Let's say (hypothetically) the aircraft entered it's tragic manouvre from an altitude that was 50' too low. (no accurate rad alt? Misleading visual clues on the ground?) Let's say, it entered at a speed that was 5 knots slower than usual? Let's say any 'gate' over the top was slightly out?

Non of these things 'should' happen.

But would those things represent wrecklessness, or an error of judgement??

Display pilots are human. Just like all of us. The very finest pilots/doctors/racing drivers/armed police are not immune from error.

Should we be judged on our human failings. Or the magnitude of the unintended consequences of those failings?

I don't have the answers. But nor do I think these are 'stupid' questions.

Of course maybe the individual concerned was just a wreckless ripsh1t who deserves to have the book thrown at him? He certainly must have fooled a huge number of people on the way up if that's the case though.

That doesn't seem terribly plausible to me.

Let's say you pass a speed camera at 34mph in a 30mph limit.
Let's say you repeat that each day for the next three days.

Does this indicate recklessness?

You would suffer a minimum 12 month driving ban as a result.

The margins of exceedance are massively smaller than those exhibited by the driver of the Hunter in this case...

PDR

just clarifying as the wording would lead some to think of CVR's and FDR's which i would have thought would be treated slightly differently to a GO PRO etc which are not aircraft equipment

As far as I can see the CVR and FDR data is material evidence at a potential crime scene - I see no reason why it should NOT be made available to police investigators.

PDR

Oh yes it is. Happens in courts around the world day in and day out and I am referring to reputable legal systems here.

Here you run into the conflict between accident investigation and criminal investigation. The legislation surrounding aircraft accident investigation requires the handing over of such data. However, in a criminal investigation this would amount to overruling the defendant's fundamental right to silence. This is why in a lot of jurisdictions there is the protection that such data cannot be released for purposes other than the accident investigation.

Should there be a ruling that the data is to be released to the police I would imagine that there is going to be a very quick appeal lodged and it will be challenged up the judicial chain. In the meantime you can obtain an order that the data is not to be released pending an appeal.

There is no fundamental right to silence in UK law.

"... it may harm your defence if you fail to mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court. Anything you say ..."

Anglo Saxon law traditionally allowed for the payment of compensation to a victim's family in lieu of imprisonment or physical retribution. Locking people up for prolonged periods in jail is a comparitively modern trend, fines or physical punishments were much more likely to be used as a deterrent to wrongdoing.

Sorry, but the Shoreham crash was an avoidable accident just waiting to happen. We had been 'dodging the bullet' for too many years and it finally happened.. I've been to many airshows and seen some extreme accidents. Thank God all were in controlled areas with no spectators or innocent people to be hurt in. We simply cannot have these big powerful jets performing over populated areas. It simply is not safe to do so.

Perfect example of maneuver executed from too low an altitude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dohKKp0EvTs
Look familiar?
That stunt manover requires that the pilot climb 2,500 feet before executing. Investigators say he only climbed to 1,670 feet before he went into the spinning roll.

U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Team involving four Northrop T-38 Talon jets crashed during operational training on 18 January 1982, killing all four pilots. Airforce concluded mechanical problem; jammed stabilizer on the lead jet. There were no Thunderbird shows for 18 months after that. What was good? They were not doing the maneuver over populated terrain!

Bottom line here is things need to change so we do not see another Shoream accident, and if that means no more potentially dangerous maneuvers by big aircraft, then that is what it has to be.

I disagree. It's perfectly possible top do fast-jet displays at an acceptable level of safety. It just requires proper planning and execution.

Unfortunately the Shorham case seems to have been lacking in one and/or the other. It is quite proper for the relevant authorities to want to determine whether that lack was criminally reckless or negligent.

PDR

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." These were the words of George Santana, a philosopher. Its meaning does reflect the object of a so called Just Culture, the aim of which is to prevent recurrence of accidents and incidents by encouraging active and transparent reporting of safety occurrences as well as full participation in safety investigation instead of punishing those involved.
The aviation community has increasingly been concerned over a trend in criminal prosecutions of aviation professionals. That reports and material emerging in accident investigations seem to find their way into court rooms. Could this therefore have a detrimental effect on the true purpose and aim of accident reporting and investigation.
The dilemma is therefore is how to strike the right balance between the needs of improving safety in aviation and the recognition of the justice system`s legitimacy to investigate and prosecute any suspected criminal acts that may have been involved.
At the present time there is no quick fix to this long standing dilemma as to how to go about finding a resolution to the conflict between such two powerful and capricious masters, aviation safety and administration of justice.
No doubt the two eminent High Court judges who heard the Sussex Police application last week are currently wrestling over precisely this point.
I await their ruling with great anticipation. After all it will be down to such judges that this dilemma will eventually be resolved.

Or for (unprejudiced) completeness:

Whether it was an error of judgement!