Here's the
article that goes with those interesting docs, Chugalug
The mother of a Royal Navy officer killed when two Sea King helicopters collided during the invasion of Iraq has called for an inquest to be reopened after it emerged the Ministry of Defence withheld vital evidence from the original hearing.
Ann Lawrence, whose son Marc, 26, was one of seven men killed in the mid-air crash, said the inquest in January had been told the helicopters were safe, but it was now clear that they had serious problems with their lights.
"If the risk of similar accidents is to be reduced, the truth must be heard and the record put straight,” said Lawrence, 60, from Westgate, Kent. “The reputations of our boys must not be damaged in order for others to protect their own.”
The two Sea King Mk 7 helicopters collided over the northern Persian Gulf in the early hours of March 22, 2003.
The helicopters’ anti-collision lights had been replaced by high-intensity strobe lights (HISL), but these were switched off because they reflected off the surface of the sea, interfering with the pilots’ vision.
A former civil servant at the MoD told The Sunday Times earlier this month that he repeatedly attempted to prevent the lights being fitted without proper testing or trials, but was overruled by his superiors.
Documents withheld from the inquest and the victims' families relate to breaches of airworthiness regulations before, during and after the fitting of the strobe lights in place of the anti-collision lights.
Both the board of inquiry report into the collision and the military air accident summary cited the fact that the lights were switched off as a factor in the pilots’ apparent failure to see each other.
The board of inquiry said the strobe light installation was “not fit for purpose” and did not comply with the MoD's airworthiness regulations.
Correspondence between Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, and the former civil servant - via his MP - suggest the minister was also misled by his own officials over the issue.
Ainsworth told the whistleblower's MP in June 2008 that “no reference to any system being ‘unfit for purpose’ can be found" in the board of inquiry report.
The documents that were not passed to the coroner include details of how the former civil servant, then working on the Sea King Mk 7 programme, tried to ensure the lights were safe.
The strobe lights were fitted to predecessor aircraft but there was no evidence that they had been tested or trialled in accordance with MoD regulations.
When the former civil servant discovered this in May 2000, he demanded that the lights should not be fitted until fully checked by Westland, the helicopter manufacturer, and any problems corrected.
The whistleblower, however, was overruled. Six months later he pointed out that Westland still had concerns over the way in which the lights were being fitted and called for a full test schedule, but he was ignored again.
The former civil servant subsequently moved to another MoD programme but following the board of inquiry into the crash he wrote a full report detailing his efforts to prevent the lights being fitted without trials. Neither this nor any of the other documents relating to the failure to observe airworthiness regulations were passed to lawyers representing the Sea King crash families.
In a letter sent to Ainsworth via his MP in March this year, the whistleblower said: “These are very serious issues. Failure to pass on key evidence, especially when directly related to board of inquiry criticisms, is, I believe, a failure of duty of care amounting to gross negligence."
Shawn Williams, a solicitor representing several victims' families, said: "They believe that significant evidence was not placed before the coroner.
“We need to establish why and how this occurred so appropriate action can be taken. The purpose is to establish a legal basis for reopening the inquest. We will leave no stone unturned in doing so."
Lawrence said: “They said the aircraft was airworthy but at no time was the question of the lights raised. Indeed, it was said the aircraft had been shown to be safe.
“The obvious intention was to make clear that no further discussion about the aircraft’s safety was necessary. It is now all too clear this was not the case."
The MoD declined to comment.