Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Important story on the Shoreham disaster today - *update, petition to stop Andy Hill flying*



M

Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,284
Cognitive impairment?
I take this to mean unable to function properly due to excessive G Forces within the aircraft. I am no expert but assume these were caused by the manner in which he was flying the aircraft. Please tell me that I have missed something here.
 






Beach Hut

Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
71,971
Living In a Box
Mo Gosfield said:
Cognitive impairment?
I take this to mean unable to function properly due to excessive G Forces within the aircraft. I am no expert but assume these were caused by the manner in which he was flying the aircraft. Please tell me that I have missed something here.
Click to expand...

How can you try and make any conclusion if you have not heard all the evidence
 




Commander

Commander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 28, 2004
12,924
London
Gwylan said:
When I did jury service, the judge warned us not to listen to friends/relatives offering opinions on the cases we were trying as "as no-one could possibly comment unless they'd sat in court and heard every minute of evidence."

It's really, really good advice
Click to expand...

Indeed. Anyone who wasn't in court for the whole time is just speculating.
 




W

Worthing exile

New member
May 12, 2009
1,219
Mo Gosfield said:
Cognitive impairment?
I take this to mean unable to function properly due to excessive G Forces within the aircraft. I am no expert but assume these were caused by the manner in which he was flying the aircraft. Please tell me that I have missed something here.
Click to expand...

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


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,000
Withdean area
Inevitable, although painful for so many.

Impossible to achieve beyond reasonable doubt, once he spoke of blacking out, plus his chums piled in with good character and flying references. Who’s to know if he was lying?

The only good from this - no one will be allowed to pull those stunts, over the public, ever again in this country.
 


mikeyjh

mikeyjh

Well-known member
Dec 17, 2008
4,489
Llanymawddwy
I don't think there's too much denial over the pilot's errors. More that whatever he did, had been found not to cross a legal threshold. People make mistakes....

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
 




seagullwedgee

seagullwedgee

Well-known member
Aug 9, 2005
2,984
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. Strangely he managed to have enough cognitive function to eject and save himself.
 


AmexRuislip

AmexRuislip

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️
Feb 2, 2014
33,822
Ruislip
Mo Gosfield said:
Cognitive impairment?
I take this to mean unable to function properly due to excessive G Forces within the aircraft. I am no expert but assume these were caused by the manner in which he was flying the aircraft. Please tell me that I have missed something here.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but he may have allegedly done!!
 










F

Falmerfourtickets

Active member
Dec 14, 2010
215
seagullwedgee said:
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. Strangely he managed to have enough cognitive function to eject and save himself.
Click to expand...
He didn’t eject. Footage showed that.
 




Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
Oct 4, 2003
11,082
seagullwedgee said:
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. Strangely he managed to have enough cognitive function to eject and save himself.
Click to expand...

He didn't eject. He was still in the cockpit when the plane crashed and was then thrown clear of the wreckage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47173599
 


Beach Hut

Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
71,971
Living In a Box


Barham's tash

Barham's tash

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2013
3,615
Rayners Lane
Gwylan said:
When I did jury service, the judge warned us not to listen to friends/relatives offering opinions on the cases we were trying as "as no-one could possibly comment unless they'd sat in court and heard every minute of evidence."

It's really, really good advice
Click to expand...

Presumably when you do jury service you shouldn’t disclose the nature of the case you’re sitting on so any opinions are nothing other than conjecture?

As for this case justice has run its process and this is the outcome. Facts are facts right?

People may not like the decision but trial by jury is what it is. Judged by your peers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,798
Hove
Worthing exile said:
Guilt? he can't remember anything. remember?
Click to expand...

He may not remember, but he knows what the aircraft he was in charge of did.

Unless any of us were in the trial throughout, heard every bit of expert evidence and testimony, then we're only speculating on justice being served or not.
 




W

Worthing exile

New member
May 12, 2009
1,219
Bold Seagull said:
He may not remember, but he knows what the aircraft he was in charge of did.

Unless any of us were in the trial throughout, heard every bit of expert evidence and testimony, then we're only speculating on justice being served or not.
Click to expand...

I thought it was reported he couldn't even watch the video footage.
 


dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,479
Burgess Hill
Mo Gosfield said:
Having heard all the evidence from aviation experts, I have to say that that is a surprising decision. I would imagine that the many bereaved
will be more than disappointed.
Click to expand...

All of it ? Only way you'd have that is if you were on the jury - in which case I doubt you'd be posting.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here