How many posters in this thread have flown a Hunter and experienced the startle effect of the anti-G system running out of air? I don't know whether Andy Hill wore an anti-G suit for his displays, but I recall once pulling off a strafe run at Pembrey (around 100' agl) when the anti-G ran out of puff. You suddenly experience unexpected grey-out and for a brief moment wonder WTF has happened...

Not so in the Hawk, which had a bleed air anti-G system, as did the Gnat.

G-LOC was not briefed in my fast jet training days (last time being 1980), involving quite a few aircraft type training courses at North Luffenham, whereas grey out and black out certainly were.

This article https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%201585.PDF which concerns Jim Hawkins' fatal Hawk 200 accident, gives an excellent account of the effects of G-LOC. I suspect that AMTC started including G-LOC in its Ruddles appreciation courses following this accident in 1986.

Er no, it was about cognitive impairment because that was the basis of the defence case.

The judge was simply doing his job - explaining to the jury what the law was in relation to that and, consequently, what it was that they had to decide in reaching a verdict.

A more valid criticism of the judge would be if he had failed to allow in his summing up for the possibility that g-induced cognitive impairment was a consequence rather than a cause of the badly-performed loop. You would need to ask someone who was in court whether that was the case.

AH was flying high intensity low level aeros in a public arena in a high performance swept wing jet that he had less than 40 hrs total time on type, spread over the last 5 years. He left the RAF and regular service FJ flying 13 years previously, during that time for the day job he "flew" a FBW passenger plane, he had also regularly flown a lighweight single-prop for display flying over a prolonged period, his current cat G DA was attained (lawfully) by performing a "tail chase" routine as one of a pair of JPs yet that same DA was deemed sufficient for him to perform high energy public displays in a Hunter, the A27 was a known risk at the venue (I'm pretty sure the Reds struck it off their list of approved venues some time ago for that reason), some of the key rules and regs were unclear / not adhered to, e.g. "guidance concerning the minimum height at which aerobatic manoeuvres may be commenced is not applied consistently and may be unclear", "Training and assessment procedures in place at the time of the accident did not prepare the pilot fully for the conduct of relevant escape manoeuvres in the Hunter" (quotes from AAIB reports), he was potentially flying an unbriefed (but still perfectly legal) display routine, he's not that young, it was the hottest day of the year. How many more holes in the cheese do you want?

This discussion shouldnt be about legal mumbo jumbo, this was a failure of "the system", plain and simple for all to see. AH has had his time in the spotlight, rightly so, whilst the faceless bureacrats that allowed this tragedy to unfold just get off scot free.

Just my opinion of course.

Dave I agree. When did this cognitive impairment begin? Before he took off? On his way to the show? At the start of the display? At the top of his loop? On the way down?

So when did it happen? Know one knows because no one knows if it happened or not. Theres no evidence it did. But more importantly, no one can prove it didnt either.

A blinder from the defence team.

Read the AAIB report Beagle, says he was wearing them and aircraft was equipped. Also, the target G for the pup into the loop from the report is approx 4G, not very much. BTW, you might want to revisit your G tolerance training, you should have been quite capable of a strafe recovery w/o turning trousers, you brace into the loading not relying on the troos! :)

OAP

Bob - AH obviously loved flying, that seems clear to me - in one form or another he had devoted his whole life to it. What's less clear is why he deemed some of the things he did tha day acceptable - I agree with you there.

However, Shoreham was a result of a set of circumstances that led to a tragedy (that involved AH), for which the warning signs that this type of thing could happen had been been there for some time, years in fact. Most fundamentally the whole DA process was woefully inadequate to cope with the increasing use of "vintage" (but high performance) jets being flown by ex-mil, or never mil, or otherwise part time jet jocks, with a system in place where you could basically get your mate to sign off your DA for you by performing a routine of sorts in a totally differnt aeroplane. You were then free to go out and ply your trade in front of thousands of people in high performance swept wing jets like the Gnat and Hunter with appaling low levels of currency and total time on type. It was a regulatory disaster zone with wholly inadequate oversight, checks and balances.

