Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Hunter crash at Shoreham

No, I don’t think it’s fair enough. Mr Hill was fairly tried and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The AAIB investigation concluded that the g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a factor in the accident, though it could not be ruled out.

The trial is over. Nobody will take the slightest notice of people who hide behind pseudonyms on an internet forum in order to question the jury’s decision.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

I’m not suggesting anyone will take notice Jacko, but then nor am I ‘hiding’. Anyone with half a brain cell can establish my identity.

The jury acquitted, and I accept that- that’s how our justice system works. Doesn’t mean I believe the defence case though, and again, nor does anyone with half a brain cell.

I don’t see what’s difficult about this. If you fly low level aerobatics and stoof it into the crowd then you’re responsible for the consequences.if you can’t guarantee people’s safety then fly higher, or further away, or not at all.

EGLM & EGTN

The audience for this particular debate are people utilising this forum. I neither see people hiding behind pseudonyms or attempting to influence beyond this forum.

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting the Jury in the criminal trial got it wrong on the basis of the evidence presented to them and the direction they received. What I am pointing out is that subsequent AAIB investigation of key elements of the evidence which were admitted very late in the trial actually indicated little or no evidence of cognitive impairment at low g, particularly when applied to the facts relating to flight in question.

The criminal trial is of course concluded but all of this new data will undoubtedly be examined by the Coroner in the eventual inquest which has been long awaited by those that want to see a proper examination of the facts relating to this event.

Cub
Various, United Kingdom

Graham you kindly follow the forum etiquette of supplying your base, so it wouldn’t take much detective work, and the Vagabond population in the UK is sufficiently refined that not much gumshoe would be expended

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

No, I’m sorry Graham, and Cub, I have no idea who you are or what reasons you might have to scapegoat the pilot.

You could, for instance, be CAA staffers who reviewed the risk assessment for this event. Or you could have contributed to this accident by rejecting a crucial AAIB recommendation after the 2007 Shoreham crash (so that nobody on the ground knew the sequence which was to be flown and nobody was thereby in a position to issue a STOP command).

Alternatively, you could just be part of the wider community of stunt pilots whose mutual back-scratching as airshow inspectors and examiners has maintained UK airshow accident rates at almost double those of the USA and Canada.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Jacko. I had a lecture, when I joined this forum about playing the ball not the man. Clearly not universally applied!

Anyway, I don’t fall into any of your ‘exempted’ categories but I have studied every tiny detail of this incident and am confident that HM Coroner will draw very similar conclusions to the AAIB about the planning and execution of this flight as well as looking very closely at how these aircraft and particularly their pilots may be better managed in the future.

Last Edited by Cub at 22 Dec 10:01
Cub
Various, United Kingdom

Well then I think we agree. The criminal prosecution tried, unfairly in my opinion, to blame one person for the accident.

Perhaps the jury was as sceptical as we are about “cognitive impairment” at 4g but agreed with the AAIB that it couldn’t be ruled out. In reaching that decision they may also have felt that it would be unfair to convict one man for an accident attributable to the errors of many.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

I suspect we don’t agree at all. One person was responsible and in full control of that aircraft which resulted in the death of 11 people. It may well be possible to identify many barriers that failed in managing the pilot’s capabilities and competence, as well as the location and organisation of the event but ultimately only one person is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and he patently failed to achieve that.

Last Edited by Cub at 22 Dec 10:41
Cub
Various, United Kingdom

This is a quote from an expert on page 6:

Some limited research has been conducted looking at cognitive impairment under
+Gz loads that do not result in A-LOC or G-LOC. The findings of these studies
are somewhat inconsistent, and in many cases contradictory. As such, it is not
possible to make definitive conclusions from these limited experimental studies,
which by and large have no practical implications for the flying task under +G

What am I mis-interpreting? When not G current I have experienced some grey out, and once or twice momentary sight loss (still conscious, with hearing but grey out leads to loss of sight) usually in early season practice when going from negative to sustained positive. I am pretty sure grey-out which does not result in A-loc and G-loc does have an effect on capacity. It should trigger an escape manoeuvre and unload of the aircraft.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

I agree completely with Fuji_Abound, grey out occurs sometimes without notice and with experienced pilots. It does have a pronounced cognitive effect.

No, it doesn’t IMHO and in the opinion of the reporter you now quote.

Cub
Various, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top