| Revision as of 22:53, 20 November 2006 editMais oui! (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers111,268 edits Chinook helicopter crash← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:36, 4 December 2006 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,891 edits Corrected merge tagNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{merge|Chinook Helicopter Crash}} | |||
| At 6pm on ] ] a ] (RAF) ] crashed into a hill on the ]. | |||
| The crash occurred at approximately 147 ]s, in thick fog, causing the destruction of the aircraft. 4 crew and 25 intelligence specialists were killed. | |||
| The event is famous for a campaign by ] and by families of the pilots, to overturn an RAF judgement that it was caused by ]. | |||
| ==History of the case== | |||
| While papers disclosed in the legal case indicated that the ] believed the accident was caused by problems with the ] engine-management computer, the official published verdict was that ]s Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook were to blame. | |||
| ===RAF Board of Inquiry=== | |||
| In ], the first investigation was done by an RAF board of inquiry, including a report from the ]. The investigation board did not find either pilot negligent (the standard of proof would have been ''only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent''). However, ] (now ]), on reviewing this report, concluded that "''both pilots were negligent to a gross degree"''. | |||
| ===Fatal Accident Inquiry=== | |||
| In ], a ] headed by ] ] noted that it had not been proven to his satisfaction that the accident was caused by the crew's decisions, although it was not possible to determine the actual cause of the accident. | |||
| ===House of Commons Defence Committee=== | |||
| In ], the ] investigated the crash, but did not publish any technical conclusions on its cause. | |||
| ===House of Commons Public Accounts Committee=== | |||
| In ], the ] was investigating both the crash, and the procurement process for that type of helicopter. | |||
| The PAC committee found the installed ] software to be "''both faulty and "unverifiable": it defied independent evaluation...''", and rejected the RAF board of inquiry's conclusions both because of their review of the FADEC software, and because they considered the original report "unsustainable" | |||
| However, the government rejected this conclusion, denied that the FADEC software was poorly written, and noted that the one surviving engine control unit did not appear to be behaving abnormally. | |||
| ===House of Lords Select Committee=== | |||
| Following the PAC report, there were calls for a ] enquiry. . A House of Lords ] was then appointed (unusual, as such a committee would not normally re-review primary evidence) and their report was published in ] | |||
| A large part of this enquiry concentrated on the ] flight simulator used to model the events leading up to the crash, noting that it was provably "deficient" to the point where it was not reliable evidence in the crash investigation. | |||
| The House of Lords enquiry concluded that it "was not justified" to claim that the pilots were in control of the aircraft at the time of the crash, and that it was "incomprehensible" that two experienced pilots would (a) deliberately fly into a hill that they knew was there, and (b) choose to unnecessarily commit to flight under ] (IFR) in the area. | |||
| ==FADEC software== | |||
| The ] software was being upgraded on all RAF Chinook aircraft, as part of an upgrade from Chinook Mk1 to Chinook Mk2 capability. | |||
| ]-SCICON was given the task of independantly evaluating the software on the Chinook Mk2 FADECs in ], and according to the House of Commons report, "''after examining only 18 per cent of the code they found 486 anomalies and stopped the review''". The report also noted that "''intermittent engine failure captions were being regularly experienced by aircrew of Chinook Mk 2s and there were instances of uncommanded run up and run down of the engines and undemanded flight control movements''". However, this software was being used on operational aircraft. | |||
| Chinook tests at ] by the MOD in ] reported the FADEC software to be "''unverifiable and is therefore unsuitable for its purpose''" | |||
| ==Navigation software== | |||
| The onboard ] was shown to have a considerable error in its height at the time of the crash, which may have been caused by the pressure of an exploding aircraft. | |||
| ==Flight data recorder== | |||
| No ] or ] was fitted. Evidence about speed and height were derived from the position of cockpit dials in the wreckage. | |||
| ==Other theories== | |||
| Writing for ], in 2000, Andrew Thomas detailed a more recent theory that the crash may have been caused by the ] flying at ] speeds in the area. | |||
| * Nearby ] was remote enough and had a runway long enough that it was a plausible location for testing hypersonic aircraft. | |||
| * The Americans were using the base at the time | |||
| * The base was guarded by American ] | |||
| * Sonic booms were regularly heard by local residents | |||
| * ] tracks were observed in that area, travelling at ]-3 or faster | |||
| * Expert Chris Gibson, trained by the UK military in aircraft identification, reported seeing an unidentified triangular plane in the area. The aircraft was ], and accompanied by military fastjets | |||
| * The American presence in ] left suddenly and without explanation soon after the Chinook crash. | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| *, from ] Journal | |||
| * | |||
| *Computer Weekly publications | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| *House of Lords select committee publications | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
Revision as of 23:36, 4 December 2006
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged with Chinook Helicopter Crash. (Discuss) |
At 6pm on 2nd June 1994 a Royal Air Force (RAF) Chinook helicopter crashed into a hill on the Mull of Kintyre.
