https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47495885
Not sure what I think. What does STW think about the verdict?
I think he’s a tit for pulling such a manoeuvre over a busy road.
Not happy. But that's living in 2019 Britain for you.
I don't get it. The plane didn't suffer a failure, he flew it in a manner that resulted in 11 deaths.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Karim Khalil QC, defending, argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment" when the jet crashed.
That he was cognitively impaired all the time in a dementia way, or just at the moment of his decision to screw about over a busy road?
It's possible we should be praising his lawyer's ability to fly through a loophole with pinpoint accuracy.
EDIT: Guardian version has more:
Couldn't remember anything about the accident, no previous or subsequent evidence of 'cognitive impairment', just his word that this was the only explanation (despite him being pulled mid-display from an earlier flight at Southport because of his poor flying).
I guess something more compelling than this must have been put to the jury, or it somehow crawled over the 'reasonable doubt' threshold.
He, in theory at least, is now free to fly again.
The plane didn’t suffer a failure
Has the AAIB report been published yet? So I'm not sure we know that as a piece of admissable evidence for purposes of criminal prosecution yet.
What this decision means is he is not going to be criminally punished for being at the controls.
I'm not sure what I think of it.
I think the AAIB could take a very long time to produce their report.
I think having the criminal prosecution ahead of time is a bit pointless, as the lack of AAIB report leaves very large holes in the usable evidence.
So bringing a the legal case against the pilot seems like a gamble. The families want "justice" but I don't know that we know what "justice" actually is right now.
Very easy to lynch the pilot though.
I think the AAIB could take a very long time to produce their report.
Also not sure what to think. I'd like to know more about why he was allowed to fly at all if he'd been pulled from a previous airshow.
Has the AAIB report been published yet? So I’m not sure we know that as a piece of admissable evidence for purposes of criminal prosecution yet.
Yes. Which is why they then investigated the pilot.
That he was cognitively impaired all the time in a dementia way, or just at the moment of his decision to screw about over a busy road?
In an Ernest Saunders kind of way I think you'll find. I guess this is the end of all motoring convictions.
As a side-note, the reason for his survival is pretty amazing - partial firing of the ejector system as a result of crash damage.
K’inell..
I don’t get it. The plane didn’t suffer a failure, he flew it in a manner that resulted in 11 deaths.
Correct me if i’m wrong.
Indeed.
I predict a riot.
Hmmm. A dubious result. Something akin to this shenanigans...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561/Driver-fined-180-for-defective-tyres-after-killing-four-cyclists.html
My mistake then, cheers for linking.
Best ignore my previous post.
I saw the accident happen from up on the Downs- it was clear from the moment he started he had started too low and couldn't complete the loop.
One of my friends literally treated him while he was still strapped into his seat - he was conscious and lucid.
He made a number of poor decisions both during this display and at others and someone I knew died as a result.
Clearly the jury felt there wasn't enough evidence of criminal liability for the charges brought but that man killed people by his actions and the regulating authorities have a massive responsibility for this too for their failure to understand and plan for the result of issues during a display - particularly as there'd been a fatal crash there previously.
The correct verdict.
Mr Hill made a cognitive error for reasons unknown. He wouldn't, and didn't set out to break any rules or reinvent aviation.
His trial was so significant because of the awful outcome, rather than his actions.
Still an awful case. RIP
I'd just got to Southport airshow as he was doing his display and thought he was bloody low after a loop. Then disappeared after that. Close to the pier as well I seem to remember.
The correct verdict.
Mr Hill made a cognitive error for reasons unknown. He wouldn’t, and didn’t set out to break any rules or reinvent aviation.
So as I said above an end to motoring convictions.
Pretty
Disappointed
(and surprised)
He wouldn’t, and didn’t set out to break any rules or reinvent aviation.
Hmmm!! The report suggest he performed the manoeuvre too low, sounds like a different rule.
So surely an end to all aerobatic airshow displays. If you can be cognatively impaired just flying this way when you have no previous history of this, then surely this could happen to any pilot and therefore the risk is too great to the public.
Or he could just be full of shit.
Mr Hill made a cognitive error for reasons unknown. He wouldn’t, and didn’t set out to break any rules or reinvent aviation.
Clearly the view of the jury, though that doesn't always equate to being the correct verdict.
