Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have just seen that the pilot of the Hawker hunter which crashed at a British Airshow, has been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence. 11 people died when he failed to complete a loop. It looked as if he entered the loop at too low an altitude. Also charged with endangering an aeroplane..

 

All air displays now are conducted over the sea in Britain now according to Avweb. That must be a bit hard for people in places like Birmingham or even Duxford.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have just seen that the pilot of the Hawker hunter which crashed at a British Airshow, has been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence. 11 people died when he failed to complete a loop. It looked as if he entered the loop at too low an altitude. Also charged with endangering an aeroplane..All air displays now are conducted over the sea in Britain now according to Avweb. That must be a bit hard for people in places like Birmingham or even Duxford.

Surely that can’t be correct. Battle of Britain airshows, Shuttleworth Trust and as you say Duxford to mention but a few. If it is correct it is the Nanny State gone mad yet again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely that can’t be correct. Battle of Britain airshows, Shuttleworth Trust and as you say Duxford to mention but a few. If it is correct it is the Nanny State gone mad yet again.

He was charged with manslaughter, and as I recall was expected to receive a severe penalty for what he did. I'm not sure you can attach a location to it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he steer for the motorway to maximise his chances of pulling out of the loop once he realised he maybe in trouble

 

Poor fella didn’t intentionally go out and say I’m going to kill 11 people today

 

Just an error of judgment, I think if he crashed on the airfield and killed 11 no charges would have been laid as spectators are informed of the risks and usually enter at their own risk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did he steer for the motorway to maximise his chances of pulling out of the loop once he realised he maybe in troublePoor fella didn’t intentionally go out and say I’m going to kill 11 people todayJust an error of judgment, I think if he crashed on the airfield and killed 11 no charges would have been laid as spectators are informed of the risks and usually enter at their own risk

Manslaughter is usually handed out for more than an error of judgement, so it wille interesting to find out what he did.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He was charged with manslaughter, and as I recall was expected to receive a severe penalty for what he did. I'm not sure you can attach a location to it.

I’m not attaching a location to it. I’m querying whether the statement about all airshows having to be over the sea is correct. Incredible loss of airshows and venues if correct!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I go along with the rule that manoeuvres must be parallel with the crowd line and not over it, but to ban land based airshows is ridiculous. We all know there is an element of risk involved, as there is when we fly our own aeroplane or get into an airliner and hope that the pilots are having a good day or even when we get into our cars, which probably have the highest risk level of our activities.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poor fella didn’t intentionally go out and say I’m going to kill 11 people today

That why he is charged with manslaughter not murder.He allegedly entered the loop from a height he was not permitted to be at (lower than his authorised lowest level) at a speed well below what was required to commence the manoeuvre and when allegedly too low and slow at the top of the loop did not take his last chance to abort the manoeuvre by rolling out. It’s been said he was a very experienced ex RAF fast jet pilot, and current airline pilot. The following English law on one type of manslaughter may apply, the list of jobs could easily include pilot. From my reading, the more qualified and experienced you are, the more this applies to you.

 

Manslaughter by gross negligence

 

Under English law, where a person owes a duty of care (either by statute or by the neighbour principle[8]) and is negligent to such a degree that consequently the law regards it as a crime[9](namely the person has been grossly negligent) and that person causes the victim to die, she may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.[10] The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession.[11] In R v Bateman[12] the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:

 

  1. the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
     
     
     
  2. the defendant breached this duty;
     
     
     
  3. the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
     
     
     
  4. the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
     
     
     

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Death demands responsibility, someone has to pay for those 11 deaths, sadly humans make mistakes due ignorance or simply being incompentent/negligent. Can't imagine what those 11 families must still be going thru, RIP 11 innocent souls -:(

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The information re flying displays over water is either very new or very wrong. I closely follow happenings at Duxford on an almost daily basis through several sources (Duxford is Mecca to me). While there have been alot of changes to UK regulations regarding air displays with vintage aircraft since the 2014 Shoram Hunter accident, displays at Duxford (and many other land locked locations) continue. There has been changes to both the crowd line and to the display line at Duxford to comply with the new regulations. In reality the changes (which were in place for the “Flying Legends” show in 2017), while increasing safety margins, have had little impact on the airshow experience for spectators.

