The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

Purpose of meeting
11.77
Dilemma
11.78
Chapter 11 – Nimrod Safety Case: Analysis and Criticisms
The Customer Acceptance Conference at BAE Systems’ offices at Chadderton on 31 August and 1 September
2004 represented the finale in the NSC process as far as BAE Systems was concerned. BAE Systems suggested
in its submissions to the Review that the purpose of the Customer Acceptance Conference was simply to review
and agree ‘the completion’ of the contract task and the existence of “Unclassified” or “Open” hazards did
not affect this. This is not correct. The purpose of the meeting was, in fact, two-fold : (a) for BAE Systems to
present “the results” of its NSC Phase 2 work; and (b) for BAE Systems to demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the
Nimrod IPT Customer” that the contractual requirements of PDS Task 06-3409 had been satisfied, and to obtain
agreement to ‘sign-off’ and final payment for the task. This is apparent from BAE Systems’ own minutes.
It was initially envisaged that the Customer Acceptance Conference would comprise a detailed review of the
Hazard Log contents, together with the other reports and the final BLSC reports. As the Customer Acceptance
Conference approached, however, the key BAE Systems management personnel involved in the NSC, namely
Chris Lowe, Richard Oldfield and Eric Prince, increasingly faced a dilemma. As each of them well knew (and as
was clear to most of the BAE Systems staff involved in the NSC project): (i) work on all the hazards had been
somewhat rushed and some had still not been completed (e.g. Hazards H78, H79 and H63); (ii) drafting of the
BLSC Phase 2 Reports was not finished, in particular the Executive Summary, Conclusion and Annexes B and
C thereof; (iii) over 30% of the hazards remained “Unclassified” and uncategorised, with no recommendation
beyond “Further analytical techniques are required” before they could be classified; and (iv) over 40% of
the hazards remained “Open” and unsentenced, many with no recommendation beyond “Further analytical
techniques are required” before they could be sentenced and closed. In these circumstances, Chris Lowe, Richard
Oldfield and Eric Prince must have been naturally concerned at the risk that the IPT and/or QinetiQ might be
reluctant to agree to ‘sign off’ on PDS Task 06-3409 if they became aware of (i), (ii), (iii) and/or (iv).
Switch in format
11.79 In light of the above, as explained in Chapter 10A, there was a belated switch in the format of the meeting.
Shortly before the Customer Acceptance Conference, a decision was taken within BAE Systems that the format
of the Customer Acceptance Conference should be switched from a detailed review of the Hazard Log contents
and the final BLSC reports to a ‘high level’ summary of BAE Systems’ Phase 2 work and a demonstration of
Cassandra. The draft agenda discussed with Frank Walsh on 22 July envisaged the entire first day being spent
on “Functions & Zonal Hazard Log”. The proposed agenda circulated with the call notice on 27 July included
on the first day a “review” of the final BLSC Reports and on the second day a “full review” of the hazard log
contents. The ‘Provisional Agenda’ circulated on 19 August, however, simply included a “Review of Hazards
Log and Mitigation of Identified Hazards” on the first afternoon; to which was then added “...and Summary of
Recommendations”. BAE Systems in evidence accepted that there was a change in the “intended emphasis” of
the meeting but suggested that this decision was taken solely because it was thought there would be insufficient
time to go through all the hazards in a two day meeting. I do not think this was the real, or only, reason. In my
view, it suited BAE Systems’ purposes not to go into too much detail when presenting “the results” of its Phase
2 work at the meeting in case the Nimrod IPT or QinetiQ asked too many awkward questions which might elicit
facts such as (i), (ii), (iii) and/or (iv) discussed above.
‘Rehearsal’ meeting
11.80
BAE Systems appear also to have held an internal ‘rehearsal’ meeting on or shortly before 31 August 2004, at
which this revised format was given a run through. It is striking that no details or documents relating to it were
forthcoming.
281