PFD report

John Lomas · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Oct 2015•Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

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
11

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

Described in 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 raised11

  1. Failure to maintain a safe launch distance from a stopper
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls for watercraft encounters with stoppers
  2. Exceeding permitted raft capacity for prevailing white water conditions
  3. Lack of pre-activity liaison between rafting provider and Army
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable pre-activity safety liaison 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

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

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 October 2015.
  2. Action

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

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 October 2015.

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

  1. Position

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

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolDisputes 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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for watercraft encounters with stoppers.

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

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. ”

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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable pre-activity safety liaison 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 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.) ”

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

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. ”

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

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.) ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable pre-activity safety liaison 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

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+. ”

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

Lack of water confidence testing

Wider context from the report

“6. There was no water confidence test. ”

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 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. ”

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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate individual risk assessment for activities.

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

Unavailability of a safety kayak

Wider context from the report

“7. There was no safety kayak. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate water rescue provision for recreational water activities.

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

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

    Instruct guides to emphasise staying calm and swimming requirements during safety talks.

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 October 2015.
  2. 2

    Reassess safety standards and procedures through meetings and discussions among all guides.

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 October 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    Non-slip seating is considered less safe, uncomfortable and not an industry-standard requirement, so it will not be added.

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    The designated entry point could not be changed because regulations require its use and the government had approved it.

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  3. 3

    The storage discharge occurred after the incident and therefore had no influence on it.

    Stated by Sport Camp TirolDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Instruct guides to emphasise staying calm and swimming requirements during safety talks.

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 action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Reassess safety standards and procedures through meetings and discussions among all guides.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Immediately after the tour we had multiple meetings and discussions between all of our guides reassessing safety standards and procedures. After much analysis we could not find any flaws in our decisions or judgements made on that day. Of course I have only just found out this year (three and a half years after the incident) that private Lomas was a non swimmer. That he had this fact from us. That the army had informed me that all of the participants had to have passed a swimming test immediately prior to the trip and that indeed private Lomas had failed his latest test. The army either failed to detect they had a non swimmer in their group OR they knew about it and had tried to smuggle private Lomas onto the trip. I find it extremely hard to believe that no-one knew other than private Lomas that he had failed this test.”

Source location

Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 8 · 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

Non-slip seating is considered less safe, uncomfortable and not an industry-standard requirement, so it will not be added.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. I take it this fault is the lack of non slip seating on the raft. I know of not a single raft used in Austria that has non slip seating. The rafts are supplied without it and used worldwide as an industry standard without it. It is another nonsensical requirement that I firmly feel would actually make rafting more uncomfortable for the guests, not add any safety whatsoever and in actual fact make rafting more dangerous as it would not prevent guests falling out but would restrict movement and make pulling swimmers back into the raft more difficult due to the added friction. In addition we tried adding non slip seating to the area around the guide in order to try and improve his guiding but it was immediately removed after a short test period as it was found to be highly uncomfortable and restricted dynamic raft guide movement.”

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 designated entry point could not be changed because regulations require its use and the government had approved it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As to the use for the put in point:”

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

The storage discharge occurred after the incident and therefore had no influence on it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A separate event so the so called "stowage discharge" that the Hydro plant made late in the afternoon on the day of the incident. Primarily I must categorically state that this discharge occurred after the incident and also after we had performed the rescue and all guests and rafting equipment had been removed from the river. I personally observed a dramatic change in colour of the water, the large volume of driftwood and the change in smell of the river when I began to transport the drivers from the point where we had exited the river back to the put in where their vans were parked. During the reanimation attempts on private Lomas by my guides and then the professionals from the helicopter crew I was personally coordinating the head counts and collection of the 2 soldiers that were still missing but on the river bank further upstream at the time.”

Source location

Response-by-Sport-Camp-Tirol
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026