§ Mr. FieldTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of his Department's legal claim against the FADEC manufacturer, Textron Lycoming, at the time of their investigation into the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD576; [131259]
551W(2) if the engineering member of the RAF board of inquiry into RAF Chinook ZD576 informed the other members of that board as to the precise nature of the Wilmington incident, in which an RAF Chinook was severely damaged in 1989 as a result of an FADEC fault. [131258]
§ Mr. Spellar[holding answer 18 July 2000]: In the short time available it has not been possible to establish whether, at the time of their investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of the Department's claim against Textron Lycoming. This litigation sought redress for faulty test procedures that caused a Chinook helicopter undergoing tests on the ground at Wilmington, USA to be severely damaged. We know that in their report to the RAF Board of Inquiry, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) states:
In view of reports of a number of ongoing service difficulties experienced with the operation of FADEC, the Engine Change Units and FADEC were examined in some detail.The report goes on to say that:
Strip examination of the engines indicated that both were running at high speed with turbines hot at the time of impact, and revealed no signs of pre-impact failure or malfunction that could have affected the operation of either engine.Thus, as the evidence available indicated that the engines were working normally up to the point of impact, it was reasonable to conclude that FADEC could not have been a factor in the accident. The action taken by MOD arising out of faulty test procedures in the early days of the system's development programme had no relevance to the accident under investigation. It is therefore irrelevant whether Sir William and Sir John were aware of the litigation against Textron Lycoming. Similarly it is irrelevant whether the engineering member of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Chinook ZD576 accident advised the other members of the Board about the test at Wilmington.
§ Mr. RendelTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if Textron Lycoming was required to demonstrate it had validated the design of FADEC software for the Chinook Mk2 prior to its release into operational service; and if he will make a statement; [132454]
(2) if Boscombe Down was satisfied that the FADEC software for the Chinook Mk2 (a) met aviation software standard RTCA Do. 178A or JSP 188 in June 1994 and (b) was verifiable and suitable for its intended purpose in June 1994. [132455]
§ Mr. SpellarI will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.