Renewed pressure has been put on the British government to reopen the investigation into the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash, after a leaked report by aviation experts claimed that technical faults and not pilot error were to blame for the accident in which 29 people died.
The report, written by Fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society, concluded that the finding of gross negligence on the part of the pilots was not sustainable in light of significant evidence of other aircraft problems which could have caused the crash.
The Royal Air Force Chinook Mark 2 helicopter came down on a hillside on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, killing both pilots and all passengers, among them 25 senior members of British anti-terrorism intelligence units. An RAF investigation at the time found that the accident was caused by the gross negligence of the two pilots, a verdict which, according to RAF regulations, can be pronounced only when there is absolutely no doubt that this was the case.
The verdict has repeatedly been challenged both by the pilots' families and by a number of independent campaigners, who claim that the Chinook's FADEC computerised engine control system could have been faulty.
Last year, a report by Computer Weekly magazine alleged that a malfunction in the helicopter's computer software may have been at least partly to blame for the crash.
Following the latest report, the Ulster Unionist security spokesman, Mr Ken Maginnis, demanded that the British government reopen its inquiry into the accident.
In light of the report's findings, it was hard to see how the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could remain adamant that there was no justification for such a new investigation, he added.
"I think the most recent report provides that justification. The MoD and the government in general have got to make a courageous decision and reopen the inquiry. I would expect them to do the honourable thing."
However, an MoD spokesman said yesterday there were no grounds for a new investigation. RAF experts had carefully studied the report but found nothing to contradict the original "exhaustive" inquiry, he added.