Gyrocopter involved in murder charge

[Whirlygig]

the content of that recording may be significant in the charge.

There was a video of the incident shown in the court today.

That there are two people being held is unusual unless both were in the aircraft and dual controls were fitted. There may be more involved.

The second person has been released.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait until a trial (if one is held) before finding out what the relevant counsels want the court to know.

The Crown Court hearing will be held on 23 March.

Cheers

Whirls

[turboshaft]

Originally Posted by nigelh

VP you seem very determined to put the blame on the deceased

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Originally Posted by nigelh

What a twit . Lets hope he goes down for a good time . ( not as in good time ....)

Let's hope someone with a cooler head works out exactly what happened first.

[VP959]

You are therefore assuming that the nearest object to the gyro was the camera when in fact the distance from the camera is irrelevant in terms of distance from other possible 3rd party objects which may well have put the aircraft in contravention of rule 5.
There is unfortunately no ground object in the photo that can be used to determine accurately a height.

The photo was, allegedly, being used by the hunt to show that the gyro was breaking the law. In fact it does no such thing, as shown by this simple arithmetic.

The height isn't relevant, as the rule is distance from, not height above, the gyro could perfectly legally be at low level but with adequate horizontal separation, I beleive.

AFAIK there were not enough people in this gathering to impose an absolute height above ground limit.

It may well be that the gyro broke the law at some point, all I have pointed out is that the photograph produced doesn't prove or support this view.

VP you seem very determined to put the blame on the deceased . Does this have anything to do with your own views regarding hunting by any chance ??

I cannot see any evidence to support that view in anything I have posted, nigelh. I happen to be agnostic with regard to the issue of hunting; in my view people should just be allowed to get on with things they enjoy, provided that they do not upset others in the course of their activity.

For the record, I was brought up in the country (on a farm) and still live in a rural area, so am well acquainted with the activities of both sides of the hunting divide and, to some extent, understand their differing views.

VP

[vanHorck]

I would not think flying to follow a hunt, for example to make sure it is a real dummy hunt is in itself illegal, as long as the 500 ft rule is obeyed, just like it is not illegal for a dummy hunt to take place providing the rules are obeyed.

If the Gyro was purposely trying to annoy the people involved in the hunt this would be different, but either way all this talk of the hunt is merely creating the framework for whatever happened at the airfield.

So the question remains, how is it possible for somebody to walk into a blade and be killed.

3 options have been provided:
1. stumbled over a wheel when approaching the craft (accident)
2. unexpected weathercocking of the craft (accident)
3. purpose pointing the blades towards the victim (murder or protection reflex in case the approach of the victim was considered to be threatening)

The aircraft had completed refueling. Unless the fuel is right next to the hangar where it is based and is due to be put away, it would be logical for the engine to be restarted.

Perhaps the hunt issue is the key for the investigation and charge. This is a highly sensitive issue and the prosecution will not want to be seen taking sides, in which case a court case and decision by the judge (either way) will prevent the prosecution being seen to be taking sides.

[tmmorris]

vH

A fourth possibility which occurs to me is:

Altercation between pilot and/or passenger and victim next to ac with engine running; victim is pushed into prop.

Unlikely as I can't see why they would have the engine running when one of them was out of the ac, but possible.

Tim

[Friendof]

Just a thought

I have spent the last 2 days reading a lot of forums, this one and several from the hunting lot. It would seem to me that due to the unique circumstances surrounding this incident that many have forgotten the innocent until proven guilty mantra which applies both to Trevor Morse and to Bryan Griffiths.

Just because one was a hunt supporter and one was 'anti' hunting does not mean that we in a biased state can assume that either one has done anything wrong. On all the forums each person is blaming whichever side they are against - ie pro hunting blame the pilot, anti hunting blame the hunt supporter.

The police have charged a man with murder, we assume with good reason, and from now on it will be up to a jury to decide. Lets stop blaming people and just save our thoughts for Trevor's family.

This post is not meant to accuse anyone, I just think that we are all in danger of loosing site of the biggest issue, a man has lost his life.

