1994 Chinook crash: critical internal memo on software flaws

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Circus_Pony, Jun 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It's a fcking disgrace, those Pilots where blamed by the MOD, as Pilot error so who lied their arrse off at the court of inquirary
     
  2. Sumfing in the state of Denmark STINKS.
    The Professional Aviation World knows that this entire matter and it's Verdict from Senior Crabs was wrong from day one.
    PPrune has run this matter for longer then I have been computer literate.
    Something down at basic level is wrong and heads should roll.
    That Senior Crab officers should sell their own out is just so wrong.
    It all F-ing Stinks.
    john
     
  3. Astonishing revelation! Practically unbelievable. Who I wonder told Boscombe Down to 'keep their traps shut'?

    'Circus_pony' please see pm.
     
  4. So no surprises then for anyone who has been following this case. The official verdict has always appeared to be at odd with the facts.

    For me the most depressing thing is the utter lack of integrity displayed by the senior management of the RAF. How the weasels who lied, obfuscated and spun the truth to smear the dead to avoid responsibility for their actions can look at themselves in the mirror baffles me. How their colleagues let them get away with it also baffles me.
     
  5. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    My understanding is that the court of inquiry's findings were over-ruled on review by a senior RAF officer. See my post re the RAF CoC on the other Chinook thread.
     
  6. This is quite disgraceful behaviour, both by the Crab top-brass and the politicians involved. Surely it must be possible to order a review now that so much has become known. That's the very least they could do to shift the blame from those who weren't at fault at all, i.e. the pilots.

    MsG
     
  7. Will any action be taken against the people who prosecuted those pilots despite their error not being the strongest candidate?
     

  8. Looking at pprune, this has been posted but absolutely no-one has commented! The thread seems to have been taken over by supporters of the Reviewing Officers who over-turned the Board of Inquiry. One or two are fighting a rearguard. There's one guy who, every time a good point is made, posts ridiculous questions on a completely different subject. Typical MoD diversionary tactic if you ask me.
     
  9. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Let's just keep focussed on what sort of senior officer over-rules a technical judgment and puts the blame on two dead men who can't answer back. I seem to remember it was reported at the time that this was actually not allowed under RAF rules - that pilot error had to be positively proven.
     
  10. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    It's been widely known that the was a serious flaw with the software installed on that particular mark of Chinnok.If I remember correctly,the US Army/USAF ect grounded their Chinook fleet on that grounds.
    The Aircrew were made scapegoats by the RAF brass & government.They were not to blame as they questioned the flight on that day due to meteorlogical reasons as they deemed it unsafe to fly but were over ruled.
    The Chinook in question had only been in service in the Province for a matter of weeks.
    And a friend of mine from my old job,his brother was killed in the crash.
    Spike
     
  11. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Yes, WHO over-ruled the aircrew? It must have been an individual senior officer.
     
  12. Seaweed

    Two Reviewing Officers, Air Marshalls Wratten and Day, over-ruled the Board of Inquiry, who had followed the regulations and determined that the cause could not be determined without any doubt whatsoever.

    Both senior officers were tainted in that they had a conflict of interest. One had rejected the installation of data and voice recorders, which would have proved what happened. The other was largely responsible for forcing the aircraft into service, when it was patently unfit.

    If you look at the date of the letter published by Computer Weekly, it is a day or two before the crash, and 7 months after Release to Service. Yet, Boscombe were still trying to validate safety critical software in the engine fuel computer. Boscombe had grounded their Chinooks, and recommended the RAF do likewise.

    They were ignored.

    This is the worst miscarriage of justice you'll ever come across. But one has to wonder at the mentality of the RAF officers who post on pprune whose attitude is straight out of the Inquisition.
     
  13. What this memo reinforces, and what has been previously widely rumoured (and in some quarters, obviously known) was that the FADEC had been refused CA Release

    How anyone can justify the original verdict, let alone its confirmation defeats me.

    I am sooooo angry :x :x
     
  14. You are quite right, blaming the pilots with an extant FADEC airworthiness issue is clearly wrong. That said, it would be equally wrong to assume that the FADEC was to blame in this case.