I have been making this point to a number of my non-aviation friends, who have asked my opinion of the verdict. The reality is that having set the threshold this high it would have been virtually impossible for the prosecution to have persuaded 10 of the remaining 11 jurors beyond reasonable doubt that cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot.

I do, however, have a personal problem with the use of cognitive impairment as a defence. In my own experience (20+ years of domestic and international aerobatic competition and display flying - all piston engine singles) I have suffered from cognitive impairment in different forms on a number of occasions and witnessed it on many more. For me this has ranged from "black out" (often wrongly confused with G-LOC) - where all vision is lost but you have the remaining four sense intact - through to complete loss of consciousness. In the case of the former, vision is normally restored after a few seconds provided the G loading is reduced through elevator input. In the case of the latter, which happened to me after an aggressive "sleeper" combination (high negative G figures followed immediately by high positive G), the stick is always released as it is "loaded" by reason of the positive G. What happens next depends on how the aircraft is trimmed, how quickly the pilot wakes up...and how high you are.

My difficulty is this: you only push the envelope, which was when I had my own impairment experiences, at altitude in as safe an environment as possible. This does not include low level, public aerobatic displays.

As pilot in command we all accept that we have responsibility for the safe undertaking of any flight. As aerobatic pilots we are acutely aware of the risks we are exposing both ourselves and others to. This includes the risk of cognitive impairment whether caused by poor sequence design, poor execution, physical condition (which may include lack of current G tolerance) or state of mind. If there is any doubt at all about anything you are doing in this context, you simply don't do it. Or accept the consequences.

Right or wrong verdict? I cannot believe that the verdict will in anyway will be seen as justice by the families and friends of those that died.

Am I correct to think that the "cognitive impairment" argument is the point that carried the not-guilty decision? Or, is it possible that the jury decided the case on other grounds, including the lay opinion that "crashing during a display" would never be gross negligence?


OAP

That's easy, last month.

I would have said the presumption of responsibility...but yeah...that.

When were we first made aware of G-LOC?

Affects of G, yes, grey-out, yes, black-out yes. Use of G-pants, yes. G-LOC as a term, I don't know. Straining, yes, but I don't recall that back in the 60s.

The precise point is he may never have heard the term despite receiving training in G.

You will never know.

Jury deliberations are considered secret, even after a trial has ended.

Juries are not required to give reasons for an acquital. No-one, other than the 11 jurors in this case, will know either the reasoning they used, the evidence they accepted or whether the decision was unanimous or a majority verdict.

Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight. "You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said. "It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."

So the Judge made it about cognitive impairment

Hi Pontious, as I recall, G-LOC came into general Av Med training around 1990,..but I might be mistaken?

OAP

Yes, this is interesting Trembles.......I believe Andy Hill describes having no recollection of the events, so simply agreeing in court that he would not have aimed to fly the manoeuvre at the wrong parameters would imply (rightly or wrongly) that he was impaired, despite the fact that he has no recollection and seemed to have little knowledge of the safety gates and recovery proceedure.

OAP

It was a unanimous verdict. That fact is stated in open court and is not considered confidential.

14,000+ hours is a lot of experience, not only operating civilian aircraft in the civil aviation world but also continuing to fly military type aircraft and displaying them.

Years in the "seat" plus knowing your own personal parameters and the aircraft capability you are flying, gives the experienced pilot a prior sense of a situation that if not corrected at that time could become a bigger problem later. Most of the time a minor "correction" applied at the time nullifies any future problem.

100 knots at the top of a loop at 2,600' in a Hunter. Applying the thought of the sentence above, when did the cognitive impairment take place?

LJ
 

Which means that someone who left military could state accurately that they had not been trained in G-Loc. If phrased differently I think it would be very difficult to deny know if the effects of G.

I probably have more awareness of the meaning of G-Loc than CI.