Shoreham air crash pilot at centre of 11 deaths claims he lost licence over bad publicity

Andrew Hill, a former RAF and British Airways pilot, said the Civil Aviation Authority took the decision to stop him flying based on public reaction to the Shoreham Airshow crash

The Shoreham disaster pilot claimed a decision to suspend his licence following the fatal fireball which killed 11 men was made to avoid bad publicity.

Former RAF and BA pilot Andrew Hill, 59, claimed the Civil Aviation Authority took the decision to stop him flying based on public reaction to the 2015 disaster, an appeal panel heard.

Hill was acquitted of manslaughter after the disaster, but the coroner found his errors and poor flying were the cause of death. Stephen Spence, representing the pilot, asked the CAA decision maker: “Had there been no fatalities, would the decision be the same?”

David McCorquodale from the CAA said: “Had there been no fatalities, the decision would have been the same.” Mr Spence asked him: “Adverse publicity was not a factor?”

Mr McCorquodale said his independent and objective decision was not made to avoid bad publicity. He said: "My decision was based on the facts presented to me and evidence I had sight of. Fatalities did not inform that decision.

The appeal panel heard the CAA no longer believed Mr Hill is a fit and proper person to hold a licence to fly and his licences should be revoked. The former BA pilot had flown 14,000 hours in commercial and military jets, the panel heard.

Experts from the Civil Aviation Authority said evidence gathered for their investigation showed Mr Hill had been grossly negligent and incompetent when his vintage jet crash landed in a fireball on a busy road near Shoreham airport.

Mr Hill is trying to have the suspension lifted on his private and commercial pilot licences. David McCorquodale said the CAA recommended Mr Hill’s licences be revoked after reviewing evidence from Shoreham.

He described Mr Hill’s attitude as cavalier and said to say the standard of his flying on the day was disappointing would be a gross understatement. He told the hearing: “The performance was so far short of competent for any display pilot, it made me consider there was something more profound going on.

“However, the evidence showed that was not the case. How was if a pilot could perform in this manner, missing every opportunity to perform an escape manoeuvre and not do so.

“It was grossly incompetent and negligent. It appears the training undertaken, lack of preparation, and technical knowledge of aircraft was so appallingly bad, I came to the conclusion it was incompetence, ignorance. I was no longer satisfied he was a fit and proper person to hold those licences.”

He said constant challenges and threats from Mr Hill showed his disregard for public safety and destroyed the CAA confidence he would continue to obey the rules.

He said: “The pilot challenged the coroner ruling and provisional suspicion of licence and threatened the CAA with legal review.” Grave and numerous errors showed a disregard for public safety, Mr McCorquodale said. Pilots are required to show physical and mental competence as well as flying skill, the panel heard. This meant showing good judgement and airmanship and recognition and management of threat and errors. David White, counsel for the CAA, said constant challenges from Mr Hill following the airshow disaster showed a lack of insight.

“Mr Hill says the sheer number of errors show external factors were acting on him. We say this is perverse. The evidence shows he was not cognitively impaired, he was flying the plane very badly by his own negligence. His actions and inactions had a significant impact on public safety. We say this shows his lack of insight.”

The hearing, in London, continues. A judgement is likely to be reserved for a later date.