Worrying.
[Politics] Shoreham Pilot - Flying Licence Appeal Rejected 17/10/2024
- Thread starter Tooting Gull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Weststander
Well-known member
Or could be negligent in civil law with a far lower burden of proof? This possibly isn’t the end of the matter. Hopefully lawyers will always have the best interests of the loved ones as their only concern.
seagullwedgee
Well-known member
- Aug 9, 2005
- 3,070
Looking at some facts reported, he topped the loop at 2700 feet, when he knew the manoeuvre required 4000 feet minimum. And his airspeed was also about 50 knots short of what was required to complete the manoeuvre BEFORE entering the loop (ie before negative G or hypoxia could have taken hold and affected his cognitive function). Apparently the jury watched side by side comparative cockpit footage of a good bent loop manoeuvre and the failed one at Shoreham, and must have concluded that in the failed manoeuvre his judgement was clearly impaired evidenced by things he did or did not do at that point in the cockpit, that he should have done.
Ok, understood. From a libel point of view, Bozza wants people to be careful what they say in this thread. You can say things about Jackson without fear of libel, because he's dead (the same is not true of the people in the documentary).
Law aside, I haven't read the detail about this case, so I don't have a feeling for whether the verdict makes sense or not. Have others really heard a lot of the testimony that was in court? Regarding Jacko, I have read a lot. It's not the same as hearing all the evidence in court, but then there won't be a court case on that, so we go with what we've got.
That's not necessary for all legal matters. In this particular case, for example, the judge would have gone into a lot of detail about the exact legal definition of what manslaughter by negligence is.
The only time that the jury would have had to leave if something prejudicial (or potentially prejudicial) to the trial would be being discussed.
Yep.
I don't agree. People have died, it is tragic. But the pilot is another human and deserves fair justice (and I don't know what that is in this case). If the interest of loved ones was the only concern, then perhaps the pilot would be locked up even if he didn't do anything wrong (I'm not speculating about what he did or didn't do). That's not justice.
You can't libel the deceased. You can get into a lot of trouble for doing so to the living. Personally it seems a very strange outcome but I wasn't privy to all the information so my opinion is bootless.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Surely the issue is if this impairment is possible when doing a loop then that should not be allowed where a possible crash can affect bystanders. The pilot is therefore not responsible as that would lay at the door of whoever made the rules for how these air displays are conducted
I assume from other comments that this has been addressed albeit too late for these poor individuals
I assume from other comments that this has been addressed albeit too late for these poor individuals
Weststander
Well-known member
Misunderstanding - I meant that I hope lawyers don’t protract matters, partly due to generating fee income. It happens in law.
nb - Now the criminal case is over, I don’t want to see a witch hunt of Andy Hill.
Mo Gosfield
Well-known member
- Aug 11, 2010
- 6,362
I have read what numerous aviation experts have said over the last three and a half years. I have read a detailed summary from the prosecution and I have read the defence statement which claims ' cognitive impairment ' and a pilot lacking any memory. The evidence of the defence suggests that this pilot was not in control of his aircraft.
The acquittal can only mean that those trusted with passing judgement decided that it was not the fault of the pilot that he was not in control of his aircraft.
If this hearing leaves no unanswered questions, then I am more than happy to stop speculating and drawing my own conclusions.
KLF
Albion Boleh!
I'm amazed. Assume there is not an equivalent of "death by dangerous driving"? If someone had caused 11 deaths in a car because of the way they drove surely they'd be serving time?
Oh I see. Indeed, lawyers aren't my favourite people.
Weststander
Well-known member
As generally agreed on NSC divorce threads, some thrive on protracted conflict, the £££ fuel pump flowing rather nicely.
I've not been on one of those, but that doesn't surprise me.
Personally I think we should leave the speculation and disection alone and instead remember the victims and their families. I well remember the day and the utter panic I had because my children were meant to be on that bit of road at the time. RIP all 11. Shit, I'm welling up just thinking about it.
And that, as Forest Gump would say, is all I have to say on the matter.
And that, as Forest Gump would say, is all I have to say on the matter.
Weststander
Well-known member
Same here, but I’ve worked with clients (not in law) who’ve shelled out astronomical sums.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Hopefully the families can move on now and have the memories of the ones they lost to comfort them rather than be concerned with all the legal arguments and trials etc
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I am reminded in this case of Gary Hart - not that one - who fell asleep at the wheel of his car, went down an embankment, onto a railway line and into the path of a train, which derailed, crashed into an oncoming train and killed 10 people. He was sentenced to five years in prison. This case seems similar in that both people were in charge of a vehicle/plane, both became 'impaired' which resulted in a crash and the death of many people. In Hart's case they decided that the impairment was his own fault (not enough sleep the night before) whereas they presumably don't believe was the case in the Shoreham aircrash.