Crash at Shoreham Air show

Author
Discussion

Petrus1983

8,522 posts

161 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Not guilty - feel sorry for the families.

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

246 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all

so is there a valid other reason for the aircraft crashing other than how it was flown?

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
In before the first reference to "Andy" from someone who claims to know him but has been hiding until they knew the outcome and whether or not Hill is a dangerous, ego-driven .

HughG

3,539 posts

240 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
so is there a valid other reason for the aircraft crashing other than how it was flown?
Presumably the verdict is down to the burden of proof. It will be interesting whether the insurers pay out or if it goes to court to be tested against the balance of probabilities.

aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
I must admit, I'm surprised by that verdict.


HoHoHo

14,980 posts

249 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Wow.................

Quote from Sky News:

Mr Hill's defence said the routine was so badly executed that the only explanation was that the experienced pilot was "cognitively impaired" possible due to gravitational forces or a lack of oxygen.

Wow, just wow but I guess that's the conclusion the jury reached given all of the evidence.

Krikkit

26,500 posts

180 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
I can see this spinning on for another round, perhaps negligence or similar? Just because they're not satisfied about proving manslaughter doesn't mean lesser charges couldn't be had.

DaveTheRave87

2,079 posts

88 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
ralphrj said:
Not guilty
Defence lawyer should win a medal.

HughG

3,539 posts

240 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Krikkit said:
I can see this spinning on for another round, perhaps negligence or similar? Just because they're not satisfied about proving manslaughter doesn't mean lesser charges couldn't be had.
Good point, could go to court of appeal.

BBC reporting jury were told “that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight”

keith333

370 posts

141 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Wow! There was only one person with their hands on the controls of the aircraft. Really thought he would be found guilty.

CAPP0

19,533 posts

202 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
If he was in fact "cognitively impaired" then presumably he will have his pilot's licence permanently revoked in case this were to happen to him again?

Edited by CAPP0 on Friday 8th March 11:42

red_slr

17,123 posts

188 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
I would have thought 99% of pilots who lawn dart and aircraft resulting in fatalities would never fly again, other than in the back.

ralphrj

3,508 posts

190 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
There is also the question mark over any future dynamic air displays in the UK.



Wingo

298 posts

170 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Oh dear, real trial finds differently to the findings of the trial by social media & news media.

That isn't going to sit well with the keyboard judge and jurys in these media driven days. typejudge

Wingo.

CAPP0

19,533 posts

202 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Wingo said:
Oh dear, real trial finds differently to the findings of the trial by social media & news media.

That isn't going to sit well with the keyboard judge and jurys in these media driven days. typejudge

Wingo.
You're correct, of course, but given the evidence in the public domain, the verdict does beggar belief somewhat.

Gareth79

7,628 posts

245 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
ralphrj said:
There is also the question mark over any future dynamic air displays in the UK.
This seems to swing it more towards them never returning, because this leaves the matter as a blameless incident that could not have been prevented other than by the flight not taking place.

aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
HughG said:
BBC reporting jury were told “that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight”
There you have it in a nutshell then, judge effectively directing jury to the verdict they gave.






aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
ralphrj said:
There is also the question mark over any future dynamic air displays in the UK.
That boat has already sailed, rules and regs were changed 3 years ago post Shoreham.
That's why most vintage jets have been grounded or sold abroad in the past 2-3 years, and several airshows have gone, never to return.

As has been pointed out already many times on this thread, this trial was NOT about airshows or would have any further effect on them whatever the result.


PurpleTurtle

6,941 posts

143 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
Somewhat amazed that he's got a Not Guilty. Feel for the families.

Wingo

298 posts

170 months

Friday 8th March 2019
quotequote all
I would doubt all of the evidence presented at the trail is in the public domain.

I might suggest that the quality of the defence is a little better in real court of law than in a trial by media.

I might also suggest that the general public's way of thinking is that if something really bad happens then someone needs to be found guilty of something. Not always the case but that's just the world we live in now.

What happens next, this may well not be the end of the matter in terms of legal action.

Wingo