PFD report

Pamela Gower · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Nov 2016•County Durham and Darlington

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised1

  1. Potential progression beyond parachutists’ abilities without sufficient regard to time between jumps
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe progression of safety-critical activity training
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Action

    Give special consideration to wind-tunnel training before skydiving, including training with equipment and heading control while back-to-earth.

    Stated by British SkydivingStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2017.
  2. Action

    Make a formal written risk assessment for non-tandem students with non-standard body morphology, disabilities or other special needs.

    Stated by British SkydivingStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The interval between the student's previous jump and Peterlee jump was not considered a major factor in the accident.

    Stated by British SkydivingDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Potential progression beyond parachutists’ abilities without sufficient regard to time between jumps

Wider context from the report

“1. The BPA board of enquiry raised a question as to whether the deceased was progressed beyond her abilities, taking into account the time period between her later jumps. Evidence from the Chief Instructor and owner of the parachute club in question was that the training given to the deceased met all Parachute Association rules and moreover exceeded them. He did not believe that there was any difficulty caused in this case arising from the time periods between her jumps nor that the deceased was progressed beyond her abilities. Notwithstanding this evidence, the BPA Chief Operating Officer remained of the view that the question raised in the report was still a valid one and one which was being actively considered by the BPA. In the circumstances, I have no doubt that the threshold for this report is being met and I am under an obligation to make this report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe progression of safety-critical activity training.

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

Give special consideration to wind-tunnel training before skydiving, including training with equipment and heading control while back-to-earth.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For (non-tandem) skydive students who have non-standard body morphology (such as caused, for example, restricted growth), disabilities or other special needs:”

Source location

2016-0446-Response-by-Bristish-Parachute-Association
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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

Make a formal written risk assessment for non-tandem students with non-standard body morphology, disabilities or other special needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For (non-tandem) skydive students who have non-standard body morphology (such as caused, for example, restricted growth), disabilities or other special needs:”

Source location

2016-0446-Response-by-Bristish-Parachute-Association
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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 interval between the student's previous jump and Peterlee jump was not considered a major factor in the accident.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There has been some debate about whether or not the length of time between the deceased’s last jump in Spain and her first jump at Peterlee was appropriate. Given that an assessment was made in the wind tunnel as well as the fact that she completed her level five / check out dive without any issues, the Panel do not believe that this was a major factor in her inability to recover from a back to earth position on her final jump.”

Source location

2016-0446-Response-by-Bristish-Parachute-Association
Page 4 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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 student was not progressed beyond her abilities for the planned skydive.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There has been some debate about whether or not the length of time between the deceased’s last jump in Spain and her first jump at Peterlee was appropriate. Given that an assessment was made in the wind tunnel as well as the fact that she completed her level five / check out dive without any issues, the Panel do not believe that this was a major factor in her inability to recover from a back to earth position on her final jump.”

Source location

2016-0446-Response-by-Bristish-Parachute-Association
Page 4 · response
Published 12 February 2017

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The AFF programme did not need changing to accommodate back-flying, although wind-tunnel back-flying could be required for students with non-standard body morphology.

    Stated by British SkydivingNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 AFF programme did not need changing to accommodate back-flying, although wind-tunnel back-flying could be required for students with non-standard body morphology.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the deceased's training enabled her to control herself in free-fall on her front, on her back she had no control to stop a spin and emphasis is put solely on rolling back to her front. This is typical of skydive training the world over and the Panel is not suggesting that the AFF programme”

Source location

2016-0446-Response-by-Bristish-Parachute-Association
Page 4 · response
Published 12 February 2017

Open published response
Back to top

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026