Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Vasco]

zsdom said:

Vasco said:

zsdom said:

Vasco said:

zsdom said:

Vasco said:

I'm guessing he must be a relation, or close friend, of yours to keep on supporting anything he wants to do.

Once again I guess in the fit of unbelievable faux outrage, feather spitting & frothing you failed to acknowledge:

zsdom said:

I am in no way shape or form defending him, his actions led to people dying unecessarily, he ruined families lives forever, he single handedly changed the face of the airshow world that I covet & fully immerse myself in every summer & have done for as long as I can remember. He fked everything up

No, I read all that - hence why I found your subsequent comments quite unacceptable.
How you can accept him being allowed up in a plane again is quite beyond me.

Why not, it has zero impact on any of our lives if he does or doesnt fly again, I have more important things to spend my time & energy on but who are we to condem a person?

So, no concern on your part if he flies again and crashes, again - on more innocents.

Incredible.
.

Where did I say that? But again you ignore my question

Just above.

You say '....... it has zero impact on any of our lives if he does or doesn't fly again.'

Anybody would think that he's a mate of yours.....

[Simpo Two]

Vasco said:

So, no concern on your part if he flies again and crashes, again - on more innocents

If you killed some people by losing control of your car and ploughing into a bus queue, would you be more or less likely to do it again? I suggest you'd be a damn sight more careful, and that Mr Hill has no desire to crash in flames twice. However I do think that - if the story is true - it's asking for an outcry of the outraged, and he would have been better advised to find a new hobby rather than risk vigilantism.

[aeropilot]

I still think its extremely unlikely he'll get any licence to fly back.

Even a NPPL just to fly a Part 21 spam can etc for personal pleasure will involve a signed medical declaration, as fit to fly, and I can't see anyone at CAA thinking that's a good idea.

[pocketspring]

Bonefish Blues said:

pocketspring said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Dogwatch said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

On one hand, he was tried and found to be innocent.

He was found not guilty. The Prosecution failed to prove its case.
The Coroner took a very different view.


BTW the junction is (very) slowly disappearing under the bullozers as it is being relocated to a giant roundabout several hundred yards further West.

The Coroner explicitly stated that her verdict did not detract from the Jury's not guilty verdict. Still puzzled as to how that could be the case.

Commentary here:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/20/sh...

A coroner's court isn't to find someone to blame but to consider the facts and see how that person died from hearing evidence and then giving a verdict. A criminal conviction is based on beyond reasonable doubt whereas a coroners court is the balance of probability.
The families could bring in a private prosecution but it is very costly and time consuming.

Thanks for that, appreciate your thoughts. I'd been musing in the interim as I don't like being hard of thinking, as it were, so yes I'd got to the distinction - but the thing that remains is the discrepancy between the two in the public's (and posters') mind. That won't be overcome, no matter how the difference in terms of proof is explained.

Where we differ is on a private prosecution subsequent to his acquittal - I don't think that is in any way a possibility. Did you mean the families could bring a civil action for damages?

A private prosecution can be brought against someone if the CPS have failed in their case. However, the CPS can take over a case of the DPP deems it necessary.
If you pop onto Google and do a search there's quite a lot to it all.

[Bonefish Blues]

pocketspring said:

Bonefish Blues said:

pocketspring said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Dogwatch said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

On one hand, he was tried and found to be innocent.

He was found not guilty. The Prosecution failed to prove its case.
The Coroner took a very different view.


BTW the junction is (very) slowly disappearing under the bullozers as it is being relocated to a giant roundabout several hundred yards further West.

The Coroner explicitly stated that her verdict did not detract from the Jury's not guilty verdict. Still puzzled as to how that could be the case.

Commentary here:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/20/sh...

A coroner's court isn't to find someone to blame but to consider the facts and see how that person died from hearing evidence and then giving a verdict. A criminal conviction is based on beyond reasonable doubt whereas a coroners court is the balance of probability.
The families could bring in a private prosecution but it is very costly and time consuming.

Thanks for that, appreciate your thoughts. I'd been musing in the interim as I don't like being hard of thinking, as it were, so yes I'd got to the distinction - but the thing that remains is the discrepancy between the two in the public's (and posters') mind. That won't be overcome, no matter how the difference in terms of proof is explained.

Where we differ is on a private prosecution subsequent to his acquittal - I don't think that is in any way a possibility. Did you mean the families could bring a civil action for damages?

A private prosecution can be brought against someone if the CPS have failed in their case. However, the CPS can take over a case of the DPP deems it necessary.
If you pop onto Google and do a search there's quite a lot to it all.

