BPA/BS FIRES JEFF MONTGOMERY...

BPA Watch recently received an interesting email from a reader about the BPA's new Head of Safety Mark Bayada, which we reproduce here. We were offline because of an apparent denial of service attack after our exposure of Health and Safety Executive CEO Sarah Albon as a probable BPA asset through her (undeclared) connections to BPA Ltd now trading as British Skydiving. 

BPA, known as British Skydiving, announced the appointment on Facebook. Bayada (left) was already on the BS Team as Deputy Chairman or Vice Chair, a post he occupied in addition to his role as Chief Operations Officer of the Army Parachute Association. Bayada replaces Jeff Montgomery, widely seen as a scapegoat for bad governance by Gibson and BS Chairman Tony Crilly.

Gibson and Crilly (right) have presided over seven skydiving fatalities in a 24-month period, increasing media interest in the the scandalous death and injury toll on the firm's watch over the past quarter of a. century and the disastrous performance of Montgomery and the firm's lawyers in front of the Durham Coroners Court, when the court ruled that BS had no statutory regulatory powers. 

As the wheels start working loose on the BPA Bus, we expect increasingly desperate manoeuvres by the BPA directorate, who found themselves unable to afford to pay Montgomery off. Montgomery knows where many bodies are buried. For example: he was closely involved in the sabotage of the HSE investigation into the skydiving death of RAF Sgt Rachel Fisk. 

BPA is said to have recruited Crilly as Chairman in 2024 without knowing of the sex scandal that ended his military career as a Colonel at the Headquarters of NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. Crilly, who liked to tell people that he was Special Forces or SAS, has also been identified as behind a conspiracy to derail one of the criminal investigations into the seven deaths reported by The Daily Telegraph, alleging that an expert witness shared his files with British Skydiving. 

Don Canard

BPA Watch Test 28.6.2026

 Test Post

HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE COMPROMISED?

 Since 2023, when British Parachute Association Ltd (BPA) trading as British Skydiving (BS) got away with complicity in the death of Royal Air Force Sergeant and Parachute Jump Instructor Rachel Fisk, there have been four further skydiving-related deaths. This conforms to the average toll of two fatalities a year since the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) cut a deal with BPA now t/a BS in 1996. 

Sarah Albon aka Annie Pub Singer

When faced with potential legal action by injuried skydivers and instructors and next-of-kin, BS has negotiated out-of-court settlements requiring the beneficiaries to sign non-disclosure agreements. One such beneficiary, reportedly, was Sarah Albon, who qualified as a BPA instructor in 1999. According to sources within the firm, now trading as British Skydiving, Mrs Albon accepted a generous cash payment for injuries sustained whilst working as a BPA instructor and signed the usual NDA. 

Mrs Albon's husband Stuart or Stu Albon remains a BS senior instructor to this day. Stu Albon, who described himself as a "Former Camouflaged Messenger of Death" from 1984 to 1998 on his CV is a British Army veteran who served in Afghanistan as a Blanket Stacker, telling anyone who stood still long enough that he had been a Captain in the Special Air Service. In truth, he served with the Royal Logistic Corps. None of BPA Watch's SAS contacts, who include long-serving officers, had ever met the Former Camouflaged Messenger of Death during their service. Mrs Albon had a nickname too: "Annie the Pub Singer". The couple reside in one of the most expensive villages in Kent. Readers might be wondering why all of this is relevant. Read on...

 Other articles by BPA Watch have looked at the relationship between BPA/BS and the CAA, which could fairly be described as aiding and abetting BS in its establishment of a monopoly over civilian skydiving in the UK. This monopoly has allowed BS to impose a further monopoly over the growing and very lucrative leisure time activity of tandem skydiving, whereby thrill-seekers pay to leap from aircraft attached to skydiving instructors. 

This monopoly takes the form of a franchise operation through which skydiving centers pay annual fees to BS in return for which they can operate. Any skydiving or parachuting club or body that declines to pay these fees — and to buy expensive but useless BS insurance — is illegally refused parachuting permissions by the CAA, which falsely represents itself as UK parachuting national regulator. The national regulator is actually the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The CAA stepped into the vacuum created by the HSE's failure to assume its responsibilities for decades, during which the CAA and BS have presided over a shocking toll of deaths and life-changing injuries in the skydiving sector. In fairness, the HSE has now admitted its role as national regulator with regard to parachuting albeit very reluctantly. What could be the reason for this reluctance? Is the HSE worried about lawsuits from bereaved and cripped litigants over the lack of HSE regulation in skydiving?

BPA-BS and the CAA jointly published a document entitled CAP 660 that they hold up as some sort of official regulation. CAP 660 has been described as a coded exercise in evasion of the  Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Any parachuting body or individual who refuses to break the law by working to CAP 660 is penalised and cannot function in the UK. 

British Skydiving has managed to persuade some armed forces commands that CAP 660 is law, with the probable help of the retired senior RAF staff officers employed by the CAA. The death of Sgt Fisk is one of the consequences.

Senior BPA-BS officials have openly incited franchisees to evade Health and Safety law and have, in writing, described HSE regulation of skydiving as a "danger". They have sometimes suggested that BPA-BS and its affiliated parachute training organisations are exempt from Health and Safety law because they are not 'at work'; they are engaging in a leisuretime sporting activity. Some of this nonsense is addressed in this article by Don Canard. 

In 2020, BS also published an article, which is no longer visible, on its website claiming to have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the HSE over regulation (or total non-regulation) of its franchise operations.  Nobody at the HSE had ever heard of this MOU. However, BPA Watch did not put the question to HSE CEO Sarah Albon because we knew nothing of Mrs Albon's personal and familial links to this serially lawbreaking company.

