Shoreham Hunter pilot not guilty
From the BBC article:
In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.
"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?
"Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear."
That middle paragraph is a pertinent question, after the defence as presented.
Depending on how future policy and practice responds to that rhetorical point, one person's successful legal defence may arguably have damaged plenty of other aviators.
Last edited by aox; 8th Mar 2019 at 11:45.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you seriously wanting criminal convictions for every pilot error? That is contrary to all the flight safety, NTSB and ASRS philosophies.
It shows, again, what a lottery our 'justice system' can be. Find the right angle to sow doubt, add an impressive medical expert and enough smoke and mirrors soon exists for a good defence lawyer to work with. Mr Hill got some very good and no doubt expensive advice and stuck to his story rigorously throughout. Enough doubt was sown. .
I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.
His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.
I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.
His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shows, again, what a lottery our 'justice system' can be. Find the right angle to sow doubt, add an impressive medical expert and enough smoke and mirrors soon exists for a good defence lawyer to work with. Mr Hill got some very good and no doubt expensive advice and stuck to his story rigorously throughout. Enough doubt was sown. .
I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.
His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.
I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.
His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.
I'd expect it should be readily possible to knock back any more general negative concerns, but this shows how some of the outcomes of our justice system can have awkward and doubtfully sensible implications, often unexpected. Thanks Mr Hill - your impairment argument may cost some or all pilots a great deal of additional future hassle.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40 hours on the Hunter over 4 and a half years, 30 kts down and 1000ft below gate. Hmm, where was his thumb?
RAF fast jet pilot, A cat QFI, Station aerobatic pilot and never made aware of effects of G?
RAF fast jet pilot, A cat QFI, Station aerobatic pilot and never made aware of effects of G?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the bereaved families and friends, so do other people who weren't involved.
From the BBC article:
In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.
"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?
"Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear."
That middle paragraph is a pertinent question, after the defence as presented.
Depending on how future policy and practice responds to that rhetorical point, one person's successful legal defence may arguably have damaged plenty of other aviators.
From the BBC article:
In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.
"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?
"Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear."
That middle paragraph is a pertinent question, after the defence as presented.
Depending on how future policy and practice responds to that rhetorical point, one person's successful legal defence may arguably have damaged plenty of other aviators.
That said, this result is about 'beyond reasonable doubt' on a charge of 'gross negligence'.. I doubt many - any? - of us would consider that a fair charge. An honest mistake, or series of mistakes, is not necessarily negligence. Perhaps the more important question is what happens next.