None of the above was solely down to AH - different day, different jet, different pilot, different venue with potentially the same result but for the grace of God as the saying goes. It just so happened it turned out to be AH when the luck ran out

IIRC G-Loc (Gravity induced loss of consciousness) and Cognitive Impairment where two terms introduced during the late 1980's/early 90's when rules and a better understanding around the subject of "Human Factors" were being established/revised. At that time I was a member of the Applied Psychology Dept. of the College of Space and Aeronautics at Cranfield Institute of Technology and was involved on the periphery of the discussions. Which I might add were at times quite heated and particularly over the term Cognitive Impairment (CI). This was because I seem to remember CI was seen as a bucket term to cover many different physical/mental conditions which could affect the efficiency of a pilot to function effectively.

IIRC the whole of this programme was under the auspices of the CAA rather than the RAF but I could be wrong.

I know BV and have known him shout out the words "Come on Boss, Hard at Us!" I filmed what he was shouting at. He is totally correct in his opinions IMHO. The CAA has never been a Campaign Against Aviation, far from it. A intermediate ex military jet crashed 3 weeks before AH in a very public accident. I spoke to a FJ mate whom knew the fellow involved and he made his opinions clear. CAA have been chopped at in the age of austerity, the experts are leaving because their T and C are being killed. This field was ignored as the pot will go so far. What it proves is the usual story that self regulation gets abused. And innocent die because of it. Oh, the hertiage jets bloke on the BBC as well. The sport of kings he says on his bio. He is not a professional pilot BTW.

For Me, The impairment defence is 'impaired' in itself for the following reasons:

AH was described and proposed as an Experienced (Ex) RAF Fighter Pilot (Harrier) and Instructor (JP3/5) RAF-1984/1996; as such, he should have been easily able to display a:

1. Good understanding of the effects of 'G' and other in cockpit physical effects (Hypoxia etc). Irrespective of terminology.
2. Proper understanding of aircraft performance under manoeuvre, relating to aerobatics: Base Ht, Top Ht, Min Spd, Max G, AUW etc and everything else in the ODM (or PDM as it is today)
3. Concepts such as 'Stall', 'G' Stall, 'Wing' Drop etc, (and, if an Instructor, be able to explain them and describe Recovery Actions.)
4. Integrity.

I personally think the defence won, against all of these.

Advo

Bob Viking
Exactly right mate!! Well said. Mr Hill had 40 hours on type and was cleared by someone (?) in the CAA to do low level aeros in front of thousands?? Really??

Must've been that good old "get out of jail" card - "cognitive impairment."
What should AH have got?? A couple of years inside IMHO.
Anyway - he has his own demons to deal with as have all the Families of the people he so needlessly killed. RIP of course.
ANDREWN Good points also. Who was it who authorised AH to fly low level displays on 3 completely different types of aircraft whilst he was a BA captain on the 4th type? Did they think the guy was some kind of aviation genius???

I am not going to get into debates with people, many of whom appear know much more about the case than me, despite not having read any of the evidence, expert reports etc nor having sat through about seven or so weeks of that evidence being given in court. However, I am going to provide some information about the evidence. AH never claimed that he knew that he suffered from cognitive impairment. He remembers nothing about the accident and the fact that he suffered amnesia was never challenged by the prosecution. It would not be surprising bearing in mind the nature of the accident, injuries he sustained and his treatment (given Ketamine at the scene a known side effect of which is amnesia). In researching potential causes of the accident (and the 'cascade' of errors as descibed by a Human Performance Factors expert) issues of cognitive impairment were looked into (as indeed they were by the AAIB). The case was never about A-LOC or G-LOC, although that was all that was considered by the AAIB; neither defence nor prosecution experts said such had or may have occurred. However, there is a potential area of impairment below this. It is not widely known but involves relatively low levels of Gz that do not prevent blood circulation to the brain but do involve a reduction of oxygenation to the blood. The physiology is interesting. Gz straining involves muscles consuming more oxygen thus depleting the normal amount in the blood. G suits restrict the diaphragm reducing lung expansion. Low levels of Gz have a pooling effect in the lungs which, coupled with the diaphragm issue, results in less oxygenation of the blood in the lungs. This in turn results in a de-saturation of oxygen in the blood that continues circulating. The subject can continue to function, particularly with regard to learnt motor skills, but has reduces judgement and the ability to deal with abnormal situations. This was the evidence presented from eminently qualified experts by the defence and was the issue in the case.

