British Parachute Association
5 Wharf Way Tel: 0116 278 5271
Glen Parva Fax: 0116 247 7662
Leicester LE2 9TF e-mail:
www.bpa.org.uk
Safety & Training Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on
Thursday 26 September 2013 at 1900
at the BPA Office, 5 Wharf Way, Glen Parva, Leicester LE2 9TF
Present: John Hitchen - Chair STC
Phil Collett - 22 Trg Gp RAF
Stuart Meacock - Hinton Skydiving
Mark Bayada - APA Netheravon
Brucie Johnson - Blue Skies Freefall Club
Alex Busby-Hicks - Tilstock
Chris McCann - UK Parachuting (Sibson)
Ray Armstrong - Skydive GB
Jim White - Paragon
Nigel Allen - Go Skydive
Iain Anderson - Skydive St Andrews
Jason Webster - JSPC (N)
Richard Wheatley - BPS, Langer
Dave Wood - Cornish PC
Pete Sizer - Skydive Headcorn
Mike Rust - NLPC
Noel Purcell - Target Skysports
Ian Rosenvinge - Peterlee
Paul Applegate - Chair Riggers Committee
Apologies: Andy Clark, Kieran Brady, Paul Floyd, Charlie Shea-Simonds, Mike Bolton,
Martin White, Matty Holford, Mal Richardson.
In Attendance: Tony Butler - Chief Operating Officer
Jeff Montgomery - Safety & Technical Officer designate
John Page - Vice-Chair STC/Council
Tony Knight - CAA Liaison
Martin Shuttleworth - Secretary General
Trudy Kemp - Assistant to COO/NCSO
Observers: Jane Hopkins, Colin Fitzmaurice, Gordon Blamire, Rick Boardman,
Paul Stockwell, Christian Ivory, Ben Wood.
ITEM MINUTE
Declarations of interest
Any member with any personal, financial or material interest in any item/s of business on the agenda for this meeting was asked to state any declaration of interest.
As neighboring Centres to the proposed new PLA/DZ (item 9 – main agenda), Ray Armstrong, Ian Rosenvinge and Noel Purcell declared their interest in this item.
1. MINUTES OF THE STC MEETING OF THE 1 AUGUST 2013
It was proposed by Pete Sizer and seconded by Alex Busby-Hicks that the Minutes of the STC Meeting of the 1 August 2013 be accepted as a true record.
Carried Unanimously
2. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE STC MEETING OF THE 1 AUGUST 2013
There were no matters arising from the previous meeting.
3. RIGGERS’ SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE 1 AUGUST 2013
Paul Applegate reported that following the previous meeting, Allan Hewitt had sent in a letter that had been circulated with the STC agenda requesting that STC overrule the decision by the Riggers’ Subcommittee that Allan be required to be re-examined in order to regain his Riggers ratings. Paul Applegate stated that Allan’s request had been discussed at the Riggers’ meeting in April, as well as in August.
Following consideration of Allan’s request to STC, it was proposed by Paul Applegate and seconded by Pete Sizer that the Minutes of the Riggers’ Sub-Committee meeting of the 1 August 2013 be accepted.
Carried Unanimously
In order to clarify the situation with regard to Allan Hewitt’s request to STC, the COO pointed out that by ratifying the previous Riggers’ Sub –Committee Minutes, STC had accepted the Riggers’ decision regarding Allan Hewitt and therefore, his appeal to STC failed. CCIs present acknowledged this point.
Paul Applegate reported on the meeting held that afternoon and stated that the Committee had discussed the new updated Riggers’ Sub-Committee Terms of Reference.
He stated that there were two main changes in the updated Terms that the Committee had considered; a) Election of Chair and b) the removal of the ‘two-years’ standing for new Riggers before voting.
Paul reported that Riggers’ had accepted the proposed changes to the Terms with regard to the process of electing the Riggers’ Chair. However, the Committee had disagreed with the removal of the ‘two-year’ rule from the Terms and they wished to recommend to STC that this rule remain. The rationale behind this was that the Committee considered that two years of post-qualification experience as a Rigger was required in order to exercise a vote.
