Tornado (Hansard, 24 October 1989)

§ 3. Mr. Win Griffiths
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparative figures he has for the accident rates for Tornado aircraft for each of the European countries which operate these aircraft.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert)
It is not our policy to publish accident rates for particular aircraft types. The public release of aircraft accident statistics for other nations is a matter for the respective Governments.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Is it not true that the Tornado accident rate in Britain is twice that of the other European countries which operate the aircraft? Is it not about time that we reviewed our low-flying procedures—they are not followed by any other nation in the western world—to stop this unnecessary loss of life and huge loss of aircraft?

§ Mr. Neubert
The hon. Gentleman's opening assertion is not true. The number of accidents is not relevant. What is relevant is the number of accidents in relation to the amount of flying activity. Taking that as the basis for comparison, if we exclude the early accidents that occurred as a result of technical defects which were part of the early experience of operating that aircraft—in which the United Kingdom was a leader—our accident rate since then has been broadly comparable with that in Germany and Italy.

§ Mr. Mans
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tornado has a lower accident rate than any other combat aircraft which has been brought into service in the Royal Air Force?

§ Mr. Neubert
I confirm that Tornado has a very comparable record with other fast jet aircraft in operation with the RAF.

§ Mr. Rogers
The Minister's statement is quite incredible. He knows very well that figures are available which show that 17 Tornado GR1 bombers have crashed, and that in the past three years in Britain 10 Tornado GR1 s have crashed while only four have crashed in the German air force. Earlier, the Government stated that early Tornado losses were due to teething problems. Our losses are much higher than for any other air force; are they due to faulty equipment or to pilot error?

§ Mr. Neubert
Each accident is subject to an inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I am well aware of the article in The Independent on 8 June from which the hon. Gentleman draws this incorrect inference. I can repeat only that it is not a question of the number of accidents. The important point is the number of accidents that occur in relation to the amount of flying activity with that aircraft.

§ Mr. Devlin
Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies in the north of England that the low-flying exercises from places such as RAF Leeming involving Tornado jets are absolutely essential to the future defence of Great Britain and must be carried out? Although they impose a small price in terms of inconvenience for local households, it would be totally irresponsible of the Government to abandon them.

§ Mr. Neubert
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. The fast, low operation of modern jet fighter and bomber aircraft is the only possible way, in present circumstances, of surviving the electronic warfare environment that we would be likely to meet in a war.