The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

10A.179
Chapter 10A – Nimrod Safety Case: The Facts (Phases 1 and 2)
The minutes of the Customer Acceptance Conference suggest that a rather gilded picture was conveyed to
those present at the Conference of the internal “independent review” which had been conducted :
“Mr Lowe stated that an independent review of the Nimrod baseline safety case had
recently been carried out by BAE Systems airworthiness function. This review ratified the
approach taken by the design authority and the production of this baseline safety case,
and confirmed the robustness of the safety case argument for a mature platform such as
the Nimrod.” (Minutes of Customer Acceptance Conference, paragraph10.3) (emphasis
added)
10A.180 Witness A [BAE Systems] agreed in interview that the use of the term ‘independent review’ was “putting it
quite high” for what was merely “casting an eye” over a few reports. He was unable to recollect a specific
meeting that would justify the use of that term. He said that if he had conducted such a formal or semiformal
“independent review”, he would have documented it. He agreed with Counsel to the Review that he
had never been in a position to confirm the “robustness” of the NSC argument.
‘Rehearsal’ Meeting
10A.181 BAE Systems management also decided to hold an internal ‘rehearsal’ meeting before the Customer
Acceptance Conference, in order to run through what questions might be raised by the Nimrod IPT at
the Customer Acceptance Conference. Evidence as to what took place during this ‘rehearsal’ meeting was
scant.
Customer Acceptance Conference – 31 August and 1 September 2004
10A.182 The ‘Customer Acceptance Conference’ itself took place at BAE Systems’ offices at Chadderton on 31 August
and 1 September 2004. It was a crucial meeting. Its aim was to obtain the IPT’s agreement that BAE Systems
had completed its Phase 2 task.
Who was present at the meeting?
10A.183 The meeting was attended by five people from the Nimrod IPT, Michael Eagles, Frank Walsh, Witness W
[MOD] (NIM(ES)AV(Av)), Witness X [MOD] and Witness Y [MOD] (RPO at Chadderton). Witness X [MOD] had
been asked to attend in place of Witness Z [MOD] who was unavailable. Michael Eagles had to leave at the
end of the first day to attend another meeting with BAE Systems at RAF Woodford, leaving Frank Walsh in
charge. There were 12 people present from BAE Systems, including: Richard Oldfield, Chris Lowe, Witness
AA [BAE Systems], Eric Prince, Witness C [BAE Systems], and Witness K [BAE Systems].
10A.184 QinetiQ was represented by Witness O [QinetiQ] who had stepped in at the last moment for Martyn Mahy.
On or about Friday 27 August 2004, Martyn Mahy had contacted Witness O [QinetiQ] and asked him if he
could attend the two day Nimrod BLSC meeting at Chadderton on 31 August and 1 September 2004 in
his stead because he was suddenly unable to attend for unavoidable family reasons. Witness O [QinetiQ]
agreed to stand in for Martyn Mahy. In a subsequent telephone call, Witness O [QinetiQ] received a short
briefing from Martyn Mahy who told him that 66% of the risk mitigation was outstanding and requested
him specifically to ask at the meeting what proportion of the mitigation was complete. Witness O [QinetiQ]
received no other briefing, nor any preparatory documentation before attending the meeting the following
week. Martyn Mahy said in interview with the Review that it would have been better if Witness N [QinetiQ],
the Technical Manager, had gone to the meeting, but he was otherwise engaged. Witness N [QinetiQ] said
he was aware that the meeting was for “the contractual sign off of the Safety Case-work so far done by BAE
Systems”, but that he was content for Witness O [QientiQ] to attend and assumed he would be briefed by
Martyn Mahy.
229