In the wake of the debacle of the Rachel Fisk Inquiry and under pressure from interested parties, the HSE admitted that it was indeed responsible for regulating skydiving and its various service providers, who are all British Skydiving franchisees, like the skydiving centers, or instructors, like Stu Albon and, previously, his wife Sarah Albon. In October 2024, a senior HSE inspector wrote to newly-appointed BS CEO Robert Gibson. 

 

 

 Although civil in tone, the HSE letter told BS what various observers — and victims of BS bullying tactics — already know: BS had no official powers whatsoever, contrary to its claims to have been given regulatory powers by its protectors or accomplices in the CAA. At one point, the letter forbids BS to instigate inquiries into accidents unless authorised to do so by the CAA, the Local Authority or the Police. The weak link here concerns the Police, whom BS have succeeded in conning several times.

 BS has ignored the HSE and has so far gotten away with its disobedience. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the HSE's CEO is one Sarah Albon, the former BPA-BS skydiving instructor who reportedly signed an NDA with the BPA in return for an out-of-court settlement for injuries and whose husband makes his living as a BPA-BS senior instructor. Surely not!

 Fact-checking this worrying revelation, BPA Watch found a 2019 Financial Times article online that stated: "Britain's new health and safety chief knows all about managing risk: she used to be a skydiving instructor in her spare time.". There were no other easily accessible references to Mrs Albon's links to BPA-BS, which indicates that her online profile might have been professionally 'cleaned'. Nor did Mrs Albon disclose these personal and familial links upon taking up her new post as HSE CEO in 2019. 

 

BPA Watch did find hard evidence, however, when checking secondary sources, in the form of references to Sarah Albon as a BPA instructor in the then BPA house magazine. If an Internet 'cleaner' was engaged to launder Sarah Albon's profile either by Mrs Albon herself or by her new employers the HSE, already under pressure over its abdication ot regulatory responsibility for skydiving, the cleaner failed to remove the Financial Times article and the scans of back issues of the BPA house magazine.

 

 

 

Sarah Albon's Government CV and HSE disclosures page did not include any references to British Parachute Association Ltd trading as British Skydiving or to her husband's connections with the firm. 

BPA Watch, in line with its policy of giving free right of reply to everyone, wrote to Sarah Albon about her personal and familial connections to a a sports franchise firm whose evasion of Health and Safety law has killed and injured scores of people. Mrs Albon made no comment but we are reliably informed that the senior HSE inspector who wrote the stern letter to British Skydiving has been moved to another job. 

Meanwhile, the refusal of BPA Ltd t/s BS and its franchises to obey Health and Safety law has just killed a mother of four whose partner paid for a tandem jump as a special treat. He and the couple's 9 year old son watched as she and her BS instructor fell to earth from 15,000 feet over Devon. The death toll rises.

>>>>>>>>>

REACTIONS

 [Since this was published, BPA Watch has been contacted by a Mr Alex Busby Hicks who wished to point out that Sarah and Stu Albon have been divorced for some years and that Stu Albon in employed as a fireman rather than a British Skydiving senior instructor. 

 Mr Busby Hicks made other statements and signed off as "A fat crap hat" [sicunt] but we have not reproduced these for his sake. Sources close to Mrs Albon's office say that they were warned about her undeclared relationship with British Skydiving in 2021 and that she was summoned to explain herself. 

It has been suggested that the marital estrangement described by Mr Busby Hicks is a sham designed to protect Mrs Albon's career.

We have invited him to write us a short article from the viewpoint of a British Skydiving-affiliated Parachute Training Organisation owner or BS franchisee, explaining that Health and Safety law does not apply to BS franchisees because they are not at work.] 

Mr Busby Hicks suggested on social media that the leading freefall parachutist Ian Marshall was behind the 'Roman Kandells' nom de plume before accusing Mark Briggs of being behind both the Roman Kandells and Don Canard pseudonyms. We wish they were writing for BPA Watch. However, we know them and they know us. Ian Marshall asked us to post this comment  below the latest article. 

start/..

As it looks like Busby Hicks has not read all of the other articles in the blog and has not noticed that I’ve been named in some of them, when I’ve have been quoted in them after you contacted me by telephone. 

 

You seem to know more about the shenanigans and goings on in the BPA/CAA and the MAA than I did, (I had never heard of the MAA before all this blew up) and I was on the council for 27 years. Also your in-depth knowledge of the police investigations from your interviews with them, are nothing short of stunning to me. The revelations are shocking. 

 

Although I had to correct you on some information that you had, that you were given, (you did correct them in the blog once you verified it) I still think that there are some inaccuracies, due to some people lying to you, (to protect the quilty?) and that is hard to prove sometimes. I did prove to you of three of them that had lied, namely Tony Butler, Jeff Montgomery (who doesn’t link being called Jeff the Hat so I won’t) and George Duncan.

 

So as far as me being a coward hiding behind a pseudonym, I am baffled how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion unless they have not seen any of my posts on my Facebook page or in your blog, or that they a more stupid than they look. Also not one person or PTO will comment on the letter from the HSE to Robert Gibson (affectionately known as The Gibbon or the organ grinders monkey),the poor man having been brought in to take the blame by the looks of it. I don’t think he’s been told the truth either?

 

I will post this reply on my public Facebook page. I expect that there might be some more threats of suing me for slander and libel, like I’ve had before (as I have no evidence of what I said) I will produce that in court, as I’m itching to use some of my professional indemnity on them. 

 

So far the cowardly, backstabbing, lying, incompetent and criminally corrupt c*nts that I’ve exposed have not only backed out, but they have also just carried on entrapping more people with more lies.

Regards Ian 

end/...

 

 

 

HSE EXEMPTS BPA FROM H&S LAW?

BPA exempted from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974?

Are HSE Memoranda of Understanding a legal paradox or simple stupidity?

By Bravo Three Zero CMIOSH

Editorial Foreword

In the third and final part of our series on the Rachel Fisk tragedy, we addressed many of the underlying failures that any investigation should consider. However, we did not explore the question of the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has drawn up with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and British Parachute Association Ltd trading as British Skydiving (BPA/BS).

