Annex 2
Over the years that we have seen thousands of
papers that are central of the matters that were raised by the
NAO and discussed by the Committee. These papers (none of which
the MoD has allowed to go into the public domain) include:
(a) The original proposal for a FADEC, submitted
to the MoD in April 1984.
(b) The contracts and amendments to the
contracts between the UK Defence Procurement Office and the FADEC's
contractor Lycoming.
(c) The interface agreements between the
Chinook's manufacturer Boeing and Lycoming, between Lycoming and
its subcontractors, and between the subcontractors.
(d) A report by the RAF's Central Servicing
Development Establishment dated 30 May 1986 (which expresses concern
about the difficulty of obtaining information from the FADEC's
contractors).
(e) Various Boeing reports in the 1980s
expressed concerns about weaknesses in the FADEC's design.
(f) The continuing and repeated problems
that arose during closed loop testing, and a 25-hour endurance
test on 21 December 1988.
(g) Various Lycoming software problems reports.
(h) The RAF Board of Inquiry report into
an accident involving a Chinook accident in January 1989 which
caused the near destruction of the aircraft.
(i) Reports on the post-incident reviews
by Textron and its subcontractors Chandler Evans and Hawker Siddeley
(which show that the cause of the accident in 1989 was a "fundamental
flaw" in the design of FADEC).
(j) Various memos on the results of reviews
of the FADEC by the A&AEE at Boscombe Down. The memos express
a concern that Textron is dismissing and not taking actions on
the FADEC that have been requested by Boscombe Down.
(k) Textron's "White Paper" which
seeks to answer Boscombe Down's concerns.
(l) Boscombe Down's critique of the Textron
White Paper.
(m) Various memos and concerns about FADEC,
written by the MoD Procurement Executive.
(n) The arbitration proceedings instigated
by the MoD against Textron over the 1989 Chinook accident.
(o) The MoD's legal case dated 1995 to the
American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Tribunal
(in which the case against FADEC goes beyond the 1989 accident.
It says that the design of FADEC "failed to meet the requirements
of the relevant military and industry standards" and "did
not adequately document or verify the design of the software for
the FADEC. This meant that software design errors that should
have been detected remained undetected . . ." It adds that
Textron "failed to . . . adequately investigate numerous
indications in its tests of the FADEC that the FADEC's software
was defective". The legal papers also state that the problems
with FADEC continued some months into 1994.
(p) A post-hearing review of the Arbitration
proceedings by the MoD says that "Textron attempted to perform
the Contract by proxy". The contractor had "attended
few meetings and given its contractors little if any guidance"
and had "little to do with the design of the FADEC other
than to pass papers between MoD and the subcontractors".
It attended meetings but took "no active role in time".
When the arbitration case against Textron came to be heard, Textron
"no Textron employee appeared at the arbitration as a witness,
although several Textron employees had been on the witness lists".
| 
