This is just information. It is not an opinion and although I followed the Shoreham disaster in the national press I have not read any official reports. Once I had to interview a man thankfully recovering from being totally buried in a deep trench the side of which had collapsed over him. He was dug down to and then pulled out unconscious after several minutes. It was clear that he was not responsible for his own accident. It was penny pinching by his employers not being prepared to pay for trench support. I met him a little later on and he said he could remember nothing at all of that day's events except that he remembered going to work and waking up in hospital.
Twenty years later I had a car accident three miles from my place of work, rolled the car completely and woke up to see a paramedic standing at my feet while I was lying in the road next to the upside down car. It must have taken at least 10 minutes for the ambulance to arrive, let alone the time taken for a call to be made. In addition I had switched off the engine while upside down, undone the seat belt, dropped to the roof of the car, fracturing my spine, before escaping from the car through the boot as the drivers door was un-openable. I have no memory of the accident until the paramedic was there. Later in hospital I recalled seeing in the driving mirror a car in sunlight arriving at a junction behind me located just before the accident site and thought that was the last memory. I learned it was raining at the time I had my accident by a member of my company staff who went to the scene. My professional life in accident investigation teaches me to be extremely cautious about the evidence that people unconscious at some point during the incident may be be asked about.

This is my personal view. I worked on the Hunters, when they were based at Exeter and Andy Hill used some of the T-7s, when he was trying to become current on the Hunter. None of the guys thought he looked confident, or knowledgeable and we were all very surprised when the chief pilot passed him as qualified to fly the jet. The guys at Exeter often wonder if he should have been passed after such a short time and maybe those eleven guys would still be alive, if he hadn't been passed, so quickly? Andy Hill should go back to Shoreham and read the names of the eleven victims on the plaque and then hang his head in shame.

Even for an NPPL he would need to make a medical declaration "affirming his medical fitness to fly". I don't see how such a claim could be compatible with the claims made on his behalf about his medical status in court.

The CAA can elect to review any medical declaration made and impose additional examination requirements.

You mean just like the one he made at Southport nearly putting a Strikemaster into the crowd at the Southport air show.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...pilot-10827389

The original post in this resurgent post was "Mr Hill is now trying to get his licence back, which seems a trifle insensitive to little old me."

Has anyone seen any confirmation of this?

all there is that I can see is "Bob and Caroline Schilt spoke to ITV News Meridian ahead of a documentary airing tonight (28 December) on Discovery Plus which claims that the pilot is trying to have his licence reinstated." One journo quoting another journo about a TV claim which ....................................

The original journalists will have two sources for this information (common practice) but they might not be able to reveal them. Hill could put this to bed by making a statement to the contrary, but he hasn't. It doesn't take much mental effort to work out why he hasn't.

I think the "two sources" is something you'll find in the quality media -

TV producers??? Not quite the same - (and I know several) - it's all about THE STORY

But agree absolutely - Mr Hill could kill this with a word. If he doesn't on his own head etc etc

What on earth was that supposed to be???

The T5 is not the most fun little jet to fly, but it generally does what it is told to. That was... awful, and you are correct to be concerned, the potential to have parked that aircraft into the dirt was pretty high. Had someone taken the driver aside and counseled him at that point, it might have been a better outcome for lots of families affected by a similar untidy bit of flying.

For the T5 effort, the ailerons are adequate for rolls, the nose attitude at the start of the roll is less than would be desirable but bugging out part way around as it did doesn't improve the flight path at all, continuing the roll would maintain the greatest separation from the ground. If this was an intended maneuver such as a derry turn, then that is equally awful.

The control column of the T5 can take a little time to get used to, and some coupling of actual input vs intended input can occur, which normally gets resolved in the first few minutes of flying the plane. It'll do a nice aileron roll, slow roll, hesitation roll, and derry turns are straightforward. Given the aircraft has just come out of a loop, there was lots of energy, it is mainly just untidy.

Southport JP
 

I had never realised that JP display was flown by AH at Southport, was there with my young nephew probably slightly left of where that YouTube video shows.

