Nailed it.

Agree about CAA. The AAIB report left them without a name, yet they are now working together, with MoD in tow. Someone please explain!

But broad agreement? There are people here making assertions that are factually inaccurate, who persist even when taken to the evidence.

actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..

I'm at a loss. Your post has nothing to do with Chugalug's or mine. He replied to a specific point made by someone else and was accurate, and nowhere implies "airworthiness and sign off" are the sole issues on Shoreham. By asking if causality between your 3 points has been proven, you are just repeating what he has already said and is true. I've read the accident report and it mentions all 3 but doesn't attempt to link them. That doesn't mean there is no link. It means the investigation was crap.

no argument to your last point ….

If you run out of argument then create a false one, is that it? No-one is saying that airworthiness should be considered alone. As Dervish has pointed out, I was merely answering D2's somewhat unique idea that having signed for it a pilot is responsible for the entire state of an aircraft including its airworthiness. Unless you share his view, I cannot see that we are in anything other than violent agreement, sorry! Indeed, the thread seems to have moved on from 'lumping' everything into point 3 of your list and now accepts that all three points are interconnected as your post states. Congratulations, we are as one!

chug I will now leave this mortal coil happy 😊

In many ways, for those most immediately involved in this case, this might be for the best, as no verdicts or judgements can alter what happened and its consequences on their lives. For those wondering about civil actions by the families, I suspect the terms of their compensation payments from the insurers will preclude this.
As for the larger issues, it would appear that the band plays on till the next time. All in all a very poor advert for our “system” whereby such a serious catastrophe can be pored over by so many for so long, and yet we end up with so many obvious inadequacies in the process followed. We all have our prejudices and pet theories about what actually happened that day, and why: I would have expected a much more coherent and cogent conclusion to have been reached by now, and would have been at ease with it whether it fitted my hypothesis or not had I been able to accept that a rational process had been followed. Rather than rational, the adjectives which spring to mind are arcane and machiavellian.

A spokesperson for the West Sussex, Brighton and Hove Coroner said: "Further to the High Court's decision to refuse permission for Mr Hill to proceed with the judicial review, Mr Hill has now advised that he will not be making a request for an oral hearing to challenge that decision."

Sarah Stewart, of law firm Stewarts, who acted for the majority of the families, said the relatives of the deceased could "continue their healing process in peace".

"The families look forward to putting this chapter firmly behind them, safe in the knowledge that their voices have finally been heard," she said.


Maybe we should lock this thread?

Mr Hill is now trying to get his licence back, which seems a trifle insensitive to little old me. I'm surprised there hasn't been a crowd founded, class action, civil case brought against Andy Hill by the bereaved. The burden of proof is lower in a civil action, so he could very well end up with a guilty verdict against his name.

He really should just try to fade into obscurity but his latest action, and the soon too be aired documentary about him, will ensure he remains newsworthy for some time to come.

No he couldn't! You cannot be found "guilty" in a civil court. He might (or might not) be found liable in a civil capacity but as any liability would be met by his insurers it would no doubt be vigorously defended.

Is there a time limit on these things? If there was a civil case is he allowed to produce the evidence that wasn't permitted in the criminal case or inquest?

He won't fly at an airshow again. As for being tried in a civil court only on a different charge I would have thought.

This is a terrible mistake - the media will be writing as we speak and you can imagine the words they will use about him.................

Here's a link: https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/20...g-license-back

Yes and yes.

Normally six years (five if it had happened in Scotland)!

Different rules apply and a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. But, just because a tragedy happened and people died doesn't automatically mean that somebody must be liable.

In effect any case would be dealt with by the pilot's and the show organiser's insurance companies. They would weigh the cost of reaching a settlement against the costs and risks of defending the case. It would have little if anything to do with "guilt" but sadly some other posters' seem unable to understand that.

In a way it is a bigger version of a roof tile coming off your house and killing a passer by. If you had unreasonably neglected your roof and it was obvious to a average person that it was dangerous you could be liable and your insurance company would defend or settle the matter more or less as they see fit. If on the other hand you had taken reasonable care of your property and it was just "one of those unfortunate things" it is unlikely there would be any liability.

Liability, guilt, it's all the same in the court of public opinion.

Of course pilot error was found to be the cause in the official enquiry. Also, the inquest found that all the victims were unlawfully killed. There's no statute of limitations on capital crimes. And, putting aside civil action, anyone can bring a private prosecution against an individual for a criminal offence, within certain criteria.

But, with very few exceptions (which do not apply here) you cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. He was acquitted unanimously by the jury so that is the end of the (criminal) matter.

So that also rules out any private prosecution. In any case, the CPS can, at their absolute discretion, take over any private prosecution then discontinue it if they so please

Any civil claim must be brought within six years.

Six years of when? I would say from the date the criminal trial finished.

New evidence would have to emerge before a trail for the same offence could proceed. I did say within certain criteria.

The facts remain though, found liable by the official enquiry and the unlawful killing verdict of the inquest.

This isn’t over, imo.