The State Owes the Chinook Families the Truth — and It Owes It Now
By Alex Easton MP
Wednesday 26th November, during a Westminster Hall debate, I raised an issue that has remained unresolved for more than three decades — the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576 on 2 June 1994 and the continuing campaign for a full, judge-led public inquiry.
On 2 June 1994, RAF Chinook helicopter ZD576 crashed into the Mull of Kintyre, killing all 29 people on board. Four were highly experienced aircrew. Twenty-five were among the most senior police and intelligence officers serving in relation to Northern Ireland. Their deaths were a devastating loss to their families and a profound blow to the United Kingdom’s security capability.
What followed has compounded that tragedy. For more than thirty years, the families of those killed have been denied a full and honest account of why their loved ones were placed on an aircraft that should never have been in service. They have had to fight for scraps of information, correct the public record themselves, and endure an official silence that has lasted longer than many of the victims’ own lives.
The families are not asking for sympathy. They are asking for truth.
They have come together as the Chinook Justice Campaign, representing twenty-four of the twenty-nine bereaved families. Their demand is clear and reasonable: a full, independent, judge-led public inquiry with the power to compel witnesses and documents. Astonishingly, no such inquiry has ever taken place.
The core issue is not complicated. It is airworthiness.
In 1993, the Chinook Mk2 upgrade introduced a new Full Authority Digital Engine Control system, known as FADEC. This was not a minor software update. It was a safety-critical system controlling engine performance. The Ministry of Defence’s own engineers and test pilots raised repeated alarms. Official documentation described the FADEC software as “positively dangerous”. Test authorities warned it was unverifiable, unpredictable and unfit for service. They refused to recommend full airworthiness certification.
These warnings were not academic. ZD576 suffered multiple engine replacements in the weeks before the crash. Emergency power warnings repeatedly activated. Restricted control movements were identified and circulated as serious fault alerts. None of these issues had been fully resolved by June 1994.
Despite this, the aircraft was cleared to operate. In November 1993, the RAF issued a Release to Service even though only one of sixty regulatory requirements was fully compliant. Fifty were non-compliant and nine only partially compliant. Internally, the aircraft was subject to an airworthiness mandate stating it was “not to be relied upon in any way whatsoever”.
On 1 June 1994 — the day before the crash — Chinook Mk2 trials aircraft were grounded at Boscombe Down. MoD test pilots recommended that Mk2 operations should cease until safety concerns were addressed. They themselves were prohibited from flying the aircraft.
Twenty-four hours later, ZD576 took off with 29 people on board.
None of the passengers were told that the aircraft was effectively banned from test flying. None were informed of the warnings. None were given the opportunity to decide whether to accept that risk.
The families believe, with justification, that their loved ones were placed on an aircraft that should never have left the ground.
When the crash occurred, the initial response of the system was not transparency, but deflection. The RAF Board of Inquiry in 1995 focused on pilot error and gross negligence. It did not meaningfully examine airworthiness. The word “airworthiness” does not appear in its report. The two pilots who died were blamed without evidence sufficient to meet any civil or criminal standard.
The Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1996 did not accept the Board of Inquiry’s conclusion, but it was never given the full technical picture. The court was told the aircraft was airworthy and serviceable. It was not told that MoD test pilots had banned themselves from flying it, or that litigation relating to the FADEC system was ongoing.
Parliamentary committees later examined aspects of the crash, but they relied on material provided by the Ministry of Defence and were not empowered to conduct an independent investigation or compel disclosure.
This call for transparency is not new — and it is no longer only coming from bereaved families or elected representatives. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has already stated publicly that a lack of government transparency over the Chinook disaster is “adding to the suffering” of those left behind. When the head of policing in Northern Ireland recognises that secrecy is compounding grief, it should serve as a stark warning that this issue cannot be allowed to drift further.
Only in 2011 did the Mull of Kintyre Review finally clear the pilots of gross negligence. That decision was right — and it was sixteen years too late. Crucially, that review was non-statutory. It had no power to demand documents or witnesses. It did not investigate why an unairworthy aircraft was permitted to fly.
Even more troubling is what has come to light recently. A BBC documentary broadcast in 2024 confirmed that key government documents relating to both the crash and the Chinook Mk2 programme have been sealed for 100 years. A century-long secrecy order is not routine. It ensures that no family member with living memory of the victims will ever see the full record.
That alone should alarm Parliament.
These families have endured three decades of institutional resistance. They have pieced together evidence, tracked down retired engineers, uncovered hidden memoranda and compiled more than 200 unanswered questions. They have done the work that the State should have done for them.
Their questions are fundamental. Who authorised the aircraft for service despite airworthiness warnings? Who decided that passengers did not need to be informed? Who withheld evidence from inquiries and ministers? And who approved sealing the truth for a century?
The State has a legal obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to conduct a full and effective investigation where State responsibility may be engaged in a death. That obligation has not been met. Time passing does not extinguish it.
We have seen in other national scandals — Hillsborough, contaminated blood, the Post Office Horizon scandal — what happens when institutions protect themselves rather than confront uncomfortable truths. Delay becomes denial. Families are forced into decades-long campaigns. Public trust is eroded.
The families of Chinook ZD576 are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the same standard of justice that others have eventually received.
A judge-led public inquiry with full powers would not prejudge conclusions. It would simply allow the facts to be examined openly, lawfully and independently. If the Ministry of Defence has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear from such an inquiry.
Justice does not weaken the State. It strengthens it.
Thirty years on, the families are still waiting. Some parents have died without answers. Others are ageing, still hoping that Parliament will finally act.
Justice delayed must not become justice denied. The truth about Chinook ZD576 belongs to the families, and to the country they served. The State owes them that truth — and it owes it now.
We call for a judge-led public inquiry with full powers.
