Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 8 MARCH 2000
MR KEVIN
TEBBIT, SIR
ROBERT WALMSLEY,
VICE ADMIRAL
SIR JEREMY
BLACKHAM AND
MR JOHN
OUGHTON
180. I would also ask why in the case against
Textron-Lycoming it was stated that this was flight safety critical.
(Mr Tebbit) I am not sure about the case. I do not
think it was a case but certainly in conditions where people are
seeking to secure better performance from a third party they are
likely to press their case as strongly as they possibly can.
181. I cannot believe that what you are telling
me is that the MoD made a false court statement.
(Mr Tebbit) I certainly was not saying that.
182. I would ask you to provide a note to the
Committee about the court documents that were put forward in that
case[23].
Sir Jeremy, EDS-SCICON stated that there should be no category
one anomalies in safety critical software. Do you know how many
EDS-SCICON discovered?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) No,
I do not.
183. Would you accept from me they discovered
56 category one anomalies?
(Mr Tebbit) I should intervene—
184. I have asked Sir Jeremy to answer this.
(Mr Tebbit) I do not think it is for Sir Jeremy to
answer this.
Chairman: Mr Tebbit?
Mr Gardiner
185. Mr Tebbit? If you could adopt the same
strictures that I asked Sir Jeremy.
(Mr Tebbit) This is not a court of law. I think it
is reasonable for me to answer properly rather than with yes or
no answers which does make it rather difficult. I tried to explain
earlier that the techniques used by EDS-SCICON were not appropriate.
186. I will come to that in a minute. I asked
you a specific question: do you accept they discovered 56 category
one anomalies? It is very simple; you can either say, yes, you
do accept it or, no, you do not.
(Mr Tebbit) It is not as simple as that because you
preceded it by the word "safety" which immediately raises
issues.
187. In this question I have not and under the
previous question Sir Jeremy did not accept—
(Mr Tebbit) Under their terms.
188.—That it was flight safety critical.
(Mr Tebbit) In the terms you have just asked the last
question that is what they said but there was a different context
in which you posed the question earlier.
189. Do you accept that EDS-SCICON discovered
56 category one anomalies?
(Mr Tebbit) Under their definition they may well have
done but it was of no particular significance.
190. Earlier you said Boscombe Down did not
say FADEC was unsafe but that was it was "unverifiable"
because they could not read it.
(Mr Tebbit) Yes, correct. I do not know about "read
it", but that is correct.
191. Yes is good enough. The MoD put this line
to the Defence Select Committee. Would you accept that in fact
Boscombe Down were able to read the software and that they stated
that it was "unacceptable"?
(Mr Tebbit) I do not know what you mean about being
able to read it. They certainly looked at it using a particular
methodology.
192. Did they state that it was unacceptable?
(Mr Tebbit) I have no idea whether they used that
word.
193. In that case could you check the documentation
and provide a note to the Committee[24]?
(Mr Tebbit) I think this is becoming
rather difficult to answer because you are putting questions to
me in an inquisitorial sense and I have described what happened
already. I think I have described it very fully already, Mr Chairman.
Chairman
194. It is up to Mr Gardiner what questions
he asks. He has been in order so far on that.
(Mr Tebbit) I am happy to provide you again in writing,
as all previous enquiries have been provided in writing, with
statements made by this company. I do not think you will find
them different from the previous information you have received.
Mr Gardiner
195. If you could provide a specific note on
whether they used the word "unacceptable" about the
system[25].
The Defence Select Committee was also told originally that the
software was not safety critical. Is that correct?
(Mr Tebbit) The Defence Select Committee
evidence given by whom. I am not sure about this.
196. That was the MoD's evidence to the Defence
Select Committee that it was not safety critical which you have
just given the same evidence to this Committee. I trust you have
no objection to that.
(Mr Tebbit) No.
197. In its legal case against FADEC's suppliers,
Textron-Lycoming, do you agree that the MoD stated that "FADEC
was truly critical in maintaining safe flight".
(Mr Tebbit) I do not know anything about the legal
case.
198. In that case, Mr Tebbit, could you provide
us with a written note as to whether the quotation which I have
just given "FADEC was truly critical in maintaining safe
flight" formed part of the case against Textron-Lycoming[26].
The MoD subsequently advised the Defence Select Committee that
that was the case.
(Mr Tebbit) It was an arbitration case
I am advised. Sorry?
199. My understanding is that the MoD subsequently
advised the Defence Select Committee of what I have just said.
In their case against Textron-Lycoming they had made statement
that "FADEC was truly critical in maintaining safe flight".
Was that advice subsequently given although not originally given
to the Defence Select Committee?
(Mr Tebbit) You are asking me to provide
details here of what was said to a different Committee. I have
not got with me all of that information.
23 Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1. Back
24
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 38. Back
25
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, pages 37-38. Back
26
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, pages 37-38. Back
| 
