Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Shoreham Hunter pilot not guilty

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Shoreham Hunter pilot not guilty

Old 8th Mar 2019, 10:28
  #1 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Shoreham Hunter pilot not guilty

Report on BBC.
See also Mil thread.
fantom is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Travesty of justice

"I'm truly sorry for the part I played in their deaths." Is what he said. "Part" . . . who else was involved?
Brian W May is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Home
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Completely disappointed in the outcome, particularly for the families involved. Cognitively impaired, my arse.
richardthethird is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aircraft 100% serviceable. No known or declared medical conditions... truly awful outcome for the families of those killed.
c53204 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:24
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One of our old VL Hunters. Perfectly good aircraft. He has to live with this the rest of his life no matter what the verdict.
ciderman is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,907
Received 17 Likes on 4 Posts
Surprising verdict.
beamer is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If ever there was a man living in denial and totally obsessed with his own self preservation itís Andy Hill, in my opinion, allegedly, of course.
Jet_Fan is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,901
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Surely time to ground these ex military jets being flown by civilianís?
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:28
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you are 30kts slow and only 2/3 of your gate height, then not to abort wasn't negligent it was suicidal and I don't believe he was intending to commit suicide.
antisthenes is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:34
  #10 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 190
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ciderman
One of our old VL Hunters. Perfectly good aircraft. He has to live with this the rest of his life no matter what the verdict.
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.

Last edited by aox; 8th Mar 2019 at 11:45.
aox is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by c53204
Aircraft 100% serviceable. No known or declared medical conditions... truly awful outcome for the families of those killed.
Like AF447 you mean?
Are you seriously wanting criminal convictions for every pilot error? That is contrary to all the flight safety, NTSB and ASRS philosophies.
Ian W is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Miles away
Posts: 108
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Karim Khalil QC, must be some defence lawyer!
Procrastinus is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Crawley
Age: 66
Posts: 175
Received 19 Likes on 8 Posts
So, as was quoted, it means that any hand flown activity has an omnipresent risk of cognitive impairment. Should we all be grounded, for the safety of all?
nevillestyke is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:43
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So will Mr Hill now be back on the job for BA?
Paul852 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 7 Likes on 3 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.
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:56
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by biscuit74
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.
So you are saying every jury should be qualified in the role they are being asked to assess ? what a load of tosh.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:59
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by nevillestyke
So, as was quoted, it means that any hand flown activity has an omnipresent risk of cognitive impairment. Should we all be grounded, for the safety of all?
That I suspect is one of the greater worries this produces for airshow pilots and planners in the UK going forward. The NIMBY and OTT HSE crew will likely use this to dramatically inhibit future shows.
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.
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
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?
lightningf2a is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:03
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by aox
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.
I have no interest in golf, why are we allowing any form of golf games to be conducted in this country, I could get hit by a 100mph golf ball while passing one of these dangerous courses, I think all golf courses should closed and all forms of golf should be banned immediately.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 12:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Above The Clouds
So you are saying every jury should be qualified in the role they are being asked to assess ? what a load of tosh.
No, I am saying that a result such as this is more to be expected in any case where some moderate level of experience or technical background knowledge would enhance the jurist's ability to accurately judge the arguments being made, in context. Many lawyers will tell you that - it is part & parcel of the lottery which is our justice system.

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.
biscuit74 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.