Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
eccles said:
surveyor said:
When I first saw the case and what the defence were relying on I felt that it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
That was my thought as well.I wondered how on earth it would be proved he did it deliberately. All the defence had to do was to introduce an element ( no matter how unlikely) of doubt, and he would be found not guilty.
There are many outcomes of his actions that have changed air shows forever, and hopefully it will have tightened up on the requirements of being a display pilot.
NDA said:
It must be devastating for the families to be told it was "just one of those things - couldn't really be avoided".
I think it must be worse to see that it had been shown that he was a poor display pilot who made previous mistakes, and many on the day, and there was still not enough evidence to bring a prosecution.eccles said:
That was my thought as well.
I wondered how on earth it would be proved he did it deliberately. All the defence had to do was to introduce an element ( no matter how unlikely) of doubt, and he would be found not guilty.
There are many outcomes of his actions that have changed air shows forever, and hopefully it will have tightened up on the requirements of being a display pilot.
.I wondered how on earth it would be proved he did it deliberately. All the defence had to do was to introduce an element ( no matter how unlikely) of doubt, and he would be found not guilty.
There are many outcomes of his actions that have changed air shows forever, and hopefully it will have tightened up on the requirements of being a display pilot.
Does anyone know *how* the general public will be able to see what requirements have been tightened up for display pilots ? - or will it, in practice, be quietly swept under the carpet ?
Is there a need for the law to be amended to better reflect sanctions that might be applied for dangerous/reckless flying ?
.
Robertj21a said:
.
Does anyone know *how* the general public will be able to see what requirements have been tightened up for display pilots ? - or will it, in practice, be quietly swept under the carpet ?
Is there a need for the law to be amended to better reflect sanctions that might be applied for dangerous/reckless flying ?
.
It's all on the CAA website, as mentioned previously. Nothing gets "swept under" any carpet.Does anyone know *how* the general public will be able to see what requirements have been tightened up for display pilots ? - or will it, in practice, be quietly swept under the carpet ?
Is there a need for the law to be amended to better reflect sanctions that might be applied for dangerous/reckless flying ?
.
Earthdweller said:
Criminal trials frequently are won/lost on legal points
Often the reality of what happened is irrelevant
If “point A” cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt then the case fails
Equally, if “point b” cannot be disproved then the case fails
It can be very strange
I have been trawling through the Air investigation board report again today to get me up to speed again, and considering all that evidence it does seems that the defence lawyer deserves all the money he was paid. Having read the AIB report with hindsight of what the defence seem to have claimed, it seems very strange. Often the reality of what happened is irrelevant
If “point A” cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt then the case fails
Equally, if “point b” cannot be disproved then the case fails
It can be very strange
If I ever have to fly a warbird, rather than an ejector seat, I will just sit on that defence lawyers lap.
Having said all that, and believing even more so that this judgement on "blackout / impaired blah blah" is a red herring and that the actual decision should be on what happened before that, I am not sure he is guilty due to his mistakes beforehand.
So my initial thought is they got the right decision by accident. It just annoys me the legal team pulled this blackout thing when it has no impact on what happened if you think logically about matters.
Legal matters and technical matters struggle at times with the former ignoring the latter.
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.
The one thing I would pick you up on is your comment on the judge giving advice and knowing what they are talking about. This is true when it comes to law, but what about the event that raised this law question? Does he know his drag, thrust, weight, lift from his elbow?
This is him
"In his spare time, Edis is an enthusiastic cricketer and was one of the founding members of the Liverpool Bar Cricket Club, once taking career best figures of 7–12 in their annual fixture against the Inn[clarification needed] at Whitewell.[16] He is married with three children."
Probably can be said same for the jury of course
Robertj21a said:
Does anyone know *how* the general public will be able to see what requirements have been tightened up for display pilots ? - or will it, in practice, be quietly swept under the carpet ?
How many more times are you going to ask this question, and how many more times do you want to be told the same answer?Rules were changed 2 years ago after and have been in place for the past two seasons, its no secret, and nothing has been swept under the carpet.
That's why there are now pretty much no civilian owned vintage jets in the UK, owners have sold them abroad, or they've been put into a musuem in a few cases, or just kept as ground runners.
For whatever reason, you still can't grasp this.
Robertj21a said:
Is there a need for the law to be amended to better reflect sanctions that might be applied for dangerous/reckless flying ?
This was talked about 20 years ago, after the similar failure to convict a RAF Herc pilot for manslaughter when a solider was killed while he was standing on top of a vehicle as the Herc did a very low pass during an operational exercise dropping cargo etc.It would need a new law, and thats up to Govt.
saaby93 said:
is the best thing to go by intention
Did he intend to perform some crazy stunt that was bound to lead to the loss of the aircraft
or did he go out that day intending to put on a display and bring the plane safely home
Very good question. When do mistakes, which we all do, cause deaths compared to gross negligence, gung ho etc.Did he intend to perform some crazy stunt that was bound to lead to the loss of the aircraft
or did he go out that day intending to put on a display and bring the plane safely home
I am not sure he ever did the latter, and if I was jury would have said he was not grossly negligence considering the information.
