Ops-Normal.org

k3k3 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:04 pm

Andy Hill was involved in an accident where eleven people died and is facing manslaughter charges.

Thirty years ago a 737 with an engine problem crashed after the pilots shut down the good engine, 47 people died. Nobody faced criminal charges.

Just saying.

I can see your point but with Kegworth there were many factors involved. Design faults, an engine failure, training, and a multi crew to name just a few. I have no positive idea what happened at Shoreham and am not prepared to guess. There are others on this forum far more qualified to comment. I think we all have a good idea but I hope they do not lock Andy up. There will be nothing to be achieved.

It is just that nobody left their homes that morning intending to leave a swathe of death and destruction behind them, people made mistakes, possibly negligent, and I fear that future investigations may be hampered by people being less than candid as they fear prosecution.

Even if we accept that Andy Hill may have made a serious error of judgement and may even have acted unprofessionally, and even if there are no mitigating circumstances, and I'm not saying he did, just saying if ..... I don't see that locking him up serves any useful purpose. He will have suffered enough both mentally and physically.

I hope that this is taken in consideration.

Capetonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:58 pm

Even if we accept that Andy Hill may have made a serious error of judgement and may even have acted unprofessionally, and even if there are no mitigating circumstances, and I'm not saying he did, just saying if ..... I don't see that locking him up serves any useful purpose. He will have suffered enough both mentally and physically.

I hope that this is taken in consideration.

I think that this will be a key aspect of his defence lawyers. The families of the deceased are of course looking for so called 'justice'. At the end of the day Andy didn't want to smash himself up.

There is no discussion permitted in TOP as in UK the subject is now sub-judice. Not sure why though as the jury are not supposed to read about the case.

The local Brighton paper says his defence will relate to loss of consciousness due to G.

I do wonder how the jury will follow any technical evidence, but I suppose if they can follow fraud etc all will be made clear.

The local Brighton paper says his defence will relate to loss of consciousness due to G

I fail to understand how that is a defence. Unless he can prove a mechanical malfunction, he was the only person or factor determining the G force in the loop, and he should know his limits.

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:44 pm

There is no discussion permitted in TOP as in UK the subject is now sub-judice. Not sure why though as the jury are not supposed to read about the case.

The local Brighton paper says his defence will relate to loss of consciousness due to G.

I do wonder how the jury will follow any technical evidence, but I suppose if they can follow fraud etc all will be made clear.

Just another power jag from one of the dingbats that think they run that site probably. Delusions of grandeur about TOP being something like a national newspaper or something!

Quite amusing when one looks at some of the charlatans and ciminals that have been given carte blanche there in the past.

I was told by a senior judge many years ago that he believed that many lay juries did not undersand the fraud trials they were expected to give a verdict on and I expect the same might pertain to aviation too.

Caco

How can any jury member not have a pre-conceived opinion of this event?

Because the law says they can't. But the law is an ass.

I think you can have an opinion provided you are prepared to change that opinion when presented with the evidence. If no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind then you should not be on the jury.

On one trial for assault where I was on the jury, the prosecution put together a nice convincing story and I was prepared to believe it all. Then the defence version of events kicked in and I could see all the clever wording on the prosecution side. We found the defendant Not Guilty that day.

Trial opens today.

A jury of eight women and four men. Oh bloody hell. How do you explain an aerobatic display in terms of a knitting pattern. I guess just pull the wool over their eyes.

That's very sexist of you, Mr Ex-A.
(Not saying I disagree with you though!)

This is a perfect example of why trial by jury in such a case is inappropriate, he needs to be assessed by competent specialists. I do not understand how he can be found 'guilty' of anything other than an error (or a series of errors) of judgement, and it may emerge that the condition of the aircraft was one of a number of contributory factors.

I accept that the jury are likely to be baying for blood because innocent bystanders were killed, but that doesn't mean that the pilot deserves to be found guilty of manslaughter.

Capetonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:37 pm

That's very sexist of you, Mr Ex-A.

(Not saying I disagree with you though!)

Even I agree to be honest, men tend to be more technically minded and therefore would probably be more able to comprehend the technical aspects presented to them. I would suggest realistic, not sexist.

Edit this is the latest from the DM; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -told.html I hope he has a good barrister.

Not every male is capable of appreciating 'technical' matters.
I had a long conversation with the husband of a very-switched-on female concerning the environmental effects of quarrying alongside a river (extracting gravel to a depth of 17.5 metres, separated from the river only by a 'bund'). I might as well have been talking to a six-year-old child for all the understanding that he displayed yet he continued to ask questions.

Mrs Ex-Ascot wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:45 pm

Edit this is the latest from the DM; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -told.html I hope he has a good barrister.

Bear in mind that the initial part of a court case is when the prosecution set out their case - highlighting all the points that they consider to justify the prosecution of the case.
Following this phase, and only then, the defence lawyers contest the evidence and argue their mitigation.
Early media reports of any case can be 'damning' whereas the results can often be otherwise.

A friend called me once to have a look at his car as it wouldn't start, and asked me to bring jump leads. When I got there, he had opened the bonnet and told me that it would't start because somebody had stolen the engine. It was one of those small Lancia Y10 things.

It normally had a plastic cover over the engine, and that had been removed and not replaced at the previous service, so he was looking directly at the engine, rather than its cover, and just had no clue whatsoever. He's a computer programmer!

Jurors were told the Air Accident Investigation Branch report on the crash would not form part of the prosecution's case and should be disregarded.

Can anyone explain this to me please.

I believe that may be the 'law' regarding AAIB reports.

Ex-Ascot wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:32 pm

A jury of eight women and four men. Oh bloody hell. How do you explain an aerobatic display in terms of a knitting pattern. I guess just pull the wool over their eyes.

And with the best will in the world, how do you explain the complexities of say a fraud trial or for that matter any trial where the alleged offence involves complex technicalities which the general public, ie a jury, may only have a minimal knowledge of.

This trial involves aviation and there's a wealth of expertise on here able to comment with authority. Had this been say a rail, or maritime accident, then most of us would fall into the above category of having a general idea as to what was involved in the causal factors, but not the depth of professionals in those particular fields.