Following further consideration, it was proposed by Brucie Johnson and seconded by Alex Busby-Hicks that the Riggers’ Sub-Committee Terms of Reference be accepted with a recommendation to BPA Council that the ‘two-year’ voting requirements for new Riggers be retained.
Carried Unanimously
4. INCIDENT REPORTS – RESUME
i) There had been 14 Student Injury Reports received since the last STC meeting. 10 male and 4 female. Two students hurt their shoulders on exit. Another student hurt his arm whilst freeing his foot which got caught in the rigging line. The other injuries were on landing.
ii) Since the last meeting there had been 10 Injury Reports received for ‘A’ Licence parachutists or above. 8 male and 2 female. One parachutist received minor injuries when she was struck by another parachutist during a two way funnelled exit damaging her shoulder on exit. The remaining injuries were on landing.
iii) There had been 14 Student Malfunction/Deployment Problem Reports received since the last meeting. 9 male and 5 female.
iv) There had also been 37 Malfunction/Deployment Problem Reports received for ‘A’ Licence parachutists or above. 28 male and 9 female.
v) Since the last STC there had been 16 Tandem Injury reports received, including two to the instructors. 8 male and 8 female.
vi) There had also been 12 Tandem Malfunction/Deployment Problem reports received.
vii) There had been 3 reports received of AADs firings. A jumper with 62 descents deployed his main low and his AAD (FXC) also fired. The other other 2 reports were of AADs firing in the aircraft due to the aircraft having to land because of poor weather.
viii) Four reports had been received of items falling to the ground, either on exit, in freefall or on deployment. 3 helmets and a camera.
ix) Sixteen reports had been received of ‘off landings’, including one jumper who landed into a football ground whilst a match was taking place. The jumper involved had since been grounded. The CCI concerned provided the meeting with further details of this incident and reported that further investigations were taking place.
x) One report had been received of a bird strike to a Beech 99 on take-off. There was no visible damage to the aircraft.
5. PILOT AGE RULE – ARBITRATOR’S DECISION
The Chair reported that STC would be aware that the new rule introduced in April regarding pilot age limits went to binding arbitration at Sports Resolutions and that the appellant pilots were successful. This resulted in the new rule being quashed and the previous rule being re-instated.
The COO stated that this was the first time that a BPA Operations Manual rule agreed democratically by STC had been tested at arbitration by someone outside of parachuting. He stated that he believed that the decision by the arbitrator required careful consideration and because of that decision, he felt that any hasty or knee-jerk decisions should be resisted regarding the way forward.
The COO reported that one of the statements made by the arbitrator in his report was as follows:
‘It will now be for the BPA to reconsider the matter in light of my decision; however I would add that the 2006 situation of a maximum age of 70 years with the possibility of a justified exemption appeared to have wider support. However such exemptions in my clear view should only be granted by an expert specialist panel of aviation doctors that the BPA could readily set up. It may be therefore that the reintroduction of the previous 2006 rule, together with the establishment of an expert medical panel to rule upon individual exceptions, provides the BPA with a sound course of action.’
The COO reported that Ian Rosenvinge had written a proposal with regard to the formation of a medical panel to assess applications for exemption with regard to parachute flying, which had been circulated with the agenda.
The COO stated that, the arbitrator’s report does, he believed, pose more questions than it answers.
The CAA had also been consulted and their comments regarding Ian’s proposed medical panel was:
‘The panel you mention, as envisaged by the arbitrator, appears to be tasked with discussing individuals who have already been assessed as fit for a certain class of medical certificate. There is no regulatory requirement for them to have an enhanced level of screening or to be further assessed unless they have, or are suspected to have, a medical condition.’
The COO stated that in his opinion CCIs should perhaps give due consideration to reverting back to the rule prior to 2006 when there was no age rule for pilots.
The COO stated that any changes to the current Operations Manual would need to be a main Agenda item for a future STC meeting and could not therefore be considered that evening.
He stated that if STC felt that this was the route to follow with regard to the pre 2006 age related rules then he would put this on the agenda for the next STC meeting for further consideration. No objections were raised to this.
Following further consideration, Ian Rosenvinge withdrew his proposal with regard to the formation of a panel for assessing parachuting flying exemptions.
