a tragedy that he was undoubtedly responsible for
That‘s the hypothesis which the prosecution, with all the resources of the State at its disposal, failed to prove.
A jury of regular folk decided that the pilot should not be punished
The Shoreham jury decided no such thing. An English jury does not decide whether an accused person should be punished. They decide whether the case against him, her or it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
My view, perhaps in the minority here, is that Mr Hill has indeed been punished. He, and the airshow organisers and regulators, will take the burden of this accident to their graves. They did their best, and it wasn’t good enough. This is the season for us to make their world better, not to make ours worse by bearing a grudge.
There’s a pretty substantial difference between recognising responsibility and demanding punishment.
A jury of regular folk decided that the pilot should not be punished by the state for a tragedy that he was undoubtedly responsible for. That acquittal does not diminish the pilot’s responsibility for the tragedy; that others may also bear some responsibility for the tragedy does not diminish the pilots responsibility either.
Meanwhile, the true peers of the pilot are assessing the evidence (with, dare I say it, a more full understanding of the context) with a view to learn lessons and avoid such tragedies in the future. This is not a crusade for “justice”, and appears to me to be quite an appropriate way to proceed.
Aside from that, I am not aware of any other person who has pored over every minute aspect of this case more than Cub has. I do not believe that I could have been as balanced and fair as he has been, were I in his shoes. Take my opinion with a pinch of salt of course, but I would trust his opinion in this matter as being the very best available.
I wasnt going to contribute again, but I am reminded of a recent event. I had cause to visit a leading consultant and professor in his field recently (not for me) who I also know very well. We were talking about a particular condition, and he made the point that in 40 years in the profession, and as one of the top three in the world in his field, this was a combination he had never seen before. It makes one realise that the human condition is full of surprises, and far from always predictable. There really can be a combination of events or cirucmstances that surprise even the most experienced of us, and may truly be that one in a million, or even billion. The ability to be absolutely certain is one that can be alluding, and sometimes full of surprises. I recall the discussion on the very sad case of Sala and Ibbitson. Of course in all the theories no one suggested carbon monoxide poisoning, and I am guessing were it not for some detailed work after the event, this might never have been suggested as a cause.
In that case, friendly advice from someone whose brother was hit and killed when a car mounted a city kerb out of control: it doesn’t help to brood over “justice” for the deceased or to feel anything but sympathy for the errant driver. Ephesians 4:26, and Romans 12:19.
Life altogether without risk would be insupportable and we are none of us here for ever.
I don’t think he has mentioned it on this thread, but I think I’m right in saying that Cub has personal and entirely understandable reasons for taking a close interest in all of the circumstances surrounding this tragic incident.
RobertL18C wrote:
I agree completely with Fuji_Abound, grey out occurs sometimes without notice and with experienced pilots. It does have a pronounced cognitive effect.
No, it doesn’t IMHO and in the opinion of the reporter you now quote.
This is a quote from an expert on page 6:
Some limited research has been conducted looking at cognitive impairment under
+Gz loads that do not result in A-LOC or G-LOC. The findings of these studies
are somewhat inconsistent, and in many cases contradictory. As such, it is not
possible to make definitive conclusions from these limited experimental studies,
which by and large have no practical implications for the flying task under +G’
What am I mis-interpreting? When not G current I have experienced some grey out, and once or twice momentary sight loss (still conscious, with hearing but grey out leads to loss of sight) usually in early season practice when going from negative to sustained positive. I am pretty sure grey-out which does not result in A-loc and G-loc does have an effect on capacity. It should trigger an escape manoeuvre and unload of the aircraft.
I suspect we don’t agree at all. One person was responsible and in full control of that aircraft which resulted in the death of 11 people. It may well be possible to identify many barriers that failed in managing the pilot’s capabilities and competence, as well as the location and organisation of the event but ultimately only one person is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and he patently failed to achieve that.
Well then I think we agree. The criminal prosecution tried, unfairly in my opinion, to blame one person for the accident.
Perhaps the jury was as sceptical as we are about “cognitive impairment” at 4g but agreed with the AAIB that it couldn’t be ruled out. In reaching that decision they may also have felt that it would be unfair to convict one man for an accident attributable to the errors of many.
Jacko. I had a lecture, when I joined this forum about playing the ball not the man. Clearly not universally applied!
Anyway, I don’t fall into any of your ‘exempted’ categories but I have studied every tiny detail of this incident and am confident that HM Coroner will draw very similar conclusions to the AAIB about the planning and execution of this flight as well as looking very closely at how these aircraft and particularly their pilots may be better managed in the future.
