The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review
Evidence of Nimrod IPTL and IPT
13.179
13.180
13.181
398
There was evidence from George Baber and others that the Nimrod IPT faced very considerable challenges
which increased during the period 2000-2005. These challenges included, in particular: (a) pressure to deliver
the savings and change required by the Defence Reviews; (b) pressure to move towards ‘partnered’ inservice
support arrangements as part of the ‘transformation’ process; (c) the requirement to take on (indirect)
responsibility for ‘Depth’ maintenance at RAF Kinloss; (d) increasing organisational and procedural changes,
e.g. the change from Release to Service (RTS) to General Airworthiness Release Procedure (GARP); (e) the
broad remit of the Nimrod IPT which included e.g. responsibility for the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight
(BBMF); (f) responsibility for major projects such as Helix; (g) the increasing demands of supporting the
growing operational roles of the Nimrod MR2 and R1 in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq; and (h) the
demands of extending the Out-of-Service Date of the MR2 as a result of delays in the In-Service Date of the
MRA4. The job of Nimrod IPTL during this period has been described as “awesome”. George Baber said in
interview with the Review that, at times, as Nimrod IPTL there was a “lack of supervision” by his superiors and
he felt “abandoned” when the 2-Star tier of airworthiness delegation above him was removed.
In my view, there is considerable force in this. The evidence strongly suggests that: (i) George Baber was so
preoccupied with his other duties that he gave less priority and personal attention to the NSC and safety
and airworthiness issues than was appropriate; (ii) the Head of Air Vehicle at the Nimrod IPT (NIM(ES) AV),
Michael Eagles, was so preoccupied with negotiating Nimrod Integrated Support Contracts (NISC 2 and 3)
that he gave less priority and personal attention to the NSC and safety and airworthiness issues than was
appropriate; (iii) the Safety Manager, Frank Walsh, lacked oversight and insight in relation to the NSC and
airworthiness issues which he was left to handle; (iv) there was a general sense in which ‘business’ issues,
and achieving savings and efficiency targets, was paramount and airworthiness and safety issues were less
of a priority and would look after themselves; and (v) IPTs and IPTLs were ‘empowered’ and very much left
to their own devices. Further, the “awesome” scale of the Nimrod IPTL’s role is evident from the LOD George
Baber received from DG ES(Air) on 26 November 2003. It was in standard form, but was in many ways a
remarkable document for: (a) its length and complexity; (b) the number of regulatory references in it; (c) the
great emphasis it placed on achieving the DLO ‘Change’ Programme; and (d) the relatively little emphasis it
placed on the delegated airworthiness responsibility (which forms the last of 31 paragraphs).
The debilitating effect of the sheer volume of change has been felt at all levels of the Nimrod community, as
QinetiQ noted in a 2008 Report: 69
“In recent years there have been a number of change programmes that have had a direct
impact on the Kinloss structure and the NLS [Nimrod Line Squadron] in particular. While
each of these may have delivered benefits in one form or another, the sheer volume of
the changes has had a debilitating affect on the personnel who work in the NLS. It is
suggested it is time to revaluate the impact of these programmes to ensure benefits were
or are being realised, that the total change programmes have not weakened the make up
of NLS and that the communication strategy adopted for these activities continues to be
effective.”
Lack of supervision and oversight of Nimrod IPT and IPTL
13.182
In my view, there was a lack of adequate supervision and oversight of the Nimrod IPT and IPTL during this
period. This meant that the Nimrod IPT and IPTL were very much left to their own devices as to striking the
balance between the allocation of time and resources to project as opposed to safety issues. It also meant
insufficient regular re-iteration of functional values such as safety and airworthiness. But, as I explain below,
lack of supervision was, in a sense, the inevitable product of the ‘project-orientated’ structure set up by the
SDR which deliberately aimed to put decision-making into the hands of one person by ‘empowering’ IPTLs
and ‘de-layering’ above them and allowing them to chose to be ‘dual-hatted’, i.e. to be their own Project
Engineers. The airworthiness regime in the period 2000 to 2006 was inadequate to the task. The “long
screwdriver” of the CE(RAF) would have been better suited to inject orthogonal values into IPTs during this
period as it had been in the early days of MDGs.
69 QinetiQ Nimrod Fuel System Safety Review Report dated October 2007, paragraph J 2.3.6.