Would be interesting to have heard an explanation for his apparently repeated poor/risky flying at prior airshows, most notably the one where he was ordered to stop. That would imply to me (granted, without the benefit of hearing any evidence) that he had a pattern of errors of judgement and ignoring those might well be negligent.
There's a difference between cognition and judgement
From that AAIB report -
"Head movement indicated that the pilot remained conscious and active
throughout the manoeuvres."
His statement said "I'm sorry for my part in these peoples deaths"
That verdict surprised me a lot.
Unfortunately the poster above who suspects that 'temporary cognitive impairments' could now start featuring heavily in RTA fatality cases is probably right.
Thanks for posting the repot martinhutch.
I came to this thinking the court might have made a mistake. Now I've read the AAIB conclusions I'm surprised it went to court there's so much reasonable doubt:
Engine speed varied during the upward first half of the manoeuvre. This
was conEngine speed varied during the upward first half of the manoeuvre. This
was contrary to the pilot’s declared technique of using full thrust.trary to the pilot’s declared technique of using full thrust.However, the fuel pump governor diaphragm showed significant signs of
ageing and chemical attack such that it could no longer be considered
airworthy.Information included in a previous AAIB report (EW/C98/6/1) indicated
that there had been a number of cases involving the Avon Mk 122
engine where engine speed had dropped and subsequent engineering
investigation had not established a clear cause. Therefore, an
uncommanded reduction in thrust during the accident manoeuvre could
not be ruled out.the left altimeter under-read by approximately 100 feet. It also
exhibited lag and stickiness in its operation both during testing and on a
previous flight. Overall, these defects would have resulted in the altitude
indicated to the pilot being lower than the actual aircraft altitude at the
apex of the accident manoeuvre.5. The right altimeter had a latent defect which meant it was no longer
providing a synchronising signal to the left altimeter.The entry height of the manoeuvre was consistent with the 200ft minimum
height on the pilot’s DA for a Jet Provost; the apex height and speeds
on the accident manoeuvre were consistent with those flown in the Jet
Provost the previous weekend.It is possible that the pilot misread or misinterpreted speed and height
indications during the manoeuvre, or recalled those for a different aircraft
type.The operator’s Operational Control Manual did not contain information
about performing aerobatic manoeuvres and associated escape
manoeuvres.
Does seem a very odd result. He was in charge of the plane, he cocked up (arrogance or error of judgement) and killed 11 people....
Unfortunately the poster above who suspects that ‘temporary cognitive impairments’ could now start featuring heavily in RTA fatality cases is probably right.
If it was significant in the case. I doubt it was, it's just something the defence said which the press have reported. Seems to me more likely that there's a high bar for manslaughter by gross negligence and the evidence in this case failed to meet it...
Does seem a very odd result. He was in charge of the plane, he cocked up (arrogance or error of judgement) and killed 11 people….
Error of judgement != manslaughter by gross negligence.
According to your words there's a 50/50 chance this wasn't manslaughter by gross negligence, if you're right the jury were right not to convict.
Too low, failed to realise this and abort, then had "cognitive impairment". It would be interesting to read the Secret Barristers take on this. All seems a bit stinky to me but I'm not a legal expert or privy too what the jury heard.
I’d just got to Southport airshow as he was doing his display and thought he was bloody low after a loop. Then disappeared after that. Close to the pier as well I seem to remember.
I was there all day.
He'd apparently flown several different aircraft over the course of the day - take off from Blackpool, down to Southport for the display, back to Blackpool, land, swap planes, repeat.
The Jet Provost display was like all the others but then he pulled out of a loop noticeably lower than anything else had been all day, immediately pulled it up to height and stopped the display.
Whether he stopped it of his own accord or he was told to stop I don't know - I suspect the former as it went up to height immediately, too soon for a command to have been issued from Display Control. They blamed the wind - the commentator said that wind conditions were tricky and the pilot had called it off. No-one really seemed to think anything more of it - it's not like there was a screaming crowd running for cover or anything.
To be fair, conditions were pretty mixed all day, the Red Arrows only did their flat display (no loops to height) because of the low cloud and the wind.
Regardless of the acquittal, I dout he'll ever be flying any aerobatic display ever again.
I dout he’ll ever be flying any aerobatic display ever again.
That must be great comfort to the relatives of the victims.
I would agree about the high bar for MbGN. There are a lot of requirements, and the 'cognitive impairment' stuff certainly makes it harder to prove the 'deliberate' nature of the charge.
Indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health
Actual foresight of the risk coupled with the determination nevertheless to run it
Actual foresight of the risk together with an intention to avoid it but involving such a high degree of negligence in the attempted avoidance as the jury considered justified conviction
Inattention or failure to advert to a serious risk going beyond mere inadvertence in respect of an important matter which the defendants duty demanded he should address.
You almost need a halfway house manslaughter charge - the equivalent of 'causing death by careless driving' vs the more serious charge of dangerous driving. I can't help but think that the upcoming Hillsborough prosecutors will also have to work hard to get a conviction.
The AAIB report is pretty clear about the root causes of the accident, and I'm sure many people will remain unconvinced by the evidence presented on 'cognitive impairment'.
I think having the criminal prosecution ahead of time is a bit pointless, as the lack of AAIB report leaves very large holes in the usable evidence.
AAIB reports are inadmissible as evidence in most judicial cases for obvious reasons.
I dout he’ll ever be flying any aerobatic display ever again.
Is he even banned from flying?
Seems to have walked away scot free from killing 11 people...
Didn't even get 3 points and a £50 fine!
Sentencing guidelines here if anyone's wondering:
Just think if you are using BA he is a current pilot with them, I'd want to read the risk assessment first before bum on the seat
I can't imagine that having claimed 'cognitive impairment' at the controls of an aircraft prior to a serious accident that any commercial carrier would have him back on the payroll!
The AAIB report is pretty clear about the root causes of the accident,
Maybe I'm missing something. The report doesn't out and out blame him. It says he went in too slow and too low, failed to use full throttle on the way up and failed to perform the required escape manoeuvre at the top. However it finds possible aircraft defects that could explain/mitigate the height and speed and also points out that the height and speed were appropriate for the aircraft he'd flown the week before [1] and also that he had not be trained or assessed in the escape manoeuvre.
AFACT it's doesn't suggest the pilot was grossly negligent at all. And even if it did all you need in court is reasonable doubt.
I might have missed a critical bit, I've only read the conclusion.
[1] Hence it could have been an error.
I suspect if you actually knew the true character of the person flying your plane, there’s plenty of flights you’d be nervous about getting on - that’s why airlines and regulators have controls in place to assess risk, and I’m sure they will do the same in this case too..
Not guilty does not mean not his fault. The AAIB are experts and their conclusion seems pretty clear. The verdict just means that the lay jury have decided (based on what they heard & were told in court) that the criminal threshold was not met.
It isn't inconceivable that the families will pursue a civil claim and that could well find against him due to the different thresholds.
It isn’t inconceivable that the families will pursue a civil claim and that could well find against him due to the different thresholds.
+1, different burden of proof. Except I'd imagine that a Civil case is so cut and dried that the insurers will pay out huge amounts without bothering with the court case. (IANAL, maybe that's not how it works.)
Redmex, just to clarify, he is presently not employed by any airline.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Not at all. AAIB reports don't tend to play the blame game for obvious reasons. And the failures seemed to be multiple, with lessons to be learned for the show organisers as well. My root cause comment was more that it confirmed a catastrophic error by the pilot as the primary issue. Not that it pointed towards gross negligence.
The Crown would have had to demonstrate that he realised he was not correctly positioned, and decided to go ahead with the manoeuvre. With the pilot remembering nowt and claiming temporary whatever, I agree that the prospects for a conviction were a bit shaky.
On reflection, my reaction to the news reporting was probably due to the emphasis on the cognitive stuff, which does leave a bad taste if it is, as it appears, evidence-free, and you suspect it was just thrown in to muddy the legal waters a little more.
Chances are he would have been acquitted anyhow.
From the civil claim point of view it's probably already been settled. Whether they could go to a private prosecution I doubt (public interest?)
Anyway from Ashford Law:
In the UK, where a person on the
ground is injured or killed by an aircraft
crash or debris from an aircraft,
section 76 (2) of the Civil Aviation Act
1982 imposes strict liability on the
owner of the aircraft. This means that
damages for losses and injuries are
recoverable from the owner without
having to prove negligence.
A very stark example of such a case
is the Shoreham Airshow crash in
England in 2015, where a flying display
aircraft crashed onto a road, killing 11
on the ground and injuring a number
of others (see the Shoreham case on
the Ashfords aviation webpages).
On reflection, my reaction to the news reporting was probably due to the emphasis on the cognitive stuff, which does leave a bad taste if it is, as it appears, evidence-free, and you suspect it was just thrown in to muddy the legal waters a little more.
Agree. Two words coming out of the mouth of the defence and reported by the media mean nothing.
He “was “ a BA pilot, no longer.
Having flown aerobatic displays in the past, the fault of flying that manoeuvre over the road lies with the Airshow Management, not the pilot. He flew the loop in the correct place, just made a mistake.
Whether or not we think flying old warbirds at Airshows is too risky, this accident has been coming for years. He was as experienced an ex-RAF and display pilot as there was. He made an error that cost 11 lives, unbelievably he survived.
As a professional pilot myself I’m very uncomfortable with the concept of an error meaning Manslaughter. Any aircraft crash results in a high energy fireball contacting the ground. Whether people are hit is the lap of the gods. Every airport in the world is surrounded by roads, so any crash is likely to kill innocent bystanders.
He, in theory at least, is now free to fly again
I imagine cognitive impairment would be an issue for retention of an aviation Class 1 medical. A concussion will see you banned from flying for six months.
I wouldn’t want to judge the outcome as the evidence presented will be far more detailed than the outrage-inducing headlines. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high hurdle.
Two words coming out of the mouth of the defence and reported by the media mean nothing.
A news report early said the jury found effects G Forces were to blame.
A news report early said the jury found effects G Forces were to blame.
LOL.
AAIB say:
"The g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a
factor in the accident"
the jury found effects G Forces were to blame
when I was on a jury we weren't asked why or how we'd reached a verdict, just what it was.
when I was on a jury we weren’t asked why or how we’d reached a verdict, just what it was.
I have a vague memory it is actually illegal for a jury to explain their decisions. (Quite rightly otherwise we'd all know when they'd got it wrong which would undermine confidence in the system.)
when I was on a jury we weren’t asked why or how we’d reached a verdict, just what it was.
I guess you weren't at the same trial.
As a professional pilot myself I’m very uncomfortable with the concept of an error meaning Manslaughter. Any aircraft crash results in a high energy fireball contacting the ground. Whether people are hit is the lap of the gods. Every airport in the world is surrounded by roads, so any crash is likely to kill innocent bystanders.
Do we need a "death by careless aviation" offence?
but I’m not a legal expert or privy too what the jury heard.
I think that probably captures it.
As a professional pilot myself I’m very uncomfortable with the concept of an error meaning Manslaughter.
Hence this trial to establish if the error in this case met the legal criteria for 'gross negligence'. The jury decided it didn't.
DOes the phrase cognitive impairment refer not just to the pilots mental awareness/state, but also the fact that some of the instruments were not functioning correctly thereby the information he was receiving and acting on was not completely accurate?
The court case just concluded he was not negligent. IT WAs a tragic accident and as is the case with almost all accidents it’s not the result of one error or cause in isolation, but the stack up of several all concurring at crucial times. In these cases it’s hard to apportion 100% of the blame onto the pilot if they are following procedure to the best of their ability and information presented to them at the time.
This is where the phrase ‘pilot eror’ A bit misleading. Almost all air accidents these days are down to ‘pilot error’, but that doesn’t always mean the pilots are negligent, it just means the system, which includes the pilot, is flawed and has enabled a situation where the pilot can make poor decisions under a very rare and specific set of circumstances. The point is to understand those set of circumstances in Ann unprejudiced way and put in place measures to make that situation impossible to repeat. It is the secret to aviations astonishing safety record and a continual and uninterrupted drive towards improving safety.
'Do we need a “death by careless aviation” offence?'
No. No more than we need an offence of death by careless surgery, death by careless sex, death by careless drinking, death by careless sneezing, death by careless youth activity leading, death by carelessly upsetting someone etc.
It serves no useful purpose other than satisfying a desire for revenge and inhibits positive activity.
It serves no useful purpose other than satisfying a desire for revenge and inhibits positive activity.
NOOOO! Someone has to be hung out to dry! It's the way we rock nowadays.
Didn't you see 'Sully'?
... but also the fact that some of the instruments were not functioning correctly thereby the information he was receiving and acting on was not completely accurate?
I think there may have been two altimetres , and a discrepancy between them, but the discrepancy was not (I think) thousands of feet - I don't think that at any point his instruments were telling him he was at a safe height for the planned manoveure.
you can be cognatively impaired just flying this way when you have no previous history of this, then surely this could happen to any pilot and therefore the risk is too great to the public.
