The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review
10 May 2004: Design Review meeting
10A.127 A further internal BAE Systems NSC Design Review meeting on 10 May 2004 showed further slow progress
being made by BAE Systems on Phase 2. The rationalisation of hazards from 1,300 to 105 had been
completed. But of the 55 rationalised hazards which were “on the street” (i.e. had been given to the Specialist
Departments) only six had been returned, including only one by Witness K [BAE Systems]. There had been
no input yet from Electrical Systems, which had a “resource problem”. Witness C [BAE Systems] criticised the
“poor pre-planning” of the project and Witness K [BAE Systems] said in evidence that he felt “the cart was
before the horse”, namely an estimate had been made before working out the pro-forma procedure. Good
project management would have been to work out the procedure to be adopted first, and then to have made
the man-hours estimate.
10A.128 At the meeting, Witness K [BAE Systems]’s draft Functional Mech Systems Pro-Forma was considered. It
included a ‘Summary and Conclusion’ section which required Mech Systems to carry out an analysis of the
post-control probability status of each hazard, i.e. an assessment of its probability after the Phase 2 work had
considered what measures had been taken to reduce any risk. There was a discussion between Eric Prince,
on behalf of Mech Systems, and Witness C [BAE Systems], on behalf of the Airworthiness Department, as to
whether the Pro-Formas should include any analysis of a post-control probability. As noted above, previously
it had been the Airworthiness Department’s position, as expressed by Chris Lowe, that the assignment of a
post-control probability was not Mech Systems’ role but should be done by the Airworthiness Department
alone. Chris Lowe was, however, not present at this meeting. In his absence, it was eventually agreed that
Mech Systems should do both the document search and the analysis assigning the post-control probability,
notwithstanding the fact that the Mech Systems’ budget estimate had not allowed for this. Witness K [BAE
Systems]’s draft Functional Mech Systems Pro-Forma was adopted.
MOD’s guidance on Safety Cases
10A.129 At the meeting, Witness K [BAE Systems] circulated a copy of the Safety Case chapter in the MOD’s “An
Introduction to System Safety Management & Assurance” 66 which set out in pithy form, the basic requirements
of a safety case. The MOD’s guidance also explained that safety cases must be “tailored” to reflect the
differences of legacy systems, and pointed out some of the difficulties of legacy systems, including finding
original design information and justifications for developmental decisions. Following the meeting on 10 May
2004, Witness K [BAE Systems] circulated a message summarising his understanding of the requirements for
the mitigation of zonal hazards laid down by the Airworthiness Department, which he believed called for an
“objective response” and “best judgment” or estimate by Mech Systems in the light of the ZHA description,
photo and any drawings that could be found.
13 May 2004: Witness K [BAE Systems]’s dissatisfaction with minutes
10A.130 On 13 May 2004, Witness K [BAE Systems] expressed his dissatisfaction and disquiet to Witness Q [BAE
Systems] that a number of previous concerns which had been raised by him and others at meetings had not
been minuted. These were not insignificant concerns and included the fact that a full Hazard Report was
too time consuming; there were ‘limitations’ on archive search, no Comet data was being found; there was
a lack of ideal historical or mechanical systems evidence, the archive search was not “value for £”; the initial
Mech Systems’ estimate had been for an evidence search only not analysis; and the fact that a safety case
structure as to what was required should have been produced initially and would still be of use. Witness Q
[BAE Systems] responded that the minutes were only meant to be a brief summary and he could attach his
own Mech Systems minutes if he so wished.
18 May 2004 – optimistic report to Fifth PSWG Meeting
10A.131 The Fifth PSWG Meeting took place on 18 May 2004, chaired by George Baber. Also present were Michael
Eagles and Frank Walsh from the IPT, and Martyn Mahy from QinetiQ. Chris Lowe attended on behalf of
BAE Systems and reported on the progress of the NSC. The minutes record: “Mr Lowe gave a presentation
indicating the level of work that had been completed on Phase 2 and stated that the work should be
66 See Chapter 9.
218