Shoreham Pilot

Post #16 says it all (tks Bruce). The use of logic, and reasoned argument, is not used often enough!
However, having read the thousands of words that have been written on Shoreham, I do get the distinct impression that the pro-Air Show community are ‘whistling in the dark’.
HTH
Resmoroh

Well said Stuart, I think in my posts I was trying to say exactly that point.

Also to add to other comments about protecting Andy Hill.
I do not know or have ever met Andy Hill, but I do feel strongly about accusations against any person which are purely conjecture

“I think this forum, and perhaps a couple of others, are being far too protective of Andy Hill”

I think that if anything is being protected, it is the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Well said Bruce. At least I tried. From some of the preceding posts I guess it won’t be long before the instant experts plus the guy who has a mate down the pub who knows someone who he thinks once said he worked on Hunters a long time ago come along to enlighten us all.

I was wryly amused by a poster in one of the first Shoreham threads who claimed to have managed to recreate the accident in a Flight Sim using a Hunter model.

I think it is possible to carefully discuss the potential outcome in the event of 1) pilot error being identified as the cause or 2) an malfunction is identified within the Hunter. Even if 3) the AAIB cannot come up with a conclusive outcome this is a result in and of itself.

[QUOTE Sgt.Austin’s offering was a straight news item — that presumably the general readership of this forum appreciates. Straight news, not speculation. I certainly appreciate it.

Naturally, posters from this point might add thoughtful comments that are responsible, intelligent, and worthwhile. QUOTE]

That was definitely how it was intended and certainly what I was hoping for – Thank you Matt.

However, on reading some of the replies I think to avoid any harmful speculation it may be best to lock it or at least it should be left alone until the AAIB report is published.

There are four possible scenarios

It was an accident that could not be foreseen.

It was pilot error

It was a fault with the aeroplane

It was a combination of the latter two.

If it was an accident to which no fault can be attached, there can be no charge. The police must assume that one of the latter three possibilities is possible. That doesn’t mean that ultimately, he will face a charge.

As decided before we should wait for the AAIB. IMHO speculation is of no real value, if you want to engage in that form of thread I would suggest a trip to pprune.

RTA are no longer politically correct and the police now refer to them as RTC. Road Traffic Collisions, presumably on the basis that RTA pre-judges that the collision was an accident.

As stated, it is highly likely to be considered to be “in the public interest” to bring a prosecution so that a positive verdict is reached, this does not, in itself, necessarily imply guilt but presents all the evidence in public.

No one in their right mind would argue with a grieving mother so hopefully this is the end of all football matches as well.

Well said Bruce. At least I tried. From some of the preceding posts I guess it won’t be long before the instant experts plus the guy who has a mate down the pub who knows someone who he thinks once said he worked on Hunters a long time ago come along to enlighten us all.

We can only have informed discussion when the information is available. Until that time, it is unwise to speculate. It’s worth noting that Mr Hill was told in December that he may face manslaughter charges (according to the BBC link), but until the AAIB report is complete and published, we cannot know the root cause of the accident. Patience is still required..

I do not believe that this thread can serve any purpose other than to invite speculation and potentially undermine proceedings. I’m sure that everyone on here has an opinion – but let’s just keep them to ourselves for now.

I think this forum, and perhaps a couple of others, are being far too protective of Andy Hill. At the same time posters on this forum are quite happy to speculate the causes when another, less cherished, pilot is involved in an accident. The Shoreham accident has shone a very powerful spotlight on the aviation and airshow communities and the culture attitudes and practices within, and this sort of neurotic, preemptive self-policing won’t help. You can find opinions about the causes of the Shoreham accident anywhere online from the Pistonheads forum to the David Icke forum (I advise against the latter). This forum is definitely better placed to host an informed discussion, and can even lead by positive example. It is clear that journalists go through these forums, so would you rather the next Daily Wail article quotes an aviation historian on this forum or ‘BimmerBoy’ on the Pistonheads forum when grasping for the next soundbite? When you have the partner of one of the Shoreham deceased going on daytime TV, in a bid to ban airshows, I think we should try a bit harder than to endlessly censor well informed opinions because they could potentially hit a few nerves.

I do not believe that this thread can serve any purpose other than to invite speculation and potentially undermine proceedings. I’m sure that everyone on here has an opinion – but let’s just keep them to ourselves for now.

There’s a Buffalo Springfield song, “Broken Arrow” from the 1960s with the following line:

His mother had told him a trip was a fall
And don’t mention babies at all.

In other words, a mother can’t/won’t share info (in this case, about drugs and sexuality) with her son, as if the mere mention of the topics is dark and shameful.

Sgt.Austin’s offering was a straight news item — that presumably the general readership of this forum appreciates. Straight news, not speculation. I certainly appreciate it. I’m afraid, Nachtjagd, that you are narrow-minded to think that discussion of this topic is only negative.

Naturally, posters from this point, might attempt to take things into a needlessly speculative direction.

Naturally, posters from this point might add thoughtful comments that are responsible, intelligent, and worthwhile.

I advocate continuing to share, within reason, on a subject that some others think should not even be discussed. (And don’t mention babies at all…they come from storks…Stork Hotel rooms?)

The Police question/arrest many as you need to ascertain IF the evidence need to be sent to the CPS who review the evidence and advise if prosecution is in the public interest.
The same here is done in car accidents/RTAs they do arrest then question. As far as I am aware Andy Hill took himself to a police station before Christmas to make a statement and has not been arrested.

Police investigation and AAIB are two completely different agencies and the police have to be involved due to the deaths of the bystanders.
Obviously their may be criminal proceedings if found anyone is to blame and not just a very sad accident.

True, but surely the point is that the police aren’t necessarily qualified to judge what caused the accident (and thus decide whether there’s a ground for criminal proceedings) until the AAIB report is out? Just seems like jumping the gun – after all we can’t yet rule out some cause for the accident that has nothing to do with the actions of the pilot. When the report is out, and if it should become clear that pilot error caused the accident, then obviously there’s a case for bringing manslaughter charges.

I certainly wasn’t intending to imply any guilt, that as it has been said is for the courts to decide.

It was not aimed at you Sir, but we know some are happy to point fingers so I was asking that they refrain.

I think the AAIB report may not be to far away now.

I do not believe that this thread can serve any purpose other than to invite speculation and potentially undermine proceedings. I’m sure that everyone on here has an opinion – but let’s just keep them to ourselves for now.

I have amended my opening statement to say that it is still being investigated and it is possible that he may face charges. as the news has been updated or was inaccurately read out to begin with. I certainly wasn’t intending to imply any guilt, that as it has been said is for the courts to decide.

Police investigation and AAIB are two completely different agencies and the police have to be involved due to the deaths of the bystanders.
Obviously their may be criminal proceedings if found anyone is to blame and not just a very sad accident.

Seems odd that charges would be announced before the AAIB report had been published?

This is a route that would have to be taken as part of the investigation and of course does not mean any guilt implied as it would need to be proved in a court of law and both side putting their evidence to a jury.
I feel now the tabloids will have a bit of a field day with this but at this time the pilot Andy Hill is not guilty of anything and we still have the AAIB reports to be completed.

Please can this topic not start finger pointing at anyone.

From BBC News:

A pilot, whose vintage jet crashed at the Shoreham Airshow killing 11 people, is being investigated for manslaughter, police have confirmed.
Former RAF pilot Andy Hill, 52, was interviewed under caution by police in December, after recovering from critical injuries in the August crash.
The details emerged in papers filed by Sussex Police in its High Court bid to access evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36743282