Not Guilty

[#1]

The pilot of the plane that crashed at Shoreham and Killed people found NOT GUILTY of causing their deaths. WHOT ? If he had beend driving a car on the A27 and caused a serious accident due to his negligent handling of the vehicle he was driving,... he would be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving,.............. unless he could prove that the vehicle was faulty. However... in this case...... quote.... In 2017 a report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch also found the disaster was caused by pilot error after the plane was too slow and too low during a loop manoeuvre. unquote his "excuse" for the crash, was that he "blacked out" during the manouvre..... quote During the trial, Mr Hill had claimed he blacked out in the air, having experienced 'cognitive impairment' brought on by hypoxia possibly due to the effects of G-force. unquote

[#2]

It does seem odd on the face of it and I really do feel for the families involved. I wonder what if anything the jury knew that others did not and why they came out with such a verdict. More to the story methinks.

[#3]

He was cleared of "manslaughter by gross negligence" not of being involved in their tragic deaths.

[#4]

It does seem a odd verdict, was he charged with the wrong thing or was there insufficient evidence to prove manslaughter.

What I find odd is that this chap was not a average pilot, he was a expert pilot having flown a variety of planes and even taught other pilots so he must have been fully aware of the risks of blacking out ?

Such displays should always be held in costal resorts so any sort of acrobats are carried out over the sea and well away from any risk to the public.

[#5]

@dvorak That is very true. One thing I have learnt over the years is never listen to just one side of the argument i.e. as reported by the media. He was cleared of manslaughter etc...... but that doesn't mean to say the civil claims will go the same way. No doubt it will rumble on for quite a few years yet.

@gleneagles  I'd disagree with you when it comes to air displays. I live not that far from the Red Arrows home base and they do their practising all around this area, nigh on every day. Do I worry? Not one bit. The chances of them hitting me is quite low in the grand scheme of things. Banning this and that, is why we are with H&S in this country. Total overkill. And does it really make us really any safer. Why stop with air displays, let's ban all flying over cities, commercial jets as well. One is bound to come down, one day.  

[#6]

Wearing my pilot's hat and being familiar with the aircraft type I'm quite sure that the accident was the pilot's fault. The jury may have bought his dubious claim of "cognitive impairment brought on by hypoxia possibly due to the effects of G-force", but I think that is a load of nonsense.  He came so slowly over the top of the loop that he couldn't possibly pull enough G to risk greyout. 

In 2017 a report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch found the disaster was caused by pilot error after the plane was too slow and too low during the loop manoeuvre.

He has been found not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.  I suspect that the reason is the legal definition of "gross negligence".  

[#7]

Blacked out due to gravity... not at that speed he didn't. That was a big loop at a slow speed. No way did he black out.

Trouble is, it's his words against the prosecutions and as they can't prove to the contrary..

I heard years ago of someone getting off being prosecuted for a serious crash because they said they had a sneezing fit behind the wheel. Sounds ludicrous but I'm someone who sneezes multiple times in quick succession so it can happen - thankfully a quick pinch of the nose (quite frustrating) usually stops the sneeze from happening but I could see how it could legitimiately cause an accident - and yet sound like a cobblers excuse at the same time.

[#8]

Guilty or innocent (although tending towards the former m'self) you'd think the man would have some guts and just hold his hands up by pleading guilty or at the very least, offer no defence.

Spineless, and not sounding at all contrite or convincing on television earlier post acquittal.