Does a driver convicted of causing death by dangerous driving receive a lifetime driving ban? The emotions of those close to one of those killed in the crash are understandable, but have no bearing on Mr Hill’s wish to fly again; that is a matter for CAA licensing whether he meets all the requirements of the process.

Would you seek to fly again if it was you in this position? Legally, I’m not sure anything but a medical issue can stop him getting back in the air.

If Mr Hill did get his licence back presumably he would need to obtain insurance of some sort. Do you not think he might find it difficult to do so?

No, I don’t.

No. Provided that an applicant meets the relevant criteria for licence re-issue, including the relevant medical criteria, it's a matter purely for CAA personnel licensing.

Your stirring isn't helping anyone.

I wonder how Mr Hill intends to approach the matter of his susceptibility to, ahem, "cognitive impairment" when asked by the AMO during his renewal examination. After building his criminal defence upon an unpredictable occurrence of the condition (of which remarkably little - nothing? - seems to have been written since), it would be cakeism on almost a Johnsonian scale for him to claim to that he is now safe to fly. I wonder if the CAA is prepared to refuse a medical on the grounds of Hill's "impairment" to see if he will expose himself to ridicule by downplaying the "condition" on appeal?

Do you remember Ernest Saunders? He built a defence based on being an Alzheimer’s sufferer and then became the only person in the world to fully recover from it.

If he reads this and has second thoughts it’s helped the families. If the families read this and see that the vast majority think Hill is being and AH in pursing this, then I’m sure that will come as some comfort.

Your accusation of stirring is inflammatory and uncalled for. This is obviously a matter that millions of people will have a view so I don’t know you would seek to close down this thread. Personal interest, maybe?

Was his defence not that he lost awareness while pulling 4 g ? AFAIK, display flying to the same level has not been banned. What would happen if he got his licence back and had a problem at 3 g.

He should hang up his boots.

No, normally they don't.

Still less does a driver who is is acquitted of any crime - which is the situation with Mr Hill!

Assuming he passes the required medical and any flight tests that are needed, after how ever many years absence, he is as entitled to a licence as anybody else.

How will he prove that his impairment won’t reoccur again - even in straight and level flight?

Everyone knows this, so why it gets repeated so often is beyond me.

The question is, should he get back in the air given the complete horlicks he made of his last fight?

Indeed.

Nobody can!

As a CAA medical examiner round here used to say to private pilots "Well I'm pleased to say you have passed but of course that doesn't guarantee you won't die on the way home"!

I would hope they do. However you only have to look a threads like this to see how it suits some peoples' agenda to heap all the blame on one individual rather than look at the whole picture.

"A chain is a strong as its weakest link" is a popular saying and of course it is true. However it may well not be the the whole truth. If the weakest link snaps the chain fails, maybe with disastrous consequences, but that does not mean the rest of the chain was fit for purpose. In my opinion there were a whole raft of issues that could all have potentially lead to a catastrophe and many of them have not been properly addressed as there was a convenient scapegoat.

Do you remember the far less debated crash of a Gnat at a show not that long before Shoreham? Because "only" the pilot was killed and the plane crashed in deserted woodland there was relatively little publicity. It should have raised all kinds of questions about the wisdom of operating these kinds of aircraft in civilian hands and them being flown quite legally by pilots, however experienced in the past, with very little (or virtually zero) currency on type.

20:20 hindsight now requires the B road that passes the end of Old Warden's runway to be closed on 10 days a year for their airshows, much to the annoyance of the local residents. Old Warden shows are 99.9% prop driven aircraft flown conservatively by some of the most experienced pilots in the country. They will have vastly more currency on the type of aircraft they are displaying than could ever be the case with a historic fast jet.

However, it was thought fit to run the show at Shoreham with multiple fast jets passing directly over a busy A road that was kept open. No effective steps were taken to prevent "freeloaders" congregating by the road, several of whom were killed.

Duxford however, despite having had fatal accidents immediately either side of the M11 motorway in the past, continues to have multiple large shows each year with the motorway remaining open. It has however taken elaborate steps to stop a relatively few photographers and enthusiasts congregating in the so called "naughty fields" to the south of the runway!

People really need to look at the whole picture!

Hill was at the sticks, so the primary responsibility is his. The AAIB report is damning of Hill but less so of the organisers.

Personally, I don't believe for one minute that he suffered a metal impairment on the day but in his attempts to get closure for himself he's certainly suffered a moral one ever since, as have those who seek to deflect blame with weak whataboutary.

One fact remains, that being the verdict of unlawful killing. In the face of that, any attempt to get back flying is a repugnant abomination, imo.
The police aren't looking for anyone else to prosecute because they got their man. Hill's airmanship on the day was dreadful, right up there with that B52 pilot at Fairchild. Hill should keep a low profile but, every the showman, he manages to keep himself in the news.

At the time Shoreham happened I reviewed the incident for World Airshow News; also as a back engineered study for Des Barker's excellent book on airshow accident history, "An Anatomy of Airshow Accidents", distributed by ICAS.
Here is that review;

Dudley Henriques

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VSP...ew?usp=sharing

I've tried to stay away from this but feel the need to add my thoughts now.

I will preface this with the fact that there seems to be no verified source quoted for the fact that AH is attempting to get his licence back, but assuming that those reports are correct:

AH for whatever reason made a grievous error that killed 11 people and devastated the lives of countless others.

When held to account for it he offered a medical defence that he was cognitively impaired for some undefined medical reason. This defence was accepted by the jury and he was acquitted.

For him now to suggest that he would like his licence and medical to be restored to him despite the fact that he suffers from some undefined condition that leads to sudden cognitive impairment (not to mention the subsequent massive medical trauma of the accident including a significant head injury) strikes me as unreasonable.

I would imagine that it will seem unreasonable to the CAA medical branch as well! (Bearing in mind how difficult they have made the lives of certain of my colleagues who suffer from considerably less worrying conditions than AH reportedly suffers from).

I personally feel that AH has dodged a major bullet here and that if he had any concern for the wellbeing and reputation of our industry, the welfare of the people who continue to live the the consequences of his actions, or indeed a reasonable measure of common decency then he would bow out as gracefully as he can and fade quietly into the background.

Should he attempt to regain his licence I feel he will fully deserve the outcry, anger and further vilification that will certainly follow.

Would the laws on corporate manslaughter and medical exemption prevent a person medically impaired to operate a machine?
These laws were brought into place after the Glasgow refuse vehicle crash. Now all drivers (and I would assume also pilots) need to declare any medical conditions.
Then if said organisation was to approve them getting behind the wheel, stick and that person was to kill someone the person signing the relevant paperwork is liable to be charged with corporate manslaughter.

We don't know what type of licence he's trying to get, (if he is - it is the Sun after all) and we are assuming its one that does require a Class 1 or 2 medical....(which surely in the circumstances would be a no-no) but, it maybe he's just seeking to get a NPPL which doesn't need a medical and would restrict him to Part 21 aircraft only....?
Given what happened I'm surprised he'd even want to do that of course...!