But what grates my teeth is him getting off by the blackout, which actually, if you think about it, is not actually relevant. There is lots of evidence there was no blackout, from the start of the pitch up, to the apex, to the point just before impact ( so when did he have it?) but even if he did, it does not matter because the deciding factor is before that even happened.
If he has been at the proper apex altitude even with the blackout, and even negating his flight path being too far north, he would not have killed those people.
aeropilot said:
Robertj21a said:
Does anyone know *how* the general public will be able to see what requirements have been tightened up for display pilots ? - or will it, in practice, be quietly swept under the carpet ?
How many more times are you going to ask this question, and how many more times do you want to be told the same answer?Rules were changed 2 years ago after and have been in place for the past two seasons, its no secret, and nothing has been swept under the carpet.
That's why there are now pretty much no civilian owned vintage jets in the UK, owners have sold them abroad, or they've been put into a musuem in a few cases, or just kept as ground runners.
For whatever reason, you still can't grasp this.
My apologies, I hadn't appreciated that the changes were already in place. Without going into any details, you may gather that I am particularly affected by this case.
.
Robertj21a said:
aeropilot said:
Robertj21a said:
Does anyone know *how* the general public will be able to see what requirements have been tightened up for display pilots ? - or will it, in practice, be quietly swept under the carpet ?
How many more times are you going to ask this question, and how many more times do you want to be told the same answer?Rules were changed 2 years ago after and have been in place for the past two seasons, its no secret, and nothing has been swept under the carpet.
That's why there are now pretty much no civilian owned vintage jets in the UK, owners have sold them abroad, or they've been put into a musuem in a few cases, or just kept as ground runners.
For whatever reason, you still can't grasp this.
.
In some ways if a sentence was handed down, whatver it was, it wouldnt have been enough.
You can't bring back what's gone
I think the whole blackout scenario is completely bogus because if he he had been at the correct apex altitude then being cognitive or non cognitive on the descent would not have mattered as his trajectory would have taken him out of harms way. Having said that, and seeing a blackout is the main reason for this accident it seems, a question ...
When did Andy Hill actually blackout?
Assuming he did, and here I mean cognitively impaired which is not quite the same thing, but saves me typing. The reason I ask this is because from all the data we have there seems to be a very very small window where this could be in effect.
If we use this as the primary source
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b...
The pilot obviously did not have any issue going into the loop or on the way up.
At the apex of the loop the AIB, from watching the video states,
"The pilot’s head movements approaching and at the apex were mainly directed
outside the cockpit but he appeared to look at the area of the flight instruments
briefly twice at the apex. It could not be positively determined if the altimeter
was scanned during this time"
So he was not blacked out then.
On the descent the plane seemed to continue the loop under pilot control, the AIB then says -
page 9
As it descended it accelerated and the nose was raised but
insufficient height was available to recover to level flight before it contacted the
westbound carriageway of the A27.
page 44
The videos showed a slight roll to the left starting approximately 2.3 seconds
before initial impact. The imagery did not show the aileron position leading
up to this clearly, but did show corrective aileron inputs after this. External
imagery showed the elevators deflected in the nose-up pitch sense during
this time.
Head movement indicated that the pilot remained conscious and active
throughout the manoeuvres.
You can this corrective input here in this clip, it matches very well with what the AIB said.
https://youtu.be/9vyzS5rp7M4?t=93
The issue I have is that the evidence seems to show that Andy Hill was not suffering from G at the end of the downward loop where a yaw was .
The evidence showed that the max G he got was less than 3g, and he was was wearing anti g lower garments.
.****************
1.18.10.1 Physiology
The AAIB considered whether subtle incapacitation by g forces could have
reduced pilot performance during the left turn prior to the pull-up into the
accident manoeuvre. The actual g experienced is not known because the
cockpit g-meter was not functioning, but a study of the available data by the
Royal Air Force Centre of Aviation Medicine (RAFCAM) concluded that a high g
load was not present at any point in the left turn preceding the entry to, or in the
upward half of, the accident manoeuvre. The peak g force calculated for the
turn was 2.7 g and, whilst g tolerance varies, it was considered unlikely that the
pilot was either partially or totally incapacitated by g forces immediately prior to
commencing the accident manoeuvre.
125 Factual Information
Air Accident Report: 1/2017 G-BXFI EW/C2015/08/04
©Crown Copyright 2017 Section 1 - Factual information
The Consultant in Aviation Medicine (RAF) concluded:
‘Although some day to day variation in G tolerance occurs in
every individual, it would be very unusual for an individual to
suffer G related impairment at less than +3Gz while wearing a
G suit. The video evidence reviewed herein shows no evidence of
the classically described G-Loc 59 or A-Loc 60 syndromes, and the
G levels in the accident video are similar to previously experienced
levels flown without incident (eg in the Duxford video). Therefore,
I can find no evidence of G related impairment in the material
available for review.’
