)
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? He's hardly hiding is he? |
Originally Posted by ASRAAMTOO
(Post 10410603)
Arkroyal,
"I’d say the prosecution lost this case rather than the defence winning it. If it’s true that the AAIB report was not used in the prosecution case one has to ask ‘why not?’" Because information given to the AAIB investigation is specifically excluded from court proceedings. If it were not then no aviator in their right mind would even talk to the AAIB following an incident. |
Originally Posted by Warren Peace
(Post 10410771)
Oh come on... How many people on here do not know Beagle's real name?
He's hardly hiding is he? |
Originally Posted by Treble one
(Post 10410599)
Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. I do, however, have a personal problem with the use of cognitive impairment as a defence. In my own experience (20+ years of domestic and international aerobatic competition and display flying - all piston engine singles) I have suffered from cognitive impairment in different forms on a number of occasions and witnessed it on many more. For me this has ranged from "black out" (often wrongly confused with G-LOC) - where all vision is lost but you have the remaining four sense intact - through to complete loss of consciousness. In the case of the former, vision is normally restored after a few seconds provided the G loading is reduced through elevator input. In the case of the latter, which happened to me after an aggressive "sleeper" combination (high negative G figures followed immediately by high positive G), the stick is always released as it is "loaded" by reason of the positive G. What happens next depends on how the aircraft is trimmed, how quickly the pilot wakes up...and how high you are. My difficulty is this: you only push the envelope, which was when I had my own impairment experiences, at altitude in as safe an environment as possible. This does not include low level, public aerobatic displays. As pilot in command we all accept that we have responsibility for the safe undertaking of any flight. As aerobatic pilots we are acutely aware of the risks we are exposing both ourselves and others to. This includes the risk of cognitive impairment whether caused by poor sequence design, poor execution, physical condition (which may include lack of current G tolerance) or state of mind. If there is any doubt at all about anything you are doing in this context, you simply don't do it. Or accept the consequences. |
Right or wrong verdict? I cannot believe that the verdict will in anyway will be seen as justice by the families and friends of those that died.
|
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?
OAP |
Originally Posted by Super VC-10
(Post 10410476)
Out of interest, when was the last time a civil aviation accident in the UK resulted in a convction?
|
Originally Posted by The Nip
(Post 10410606)
Yes because it takes away responsibility. |
Originally Posted by gpbeck
(Post 10410574)
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! Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s. The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G. |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10410812)
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?
Jury deliberations are considered secret, even after a trial has ended. |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10410812)
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?
OAP |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10410812)
Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?
OAP So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment |
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
(Post 10410829)
When were we first made aware of G-LOC?
Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s. The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G. Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken? OAP |
Originally Posted by Treble one
(Post 10410861)
Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. "You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said. "It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."
So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment OAP |
A few have posted that Hill has to live with the thoughts of those he killed for the rest of his life. Well I don’t give two hoots about that, it is the families of those that perished that I truly feel sorry for as they will have equally long lives to remember those poor people. I also think the Law is an ass in these types of instances - prosecution seems so very rare when it is quite obvious that they have negligently done things. So it seems you can arrive too low, fly a bent loop without making your gate height and then wipe out 11 souls and injure others on a main road. You can also knock off a trooper’s head with with the ramp and antenna of your transport aircraft and also get away with it. Or you can break someone’s back and injure others whilst you fiddle with your seat and your camera jams the controls, then apparently try to cover it up, and then be acquitted. But only if you fly a helicopter recklessly and kill your co-pilot, crewman and one of your Army passengers can you expect to be prosecuted. If the helicopter pilot had claimed “cognitive impairment” in the last seconds would he have got away with it? Whilst I agree that the Law was upheld today, I fear that Justice was not. I look forward to reading what the Coroner finds. |
Originally Posted by Whipstall
(Post 10410852)
Juries are not required to give reasons for an acquital. No-one, other than the 11 jurors in this case, will know either the reasoning they used, the evidence they accepted or whether the decision was unanimous or a majority verdict.
|
14,000+ hours is a lot of experience, not only operating civilian aircraft in the civil aviation world but also continuing to fly military type aircraft and displaying them.
Years in the "seat" plus knowing your own personal parameters and the aircraft capability you are flying, gives the experienced pilot a prior sense of a situation that if not corrected at that time could become a bigger problem later. Most of the time a minor "correction" applied at the time nullifies any future problem. 100 knots at the top of a loop at 2,600' in a Hunter. Applying the thought of the sentence above, when did the cognitive impairment take place? |
LJ
It’s interesting that you drew parallels with the Voyager incident because I thought the same thing. As pilots I don’t believe we should automatically close ranks and defend ‘one of our own’ every time. I’m sure the jury reached the correct verdict on the strength of the evidence prevented but I still cannot excuse the actions of Andy Hill. From my perspective, I am a current and pretty experienced Hawk pilot (2500+ hours on type). If someone asked me to perform a low level aerobatics routine tomorrow I would say no way. I fly aerobatic type manoeuvres (along with weapons, BFM, low level etc) on a daily basis in my job and I would not want, or expect, to go and fly the kind of manoeuvres he flew on that fateful day. Added to that, the fit of the aircraft was unfamiliar (I have flown Hawks in pretty much every conceivable fit including the heavier configurations) so, by comparison, if someone said “hey, BV, go take that Hawk with drop tanks and fly a low level display in front of thousands of people” I wouldn’t dream of it. For the life of me I can’t work out why so many people want to excuse his actions. I don’t know how I think he should be punished, since it hasn’t affected me directly, but I don’t think he should get off Scott free and I don’t think you can lay the entirety of the blame with the CAA. Obviously many of you will disagree with me but such is life. BV |
Are there any Big Brains out there who could describe how Cognative Impairment offering could ever be disproved. |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10410872)
Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken?
OAP |
Brian - please stop playing the man and play the ball the main issue here is the standard of evidence required for a conviction. If you cannot prove fault conclusively and culpable actions then it will always end up this way. there are two options 1. The standard gets lowered and accidents stop and everything becomes blame and claim 2. Accept that Andy will always have this on his mind and that is probably worse than any sentence that can be given. I drove by Shoreham the morning of the show and there where signs everywhere on the road saying no spectating and airshows are dangerous. That does not excuse the lose of life on the road, but there where needles casualties because the law was also ingnored. Not popular I know but it is a fact Anyway any of these are are not the best outcomes in finding an answer. Let’s hope everyone learns and piss poor prep etc ad Infinitum |
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger
(Post 10410913)
Are there any Big Brains out there who could describe how Cognative Impairment offering could ever be disproved. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:17. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.