Crash at Shoreham Air show

[RoverP6B]

There's also the possibility that, having been in a 150mph impact, Hill may have sustained some degree of brain damage. Remember Fernando Alonso's big shunt in pre-season testing in F1 this year? Total amnesia. He can't remember a thing about it.

Murder, definitely not. Manslaughter and/or criminal negligence, perhaps.

[KTF]

TooMany2cvs said:

He _could_ be charged with 11 murders.
Or he might be totally exonerated.

Perhaps it's best if the AAIB get on with it, eh?

Murder is premeditated and I doubt that was his aim. Manslaughter maybe I guess?

[Eric Mc]

To start discussing this aspect of the event at this stage is really poor form, in my opinion.

Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of this type should not be carried out.

[KTF]

Eric Mc said:

To start discussing this aspect of the event at this stage is really poor form, in my opinion.

Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of this type should not be carried out.

I was just curious if he could actually be charged with something given that it is an 'accident'.

[Eric Mc]

Of course he could - in theory. But there is absolutely no point in talking in these terms until we know what actually happened and why.

[EskimoArapaho]

KTF said:

I was just curious if he could actually be charged with something given that it is an 'accident'.

Not all accidents are forgiven. Remember the guy who fell asleep in his 4x4, drove off the motorway, down an embankment and stopped, lodged on a railway line? Intercity train hit it with 10 deaths; car driver jailed. (Albeit under a driving law.)

[AngryPartsBloke]

TooMany2cvs said:

KTF said:

onyx39 said:

Pilot now out of hospital and about to be questioned....

Could he actually be charged with something/jailed as a result or is it just an 'accident'?

He _could_ be charged with 11 murders.

You'll have to run past me how he planned to crash into those 11 people..

[SydneyBridge]

murder has to have intent to kill - there was no intent

I hope the pilot is not at fault- and it is too early to comment, but I think he has enough to deal with

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

To start discussing this aspect of the event at this stage is really poor form, in my opinion.

Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of this type should not be carried out.

An awful lot of the pre-finding speculation on this thread has been poor form.

Is it OK for a bunch of armchair Typhoon pilot aviation experts (for none on here are genuine Typhoon pilots, I suspect) to try and second guess why the plane came down, but not for armchair legal experts to discuss the legal aspect of the same incident/accident? (I have no bone in the fight either way.)

Maybe your statement should read "Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of any type should not be carried out."

[Eric Mc]

OpulentBob said:

An awful lot of the pre-finding speculation on this thread has been poor form.

Is it OK for a bunch of armchair Typhoon pilot aviation experts (for none on here are genuine Typhoon pilots, I suspect) to try and second guess why the plane came down, but not for armchair legal experts to discuss the legal aspect of the same incident/accident? (I have no bone in the fight either way.)

Maybe your statement should read "Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of any type should not be carried out."

What about the amateur Hunter pilots though?

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

OpulentBob said:

An awful lot of the pre-finding speculation on this thread has been poor form.

Is it OK for a bunch of armchair Typhoon pilot aviation experts (for none on here are genuine Typhoon pilots, I suspect) to try and second guess why the plane came down, but not for armchair legal experts to discuss the legal aspect of the same incident/accident? (I have no bone in the fight either way.)

Maybe your statement should read "Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of any type should not be carried out."

What about the amateur Hunter pilots though?

Whoops.

I was talking to a Typhoon pilot (a friend's father) last night about it and got my planes mixed up!

Apologies, showed my thicko side there...


ETA I've got it wrong again. It wasn't a Typhoon. It was a something else who's name escapes me. From the early to late 70's (my friend is 41, it was when she was a kid). Something big and jet powered and that carried stuff that would kill a lot of people.

Edited by OpulentBob on Thursday 10th September 12:27

[HughG]

OpulentBob said:

ETA I've got it wrong again. It wasn't a Typhoon. It was a something else who's name escapes me. From the early to late 70's (my friend is 41, it was when she was a kid). Something big and jet powered and that carried stuff that would kill a lot of people.

Edited by OpulentBob on Thursday 10th September 12:27

Lightning, Bucaneer, Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado???
There's probably some I've missed.

[Mave]

OpulentBob said:

Eric Mc said:

To start discussing this aspect of the event at this stage is really poor form, in my opinion.

Until ALL the factors that led up to the accident are investigated I think speculation of this type should not be carried out.

