Sign-up to receive weekly Defense email updates with news, commentary, photos, videos and more!
Focusing on the critical interplay of programs, policy, funding and operations to provide integrated intelligence and global perspective to defense and government leaders worldwide.
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report is relied upon for the latest, critical intelligence on programs, budgets and policies in defense, as well as military and civil space.
Unmanned Horizons is a dedicated section of AviationWeek.com's defense coverage of unmanned systems.
Access news, blog posts, videos, photos and other exclusive unmanned systems-related defense content.
Aviation Week is proud to announce its new Innovation Special Topic page supported by Booz Allen Hamilton.
Check out articles, white papers, interactive features and more related to aviation, aerospace and defense innovation.
Join defense leaders for the annual event focused on improving program performance! More »
Depending on your perspective, BAE Systems was either caught wrong-footed or was being measured in any action in response to Charles Haddon-Cave’s criticism of the company in his report into the loss of a Nimrod MR2 in Afghanistan in September 2006, and the deaths of the 14 personnel on board.Haddon-Cave’s ministry-commissioned report, published at the end of October, levelled serious criticism at the Defense Ministry, Qinetiq, and BAE Systems. The ministry is expected to make a further response to the report this week, Qinetiq has already set up its own review, and now BAE is calling in Chris Elliott to lead a review into product safety.Elliott, a systems engineer and barrister, will work with BAE group managing director for programs and support Nigel Whitehead on the review.Haddon-Cave was critical of BAE’s role in the Nimrod Safety Case. He described the safety case as a “lamentable job from start to finish”. The Haddon-Cave report claimed BAE: “bears substantial responsibility for the failure of the Nimrod Safety Case.” He suggested elements were “poorly planned, poorly managed and poorly executed, work was rushed and corners were cut.”
Depending on your perspective, BAE Systems was either caught wrong-footed or was being measured in any action in response to Charles Haddon-Cave’s criticism of the company in his report into the loss of a Nimrod MR2 in Afghanistan in September 2006, and the deaths of the 14 personnel on board.
Haddon-Cave’s ministry-commissioned report, published at the end of October, levelled serious criticism at the Defense Ministry, Qinetiq, and BAE Systems. The ministry is expected to make a further response to the report this week, Qinetiq has already set up its own review, and now BAE is calling in Chris Elliott to lead a review into product safety.
Elliott, a systems engineer and barrister, will work with BAE group managing director for programs and support Nigel Whitehead on the review.
Haddon-Cave was critical of BAE’s role in the Nimrod Safety Case. He described the safety case as a “lamentable job from start to finish”. The Haddon-Cave report claimed BAE: “bears substantial responsibility for the failure of the Nimrod Safety Case.” He suggested elements were “poorly planned, poorly managed and poorly executed, work was rushed and corners were cut.”
Tags: ar99, Haddon-Cave, Nimrod, BAE