The crash occurred at approximately 147 knots, in thick fog, causing the destruction of the aircraft. 4 crew and 25 intelligence specialists were killed.
The event is famous for a campaign by Computer Weekly and by families of the pilots, to overturn an RAF judgement that it was caused by pilot error.
History of the case
While papers disclosed in the legal case indicated that the Ministry of Defense believed the accident was caused by problems with the FADEC engine-management computer, the official published verdict was that Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook were to blame.
RAF Board of Inquiry
In 1994, the first investigation was done by an RAF board of inquiry, including a report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. The investigation board did not find either pilot negligent (the standard of proof would have been only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent). However, Air Vice Marshal (now Sir John Day), on reviewing this report, concluded that "both pilots were negligent to a gross degree".
Fatal Accident Inquiry
In 1996, a Fatal Accident Inquiry headed by Sheriff Sir Stephen Young noted that it had not been proven to his satisfaction that the accident was caused by the crew's decisions, although it was not possible to determine the actual cause of the accident.
House of Commons Defence Committee
In 1998, the House of Commons Defence Committee investigated the crash, but did not publish any technical conclusions on its cause.
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee
In 2000, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee was investigating both the crash, and the procurement process for that type of helicopter.
The PAC committee found the installed FADEC software to be "both faulty and "unverifiable": it defied independent evaluation...", and rejected the RAF board of inquiry's conclusions both because of their review of the FADEC software, and because they considered the original report "unsustainable"
However, the government rejected this conclusion, denied that the FADEC software was poorly written, and noted that the one surviving engine control unit did not appear to be behaving abnormally.
House of Lords Select Committee
Following the PAC report, there were calls for a House of Lords enquiry. . A House of Lords Select Committee was then appointed (unusual, as such a committee would not normally re-review primary evidence) and their report was published in 2002
A large part of this enquiry concentrated on the Boeing flight simulator used to model the events leading up to the crash, noting that it was provably "deficient" to the point where it was not reliable evidence in the crash investigation.
The House of Lords enquiry concluded that it "was not justified" to claim that the pilots were in control of the aircraft at the time of the crash, and that it was "incomprehensible" that two experienced pilots would (a) deliberately fly into a hill that they knew was there, and (b) choose to unnecessarily commit to flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) in the area.
FADEC software
The FADEC software was being upgraded on all RAF Chinook aircraft, as part of an upgrade from Chinook Mk1 to Chinook Mk2 capability.
EDS-SCICON was given the task of independantly evaluating the software on the Chinook Mk2 FADECs in 1993, and according to the House of Commons report, "after examining only 18 per cent of the code they found 486 anomalies and stopped the review". The report also noted that "intermittent engine failure captions were being regularly experienced by aircrew of Chinook Mk 2s and there were instances of uncommanded run up and run down of the engines and undemanded flight control movements". However, this software was being used on operational aircraft.
Chinook tests at Boscombe Down by the MOD in 1994 reported the FADEC software to be "unverifiable and is therefore unsuitable for its purpose"
Navigation software
The onboard Tactical Area Navigation System was shown to have a considerable error in its height at the time of the crash, which may have been caused by the pressure of an exploding aircraft.
Flight data recorder
No flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder was fitted. Evidence about speed and height were derived from the position of cockpit dials in the wreckage.
Other theories
Writing for The Register, in 2000, Andrew Thomas detailed a more recent theory that the crash may have been caused by the Aurora aircraft flying at hypersonic speeds in the area.
- Nearby RAF Machrihanish was remote enough and had a runway long enough that it was a plausible location for testing hypersonic aircraft.
- The Americans were using the base at the time
- The base was guarded by American special forces
- Sonic booms were regularly heard by local residents
- Radar tracks were observed in that area, travelling at Mach-3 or faster
- Expert Chris Gibson, trained by the UK military in aircraft identification, reported seeing an unidentified triangular plane in the area. The aircraft was air-to-air refuelling, and accompanied by military fastjets
- The American presence in RAF Machrihanish left suddenly and without explanation soon after the Chinook crash.
External links
- Simon Rogerson's article, from IMIS Journal
- MOD press release
- Computer Weekly publications
- House of Lords select committee publications