Do you think the Shoreham Airshow disaster pilot should ever be allowed to fly again after killing 11 people in 2015?

[-]

Familiar-Ad-4474@reddit

A bit late in the day but this contributor's quote says it all:- "We had to create the offences of death by dangerous/careless driving because juries wouldn't convict obvious manslaughter cases." He did commit that offence, as well as driving without insurance, MOT and a vehicle not subjected to an IVA/SVA test ! Far fetched, I think not ? Flying boat skippers had to have a sea-going watch keeping certificate ! If you want to show off in an aircraft, do it in a modern one,; it looks the same, If you want to fly vintage aircraft, why risk the hours of energy spent in their reconstruction ? So sad !

Reply

[-]

Late_Catch_2885@reddit

absolutely not, he looks and waives off an apology to the people he murdered ..as he showed off his hopeless ability to fly, God whtr was he like in Brit Airways, He is an arrogant little prick and should be made to pay all those he killed

Reply

[-]

Next-Reward-3025@reddit

SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS, ANDREW HILL KILLED 11 INNOCENT PEOPLE WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN LEFT DEVASTED FOR ETERNITY AND HE HAS THE AUDACITY TO REAPPLY FOR HIS LICENSE BACK ...NO WORDS, WHAT A TOTAL NARCISSISTIC CUN\*!

Reply

[-]

hdhxuxufxufufiffif@reddit

I want sure of the details so I checked and he was found not guilty of manslaughter but, from the wikipedia page: >In December 2022, the coroner found that the victims were unlawfully killed as their deaths were caused by an incorrect manoeuvre and a series of gross errors. I think it's fair enough that he never flies again. I also think that it should be fairly routine to ban people who have displayed gross negligence behind the wheel of a car from driving for life.

Reply

[-]

Fried_onions_are_meh@reddit (OP)

I was shocked and dismayed the jury at The Old Bailey found him not guilty on all counts. I was thinking he'd get 15 years imprisonment so with good behaviour he'd be out in half that time. People lost their partners, children lost their fathers, parents lost their sons due to his mistakes. Also a further 16 people were injured, some receiving life changing burns. I was at the exact junction about 20 minutes before the crash. I was going to stop at Chichester for a Big Mac but decided to wait until I got to Arundel before going to Littlehampton to meet some friends. IMO he has never shown any remorse, nor a public apology which must make the families even more upset. Him now trying to get his licence back is despicable in my book.

Reply

[-]

PigHillJimster@reddit

The thing is you have that phrase "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and Juries sit through the whole court proceeding hearing all the evidence from the Witnesses, whereas the media only report the highlights in the evening. As you see in dramas, beyond a reasonable doubt, could mean that Jury members who are 80% sure of someone's guilt, but there's that 20% of doubt/what-if in their heads, then if they are logically minded would fall back on "not guilty" because the Crown hasn't met the "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" threshold. Jurors who are more emotionally minded, and don't think logically in black and white, well, who knows? Perhaps if we followed the Scottish example and had a third "Not Proven" verdict it might shake things up?

Reply

[-]

Dimac99@reddit

The last thing you want is to bring in Not Proven. It's horrific that it still exists in Scotland. It's exactly the same as Not Guilty so it's pointless, functionally, but many people, which includes many jurors, think (or feel) that it means "we think you're guilty but can't prove it". People who have had a Not Proven verdict returned have to live with that incorrect implication for the rest of their lives.

Reply

[-]

PigHillJimster@reddit

I don't think of it like that. I'm an Engineer and think in a Scientific manner. To me, not proven means that there's not enough evidence either way to say something is so, or something is not so. I would want to see Physical Evidence and Forensic Evidence. If the majority of evidence was circumstantial, and there wasn't any other primary evidence. I understand the "chain of reasoning" but in my mind, I can't honestly back circumstantial evidence up with other circumstantial evidence.

Reply

[-]

Dimac99@reddit

It doesn't matter what any individual thinks Not Proven means, it matters how it functions legally and on a practical level it matters how society views it. And while someone who is found Not Proven in a murder case is legally not guilty, Scottish society as a whole has mistakenly taken Not Proven to mean the court thinks they are guilty of murder but can't prove it. That is obviously a problem. The Not Proven verdict needs to be abolished, not expanded so it can ruin more lives.

Reply

[-]

6597james@reddit

80% is way too low for a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. Most commentators equate it to being 98 or 99% sure

Reply

[-]

Honest-Lunch870@reddit

95% CI surely?

Reply

[-]

6597james@reddit

I think that’s too low. Beyond reasonable doubt basically means you must be “sure” about it. I personally wouldn’t say I was sure about something if I thought there was a 1/20 chance I’m wrong

Reply

[-]

PigHillJimster@reddit

Yeah, that's my point. The people on the Jury are thinking well I'm 80% sure but not 99% sure, so I have to say "Not Guilty". What made me laugh was a few years ago when that politician's wife was on trial for saying she was speeding when it was him, and the first jury said they didn't understand what "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" meant. The Judge ridiculed them but I thought good on them for asking. On the Engineering drawings I create I add the phrase "If In Doubt Ask" in the title block for a reason!

Reply

[-]

6597james@reddit

Yea, sorry, I was agreeing with you not contradicting what you said. I also agree with you - better the jury asks exactly what the standard means than make the decision without knowing

Reply

[-]

dvb70@reddit

I would guess showing remorse or making a public apology indicates accepting some culpability for what happened and it seems clear he accepts no responsibility. Even if you were completely innocent of any responsibility I think the normal reaction to knowing you were linked to this number of deaths would be to never do that activity again. Honestly the fact they are trying to get their licence back makes me think they are a sociopath.

Reply

[-]

Ohd34ryme@reddit

Have you ever flown before?

Reply

[-]

Vladimir_Chrootin@reddit

There is nobody in this thread who has experience flying as a display pilot in a Hawker Hunter, and that includes you.

Reply

[-]

Ohd34ryme@reddit

Yeah well spotted? I imagine that even after a horrible incident if I'd flown for years and years no longer being able to do so would probably be crushing. I can see why he'd try and get his licence back.

Reply

[-]

Dry-Post8230@reddit

I agree he should never fly again, and he should have served a custodial sentence. He did, however read every victims name out and apologise outside the court immediately after the trial, what he did was beyond reckless, I'm sure I read at the time, that he was known for reckless flight, but he can never be allowed access to an aircraft again.

Reply

[-]

Final_Flounder9849@reddit

Serving a sentence, custodial or otherwise, would have meant that the jury found him guilty. They unanimously found him not guilty of all charges that they were tasked with deciding on. They did this after listening to all of the evidence presented in court and after receiving guidance on the law from the judge. That they took seven hours to deliberate and that they reached a unanimous decision on all charges means that they did their job. The outcome might not have been one you like, hell it might not even have been one the jury liked, but it clearly stood up under law and frankly that’s what’s important in a jury verdict. If the law didn’t allow a different verdict then the case wasn’t perhaps strong enough or the law itself needs reassessing but it’s the juries job to determine guilt or innocence under the law based on the evidence in front of them and they did their job.

Reply

[-]

Stock-Yogurtcloset35@reddit

Imagine if you could get 15 years for fucking up at your work

Reply

[-]

HermitBee@reddit

Imagine if you could kill 11 people by fucking up at your work.

Reply

[-]

Mumique@reddit

Not only did a that fair but it needs to happen more. A lot of people do terrible harm with no real repercussions under the guise of business.

Reply

[-]

Radiatorwhiteonwall@reddit

If a lorry driver decides to go the wrong way down a road and kills 16 people yes they should go to prison, just like this idiot who decided to do a dangerous manoeuvre in a jet over a public road should

Reply

[-]

Stock-Yogurtcloset35@reddit

Well he was found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, and 15y is ridiculous anyway since it doesn’t serve any purpose - the law isn’t fit revenge

Reply

[-]

mand658@reddit

If you're fuck up kills people then...

