RAF Chinook FOI documents reveal MoD knew of airworthiness concerns and sought to “close down” alternative explanations for the crash

Families say newly released files expose “institutional scapegoating” of pilots and say it proves not just the need for Hillsborough Law – but for the crash to be a key test case

The families of those killed in the 1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre say newly released Ministry of Defence documents prove that officials were aware of serious airworthiness concerns about the helicopter, while actively seeking to protect the official narrative blaming the pilots and shutting down alternative explanations for the crash.

The documents, released under Freedom of Information laws to BFBS, show that concerns about potential control malfunctions and wider airworthiness issues were raised by experienced RAF voices after the crash, including by test pilots and technical experts, while officials dug deep to continue to blame the two Special Forces pilots.

The files are among those released by the MoD in a tranche of FOI documents. 

The Chinook Justice Campaign’s legal team has complained about several of the files and sought restrictions on further publication, because they contain personal and sensitive data related to the families which has been unlawfully made public.

However, the documents also reveal internal correspondence which highlights a determination within the Ministry of Defence at the time to “close off” further discussion of those safety issues and reinforce the conclusion of pilot negligence.

In one document, Air Marshal Sir William Wratten outlines plans to respond to emerging alternative theories in a way designed to shut down further debate, while other papers show sustained efforts to rebut or dismiss concerns about possible technical faults.

In response to an article in Aerospace International questioning the MoD’s version of events, Wratten states that he was attempting to “close off further correspondence” by “anyone who holds an alternative view” to pilot negligence.

Wratten, along with his colleague Sir John Day overruled the official RAF Board of Inquiry in order to blame the pilots for gross negligence, a decision which contravened the RAF’s own rules.

With the 32nd anniversary of the crash looming a week today, whfamilies say the documents demonstrate that the Ministry of Defence was not engaged in an open search for the truth at the time but was instead focused on defending an unjust and unevidenced position.

Chris Cook, from Hampshire, whose brother Rick was one of the two dead pilots blamed, said: “These documents are profoundly disturbing. They show that credible concerns about airworthiness were being raised at the time, yet instead of properly investigating them, the Ministry of Defence moved to close down discussion and protect its own position.

“For the families, this confirms what we have long believed. This was never a genuine search for the truth. It was about defending an institutional narrative – to cover their own backsides and their own mistakes, which they continue to do to this day. 

“They dug deep, particularly Wratten, to blame two elite pilots who were effectively sent to their deaths with 27 others in an unairworthy helicopter that should never have left the ground.”

Days before the crash, the Ministry of Defence's own test pilots had refused to fly their own Chinook Mk2 on safety grounds.

The released documents add to a mounting pile of evidence and official papers uncovered by the Chinook Justice Campaign which prove the aircraft was not airworthy, that technical issues with the helicopter were unresolved and that safety procedures and documentation were incomplete – all of which strengthen calls for a judge-led public inquiry. 

Retired Squadron Leader, Robert Burke, from Hampshire, who was unit test pilot at RAF Odiham, said: “I made clear at the time that there were serious anomalies in the official explanation of this crash. The documents show those concerns were closed down at the expense of truth and the pilots’ reputations.

“The Chinook Mark 2 had serious, dangerous, unresolved issues, and yet, as I’ve said before, this flight was used to instil confidence in the aircraft. That is a matter of grave concern and since the MoD is still refusing to allow proper and full inquiry into the crash and to release all documents pertaining to the crash, it can only point us to serious issues of truth and transparency.

“The very real questions about airworthiness and decision-making that should have been properly examined then must happen now, for the sake of the families, and to ensure equipment is not bought off contract and without proper testing ever again.”

Campaigners point to operating manuals for the aircraft at the time which contained multiple sections missing or marked “to be advised”, raising serious questions about whether pilots were provided with complete and reliable procedures.

They argue that under such circumstances, it was fundamentally unjust to attribute blame to the pilots – a narrative the MoD appeared determined to stick to at all costs.

Nicola Rawcliffe, from Diss, Norfolk, whose brother Chris died in the crash and whose 96-year-old father John died recently, said: “If procedures were incomplete or still ‘to be advised’, then there were no settled standards for the pilots to follow.

“No responsible organisation would blame individuals for failing to follow procedures that did not yet fully exist on an aircraft that wasn’t cleared to take off. To do so can only be seen as institutional scapegoating by an organisation which appears to be completely lacking in morality.”

The release of the documents has prompted renewed demands for full transparency, with families warning that they have been informed by senior government sources that further undisclosed material on the crash exists across government in several locations.

The latest files raise serious questions about whether all relevant evidence was made available to previous inquiries, including the fatal accident inquiry at Paisley Sheriff Court.

The Chinook Justice Campaign is now calling for the case to be treated as one of the first tests of the proposed Hillsborough Law, which – once on the statute books - is intended to enforce a legal duty of candour on public authorities.

Mark Stephens CBE, from Howard Kennedy LLP, solicitor for the families, said: “These are documents the public was never meant to see—and they change everything. They show not a search for truth, but a determination to suppress it. Without them, the public has been asked to accept a version of events that was neither true nor properly tested.

“These documents lay bare a systemic failure of candour. They go to the heart of why the Hillsborough Law is needed and show that senior officials cannot be allowed to decide whether a Duty of Candour should apply or not. 

“It’s a prime example of why the MoD and other security agencies must not be excluded from the uncomfortable facts, and avoid scrutiny.”

Elkan Abrahamson, Director at Hillsborough Law Now and Head of Major Inquiries at Broudie Jackson Canter Solicitors, added: “Hillsborough Law - the Public Office (Accountability) Bill - is currently unable to proceed to the 3rd reading and report stage, as the Security Services, including Ministry of Defence, Counter Terrorism Police and the National Crime Agency, are insisting on being excluded from the provisions applying to everyone else.”

Last month, the Chinook families wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an urgent intervention. In the House of Commons, following a question from Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt recently, Sir Keir Starmer committed to further reviewing the case and to meeting the families.