Or he could just be full of shit.
Cognitively likely impaired means he blacked out during the manoeuvre due to G loading. Not that he was pissed or suffered temporary mental retardation.
Experienced combat pilots still get caught out by it.
G force has been discounted by the AAIB report, hasn't it? Certainly his Go Pro reportedly shows him active throughout.
This is where the phrase ‘pilot eror’ A bit misleading. Almost all air accidents these days are down to ‘pilot error’, but that doesn’t always mean the pilots are negligent, it just means the system, which includes the pilot, is flawed and has enabled a situation where the pilot can make poor decisions under a very rare and specific set of circumstances. T
+1
Also the reason why pharmaceutical safety procedures and investigations share a lot in common with aviation, we know that humans make basic mistakes all the time. We rarely try to blame the human, instead the root cause is usually training, overly complicated procedures and systems etc and the resultant corrective and preventative actions are designed to reduce that human error through better operating procedures and equipment.
People make deadly mistakes, it's inevitable. The reason why we have to use criminal courts and send people down to deal with it in daily driving is that we as society can't be ****ing arsed to deal with the root causes of road deaths.
G force has been discounted by the AAIB report, hasn’t it? Certainly his Go Pro reportedly shows him active throughout.
That was perhaps the prosecutions line, that the media ran with because they smelled blood - but the go-pro was from behind the ejection seat.
There has been plenty of good evidence given in his defence it seems.
But there were no "slumped in the seat" moments - I dunno, it seems to me that he just started way too low. If that was an instrument error, fair enough - doesn't seem like it though.
I think there may have been two altimetres , and a discrepancy between them, but the discrepancy was not (I think) thousands of feet – I don’t think that at any point his instruments were telling him he was at a safe height for the planned manoveure.
True, IIRC the over reading altimeter was only 100ft out, but we're only talking about "reasonable doubt" here and there were other factors mentioned above. (However, looking at the photo of the aircraft a fraction of a second before impact I wouldn't be at all surprised if that extra 100ft would have saved the day. I assume if he'd cleared the M27 by 14ft it would still have ended his Airshow career.)
G force has been discounted by the AAIB report, hasn’t it?
Pretty much. AAIB say:
“The g experienced by the pilot during the manoeuvre was probably not a
factor in the accident”
Civil suit is inevitable. Only imo, shouldn't have been performing that manoeuvre over a populated area.
If there is to be any legacy from this incident it's that airshows should be over the water.
Entirely avoidable incident.
Pilot may have been found not guilty but essentially he's responsible for killing all of those men.
A terrible cross to bear.
Civil suit is inevitable.
A few posts back says perhaps not:
From the civil claim point of view it’s probably already been settled. Whether they could go to a private prosecution I doubt (public interest?)
Anyway from Ashford Law:
In the UK, where a person on the
ground is injured or killed by an aircraft
crash or debris from an aircraft,
section 76 (2) of the Civil Aviation Act
1982 imposes strict liability on the
owner of the aircraft. This means that
damages for losses and injuries are
recoverable from the owner without
having to prove negligence.
A very stark example of such a case
is the Shoreham Airshow crash in
England in 2015, where a flying display
aircraft crashed onto a road, killing 11
on the ground and injuring a number
of others (see the Shoreham case on
the Ashfords aviation webpages).
Does it expand on "probably"?
But there were no “slumped in the seat” moments – I dunno, it seems to me that he just started way too low. If that was an instrument error, fair enough – doesn’t seem like it though
You don't always just slump over.
Another possibility is that he was suffering from hypoxia I guess? Did AAIB rule that out? This happens more than you might think in fighter aircraft, especially those with defective systems, at low altitude under high G manouvers. The US air force had to limit not only the ceiling height but also arobatics of the F-22 until they resolved issues with its oxygen system.
Entirely avoidable incident.
The vast majority of incidents are - you look at most car "accidents" and no-one is held to account even 1/10th as much as something like the aviation industry or public transport bodies.
As mentioned above, most air accidents are not one error; they're a cumulation of often small errors, malfunctions, misinterpretations etc combined with flawed training or maintainance, sometimes coupled with external factors like weather which give rise to a vanishingly rare set of circumstances from which a crash is ineveitable.
