John Purdey
I will take your last post as a request and forgive the misspelling of my name.
At the time of the A&AEE letter of 6 June Boscombe was aware of at least 15 in-service engine related (and by implication FADEC related) incidents in some 1258 hours of RAF flying. I would have expected there to have been further incidents during the trials as based on FADEC issues, especially the software audit trail, Boscombe did not want to recommend a release at all - as detailed in the post above. I do not know the RAF policy for reporting things such as spurious engine fail indications as these were anyway detailed in the RTS. I can imagine that far too many problems had become so routine that they were being ignored in terms of incident reports and, worse, MWOs - I am sure that like me you have seen this happen.
I believe that the campaign did get information on further FADEC incidents after the crash, but I do not have access to this - perhaps Brian Dixon can help.
Unless there have been any accidents with the US Army's SDs I am not aware of any accidents, including ZD 576, that can be directly attributed to the FADEC, and I would anyway hope that FADEC is no longer an issue with the Block 1 modifications. Perhaps a current Chinook operator could comment on this.
To say that FADEC caused the accident to ZD 576 would be just as much conjecture as saying on the basis of operational hypotheses that the pilots were grossly negligent or that they made a navigation error! FADEC may have played a major part, but who knows?
JB