Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
HughG said:
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”
Surprising result considering some of the basic facts such as height and stuff.
but having sat on a jury I can only imagine the anguish it caused THEM.
It was and remains one of the most harrowing things I have ever done and my case was nothing like as public and horrific as this.
And though I dislike him, this man did not intend to crash, or kill anyone.
His actions remain a little reckless and concerning, and i can see more being done after this.
but having sat on a jury I can only imagine the anguish it caused THEM.
It was and remains one of the most harrowing things I have ever done and my case was nothing like as public and horrific as this.
And though I dislike him, this man did not intend to crash, or kill anyone.
His actions remain a little reckless and concerning, and i can see more being done after this.
James 33 said:
Just watched the video of his statement outside court. Having to read the names of the 11 who died from a piece of paper and still mispronouncing one of the names. At the end he says he'll remember them forever.
Doesn't seem to me as though he has much remorse or believes he was at fault.
Very suprised he was found not guilty but like others have said the way the Judge worded what the jury was to determine might of had a lot to do with it.
With respect to Andy Hill (I'm not a fan, I'm in the camp that he was reckless with his entry speed and height) this is clearly an emotional day for him, he probably thought he was going to prison for a not inconsiderable amount of time and he had the decency to make that statement in person, rather than get a spokesperson to do it for him. Doesn't seem to me as though he has much remorse or believes he was at fault.
Very suprised he was found not guilty but like others have said the way the Judge worded what the jury was to determine might of had a lot to do with it.
Criticising him for mispronouncing Daniele Polito is rather pedantic, in the grand scheme of things.
Dr Jekyll said:
JuniorD said:
"Pilot error"? Me? 
Erm, no, I was just "cognitively impaired"
It wasn't cognitive impairment as opposed to error, it was as opposed to deliberate recklessness. Error is not illegal.Erm, no, I was just "cognitively impaired"
As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, the outcome would have possibly been different had such an offence as "Causing death by dangerous flying" existed on the statue books.
Gandahar said:
I might suggest that you are claiming that jury's always get it right? Are they?
I might suggest the defending lawyer went for the only "get out of jail" card he had, the only one that gave any sort of wiggle room. The judge fed this to the jury and they went along with it, it seems.
You seem to be forgetting the air accident report, not written by a bunch of social media keyboard warriors.
Page 197
31. The g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a
factor in the accident.
Page 195
7. The pilot’s display authorisation for the Hunter stipulated a minimum
height for executing aerobatics of 500 ft.
8. The manoeuvre started approximately 900 m from the display line at a
height of 185 ±25ft agl.
9. The pilot’s declared minimum entry speed for the manoeuvre was
350KIAS. The aircraft entered the manoeuvre at approximately 310KIAS.
So even when flying before the manoeuvre, and before any G, he was flying too low and too slow ........
Ironically if he had been at the correct apex height and then suffered cognitive impairment, he would have been higher and passed over the A27 and into the field to the south of the road before crashing. Killing nobody.
Whilst I would agree that juries do not always get it right in the eyes of others, they are more often spot on than those who don't see all the evidence and then pick certain specific issues to prove that they are wrong. I might suggest the defending lawyer went for the only "get out of jail" card he had, the only one that gave any sort of wiggle room. The judge fed this to the jury and they went along with it, it seems.
You seem to be forgetting the air accident report, not written by a bunch of social media keyboard warriors.
Page 197
31. The g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a
factor in the accident.
Page 195
7. The pilot’s display authorisation for the Hunter stipulated a minimum
height for executing aerobatics of 500 ft.
8. The manoeuvre started approximately 900 m from the display line at a
height of 185 ±25ft agl.
9. The pilot’s declared minimum entry speed for the manoeuvre was
350KIAS. The aircraft entered the manoeuvre at approximately 310KIAS.
So even when flying before the manoeuvre, and before any G, he was flying too low and too slow ........
Ironically if he had been at the correct apex height and then suffered cognitive impairment, he would have been higher and passed over the A27 and into the field to the south of the road before crashing. Killing nobody.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 8th March 13:46
We do not see the persons giving evidence, nor their manner when cross-examined. We, thankfully, don't hear the full summing up.
Whilst I would only recommend listening to a judge for insomniacs, they tend to know what they are talking about. They will often direct the jury to the specific points they must consider for a safe verdict.
I would also agree that the pilot went for the only defence he could use. That's what happens at trials.
Derek Smith said:
Gandahar said:
I might suggest that you are claiming that jury's always get it right? Are they?
I might suggest the defending lawyer went for the only "get out of jail" card he had, the only one that gave any sort of wiggle room. The judge fed this to the jury and they went along with it, it seems.
You seem to be forgetting the air accident report, not written by a bunch of social media keyboard warriors.
Page 197
31. The g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a
factor in the accident.
Page 195
7. The pilot’s display authorisation for the Hunter stipulated a minimum
height for executing aerobatics of 500 ft.
8. The manoeuvre started approximately 900 m from the display line at a
height of 185 ±25ft agl.
9. The pilot’s declared minimum entry speed for the manoeuvre was
350KIAS. The aircraft entered the manoeuvre at approximately 310KIAS.
So even when flying before the manoeuvre, and before any G, he was flying too low and too slow ........
Ironically if he had been at the correct apex height and then suffered cognitive impairment, he would have been higher and passed over the A27 and into the field to the south of the road before crashing. Killing nobody.
Whilst I would agree that juries do not always get it right in the eyes of others, they are more often spot on than those who don't see all the evidence and then pick certain specific issues to prove that they are wrong. I might suggest the defending lawyer went for the only "get out of jail" card he had, the only one that gave any sort of wiggle room. The judge fed this to the jury and they went along with it, it seems.
You seem to be forgetting the air accident report, not written by a bunch of social media keyboard warriors.
Page 197
31. The g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a
factor in the accident.
Page 195
7. The pilot’s display authorisation for the Hunter stipulated a minimum
height for executing aerobatics of 500 ft.
8. The manoeuvre started approximately 900 m from the display line at a
height of 185 ±25ft agl.
9. The pilot’s declared minimum entry speed for the manoeuvre was
350KIAS. The aircraft entered the manoeuvre at approximately 310KIAS.
So even when flying before the manoeuvre, and before any G, he was flying too low and too slow ........
Ironically if he had been at the correct apex height and then suffered cognitive impairment, he would have been higher and passed over the A27 and into the field to the south of the road before crashing. Killing nobody.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 8th March 13:46
We do not see the persons giving evidence, nor their manner when cross-examined. We, thankfully, don't hear the full summing up.
Whilst I would only recommend listening to a judge for insomniacs, they tend to know what they are talking about. They will often direct the jury to the specific points they must consider for a safe verdict.
I would also agree that the pilot went for the only defence he could use. That's what happens at trials.
308mate said:
Can the investigation report be found online?
Yes, I've just been reading it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b...308mate said:
Can the investigation report be found online?
Yes.https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...
In no expert about any of this but the report states that on asking several pilots about the bent loop and their entry speeds some said 300kts and others said 350kts. So although he set himself a 350kts entry speed I read from this that it isn’t unsafe just that he wasn’t following his own preset rules.
saaby93 said:
Bonefish Blues said:
As the Judge directed The Jury, then I'm not, but I had formed the (uninformed, I accept) view that he was seriously negligent during the reporting of the trial, and that a guilty verdict was more likely than not.
Be wary of reporting of trials
ttest flying I have ever seen, and he had plenty of time to pull out of it and correct his fGassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff