The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

Chapter 10A – Nimrod Safety Case: The Facts (Phases 1 and 2)
completed on time.” Chris Lowe’s PowerPoint presentation, in fact, put the matter even more optimistically:
“Project considered to be progressing well…. BAE Systems highly confident that they will produce the Baseline
Reports as programmed (end July 2004)”. It is difficult to see how this statement could properly have been
made (see further below).
10A.132 The minutes also record a decision that Nim(ES)Safety would arrange a meeting between BAE Systems and
QinetiQ “to ensure that the SC is independently assessed without any surprises”. This was followed up by an
e-mail from Frank Walsh to Martyn Mahy on 21 May 2004 in which he said: “I feel that we need a meeting
between yourself, BAE Systems and me to look at the Baseline Safety Case as it develops further. That way
there should be no surprises when you assess the final version.” He asked Martyn Mahy if he would make
himself available for a meeting at BAE Systems’ offices at Chadderton on 17 June 2004. A meeting duly
took place on that date (see further below). Martyn Mahy suggested in evidence to the Review that the
minutes and e-mail somehow had different meanings and it was not contemplated at this stage that QinetiQ
would “independently assess” the NSC when completed. I disagree. Martyn Mahy said in interview that he
had specifically advised the IPT that: there was “there was a need for the safety case to be independently
assessed or assessed by an independent body” because “Frank Walsh didn’t seem to be aware that that was
a requirement.” I have found no independent evidence to support this assertion; nor is it recorded anywhere
in writing, as it should have been since it represented material professional advice. In these circumstances,
I do not accept that any such advice was specifically given by Martyn Mahy to Frank Walsh. As I explain
in Chapter 11, however, both were, or should have been, well aware that the NSC should have been
independently assessed by a properly appointed ISA.
21 May 2004: BAE Systems Newsletter
10A.133 In keeping with the optimistic impression he had conveyed at the Fifth PSWG, Chris Lowe submitted the
following piece which was published in the internal BAE Systems’ TTRO “Weekly News” for the week ending
21 May 2004:
“Nimrod Platform Safety Working Group – was attended by TTRO Airworthiness at RAF
Brampton on 18 May 2004. A major agenda item was a presentation of progress on the
Nimrod Aircraft Level Baseline Safety Case. Whilst the group was satisfied with progress so
far, there is still a high volume of work to be discharged by TTRO engineering in order to
deliver the Baseline reports for approval by the end July this year and official IPT acceptance
by September latest. It was pointed out that this is looked upon as a Nimrod IPT showcase
project, and a fundamental milestone in Nimrod IPT 2004 activities. In view of this, Group
Captain Baber wished that achievement of the Safety Case acceptance and sign-off be
formally recognised by a publicity gathering to mark the occasion.” (emphasis added)
10A.134 Witness K [BAE Systems]’s reaction at the time when he read this article was one of incredulity. The following
entry that he made in his personal notebook (the first part of which was written in red ink for emphasis) is
worth quoting in full:
“Q: N.S.W.G. Major agenda item! Presentation of progress on NSC…
“Group satisfied with progress so far” – what was presented? 18/05/04
“Approval by end July this year” – engineering reports.
Show case / milestone proj / Public gathering!
engineering (and should have been supplied to program by end Feb) (final ones
28off delivered 21-5-04)
1 month)
finish by July?”
219