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

[Pavilionaire]

So bottom line is he might have blacked out for a few seconds, long enough to mess up the key part of the manoeuvre but regaining consciousness just in time to save himself.

I'm sure people will make their own minds up about that.

 

[GT49er]

The jury has found him not guilty, and that's a fact. Can't argue with that.

Can have personal feelings though (not relevant in law, and carrying no weight whatsoever) and my feelings rather tend towards feeling he's got away with it (which technically I suppose he has, being found not guilty).
Wonder what Duckenfield's chances are now? I'm sure he wasn't cognitively aware that his actions would lead to people being killed either. An earlier poster hoped that the Hillsborough trial outcome wouldn't be announced on April 15th. (the 30th. anniversary). I sincerely hope the verdict isn't delivered on April 1st!

 

[Hungry Joe]

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

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.

 

[Gwylan]

So bottom line is he might have blacked out for a few seconds, long enough to mess up the key part of the manoeuvre but regaining consciousness just in time to save himself.

I'm sure people will make their own minds up about that.

As has been mentioned on this thread, he didn't eject to save himself.

Absolutely proving the relevance of what I wrote about people not commenting unless they've heard all the evidence

 

[Gritt23]

When I was on a Jury we had to leave Court for legal matters to be discussed.

As in, you get legal direction, you are told in more detail than the armchair juror what must and must not be proved, and how you must find the defendant according to certain aspects of the case.

 

[symyjym]

Genuinely shocked.

 

[Martlet]

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.

The criminal bar is high. If I remember right, Gary Hart had not slept properly for a long time, had been driving far too many hours, and was clearly reckless (if very unfortunate) in what happened.

For the Hill case to be successful, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the pilot's actions were criminally negligent, and that he had not suffered the cognitive impairment suggested by the defence. I wasn't in court - so this is pure speculation - but it seems likely that the jury concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence of his cognitive functions when the critical decisions were made.

Of course nothing takes away from the horror of events, and (to my mind) the rethinking that is needed around holding airshows above major population centres, roads etc.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Of course nothing takes away from the horror of events, and (to my mind) the rethinking that is needed around holding airshows above major population centres, roads etc.

I read the full health & safety report following the crash. There were several comments regarding the lesser controls used by the CAA in the UK as opposed to the FAA in the United States when managing air shows. I would imagine that many of the FAA controls will now be looked at more closely with a view to aligning.

 

[Pavilionaire]

As has been mentioned on this thread, he didn't eject to save himself.

Absolutely proving the relevance of what I wrote about people not commenting unless they've heard all the evidence

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.”

 

[Falmerfourtickets]

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.

Gary Hart had deprived himself of sleep as chatted on a dating site all night even though such things were in their infancy

For that reason alone he was culpable.

His insurer, Fortis, covered him for third party fire and theft just like they would you and me.

Fortis paid out in excess of £22m and were inadequately reinsured as were the retocessionaires.

Hart quite rightly went to prison.

 

[symyjym]

As has been mentioned on this thread, he didn't eject to save himself.

Absolutely proving the relevance of what I wrote about people not commenting unless they've heard all the evidence

What

When could he have ejected? When he failed to reach the minimum height for the manoeuvre? Or when he started the manoeuvre? Or just before the crash.

I don't think you have proved anything. Not that I have read your earlier position.

 

[perseus]

Adversarial over, now for the Inquisition

Coroner's Inquest to come.

I've sat on the jury for this one with an aircraft crash and fatality.

It has significance for safety at other air shows. Without a proper inquest there could be a demand for a Public Inquiry?!

 

[darkwolf666]

Does this mean he shouldn't fly any more? Will be interesting if he still does display work.

I would imagine it's a given he won't fly again, his defence was always unexplained cognitive impairment, so I'm guessing that would be sufficient to remove his licence.

 

[perseus]

It has significance for safety at other air shows. Without a proper inquest there could be a demand for a Public Inquiry?!

Legal aid for the relatives and surviving victims so they can ask questions at the Inquest

 

[Falmerfourtickets]

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

 

[Nixonator]

Strange one. Feel for the families involved, they must now be wondering who or what was culpable for this horrible incident if not the pilot.

 

[portlock seagull]

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?

Not if they'd blacked out at the wheel. The disaster is just that. A complete tragedy that happens in life, as preventable as we try to make things like this they will always occur. There but for the grace of god and all that, although it's completely normal and understandable people are angry and want to punish someone as part of their coming to terms with.

 

[Weststander]

The jury has found him not guilty, and that's a fact. Can't argue with that.

Can have personal feelings though (not relevant in law, and carrying no weight whatsoever) and my feelings rather tend towards feeling he's got away with it (which technically I suppose he has, being found not guilty).
Wonder what Duckenfield's chances are now? I'm sure he wasn't cognitively aware that his actions would lead to people being killed either. An earlier poster hoped that the Hillsborough trial outcome wouldn't be announced on April 15th. (the 30th. anniversary). I sincerely hope the verdict isn't delivered on April 1st!

I’ve assumed all along that Duckinfield and the SWFC official in overall charge of fans safety will get off the hook. Again, in criminal law, a huge burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Plus an armoury of defence grenades thrown in - just an innocent bystander, collective responsibility, failures by others, good character references, unknowing on the day, part the fault of the FA. A shame, but justice was already delivered with the inquest verdicts, and truth established by the independent commission, lies and corruption formerly laid bare.

 

[portlock seagull]

So bottom line is he might have blacked out for a few seconds, long enough to mess up the key part of the manoeuvre but regaining consciousness just in time to save himself.

I'm sure people will make their own minds up about that.

 

[portlock seagull]

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.”

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.