Quite why you feel compelled to deliver this ad hominem attack on someone who knows more than any here (please step forward if I have it wrong) about UK Military Airworthiness and the scandal of it being subverted by RAF VSOs and since covered up by succeeding VSOs I have no idea. As someone else who has indulged in endless argument over these matters I suppose I am on your little list too, or worse still that I do not rate inclusion. Either way, please take your abuse elsewhere.

I can only surmise that you (and those who chose to endorse your rant) feel that any airworthiness shortcomings in the aircraft might diminish the pilot's shortcomings that were involved in this tragedy. tuc has always distanced himself from discussions of airmanship, not only in this thread but in the too many other airworthiness related accident threads in this forum. His speciality is airworthiness, and your condescending dig that he doesn't understand the difference with that and serviceability simply undermines any argument that you may have to offer. I wonder if you know the difference yourself? You say a pilot is responsible for deciding if the aircraft is serviceable for the planned flight. How, other than to carry out his checks, external and internal, and by studying the F700? In reality he is placing his trust in those who signed off/deferred known defects and declared the a/c serviceable. Unfortunately, he has no such resources to turn to for its airworthiness. He has to place blind faith in those who are responsible that it is. That faith has been betrayed over and over again, witness the list in tuc's post.

You feel led to believe that tuc, and those who are in agreement with him, are apologists for the pilot. Why, by pointing out that the aircraft was unairworthy and should have never been cleared to fly by the CAA? That is the point he makes (and I), and no amount of personal attacks can change that. Perhaps you are an apologist for the RAF VSOs who carried out the attacks on UK Military Air Safety, and of other RAF VSOs who have managed the cover up since. If I say that your posts give me the impression that you are, does that justify me saying so? No? Then don't do so either.

You can think what you like about the airmanship, or lack of it, involved in this tragedy. As an ex FJ you have a better grasp of that than I anyway. By attacking the very notion that airworthiness, or lack of it, is irrelevant to the accident leads me to query the professionalism to which this site is dedicated (it's the first P in PPRuNe!).

I don’t really understand this argument.

Was the aircraft airworthy……… No
Did the pilot screw up……………Yes
Would the pilot still have screwed up in an airworthy and serviceable aircraft……Probably

Surely all of the above can be true?

By definition, asking whether you have misunderstood something is not a question you can answer yourself. :O

No it can't. Maybe this will help you understand.

Was the aircraft airworthy………No
Did the pilot screw up……………Maybe if he was cognitively alert; but not if he was suffering a physiological episode
Would the pilot still have screwed up in an airworthy and serviceable aircraft……Maybe

It's an assumption that their was no link. We just don't know.

No bloods were tested post accident, so we don't even know if a possible physiological event was generated by the many undocumented and hidden faults of the machine.

I would really like the in-cockpit GoPros to be released. They would be telling. Until then, lazy assumptions, blame culture and emotion will prevail.

As stated before, do I 'think' he screwed up - I vehemently did. After watching the evidence in court, it convincingly opened my mind that the pilot's cognitive function wasn't right: 'the lights were on but no-one was at home'.

Surely by mentioning the classic swiss cheese model the question was rhetorical and required no reply!?

Quite so.

But my namesake did ask ...

Steered from R&N, here, by David. Very late into the discussion so apologies if I am off track a bit.

Media reports where I reside suggest that the latest furore is about the judgement made that the pilot was guilty of "unlawfull killing". It is that element that the pilot sought appeal against and,it seems, won.

Again, apologies if my take of local reporting is off kelter but if I got it right, it moves the discussion into much deeper, specific, legal argument.

I think you're mixing up two different things:

The pilot was found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in a criminal trial. Clearly he is not appealing against that verdict.

Following the trial, the coroner's inquest into the deaths of the 11 men reached a verdict of unlawful killing. An inquest does not determine culpability, so there is no scope for appealing against a verdict, but the pilot is seeking a judicial review of the inquest process. AFAIK, it's not yet clear on what grounds the JR is being sought.

WHY is a judicial review being sought and WHO is funding it? Genuine question, could it be insurance related?

None of the above has yet been announced, though it's reasonable to assume that the pilot may not be comfortable with some of the coroner's findings:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....37e0cd75d3.jpg

Thank you everyone for trying to answer my question. I follow the logic tuc is laying out and expanded upon by others.

hypothetically, if there is a situation where airworthiness is an issue and the pilot in charge screws up through nothing to do with airworthiness, are we not advocating that this is airworthiness related rather than both being discrete events that at some point do need to be brought together but only once route cause has been established … correlation not being causality, or am I again missing something?

is there a risk, that the many issues raised on airworthiness ( quite rightly too ) start to deflect on other important issues?

No, I don't think there is any confusion over what was the primary cause (in NTSB-speak) of the accident.

Thank you DaveReidUK for posting that extract from court papers. It raises a number of interesting points illustrating the power of a Coroner, and which perhaps go some way to answering a few of the questions above.

The High Court ruled that the AAIB report could not be used in a criminal trial (even though everyone had it, and the prosecution proceeded based on it); but it could be used by the Coroner, who is not permitted to apportion blame (although that’s unavoidable in some circumstances). Here, the Coroner has used it to make what is effectively a criminal judgment. I wonder if that is why the pilot is thinking about a judicial review?

But while not claiming to understand the ins and outs of the legal system, it troubles me that the Coroner, despite being notified of many errors and anomalies in the report, continued to regard it as factual. The High Court ruling prevented anyone introducing evidence of these errors or arguing against the report at the Inquest. To make sure, the pilot was not allowed to be a witness, the Coroner ruling this on 22 June 2022. Specifically, she said:

‘However it seems to me that any matter that Mr Hill, the pilot, might address in his evidence is already covered by the AIIB [sic] investigation and I do not propose that he should be called to give evidence to the inquests’.