[nigelh]

Turboshaft . I think it is absolutely fair to say that the gyro pilot put himself into the position of purposely antagonising the hunt over a period of a few days . He is the instigator of this there is no doubt . Do you think this man would have followed him if he had been just going about his own business ? Of course not . As i said before ..i know that if i go out into the park and interfere with someones football game again and again ....i KNOW something is going to happen ...and when it does I will have caused it . That is a fact .
VP You may be a country squire but ...quote " provided that they do not upset others in the course of their activity." is just quite an odd thing to say ...... football upsets me , especially the players , so should it be banned ?
A lot of imported religeous things upset me ...ban them ? I really dont like moustaches either .........hunting , wearing fur coats , testing drugs on certain animals etc etc are all legal but obviously DO upset people ...and those people just happen to be mainly made up from the less educated in our society and see nothing wrong in using extreme violence in promoting their cause . This all boils down to the good old british class system and , as SAS says ,living on a small island on top of each other .

[staplefordheli]

As this is an active case, one has to be very careful what is posted on here
However lets assume that the facts in the papers are true and this big "gentle giant" hunt supporter goes to confront the said commander of the AC on the airfield,
probably already in taxi flight mode, rather than shutting down, he powers up to escape a potentially violent situation for himself and AC and then swerves around said person causing fatal injuries from the rear pusher prop.(the cause of death is already widely reported)

No different to a car driver accelerating away from a confrontation with someone in the road and striking the said person or for that matter a commercial pilot running over "plane stupid" demo on the taxiway or even as taking off. The fact they shouldnt be there has no bearing just as a train driver has to make some effort to avoid persons standing on the tracks and carrying on at speed would result in some charges being laid

Only a judge and jury can make the call as to wether this was an accident based on the prosecucution and defence cases, however things have changed now and whereas 25 years ago running a burglar over out of fear may have been accepted in a defence case. Today, it would not which is why we have serving police officers now in court on driving charges after pursuits go wrong.
Again it is down to the courts to clear the mess up and common sense to prevail if that is what this is, or deal the ultimate sentance if it was indeed murder.
We await the full facts and implications of this case which will no doubt take at least a year to come to trial but knowing the pro hunt and anti hunt sides, there will be much more of these types of confrontations to come, which for the grace of god have not resulted in more deaths before.
Do not forget that someone lost their life in this case regardless of hunting opinions.

[jumpseater]

nh
I think it is absolutely fair to say that the gyro pilot put himself into the position of purposely antagonising the hunt over a period of a few days

This is where its worth reading Stapleford's post carefully and thinking before you post. The above quoted post is not factual, its an assumption. There is evidence that an aircraft followed hunts, but not that the pilot, purposely antagonised the hunt over a period of a few days. It may have been a different but similar aircraft, different pilot, that is for the court to decide based on the evidence put before them. Allegations such as above may I think be considered predudicial to a fair trial if they become widespread.

[strake]

Rotorheads:
"A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them."

or:

"A forum for the uninformed to try and convince the ignorant of their point of view. Barrack room lawyers, psuedo-pilots and members of The Court Of Public Opinion all welcome"

[deltayankee]

There is evidence that an aircraft followed hunts, but not that the pilot, purposely antagonised the hunt

I can imagine scenarios where a pilot is following a hunt purely for monitoring purposes with no intention to harass but that it might still be perceived as harassment by the people on the ground who are not used to seeing aircraft at 500feet -- especially a noisy gyroplane. Anything less than 1000ft would intimidate many people.

In any case it is in the interests of all pilots to avoid giving a negative impression of private flying. There are plenty of people who would like to see aviation restricted further and this behaviour just gives them more ammunition.

[deltayankee]

Strake:

Fair comment re professional helicopter pilots, but this story never had any relevance to the board anyway unless people are being paid to monitor hunts. It's up to the mods to move it to a more appropriate space.



Thank you for your advice: but we're quite capable of moderating Rotorheads, and this thread

Senior Pilot
Rotorheads Moderator

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

This is a tragic event and a sad loss to some ones life. However, there are still two sides to the story. In my experience, there is no such thing as a gentle giant. As nice as people are for 99% of the time. There is a point in every ones life when they lose it for one reason or another. In this case perhaps a couple of weeks of perceived annoyance and the scaring of a couple of horses. Has resulted in an opportunity to have words with the pilot. Then during that encounter and a loss of rational thought. The events that unravelled were tragic and very very sad for all involved. Pilot, co pilot, family and any one that may have witnessed it. Let’s not forget how an event like this can affect people.

