Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

bentwaters81tfw

Andy Hill cleared of Manslaughter.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Skodadriver said:

Having sat on the bench myself, albeit part-time and at a relatively junior level, I couldn't possibly comment ........

I really wanted to give a LOL type reaction but the tone of this thread made me think twice. I will says thanks to our learned members for their considered and very helpful input thus far.

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jaw said:

 but the fact that it is planned to build an IKEA in  the area that the Hunter crashed.

 

John

 

If thats the case I seriously hope a memorial is included as part of the redevlopment.

 

Tommo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skodadriver said:

 

Having sat on the bench myself, albeit part-time and at a relatively junior level, I couldn't possibly comment ........

Please note the disclaimer that I was referring to English courts ....😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, grahamwalker said:

 

 

 

You are entitled to your view but Mr Hill has been acquitted after a fair trial before a jury of his peers. Proving gross negligence to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" was never going to be easy. I'm with @noelh who rightly draws a distinction between making a mistake and deliberately acting in a dangerous or cavalier manner. As others have pointed out, the press reporting was mainly of the sensational prosecution case and not the evidence led by the defence so anyone who didn't sit through the trial only has part of the picture. While the distress of the relatives is completely understandable it doesn't follow that because bad things have happened to good people somebody must have committed a crime.

 

I'm not fully familiar with English law but I assume there will now be an inquest and no doubt civil litigation will follow unless the relevant insurers make offers which are acceptable to the families

Edited by Julien
offensive quoted comments removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the cognitive "failure" was in the approach to the loop , as by the top Mr Hill must have been aware that speed and altitude were just not there for a successful outcome for his intended manoeuvre . It is a sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in regards airshows largely as a result of Shorham , but not as sorry as the families involved and I wish them well for a future unseen by all. I would like to think all safety measures will be appropriate and not draconian as the public has flocked in their thousands over the years to see a display of exciting and fascinating aircraft. To my mind the Frecci Tricolori accident at Ramstien could have killed airshows stone dead but thankfully it was judged for what it was , an accident and the public by voting with their feet and wallets returned to see more afterwards. I know this may seem the ramblings of a nobody , but this nobody has been putting himself in "harms way" for well over fifty years at airshows . Lastly, Farnborough..... Over the years manufacturers have been leaving at the end of the trade week more and more and consequently the weekend show is stripped of nearly all the latest products that attracted the likes of me over the years.

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike asked for this thread not to go down hill, we have had one offensive comment. Please let there be no more.

 

Julien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that The Times may have had some more even-handed reporting on the verdict this morning but sadly it too has toed the populist line by repeating the more sensational and emotional aspects of the matter although it did report that Mr. Hill could not remember anything in the three days leading up to the incident but was feeling unwell during the flight which seemed contradictory and left me wondering why then carry on with the display but one possibly misquoted comment is not really anything to go on.

 

With the media reporting on the more lurid aspects of the case and little published on the actual nuts and bolts of the evidence presented for and against it would seem unfair to suggest that the jury may have been wrong in their assessment.     As a retired police officer giving evidence before a jury and from sitting on one since my retirement it has been my experience that the responsibility to see the matter proven beyond all reasonable doubt is taken seriously by juries although here in Scotland there is always the 'we know you did something wrong but the Crown has not proven it' option of Not Proven.      There has been talk over the years about reconsidering the suitability of the current jury system when dealing with overly technical matters such as might arise in corporate manslaughter or complicated fraud cases but the alternatives suggested have so far always been found wanting and potentially lacking in the impartiality and humanity offered by the current names out of a glass bowl system.

 

As has already been mentioned the matter is far from closed with Inquests to be completed and insurance claims which could potentially lead to Civil actions where far different burdens of proof apply. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from a pprune contributor which makes for interesting reading and a possible explanation.  It speaks for itself:

 

QUOTE I cannot claim any particular expertise, and certainly not in aerobatics in high-performance jet aeroplanes, but I do have some experience of "congnitive impairment". Most of the posts I have read on here from obviously very experienced fast jet pilots (current or former) seem to be "locked into" discussion of impairment due to various stages of G-LOC. But when AH commenced his loop he did so from level flight, at 1G. This is reported to have been already far too low and too slow. The AAIB report then states that there were random throttle movements, instead of immediate application of full throttle. Then, arriving at the top of a loop (which had become 'bent') an opportunity to escape from being too low and too slow was missed. On the way down it must have been obvious to the pilot that he was going to crash, yet he didn't turn away from the road, nor attempt to eject and save himself. It seems to me, therefore, that there was a degree of impairment from the begining and throughout the manoeuvre, which was NOT G induced. One condition that can cause this is a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) - sometimes called a 'mini-stroke'. When this happens, an individual can appear normal, and may make seemingly deliberate actions, even converse, but be unable to realise what is going on around them. A TIA can happen to anyone, at any time, and can leave no detectable physical trace. Sometimes it can happen again, sometimes it can be followed by a full stroke or even death, and sometimes by nothing at all. That AH survived at all is nothing short of miraculous, but the whole desperately sad and tragic event resulting in the loss of so many lives may not be anyone's "fault".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a TIA , and having had a second one that left me temporarily less than fully functional, with no detectable physical trace, it is entirely possible AH may have had just this. My full scans afterwards revealed absolutely nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Having had a TIA , and having had a second one that left me temporarily less than fully functional, with no detectable physical trace, it is entirely possible AH may have had just this. My full scans afterwards revealed absolutely nothing.

