About time too.

I witnessed the aftermath of the accident, ie the fireball. I was just lining the shot for his flypast.

What he planned to do that day ended in tragedy, and it could have been much worse in different circumstances... On a different day he might have executed the manoeuvre without incident and we would not have this discussion....

Incredible how people are calling for Andy Hill's punishment, yet the rail unions call a strike because a driver has been reassigned after allegedly going through 3 red signals...
 
welshwizard645 said:
Incredible how people are calling for Andy Hill's punishment, yet the rail unions call a strike because a driver has been reassigned after allegedly going through 3 red signals...
Click to expand...
Indeed. The rail unions have a notoriously poor grip on reality.
 
Update: Not guilty.

Andy Hill's defence, which the jury bought, was that he had experienced "cognitive impairment" - in other words, a black out - at the time of the crash, which was brought on by hypoxia possibly due to the effects of the G forces.

Some of the bereaved relatives commented that this creates a worrying precedent. I think I agree.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47495885
 
StewartR said:
Update: Not guilty.

Andy Hill's defence, which the jury bought, was that he had experienced "cognitive impairment" - in other words, a black out - at the time of the crash, which was brought on by hypoxia possibly due to the effects of the G forces.

Some of the bereaved relatives commented that this creates a worrying precedent. I think I agree.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47495885
Click to expand...

I hope that there is no knee jerk reaction to this.

The couple said the case had raised questions about the safety of aerobatic air displays "when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired".

This is totally wrong - the last thing we need are air-shows having more restrictions or being banned, or just seeing planes fly in a straight line. Like with anything, there is of course a small risk, but when you take into account the large number of displays at airshows, not to mention private displays or general aerobatics, the death rate is very low indeed.
 
Well, he will have to live with the knowledge he killed 11 people that day, albeit unintentionally, and will (should) not be allowed to fly again (the insurance would put a stop to that anyhow).

How would a custodial sentence made things better for the families? It wouldn't bring back the victims. And yet there are people who commit crimes that escape punishment. Having to live with the knowledge is to me fair.
 
cambsno said:
This is totally wrong - the last thing we need are air-shows having more restrictions or being banned, or just seeing planes fly in a straight line.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that people being killed by aircraft crashing on them should perhaps come a bit lower down the list of things we need.
 
Personally I think it was the wrong decision he took it on himself to carry out questionable stunts in an old crate over areas contains people going about their daily business . For me now that's it all demonstrations of this type need to be either over sea areas or just canned all together.
 
There has been a profound change since August 2015 Mr Bump. Much fewer air displays in the calendar and the CAA have put in a lot of controls.

Even last year's Goodwood Revival air display was no more because in the past the aircraft used to fly over the crowds..
 
Mr Bump said:
Personally I think it was the wrong decision he took it on himself to carry out questionable stunts in an old crate over areas contains people going about their daily business . For me now that's it all demonstrations of this type need to be either over sea areas or just canned all together.
Click to expand...

While this was a tragedy, how many non-pilots have been killed at air-shows in the UK in the last 30 years? You cant look to ban something on the back of one event. This could have happened if a pilot decided to do aerobatics this afternoon and came down on the M25
 
welshwizard645 said:
Even last year's Goodwood Revival air display was no more because in the past the aircraft used to fly over the crowds..
Click to expand...
Don't they have the planes flying over the car parks? They have done at the Festival of Speed for a good few years now and access is always closed to the car parks whilst the planes carry out their display.
 
cambsno said:
You cant look to ban something on the back of one event.
Click to expand...
Yes you can, and you should. That's how aviation safety works. Every time something goes seriously wrong, the experts work out how to prevent it going wrong again in future. But the key is defining the "something" that you ban as narrowly as possible. The AAIB have made 32 very specific recommendations to improve safety in the wake of the Shoreham crash: which ones do you think are unreasonable?
 
StewartR said:
Yes you can, and you should. That's how aviation safety works. Every time something goes seriously wrong, the experts work out how to prevent it going wrong again in future. But the key is defining the "something" that you ban as narrowly as possible. The AAIB have made 32 very specific recommendations to improve safety in the wake of the Shoreham crash: which ones do you think are unreasonable?
Click to expand...

I am referring as to the 'ban airshows' statements.
 
StewartR said:
Nobody here was suggesting that.
Click to expand...

Mr Bump said:
Personally I think it was the wrong decision he took it on himself to carry out questionable stunts in an old crate over areas contains people going about their daily business . For me now that's it all demonstrations of this type need to be either over sea areas or just canned all together.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Bump said:
Personally I think it was the wrong decision he took it on himself to carry out questionable stunts in an old crate over areas contains people going about their daily business . For me now that's it all demonstrations of this type need to be either over sea areas or just canned all together.
Click to expand...

You do realise that 'old crates' are subject to far more rigourous checks than cars, and the age of the plane is largely irrelevant.
 
StewartR said:
Yes you can, and you should. That's how aviation safety works. Every time something goes seriously wrong, the experts work out how to prevent it going wrong again in future. But the key is defining the "something" that you ban as narrowly as possible. The AAIB have made 32 very specific recommendations to improve safety in the wake of the Shoreham crash: which ones do you think are unreasonable?
Click to expand...


you are absolutely right, case in point

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47536502
 
neil_g said:
Not really comparable. 2x crashes in relative short period killing upwards of 150 people each time and a potential issue with a certain version of a plane, compared to a single vintage jet which as some have already said have much more strict safety checks.
Click to expand...


you will disagree with your own shadow you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top