Search Results

1-15 of 15 results for subject:Software

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement about the E5 fault code found on the FADEC of RAF Chinook ZD576 - Inc figs and ref to 21 February 2000, 344 c730W. (Holding answer 23 April 2001).

Asked by

Desmond Swayne (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

9 April 2001

For answer on

30 April 2001

Answered on

30 April 2001

Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the E5 fault code found on the FADEC of RAF Chinook ZD576. [158185] Mr. Spellar: [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The E5 fault code which was found in the memory of the DECU of RAF Chinook ZD576 indicated that a soft fault had occurred at some point over the life of the DECU since delivery. A "soft fault" cannot affect the safe operation of the control system and is therefore one that has no impact on the normal control of the aircraft. The rotational speed (N2) of each engine's Power Turbine Spool is detected by two sensors. The E5 code would be displayed either because of a power interrupt (switching from the Auxiliary Power Unit to main generators, or the reverse) or if a discrepancy of 5 per cent. or more is detected between the two N2 signals. When such a discrepancy is detected the lower N2 signal is disregarded (or locked out). If the other signal is then lost, the original locked-out signal will be re-acquired. Should both signals be lost, the fuel to the engines will be maintained at the pre-failure rate. The "E5" fault on the pre-production software that caused the Wilmington incident was significant as the system at that time operated differently. The team undertaking the test at Wilmington did not appreciate the significance of the E5 signal, which was displayed due to a discrepancy of 5 per cent. or more between the two N2 signals, causing the lowest signal to be latched. The team then removed a connector which resulted in the loss of the only remaining N2 signal. With the one signal latched, and the loss of the remaining N2 signal, unlike the system now, the pre-production software did not re-acquire the original locked-out signal. Instead the DECU "saw" an N2 value of zero, and in order to restore the N2, the system provided more fuel to increase the speed of the power turbine. This caused the rotors to accelerate which seriously damaged the aircraft. After the Wilmington incident the software was amended hence a similar incident could not have caused the Mull of Kintyre accident. Moreover, as I informed the hon. Member on 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 730W, the Air Accidents Investigation Board's report of their technical investigation into the accident found no evidence of a technical malfunction that could have contributed to the accident, with the possible exception of a radar altimeter system fault.

Date

30 April 2001

Reference

158185; 367 c445W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when Tornado GR4s will be given military aircraft release; when the first GR4s will be deployed on operations; and if he will make a statement; what effect there will be on the United Kingdom's commitments to the Joint Rapid Reaction Force of...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

26 April 2001

Reference

367 c308-9W; 157588;157640

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the FADEC-related nuisance faults experienced on the Chinook Mk2 helicopter fleet in the six months up to and including 2nd June 1994, indicating in each case their safety significance and whether this was understood by the crews. -...

Asked by

Robert Key (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

2 April 2001

Reference

366 c24W; 156367

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, What revisions have been made to Chinook MKII FADEC software since June 1994. (Failed OPQ).

Asked by

Desmond Swayne (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 March 2001

Reference

365 c86W; 152731

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (a) when, (b) where and (c) by whom helicopter ZD 576 was fitted with FADEC; and when the aircraft (i) entered service with the armed forces and (ii) was built; if he will list the way points of the flight of Chinook...

Asked by

William Ross (Ulster Unionist Party)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 February 2001

Reference

363 c194W; 150414;150412

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether Sir John Day was aware of the incident at Wilmington, USA in 1989 concerning a Chinook HC1 at the time of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre accident; pursuant to his Answer dated 23rd October, Official Report,...

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 November 2000

Reference

356 c417W; 137390;137350

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will provide a detailed description of the simulator used by Boeing as part of the Board of Inquiry investigation into RAF Chinook ZD576; if he will provide a detailed description of the simulator used by the Defence Research Agency during...

Asked by

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 July 2000

Reference

354 c749W; 133034;133035;133038

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, 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; if Boscombe Down was satisfied that the FADEC software...

Asked by

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

25 July 2000

Reference

354 c551W; 132454;132455

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, 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; if the engineering member of the...

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

13 July 2000

For answer on

25 July 2000

Answered on

25 July 2000

Mr. Field: To 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] (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.

Date

25 July 2000

Reference

354 c550W;354 c550-1W; 131259;131258

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will preserve all files and papers relating to the procurement and introduction of the FADEC system for the Chinook Mk2. - (Holding answer 18 July 2000).

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

21 July 2000

Reference

354 c341W; 131257

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, What assessment he has made concerning the level of computer failures in his Department, its agencies and the armed forces. (Failed OPQ).

Asked by

Ian Gibson (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

3 July 2000

Reference

353 c52W; 127275

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if systems for (a) service members' pay and (b) service members' medical records are Year 2000 compliant; and if he will make a statement. - (Holding answer 3 February 1999).

Asked by

Robert Key (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

4 February 1999

Reference

68257; 324 c736W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans he has for departmental (a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. - Includes ref to 27 January 1999, 324 c296W.

Asked by

Michael John Foster (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 January 1999

Reference

67837; 324 c329-30W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which projects, not related to the year 2000 compliance problem, are being (a) restricted and (b) terminated in order to free information technology resources. - (Holding answer 2 April 1998).

Asked by

Cheryl Gillan (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 April 1998

Reference

310 c54W; 37482

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What assessment he has made of the design of the software for the Eurofighter.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 July 1997

Reference

8654; 298 c607W;298 c605W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher