Shoreham airshow crash

[Hurn]

I hope the answer is a resounding 'NO!'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmgzmzkxgpo

[Thunder]

If he’s successful, is there any show organisers out there that would be willing to book him?

[quid21]

Never understood how he wriggled out of the manslaughter charges - even wriggled out of endangering an aircraft by flying wrecklessly. He cites cognitive impairment - I'm no pilot, but surely at the top of that loop he could've seen he was lower than he should've been and should have made the decision then to abort the loop rather than proceed to the point he had 'cognitive impairment' from g force.

In my opinion he should not be allowed to fly again.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. 11 reasons why he should not be allowed.

[Hurn]

If he’s successful, is there any show organisers out there that would be willing to book him?

He'd have to get a display authority first!

I think his request is more along the lines of just be able to fly again, in some capacity.

[Thunder]

If he’s successful, is there any show organisers out there that would be willing to book him?

He'd have to get a display authority first!

I think his request is more along the lines of just be able to fly again, in some capacity.

Yes the article would suggest that, I really should pay more attention

[cat1]

While I realise that his mistakes have killed people, I dont feel there's any reason to stop him from just flying, bare in mind that was his career up until Shoreham.

My rationale behind that is like a car crash. Ok someone make a mistake they will never be able to fix, maybe they weren't paying attention, and while flying a fighter jet has rather different consequences, I don't see any reason to ground him completely. He will never be able to get a display licence again away.

[Steven]

Much like driving, being able to fly is not a right it is a privilege.

A privilege I think any normal person would not even attempt to re-acquire if they had killed 11 people especially if they killed them by poor decision making & poor airmanship...

[Rob666]

How in all good conscience can he even think about flying after that crash don’t get it.

[quid21]

While I realise that his mistakes have killed people, I dont feel there's any reason to stop him from just flying, bare in mind that was his career up until Shoreham.

My rationale behind that is like a car crash. Ok someone make a mistake they will never be able to fix, maybe they weren't paying attention, and while flying a fighter jet has rather different consequences, I don't see any reason to ground him completely. He will never be able to get a display licence again away.

So with that logic, someone who accidentally shot somebody should be allowed to carry a gun and be able to shoot again?

[Thunder]

He killed 11 innocent people and has got away with it, his ignorance in all of this is dreadful. Probably can’t say what I really want to on here for legal reasons

[FlyingFairy]

Interesting post by Jonathan Whalley, who was the owner and pilot of Hunter F58 Miss Demeanour for many years, about the application by Andrew Hill the pilot of the Hunter that crashed at Shoreham, tragically killing members of the public, who is appealing the decision to revoke his pilots licence......

I have read that Andrew Hill has recently appeared before a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) panel in London, appealing against the decision to revoke his flying licence.

I understand that a decision is expected within the next week.

I am motivated to write this lengthy post due to my deep involvement with the Shoreham Airshow crash investigation and the pilot’s actions.

In early October 2015, about seven weeks after Hill’s crash on to the A27, which tragically killed 11 people, I was approached by the West Sussex police at the recommendation of the CAA and a relative of one of the crash victims.

At that time, I was arguably the most experienced current Hawker Hunter display pilot in the UK.
(See the end of this post for details)

Simply put, I was asked if I would consider acting as an Expert Witness.

If I accepted, I would examine all available evidence relating to the crash and all material available about the pilot, to determine whether, in my opinion, there was sufficient grounds for a charge of Gross Negligence Manslaughter.

In April 2017, I submitted my first draft, concluding that there was indeed a sound case for a charge of Gross Negligence Manslaughter.

By the time the case went to trial at the Old Bailey in January 2019, I had completed the final draft, the fourth, with three addendums.

Andrew Hill’s defence rested on his claim that, as an experienced pilot, the crash could only have occurred due to a loss of cognitive awareness, for reasons either known or unknown.

The primary 'known' reason suggested was the effect of Gz forces (Google it for more information).

The prosecution's expert on cognitive awareness was a doctor, head of the RAF centrifuge, and a leading researcher who had published peer-reviewed papers on Gz forces and its effect on cognitive function.
In over 100 years of aviation medicine, research conducted worldwide on Gz forces and cognitive awareness, has consistently shown that cognitive function and decision-making are not affected unless the individual has actually lost consciousness, a condition known as GLOC (Gz-induced Loss Of Consciousness).
Another related Gz condition is ALOC (Almost Loss Of Consciousness).

Hill's defence counsel skilfully argued that, although no specific research existed on the cognitive effects of ALOC, perhaps such effects did exist.

This created 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of the jury, which, crucially, did not consist of aviation experts or Andrew Hill's professional peers.
This doubt ultimately led to a verdict of Not Guilty.

Aside from any justice for the relatives of those who died, this verdict had serious implications for aviation worldwide.

If ALOC was accepted as a potential cause of cognitive impairment, all military and civilian flying involving sub-GLOC levels of Gz forces would need to be reconsidered.

No more military air combat manoeuvres, no civil aerobatics.

Consequently, multinational aviation authorities had to address the matter.

In the UK, the AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation Branch) published a supplemental report on 19th December 2019.

In that report, quoting from page 7,
[Royal Air Force Centre for Aviation Medicine] **RAFCAM consulted the relevant NATO panel, air forces in the European Air Group, the Five Eyes Air Force Interoperability Council, and the United States Air Force. None of these authorities recognised the existence of low Gz-induced cognitive impairment, nor do they train their respective military pilots to avoid this condition.**

To quote further from the above AAIB report, page 2, on the matter of cognitive impairment:

**"The issue of possible cognitive impairment due to +Gz exposure was considered in the AAIB investigation and was discussed in the AAIB final report.

The pilot’s behaviour, as captured by a cockpit action camera, was assessed by pilot expert advisors, human factors experts, and an aeromedical expert.
The AAIB report stated: 'As far as could be determined from cockpit image recordings, the pilot appeared alert and active throughout the flight.'"**

**Conclusion: The AAIB found no new and significant evidence of cognitive impairment.
Credible alternative explanations for the pilot’s actions were supported by evidence presented in the AAIB final report and were considered more likely.

The findings of the AAIB investigation remain valid.**

A direct link to this Supplemental Report of 19th December 2019 is at the end of this post.

I encourage you to read this report, as it refers to evidential material I used in preparing my own report and which was shown in court, but cannot be discussed publicly due to legal restrictions. This is also why evidential matters were not mentioned in the *Discovery+* documentary about the crash.

In 2020, the CAA published CAP 1693, ‘An inquiry into the risk of cognitive impairment due to G-forces’

Following these reports, in December 2022, the Senior Coroner for West Sussex delivered a verdict that all 11 victims had been unlawfully killed.

Andrew Hill remains adamant that he must have been cognitively impaired and, therefore, innocent of any wrongdoing.

After the Coroner’s verdict, Hill sought to challenge the finding of "unlawful killing," but in May 2023, the High Court refused permission.

It should be noted that criminal and civil standards of proof differ.

In civil cases, a balance of probability is permitted, meaning a conclusion can be based on what is 'more likely than not.'

The Senior Coroner was entitled to conclude that the pilot’s conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to gross negligence and that the victims of the Shoreham Airshow were unlawfully killed.

So, what happens now and Hill's licence appeal?

Known reasons for cognitive impairment have been exhausted.

We are left with 'unknown reasons.'

Hill seems utterly convinced that, for reasons unknown, he was cognitively impaired.

If he is so convinced that he was once cognitively impaired while appearing ‘alert and active,’ should he even hold a driving licence, let alone a pilot’s licence?
Should any pilot with such hubris be allowed to fly again?

What insurance company would underwrite him?

And if Andrew Hill were to have another aviation incident, would those who reinstated his licence be called upon to justify their decision?

AAIB Supplement Report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _02-20.pdf

My relevant background:
I had 1,277 hrs flying Hawker Hunters.
First with Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm by way of initial flying training, and then in my final year as the Air Warfare Instructor in the Naval Flying Standards Flight.
For some 17 years I owned and flew a single seat Hunter G-PSST (Miss Demeanour) I had also been a syndicate member of a group owning a two seat Hunter, G-VETA.
I flew and displayed other civilian owned single and two seat Hunters, both in the UK and in Africa.