The very nature of trial by jury ensures that some verdicts are unexpected, and some unpopular. Yes I too am uneasy about the case and the verdict.

Talk of retrial, as indeed of a second referendum on Brexit ,is deeply disturbing to this old-fashioned democrat. The idea that we should keep asking a question until we get the answer that we want is corrosive.

Exactly so..

The jury system is to have a body whose composition is representative of society in its broadest sense and able to judge a defendant as a peer. A jury is not required to have any knowledge specific to the action being heard; it's almost certainly better off without it. I think it would be very easy for a juror with some understanding of basic aeros to think "Mr Hill should have realised he was too low to complete the loop and therefore should have rolled off the top" or whatever. This is facile thinking, possibly to dismiss such expert evidence as might have been presented.and would be a classic example of a little knowledge . . .

It is the function of the advocates to provide the evidence and arguments to support their contentions in a manner easily understood by a layman. All the jury has to do is weigh those arguments and deliver a verdict; specialist knowledge is neither required nor necessary and there is no reason to suppose that this jury has done anything different. That this particular judgement might not sit easily with many (including me) perhaps is understandable, but as Parson suggests, that's how the system works.

The jury's hands were tied. By the true definition of involuntary manslaughter they were forced to make a binary decision.
I am however, confused by their decision not to find him guilty of recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft et al.....

Andy Hill is/was the focal point of everything that was wrong with air shows in those days:
Appalling standards within the display authorisation world. (DA's).
Slack or absent governance by Flying Control Committees.
Complacency by FDD's and Accountable Managers.
Incompetent supervision by the CAA.

Some or all of these ingredients were present on that fateful day.

Victims need someone to blame - it's part of the grieving process. Given time and understanding, I hope they will come to terms with the result. AH didn't set out that day to cause harm, he may have been in the wrong place, at the wrong speed, at the wrong height - but he didn't do it malice aforethought.

We now turn to the inquest to seek "justice" for those still confused and frustrated - to add another piece to the jigsaw. The "system" was to blame and since the accident, the system has tried to heal itself. Pilots are better authorised, FDD's better trained and qualified, FCC's better briefed, Accountable managers more risk aware...I fear the CAA still has to complete that journey, however.
Progress has been made, airshows are much safer, it's not totally in vain that 11 innocent people died that day. It is just very very sad that it had to end this way.
RiP.

I pulled James Hamilton-Paterson's, Empire of the Clouds off the bookcase intending to mention something that had stuck in my mind for many years. Death at Farnborough, an early chapter, I knew said something about how we seemed to accept disaster, accept our pain, when it was in the nation's interest. I was again transported, gripped by the imagery, but at the same time becoming aware it would be inappropriate to make comparisons with those "different times" while discussing a specific case. But perhaps just a few words, mine, not direct quotes.

Derry's widow, for less than 60 seconds, said quietly, There is no hope, is there?' The next flights were initiated while people, dead and near to dead were still being carted away.

Nearly 70 years of determined improvement to safety, yet still lives are lost. Modern science and engineering should bring us at least close to perfect safety, but it seems the human factor is still a wild card. The rate of attrition in early test pilots was bewildering, yet the chaps kept coming forward to get the job done. It's in the nature of the man.