John Page referred to the Tandem Working Group that had been set up in 2011 to look at age limits for Tandem Instructors and also that of Student Tandem parachutists with a view to having an upper age limit of 50. He stated that as a result of the arbitrator’s decision, any age related decision would be arbitrary and he felt that the Working Group was unable to progress any further.
6. PROPOSED CHANGES TO BPA OPERATIONS MANUAL
The COO reported that quite a large number of proposed changes to the BPA Operations Manual had been circulated with the agenda. However, they were fairly straight forward and he suggested that they be voted on in groups.
The first proposed Operations Manual amendment (below) was to rectify a previous error which stated that the BPA was founded in 1962. This should have read 1961.
SECTION 1 (CONDUCT AND CONTROL OF SPORT PARACHUTING), Paragraph 1 (Introduction), second para, change to read:
Since its foundation in 1961, the BPA has carefully analysed accidents and injuries in sport parachuting. This long experience has enabled the BPA to build up a detailed knowledge of the risks in the sport. As risks have been identified and assessed, measures to manage and control the risks have been put in place. These control measures are documented in this Operations Manual. The BPA Operations Manual may therefore be thought of as the outcome of a cumulative and continuing assessment of the risks inherent to, and associated with, sport parachuting. As techniques of risk assessment become more widely used across many fields of human endeavour, the BPA has an on-going commitment to develop and promote the role of proactive risk assessment in the sport.
It was proposed by Stuart Meacock and seconded by Brucie Johnson that the above proposed amendment to the BPA Operations Manual be accepted.
Carried Unanimously
The following proposals were changes to reflect the job titles of the National Coach & Safety Officer (NCSO) to Safety & Technical Officer (STO) and the Technical Officer (TO) to Chief Operating Officer (COO). The COO stated that there had been a number of errors in this group of amendments, which he explained to those present, and that these would be corrected in the Minutes:
SECTION 1 (CONDUCT AND CONTROL OF SPORT PARACHUTING), Paragraph 2 (Conditions), N.B. below para 2.1, change to read:
N.B. Approval of the Safety & Technical Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chairman of STC, or an official nominated by one of the above must be obtained before a CCI may leave a Category System Instructor (CSI) in charge of an operation for any period of time longer than a day.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 1 (Category System Basic Instructor), sub-para 1.2. change to read:
1.2. Will be required to attend a CSBI Course of up to a week in length organised by the Safety & Technical Officer (STO) or Chief Operating Officer (COO).
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 2 (Tandem Basic Instructor), sub-para 2.2. change to read:
2.2. Will be required to attend a TBI Course of up to a week in length organised by the STO or COO.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 3 (Accelerated Free Fall Basic Instructor), sub-para 3.2. change to read:
3.2. Will be required to attend an AFFBI Course of up to a week in length organised by the STO or COO.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 4 (Category System Instructor), sub-para 4.2. change to read:
4.2. Will be required to attend a Category System Instructor Course of up to a week in length organised by the STO or COO.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 5 (Tandem Instructor), first paragraph change to read:
To become a Tandem Instructor the candidate must fulfil all the requirements of a Tandem Instructor Course authorised by the STO or COO.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 5 (Tandem Instructor), sub-para 5.5 (Tandem System Conversion). change to read:
5.5. Tandem System Conversion.
Tandem Instructors wishing to convert to a different type of Tandem System where the primary handles (deployment devices) are situated in a different place to the system they were originally evaluated on, will be required to complete a TI Conversion Course, authorised by the STO or COO, which will include the following evaluation jumps:
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 6 (Accelerated Free Fall Instructor), first paragraph change to read:
To become an Accelerated Free Fall Instructor the candidate must successfully complete an Accelerated Free Fall Instructor Course, organised by the STO or COO.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 7 (Advanced Instructor), sub-para 7.2. change to read:
7.2. Will be required to attend a Pre-Advanced Instructor Assessment Course of up to a week in length organised by the STO or COO.
SECTION 4 (INSTRUCTORS), Paragraph 14 (Breach of Operations Manual), change to read:
14. BREACH OF OPERATIONS MANUAL
The Chairperson of STC may, in consultation with the Safety & Technical Officer and/or Chief Operating Officer deal with an instructor alleged to be in breach, or suspected breach of the Operations Manual, in a number of ways: