Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

Message
Author
Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#381 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:23 pm

Justice has heen seen to be and has been done.
Karim Khalil QC, defending, argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment" when the jet crashed.

Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.
From the BBC

Caco

Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 14669
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: Gravity be the clue
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#382 Post by Pontius Navigator » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:26 pm

BOAC, I think probably the wrong charge.

I don't know the subtle differences but I think he would have been guilty in a military court. Error of Judgement, negligently hazarding his aircraft, that sort of thing.

Will the organisers and regulators now be in the frame?

Is he liable to Civil actions?

User avatar
om15
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Dorset
Age: 71

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#383 Post by om15 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:37 pm

If the pilot had been found guilty then this would have closed the matter. A not guilty verdict leads to the fact that any form of aerobatics or airshow manoeuvre is dangerous because the pilots(s) may not be able to perform this safely due to possible sudden impairments.
This has already led to the cancelling of the Farnborough display, how many local councils will now forbid this type of display, whether military or civil, in order to protect themselves? This point has been immediately picked up by a next of kin.
In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances.
"Why are we allowing any form of aerobatics to be performed when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired from the normal G forces that will be experienced during an aerobatic display?
The effects of this verdict will be felt by all involved in recreational aviation.

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 13096
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 68

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#384 Post by Ex-Ascot » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:47 pm

Boac wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:25 am
Good job I was not on the jury. My decision would firmly have been negligence. This will sit very badly with the bereaved.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -11-people

Grauniad inaccurate as usual.
Yes Boac I would have found him guilty as well. But I agree with Cape. This is good news. The guy has suffered enough and locking him up would achieve nothing. Having 8 ladies on the jury I think helped. They didn't understand the technicalities but went for the medical approach from the defence.

Wonder if the families will go for a private prosecution. Sorry PN posts crossed.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#385 Post by Boac » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:53 pm

om - that is the major issue with this finding. It would appear that, in the eyes of the Jury, the Defence and Andy Hill, there is a considerable risk of 'impairment' through these alleged 'high' g forces, such that anyone doing loops etc is in extreme danger of throwing the aircraft at the ground and undoubtedly killing people. A huge implication for all display pilots.

Ex-A - it was not a question of 'locking him up' - it is about the verdict. It would be up to the judge to determine an appropriate sentence. As a juror I would not be able to influence that decision, but I would also support a minimal punishment.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#386 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:56 pm

The CAA has already knee jerked into changes to the regulations and insurance cover etc. regarding airshows which has resulted a concomitant increase in bureaucracy, suitability of display zones and the cost for potential show organisers not least due to increased insurance premiums. I doubt there will ever be another Shoreham show. The damage has/had already been done and this verdict will have little effect on this situation and to the future situation relating to holding airshows as the regulations currently pertain.

There is no logical dependency upon this verdict and the decision to can the Farnborough public days or the holding of any other future airshow whatsoever.

One understands the anger and the grief of the bereaved but this does not invalidate this ruling which is entirely appropriate given the evidence as it was presented.

Caco

Capetonian

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#387 Post by Capetonian » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:01 pm

I suppose saying that it's good news, my initial reaction, is a one-sided view. It's good news for the pilot, his family, the aircraft technicians and team, and others involved.

It's bad news for the victims and those around them, they want 'justice'. I sincerely hope they will get some sort of compensation, although how you compensate for the death of an irreplaceable loved one I don't know, or rather, you can't. Financial compensation can help where there has been loss of income but it goes no further.

Finding Andy Hill 'guilty' would not have mitigated the tragedy for those who lost relatives and friends, but might have served to provide them with some finality, but in practical terms would have had little value.

He may have taken a risk, he may have lost control for some reason, but he certainly had neither the intention to risk his own life and that of others, nor saw the likelihood of this.

Arguably, the correct verdict, but certainly open to discussion.

User avatar
om15
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Dorset
Age: 71

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#388 Post by om15 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 pm

Had a car driver caused the deaths of 11 people by inexplicably driving at 120 mph on a motorway, would the defence that he couldn't remember why he was driving at such speed, together with the defence that it was most unlikely that he purposefully drove at this speed, be accepted. Don't think so.

Ex A, I'm not sure that a guilty verdict would have automatically resulted in a custodial sentence, could the judge not have taken into account the complete picture and possibly awarded a suspended sentence. From what I have read in the AAIB report and what has been disclosed in court I think that I would have found him guilty, but agree that a jail sentence would be inappropriate, unfortunately this will rumble on, one good thing is that the CAA might be spurred into greater scrutiny of these types of operations.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12984
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#389 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 pm

A not guilty verdict leads to the fact that any form of aerobatics or airshow manoeuvre is dangerous because the pilots(s) may not be able to perform this safely due to possible sudden impairments.
This has always been true, whatever the nature of this court case. Same is true of almost all human sporting activities. What may change is the level of acceptability to both the general public and the government (whether national or local). In practice, all that matters is what the rich and powerful like to do. They currently aren't bothered about airshows. They do want their daughters to ride, which is why horseriding remains very largely unregulated despite the dangers, whereas boys on motorbikes have been not just legislated almost out of existence, but every law change makes it more dangerous for the participants. Regulation and licensing can also have the effect of making an activity too costly for the poor, so one can see legislation being used to restrict access to a sport, but leave its actual conduct relatively uncontrolled. Offshore sailing is a good example here.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#390 Post by Cacophonix » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:09 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 pm

This has always been true, whatever the nature of this court case. Same is true of almost all human sporting activities. What may change is the level of acceptability to both the general public and the government (whether national or local). In practice, all that matters is what the rich and powerful like to do. They currently aren't bothered about airshows. They do want their daughters to ride, which is why horseriding remains very largely unregulated despite the dangers, whereas boys on motorbikes have been not just legislated almost out of existence, but every law change makes it more dangerous for the participants. Regulation and licensing can also have the effect of making an activity too costly for the poor, so one can see legislation being used to restrict access to a sport, but leave its actual conduct relatively uncontrolled. Offshore sailing is a good example here.

+1

Caco

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#391 Post by Boac » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:18 pm

It seems sadly, that somehow the Jury did not appreciate that the accident would almost certainly NOT have happened had the (top) entry height and speed been correct, alleged 'impairment' or not. This will be the key to any civil action. Pilot error it was, for whatever reason - and impairment through g forces is not one.

Capetonian

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#392 Post by Capetonian » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:23 pm

Had a car driver caused the deaths of 11 people by inexplicably driving at 120 mph on a motorway
I don't see that as a valid comparison. The driver in this case would have exceeded, by a wide margin, a known limit, and would have known he was doing so, or if he didn't know, he would not have been fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle. You don't get to exceed a 70 mph speed limit to such an extent without knowing.

Hill would not necessarily have known his exact speed or altitude over such a critically short manoeuvre.

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 13096
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 68

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#393 Post by Ex-Ascot » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:32 pm

Boac wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:18 pm
It seems sadly, that somehow the Jury did not appreciate that the accident would almost certainly NOT have happened had the (top) entry height and speed been correct, alleged 'impairment' or not. This will be the key to any civil action. Pilot error it was, for whatever reason - and impairment through g forces is not one.
To quote Black Adder, 'He is guilty as a puppy standing next to a pile of poo'. Also agree wrong charges. I said very early on in this thread that the gender balance on this jury was in his favour. If a few of us here had been foreman of the jury it would have been a different outcome. Not by desire but by duty.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#394 Post by Boac » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:50 pm

Cape wrote:Hill would not necessarily have known his exact speed or altitude over such a critically short manoeuvre.
- sorry, Cape - that is totally wrong.

Capetonian

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#395 Post by Capetonian » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:01 pm

Is it? Let's just assume he had a temporary impairment of judgement or vision. It's not analogous to a car driver doing 120 mph on a 70 mph road, a speed he would have reached deliberately and knowingly over a period of time, even if only about 10 seconds for a very high performance vehicle.

I am not pretending to know, I've never flown an aerobatic type manoeuvre, but as an outsider it seems that it would all happen very quickly and possibly with limited frames of reference by which to judge speed and altitude. Just being 'devil's advocate' here.

Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 14669
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: Gravity be the clue
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#396 Post by Pontius Navigator » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:05 pm

Look at the bigger picture. Surely it is now accepted in law that any application of an unspecified amount of G will cause mental impairment. It is not limited to 'stunt flying' in a vintage fighter.

It could be in a special aerobatic aircraft, it could be in a high performance military jet and it could be anywhere.

You might argue that experiencing G up to a specific value, at above a specific height, when wearing specific clothing, when the G force is limited in a specified duration be permitted.

But of course one individual's tolerance is different from another and can vary day by day.

The obvious conclusion is high G combat manoeuvres be banned.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12984
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#397 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Cape, that's why they don't let outsiders do it. It's why the RAF doesn't even let 'ordinary' fighter pilots ever do it. It's why they only let exceptional fighter pilots do it after an extensive work up. And they still crash sometimes.
Personally, I still think the problem arises from letting guys do displays with more than one set of gates in a season, and as I said way back at the beginning, I think that's what caused this accident.
I would be happy, as is the case for similar performance aircraft such as WW2 fighters, that displays be flown with all the same gate parameters, that are within the capabilites of all the aircraft types flown, e.g. OK to fly Mustang, Spit and Hurricane loops, using the same parameters for the loop for each type.

Pontius Navigator
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 14669
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
Location: Gravity be the clue
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#398 Post by Pontius Navigator » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:07 pm

Cape, you are probably correct. Driving at an extreme of nearly double would be no more lethal but the period of temporary impairment (glancing at speedo) would be halved.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#399 Post by Boac » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:38 pm

Cape - if we are to try and 'compare' this to a road accident, we need to have a driver who knows he does occasionally suffer from 'blackouts' and is aware of the symptoms of onset - as would Hill be with the g impairment. Now have him drive at the wrong speed and recognise an 'impending blackout', but continue and crash into a line of folk waiting for a bus. - Your 'verdict' now? Excused due 'cognative impairment'?

Out of interest, where do you understand this alleged 'impairment' in Hill's case took place? Before or after he committed to the crash manoeuvre ie at the top of the loop?

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 13096
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 68

Re: Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

#400 Post by Ex-Ascot » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:54 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:06 pm
Personally, I still think the problem arises from letting guys do displays with more than one set of gates in a season, and as I said way back at the beginning, I think that's what caused this accident.
Yes indeed Fox, I also effectively said that earlier in this thread. As airline pilots are not allowed to be type registered on two completely different types at the same time.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Post Reply