JUST ANOTHER SKYDIVING DEATH?
Part 1 of 3 by Bravo Three Zero CMIOSH
Long-term observers of the appalling safety record ofBritish Parachute Association Ltd (BPA) trading as British Skydiving wondered if the involvement of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) signalled an end to BPA evasion of HSE regulation. However, news quickly leaked out from inside sources that BPA Ltd was running the investigation into Sgt Fisk’s death whilst serving with the Joint Service Adventurous Training unit at RAF Weston-on-the-Green.
Quoted on the RAF website, Group Captain Mark Smith paid tribute to Sgt Fisk: "I have known Rachel personally since she joined the Parachute Jump Instructor Cadre. She rapidly became an outstanding Instructor and highly valued member of our team. Our thoughts and condolences are with her family and friends at this distressing time."
As BPA Watch has previously pointed out, BPA Ltd has been the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) appointee as parachuting regulatory overseer since 1996. BPA Ltd, which pays its senior employees six-figure salaries yet spends just £5,000 per annum on safety-related matters, has presided over an average of two skydiving fatalities a year since the 1980s.
Many observers within and without the civilian parachuting industry wondered how the RAF could permit BPA involvement in the investigation of one of its personnel whilst on duty or otherwise at work on RAF or, more precisely, Ministry of Defence (MOD) premises. Those familiar with the cosy relationship between the CAA and the RAF were less surprised.
The news raised some troubling questions:
If the CAA is the parachuting Regulator, as it pretends to be, the CAA is surely responsible for any resultant enforcement action following the investigation so why is there no CAA Flight Standards officer present and leading the investigation?
Does the illegal BPA/British Skydiving monopoly –– aided and abetted by the CAA or by rogue CAA officials –– now extend to control over military parachuting?
Does HM Government accept and approve of the CAA quango’s usurpation of the HSE’s role as parachuting Enforcing Authority and its illegal delegation of these powers it has usurped to the BPA Ltd monopoly, which the CAA facilitates?
How many fatalities need to occur before the HSE assumes its responsibilities, takes enforcement action and prosecutes BPA/British Skydiving (BS) and its company officers past and present under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974?
It was not long before BPA/BS officials, portraying themselves as independent experts, acted with the arrogance of those who believe themselves untouchable and unilaterally published an ‘interim report’ into Sgt Fisk’s death on the eve of her funeral, to the reported distress and indignation of the deceased’s family, friends and colleagues.
Any reasonable person would wonder about BPA Ltd’s motives. This interim report was published despite ongoing MOD, Police and, allegedly, HSE enquiries and could serve no purpose other than to prejudice the findings of the other investigators. To the trained eyes of professionals, their motives were blatantly obvious.
BPA/BS officials are attempting, as with other fatalities on the firm’s watch, to drive the narrative towards a coroner’s court finding of death by misadventure. According to one of BPA Watch’s inside sources, there was even talk of attributing Sgt Fisk’s death to suicide, which raised echoes of Army Officer Cadet Stephen HIlder’s death in 2003.
BPA/BS has a track record of coercing BPA-affiliated instructors appointed as investigators to change reports to align with predetermined and desired outcomes; yet another example of the toxic and dictatorial environment of BPA/BS and its senior officials’ coercive behaviour - a culture of fear driven by threats and bullying.
There are also instances of BPA/BS officials being extremely economical with the truth and misrepresenting matters in Court – openness, transparency, honesty and integrity are not in the BPA/BS play book despite all the polished slogans and glossy propaganda and the much-vaunted patronage of HRH The Prince of Wales.
Corrupt BPA/BS officials have managed to consistently evade the law and any measure of adequate regulatory oversight for so long now that criminality and connivance now forms an integral part of its DNA. It is embedded in the firm’s corporate culture. The firm’s directors and officials believe themselves to be above and beyond the Law. As one former BPA Ltd director remarked: “It is surprising what can be bought from the CAA for £30,000 per year – a licence to kill and a get out of jail free card!”.
The BS Board of Enquiry – ‘the world class experts’ approved by the CAA…
This standing is generally marked by relevant and officially recognised academic qualifications at post-graduate levels, professional membership or chartered status.
