How did he survive this fireball ? That’s amazing !
Mr Hill, from Sandon, near Buntingford, Hertfordshire, was also formally acquitted of a count – that was not put in front of the jury – of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.
That’s at least the third such charge of “endangering” ones own aircraft that Mr Stephen Spence has successfully defended in as many years.
I wonder when the UK CAA might take a hint that Section 240 of the UK ANO needs to be narrowed and aligned with the US 14 CFR 91.13 so as to focus on the lives and property of third parties.
Some interesting coverage in the papers.
I know someone who has recently served on a jury and what happens a lot is that the judge explains to the jury that they need to consider certain things according to very specific criteria. This case no doubt pivoted on some very fine details too.
How did he survive this fireball ?
The cockpit section broke off and flew forward, clear of the fire.
Further AAIB publication on Shoreham airshow crash
This local copy makes for interesting reading.
There is an awful lot of detail, but basically the gist of it is that they don’t believe the (successful) defence arguments at the manslaughter trial have any merit. They are clear that there is nothing to suggest that the pilot was cognitively impaired due to G force, and go on to state that no authority on the subject believes that congnitive impairment at (relatively) low G forces even exists.
Of course the CAA response focused on the aircraft and display regulations and totally ignored the very obvious human factors issues in the fast jet display community. Quite possibly because that community overlaps somewhat with the circles their own personnel move in.
I wonder if this will prompt the victims to begin a civil case against the pilot.
Unfortunately, the 11 victims are not around to initiate civil action or anything else but I agree with Graham, the latest report makes a very interesting read and raises many questions about the veracity of the defence argument in the criminal trial.
raises many questions about the veracity of the defence argument in the criminal trial.
Hmm, I think that is entirely a matter for the prosecution.
Unless, of course, you think they did do their job properly.
The prosecution offered no challenge to the late admission of the defence evidence which has now been reported upon in the AAIB report.
Sorry I meant “didnt” which seems to be your position.
It doesn’t require too much sustained G to feel the effects, for example grey out. A goldfish, from a reverse half Cuban can produce grey out as you have pulled around 4 G from the top of the loop through to the up 45 line. You build up tolerance over time so the effect is early on in the season, and some people are more susceptible than others. Ironically if you are reasonably fit with low blood pressure, you may feel the effect more. The run in turn for this display may have produced enough sustained G, even if only 3 to 3 1/2, to have an effect. Depends on the day.
OG (old geezers) joke this is the one sport where the English breakfast effect on the arteries may not be prejudicial.