Reply

[-]

turbotcharger@reddit

Imagine going to one of your closest friend’s funeral with his wife and young kids because someone was negligent at work. Guess they should have HR put them on a performance improvement plan.

Reply

[-]

PaulJCDR@reddit

The jury found him not guilty because the prosecution did not prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. The jury don't just make stuff up. They are given very clear directions by the judge in how to interpret the evidence and come to conclusions.

Reply

[-]

Estrellathestarfish@reddit

It seems like there's something backwards about the criminal trial taking place so long before yhd inquest was completed. There may well be things that came to light during the inquest that weren't available to the jury.

Reply

[-]

Final_Flounder9849@reddit

The inquest cannot take place until police investigations have concluded. The inquest started in 2015 I believe but was impacted by Covid.

Reply

[-]

AliensFuckedMyCat@reddit

>I also think that it should be fairly routine to ban people who have displayed gross negligence behind the wheel of a car from driving for life. That'd be great, but good luck getting the courts to agree.

Reply

[-]

369_Clive@reddit

Definitely not. The man has never adequately explained (memory issues according to him) what occurred leading to the deaths of so many innocent people - those who weren't even *at the airshow*. So if he can't explain what occurred then there's no reason to think he won't do it again. Pursuing activities that are high-risk to others (not just oneself) is not a privilege; it's a right. He's lost that right. Contrition and shame is what is required from him; not fighting to have his mild "punishment" reversed.

Reply

[-]

pinkthreadedwrist@reddit

*Memory issues*? That alone should disqualify someone from a pilot license.

Reply

[-]

369_Clive@reddit

He said that after he'd crashed the plane he couldn't remember anything from before the crash til when he woke up in hospital - or something along those lines. I suspect he says his memory is perfectly fine *now*, lol. I think to most people it's obvious that he simply got the start height of his loop wrong; he made a fundamental mistake / error of judgement which he doesn't want to admit to because then he'll be liable. That's the thing with a full loop; it's dangerous b/c once you're past the halfway point of the descent you cannot correct it if it's wrong and *will* hit the ground. Which is why hardly anyone is allowed to do it. The man must have no shame?

Reply

[-]

Fried_onions_are_meh@reddit (OP)

Well said: I agree 100%

Reply

[-]

369_Clive@reddit

Honestly, if there was a an online petition asking for the perpetrator of this killing to be formally banned from flying (all & any kind of plane) then I'd sign it. Wouldn't be the only one I'm sure. He did something terrible but hasn't suffered. Where is the justice one might reasonably ask.

Reply

[-]

macleod2024@reddit

No he shouldn’t. This wasn’t a fault with the plane or a one off mistake. I believe it has been revealed in a subsequent hearing that he had a habit of very low passes and had made similar errors of judgement in other displays. Also, although “people” tend not to be the best source of info, he was apparently known for having a terrible attitude because he was formerly a Harrier pilot. The fact he still doesn’t accept full responsibility for the accident and blames g-forces rather than accept he made an error pulling into the manoeuvre too low and slow shows that at the very least he should not have a display licence again.

Reply

[-]

mitchanium@reddit

Stripping rights and privileges on a not guilty charge feels punitive. However Insuring future flying jaunts on the back of this avoidable accident though, he will never be asked to publicly fly for anyone again again, and he certainly won't be lent a classic plane to fly on their behalf either. His public flying display flying days are over I reckon/hope.

Reply

[-]

HermitBee@reddit

>Stripping rights and privileges on a not guilty charge feels punitive from a criminal charge perspective. I know what you mean, but the right to pilot a plane shouldn't depend on whether you're a criminal or not - it should depend on your ability to safely fly a plane. It seems there's more than enough evidence to say he shouldn't be trusted to fly again.

Reply

[-]

spectrumero@reddit

On the other hand, boring holes in the sky mostly straight and level in a Cessna 172 is very different to low level aerobatics in a fast jet. It's easy to argue he shouldn't be trusted to fly low level aerobatics again, but that's a radically different kind of flying to the former type. If he's not been convicted, and he can pass a skills test and the exams, the CAA can't really tell him no. It's on his conscience whether he wants to.

Reply

[-]

HermitBee@reddit

[The coroner's report](https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/18404/shoreham_facts_conclusions.pdf) suggests that this pilot was incapable of determining his altitude, had a poor idea of what his airspeed was, and ignored all of his contingency plans in the event of things going wrong. I don't think someone with such a cavalier attitude should be flying Cessnas. >If he's not been convicted, and he can pass a skills test and the exams, the CAA can't really tell him no. It's on his conscience whether he wants to. That may be the legal situation, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Reply

[-]

spectrumero@reddit

There's enough evidence to argue that Mr. Hill as he was in the year 2015 shouldn't fly again, but Mr. Hill as he is in 2024 may be a changed person with regard his attitude to flying. This pilot *was* incapable of determining his altitude in a low level aerobatic manoevre, perhaps he is now capable of determining his altitude in a more benign environment in a single engine piston. Apparently he is up before a two day hearing in front of the CAA, an organisation that is famously swift to chide and slow to bless, so I strongly suspect Mr. Hill is going to be disappointed.

Reply

[-]

HermitBee@reddit

>There's enough evidence to argue that Mr. Hill as he was in the year 2015 shouldn't fly again, but Mr. Hill as he is in 2024 may be a changed person with regard his attitude to flying. I think that even if that was objectively true, there is nothing which would convince me of its truth to a high enough degree to make it worth the risk of granting him a licence. I see basically no downsides to never letting him fly again.

Reply

[-]

mitchanium@reddit

Absolutely agree. The CAA folk will be better prepared to answer that aspect of things tbh. CAA rules really ain't my forte tbh, but it would make sense to revoke something cos of this.

Reply

[-]

FireLadcouk@reddit

In some ways he may be the safest pilot out there now.

Reply

[-]

turdschmoker@reddit

Don't really care

Reply

[-]

bonzog@reddit

His legal defence at the earlier trial and inquest seemed to revolve around some sort of "cognitive impairment". I think he perhaps shouldn't have his licence returned until medically cleared of said mystery impairment. That might take a very long time.

Reply

[-]

60022151@reddit

I’m from the area and remember when it happened. My house in the flight path of Shoreham airport’s runway, and the tragedy is so sad. The airshow was always a signal of the start of the new school year growing up… Personally, I believe he shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit from his flights, or take any passengers. If he were to fly again he should only be allowed to fly over non-populated areas.

Reply

[-]

Iamaveryhappyperson6@reddit

Fuck no, he should be counting his lucky stars he isn’t going to be in prison for the rest of his life. If I had done something stupid that killed 11 people I would try and show an ounce of regret and not apply to do that thing that caused those people to die. He should never be allowed to fly again.

Reply

[-]

humunculus43@reddit

A friend of a friend was one of the fatalities. People lost their children, husbands, wives, parents etc - if he can’t pay the small penalty of not flying again then it’s a great injustice given what those families lost as a result of his incompetence

Reply

[-]

sjw_7@reddit

No. When he tried the manoeuvre he was too low and not going fast enough. He was found not guilty in a criminal trial but the coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing and said that his flying was exceptionally bad. If he had not tried that manoeuvre the way he did that day then those eleven people wouldn't have died. Out of respect for them he should not try to start doing his hobby again and let other people do the flying.

Reply

[-]

superjambi@reddit

I don’t understand how he can personally be at fault for flying badly and making mistakes but not guilty of accidental manslaughter? 11 fucking people he killed!

