But that fateful flight ended it all. Motor racing lost arguably its greatest ambassador – and a troubled 15-year-old kid lost his dad before he’d really worked out who either of them were. “There’s no answer,” he says about the accident. “The inquest didn’t definitively answer everything – could offer only theories. This guy Jan Bartelski wrote a book about unexplained air crashes. In the chapter on dad he goes into a lot of detail and permutations – because there had been a lot of assumptions.
“Don’t forget the whole estate was sued. Everything got taken apart in every respect and it’s actually not as simple as saying it was an error of judgment. This guy doesn’t conclude that. It’s a terrible shame. It haunts my mum. What happened? We never really got an answer and probably we’ll never know.
“So yes, lots of conflicting feelings. But eventually I’ve kind of developed the philosophy of weren’t we lucky to have had what we had? Weren’t we very lucky to have had Graham Hill for the time we did? And I do think he had a ball.”
The Elstree accident
Key facts about a crash that has never fully been explained
The headline points from the inquest of Graham Hill’s plane crash painted a picture of a somewhat cavalier approach to flying safety, with the suggestion that he overruled recommendations of not landing at the fog-bound Elstree, rejecting the alternatives of the less conveniently situated Luton or Stansted, that the plane exceeded its take-off weight limit and did not possess a valid airworthiness certificate.
However in his book Disasters In The Air, Jan Bartelski (father of former downhill skier and sometime rally driver Konrad) paints an altogether different picture. The former Canadian Air Force pilot devotes a full chapter to the Hill accident, delving deep into the circumstances and details and makes the following points.
• Hill’s choice of landing at his local strip of Elstree rather than Luton or Stansted was not without logic, given that there was little difference in the reported visibility at each of them.
• ‘Unsatisfactory assistance’ from London’s radar operations took Hill on a poor approach path, not aligning him accurately in conditions of poor visibility – and with a premature change from the original heading.
• The poor approach heading he’d been placed on could conceivably have led Hill to mistake railway lights at High Barnet station for ‘obstruction lights’ at Saffron Green, commonly used by pilots as guidance for Elstree landings, causing him to make his final descent too soon.
• Hill’s disorientation could have been compounded when he was informed that his range to Elstree was four nautical miles when in fact it was 4.5.
• The take-off weight was only an estimate by accident investigators and if accurate would have represented a six per cent excess, just one per cent above accepted tolerance.
• The plane was meticulously maintained but the non-validity of airworthiness was a paperwork oversight from it having previously been registered in the USA.