I don't think it's possible to make comparisons, and then judge, on a level playing field, people who devote their lives to exceptional tasks. Yes, laws are made, and laws are made for good reason, but unfortunately the law is formed in the same mould for all men. We wouldn't have an aviation industry, or an air force if it wasn't for the very different nature of that type of pilot. I'll avoid the arguments about modern civil pilots and the magenta line.

Rules, and free spirit. I was surprised, to say the least, when I recently read a biography of Sir Frank Whittle. I never imagined him being so spirited. It was made quite clear that he got off one charge because 'they were looking for the kind of person that took risks.'

Every day, thousands of aircraft overfly huge cities, yet we know a 777 landed dead stick with little prior knowledge of that systems danger. Can we carry on subjecting thousands of people to this kind of risk?

I can not conclude this post demonstrating any sound logic. It's not possible. We can't allow the slaughter of innocent people, yet we can't let our national spirit be strangled by rules that are aimed at perfect safety.

That charge was not put before the jury. Mr Justice Edis formally acquitted him.

We are all talking about cognitive impairment. So are we referring to cognitive impairment due to spatial disorientation? If so this is a subject of a few experiments and papers from the beginning of this century but it appears that it was able to be overcome by regular exposure to the causes I. e. repeated exposure to the manoeuvres of a display sequence etc.
​​​​​​Or is this a different type of cognitive impairment, due to fatigue or some other cause?
Was this established in the trial?

Looking at this in 2019 you'd hope that the passing of time allows the angry to be less angry to avoid becoming bitter and twisted. AH has certainly dealt with more than his fair share and with the intelligent mind that he has, an obvious passion for all things flying, it would seem that his entire world is broken. I think for the sake of humanity a supportive arm around the shoulder would seem the kinder thing and the right thing.

Dragging things into a civil court will achieve what? To replay the same narrative for a few quid? Surely so called "guilt" proved to a lesser standard is hardly the justice those who claim to speak for victims seek. Justice for the victims should be based on positive outcomes. They have had one and that is not to pile all of this on the shoulders of one man.

The next positive would be a legacy based upon focus at the CAA and root and branch reform there. The CAA is not a faceless or unaccountable entity. We can all read the names of the executive and we can see what compensation they get for that role. The Head of GA at that time has gone, one imagines not entirely independent of this accident but there should be - one hopes - wider acceptance that these issues are far bigger than one or two individuals. It hardly seems appropriate to be so angry at AH who is merely an individual who was led to the point of this accident with the guidance and practices that existed at the time. You can't melt away at the first sign of trouble.

You mean if he/she had reached the same conclusion as the AAIB ?

Wearing G pants and wearing them properly are two different things. A number of aircrew dress for comfort and to comply with the rules, others dress sensibly. I know you must have seen people wearing for comfort.

Just a thought.

PE, time is demonstrably not a healer evidenced by other news.

What exactly has AH lied about? Can you seriously doubt that he remembers nothing about the accident? After substantial deceleration forces which would likely have caused intracerebral shearing? After ketamine from the first responders? After a week or so in an induced coma in an intensive care unit?

The judge and jury sat through was it 7 weeks of testimony, much of it detailed and technical. The prosecution flailed around trying to make a case. The prosecution witnesses got trashed by the defence barrister. The jury went out, considered the case and came back with a verdict. That's the way the system works and has done for decades, centuries. Yet I see here calls for another trial with another judge and jury. Why? Whats wrong with the first trial, judge and jury, except that some people don't like the verdict?

Consider all the aspects that went together to create this appalling accident. AH is hardly responsible for them all. He was merely the poor guy at the far side of the lump of cheese.

Consider the various aspects of punishment - re-education, protection of third parties, retribution. AH scarcely needs re-education. He will never again have a professional flying career, quite possibly never even a PPL. So we are left with retribution. AH has his own hell to deal with. He looks utterly broken. In his own words he was in control of a jet that killed 11 people. He will have to, somehow, come to terms with that knowledge and I have no doubt that he will indeed remember the dead for the rest of his life. What good would come of him being jailed? Absolutely none. And he still has to endure the Coroner's inquest, the vituperation of the (uninformed) press.