The available information did not support an accurate assessment of the peak
g force during the accident manoeuvre. As far as could be determined from
cockpit image recordings the pilot appeared alert and active throughout the
flight.
.******************
Having said all that I need to read the defence summary and the judge summing up. Australian GP next week, plenty of hours to read through that whilst waiting through the long hours
Why do I get the feeling the jury was Terry f
kwit compared to us on here and why do I feel the judge felt the ex BA pilot was a good old boy? Perhaps being a bit harsh .... l
When did Andy Hill actually blackout?
Assuming he did, and here I mean cognitively impaired which is not quite the same thing, but saves me typing. The reason I ask this is because from all the data we have there seems to be a very very small window where this could be in effect.
If we use this as the primary source
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b...
The pilot obviously did not have any issue going into the loop or on the way up.
At the apex of the loop the AIB, from watching the video states,
"The pilot’s head movements approaching and at the apex were mainly directed
outside the cockpit but he appeared to look at the area of the flight instruments
briefly twice at the apex. It could not be positively determined if the altimeter
was scanned during this time"
So he was not blacked out then.
On the descent the plane seemed to continue the loop under pilot control, the AIB then says -
page 9
As it descended it accelerated and the nose was raised but
insufficient height was available to recover to level flight before it contacted the
westbound carriageway of the A27.
page 44
The videos showed a slight roll to the left starting approximately 2.3 seconds
before initial impact. The imagery did not show the aileron position leading
up to this clearly, but did show corrective aileron inputs after this. External
imagery showed the elevators deflected in the nose-up pitch sense during
this time.
Head movement indicated that the pilot remained conscious and active
throughout the manoeuvres.
You can this corrective input here in this clip, it matches very well with what the AIB said.
https://youtu.be/9vyzS5rp7M4?t=93
The issue I have is that the evidence seems to show that Andy Hill was not suffering from G at the end of the downward loop where a yaw was .
The evidence showed that the max G he got was less than 3g, and he was was wearing anti g lower garments.
.****************
1.18.10.1 Physiology
The AAIB considered whether subtle incapacitation by g forces could have
reduced pilot performance during the left turn prior to the pull-up into the
accident manoeuvre. The actual g experienced is not known because the
cockpit g-meter was not functioning, but a study of the available data by the
Royal Air Force Centre of Aviation Medicine (RAFCAM) concluded that a high g
load was not present at any point in the left turn preceding the entry to, or in the
upward half of, the accident manoeuvre. The peak g force calculated for the
turn was 2.7 g and, whilst g tolerance varies, it was considered unlikely that the
pilot was either partially or totally incapacitated by g forces immediately prior to
commencing the accident manoeuvre.
125 Factual Information
Air Accident Report: 1/2017 G-BXFI EW/C2015/08/04
©Crown Copyright 2017 Section 1 - Factual information
The Consultant in Aviation Medicine (RAF) concluded:
‘Although some day to day variation in G tolerance occurs in
every individual, it would be very unusual for an individual to
suffer G related impairment at less than +3Gz while wearing a
G suit. The video evidence reviewed herein shows no evidence of
the classically described G-Loc 59 or A-Loc 60 syndromes, and the
G levels in the accident video are similar to previously experienced
levels flown without incident (eg in the Duxford video). Therefore,
I can find no evidence of G related impairment in the material
available for review.’
The available information did not support an accurate assessment of the peak
g force during the accident manoeuvre. As far as could be determined from
cockpit image recordings the pilot appeared alert and active throughout the
flight.
.******************
Having said all that I need to read the defence summary and the judge summing up. Australian GP next week, plenty of hours to read through that whilst waiting through the long hours
Why do I get the feeling the jury was Terry f
kwit compared to us on here and why do I feel the judge felt the ex BA pilot was a good old boy? Perhaps being a bit harsh .... lEdited by Gandahar on Saturday 9th March 15:35
saaby93 said:
The blackout scenario has only been invented by some posters in here
The defence argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment"- nothing about blackouts
Waits to be put right
+1The defence argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment"- nothing about blackouts
Waits to be put right
Specifically the AAIB report said that the pilot was indeed manipulating the throttle as the aircraft started to climb but making random movements instead of selecting full throttle.
So an indication of some kind of impairment rather than either a blackout or a deliberate intention to bust the height limit on the pull out. A TIA is one possibility but I don't know if that would leave any signs for the medics who attended him to pick up.
As for not noticing he was too low and slow at the top and failing to abort, offhand I can think of 4 occasions when a pilot made this error in a display. Two of the pilots current military pilots and at least one of those a full time display pilot.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff