The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review
9.27
9.28
9.29
170
The findings and recommendations of the Man S (Org) Study were made following a review of ‘best practice’
as set out by the HSE, Industry and foreign Ministries of Defence, using WS Atkins Consultants Ltd to review
industry practice. A review of the Man S (Org) Study itself suggests that this review was comprehensive and that
the authors of the study had firmly embraced the Safety Case concept and philosophy as expounded by Lord
Cullen in the Piper Alpha report. In particular:
9.27.1 The Man S (Org) Study commented that discussions between the study’s authors and the HSE had
revealed that the MOD was considered to be a ‘reactive’ organisation which needed to change its
approach to safety to being ‘pro-active’.
9.27.2 The Man S (Org) Study echoed Lord Cullen’s views as to the importance of a safety culture and the
importance of audit and review, with a clear line of accountability to the head of the organisation. Such
audit and review was especially important within an organisation such as the MOD, which acted as both
a regulator and operator.
9.27.3 The Man S (Org) Study emphasised the need for the customer to define safety requirements, imposing
on the contractor an obligation to take responsibility for the product and not allowing the
contractor to transfer responsibility back to the customer.
9.27.3 The Man S (Org) Study shared Lord Cullen’s view that Safety Cases should generally be produced by
the operator, 43 who should take responsibility for them, with the ultimate responsibility resting at board
level where a director responsible for safety can be identified.
44
On 23 August 1995, the Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Operations) (DCDP (Ops)) produced a paper
(DCDP (Ops) Paper) with the aim of identifying the required restructuring of the (then) current procedures for
Design Certification of Airworthiness for military air systems in light of the Man S (Org) Study. The RAF received
a copy of this paper in December 1995. 45 The DCDP (Ops) Paper identified three key points of the Man S (Org)
Study as applying directly to the procurement of air systems:
9.28.1 The need to establish a “Safety Focus” for air systems, with responsibility for airworthiness policy,
procedures and standards;
9.28.2 The introduction of formal “Safety Case” procedures in the procurement arrangements for new or
modified military air platforms, associated weapons, and airborne equipment to ensure a satisfactory
audit trail; and
9.28.3 The taking of steps to ensure adequate airworthiness expertise was maintained in the Air Project
Directorate, with specialist support available to back up the procurement teams.
The DCDP (Ops) Paper was thus procurement-focused; it expressly sought to introduce Safety Cases in the
procurement arrangements for new or modified systems, but did not discuss the application of Safety Cases to
legacy aircraft.
43 The Man S (Org) Study recognised that there were exceptions in the civil aviation industry, where the responsibility for the preparation and
submission of a safety case rests with the aircraft designer/manufacturer.
44 Entitled ‘Airworthiness Certification for Military Aircraft’ (Ref: DCDP(Ops)/115/10).
45 RAF Minute in relation to the DCDP (Ops) paper, dated 9 January 1996.