I'd not pass comment on here about something I had no knowledge of or competency but just realised we might've been personally involved if he'd got that wrong - which it seems he did.

The video from that angle doesn't seem to show the full field of view perspective, as a smaller camera lens probably wouldn't due to optics. We were at beach level not that close to the crowdline (maybe 100m) looking up as he broke away to the North / Right after the roll - instantly realising from the visual of the Beach, Pier and the AC position he was low and close - closer and lower than it suggests on there.
Certainly it was one of those moments you sense as a pilot (relatively inexperienced though I may be) that it was a narrow escape, untidy might be too kind.

I do have a vivid memory of how bright the white and scarlet were backlit against a slightly murky sky as he climbed away.

Haven't loaded rolls / barrel rolls claimed lots of aircraft low down?

Edit: found this longer clip

Go to about 9:50... he was actually over the Pier

"Haven't loaded rolls / barrel rolls claimed lots of aircraft low down?"

A friend was showing me a picture of a commemorative plaque in the Royal Berks. Hospital in Reading it includes :- "Crashed slow-rolling near ground. Bad show.
— Douglas Bader,"

Didn't the Typhoon have a very low recovery from a display one year?

You can't get much lower.

I bet the debrief was tense!

There are myriad ways for display pilots to kill themselves when displaying an aircraft coming off Level one waivers. Some of these are errors involving BOTH low and high energy gates, density altitude as it affects both these parameters, energy loss maneuvers on the downline, barrel rolls due to the 3 dimensional factor causing arc error on the backside of the roll, and rolls where the pilot buries the nose and/or applies inside rudder early in the roll causing axis change to the roll coming off inverted and into the backside.
Low altitude display flying requires a dedication and concentration level found in very few other endeavors.
Even for highly experienced military pilots, display flying is best left to those SPECIFICALLY trained in its execution and protocols.
Dudley Henriques

My word, I bet it was. Presumably the display supervisor woudl have called 'knock it off' at that point, if the pilot hadn't already decided to do so. There is a lot of hard pull to the limits, with mushing, going on there - a pilot with a very old breath there I'd imagine as it actually bottomed out and started to climb.

Interesting to see how easily someone no doubt skilled, current and authorised can misjudge a maneouvre which has simultaneous pitch and roll; trying to define safe limit values for entry/continuation must be challenging.

As a very limited skill aerobatic pilot I think I can just about imagine how difficult that must be, keeping full situational awareness in such a fast changing circumstance.

Not to side track this thread too much but I wonder if the aircraft was a little hot for display flying in the early days?
I remember seeing (I think it was Southend, not sure which seaside display it was) a Typhoon getting a little out of shape during a manoeuvre and ending up over the town.

Just as an example of how difficult it CAN be, consider the factors I covered in detail in the attached article about the solo pilots who perform Mirror Passes as done by the jet teams.
Dudley Henriques

​​​​​​https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCD...usp=drive_link

Of course both that Typhoon pilot and the Thunderbirds F16 pilot in the Mountain Home incident were trained and current display pilots.

just to be clear, the intent of my comment wasn’t meant to suggest that highly trained display pilots are immune. As one can clearly see from the mountain home incident with Chris Stricklin and many others no pilot regardless of experience and expertise is immune from the dangers inherent in low altitude display flying

The JPs were a very pleasant little jet trainer to fly, actually quite fun.
My experience ( 3 and 4 at FTS, 3 and 5 at CFS and a tour on the 4 at SORF as the senior standards QFI) I found the jet to be totally predictable and always did as it was told. That includes some high rotational partial control spins with 100 pounds in the tips refreshing Lightning pilots on spin recovery at Leuchars.
….. but that roll at Southport was crassly flown. The JP has a semi symmetrical wing set at a positive incidence , like the Piston Provost, its origin.. To maintain constant altitude it was neccessary to raise the nose a little as the roll started and PUSH as inverted was reached to keep a high nose attitude. Failure to do this is what happened at Southport, hence the escape manoeuvre, far from just untidy.
Incredibly lucky not to have hit the ground.