Chinook Helicopter Crash Verdict (Hansard, 28 January 1997)

Earl Howe
My Lords, an extremely thorough investigation into this tragic accident was carried out, including RAF experts with first-hand experience of Chinooks and civilian specialists from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. They concluded that the accident was caused by the two pilots, who wrongly continued to fly their aircraft towards the high ground of the Mull of Kintyre below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather conditions. This constituted a failure in their duty and regrettably, therefore, it was concluded that both pilots had been negligent. No new evidence has emerged to cause us to doubt the accuracy of this conclusion.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that a well researched television programme on Channel 4 last night cast considerable doubt on the justification for a verdict which found two young officers of considerable experience guilty of gross negligence. Can he confirm that it is one of the rules in Royal Air Force inquiries of 1078 this kind that it is only when there is absolutely no doubt that dead air crew should be found guilty of negligence? Can he state categorically that there is no doubt whatsoever in this case? If not, will he undertake to reopen the inquiry and review all the evidence?

Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of the programme to which the noble Lord refers. It made a number of unsubstantiated allegations. The RAF's inquiry into the cause of the accident was scrupulous and was carried out in accordance with agreed procedures, including the attribution of negligence. In forming their final decision on the cause, Air Vice Marshal Day and Air Vice Marshal Sir William Wratten judged that the two pilots did not exercise appropriate care or judgment and that their actions led directly to the crash. Such actions, they concluded, amounted to gross negligence. No new evidence has come to light which might cast doubt on that decision.

§ Lord Merlyn-Rees
My Lords, if there were to be a further inquiry on this matter, what procedures exist within the Royal Air Force to allow that to happen? On whose authority could a further inquiry be instigated?

Earl Howe
My Lords, if new evidence emerged it would of course be open to the Royal Air Force to reopen the board of inquiry. However, as I said, there is as yet no such further evidence and, therefore, no reason in the RAF's mind at least to take that course.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, will the Minister give the House the terms of experience of the two pilots accused of being grossly negligent? Were they young pilots with no experience of flying Chinooks or pilots of experience? If they were pilots of experience, is it not rather odd that both of them were negligent at the same time?

Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, a finding of negligence is never reached lightly. The initial batch of training crews, who were all experienced, qualified helicopter instructors, was converted on to the Chinook Mk 2 by the design authority. These crews subsequently designed the in-service conversion course and instructed on it. All crews who converted were experienced on the Chinook and so the conversion course concentrated on technical differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2. The course lasted two working weeks. Both pilots had completed that course and were therefore qualified to fly the Chinook Mk 2.

§ Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, will my noble friend remind me whether a black box recorder was carried by the helicopter? I think that I have read that that may not have been the case. If I am correct, can he remind us whether a civilian helicopter of the same mark would have had to carry a black box recorder when flying for commercial purposes?

Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall have to take advice on the question of a civilian helicopter. However, I can tell my noble friend that the decision was taken before the 1079 Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident to install accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders as part of the helicopter usage monitoring system. This equipment will be fitted into the Chinook fleet from August 1998.

§ The Earl of Kimberley
My Lords, whether or not those two unfortunate pilots were guilty of gross negligence, who was originally responsible for putting so many VIP experts on security in one helicopter?

Earl Howe
My Lords, that question has been asked many times. We have reviewed the position. However, despite this very tragic accident, we reached the conclusion that the decision was not necessarily unsound and that in future probably a similar decision would be taken.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that at an inquiry held in Scotland under the procedure for inquiry into fatal accidents a Scottish sheriff took evidence widely, including from those who had given evidence at the RAF board of inquiry? Will he confirm two further matters: first, that the president of the RAF board of inquiry said that he was not prepared to come to the conclusion that the pilots had been negligent; and, secondly, that the sheriff in this case said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support this verdict?

Earl Howe
My Lords, the key point is this. The fatal accident inquiry in Scotland did not uncover any evidence that was not known to the Royal Air Force. Neither the sheriff's determination nor his personal views alter the conclusions of the RAF inquiry which, as I said, was conducted by experts with first-hand experience of Chinooks. It was the duty of the senior officers involved in the board of inquiry to come to a conclusion. They did so with great regret having examined all the evidence placed before them.