I had 573 hrs in Hawker Hunters in the period 1997-2014
48 hours in G-BXFI, the aircraft that crashed, including one display.

337 Hunter displays, 6 of which were at Shoreham.
A CAA Display Authorisation Evaluator for the Hawker Hunter.

Approved by the CAA to flight test Hawker Hunters.
Responsible for bringing G-BXFI in to civilian service, from its collection, through restoration to test flight.
I was responsible for the re-designing and fitting out of the cockpit to be suitable for civilian use

Finally, the handover to the Fox-One syndicate, which I helped set up when I was the Managing Director and Chief Pilot of Jet Heritage Ltd in Bournemouth.
As Jet Heritage Ltd's Chief Pilot, I was one of the pilots that undertook Hunter conversion flights for the syndicate members until I left Jet Heritage Ltd, taking my own Hunter to Kemble.

Not long after, the Fox-One syndicate moved G-BXFI to Kemble as well, and Jet Heritage Ltd folded under a cloud.

[johnwayne]

This informative and authoritative statement by JW really highlights how a skilful defence counsel created reasonable doubt in the jury's minds despite no supporting evidence of ALOC even existing . How sad for the victims and their families .

[cat1]

While I realise that his mistakes have killed people, I dont feel there's any reason to stop him from just flying, bare in mind that was his career up until Shoreham.

My rationale behind that is like a car crash. Ok someone make a mistake they will never be able to fix, maybe they weren't paying attention, and while flying a fighter jet has rather different consequences, I don't see any reason to ground him completely. He will never be able to get a display licence again away.

So with that logic, someone who accidentally shot somebody should be allowed to carry a gun and be able to shoot again?

No. they should not.

I think this falls more under the bracket of involuntary manslaughter. This is when there is not an intention to kill, but it is brought about though negligence or malpractice (such as miscalculating loop height for example ).

For all is mistakes, you cannot say he took off with the intention to kill 11 people. I think its only due to this that he's not in a prison right now.

While typing this I must admit my heart went out to the families who must be sick of thinking of this subject...thoughts to them.

[Steven]

So just to be clear are you still advocating for him to get his licence back?

[cat1]

Not necessarily, but a lot of people make him sound like a terrorist, which I don't agree with, as a family member died fighting them.

I know what it's like to make a mistake and have your career finished. I don't see why he can't have his license back, but not is acrobatic licence.

It my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I only stated it because you asked.

[Seahornet1]

Cat1, I fully respect your opinion, and you are of course entitled to state it here 'without fear or favour'. From Hill's point of view, it even seems a reasonable arguement, and in the (necessarily) objective and unemotional way that organisations like the CAA make their decisions, I think there may be a moderate chance that he will be successful in his appeal.

However, I cannot help but overwhelmingly see this matter from the viewpoint of the victims' families, friends, and others affected, for whom this ongoing saga must be raw emotional torture. I find the fact that Hill has the sheer gall to pursue this matter, putting his own selfish ambition above the feelings of those whose lives have been devastated by his utter wanton negligence, both despicable and reprehensible.

[cat1]

I completely agree.

I was looking at it from the perspective of stats and figures. From that side there seems no reason why he cannot.

But as you pointed out from the emotional perspective, he should at least be in jail.

[roughcutter]

His attitude is crass and insensitive.

[B58Hustler]

I still believe, as I always have, that his muscle memory reverted to the JP, and that's the profile he flew.
There's an argument for displaying (or NOT) multiple types I think.

[raptor9]

If he reverted to 'muscle memory' whilst flying exacting flying displays, then he had no business being allowed anywhere near an aircraft. The great thing about flying is that is is much more discipline orientated than driving a car, which makes it extremely important that you are concentrating 100% on what your doing in his environment. Sorry, I cannot go along with the' Muscle memory' theory!. As a week-end flier for 10 years on six different types I never had that problem, nor have I heard of anyone even admitting to it happening. Surely if he thought he was flying the JP he would be looking at much lower entry speeds in the first place!.