Impartiality - the overriding duty is to inform. There should be no bias towards others with an interest in the outcome, which includes disclosure of any vested interests of the expert.
Extent and limits of competence - the expert or appointed person is responsible to ensure competence to undertake proposed work and not to carry out any assignment unsupervised or otherwise that requires specialist skills, knowledge, qualifications or specific training that are beyond the extent and limits of demonstrable competence.
An evidence narrative - The expert should focus only on the known facts, not supposition, and review what the law requires in the given situation. Then assess the potential non-compliance against the derived criteria. This may be supported via various means, for example; validated research, Approved Codes of Practice and case law.
It is incumbent upon those providing opinion or advice to explain to any Court or Authority the extent and limitations of competence (as defined above) together with scope or remit and any vested interest. When individuals or organisations deviate from the above, the Courts and Authorities tend to take a very dim view of such behaviour.
The authors of the BPA/BS ‘interim report’ into Sgt Fisk’s death are:
Tony Butler –– Chief Operating Officer
Jeff Montgomery –– Safety and Training Officer
Mark Bayada –– Vice Chair of the BPA/BS Board of Governors
Not one of these three individuals appears to possess any of the officially recognised qualifications required in order to render their findings credible in the eyes of any court or any (impartial) authority.
 |
| BPA Ltd COO Tony Butler: untouchable? |
Why is the investigation into the death of a serving RAF Senior NCO and trainee Parachute Jump Instructor whilst on duty and therefore at work being led by three individuals with no recognised accreditations, relevant formal qualifications or competence?
In 2003, when he was BPA Ltd’s National Safety Officer, Tony Butler told a coroner’s court and attending journalists that he had investigated over sixty skydiving deaths. This begs the question of why this death toll has not been reduced.
Messrs Butler, Montgomery and Bayada have no apparent training in complex accident investigation techniques like Fault or Event Tree Analysis or Fail Mode and Effect Analysis. Are they in position because of they are competent or are they deemed competent because of their positions?
That is a question that should be put to the CAA. Another
question that the CAA should be made to answer is this: exactly what recognised
standards and criteria were applied to BPA/BS when the CAA granted the firm its
Approved Persons status in 1996 and renewed that status over the years? Was the CAA entitled to grant this status to BPA/BS in the
first place? No is the simple answer and the CAA directorate knows it.
The Sgt Fisk accident is a case in point. The CAA is only the Enforcing Authority or Regulator whilst parachutists or skydivers are in an aircraft. Once parachutists or skydivers exit and clear an aircraft, regulation reverts to the HSE, as the CAA’s own publication CAP 1484 admits.
Had Sgt Fisk’s accident occurred aboard the aircraft or before clearing it –– had she been struck by the aircraft on exiting, for example –– the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) and the CAA would be leading this investigation.
There is no direct CAA involvement in this investigation because the CAA is not the regulatory authority in this instance. BPA Ltd trading as British Skydiving claims to represent the CAA as its ‘Approved Person’. Approved for what, exactly?
To ensure the lucrative BPA/BS monopoly continues to grow unhindered?
To ensure that incompetent BPA/BS employees continue to receive exorbitant salaries?
To ensure the continued evasion by the CAA-BPA cartel ofHealth and Safety laws and other legislation?
To ensure that the litany of past crimes, illegal activity and cover-ups never come to light?
BPA/BS pay the CAA £30,000 to maintain this Approved Person status, thereby facilitating the firm’s illegal commercial monopoly and everyone turns a blind eye to its criminal evasion of the Health and Safety atWork etc Act 1974, including the HSE itself, it seems.
If BPA/BS and its protector the CAA quango manage to have Sgt Fisk’s death attributed to misadventure, who will be the beneficiaries of such a whitewash?
If anything, British Parachute Association Ltd trading as British Skydiving should be the subject of the Sgt Fisk investigation, as Weston on the Green parachute centre was operating under British Skydiving operations manual and safety assurance processes. This investigation should be led by the MOD and the HSE with the Police on hand to arrest guilty parties.
Is it time for HM Government to initiate a statutory inquiry into the CAA-BPA cartel and its unseemly relationship?
To be continued...
