Walter
You asked about reliability.
To be able to produce the information you seek MoD would have had to robustly implement their own regulations for investigating faults.
They didn’t.
But, importantly, what we do have is irrefutable evidence of many FADEC failures between CA Release and June 1994. So many that Odiham routinely robbed due to shortages. The sheer number of faults in this 8 month period has increased significance as they occurred;
(a)On a system hosting safety critical software, which was unvalidated and unverified, and hence did not meet the design maturity requirements for acceptance off contract, never mind introduction into Service.
(b)On a system for which MoD was the launch customer.
(c)During a conversion contract (Mk1 > Mk2), meaning there was little practical or historical experience to draw on (exacerbated by the FRCs being woefully inadequate).
Any of the above would require FADEC to be blacklisted (or whatever the RAF calls it). That is, ANY failure or suspected problem in the first xx months (usually 6) is the subject of a mandatory Fault Investigation. I’m sure MoD will be able to provide the MF761s if you ask them. Or perhaps not…………
As I have stated before, in 1991 the funding to maintain the build standard (a fundamental component of airworthiness) was cut, year on year; when the regulations actually demand an increase in funding when new equipment is being introduced. Investigating faults is one of 17 core components of this activity.
All components were affected, but the funding to identify and resolve trend failures was cut altogether, in 1991. (And the trend on FADEC was, of course, notified to PE by Boscombe Down and Users). Of course, this was handily rendered academic when Min(AF) ruled that, on Chinook/Mull, the rules on trend failures do not apply. That is, even if a fault existed on every other Chinook, if it could not be proved it existed on ZD576 then he has deemed it irrelevant to this accident. Only a complete moron would advise him to say this, but as we know……..
Engineering Authorities were instructed to save up fault reports (the MF760s) and only submit omnibus MF760As (requests for an investigation). The ensuing delay obviously created larger holes in that cheese slice. Even if they ignored the instruction the MoD(PE) / AMSO / AML Technical Agency was not given funding anyway. At first, in around 1991, what funding remained was allocated to safety tasks. In time, and no later than early 1993, even safety critical problems were denied funding, eliminating that important slice altogether. The actions of those responsible at first constituted incompetence. But once the consequences were pointed out to them (in short, airworthiness was not being maintained), their response, to cut the funding even further (and initiate disciplinary action against those who complained), amounted to gross negligence, abrogation of duty of care and abuse of power. Pity that particular 2 Star wasn’t called to account for his actions.
You may be familiar with the role of MACE/MACD. When asked about the above, Min(AF) stated that they took over the role of conducting all engineering investigations (as Design Authorities were no longer funded to do so). Suffice to say, he lied. Only a complete fool would have briefed Minister to say this (in a letter to an MP) and, again, illustrates the lengths to which MoD go to hide the truth.
Again, I’ve noted lies MoD have told. The common denominator in most, if not all, their lies is their attempt to hide shortcomings in their implementation of the airworthiness regulations and the process by which the Mk2 entered Service.
Sorry if this doesn’t answer your question, but I don’t think anyone here could answer it accurately. But it would be interesting to see how MoD would reply. Ask them.
Caz - We may not agree on many matters, but sincere condolences.