[Politics] Shoreham Pilot - Flying Licence Appeal Rejected 17/10/2024

[drew]

Grrr! I didn't say he ejected himself. Maybe it is you who could not be commenting. I quote from the news report on the verdict:

Derek Davis, chairman of the air show’s flight control committee, said the jet “just continued waffling down” as if the pilot was “doing nothing” until a last-second violent pitch up suggested that at 100ft “there is probably some recovery, his eyes probably opened, and instinctively [he reacted].”
He agreed with Karim Khalil QC, defending, that until the last-minute evasion, the plane didn’t seem to be controlled at all, adding: “There was something wrong with either the aircraft or the pilot.”

How exactly did he save himself then? He was extremely lucky to have survived the crash. Your earlier post implied that he was only looking out for himself.

As for the case, seems clearly the jury were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. That is their decision having listened to all the evidence presented, rather than the evidence that the media chose to report.

Remains to be seen whether a civil case is taken against him where the burden of proof is considerably less. If you're going to compare cases then maybe the OJ Simpson one is best where he escaped a criminal conviction but was found guilty in a civil court.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Surely you're able to understand that this is a statement that goes both ways? You're obviously not impartial from your posts on this matter so really, for the sake of justice, thank god you weren't on the jury - clearly you just want to find the pilot guilty regardless and this has caused you to interpret things according to this.

Don't be so sanctimonious. The verdict doesn't affect me but I do feel sympathy for the families who will be - at best - disappointed with this verdict and at worst - devastated. I understand how the legal process works, "beyond reasonable doubt" etc but I'm an accountant, a man of numbers and so the probability that the pilot blacked out and then regained consciousness seems highly unlikely but technically possible.

 

[Pavilionaire]

How exactly did he save himself then?

Pulled the plane up just enough at the last moment so the tail - and not the nose of the plane - hit the road.

 

[portlock seagull]

Don't be so sanctimonious. The verdict doesn't affect me but I do feel sympathy for the families who will be - at best - disappointed with this verdict and at worst - devastated. I understand how the legal process works, "beyond reasonable doubt" etc but I'm an accountant, a man of numbers and so the probability that the pilot blacked out and then regained consciousness seems highly unlikely but technically possible.

LOL! Anyway, being sympathetic (and who isn't?!) shouldn't cloud one's judgement and as many others have pointed out, unless you're on the jury who found him not-guilty...best stick to accountancy

 

[portlock seagull]

Pulled the plane up just enough at the last moment so the tail - and not the nose of the plane - hit the road.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Whatever happened and whoever's fault it was, the Pilot will have to live with the knowledge of his involvement for the rest of his life.

Even if he is totally confident that he is totally blameless (and I'm not saying he has any reason not to be), he's hardly going to be skipping down the road rejoicing in his freedom. I feel really sorry for him.

 

[Pavilionaire]

LOL! Anyway, being sympathetic (and who isn't?!) shouldn't cloud one's judgement and as many others have pointed out, unless you're on the jury who found him not-guilty...best stick to accountancy

Thank you for your sage advice, oh wise one! I can almost feel you patting me on the head as I turn to f*ck off.

 

[upthealbion1970]

I hope this is the case too, but I doubt it will be in all cases. I spent a couple of days with the brother of one of the victims earlier this week and we didn't discuss it at all. Everyone has their own way of dealing with these things of course.

Chap who used to work for me is the son of one of the fatalities, all he and his family want is closure. I’m not sure this will give them that and leave more questions unanswered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Pavilionaire]

So not this then

 

[worthingseagull123]

Amazed at the number of legal experts and pilots there are on here

 

[dazzer6666]

Really feel for the families as this doesn't bring closure for them - hopefully the inquest will bring further clarity. The pilot isn't the only person that may have had some degree of culpability here. However, he's been found not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence by a fully-informed jury regardless of what some people might think based on their part-speculation, little or no technical knowledge and access to limited facts.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I'm surprised at the outcome. Was reported earlier that a lot of the technical data that will be used in the inquest couldn't be used in the court case. I don't know the validity of that claim but was on the BBC.

A lot of rubbish been posted on here suffice to say let us just remember all of those affected by the terrible event and that does include the pilot and his family for he didn't start the day out intending to do anything other than entertain the watching crowds.

 

[Mr Putdown]

The most important revelation since the verdict is the dismissed juror who said he would never convict right at the start of the trial.

Scope for a retrial? Double jeopardy. Think Bishop

It happened on the first day of the trial, after the jury had been sworn in and before the prosecution had opened its case.

No scope for a retrial on that basis.

 

[Da Man Clay]

The misunderstanding of the legal system is a little staggering at times on this thread. Someone even talking about a potential Russell Bishop style retrial as a juror was dismissed prior to the trial. Gross Negligence Manslaughter is one of the most challenging offences to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There are some quite difficult elements to conclusively prove to a jury.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Are you going to defend Jimmy Savile too (as we weren't there either)?

Silly comment. Who are you going to drag into this 'debate' next as an example of someone 'obviously guilty' to make your point? Charlie Manson? Hitler?

 

[zefarelly]

Quite right, motorsport is a good example if this, quite often freak accidents. Sadly I've seen a few.

It's possible (and I'm not saying this is what happened) that he made a mistake which caused the crash, but that that mistake was not negligent, and therefore it's not manslaughter. People do make mistakes that lead to the death of others, and it's not always manslaughter.

 

[Birdie Boy]

If I was to do a loop in my plane at 2700ft knowing that the safe distance to do one was at 4000ft, I think I would be negligent. No?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Pulled the plane up just enough at the last moment so the tail - and not the nose of the plane - hit the road.

Wow. I was an idiot and thought he was doing that to, you know, not hit the ground!

 

[Worthing exile]

If I was to do a loop in my plane at 2700ft knowing that the safe distance to do one was at 4000ft, I think I would be negligent. No?

Also on the basis that 'accidents happen' who agreed that the loop could be done over a busy A27 anyway?

 

[drew]

Pulled the plane up just enough at the last moment so the tail - and not the nose of the plane - hit the road.

And what else would he try and do to avoid the crash. You make it sound like his thought process was something along the lines of 'if I pull the nose up I give myself a chance'. That's a massive assumption. There are numerous examples of pilots of stricken jet planes who have stayed with their plane to try and steer them away from built up areas at the cost of their own lives.

If he was intent on saving only himself I would suggest the ejector seat was his best bet.