05.04.2013 Views

The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>The</strong> Safety Committees and Hazard Management Process<br />

9.77<br />

9.78<br />

9.79<br />

Chapter 9 – Background to Safety Cases<br />

<strong>The</strong> SMP provided that the review and endorsement of the platform safety issues managed by the IPT would<br />

take place through a two-tier committee system, a high level PSWG and lower level Aircraft Safety <strong>Review</strong>s<br />

(ASR). 109 It mandated the following process for hazard management:<br />

<strong>The</strong> SMP Hazard Management Process thus envisaged a tiered, three-stage process:<br />

9.78.1 Stage 1: LOD holders were to give ‘proposed’ risk categorisations to draft hazards after advice from the<br />

Engineering Heads of Branch (HOB) (with HOB being able to declare risks as ‘managed’ or ‘closed’ up<br />

to Category ‘C’ and the PE/IPTL being able to declare risks up to Category ‘A’).<br />

9.78.2 Stage 2: All risk categorisations and controls were to be reviewed by the ASR (with the ASR being able<br />

to declare risks up to Category ‘C’, but passing all Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ and borderline ‘C’ risks up to the<br />

PSWG).<br />

9.78.3 Stage 3: All Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ and nominated ‘C’ risks were to be reviewed by the PSWG (with the<br />

PSWG being able to declare risks up to Category ‘A’).<br />

Risks of Category ‘C’ and above required more than simply a discussion between the instigating IPT member<br />

and LOD holder. <strong>The</strong>y required a formal Preliminary Hazard Analysis as directed by the Head of Air Vehicle or<br />

the ASR, i.e. detailed discussion, ‘brainstorming’ sessions, structured HAZOP techniques, or assistance from<br />

specialist industry. For risks of Category ‘A’ or ‘B’, risk classification of ‘Open’ and ‘Approved’ hazards/accidents<br />

by NIM(ES)AV or the ASR was subject to endorsement by the IPTL/PE. As to which, it was contemplated by the<br />

SMP that the PE/IPTL’s categorisation of risk could and would, on occasion, be done ex-committee. However,<br />

it appears also to have been envisaged by the SMP that, in any event, all ‘A’ and ‘B’ and borderline ‘C’ risks<br />

categorisations would nevertheless still require to be reviewed, first by the ASR and then by the PSWG. 110<br />

109 Ibid, Appendix 1 to Annex A, paragraph 1.<br />

110 Ibid, Appendix 1 to Annex A, paragraphs 6 and 10.<br />

185

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!