QC's understanding of ALARP is not correct
In his report he stressed the point that the "R" in ALARP has a temporal element, and criticize the Coroner for calling for the grounding of the Nimrod, because in his opinion "a reasonable time is allowed" to mitigate identified risks. He makes constant reference to Lord Cullen's guidance in the Edwards v The National Coal Board in which Cullen states:
"'Resaonably practicable' is a narrow term than 'physically posible' and seems to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time OR trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it is shown that there is gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus on them"
Now, having read Lord Cullen's findings, and the Health and Safety guidelines, I believe that "time" in this context means downtime (lost time) of the plant or equipment and its associated costs and trouble. It does not mean, as Group Capt. Hickman (inquest witness) and the QC claim that "we have got time to reduce the risk to ALARP". In the case of the current hot air duct replacement programme "time" means the downtime of the aircraft and/or the trouble of not having them operational. It does not mean, as Group Capt Hickman suggested at the inquest, that he had until mid 2009 to complete the modification, and that aircraft were "tolerably safe but not ALARP".
In Lord Cullen's findings "time or trouble" are linked and viewed as a "sacrifice", or cost to be borne by a company or organisation in order to achieve ALARP. To view "time" in the manner in which the QC described in his report can only be seen as a let out, not a sacrifice.
DV