I did - the prospects of even bringing one are vanishingly small, never mind success.

[zarjaz1991]

zsdom said:

Why not, it has zero impact on any of our lives if he does or doesnt fly again

It would if he crashed again.

Just, no.

[zarjaz1991]

Simpo Two said:

If you killed some people by losing control of your car and ploughing into a bus queue, would you be more or less likely to do it again?

I definitely wouldn’t be doing it again, because I’d never be driving again, ever. Unless it was to drive myself off a cliff.

[zsdom]

Vasco said:

Just above.

You say '....... it has zero impact on any of our lives if he does or doesn't fly again.'

Anybody would think that he's a mate of yours.....

I think you'll find, and I quote, that I said:

zsdom said:

If he kills again of course I’ll be devastated and hope that a court of law & a jury of his peers will apportion the correct punishment

Nice try to belittle me, close but no cigar, but please, tell me how it would affect you & your daily life if he went out for a Sunday flight

[Bluedot]

zsdom said:

Nice try to belittle me, close but no cigar, but please, tell me how it would affect you & your daily life if he went out for a Sunday flight

Of course it won't make any difference to mine, yours or the victims families lives if he does this but it doesn't make it right.
No one is asking that he beats himself 50 times a day with a broom handle nor do they expect him to be sat alone at home in a darkened room.
By all means get out, go for a walk, take up a new hobby but for fks sake don't even think about flying again, it just isn't the right thing to do regardless of whether it affects anyone or whether it's legal or not.

[Vasco]

zsdom said:

Vasco said:

Just above.

You say '....... it has zero impact on any of our lives if he does or doesn't fly again.'

Anybody would think that he's a mate of yours.....

I think you'll find, and I quote, that I said:

zsdom said:

If he kills again of course I’ll be devastated and hope that a court of law & a jury of his peers will apportion the correct punishment

Nice try to belittle me, close but no cigar, but please, tell me how it would affect you & your daily life if he went out for a Sunday flight

I can only assume that you don't read whatever I, and others, post in response to your comments.

I'm not interested in wasting time with somebody who seems to fail to appreciate the impact this one person has had on very many families.

[zsdom]

Vasco said:

zsdom said:

Vasco said:

Just above.

You say '....... it has zero impact on any of our lives if he does or doesn't fly again.'

Anybody would think that he's a mate of yours.....

I think you'll find, and I quote, that I said:

zsdom said:

If he kills again of course I’ll be devastated and hope that a court of law & a jury of his peers will apportion the correct punishment

Nice try to belittle me, close but no cigar, but please, tell me how it would affect you & your daily life if he went out for a Sunday flight

I can only assume that you don't read whatever I, and others, post in response to your comments.

I'm not interested in wasting time with somebody who seems to fail to appreciate the impact this one person has had on very many families.

Once again you assume wrong

Once again you fail to answer a single question I pose with a sound or logical reply therefore I shall conclude you have no sound or reasonable responses and are blinded by faux outrage & anger without actually pausing to think about what’s being put in front of you thus being the perfect example of the type of person the s*n wanted to attract & appeal to in the first place.

I shall bid you farewell

[Chrisgr31]

Simpo Two said:

If you killed some people by losing control of your car and ploughing into a bus queue, would you be more or less likely to do it again? I suggest you'd be a damn sight more careful, and that Mr Hill has no desire to crash in flames twice. However I do think that - if the story is true - it's asking for an outcry of the outraged, and he would have been better advised to find a new hobby rather than risk vigilantism.

Agreed, there are a huge number of drivers on the road who will have caused fatal accidents, some will have been jailed for a while, some just banned from driving for a while. Should they be banned for life? Possibly but they aren't so should this pilot?

[CoolHands]

TopTrump said:

Vasco said:

Unbelievable !

I'm guessing he must be a relation, or close friend, of yours to keep on supporting anything he wants to do.

As for your '.....if he kills again.....'

I agree, this is the type of limp-wristed acceptance that is pulling the country into the weeds.

+1

[Smollet]

Documentary on Discovery+ about the crash.

[Vasco]

Smollet said:

Documentary on Discovery+ about the crash.

Does it question how on earth he managed to come up with such a pack of excuses.......

[aeropilot]

Vasco said:

Smollet said:

Documentary on Discovery+ about the crash.

Does it question how on earth he managed to come up with such a pack of excuses.......

I've only seen the trailer for it, and there's some women saying to camera "he was one of the most experienced pilots in the country"...... err, yeah, right oh.

I guess she was part of his defence team.

[Smollet]

aeropilot said:

Vasco said:

Smollet said:

Documentary on Discovery+ about the crash.

Does it question how on earth he managed to come up with such a pack of excuses.......

I've only seen the trailer for it, and there's some women saying to camera "he was one of the most experienced pilots in the country"...... err, yeah, right oh.

I guess she was part of his defence team.

He was a very experienced pilot with 12000 hrs on a variety of aircraft going by Wikipedia.

[aeropilot]

Smollet said:

aeropilot said:

Vasco said:

Smollet said:

Documentary on Discovery+ about the crash.

Does it question how on earth he managed to come up with such a pack of excuses.......

I've only seen the trailer for it, and there's some women saying to camera "he was one of the most experienced pilots in the country"...... err, yeah, right oh.

I guess she was part of his defence team.

He was a very experienced pilot with 12000 hrs on a variety of aircraft going by Wikipedia.

12000hrs flying airliners is not experience for flying swept wing high performance ex-mil jets.

He only had 43 hrs Hunter time in the 10 years since he first flew it.
Shoreham was his 6th display in the Hunter for 2015, and he'd only flown ONE practice display at the start of the season. He'd only flown just 2 displays and 2 practices, the year before in 2014, and didn't fly the Hunter at all in 2013.
That's not the CV of 'one of the best pilots in the country'.
Flying airliners and homebuilds is not the same as flying a Hunter. That's not his fault, that's the fault of the CAA. And that's not even mentioning the massive near miss he had flying the JP at Southport Airshow, which was an aircraft he had 900 hrs flying time in...!!
The fact is even before the accident there were people that thought he shouldn't be flying a Hunter in displays, but, again, that's the fault of the CAA, and/or the aircraft owners, not the pilot.

[Smollet]

aeropilot said:

12000hrs flying airliners is not experience for flying swept wing high performance ex-mil jets.

He only had 43 hrs Hunter time in the 10 years since he first flew it.
Shoreham was his 6th display in the Hunter for 2015, and he'd only flown ONE practice display at the start of the season. He'd only flown just 2 displays and 2 practices, the year before in 2014, and didn't fly the Hunter at all in 2013.
That's not the CV of 'one of the best pilots in the country'.
Flying airliners and homebuilds is not the same as flying a Hunter. That's not his fault, that's the fault of the CAA. And that's not even mentioning the massive near miss he had flying the JP at Southport Airshow, which was an aircraft he had 900 hrs flying time in...!!
The fact is even before the accident there were people that thought he shouldn't be flying a Hunter in displays, but, again, that's the fault of the CAA, and/or the aircraft owners, not the pilot.

In the documentary it says he’s an ex RAF pilot and had flown Harriers and had had combat experience in Iraq monitoring no fly zones. I’m not taking his side, far from it, just reporting what was stated in the documentary. IMO he shouldn’t be allowed to pilot an aircraft ever again

Edited by Smollet on Sunday 14th January 15:55

[aeropilot]

Smollet said:

aeropilot said:

12000hrs flying airliners is not experience for flying swept wing high performance ex-mil jets.

He only had 43 hrs Hunter time in the 10 years since he first flew it.
Shoreham was his 6th display in the Hunter for 2015, and he'd only flown ONE practice display at the start of the season. He'd only flown just 2 displays and 2 practices, the year before in 2014, and didn't fly the Hunter at all in 2013.
That's not the CV of 'one of the best pilots in the country'.
Flying airliners and homebuilds is not the same as flying a Hunter. That's not his fault, that's the fault of the CAA. And that's not even mentioning the massive near miss he had flying the JP at Southport Airshow, which was an aircraft he had 900 hrs flying time in...!!
The fact is even before the accident there were people that thought he shouldn't be flying a Hunter in displays, but, again, that's the fault of the CAA, and/or the aircraft owners, not the pilot.

In the documentary it says he’s an ex RAF pilot and had flown Harriers and had had combat experience in Iraq monitoring no fly zones. I’m not taking his side, far from it, just reporting what was stated in the documentary. IMO he shouldn’t be allowed to pilot an aircraft ever again

I thought he only did one tour on Harrier, as he only had just over 500hrs on the GR.3/5/7 having joined the RAF in 1985, and he left the RAF in 1994, and I can't see how he clocked up any combat experience in the Harrier given those dates.......southern no-fly-zone in 92-94 maybe, but not sure RAF Harriers were used much for that. I guess they won't so it if not true though.
But a Harrier is not a Hunter.

Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 14th January 16:34