As readers of this blog know, BPA Watch (BPAW) has questioned the legality of the CAA’s delegation of parachuting regulatory oversight to BPA/BS and not just because the CAA, as a quango rather than a Aviation Ministry, has no right to create other quangos as in this case, in effect, of BPA/BS. A study of the Law reveals that the CAA is not the parachuting Enforcing Authority and has delegated to BPA/BS regulatory powers that were not in the CAA’s gift to begin with. The HSE is the true parachuting Enforcing Authority. 

However, anyone who interpreted the HSE’s imposition upon the Royal Air Force (RAF) of a Crown Improvement Notice over the skydiving-related death of RAF Sgt Fisk as an indication that the HSE was finally assuming its legal obligations might be in for a rude disappointment. A reading of the various Memoranda of Understanding drawn up between the HSE and various parties suggests that the Crown Improvement Notice imposed on the RAF is not worth the paper upon which it is printed.

CAP1484 CAA/HSE/HSENI Memorandum of Understanding guidance

 

Readers wishing to familiarise themselves with the HSE’s MOU processes should begin by taking a look at the CAP 1484 CAA/HSE/HSENI Memorandum of Understandingguidance page on the CAA’s website. This document supports the CAA/HSE/HSENI MOU and explains in greater detail the enforcement responsibilities of each regulator and the interfaces between the organisations.

Sport parachuting - Liaison between HSE inspectors and the civil aviation authority (CAA)

OC 801/2 Supplement 1

MOD parachuting

This Supplement to OC 801/2 outlines the approach which should be adopted in relation to parachuting undertaken by MOD. The arrangements are different from those detailed in OC 801/2.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE

This Memorandum of Understanding –– known as the ‘General Agreement’ –– records an agreement between the MOD and the HSE in discharging their respective roles and responsibilities for regulation and enforcement of health and safety (H&S) legislation on the MOD estate and for MOD activities in Great Britain (GB).

To uninformed observers, these MOUs seem to represent a logical approach to parachuting regulation and seem to make reasonable legal argument in that MOD sports parachuting should be undertaken in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulations made thereunder.

Consequently, the issuing to the RAF by HM Inspector Emma Page of a HSE Improvement Notice for  Crown Employees on October 7^th 2021 makes complete sense. 

 

However, the MOD’s Joint Services Adventurous Training (JSAT) sports parachuting centres are required to affiliate to BPA/BS. This affiliation obliges the JSAT centres to operate in accordance with the BPA-BS Operations Manual. Thus the MOD has agreed to these contractual terms and paid BPA/BS the requisite fees in confirmation of this formal agreement.

As BPA Watch previously highlighted, Group Captain Mark Smith, Commandant of the RAF Robson Academy of Resilience at RAF Weston-on-the-Green, also confirmed this MOD-BPA/BS contract when he wrote: “RAF Weston on the Green, JSAT sports parachuting centre - operates under the auspices of British Skydiving - the National Governing Body (NGB) - who externally assure our parachuting activity.”.

Observers could be excused for wondering why the BPA/BA was not jointly named on HM Inspector Emma Page’s Crown Improvement Notice and why the Notice was addressed to Group Captain Smith’s deputy Wing Commander Tim Page –– who should engage good lawyers if he has not already done so. As BPAW’s Don Canard remarked of Page, he is being “done up like a kipper.”.

Wing Commander Page’s best defence might well consist of a legal argument that the HSE Crown Improvement Notice has no standing in Law because the contract between the MOD and BPA/BS is highly likely to negate the HSE-MOD MOU and any jurisdiction claimed by the HSE in relation to Sgt Fisk’s death.

As BPA Watch has previously reported, no BPA/BS officials seem able to produce any credible, government-issued, recognised or approved credentials qualifying them for any role in Health and Safety, accident prevention and investigation. The question must be asked: who were the HSE officials who approved the HSE-BPA/BS MOU without carrying out the prerequisite and necessary due diligence?

As one leading Parachute Training Organisation owner asked: “was the HSE acting to counter a proposal from within the CAA to deregulate skydiving, which would have confirmed the HSE as the regulator?”. Given that the HSE is actually the parachuting regulator, the question is moot but as long as the HSE continues to deny its obligations under the Law, the question remains an issue, especially with the rising toll of skydiving fatalities and life-changing injuries.

And then there is the HSE-BPA/BS MOU as described by BPA/BS Communications Manager Angel Fernandez in a news bulletin entitled ‘Why BritishSkydiving is so important to us all?’. 

Obviously, previous attempts by the HSE to exercise control over parachute equipment standards and to investigate skydiving incidents and accidents seem to have led to this HSE-BPA/BS MOU exempting BPA/BS from the health and safety law.

Through this MOU, if Fernandez was writing factually, the HSE apparently negated its legal obligations and duties to protect people at work in MOD and civil parachuting enterprises, and disregard to public safety, handing control over to the CAA - BPA/BS cartel.

In his article on May 9^th 2020, Fernandez discusses the HSE-BPA/BS MOU and makes some quite extraordinary and worrying assertions. Fernandez describes a litany of BPA/BS evasion and resistance to legal compliance and safety improvements proposed by various regulators and authorities.

As BPA Watch has already reported, the CAA-BPA document CAP 660 is not compliant with Health and Safety legislation. Fernandez also attempts to give the impression to readers that BPA/BS is the equivalent of HM Government departments and agencies, stating that the firm carries out regulatory functions and is in practice the Regulator.