 

Sorry to hear that and I wish you well.  My late Mum had a series of them and like you they just did not show up on any tests run at the hospital.  There was no doubting she was experiencing them though and sometimes she had no recollection of the experience witnessed by persons present.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/03/2019 at 17:50, jaw said:

s but the fact that it is planned to build an IKEA in  the area that the Hunter crashed.

 

John

Its actually planned to be to the west of the airfield on the Lancing side south of the A27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Shoreham could run displays over the sea instead being as its  on the doorstep. And have a static line up open to the public and be allowed to watch take offs and landings. Not much I know but at least it could be something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this present time the last thing Shoreham wants to do is organise another airshow to be honest, maybe a few years down the line so to speak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the possible impairment. I though I had read that a tight 360 degree turn had been completed over the sea before the run in to display...possibly for timing reasons. I haven't seen how much g was pulled in this turn, and if any, how long the effects may have lasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fightersweep said:

Regarding the possible impairment. I though I had read that a tight 360 degree turn had been completed over the sea before the run in to display...possibly for timing reasons. I haven't seen how much g was pulled in this turn, and if any, how long the effects may have lasted.

 

I am not in any sense a medical expert, though I have some in my family. I understand that subtle incapacitation can occur for many reasons.

 

It is however, unlikely that a reasonably fit & healthy pilot would suffer incapacitation as a result of a tight 360 level turn. The G loads are not especially high and will have been anticipated, both by gentle torso straining and by the anti-g trousers.   Generally where notable incapacitation appears it occurs when a negative g event is rapidly followed by a fast onset positive G manoeuvre. This is a characteristic of what has been described as  G-loc.   

 

Mr Hill may have failed to brace during the flat turn and hence been subtly affected as a result.  From my own personal experience I’d suggest that if that had been the case he’d have been well aware of it and would not have continued immediately -he’d likely have taken a few moments, possibly another 360, to settle himself down again.

 

This whole sad event seems to have more subtle errors and omissions than that. I am still struck by the similarity between the speeds and heights achieved to those apparently more or less normal/acceptable for a Jet Provost display.  If you , for whatever reason, pick up the wrong ’model’ for what is going on, it can be hard to spot the discrepancy quickly or to change it quickly. That may be relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 10:57 AM, John B (Sc) said:

 ... and by the anti-g trousers.

Are they fitted and functional in a vintage Hunter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hairystick said:

Are they fitted and functional in a vintage Hunter?

 

Apparently they were in this case, according to the AAIB report I read.  Shall re-check that.

 

Yes: see Item 1.6.12, page 33 of interim report. Nothing noted to suggest unserviceability, which I'd expect would be a relevant no-go item for display flying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 3:01 PM, John B (Sc) said:

Apparently they were in this case, according to the AAIB report I read.  Shall re-check that.

 

Yes: see Item 1.6.12, page 33 of interim report. Nothing noted to suggest unserviceability, which I'd expect would be a relevant no-go item for display flying

Interesting. Most unusual for a civilian jet to have them in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hairystick said:

Interesting. Most unusual for a civilian jet to have them in service.

 

Recall the ejection seats were also live, which is unusual.  On quite a few less demanding jets, such as the Jet Provost, often the seats have been rendered inert.  That is  a machine which you could bale out of or attempt a forced landing with. Given the performance of a Hunter I'd suspect ejection is the only realistic survival option.

Hence that needs to be operational to fly the jet; I'd suspect that for airshow aeros, the anti g system would also be an expectation, if not a requirement. (I know the Blue Angels generally fly without this,  since they feel the sudden effect of the system is bad news for delicate piloting required  for their very accurate close formation demonstrations. They are an exception I believe; most fast jet teams wear the anti-g kit)

 

I have never used an anti-g system, I simply do the usual straining, grunting capers, but then in a small aerobatic machine it isn't really possible to achieve the rapid onset of high G that a fast jet can.  I'd certainly prefer to have such a system working if I was in a piece of kit with the performance of a Hunter!  Maybe it was mandatory - does anyone here know?

 

John B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A u/s Ejection seat would be a red line but now it's a civvy machine I'm not sure . How many  civvy Weapon's fitters current on seats ? You'll need two for the over sig and would have to be to service one , Do the AF /BF ? They'd have to be licensed being G registered and as far as I know civvy aircraft and weapons is obviously not normal (Martin Baker have a Meteor that's got a military serial ). Is there even a CAA Weapons license ? I've never heard of one . No idea about G suits ,silly not to have one . u/s G suit is a red line too ,in services .Pilot could black out ………..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched some youtube footage the other day about a civvie pilot who banged out of a civvie Hunter near Llanbedr a few years back, so yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a company called Seat Star based at Duxford, they were licensed by Martin Baker to work on ejection seats on ex-military jets. A company called SES bought them out and does the seats and survival equipment together. Their guys fitted the seats to Vulcan XH558. I don't think the guys have a license, just CAA certification, because its a bit of a specialist field.

 

https://ses-safety.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...