 

The final AAIB report on the Shoram accident is available online for those interested in the actual events. It will be interesting to see how this report is used in the court case against the pilot, as AAIB states clearly in the report that it’s investigation is not for the assignment of blame. If this report is used in court, it is not a stretch of the imagination that the AAIB may not get the level of cooperation it is used to from people Involved in accidents.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was predetermined that those 11 people would die even before their births. A bit way out there for many of you, but we're all here for a special purpose. This tragic event might have been for the pilot to learn some-thing from his present incarnation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said was that Avweb stated that airshows had to be over water. I didn't believe that was a true statement, just something said without putting brains into gear. From what I have seen of the footage of the accident, I would not argue against a manslaughter charge. It looked recklessly low to me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary Manslaughter

 

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion, but from

 

a) an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act, or

 

b) while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

 

Therefore, a person could be guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a result of a failing to apply all the relevant skills of a function for which they have been trained, e.g. leaving a split pin off an axle nut resulting in a landing gear wheel falling off and the result is an impact on landing resulting in a fatality.

 

A person could be guilty of involuntary manslaughter by doing something criminally trivial, e.g failing to secure a load of firewood on a truck, and a piece falls off, striking a motorcyclist who crashes and dies. (Lost a great mentor that way).

 

In New South Wales, the terms 'felony' and 'misdemeanor', which are Common Law distinctions, have been replaced by Statute Law definitions:

 

Felony is now "Serious indictable offence" means an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more.

 

Misdemeanor is now "Minor indictable offence" means an indictable offence that is not a serious indictable offence.

 

An indictable offence is an offence that carries the right to trial by jury. A jury trial is commenced by the presentation of an indictment, which outlines the charge arising from the alleged actions of the defendant. An indictment is produced after a magistrate sitting at a Committal Hearing has heard both Crown evidence and Defence rebuttal and the magistrate decides whether or not there a reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would convict the accused person of an indictable offence.

 

The average citizen would only ever appear in Court to deal with a Summary offence. These offences are usually dealt with by way of fine or terms of imprisonment less than 12 months.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was predetermined that those 11 people would die even before their births. A bit way out there for many of you, but we're all here for a special purpose. This tragic event might have been for the pilot to learn some-thing from his present incarnation.

So... 11 people have to die, for one pilot to learn something? Someone forgot to run a cost/benefit analysis over that one.

I have an alternative theory - sh*t just happens for absolutely no reason at all.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
That why he is charged with manslaughter not murder.He allegedly entered the loop from a height he was not permitted to be at (lower than his authorised lowest level) at a speed well below what was required to commence the manoeuvre and when allegedly too low and slow at the top of the loop did not take his last chance to abort the manoeuvre by rolling out. It’s been said he was a very experienced ex RAF fast jet pilot, and current airline pilot. The following English law on one type of manslaughter may apply, the list of jobs could easily include pilot. From my reading, the more qualified and experienced you are, the more this applies to you.

Manslaughter by gross negligence

 

Under English law, where a person owes a duty of care (either by statute or by the neighbour principle[8]) and is negligent to such a degree that consequently the law regards it as a crime[9](namely the person has been grossly negligent) and that person causes the victim to die, she may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.[10] The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession.[11] In R v Bateman[12] the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:

 

  1. the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
     
     
     
  2. the defendant breached this duty;
     
     
     
  3. the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
     
     
     
  4. the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
     
     
     

I think therefore that in almost every case where there is a death in a motor vehicle crash involving 2 or more vehicles, one of the parties is generally grossly negligent and should be charged with Manslaughter. This does happen but not as often as it should. Perhaps it is because car crashes are acceptable in the public eye and aircraft crashes are not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not afraid of dying because I am a Pastafarian - and in Pastafarian Heaven, there is a stripper factory and a beer volcano...