Fernandez uses similar language to that later deployed by BPA/BS Chief Operating Officer –– and ghost CEO –– Tony Butler when he describes the HSE as a “threat”. More recently, in a written riposte to the lawsuit brought against BPA/BS by the majority of its affiliated Parachute Training Organisations, Butler described the HSE as a “danger”. Fernandez explains these ‘threats’ to readers:

• Attempts by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to exercise control over parachute equipment standards and to investigate skydiving incidents and accidents; a move which finally resulted in negotiating a memorandum of understanding whereby the HSE relinquished their position and acknowledged the expertise of British Skydiving (then BPA) and the CAA in matters of skydiving regulation.
• Successful opposition to a subsequent proposal from within the CAA to deregulate skydiving, which would have effectively handed regulation over to the HSE.

In correspondence with HM Inspector Emma Page –– the HSE case officer assigned to the Sgt Fisk investigation ––  and HM Principal Inspector Stephen Faulkner, BPA Watch asked, essentially, if the HSE-BPA/BS MOU amounted to the HSE granting the BPA an exemption from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and HSE jurisdiction.

In response to this and other questions, Mr Faulkner wrote; “The Notice does not represent the conclusion of the investigation, it was served on the RAF in relation to the management of sport parachuting activities undertaken by its employees as part of adventure training.  There are many lines of enquiry which are being undertaken but I am unable to comment on these at this stage.  Please be reassured that we have registered the concerns you have raised”.

The MOD Air Secretariat stated to BPA Watch on October 27^th 2021: “While I note the concerns and questions you have raised, I hope you will understand that a joint investigation is currently underway being conducted by Thames Valley Police and the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). As such, it would be inappropriate to comment until these investigations are complete.

“I can confirm that the Defence Safety Authority has convened a Service Inquiry (SI) to determine the cause of the accident, together with any other contributory or aggravating factors. It may be helpful if I explain that, on completion, the SI panel’s report will be provided to the HSE and the Coroner, and the report will be published on the Gov.uk website.”.

 

Both the HSE and the MOD seem not to understand that the MOD-BPA/BS contract, namely the JSAT affiliation to BPA-BS, has primacy in Law and nullifies the HSE-MOD MOU, thus enabling the HSE-BPA/BS MOU to take legal precedence.

If BPA/BS Communications Manager Angel Fernandez is correct in writing publicly that the “HSE relinquished their position and acknowledged the expertise of British Skydiving (then BPA) and the CAA in matters of skydiving regulation”, it means in effect that BPA Ltd trading as British Skydiving has been granted an exemption from The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and, consequently, HSE jurisdiction. 

Since the 1996 CAA-BPA Exposition, renewed in 2020, BPA/BS is the Regulator for all matters pertaining to parachuting and skydiving and can act as they see fit regardless of statutory provisions.

Aided and abetted by the HSE, the CAA and the MOD, this amateur sports association –– operating as an illegal commercial monopoly –– has been able to circumvent constitutional law and Parliament in order to give the BPA/BS Operations Manual quasi legal status , even though the MOD havepreviously questioned the adequacy of the document.

The HSE have deemed BPA/BS as ‘experts’ on all matters relating to parachuting and skydiving, a blessing which includes all such activities undertaken by the MOD.

The BPA has codified in CAP660 that MOD parachuting qualifications and expertise including those of professional RAF Parachute Jump Instructors (PJI) and Army parachutists are not recognised and that only unaccredited BPA/BS awards are acceptable. 

The firm is aided and abetted in this by the CAA, whose directors have consistently declined to agree that recognised qualifications issued under the Regulated Qualifications Framework by accredited Awarding Bodies are valid.

Despite the warnings of this blog and others to HM Government Ministers, the Police, HSE and MOD Service Inquiry investigators now appear to be sleepwalking into a legal minefield that may take a judicial or parliamentary review to resolve.

Sgt Rachel Fisk: victim of negligence

The MOD seems to have subjugated itself and the expertise of its service personnel –– like the late Sgt Fisk –– along with NVQ and other recognised qualifications to an amateur sports body run by people who pay themselves six-figure annual salaries whilst spending no more than £5,000 a year on safety-related matters.

The HSE seems to have signed away its powers  and, with those powers, the rights of military and civil parachutists to the protection that is their right under The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and related regulations.

If this is so, then whatever findings the HSE and the MOD present to the Coroner, who must rule on the Rachel Fisk fatality, can be deemed as questionable in Law and, more to the point, challenged by the charlatans of British Parachute Association Ltd trading as British Skydiving should the Coroner’s findings not be convenient to BPA/BS.

All the Coroner has to do is ask the HSE to produce its parachuting Code of Practice, a document it cannot produce as no such Code exists. Will the Coroner ask any of the parties involved in the investigation to produce their credentials?

The MOD is the only such party that can field credible parachuting experts but as we have seen, the MOD seems to think the charlatans of BPA/BS more qualified than their own parachuting experts.

We will conclude with a simple question and some food for thought:

Since when has the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the protection of persons at work and public safety, together with HSE oversight, ever been considered as a “danger” or a “threat” in the context of the UK regulatory framework?  The answer is obvious: since the introduction of the CAA-BPA Exposition in 1996, which CAA directors claim “reflects Government policy”.

Despite decades of illegal if not downright criminal activity – systematic evasion of health and safety law – the current legal situation would strongly suggest that BPA/BS enjoys the equivalent of Crown Immunity, an immunity reflected in the HSE omission of BPA/BS from the Crown Improvement Notice imposed on the RAF in relation to Sgt Fisk’s death.

The RAF –– JSAT, the Robson Academy of Resilience, RAF Weston-on-the-Green, 2 Group and 22 Group –- and their appointed scapegoat Wing Commander Tim Page should be able to see the HSE off by citing the agreements upon which the BPA Watch team stumbled whilst reporting on the Sgt Fisk affair.

Charlatans: BPA.BS 'interim report' into the death of Sgt Fisk

It seems that none the guilty parties can be prosecuted under The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 because of the HSE exemptions that their employers enjoy. Perhaps Thames Valley Police will try to bring charges of corporate manslaughter but would the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) approve such charges?

However, as BPA/BS are the controlling mind and the personnel at RAF WOTG are contractually bound to operate under the auspices of BPA/BS and in accordance with the BPA/BS Operations Manual, Thames Valley Police and the CPS would probably need to bring the charges against BPA/BS and its directorate under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 – not the MOD.

BPA Watch now challenges HM Government and its various Enforcing Authorities to do the right thing by reinstituting the rule of law in the UK so that Sgt Rachel Fisk’s bereaved family can obtain some kind of justice relating to their daughter’s entirely avoidable death in the service of her nation. 

Rachel Fisk was at work and died because of the negligence of those controlling and overseeing her activities – BPA/BS officials, cited by the CAA as “world class” and representing the “gold standard” in parachuting.

 

 

 

RACHEL FISK: LICENCE TO KILL

Is the CAA-BPA Exposition a 'licence to kill'? The British Parachute Association now trading as British Skydiving deliberately evades Health and Safety Executive scrutiny and regulation whilst presiding over a shocking annual death and injury toll.

The CAA permits its mini-me skydiving and parachuting regulator to get away with this lethal lawbreaking and so do the CAA quango's masters at the Department for Transport. Worse yet is that the HSE itself condones it while skydivers continue dying through refusing to assume its legal role and duty as the regulator. 

RAF Sergeant Rachel Fisk is merely the latest skydiver to die. The HSE has at least issued an Improvement Notice (see below) proving that Sgt Fisk was killed by what amounts to corporate negligence. However, the HSE has once again allowed BPA/BS to slither away unpunished, back into the netherworld over which its ghost supremo Tony Butler rules.

The HSE has hung it on the RAF. Better than that from the viewpoint of RAF 22 Group commander Air Vice Marshall Richard Maddison, the HSE seems to have hung it on a relatively junior-ranking staff officer. Stitching up the RAF was a first for the BPA/BS, which generally sets its sights lower when searching for scapegoats for deaths and life-changing injuries on its watch; the firm usually targets its own affiliated parachute centre operators or any BPA-rated instructor dispatching skydivers or running ground operations.

Does the undue influence of the BPA also extend beyond the capture and compromise of the Department for Transport through its uncontrolled quango the CAA to the capture and compromise of the Ministry of Defence – the answer seems to be a resounding 'yes'. 

When it suits BPA/BS, they play to the peanut gallery as a benevolent amateur sports association but let's not lose sight of the facts that the firm has a minimum annual turnover of £1.7 million – which may be double that figure if its alleged insurance-related machinations are taken into account – and pays its senior officials six-figure annual salaries yet spends no more than £5k a year on safety-related matters.

The least one can say of the CAA-BPA cartel is that the BPA gets a lot from the CAA in return for the £30k annual fee the firm pays to the quango's General Aviation division. Not only can BPA/BS evade all kinds of laws under CAA patronage, the CAA actively aids and abets the maintenance of an illegal BPA/BS commercial monopoly by obstructing and preventing the entry of other UK parachuting associations to the marketplace. BPA Watch has amply reported on all of this.

The 5th Edition of the BPA-CAA document CAP 660 was described by some critics as opening the way for BPA/BS to exert undue control over military skydiving and parachuting. These fears were ridiculed by some senior military officers but the death of Sgt Fisk and the way in which BPA/BS was clearly able to drive the investigation raises questions, not least of which is how BPA/BS came to be so influential in the death of a serving military NCO during military-run adventure training on MOD property, namely RAF Weston-on-the-Green.

According to BPA insiders and victims of BPA bullying, the BPA forces Parachute Training Organisation operators to declare that employees and contractors are not 'at work' in order to evade HSE interference and they get away with this because the HSE allows them to do so. However, Rachel Fisk and her colleagues were at work.

All skydiving equipment provided to instructors for work purposes or otherwise available for hire is, as a minimum, subject to the requirements of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation, the Working at Height Regulations 2005, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. To this regard, who is reasonable for fulfilling relevant duties under these regulations?

It is an established fact that Sgt Fisk was at work, therefore incumbent obligations are applicable. Many of the real experts and professionals are stating that the ‘burble theory’ purported by the unqualified amateurs at the BPA is totally incorrect and aimed at diverting attention away from the fact that it was an equipment functionality failure that resulted in Sgt Fisk’s reserve not deploying.

CAP 660 states that skydivers "must only use equipment acceptable to British Skydiving" which clearly indicates that the BPA are responsible for control over equipment standards – little wonder they are pushing the ‘burble theory’ as any equipment failure makes the BPA culpable under numbers-related regulations.

The Law stipulates that the CAA must authorise skydivers and parachutists to exit an aircraft in flight. The CAA can only withhold its authorisation – Parachuting or Special Parachuting Permissions – if it can show just cause. The Air Navigation Order 2016 (amended) is clear: the CAA must issue such permissions.

The CAA itself quotes from Article 23 of the ANO, addressing exceptions from the provisions of the Order. This is an important article, because it exempts small unmanned aircraft (as well as small balloons, small kites and parachutes) from the majority of the ANO’s provisions, and it then specifies those articles which still apply.

The legislation is clear: the CAA is the regulator whilst skydivers are on the aircraft and must give permission for the skydivers to exit the aircraft [at altitude] under Article 90 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (amended) (ANO).

Once the skydiver has exited and cleared the aircraft in accordance with Article 23 of the ANO, the ANO is not applicable nor is the CAA any longer the regulator – matters revert to overarching legislation, in particular the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The HSE is in reality parachuting's Enforcing Authority.

This is confirmed in CAA publication CAP1484 CAA/HSE/HSENI Memorandum of Understanding guidance. The document supports the CAA/HSE/HSENI MOU and explains in greater detail the enforcement responsibilities of each regulator and the interfaces between the organisations.

