174 glitches in doomed Chinook software
174 glitches in doomed Chinook software - The Scotsman
Published Date: 05 January 2010
By David Maddox
PRESSURE is mounting on defence chiefs to exonerate the two pilots officially blamed for the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 after new evidence emerged that computer software could be to blame.
An internal document, written nine months before the accident, suggested that a new system known as full authority digital engine control (Fadec) was "positively dangerous".
It appears to challenge the RAF's conclusion that "gross negligence" by the pilots – Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper, 28, and Rick Cook, 30 – was the cause of the accident.
Yesterday Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was defence secretary at the time, claimed that he was kept in the dark about the possible faults.
And he said the verdicts against the two men are now "unsustainable" and only maintained by "bureaucratic stubbornness".
Written by experts working for the Ministry of Defence's aircraft testing centre at Boscombe Down, the document shows there were serious concerns in the engine control computer software, according to the BBC.
It said the hazard analysis of the Chinook mark 2 identified the software in the engine Fadec as "safety critical", adding that any "malfunctions or design errors could have catastrophic effects".
It went on to claim that there were 21 category 1 and 153 category 2 anomalies which had been revealed. One of these was considered to be "positively dangerous".
It concluded: "Pilots' control of the engines through Fadec cannot be assured."
Further documentation, reportedly from the day of the accident, said it was "imperative" that the "RAF should cease operations".
The accident in thick fog at around 6pm on 2 June 1994 claimed 29 lives, including 25 leading anti-terrorism experts from the army, Royal Ulster Constabulary, RAF and MI5.
It was a major setback in the government's efforts to tackle the IRA and the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland.
An RAF inquiry eventually blamed the two pilots who both lost their lives in the accident.
Two air vice marshals, who reviewed the initial inconclusive inquiry, ruled they had been flying too fast and low for the conditions and were guilty of "gross negligence" and that the Chinook had been airworthy. But the documents obtained by the BBC appear to back up concerns raised in a more recent inquiry in the House of Lords which highlighted doubts over Fadec.
And it has brought about renewed calls for the inquiry to be reviewed and the two pilots to have their names cleared.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind yesterday claimed he had not been informed of the warnings about Fadec.
He said: "When the RAF have been asked that question in recent years, they have said that they had already concluded that the software problem, although it existed, couldn't have been a possible explanation for the Chinook disaster and that is why they didn't draw it to the attention of ministers or the wider public.
"I think that was an error of judgment. I think that was a serious mistake."
He added that the latest revelations meant that the finding that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence was "unsustainable" but said he did not think there had been a cover up.
"I think it is bureaucratic stubbornness," he said. "But it is combined with a lack of will by ministers to provide the leadership needed to insist on the matter being re-opened."
The SNP's defence spokesman Angus Robertson has been campaigning since 2002 to have the two pilots' names cleared.
Yesterday he pointed out that the initial RAF internal finding, the Fatal Accident Inquiry, and a House of Lords report all concluded that there was no evidence that the pilots were to blame.
"This latest evidence undermines the MoD's false conclusion even further," he said.
"The position of the MoD is untenable, and their hurtful and flawed verdict cannot be allowed to stand. The pilots – both of whom had unblemished flying records – must be exonerated."
However, a spokesman for the MoD yesterday insisted that the evidence was not new and could not change the verdict.
In a statement, he said: "Ministers have repeatedly stated that they would reopen the Board of Inquiry if new evidence is raised.
"Despite numerous representations over the years, nothing has been presented to successive secretaries of state that would justify reopening the Inquiry.
"This latest information is from an RAF document; it was available to the Inquiry team and cannot be classed as new evidence."