An awful lot of the pre-finding speculation on this thread has been poor form.

Is it OK for a bunch of armchair Typhoon pilot aviation experts (for none on here are genuine Typhoon pilots, I suspect) to try and second guess why the plane came down, but not for armchair legal experts to discuss the legal aspect of the same incident/accident? (I have no bone in the fight either way.)

Well, the speculation to date has been to the first level. ie, based on the things we know, these are the things that may have happened.

Discussing potential legal proceedings against the pilot is a second level speculation, ie speculating on the outcome of speculated scenarios.

[mybrainhurts]

HughG said:

OpulentBob said:

ETA I've got it wrong again. It wasn't a Typhoon. It was a something else who's name escapes me. From the early to late 70's (my friend is 41, it was when she was a kid). Something big and jet powered and that carried stuff that would kill a lot of people.

Edited by OpulentBob on Thursday 10th September 12:27

Lightning, Bucaneer, Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado???
There's probably some I've missed.

My money's on Tiger Moth. But, then, what do I know?..

[RichB]

mybrainhurts said:

HughG said:

OpulentBob said:

ETA I've got it wrong again. It wasn't a Typhoon. It was a something else who's name escapes me. From the early to late 70's (my friend is 41, it was when she was a kid). Something big and jet powered and that carried stuff that would kill a lot of people.

Edited by OpulentBob on Thursday 10th September 12:27

Lightning, Bucaneer, Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado???
There's probably some I've missed.

My money's on Tiger Moth. But, then, what do I know?..

Judging by all the discussion about loops, cubans, cloverleafs, chandelles and wingovers I think everyone flies Pitts Specials.

[RoverP6B]

Not a Pitts, but I did learn power flight on Beagle Pups, both 100 and 150 variants, and my instructor was ex-Red Arrows QFI Ted Girdler, one of the finest pilots this country has ever produced.

[Pan Pan Pan]

RichB said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RoverP6B said:

It wasn't a loop. Looks more like a Cuban to me.

I think it was a quarter clover.

Whether the manouvre was a Cuban / part of a cloverleaf / loop, etc, etc makes little difference. the key parts of the manouvre was the height at which it was initiated, and more importantly, the pull out at the bottom of whatever it was. IMHO the bottom part of the manouvre `looked' like a high speed stall.

people do like to exhibit their superior knowledge of aerobatics on here...

I guess the point I was trying to make, was that it did not matter what the manouvre actually was, the key elements of it were, the height at which it was initiated, and what actually happened during the pull out phase at the bottom of the manouvre, all of which has yet to be confirmed by the AAIB`s investigations.
Since Pistonheads is essentially a motoring forum, I also suggested that from the various videos of the incident, it `looked' like a high speed stall (possibly best described as the aerial equivalent of understeer) occurred at the bottom of the manouvre. Generally no problem if this occurs at high altitude, but unfortunately like any stall, it can be, when experienced at low level

[dr_gn]

Pan Pan Pan said:

RichB said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RoverP6B said:

It wasn't a loop. Looks more like a Cuban to me.

I think it was a quarter clover.

Whether the manouvre was a Cuban / part of a cloverleaf / loop, etc, etc makes little difference. the key parts of the manouvre was the height at which it was initiated, and more importantly, the pull out at the bottom of whatever it was. IMHO the bottom part of the manouvre `looked' like a high speed stall.

people do like to exhibit their superior knowledge of aerobatics on here...

I guess the point I was trying to make, was that it did not matter what the manouvre actually was, the key elements of it were, the height at which it was initiated, and what actually happened during the pull out phase at the bottom of the manouvre, all of which has yet to be confirmed by the AAIB`s investigations.
Since Pistonheads is essentially a motoring forum, I also suggested that from the various videos of the incident, it `looked' like a high speed stall (possibly best described as the aerial equivalent of understeer) occurred at the bottom of the manouvre. Generally no problem if this occurs at high altitude, but unfortunately like any stall, it can be, when experienced at low level

Probably irrelevant whether it stalled just before it crashed - it was going to hit the ground either way by that time.

[birdcage]

Remarkable that the pilot lived and more so that he is out of hospital.

I wonder how many people in this situation would say I messed up, didn't have the space I needed for the manoeuvre and plane was absolutely fine beforehand

[T66ORA]

Some how I suspect Andy Hill will be given legal advice to say/remember as little as possible. IMO of course.