It is highly arguable that CAA publication CAP660 deliberately omits Article 23 and CAP1484, and the matters to which they pertain, thus facilitating evasion of the Law as the CAA and its illegally-appointed mini-me quango BPA/BS see fit. 

Regarding ANO Article 90, Mike Bravo CMIOSH told BPA Watch:

“The Air Navigation Order 2016 (ANO) like most UK legislation is not prescriptive; it is goal-setting in nature, with the objective of driving advancement in performance standards and best practice, continuous improvement and the development of compliance criteria.

"Subsequently, there are no instructions for the duty holder to follow in the ANO regarding parachuting. Article 90 simply requires that the particular parachute organisation or team are in possession of a permission and/or exemption issued by the CAA in order to exit an aircraft in flight and consequently adhere to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and regulations made thereunder.”.

However, the CAA quango lays down a smokescreen of obfuscation. The CAA has no transparently articulated application or assessment processes, in contradiction of the principals upon which UK law is based and in direct opposition to government directives relating to deregulation. There is no appropriate appeals process in place or otherwise independent oversight. There is no ombudsman.
All parachute dropping carried out from civil registered aircraft over the UK is regulated by the CAA and must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Air Navigation Order.

CAP 660 Parachuting is a comprehensive-looking source of information containing rules, regulations and guidance on:

• Legal requirements
• Parachuting operations
• Parachuting displays
• Monitoring and audit
• Safety management systems and risk assessment
• Relevant legislation
  

Not only does the CAA seem to be taking a £30,000 annual bribe from its delegated regulator, the quango's directorate seems also to take a cue from the BPA in terms of propaganda, misdirection and lying with an element of truth.

Many parts of CAP 660 are a direct cut-and-paste insertion from the legally dubious and rigid rule-based BPA Operations Manual – the only operations manual accepted by the CAA, which joins with BPA/BS in touting it as "the gold standard". 

CAP 660 is, however, only advisory. It has no legal standing and is not signed off by the Secretary of State. As such, it is not the equivalent of, for instance, a HSE-Approved Code of Practice.
The content does not provide any kind of regulatory framework or articulate any assessment criteria or evaluation process.

The CAA cannot enforce the provisions of this highly questionable document because they would need to refer back to the ANO – which clearly establishes that their jurisdiction ceases once the skydiver has exited and cleared the aircraft.

However, it is well-documented that the CAA believe that they can make up any rules and policies that suit them and act as prosecutor, judge and jury if anyone dares to object or formally complain.

CAA corporate culture is far from ‘just’ and is in most cases opaque. The overall attitude of the authority seems to be ‘we are the CAA, we refuse to engage with you and if you don’t accept that, then we shall revoke your licence, permissions or certificates’.

Bravo Three Zero CMIOSH told BPA Watch: “CAP 660 is poorly constructed and amateurish in nature, the content is quite extraodinary and one can only draw two reasonable conclusions; either the authors or, more importantly, those who approved CAP 660 [the CAA legal counsel] were totally incompetent and have little knowledge and understanding of the law. [BPAW established that CAA Legal Counsel lied about CAP 660 – Editor] or it was a deliberate attempt to evade the law.

"CAP 660 is in breach of numerous Statutory Instruments (Acts of Parliament and Regulations) or made a conscious and deliberate decision –– i.e. collusion and connivance –– to breach and/or evade a host of legal requirements, onus obligations and incumbent duties, thereby committing criminal offences.

"From the substantive available evidence, the latter is the most likely scenario, which is extremely worrisome, as this would have required the collusion and collaboration in extensive law braking and malfeasance of an Authority, albeit one that is mendacious and constantly found to be disrepute i.e. the CAA.”.

Mike Bravo CMIOSH said: "CAA duplicity is clearly evident: the CAA does not recognise Health and Safety legislation and HSE jurisdiction nor does the CAA accept current best practice because the BPA pays the CAA £30,000 per annum for their Approval of Persons status and to furnish reports to the CAA.

"To put this simply, the BPA tell the CAA what they can and cannot do as a regulator, including telling them to act illegally, protect the BPA monopoly and cover up criminal activities – and the CAA agree – and further publicly state that this is Government policy.

"Mainstream business shifted away from rigid rule based operational manuals to a risk management approach more commonly referred to as Safety Management Systems more than two decades ago.

"This was supported by the publication of various recognised management systems; HSE publication HS(G)65 Managing for Health and Safety, British Standards Institute and International Standards Organisation standards such as BS 8800 – HS(G)65, BS EN ISO 9001, BS 8800 – 14001, OHSAS 18001 and more recently BS EN ISO 45001.

"None of these internationally recognised standards is acknowledged or adopted by the BPA and so, therefore, they are also rejected by the CAA. The CAA or rogue directors of the CAA are up to their necks in lawbreaking.

"These standards require evidence-based and demonstrable compliance with health and safety law, and are independently assessed and assured by accredited and recognised Awarding and Certifying Bodies under UK Accrediting Certification (UKAC) scheme – which the BPA do not deem appropriate as they do not conform to the BPA's much-vaunted operations manual.

"This manual is held up as "world class" and "the gold standard" by the CAA and other BPA partners like the RAF and people are – falsely – warned that a breach of the BPA or BS Operations Manual is a breach of the law.

"And when Joe Public is told this by people who seem to have the law behind them, he knuckles under, doesn't he? Especially if he thinks his BPA ratings are going to be taken from him. He doesn't even know those ratings are worthless in any legal sense!".

A current BPA Vice-President recently described the BPA as follows: “The BPA is an insignificant amateur sports body that has been ‘bigging’ themselves up for years, yet they still operate like a small club working out of the backroom of a pub in the 1960s”

The CAA denies that CAP 660 gives the CAA and BPA/BS regulatory control over military parachuting activity or operations.

The management of Health and Safety in Defence – Ministry of Defence – is established in Joint Services Publication (JSP) 375. This collection of documents is the corporate publication that provides guidance to defence in meeting its legal health and safety obligations.

It provides a common structure for the organisation and arrangements for the day to day management of health and safety within defence. JSP 375 provides the direction that must be followed in accordance with Statute, or Policy mandated by defence or on defence by central government and the guidance and best practice that will assist the user to comply.

MOD establishments such as the Robson Academy – responsible for RAF Weston on the Green, Joint Services Adventure Training (JSAT) sports parachute operations – should also conduct activities in accordance with JSP822 which provides defence direction and guidance for training and education. It is the system that must be used by those who are involved in the analysis, design, delivery, assurance, management and governance of Defence training and education.

2.1 Introduction to Defence Systems Approach to Training (DSAT)1. Service Inquiries and injury reporting are an ever-present reminder of the importance of safety at the heart of Defence activity and Training is no exception. Increasing scrutiny and drive for continuous improvement demands that safety does not solely apply to perceived ‘high risk’ physical activity and will be a golden thread throughout this policy. Commanders have a duty of care to trainees and their families not only in terms of Care and Welfare (C&W) but also in Health and Safety (H&S) with respect to the delivery of training capability. Commanders are responsible for ensuring that training is delivered and managed safely by suitable qualified and experienced personnel (SQEP), through the conduct of dynamic risk assessments and rigorous assurance activity.

JSP822 further establishes the intention to maintain a strategic and coherent approach across defence, in relation to full national qualifications and accreditation schemes under the [civilian] Regulated Qualifications Framework overseen by Ofqual. The document provides comprehensive guidance, to duty holders, to ensuring a close fit with external academic and skills development – national vocational qualifications (NVQ).

Regulatory Article 2355 - Static Line and Freefall Parachuting Guidance Material 2355(2) Procedures for Static Line and Free Fall Parachuting

13. Sport Parachuting can be conducted for military purposes, eg: engagement events such as air shows.

14. Where Sport Parachuting has been approved by the ADH or AM(MF) the National Governing Body procedures detailed in the British Skydiving Operations Manual may provide some guidance for orders and procedures. However, the procedures set out in the Tac AT manuals and HQ 2 Gp Operations Manuals for equivalent military parachute systems provide sound guidance on how the activity may be conducted which the ADH or AM(MF) may wish to consult prior to promulgating Sport Parachuting procedures.

This and other MOD documentation require the application of a significant administrative process that would need to be systematically worked through in order to demonstrate that activities such as skydiving are safe and legislatively compliant. This would include, as a minimum:

• Compliance with Health and Safety Executive codes of practice or otherwise possession of relevant endorsements
• Evidence of certification to the appropriate quality (9001) and/or safe management (18001 or 45001) standard
• Training accreditation in accordance with the Regulated Qualifications Framework
• Confirmation of Insurances policies
• Formal nomination of responsible person(s)
• Safety plans and risk assessments
• Assessment and benchmarking process against MOD regulations and standards, in this particular instance 2 Group – Parachute Operations Manual (POM)

Given the inherent risk to life involved in skydiving, it is would behoove the MOD to apply the correct level of diligence to understanding the level of safety, legislative and regulatory compliance in relation to such operations, the associated criteria, procedures and processes under which activities were conducted, utilising relevant subject matter expertise and advice from other competent agencies, as necessary.

In this regard, the MOD recently stated:

“When military personnel are conducting adventure training or sports parachuting through civilian bodies whether in the UK or overseas, this is conducted under the regulations and operating procedures of those civilian bodies. However, military Aviation Duty Holders will retain duty of care responsibility for those military personnel. Consequently, there are well established processes as part of that duty of care responsibility for military aviation duty holders, to identify any difference in regulatory, safety management or operating standards for those civilian bodies and assess any risks as part of the military safety management system. This will enable the military to mitigate any duty of care risks from differences in standards, where this is appropriate”.

This may, on the surface, appear to be a reasonable statement from the MOD, but to the trained eye it is totally ridiculous. In simple terms this statement really means:

"We accept the unaccredited and poor level of training standards together with the legally non-compliant and highly questionable operational manual of an amateur sports organisation even though we know significant risks to life exist. We have our comprehensive and robust systems, processes and procedure in place i.e. the 2 Group POM, that we chosen not to implement; instead we decided to mitigate the risk by – allegedly – retrospectively applying our safety management systems, in an attempt to turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse – or in other words we accepted exceeding low and legally non compliant BPA standards and still failed to achieve them.".

However, HSE document OC 801/2 Supplement 1 MOD parachuting articulates matters as follows:

1. As a general rule parachuting undertaken by service personnel and parachuting by civilian members of MOD sponsored parachuting clubs is not subject to the day-to-day control and regulation of the British Parachuting Association (BPA).

To contradict and confuse matters further, BPA/BS does not accept any recognised parachute and instructor qualifications awarded under the Regulated Qualifications Framework, including those awarded by the MOD as a recognised Awarding Body, nor do does BPA/BS recognise military jumps and numbers of military jumps carried out.

MOD JSAT sports parachuting centres are required to affiliate to BPA/BS and consequently are contractually obliged to operate in accordance with the BPA Operations Manual. This is also confirmed in an email – confidentially provided to BPA watch – written by RAF Group Captain Martin Smith, Commandant of the Robson Academy of Resilience at RAF Weston-on-the-Green:

“RAF Weston on the Green, JSAT sports parachuting centre - operates under the auspices of British Skydiving - the National Governing Body (NGB) - who externally assure our parachuting activity.".

It is also understood that BPA representatives audited – obviously extremely poorly – RAF WOTG's JSAT sports parachute centre, a BPA Affiliated Parachute Training Organisation (PTO), in July 2021 and presumably provided a ‘clean bill of health’. Surely the HSE ought to have addressed its Improvement Notice to the BPA instead of the RAF?

