The terms of reference for the review are as follows:
In the light of the board of inquiry report:
to examine the arrangements for assuring the airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod MR2 in the period from its introduction in 1979 to the accident on 2 September 2006, including hazard analysis, the safety case completed in 2005, maintenance arrangements, and responses to any earlier incidents which might have highlighted the risk and led to corrective action;
to assess where responsibility lies for any failures and what lessons are to be learned;
to assess more broadly the process for compiling safety cases, taking account of best practice in the civilian and military world;
and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable, if necessary by way of interim reports.
Safeware is right. The processes exist and are robust. It’s implementation that’s lacking. And the processes, procedures and regulations apply to all aircraft, not just Nimrod.
I hope Mr Haddon-Cave has already seen through this and sought clarification……………
Forgive me, but the cynic in me says;
It has already been established, in the QQ report and elsewhere, that little historical documentation can be found in MoD’s Nimrod records. This could because (a) they have been destroyed, (b) lost or (c) hidden. Another ploy is to deny their existence in the first place. This worked on another accident mentioned here (or at least the claim doesn’t seem to have been challenged even though someone else produced the evidence that “didn’t exist”).
Who will the QC ask? The two Nimrod IPTs? They were only formed relatively recently. Who will he ask about records from 1979 to 1999? The last Director/Maritime in MoD(PE)? At least he is available – he made his position clear in the BoI report – most, if not all, his predecessors and their immediate superiors are retired which, apparently, precludes them from being interviewed.
DPA? Safety and airworthiness are optional. Disagree? Disciplinary action. Simple matter of record.
What about AMSO / AML? (DLO’s predecessors in the Air domain, 1991 to establishment of DLO). Well, their policy was clear. Thou shalt not address safety issues, or maintain the build standard in general, which includes safety / airworthiness. (Read the QQ report, it spells out the evidence). But I’m sure retired Directors General Support Management will offer to explain decisions. (If there is anyone left who remembers names. Try the boards in Bazelgette Pavilion foyer).
DLO? Oh Dear.
DE&S? They simply agree with previous rulings and have “nothing more to add”.
Minister for the Armed Forces? He’s advised by all the above to agree with previous decisions and also has “nothing more to add”.
(Well I hope Mr Haddon-Cave invites them to “add”).
And all the while the Corporate Memory (a requirement for airworthiness) is being eroded; nay, actively ditched.
One positive is that personnel records should remain. The people who were disciplined for refusing to ignore safety and airworthiness are well known. What, those records disappeared as well? Hopefully someone kept their own.
Conjecture? Yes, some of it. The rest is in writing.
Here’s my suggested starter for ten (as it’s always the starting point for any requirement – and airworthiness and safety should be requirements). When was the last time a sponsor or user ASKED for airworthiness or safety to be maintained? You think that’s a silly question? If you don’t ask, you don’t get. (And even if you ask, there’s no guarantee the BCs will give). If, one year, you don’t get, you create an immediate gap in the airworthiness and safety audit trails. And the next year, the BCs say “You didn’t need it last year, so you’re not getting it this year or next”. A manageable “gap” becomes an unbridgeable chasm. Now, that’s absolutely nothing to do with the Nimrod IPTs directly (although their embedded Requirement Managers should be interested) and I doubt very much if there is anyone in the IPTs who remember. The process I describe is mandated by PUS (but rejected by just about everyone else in authority). It’s called “making materiel and financial provision”. Wait a minute, just checking my dairies. Ah, here we are. 29th Jan 1998. “Of no concern to MoD(PE)”. (Nimrod 2 Star). What?