In this instance it's a combination of misreading instruments, a below par-engine giving lower power than indicated, an expectation (perhaps forgetfulness based on the number of different types of aircraft that he's flown) that the speed and altitude were sufficient (which they would have been had he been in the smaller Jet Provost which he was more used to) and a very unfortunate set of circumstances over the exact location of the manoeuvre and the layout of the roads below him.
It is just a tragic accident - lessons will be learnt (far more robustly than in the case of car accidents), regulations have already been updated regarding use of private ex-military jets (now restricted to flypasts only, no aerobatics), location of airshows and so on.
The vast majority of incidents are – you look at most car “accidents” and no-one is held to account even 1/10th as much as something like the aviation industry or public transport bodies.
I can't recall a car crash where 11 people were killed and the driver walked away with not so much as a slap on the wrist. He's basically walked away from this without so much as a black mark against his name.
You don’t always just slump over.
Another possibility is that he was suffering from hypoxia, to a greater or lesser degree. This happens more than you might think in fighter aircraft, especially those with defective systems, at low altitude under high G manouvers. The US air force had to limit the arobatics of the F-22 until they resolved issues with its oxygen system.
I'm pretty sure the AAIB would have considered that if it was feasible.
I can’t recall a car crash where 11 people were killed and the driver walked away with not so much as a slap on the wrist.
Can you think of some car crashes which lead to a prosecution for Manslaughter by Gross Negligence? If there was a "death by careless flying" offence they might (or might not) have got a conviction but there isn't.
I can’t recall a car crash where 11 people were killed and the driver walked away with not so much as a slap on the wrist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047
OK, no-one died in that but ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY cars wrecked - all becasue of shit driving in poor conditions, all because of human error - and not one person was ever charged with any offence over it. No changes in law or in driving standards training. No restrictions on any type of vehicle. In fact, no real investigation - certainly not to the standards of the AAIB.
There was this one as well:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25316055
Again, no motorists were ever charged with any offence, instead it was going afer the organiser of a local fireworks display (who was cleared of any H&S breaches).
If there was a “death by careless flying” offence they might have got a conviction but there isn’t.
But it wasn't careless flying - it was a host of cumulative factors, possibly / probably involving some carelessness at some part of it. You prosecute on the offence, not the outcome. It's just that in this case the outcome was far worse than if he'd come down harmlessly in the sea or a ploughed field. The offence (let's say for a moment that it was careless flying) would be the same but the outcome would be very different.
It’s just that in this case the outcome was far worse than if he’d come down harmlessly in the sea or a ploughed field.
There's the rub.
Over the sea the pilot is the one who pays the price for miscalculation not some blokes making their way to football training/cycling along a road, driving to see their families.
The pilot didn’t just decide to fly his Manouvre over the road. It as planned by the Airshow Authorities to be flown in that location.
I guess you weren’t at the same trial.
Drac, surely you know that no UK jury is ever asked, nor are they permitted to voluntarily explain to the press the logic/decision making process that lead them to reach a verdict.
Where the press say “the jury concluded” they really mean “we presume the jury concluded”. I didn’t hear the judges charge but it may even be that the judge made clear the factors the jury should consider. But you will never know exactly why those 11 jurors came to that conclusion.
I can’t recall a car crash where 11 people were killed and the driver walked away with not so much as a slap on the wrist. He’s basically walked away from this without so much as a black mark against his name..
realistically 99% of accidents of that severity would not result in the driver walking away - it was only a freek set of circumstances that meant the pilot survived and so could face prosecution.
However here is one with 6 dead, 15 injured, the driver survived and no prosecution for the events that day: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Glasgow_bin_lorry_crash
Some interesting coverage on the beeb about him as a pilot - "the prof".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47004138
I'm drawn to comparisons between this case and Colin McRae's - at the time, every opinion seemed to say "not Colin, he was just too good" and the fault must have lain with his helicopter. The AAIB report wasn't conclusive but basically said the best info they had was that he stacked it while showing off, killing all the occupants. Oh, and his licence wasn't up to date and various other things.
I can't help but think that Hill basically ****ed up, and in the same way that if I nipped out in the car and ****ed up a turn knocking down a bus queue of nuns and orphans, then I should face the consequences of the law. That may mean 6pts and a £500 fine or it may mean imprisonment. In this case, there isn't an option other than to try for manslaughter and that seems... poor.
This. The recovered footage from McRaes helicopter shows he was taking unecessary risks with devastating consequences..
The pilot at Shoreham was doing the same.
I really don't see the issue with airshows being held at coastal areas.