There are some who think this case was misconceived, should never have been brought. That included one potential jury member. The best that can be said it's that the evidence for the prosecution was brought to court, tested, and found wanting.

Caramba

It's sad that no-one on his legal team vetted his speech. "I will remember for the rest of my life"

And the eleven members of the public and their families ?


Hills has clearly suffered as a result of the accident where he admits in that same interview that he lost control of his aircraft. If there is any probability of truth in his counsel's claim of cognitive impairment, then Hills cannot be regarded as fit to fly again, and I hope that he does not get his flying licences back. That will be immensely sad for him, but will prevent him from losing control of an aircraft at any time on the future.

He is clearly a talented and clever person with a lifetime commitment to service and commercial flying, and losing the freedom to fly will lead to a massive change in his life style. Despite all the praise from previous employers and flying colleagues, there are black marks against his display record, and sufficient evidence from experts on the Shoreham flight pattern to show that the aircraft was not under full and proper control. Perhaps he has lost the mental and physical ability to plan and react in the last few years in the way he used to do when in the RAF and with BA. It is not sufficient for former colleagues to rally round and say what a wonderful pilot he was, it is up to the CAA to assess what sort of pilot he is now before considering re-issuing his licences.

Would you want to be flown by someone known to have had cognitive impairment while pilot in charge ?

How many of the thousands of pilots currently operating aeroplanes do you think have the potential to become cognitively impaired?

I was initially trained by the RAF to fly Jet Provosts. Those aircraft were not equipped with "G" suits" but the normal positive "G" limit for the aircraft was 6.5 G. Flown correctly, that was achievable by the average student (and sometimes inadvertently exceeded). I flew Bulldogs as a Qualified Flying Instructor (which included teaching others to fly aerobatics) but most of my 18 years RAF service was as a helicopter pilot and instructor. I was also selected to display helicopters at public airshows on behalf of the RAF. I was made very much aware of the consequences of pulling "G" from a very early stage in my basic training. The phenomenon, latterly known as "G-LOC" was well publicised within the RAF.

Irrespective of organisational or other failures, in civilian terms, the one person responsible for flying the aircraft in a safe way is the pilot.

An interesting parallel is that yesterday I was informed by the CAA that a civilian pilot who caused airliners to go-around from Luton Airport due to cognitive failure (in that he didn't know where he was and entered controlled airspace without clearance) has very recently been fined £7576.

Would the poor guy want to fly again? I wouldn't if one person was killed, as the result of an accident, while I was at the controls of the accident a/c concerned.

5aday. Re your post #132. Have you ever got anything wrong?. Ever screwed up?

Monarchman. Excellent post.

When you kill 11 people in an accident, whatever the circumstances, a few questions need to be answered.

When you do it flying an ill judged aerobatic routine outside of the set parameters agreed in your DA, then you have to answer those questions in a court of law.

Actually, being a pilot and a magistrate, I have a little insight into both flying and trials. A person is always innocent until proven guilty. In a civil court, the evidence only has to satisfy 'On the balance of probabilities'. If this had been a civil court, he may have been found guilty. But this was a criminal court and then the evidence has to satisfy 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. This is often more difficult to prove. In this case, given that the jury were almost certainly not aircrew (but were advised about technicalities such as G-Loc), they have never experienced G in an aeroplane or flown a fast jet. So they made the best decision they could; Not guilty; not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In Scotland, there actually is a verdict of 'Not proven'.

Sarabande - Having read out the names of the deceased, what he said was "................, they I will remember for the rest of my life"

Indeed he has. I was referring to you previous post where you stated that someone thought that the trial should never have taken place.

Post 133 puts it most succinctly. The cognitive impairment described was short term physiologically driven event. It's not an ongoing health condition like epilepsy.