Reply

[-]

SavlonWorshipper@reddit

By some quirk of psychology, people really don't like finding others guilty of unlawful killing if it wasn't deliberate. We had to create the offences of death by dangerous/careless driving because juries wouldn't convict obvious manslaughter cases. It's a problem the world over. Check out disaster summary videos on YouTube. There are thousands of them. It is very rare that anyone does significant time or even gets found guilty for their actions even where they are psychopathically negligent. Overall, juries are crap. It isn't hard to see why. Think of the smart people you know. Genuinely smart. Not that many, are there? Then take out the Doctors, vets, nurses, lawyers, police, and other professionals that can be exempt from jury duty... yeah, not many smart people left, are there? So the jury pool is made up of average people and a load of idiots, up against lawyers who just have to carve out a reasonable doubt... juries are a cruel fucking joke.

Reply

[-]

spectrumero@reddit

For driving especially, nearly all the jurors will also be drivers and there will be a feeling "there but for the grace of God go I" - many of the jurors may have made similar errors to the driver who ended up in the dock, but through pure luck got away with it. They don't like to think of themselves as grossly negligent (even if they were) so when they see a similar error made by someone else that just happened to end badly, they would experience severe cognitive dissonance to condemn them.

Reply

[-]

Prince_John@reddit

Gross negligence manslaughter. It's not just "whoops I had an accident and people died therefore guilty". https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/gross-negligence-manslaughter >In order to prove the offence, the prosecution must therefore establish the following elements: >a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased; >b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased; >c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; and >d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime; I don't know the details of the trial, but any one of these points not being proved beyond reasonable doubt is enough to lead to an acquittal.

Reply

[-]

superjambi@reddit

Thanks very much, this does make more sense.

Reply

[-]

superjambi@reddit

Thanks very much, this does make more sense.

Reply

[-]

MegaMolehill@reddit

Reminds me of the Selby rail crash and he was only banned for driving for five years which seemed too short.

Reply

[-]

spectrumero@reddit

That guy also claimed it was everyone else's fault except his.

Reply

[-]

Blackkers@reddit

I was also there. My father was about 100 meters away from the impact and had to send his photos into the investigation. He should never fly again.

Reply

[-]

Powerful_Housing7035@reddit

Let the due fly! Accidents happen c'mon

Reply

[-]

Round_North_1971@reddit

I witnessed the plane crash and knew someone who lost their life in it. I hope this man never flies again, its the least he deserves.

Reply

[-]

lankymjc@reddit

What the victims’ families want doesn’t matter. Thats not how justice works. If he’s been found grossly negligent then he should lose his licence. If he can prove that he’s measurably improved and is able to meet the standards for flying safely, he should have it back. Thats how justice is supposed to work - make people better rather than just punishing them.

Reply

[-]

LightningGeek@reddit

Shouldn't be allowed it back and should have been banned from display flying long ago. It's one thing to fly in a spirited manner, but it's another to do so by ignoring well established limits on the airframe you are in. I've been taken on a couple of aerobatic flights in my time, in both powered and non-powered aircraft, and it is a perfectly safe activity. As long as you fly by the numbers. As soon as you don't, you are putting yourself, your aircraft, and potentially people on the ground, at a huge risk. On top of that, I know a few people in the Hunter and classic aviation world, and it has decimated vintage jet flying in the UK. Traditional displays are no longer possible, and the CAA has massively cracked down on what can and cannot be done to modernise the aircraft. It's at the point that they cannot even be serviced in the UK anymore because they're not allowed to fly out of the country after needed upgrades.

Reply

[-]

Wrasse22@reddit

Dangerous maneuvers over the crowd and a busy junction, he should've been put away for life

Reply

[-]

LightningGeek@reddit

It wasn't a dangerous manoeuvre. Loops are perfectly safe to fly as long as the aircraft is rated for it. He was negligent in how he flew the loop, by being too low and slow to carry it out safely, but that doesn't mean the manoeuvre is inherently unsafe.

Reply

[-]

Meet-me-behind-bins@reddit

Every pilot I’ve spoken to says the guy was a classic ‘ego’ pilot, thought he was hot stuff. Good pilots are very self reflective about their skill sets and what they’re capable of doing. Bad and dangerous pilots get away with it, until they don’t. The guy was dangerous. A jury of Pilots would have convicted, a jury of non-specialists didn’t. The prosecution couldn’t get it over the line. It is what it is.

