Sport Camp Tirol

Private and voluntary organisations · Company

Request correction

First report 1 Oct 2015•Latest report 1 Oct 2015

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 7
Stated actions: 4

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Sport Camp Tirol linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

1 Oct2015
Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire
Concerns raised11
1. Failure to maintain a safe launch distance from a stopper
2. Exceeding permitted raft capacity for prevailing white water conditions
3. Lack of pre-activity liaison between rafting provider and Army
1. Lack of obligation for TIWAG to notify downstream rafting companies of significant discharges
2. Lack of preparatory training on a less challenging river
3. Lack of obligation for rafting operators to ascertain significant TIWAG discharges
4. Failure to dynamically risk assess changing river conditions before launch
5. Lack of water confidence testing
6. Failure to rectify identified boat faults
7. Lack of generic risk assessment for soldier suitability for rafting
8. Unavailability of a safety kayak
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Prohibit rafting downstream of the storage tanks on days when a discharge is planned.
2. Action
  Require evidence of a valid swimming qualification from every participant before future trips.
Respondent positions 6
1. Position
  The river was not grade 4+ at the time, so the raft loading was lawful and did not require alteration.
  Disputes the concern
1. Position
  The hydraulic feature was a standing wave rather than a stopper, and its unusual behaviour could not have been predicted.
  Disputes the concern
2. Position
  Additional safety kayaks were unnecessary because three rafts provided mutual safety cover, and kayaks are not legally required.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
3. Position
  The hydro plant was responsible for conducting discharges safely and informing affected river users.
  Redirects responsibility
4. Position
  Advance discharge notifications now provide sufficient time to cancel or re-plan rafting trips.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
5. Position
  Pre-trip water-confidence testing was not required by law or industry standards, although participant qualification evidence will now be required.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

John Lomas · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

John Lomas, a serving soldier, died after a white water rafting boat capsized shortly after launch on the River Inn on 21 June 2012; he was unable to be resuscitated and was certified dead. Concerns included inadequate liaison and risk assessment, the raft exceeding its permitted capacity for the prevailing conditions, launching too close to a stopper, and the absence of preparatory training, a water confidence test, and a safety kayak.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to maintain a safe launch distance from a stopper
Wider context from the report
“4. The raft on which Private Lomas was a passenger was launched too close to a stopper resulting in it capsizing within seconds of launch. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Exceeding permitted raft capacity for prevailing white water conditions
Wider context from the report
“3. The number of person in the raft exceeded that permitted for the white water grade 4+ conditions that prevailed at the time. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of pre-activity liaison between rafting provider and Army
Wider context from the report
“1. There had been no liaison between Sport Camp Tirol and the Army prior to the white water rafting Trip that took place on the 21st June 2012. No generic risk assessment had been provided to or requested by Sports Camp Tirol as a result there was a lack of understanding as to the suitability of soldiers to undertake the trip. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of obligation for TIWAG to notify downstream rafting companies of significant discharges
Wider context from the report
“9. There was no obligation to liaise with TIWAG Water Company to ascertain when a significant stowage discharge would take place and TIWAG had no obligation to notify rafting companies downstream who might be affected by the discharge. (The last discharge had been two and half years prior to this incident.) ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of preparatory training on a less challenging river
Wider context from the report
“5. There was no preparatory training on a less challenging river. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of obligation for rafting operators to ascertain significant TIWAG discharges
Wider context from the report
“9. There was no obligation to liaise with TIWAG Water Company to ascertain when a significant stowage discharge would take place and TIWAG had no obligation to notify rafting companies downstream who might be affected by the discharge. (The last discharge had been two and half years prior to this incident.) ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to dynamically risk assess changing river conditions before launch
Wider context from the report
“2. The lead guide and the raft guide did not correctly dynamically risk assess the river Inn on the 21st June 2012 at the point of departure of the trip. They did not recognise that the level of water had risen by one third in the hour preceding the launch resulting in white water of grade 4+. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of water confidence testing
Wider context from the report
“6. There was no water confidence test. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to rectify identified boat faults
Wider context from the report
“8. Although not considered contributory in this particular matter it was noted that the boat had faults which were identified at its last inspection which had not been rectified. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of generic risk assessment for soldier suitability for rafting
Wider context from the report
“1. There had been no liaison between Sport Camp Tirol and the Army prior to the white water rafting Trip that took place on the 21st June 2012. No generic risk assessment had been provided to or requested by Sports Camp Tirol as a result there was a lack of understanding as to the suitability of soldiers to undertake the trip. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Sport Camp Tirol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unavailability of a safety kayak
Wider context from the report
“7. There was no safety kayak. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Prohibit rafting downstream of the storage tanks on days when a discharge is planned.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since the incident I have become aware of the possibility of such discharges and steps have been taken so that the rafting companies are now informed FROM THE HYDRO PLANT COMPANY well in advance so that we can plan around such an event - most importantly prevent tours from taking place during a discharge. We have internally made the decision in the regard of safety to do no rafting trips downstream of these storage tanks on the same day they are planned to be released.”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Require evidence of a valid swimming qualification from every participant before future trips.

