Forum menu
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).