[chester2005]

Clarification, Fact or Speculation/Hearsay

Fact 1 Someone has died RIP.
Fact 2 An aircraft was seen following/observing a hunt
Fact 3 Access to an airfield is for authorised users only

Speculation; The pilot broke Rule 5/flew below 500ft
The pilot attempted to injure someone

Hearsay; The pilot was harassing the hunt (subjective opinion)

This country does have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty"
and trial by a jury.
Surely it is now up to the legal system to arrive at the correct conclusion?

IMHO it is not right or prudent for people to attempt to propagate opinions through anonymous forums.
IMHO the hunting debate is very emotive and involvement with it risks muddying the waters and hiding the facts of the case.

It is very easy for Pro or Anti hunt supporters to blow off steam and make accusations, speculations and suppositions on here but in all reality when all the opinions and emotions are put to one side what remains are the facts, and that is what judgements should and will be made on and that should be all that matters!!!

Chester

[VP959]

Originally Posted by nigelh

VP You may be a country squire but ...quote " provided that they do not upset others in the course of their activity." is just quite an odd thing to say ...... football upsets me , especially the players , so should it be banned ?
A lot of imported religeous things upset me ...ban them ? I really dont like moustaches either .........hunting , wearing fur coats , testing drugs on certain animals etc etc are all legal but obviously DO upset people ...and those people just happen to be mainly made up from the less educated in our society and see nothing wrong in using extreme violence in promoting their cause . This all boils down to the good old british class system and , as SAS says ,living on a small island on top of each other .

First off, I'm far from being a "country squire" but even if I was, what would it matter?

Secondly, what's your problem with my perfectly innocent observations?

Finally, just to clarify things, my view is that people should be allowed to partake in whatever pastime they wish (including flying) as long as they do it responsibly and take heed of the need to be considerate to others (which is what I meant by the phrase you chose to misconstrue).

If people want to hunt, then that's fine by me, as long as they don't trample my garden in the process. If people want to protest about what they see as animal cruelty then that's equally fine by me, as long as they don't inconvenience me in the process.

Originally Posted by chester2005

Fact 1 Someone has died RIP.
Fact 2 An aircraft was seen following/observing a hunt
Fact 3 Access to an airfield is for authorised users only

Speculation; The pilot broke Rule 5/flew below 500ft
The pilot attempted to injure someone

Hearsay; The pilot was harassing the hunt (subjective opinion)

This country does have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty"
and trial by a jury.
Surely it is now up to the legal system to arrive at the correct conclusion?

Excellent points. Perhaps now is the time to let the legal system do it's stuff and see what transpires, as you conclude.

VP

[TornadoWilkes]

............... deleted, TW

[Cabin doors 2 manual]

nigelh:

All of the posts here saying the pilot should have shut down are spot on and if the pilot was frightened of a telling off about his behaviour then he should not have done it .

OK, so how do you know that Mr Morse was going there to only 'tell off' the pilot? The pilots action of continuing may be because he thought his life was in danger, as others have posted, it will all come out in the court room.

[vanHorck]

Nigelh

I agree with Doors2Manual. Your comments seem to be more motivated by your feelings regarding the hunt itself than with aviation. It is far too early for such conclusions.

Overflying a football field is not illegal even if it is for an entire game provided you stick to the rule of the air.

The issue remains on the ground, what happened exactly, why was the engine on, who made which moves, and I think it all will have happened in seconds. So we ll see what comes out...

[birrddog]

vanHorck, whether or not you agree with Nigelh's views on hunting, as an aviator I think you should be concerned about aircraft being used to harass or spy on people minding their own (legal) business.

We have enough problems with the noise abatement crowd as it is, and certainly don't need more reasons for people to want to restrict the use of aircraft because someone did the aerial equivalent of stalking.

That being said, is it even possible to get a restraining order against _certain_ people/aircraft from loitering over you or your property?

[rammymicro]

photo details

In my previous post I listed the details of the camera. That is held in the JPG file. The focal length was 400, which is quite powerful. Knowing the rotor length the sums are easy.