Verbatim wording from the response
“6. I know of NO rafting company worldwide that makes a water confidence test prior to their raft trips. This is not required by Austrian law and is not taught by the International Rafting Federation. It is certainly not an industry standard. Now that I know the British army are required to pass a swimming test I will be requiring proof of this to be presented in the future for every participant in order to hopefully eliminate anyone lying to myself and or my guides about having passed such a test or that they can swim when they evidently could not. Furthermore I have instructed all of our guides to further emphasise the importance of staying calm and the swimming requirements during their safety talks in the hope of further preventing swimmers getting into unnecessary state of panic.”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 7 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The river was not grade 4+ at the time, so the raft loading was lawful and did not require alteration.

Verbatim wording from the response
“"THE RAFT EXCEEDED THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF PERSONS IN WHITE WATER GRADE 4+ CONDITIONS WHICH PREVAILED AT THE TIME"”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 3 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The hydraulic feature was a standing wave rather than a stopper, and its unusual behaviour could not have been predicted.

Verbatim wording from the response
“"THE BOAT WAS LAUNCHED TOO CLOSE TO A STOPPER AND CAPSIZED WITHIN SECONDS OF BEING LAUNCHED"”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 4 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Additional safety kayaks were unnecessary because three rafts provided mutual safety cover, and kayaks are not legally required.

Verbatim wording from the response
“7. Safety kayaks are not required on any river under Austria law. We do use safety kayaks in our company in particular when we only have a single raft on a trip or are doing the harder river sections in high water. On the day of the incident we had three rafts each making safety cover for the other two. No request was made by the guides for the addition of a safety kayak. We do use safety kayakers even though we do not have to by law. We also double guide our rafts (2 guides on a single raft) when we only have one raft on a trip at river grades above grade 3 - this is also not required by law but we do it in the interests of safety - not all companies are as safety conscious as we are!”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 7 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The hydro plant was responsible for conducting discharges safely and informing affected river users.

Verbatim wording from the response
“with all rafts and guests and had absolutely NO INFLUENCE on the incident whatsoever. I would like to make an analogy to further explain this situation. Should a bus company that has a permit to take guests down a given road have to call before every trip to ANY and ALL persons who may plan to roll a large amount of timer down the road without warning, without informing the road users and without closing the road to traffic? How are we as a company supposed to have knowledge of ANY business upstream that is about to dump large quantities of potentially dangerous material into the river without notice? It is clearly the responsibility of the Hydro plant to ensure that their discharge is conducted in a safe manor and that they inform all potentially affected individuals of their actions.”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 3 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Advance discharge notifications now provide sufficient time to cancel or re-plan rafting trips.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since the incident I have become aware of the possibility of such discharges and steps have been taken so that the rafting companies are now informed FROM THE HYDRO PLANT COMPANY well in advance so that we can plan around such an event - most importantly prevent tours from taking place during a discharge. We have internally made the decision in the regard of safety to do no rafting trips downstream of these storage tanks on the same day they are planned to be released.”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Pre-trip water-confidence testing was not required by law or industry standards, although participant qualification evidence will now be required.

Verbatim wording from the response
“6. I know of NO rafting company worldwide that makes a water confidence test prior to their raft trips. This is not required by Austrian law and is not taught by the International Rafting Federation. It is certainly not an industry standard. Now that I know the British army are required to pass a swimming test I will be requiring proof of this to be presented in the future for every participant in order to hopefully eliminate anyone lying to myself and or my guides about having passed such a test or that they can swim when they evidently could not. Furthermore I have instructed all of our guides to further emphasise the importance of staying calm and the swimming requirements during their safety talks in the hope of further preventing swimmers getting into unnecessary state of panic.”

Source location
Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 7 · response
Published 1 October 2015
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised11

Failure to maintain a safe launch distance from a stopper

Exceeding permitted raft capacity for prevailing white water conditions

Lack of pre-activity liaison between rafting provider and Army

Lack of obligation for TIWAG to notify downstream rafting companies of significant discharges

Lack of preparatory training on a less challenging river

Lack of obligation for rafting operators to ascertain significant TIWAG discharges

Failure to dynamically risk assess changing river conditions before launch

Lack of water confidence testing

Failure to rectify identified boat faults

Lack of generic risk assessment for soldier suitability for rafting

Unavailability of a safety kayak

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 6