PFD report

Cameron William LAING · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jul 2015•Exeter and Greater Devon

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Incomplete training in trailer coupling and uncoupling procedures
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe tractor and trailer coupling systems
  2. Failure to deliver training on alternative extraction manoeuvres not included in the Army Equipment Support Publication
  3. Failure to teach or recognise alternative trailer-extraction manoeuvres
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe agricultural tractor and trailer safety arrangements
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

    Improve DROPS operator training for towing KINGS trailers and support it with step-by-step coupling and uncoupling video guidance.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2015.
  2. Action

    Review the training package and determine that additional recovery manoeuvres should not be taught to vehicle operators.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2015.

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

  1. Position

    Specialist recovery techniques and assistance are assigned to Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers personnel rather than ordinary vehicle operators.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Incomplete training in trailer coupling and uncoupling procedures

Wider context from the report

“1. It was clear from the evidence, and reflected in the Juror' findings, that the Soldiers in Cameron's Packet were not aware that when the emergency brake locked on, upon depletion of air tanks on a kings Trailer, reconnection of the air (red line) would release the brakes once operating pressure was achieved. Thus would cause the trailer to move out of control if the hand brake was not applied. None of the witnesses who were trained to varying degrees understood this or the mechanism of brake action which was admittedly complicated. The Packet Commander was not fully trained in coupling and un-coupling procedures and relied on the Soldiers in her unit to advise her. This lack of understanding led to the accident that caused Cameron’s death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe tractor and trailer coupling systems.

Open source report

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

Failure to deliver training on alternative extraction manoeuvres not included in the Army Equipment Support Publication

Wider context from the report

“3. I am concerned that in WO1 Orpe's Table of Responses by the Ministry of Defence to the Land Accident Investigation Team report p8, paragraph 27, the Ministry of Defence Logistic training team take the view that such training of alternative manoeuvres cannot be delivered as they “do not appear in the Army Equipment Support Publication “. This does not appear to be a rational approach to the evident need for Soldiers to be given alternative methods of extracting themselves/vehicles from difficult situations, which in this case resulted in Cameron’s death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

Failure to teach or recognise alternative trailer-extraction manoeuvres

Wider context from the report

“2. We received evidence from the Vehicle Examiner that an alternative method of extracting the trailer from the confined area at Bracken Tor Hostel would have been able to pull the trailer backwards via a DROPS vehicle, which had the necessary towing attachments, from behind or “nose manoeuvre” the trailer. Neither of these possibilities (which would have avoided manual handling and vulnerability to being trapped between the trailer and the DROPS) were taught to the Soldiers or recognised by them to be a solution to recovery of the trailer. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe agricultural tractor and trailer safety arrangements.

Open source report

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

Lack of understanding of emergency trailer-brake operation

Wider context from the report

“1. It was clear from the evidence, and reflected in the Juror' findings, that the Soldiers in Cameron's Packet were not aware that when the emergency brake locked on, upon depletion of air tanks on a kings Trailer, reconnection of the air (red line) would release the brakes once operating pressure was achieved. Thus would cause the trailer to move out of control if the hand brake was not applied. None of the witnesses who were trained to varying degrees understood this or the mechanism of brake action which was admittedly complicated. The Packet Commander was not fully trained in coupling and un-coupling procedures and relied on the Soldiers in her unit to advise her. This lack of understanding led to the accident that caused Cameron’s death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Improve DROPS operator training for towing KINGS trailers and support it with step-by-step coupling and uncoupling video guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the training package for DROPS operators qualified to tow the KINGS trailer was improved in order to reinforce the extant training objectives and is now supported by a video which details acceptable procedures step-by-step, covering all aspects of coupling and uncoupling the trailer, including the airlines, chocks and shunt”

Source location

2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 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

Review the training package and determine that additional recovery manoeuvres should not be taught to vehicle operators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After the accident the training package was reviewed by the Training Requirements Authority and it was determined that additional manoeuvres should not be taught to operators. The advanced techniques described by the Vehicle Examiner at the inquest are only to be conducted by the specialist mechanical engineers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It is not feasible or necessary for every vehicle operator to be trained to such a specialist capability. The approach used within the Army for recovery, as laid down in the All Arms Equipment Recovery Manual (AAERM) and taught to all operators, is that recovery by driver/operators is restricted to the capabilities of the recovery equipment held by the unit and as part of the vehicle’s Complete Equipment Schedule.”

Source location

2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 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

Specialist recovery techniques and assistance are assigned to Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers personnel rather than ordinary vehicle operators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After the accident the training package was reviewed by the Training Requirements Authority and it was determined that additional manoeuvres should not be taught to operators. The advanced techniques described by the Vehicle Examiner at the inquest are only to be conducted by the specialist mechanical engineers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It is not feasible or necessary for every vehicle operator to be trained to such a specialist capability. The approach used within the Army for recovery, as laid down in the All Arms Equipment Recovery Manual (AAERM) and taught to all operators, is that recovery by driver/operators is restricted to the capabilities of the recovery equipment held by the unit and as part of the vehicle’s Complete Equipment Schedule.”

Source location

2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 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

Existing recovery arrangements restrict driver/operator recovery to available unit equipment, so additional manoeuvres need not be taught to vehicle operators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After the accident the training package was reviewed by the Training Requirements Authority and it was determined that additional manoeuvres should not be taught to operators. The advanced techniques described by the Vehicle Examiner at the inquest are only to be conducted by the specialist mechanical engineers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It is not feasible or necessary for every vehicle operator to be trained to such a specialist capability. The approach used within the Army for recovery, as laid down in the All Arms Equipment Recovery Manual (AAERM) and taught to all operators, is that recovery by driver/operators is restricted to the capabilities of the recovery equipment held by the unit and as part of the vehicle’s Complete Equipment Schedule.”

Source location

2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 2015

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

  1. 1

    Review KINGS trailer and DROPS equipment publications to identify the need for clearer Shunt Valve operating guidance.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2015.
  2. 2

    Amend equipment publications and Trainer Instructor Specifications with warnings and guidance restricting Shunt Valve use and specifying firm-level ground where practicable.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 July 2015.

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

Review KINGS trailer and DROPS equipment publications to identify the need for clearer Shunt Valve operating guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Army have reviewed the Army Equipment Support Publications (AESP) relating to the KINGS trailer and DROPS on Thursday 20 August 2015, and determined that it should include clearer guidance for the operation of the Shunt Valve. A warning will now be included in the AESP stating that the Shunt Valve must only be used for minor adjustment of the trailer position (e.g. all coupling/uncoupling or maintenance activities within a workshop). The AESP will also state that, where reasonably practicable, the Shunt Valve must only be used on firm level ground. The Trainer Instructor Specifications (ISpec) which lay down the specifics of what is to be taught to soldiers will also be amended accordingly.”

Source location

2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 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

Amend equipment publications and Trainer Instructor Specifications with warnings and guidance restricting Shunt Valve use and specifying firm-level ground where practicable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Army have reviewed the Army Equipment Support Publications (AESP) relating to the KINGS trailer and DROPS on Thursday 20 August 2015, and determined that it should include clearer guidance for the operation of the Shunt Valve. A warning will now be included in the AESP stating that the Shunt Valve must only be used for minor adjustment of the trailer position (e.g. all coupling/uncoupling or maintenance activities within a workshop). The AESP will also state that, where reasonably practicable, the Shunt Valve must only be used on firm level ground. The Trainer Instructor Specifications (ISpec) which lay down the specifics of what is to be taught to soldiers will also be amended accordingly.”

Source location

2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2015

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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026