Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Plane crashes onto A27 at Shoreham Air Show

I was watching by the The Red Lion Inn with some mates and was taking photos as it happened, most of us haven't really spoken to each other about the day but seeing it being talked about again has brought back some memories. At the time it was a very surreal experience, viewing other people's view point of it and seeing the various footage.
This is one of the photos I shot.
IMG_0339.jpg
 
I was watching by the The Red Lion Inn with some mates and was taking photos as it happened, most of us haven't really spoken to each other about the day but seeing it being talked about again has brought back some memories. At the time it was a very surreal experience, viewing other people's view point of it and seeing the various footage.
This is one of the photos I shot.
View attachment 159085

I have a mate that lives near The Red Lion Inn & was there at the time, I also know a couple of people that were at the Sussex Pad, basically looking down on the crash scene.

Like you, we hadn't really spoken about it since I guess a day or two after, until now, because the memories have been brought back, it was surreal at the time, and it's surreal once again.
 
He's an arsehole for not pleading guilty, thus spareing people the truma

We need to be careful commenting about on-going court cases, he could in theory be innocent, although his history is not great.

Jurors were told Mr Hill was known to take risks, and a previous air show display had been halted due to his "dangerous" flying.

The defence argued Mr Hill had "responded professionally" and taken steps to avoid repeating the mistakes.

Show pilot 'did nothing' to avoid crash
 
The prosecution has finished presenting their case, the the pilot has taken the stand to defend himself, so I guess we are getting near to the end of the trail now.

Andrew Hill, the pilot whose plane crashed during the Shoreham airshow, killing 11 men, has dismissed claims that he ever had a “cavalier attitude” towards flying.

The jury previously heard of three incidents in 2014, a year before the vintage jet crash, when there were concerns about Hill’s flying. This included one of his displays that was halted with a stop call because he had performed a “dangerous manoeuvre”. But some witnesses since described him as “safety conscious” and an “absolutely gentleman”.

The court was told he had experienced “cognitive impairment” shortly before the crash and did not remember what happened. He was thrown from the burning plane and told medics he had blacked out while in the air after he was found with blood on his face lying in undergrowth beside the cockpit.
----
He had passed medical checks before the crash. Tests and scans carried out afterwards did not show any sign of a medical condition, including cognitive impairment, that could have affected his health leading up to the crash, the court heard.

Shoreham airshow crash pilot denies being 'cavalier' while flying
 
NOT GUILTY: Shoreham air crash pilot CLEARED of manslaughter

The pilot whose plane crashed during the Shoreham Airshow, killing 11 men, has been cleared of manslaughter.

Andrew Hill had been attempting a loop when his Hawker Hunter jet exploded into a fireball on the A27.

Survivors ran for their lives and suffered terrible burns when they were caught in the blast on August 22, 2015.

Mr Hill miraculously survived after being thrown clear from the burning wreckage into brambles.

He was flown to hospital with life-threatening injured and placed in an induced coma before being discharged a month later.


The prosecution said the former RAF and British Airways pilot had been flying too low and slow as he attempted the disastrous stunt.

Tom Kark QC alleged he had at times a "cavalier" attitude to safety and a history of taking risks, having played "fast and loose" with the rules in the past.

But Mr Hill claimed he blacked out in the air, having experienced "cognitive impairment" brought on by hypoxia possibly due to the effects of G-force.

The 54-year-old, of Sandon, Buntingford, Hertfordshire, denied 11 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence.


Shoreham airshow crash pilot cleared over deaths of 11 people
For a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence, the jury had to be satisfied that Hill’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission. Jurors were told that the case hinged on the question of whether the defendant was incapacitated in such as way that he was not in control of the aircraft.

I wasn't expecting this, really thought he would of been found guilty.
 
Last edited:
The risk of hypoxia is one of many reasons why there's a minimum altitude for maneuvers like the one he was attempting. If he was below that height when he started his loop then he's responsible for the crash and the fatalities IMO.
 
The risk of hypoxia is one of many reasons why there's a minimum altitude for maneuvers like the one he was attempting. If he was below that height when he started his loop then he's responsible for the crash and the fatalities IMO.

The jury however, having heard all the evidence, disagreed with you.

I've just seen, on the BBC news broadcast, a reporter being subjected to the level of G force that would have been experienced during the manoeuvre, the reporter was trying to recite a nursery rhyme, he couldn't, and also blacked out for a few seconds.

I think this spells the end for at least land based air shows. Farnborough is having no display this year.

A truly tragic accident. :(
 
Last edited:
The risk of hypoxia is one of many reasons why there's a minimum altitude for maneuvers like the one he was attempting. If he was below that height when he started his loop then he's responsible for the crash and the fatalities IMO.
Plus he'd tanked up on free display Jet A1 so the performance of the Hunter would be sub optimal.


Surprised they didn't put up a rebuttal witness about the training as well
 
So pilot who calls himself careful but has previous cautions for rule breaches breaks rules again people die and its an accident because, he says he didn't have training in something that it is part of RAF training.



Prosecution could have been better
 
So pilot who calls himself careful but has previous cautions for rule breaches breaks rules again people die and its an accident because, he says he didn't have training in something that it is part of RAF training.



Prosecution could have been better

Often could.
 
40 hours flying time in that jet over 4 years so maybe 4 flights a year and he thought that was adequate time to be a display pilot? truly skygod's can have no faults nobody defending him on the pprune the pilot's board basically they are claiming his defense blinded the jury with jargon they are having none of it entered the flight too low and too slow.
 
Sorry, I'm in a bad mood regarding something else entirely, I wasn't questioning your competence as a pilot. Apologies.

I'm not a competent pilot, haven't flown in many years. But anyone who is allowed to control an aircraft will have had basic shit like 'if you do maneuver x below altitude y and speed z you will die' drilled into them. There's a reason the reporting referred to the 'cardinal sin' of ignoring y and z.
 
So pilot who calls himself careful but has previous cautions for rule breaches breaks rules again people die and its an accident because, he says he didn't have training in something that it is part of RAF training.



Prosecution could have been better

Perhaps, but even the most comprehensive, compelling and detailed account of what happened would still have to get past a jury.
 
I've been down the hospital most of the day, and heard this on the radio coming home.

I am not that surprised TBH, the defence made a big thing about his 'cognitive impairment', to introduce enough doubt in the minds of the jury, to not be able to convict on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
 
I've been down the hospital most of the day, and heard this on the radio coming home.

I am not that surprised TBH, the defence made a big thing about his 'cognitive impairment', to introduce enough doubt in the minds of the jury, to not be able to convict on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Does seem a bit of an odd angle to base the defense on, but a good one and one that worked. I mean, it's so ambiguous, how the fuck do you prove he wasn't cognitively impaired at the time?

Still doesn't mean it's acceptable to do loop the loops in 60 year old aircraft above dual carriageways.
 
I'm a trained pilot.
Shut up you fucking bellend. Whatever half arsed training you've had qualifies you to talk about this as much as my 50 meters badge from school qualifies me to talk about deep sea diving. Each jury member will be far brighter than you, will have seen and heard evidence that you have not, and they cleared him. Mr "I'm a trained pilot", my arse. That's right up there with "do you know who I am?" :facepalm: :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom