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

The former RAF and British Airways pilot claimed the Civil Aviation Authority took the decision to stop him flying based on public reaction to the 2015 disaster, an appeal panel heard today.

Mr Hill is applying to have his licence reinstated nine years after the tragedy.

Stephen Spence, representing the pilot, asked the CAA decision maker: “Had there been no fatalities, would the decision be the same?”

At the panel hearing in London today, David McCorquodale from the CAA said his decision “would have been the same” regardless of fatalities or “adverse publicity”.

He added: “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 it a pilot could perform in this manner, missing every opportunity to perform an escape manoeuvre and not do so.

Mr Hill’s licence was revoked after his Hawker Hunter jet crashed onto the A27 killing 11 men on August 22, 2015. 

Mr Hill is attending a hearing in front of the Civil Aviation Authority at the International Dispute Resolution Centre today.

Caroline Schilt, the mother of Jacob, 23, who died in the disaster, said: “We are furious that he even wants his licence back and considering his defence at the trial it is sheer arrogance that he thinks he deserves it.”

Shoreham Airshow DisasterShoreham Airshow Disaster (Image: Martyn Valentine)

Mr Hill’s intention to do so was reported in December last year after it was revealed in the Discovery+ documentary Fatal Flight: Shoreham.

Mr McCorquodale said the crash was caused by “appallingly bad” training, preparation and technical knowledge, “incompetence” and “ignorance”.

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

He told the panel: “Mr Hill showed no remorse, admission of guilty or recognition of the events of that particular day.

“I expect a pilot to have a degree of empathy and make corrections accordingly. I see no evidence of that.”

Julie Smith who lost her son Richard Jonathan Smith, 26, in the disaster said: “The CAA have to have the confidence of the public.

“But there is enough evidence out there without thinking about bad publicity.

“The main thing for Mr Hill is he has never accepted any responsibility or shown any remorse to distance himself from what he has actually done.”

Former BA pilot Mr Hill 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 the busy road near Shoreham airport.

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 disaster showed a lack of insight.

He said: “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.”