Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
BrabusMog said:
El stovey said:
Wozy68 said:
Well done . Great earlier post and response.
Yup, spot on. Nobody wins, the victims families are left unhappy, the pilot has been dragged through the dirt and the hard earned and open atmosphere of flight safety and incident reporting just got a bit less open and safe.
If I am not mistaken the various experts stated that a the height and speed the pilot was at the aircraft was virtually guaranteed to crash. I don't consider that to be wilfully reckless because I dont see any pilot deliberately carrying out a move virtually guaranteed to kill themselves (well other than if that is their intention).
I cant remember if the base line for aerobatics was 1000ft but on the assumption it was and he came through at 750 or 500 I would say that was wilfully reckless as it would be intentional.
The very fact this move was impossible makes me believe something else want wrong, Personally I would suggest its lack of hours in the aircraft and I wouldnt be surprised if he was thinking of the figures for his more usual aircraft. I suspect this accident is more akin to drivers of lorries and buses that hit low bridges.
I cant remember if the base line for aerobatics was 1000ft but on the assumption it was and he came through at 750 or 500 I would say that was wilfully reckless as it would be intentional.
The very fact this move was impossible makes me believe something else want wrong, Personally I would suggest its lack of hours in the aircraft and I wouldnt be surprised if he was thinking of the figures for his more usual aircraft. I suspect this accident is more akin to drivers of lorries and buses that hit low bridges.
Coroner’s report:
“Coroner Penelope Schofield said the plane crashing was "a result of the manner in which it was flown".
A series of errors was serious enough to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that the men had been killed as a result of gross negligence manslaughter, she told the inquest in Horsham.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64040...
“Coroner Penelope Schofield said the plane crashing was "a result of the manner in which it was flown".
A series of errors was serious enough to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that the men had been killed as a result of gross negligence manslaughter, she told the inquest in Horsham.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64040...
andy97 said:
Coroner’s report:
“Coroner Penelope Schofield said the plane crashing was "a result of the manner in which it was flown".
A series of errors was serious enough to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that the men had been killed as a result of gross negligence manslaughter, she told the inquest in Horsham.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64040...
I wonder what this means for the pilot? Will the victim's families get justice for these avoidable deaths?“Coroner Penelope Schofield said the plane crashing was "a result of the manner in which it was flown".
A series of errors was serious enough to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that the men had been killed as a result of gross negligence manslaughter, she told the inquest in Horsham.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64040...
TopTrump said:
Is the pilot in prison then?
No, he was found not guilty in a criminal TRIAL where the burden of proof is a higher bar to reach, being “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Coroner’s INQUEST came to their conclusions on the “balance of probabilities”.You can’t be tried more than once for the same “offence” but it will be up to the families of the victims now to determine whether they want to proceed with a civil prosecution for damages.
andy97 said:
No, he was found not guilty in a criminal TRIAL where the burden of proof is a higher bar to reach, being “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Coroner’s INQUEST came to their conclusions on the “balance of probabilities”.
You can’t be tried more than once for the same “offence” but it will be up to the families of the victims now to determine whether they want to proceed with a civil prosecution for damages.
Seems wrong. Thanks for explainingYou can’t be tried more than once for the same “offence” but it will be up to the families of the victims now to determine whether they want to proceed with a civil prosecution for damages.
TopTrump said:
andy97 said:
No, he was found not guilty in a criminal TRIAL where the burden of proof is a higher bar to reach, being “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Coroner’s INQUEST came to their conclusions on the “balance of probabilities”.
You can’t be tried more than once for the same “offence” but it will be up to the families of the victims now to determine whether they want to proceed with a civil prosecution for damages.
Seems wrong. Thanks for explainingYou can’t be tried more than once for the same “offence” but it will be up to the families of the victims now to determine whether they want to proceed with a civil prosecution for damages.
So was the pilot charged with the wrong offence? If the criminal trial failed to cross the bar for a guilty verdict, but the inquest rules he was unlawfully killed, who’s wrong or dropped the ball?
The guy should be found guilty of manslaughter, death by dangerous flying, flying without due care and attention (to paraphrase motoring offences) of some sort, surely given that he apparently had two opportunities to abort the manoeuvre and took neither?
The guy should be found guilty of manslaughter, death by dangerous flying, flying without due care and attention (to paraphrase motoring offences) of some sort, surely given that he apparently had two opportunities to abort the manoeuvre and took neither?
andy97 said:
thebraketester said:
What was found to be the cause of the accident??
“Coroner Penelope Schofield said the plane crashing was "a result of the manner in which it was flown……..gross negligence”It won’t bring those innocent people back to life but he should be behind bars. IMO of course.
thebraketester said:
Thanks.
It won’t bring those innocent people back to life but he should be behind bars. IMO of course.
Agreed.It won’t bring those innocent people back to life but he should be behind bars. IMO of course.
Up until May this year I worked with someone who lost a family member in the incident (I won't call it an accident because it wasn't) and I've never met such a haunted person in my life. I've no idea how the legal situation has led to the pilot being free but it's not justice.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff