The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

Worksheets
10A.60
10A.61
10A.62
Chapter 10A – Nimrod Safety Case: The Facts (Phases 1 and 2)
[BAE Systems] when inspecting XV236. These two teams appear (unintentionally) to have overlapped at the
wing root. Both teams also appear to have recorded the hazards in Zones 514/614 slightly differently in their
worksheets (see below).
The headings on the standard form worksheets used by the teams suggest that some analysis was envisaged
at this stage, with one worksheet per zone, namely:
ZHA Worksheet
Zone No. Title:
Equipment & general hazard Potential for hazardous
interaction in zone
Input to hazard
Log Y/N
Hazard Log Reference
Or
Comment
Unfortunately, BAE Systems’ original worksheets as actually fi lled in were not available to the Review. Witness
C [BAE Systems] recalls leaving the full set in a manila envelope on his desk when he left BAE Systems’
employment in April 2008; subsequent careful searches by BAE Systems’ lawyers, however, have not located
them. Fortunately, photostats of some of the worksheets were found in a separate working fi le. This included
a photostat of the worksheet for Zones 511-515 prepared by Witness I [BAE Systems], reproduced below:
The relevant manuscript entry which relates to Zone 514 (the No. 7 Tank Dry Bay port) is the third row of the
worksheet, which reads:
FUEL COUP FUEL, ECS, FLYING CON, ELEC
CABLES
It shows that, at the time of fi lling out the worksheet, very little actual hazard
10A.63 analysis was done, i.e. working
out precisely how and in what circumstances the various systems might interact to cause a fi re or hazard.
Indeed, despite the worksheet headings, the worksheets appear to have been used as little more than
notepads to record cursory details for a handful of zones. The Jaguar worksheets, by contrast, appear to
312
203