Dear Mr Hoon, We were astonished to hear the critical comments you
made about Computer Weekly during last week's Commons debate on the
1994 Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
You referred to the "nonsense written about [Chinook] in Computer
Weekly", and added, "The way in which that journal hysterically
pursues the subject does not give me cause to accept anything it
says at face value."
Over the past five years Computer Weekly has brought to public
light a weight of information concerning the crash and the Fadec
engine control system on the Chinook Mk2. Much of this information
was not previously known by the various bodies that have
investigated the circumstances of the crash. Without Computer
Weekly, perhaps much would still not be known. For example:
- We published details of a secret report on the Fadec software
written by the MoD's independent contractor EDS-Scicon, which said
the software contained hundreds of anomalies. We also revealed that
the MoD's own software assessors had recommended a rewrite of the
software before the Chinook MK2 went into operational service, but
that did not happen.
- We provided details of an incident in 1989 when an MoD Chinook
was almost destroyed by an engine surge caused largely by the
faulty design of the Fadec. When the MoD sought to convince
Parliament that the incident was not due to problems with the Fadec
we produced MoD documents to show that the incident had led to the
MoD suing the manufacturer over its "faulty design of the
Fadec".
- After the MoD's permanent secretary Kevin Tebbit told the
Public Accounts Committee that the Fadec software was not
safety-critical, we gave the PAC, MoD and Boeing documents showing
otherwise.
- We revealed the existence of an incident in 1997 in the US when
a Chinook flipped onto its back for no apparent reason. The "barrel
roll" incident was quoted by the Lords Select Committee in its
recent report.
- When the Lords committee was told that the halting of flight
trials of Chinooks Mk2s in 1994 had nothing to do with Fadec
software, we produced MoD documents showing that the RAF's own
technical experts at Boscombe Down had ordered a halt to trials
flying because the manufacturer had not satisfactorily answered
questions about the Fadec.
Outside of the MoD, Computer Weekly has been widely praised for its
work on this matter, and the evidence that we have unearthed has
helped to persuade two parliamentary committees to call for the
verdict against the pilots to be overturned.
In 2001 the Public Accounts Committee, as part of its own report on
the way the Chinook Mk 2 was brought into service, published in
full an 11-page report by Computer Weekly that detailed the
inaccuracies in the statements made to Parliament about the crash.
The PAC report called for the verdict to be overturned and accused
the MoD of "unwarrantable arrogance".
In February of this year a House of Lords Select Committee report
vindicated our campaign when it found that there is doubt about the
cause of the crash. Specifically, the report found that a technical
malfunction such as a problem with the Chinook's Fadec system
"could have had a serious effect upon the crew's ability to control
the aircraft".
For its efforts to exonerate the pilots, Computer Weekly was
awarded the Periodical Publishers Association (PPA) Campaign of the
Year award in 2001. We also won a PPA Writer of the Year award for
a 140-page report entitled "RAF Justice", published on the
Internet, which analysed the flaws in the MoD and RAF's procurement
of the Chinook's software.
Our campaign has drawn cross-bench support from both the Commons
and the Lords. We were named in an early-day motion, signed by
nearly 90 MPs, which called on the Government to re-examine the
verdict against the pilots in the light of Computer Weekly's
findings.
In 1999 your own cabinet colleague Jack Straw, then home secretary,
awarded Computer Weekly a Freedom of Information Award largely for
our work in bringing to public light information concerning the
Chinook crash.
So your comments in last week's debate came as quite a
surprise.
Computer Weekly has written three times to various ministers
seeking a meeting to discuss our findings. On each occasion our
offer was rejected by the MoD. This would have provided a perfect
opportunity to put specific criticisms to us.
We take pride in the work that we have done to clear the names of
flight lieutenants Tapper and Cook, the pilots who were unjustly
found guilty of gross negligence after their deaths in the
crash.
But we also take great pride in our accuracy and fairness. If you
have any evidence that anything Computer Weekly has written on this
matter is inaccurate, misleading or biased, we would be happy to
receive it. If we have misled our readers, we will print a
correction.
Otherwise, I would like you to retract what you said and apologise
for the slur it implies on the journalism and integrity of Computer
Weekly's award-winning editorial team and the hundreds of Computer
Weekly readers who have helped us in our quest to unearth the truth
behind the Chinook crash.
Karl Schneider, editor, Computer Weekly