 

and in the good old U S of A, this religion is seen by some very knowledgeable persons as having as much credence as any other religion

 

it even has it's own legalised headdress - a colander - which can legally be worn during official guvment picture taking of individuals, e.g. passport and drivers licence

 

this religion is based on fact - since the reduction in the number of pirates (real pirates, peg-legged blokes with one eye and a parrot on their shoulder) there has been an increase in global warming = Fact !!!!!

 

in the Pastafarian Bible they show a graph with these two lines, one going up and one going down - it is irrefutable !!!

 

therefore, if we want to reduce global warming, we need to get more pirates - Pastafarians reckon that even talking like a pirate might help, so we do so at every opportunity

 

aarrgghhh me hearties !!!!!!!!!

 

and now I'm off to check the back yard for Easter Eggs !!!

 

Wish me luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people on the freeway did nothing wrong. They just happened to be there. For whatever reason there are a lot of crashes at Airshows where a valuable often irreplaceable aircraft is operated out of it's safe envelope frequently by people with service and airline backgrounds dare I say it. who may have had the skills once but operate unsafely, for whatever reason . It's absolutely fundamental to enter a loop at the right combination of height, speed and rate of pitch application. the roll off the top is the best and only way out of a misjudged or malfunction induced critical situation. Low level Aerobatics are not performed over crowds for good reasons.. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not afraid of dying because I am a Pastafarian - and in Pastafarian Heaven, there is a stripper factory and a beer volcano...and in the good old U S of A, this religion is seen by some very knowledgeable persons as having as much credence as any other religionit even has it's own legalised headdress - a colander - which can legally be worn during official guvment picture taking of individuals, e.g. passport and drivers licence

 

this religion is based on fact - since the reduction in the number of pirates (real pirates, peg-legged blokes with one eye and a parrot on their shoulder) there has been an increase in global warming = Fact !!!!!

 

in the Pastafarian Bible they show a graph with these two lines, one going up and one going down - it is irrefutable !!!

 

therefore, if we want to reduce global warming, we need to get more pirates - Pastafarians reckon that even talking like a pirate might help, so we do so at every opportunity

 

aarrgghhh me hearties !!!!!!!!!

 

and now I'm off to check the back yard for Easter Eggs !!!

 

Wish me luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with his noodley appendage.Ahoy and hoist the futtock-shrouds ye laggardly scum!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah Marty - how lovely to hear from another devotee...

 

avast ye scurvy dog, and may the stripper factory be working at maximum output when ye get to Heaven

 

aarrgghhh

 

BP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely that can’t be correct. Battle of Britain airshows, Shuttleworth Trust and as you say Duxford to mention but a few. If it is correct it is the Nanny State gone mad yet again.

As far as I understand it, there will be no displays at Shoreham in future, as the site has too much habitation around it. AFAIK There is no blanket ban on air displays at other sites in the UK, though other sites similar to Shoreham were being closely looked at from a safety angle.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think therefore that in almost every case where there is a death in a motor vehicle crash involving 2 or more vehicles, one of the parties is generally grossly negligent and should be charged with Manslaughter. This does happen but not as often as it should. Perhaps it is because car crashes are acceptable in the public eye and aircraft crashes are not.

Car crashes are no more acceptable than aircraft crashes, but the driver has to meet the criteria for culpable driving. It is also possible to be charged with murder, and one truck driver in NSW found out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think therefore that in almost every case where there is a death in a motor vehicle crash involving 2 or more vehicles, one of the parties is generally grossly negligent and should be charged with Manslaughter. This does happen but not as often as it should. Perhaps it is because car crashes are acceptable in the public eye and aircraft crashes are not.

It is only in very extreme cases that a motor vehicle collision would give rise to a charge of Manslaughter. Statute Law has been added to by the creation of the offence of "Culpable Driving" because it was found that juries would not come to a finding of guilt in manslaughter matters, probably because the standard of criminality in manslaughter is too high for what is often the result of human incompetence, not criminal intent.

This link, Dangerous driving and navigation explains the current law in NSW (and probably similar elsewhere), and the sentencing guidelines.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...