The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

Chapter 10A – Nimrod Safety Case: The Facts (Phases 1 and 2)
10A.216 Witness K [BAE Systems] was clearly uncomfortable about the quality of the work done on the NSC and the
fact that so many hazards had been left “Open” and “Unclassified”. As it happens, he was not called upon to
speak at the meeting and therefore remained silent. He was questioned about this in interview and explained
that there were more senior BAE Systems people present who were conducting the meeting:
“MR HADDON-CAVE QC: Why didn’t you tell the customer that 40 per cent of the
hazards remained open?
WITNESS K [BAE Systems]: Mr Haddon-Cave, I don’t know. I didn’t know. I didn’t do
an account of how many of the hazards were open. At the customer meeting, why didn’t
the airworthiness lead, or the project engineering team lead at the meeting, say how
many hazards were open? I don’t know. It was their meeting and I was there, should
anybody ask about the mechanical or the zonal pro formas. And I would be able to answer
them if there was any detail in there that they wanted to go to. But with respect to the
important people in that room, the higher level people in that room, and their -- basically
their meeting with the customer, of which I was in attendance, you know, I wasn’t asked
to stand up and give my opinion on the entire safety case.”
10A.217 Witness K [BAE Systems] was not alone in his feelings. Witness T [BAE Systems] in interview also referred to
himself as a “bystander” and said that there was “unrest” at what might be asked by the customer about
the hazard mitigation. Likewise, Witness P [BAE Systems]’s recollection was that he may have had a “private
thought” and “conferred with Witness C [BAE Systems] across the table... and looked at each other and
thought, ‘We hadn’t quite done 105’”. He went on to explain in interview:
10A.218
“MR PARSONS QC: So do you remember looking at each other and then raising
an eyebrow?
WITNESS P [BAE Systems]: We may have glanced at each other, yes.
MR PARSONS QC: Were you rather hoping the client didn’t ask you if it was actually all
finished?
WITNESS P [BAE Systems]: I think we both just sat there, schtum.
MR PARSONS QC: Do you remember other people sitting there, a little bit uncomfortable
about what was being said?
WITNESS P [BAE Systems]: I would imagine that if Witness K [BAE Systems] had been
present, then he would have sat there and probably thought “that’s not true either”, but
a joint front was being taken in front of the customer.”
As to the latter answer, Witness K [BAE Systems] was, in fact, present throughout the meeting but as he
explained, he did not feel it was his role to speak out.
QinetiQ’s representative ‘booed’
10A.219 I turn now to consider the role of QinetiQ’s representative, Witness O [QinetiQ], during the Customer
Acceptance Conference. At the beginning of the meeting, Witness O [QinetiQ] introduced himself and
explained that was standing in for Martyn Mahy at short notice. He was seated beside Frank Walsh. He had
not previously been involved in the NSC and was not familiar with the project or the detail. Accordingly, he
was for the most part a passive observer during the meeting. He said that everyone else seemed to know
each other and that he felt like “a fish out of water”. He did, however, raise the question of the level of risk
mitigation controls in place during the demonstration of CASSANDRA. He was told that the risk mitigation
was only 85-90% completed but would be before the Phase 2 was completed.
10A.220 When, at the end of the second day, all present were asked to state in turn whether they supported the
completion of Phase 2 of the NSC by BAE Systems, Witness O [QinetiQ] said that, because he was only
standing in for Martyn Mahy and had not seen any of the key deliverable documents, he felt that he could
not validate BAE Systems’ claim that these documents satisfied the contractual requirements. His account in
his statement to the Review of what then happened is striking:
237