Reply

[-]

ARobertNotABob@reddit

I think it should be permitted, but only single prop, and no public show participation.

Reply

[-]

trenchgun91@reddit

The licensing organisation's job isn't to dispense justice, it's to maintain safety standards, if he can prove himself a safe pilot to them then he should get the license to be honest. Morally all sorts of fucked up but he isn't guilty of any crime, so the (criminal) courts rightly have nothing to do with this. In the same way someone who lost their license to drive can get it back, I don't see why he shouldn't have that possibility if he passes all their requirements.

Reply

[-]

_TomDavis_@reddit

If it's true that he's never shown remorse, never admitted fault and relied on a convenient memory loss then he hasn't learned anything from the incident and is therefore not safe to fly, certainly not for public displays or aerobatic manoeuvres. That is one reason we have licensing requirements separate from a person's criminal record. He should certainly have the possibility to apply to get his license back but the CAA should be able to decide if he's a fit and proper person for the privilege without relying purely on the outcome of a criminal court case which has to operate to a higher burden of proof to secure a conviction. All sorts of idiots get to keep their driving license that probably shouldn't, but that's a different problem.

Reply

[-]

trenchgun91@reddit

Yeah... This is what will happen isn't it? CAA will decide if he is safe, I don't particularly think there is anything wrong with that arrangement in of itself. He could get off criminally as he has, but still get rejected by CAA. CAA are not bound by the criminal case and do not rely on it's outcome.

Reply

[-]

_TomDavis_@reddit

Fair enough. I thought you were leaning towards the idea that he can get his license back regardless of how morally fucked up his actions are, whereas I'd say morality can and should come into the CAA's decision without it being a punishment.

Reply

[-]

Careless_Waltz_9802@reddit

If you read about the specifics of the manoeuvre he tried to perform, and accounts from professionals explaining why he shouldn’t have done it the way he did, then he should absolutely never fly again. Putting lives at risk to make himself look cool, knowing that he has an ejector seat is just disgusting behaviour.

Reply

[-]

CamVPro@reddit

As someone involved in UK General Aviation, he attempted the manoeuvre too low. This has killed so many air show pilots over the years he should've known better. There's a reason the rules are so strict around air shows now. Happened a few years earlier with Brian Brown too, luckily no one else involved in that one. It was gross negligence

Reply

[-]

saladinzero@reddit

People usually receive no jail time when they're found not guilty...

Reply

[-]

H0vit0@reddit

Accidents happen. It's indisputable he was the one flying. And if your accident causes the death of ELEVEN people and traumatises countless others I don't think it's unreasonable that you're not allowed to do what caused the accident. Furthermore, why the heaven would you want to do it?

Reply

[-]

Fried_onions_are_meh@reddit (OP)

The evidence points to the crash was caused by pilot error alone [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015\_Shoreham\_Airshow\_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Shoreham_Airshow_crash) and it is so insulting to all arrogant Hill's victims to demand he gets his license back.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

You seem to be quite ... invested in this. I'm not sure why you think someone feeling insult should be a reason that feeds into a decision on a pilot's license application. It's worth noting that, while the coroner did make a finding of unlawful killing, he didn't solely blame Hill, describing the safety plan for the show as not fit for purpose. The AAIB investigation also made a number of criticisms about how airshows are organised and the rules surrounding low flight at them.

Reply

[-]

Fried_onions_are_meh@reddit (OP)

Happy cake day!

Reply

[-]

Final_Flounder9849@reddit

It doesn’t. The findings of both the AAIB and inquest suggest that the blame lies both with the pilot and with the organisers of the airshow. What isn’t in question is the commentary on Hill’s general cavalier attitude to flying safety however. I don’t feel he should have his licence restored.