The question must be asked, how can the unqualified charlatans of the BPA externally assure the compliance and safety of any PTO business operation, and more specifically an MOD establishment, staffed by highly qualified military parachute jump instructors? The death of Sgt Rachel Fisk seems to provide the answer: they can't and the HSE Improvement Notice proves it.


Have the recommendations from the Service Inquiry into the death of a soldier whilst parachuting at Bad Lippspringe, been ignored by RAF WOTG JSAT sports parachute (skydive) centre?
Why were the comprehensive and robust MOD safety requirements not applied by Robson Academy to RAF Weston on the Green (WOTG), JSAT sports parachute (skydiving) operation?
Why was RAF WOTG JSAT not working to the safety standards encapsulated in the 2 Group POM?

This brings us back to our previous question; does the undue influence of the BPA also extend beyond the capture and compromise of the Department for Transport through its uncontrolled quango the CAA to the capture and compromise of the Ministry of Defence – the answer seems to be a resounding 'yes'.

The CAA has approved an amateur sports body to conduct audits for and on behalf of the CAA, yet the BPA does not possess the capability in terms of qualified and competence personal or expert professional support together with the prerequisite suitable and sufficient systems, appropriately robust and accepted procedures to conduct an external audits of any third party and adequately compliance assure, in particular with regards to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulations made thereunder.

The BPA is not a Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body nor is the BPA an Accrediting or Certifying body, as defined under any relevant Statutory Instrument or recognised framework.

The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is the appointed National Accreditation Body for the UK, which means the organisation performs accreditation with the relevant authority derived from HM Government.

Any Certification Bodies who intend to issue accredited certification – i.e. ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems or ISO 45001 Health and Safety Management Systems – must be audited and accredited by an Accreditation Body –i.e. UKAS – against the requirements of the ISO 17021 Standard; accreditation to which the BPA have not at this juncture attained or is ever likely to attain. Furthermore, the BPA’s own management arrangements are not currently certificated under either BS EN ISO 9001 or 45001.

BPA Ltd COO Tony Butler: legal netherworld

The BPA is not a National Awarding Body or otherwise a recognised or accredited training provider under the National Regulated Qualifications Framework overseen by Ofqual.

The BPA cannot therefore issue academic qualifications or national vocational qualifications (NVQ). Any of the attendance badges and proficiency stickers provided by the BPA – an unaccredited and unrecognised amateur sports organisations – do not pertain to any form of recognised qualification and generally have little standing, particularly in the workplace and business environment or otherwise under law. As one BPA instructor recently commented;

“My BPA ratings are absolutely worthless - they didn’t even qualify me get a job stacking shelves at Tesco during the COVID shutdown.”.

Yet the BPA have the audacity to recommend to the CAA that BPA or British Skydiving stickers and badges are the only ‘qualifications’ are acceptable to the CAA but that recognised qualification awarded under the Qualifications Regulated Framework are not acceptable – a perfect example of the broken CAA system.

National Governing Sports Bodies such as the BPA are generally self-appointed; however, some are recognised by the Sports Council and thus form an element of the sport, to which the relevant body organises, governs and administers the sport on a national basis.

Traditionally NGSBs may be viewed as the custodians and guardians of their sport; however, these bodies are not Enforcing Authorities and have no derived Regulatory powers from HM Government. Furthermore, the BPA has no competence to advise businesses on legal matters, in particular Health and Safety Law – that is the responsibility of the HSE.

BPA annual reports and accounts state that BPA consistently spends less than £5,000 per year on safety; little wonder that there have been 50 fatal accidents, hundreds of life changing and thousands of serious injuries over the 25-year period since BPA obtained its contentious and illegal Exposition from the CAA.

This abysmal safety record is extraordinary and the death toll continues unabated, whilst BPA officials line their pockets with six figure salaries and the BPA amasses £4 million in assets and funds.

The death of Sgt Rachel Fisk was eminently avoidable. Such basic and fundamental failures under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety Work Regulations 1999 clearly pave the way for the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue charges of corporate manslaughter via various avenues.

So who are the true culprits in this sad saga? Where does the responsibility really reside? The naïve RAF Officers who fell hook line and sinker for the BPA smoke-and-mirrors act? They certainly have a lot to answer for, but will the MOD roll over and take the rap for the death of Sgt Fisk?

Surely the HSE must have been aware of the BPA evasion of Health and Safety laws, or did the CAA aid and abet the BPA in misleading the HSE? The HSE could have stepped in and dealt with the BPA, shutting down all the criminal activity many years ago and thus saved a multitude of lives in the process.

The HSE have certainly been remiss in fulfilling their regulatory duties over several decades and have failed to produce a Code of Practice or to endorse a suitable sector code.

CAA CEO Richard Moriarty: corporate manslaughter?

There is a glimmer of hope from the Department for Transport with the recent announcement from Secretary of State Grant Shapps MP that an independent appeals body will be established to deal with complaints against the CAA. But the question remains does this go far enough?

BPA Watch will leave it for the readership to decide: who are the real lawbreakers who should subsequently be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter:

• Tony Butler, COO and ghost director of the BPA?
• Richard Moriarty, CEO of the CAA?
• Both of the above? 

The website run by BPA Ltd trading as British Skydiving contains the following shocking claim, which BPA Watch intends to investigate:

"Attempts by the Health and Safety Executive to exercise control over parachute equipment standards and to investigate skydiving incidents and accidents; a move which finally resulted in negotiating a memorandum of understanding whereby the HSE relinquished their position and acknowledged the expertise of British Skydiving (then BPA) and the CAA in matters of skydiving regulation.". 

If this is true, then HSE chiefs seem illegally to have assigned HSE duties and powers to a limited company whose officials consistently refuse to present any government-approved or awarded credentials or qualifications entitling them to hold and wield such powers. Consequently, the death toll continues to rise and Sgt Rachel Fisk will not be the last name on that lengthening list.