Which is plainly rubbish, as he’d be mad not to point out the errors, or at least submit that the Coroner could not cite the report until corrected, and the true implications of what it revealed were made clear. Again, I wonder if the pilot considers this as an abuse of power or somehow tainting the proceedings?

Who benefited from this ruling? The CAA, certainly. And the AAIB would be spared the embarrassment of its errors. Also, MoD’s flawed g calculations would not be discussed. When you can refute something like that, then it’s not difficult to see how reasonable doubt was raised at trial.

ANY anomaly uncovered in an investigation MUST be fully investigated and resolved, regardless of suspected impact on the investigation in hand. And must be reported in the official investigation report. This is widely ignored and leads to recurrence (which is a factor to be considered when looking at gross negligence or corporate manslaughter).

Plainly, one must be absolutely sure the anomaly (in your example, airworthiness) was NOT a causal factor. This has not been confirmed here, as the entire issue has been swept under the carpet.

The CAA made a basic error, in turn affecting all airworthiness and maintenance activities. There could be no valid safety argument. The investigator MUST ask if this occurred before, is it still happening, and what is the regulator doing to correct its error? Only after this work is complete can one form a final judgment on the direct effect on the current accident. On Shoreham, that work has not yet commenced, probably because it would reveal recurrence; in turn risking future occurrences. Who benefits?

Here, I would argue, those who attend an air show rather assume (if they even think about it) that the aircraft they're watching are airworthy, serviceable and fit for purpose. It could be said they enter into a contract with the organisers to this effect, who in turn rely upon the CAA, the operator, and, ultimately, the pilot. Too many think 'ultimately' means only the pilot can be at fault. That chain of responsibility was definitely broken by the organisers, CAA and operator before the pilot entered the aircraft. I can't comment on his actions, as I'm not a pilot. He's been cleared, the others have not yet been investigated.

A finding of unlawful killing is not effectively a criminal judgment. On this occasion, Wiki explains perfectly well enough why:

"In R (on the application of Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire[3] the Supreme Court clarified that the standard of proof for suicide and unlawful killing in an inquest is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt."

Hill's defence managed to introduce reasonable doubt, but IMHO not balance of probabilities doubt. He will just have to get used to life in the legal no-man's land in between. Next question: civil action by the families, and against whom...

Thanks for those two posts tuc. I couldn’t work out why the coroner allowed the AAIB report when it was prohibited in the high court. I see now. She referred to it, but was not allowed to hear evidence about it? She’s on thin ice if she knew it was wrong in any way or showed up other failings she didn't mention.

Thanks for that, Dave. I'm new to this thread and the post-inquest discussion, but am curious about the following extract you've included from H.M. Coroner's findings:
"40. [Mr Hill's] flying was exceptionally bad in several aspects such that I am satisfied, applying the threshold as described in Misra, that this was, on the balance of probabilities, so far a departure from the standards to be expected that it meets the high threshold for the final element of gross negligence manslaughter, and I shall be reflecting that finding within my narrative conclusion."

Many of us have seen the result of misjudgement and/or negligence by a pilot that has led to an accident which had the potential to harm third parties. As a layperson, it seems to me that any proposal of gross negligence on the part of a pilot flying alone has to address the fact that (s)he is usually the party most likely to suffer any serious consequences. Therefore, I'm wondering if a finding of gross-negligence manslaughter can be applied in this case. Did the coroner have any evidence that Mr Hill made a deliberate attempt to impact the public road, rather than open spaces nearby?

If that question has been answered previously on this thread, please accept my apologies.

Thanks David. Headline grab and junior reporting referred to the "Shoreham Air disaster pilot" being found not guilty "upon appeal".The reporter got mixed up and I got totally confused by entering the debate chamber late (!)

Subsequent posts here confirm my view of very interesting legal debate.. A "balance of probabilities" could often lead to a "beyond reasonable doubt" concluding act. I submit. Sorry. Watching too much Judge Judy in retirement from Airline piloting. I'll stop me there.

I have little doubt. though, that Hill did not set out, that fateful day to kill himself or kill innocent bystanders. His actions appear to have been negligent and resulted in accidental loss of life.. I agree with Peers who concluded that he was not guilty of "unlawful killing".

Can this country do nothing right? All that an air accident report (civil or military) is required to do is state the result of a fully comprehensive unbiased and objective investigation into an aircraft accident. Plainly this one didn't. That error is then compounded by it being treated as holy writ and protected from challenge in court but then used by the coroner, despite her being denied consideration of evidence of it being flawed. These proceedings were about as just as the scandal of the Mull's kangaroo court.

So, the canker that has blighted military air safety for so long is now infecting its civil counterpart it would seem. The primary purpose of air accident investigation is to prevent recurrence. Not only has this one failed spectacularly in that, it has almost guaranteed recurrence by protecting the civil regulator from the result of its own negligence. The negligence will continue unhindered unless it is exposed. All that is missing is the continuous cover up protecting its military counterpart's gross negligence. Then the curse will be complete.

Misra case
 

I think it would be a good move for people to read the Misra case to which the coroner referred. Its not that difficult to understand for non-lawyers.
The key is in para 66 where the Court of Appeal said as follows:
"....The jury concluded that the conduct of each appellant in the course of performing his professional obligations to his patient was "truly exceptionally bad"...."
You can read it here https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d03e7f57eb152b