Reply

[-]

H0vit0@reddit

I genuinely can't understand why he would even want to fly again. I wouldn't even be able to get on a plane

Reply

[-]

6597james@reddit

I’m not familiar with the case but if it actually is an “accident” and he wasn’t culpable why should he not be allowed to fly again?

Reply

[-]

Darthjord28@reddit

He started the loop too low and too slow, so the apex of the loop shouldve been a lot higher for him to be able to pull out of it safely, normally if this happens, the pilot would roll out at the top if they didn't reach high enough altitude. He's experienced enough to have done this, totally avoidable.

Reply

[-]

Antique_Put_4083@reddit

Is he actually trying to? This just reads like a hypothetical unless I’m missing something

Reply

[-]

saladinzero@reddit

I don't disagree, but op specifically mentioned the guy going to jail, but we don't jail people who are found not guilty by a court.

Reply

[-]

H0vit0@reddit

Not being able to fly is not the same as going to jail. This isn't the same as debating the not guilty verdict. He killed 11 people in an accident where he was the pilot. He should not fly again regardless of the verdict. Obviously this example is not to scale and nowhere near as impactful but my insomniac brain is shutting down, but I manage restaurants and bars for a living. If I had a chef that was *constantly* overcooking steaks they would not be allowed to be on the grill anymore.

Reply

[-]

saladinzero@reddit

I didn't say not being able to fly is not the same as going to jail, though.

Reply

[-]

H0vit0@reddit

You said "but op specifically mentioned the guy going to jail, but we don't jail people who are found not guilty by a court" but I'm belabouring the point? Ok. Have a good day

Reply

[-]

saladinzero@reddit

I also said "I don't disagree"...

Reply

[-]

H0vit0@reddit

Exactly. That's all you needed to say. But I am the one belabouring the point? Again, have a good day.

Reply

[-]

saladinzero@reddit

But I did say it, three comments ago...

Reply

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

They deleted their comments, so I'm guessing they have regrets.

Reply

[-]

H0vit0@reddit

Oh for fucks sake mate.

Reply

[-]

Mean-Summer4155@reddit

He got off because he was an old RAF guy and so was the judge

Reply

[-]

TheFlyingHornet1881@reddit

It was a jury who found him not guilty

Reply

[-]

chainedtomato@reddit

This fucker should be locked up for life, absolute cretin

Reply

[-]

PigHillJimster@reddit

Applying to get his license back, and actually getting his license back are two different things. It would be a brave panel, I suspect, that would give him his license back.

Reply

[-]

gremlin-with-issues@reddit

Wait this happened 5 miles from where I lived, how the fuck is this the first time I’ve heard of this

Reply

[-]

Gullflyinghigh@reddit

No, that he got away with it is something that'll annoy me forever. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I've some bias towards it as I live close enough to have heard the sirens well into the night on the actual day (and for some after), not something easily forgotten, but if it was a different pilot then it wouldn't have happened.

Reply

[-]

Pebbley@reddit

The question is, would you fly with him.

Reply

[-]

FokRemainFokTheRight@reddit

The fact he survived was a miracle

Reply

[-]

Pebbley@reddit

Sadly, not for the innocent people on the ground.

Reply

[-]

LAUKThrowAway11@reddit

I don't see why he should be banned forever from taking Sunday flights in a cessna between local airports. Of course he should never fly at airshows again, and no airshow organiser would ever allow him to do so.

Reply

[-]

ubiquitous_uk@reddit

He can try all he wants, but I very much doubt the licensing agency would allow him to.

Reply

[-]

Nuo_Vibro@reddit

I mean, people drive after car crashes........

Reply

[-]

I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS@reddit

It's worth remembering that the CAA's job here is to ensure safety, not to serve punishment. If they believe that he is now a safe pilot, they are within their rights to re-issue his licence. They *could* only give him a private licence, stopping him from flying for hire or reward, or they could issue restrictions to stop him carrying passengers, for example. But, while I do sympathise (and probably agree tbh) with the bereaved families, it is not within the remit of the CAA to cast moral or righteous judgements.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

107 Comments