British Skydiving Rigging Committee

During the rigging meeting on November 20^th, 2025, I made a proposal to  allow an examiner to run a basic rigging course. This is not a qualification course, as it’s a teaching course to cover the rigging syllabus. Trainees would then be eligible to take the parachute rigging examination conducted by two separate examiners once they are adequately prepared.

The decision was:

The British Skydiving Rigging Committee refused to allow rigging examiners, to run a basic riggers training course.

In my opinion this decision is bonkers, it’s absolutely ridiculous, so I would like to explain how this happened and highlight the reasons provided.

The current system mandates that two rigging examiners must run a rigging course together, comprising of both the basic rigging course and the parachute rigging examination course at the same time.

This structure prevents examiners from dedicating their full attention to training new riggers, as they are also required to examine basic riggers seeking qualification for the parachute rigging examination. In my view, both sets of candidates do not receive the focused attention from the examiners that they deserve.

Maybe a little history is required here, as this current rigging course came about because there were not enough candidates to run the courses separately which is what used to happen. Riggers decided to combine them because there was no other option.

I was confident that my proposal would not be refused. As a rigging examiner with over 36 years of experience and having completed training and examinations across eight rigging-related courses, I bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the table, and believe I deserve the respect of my qualifications and experience to be allowed to do my job.

The committee allows parachute riggers, under the 200-hour training scheme (Method 2) to teach the basic rigging syllabus by registering their candidates as basic riggers. These candidates may then pursue the parachute rigging examination course when they believe they are ready.

It is important to note that a parachute rigger does not possess the same level of knowledge or experience as an Advanced Rigger, nor as a Rigging Examiner. This contradicts to the rationale for the committee’s decision.

Compounding this, the committee has stated that as an examiner, I am permitted to run the same 200-hour training course following the same method as parachute riggers; however, it cannot be labelled a basic rigging course, as that would imply it has official British Skydiving endorsement.

You could not make this up. Is the method two not an official course? Of course it is.

Initially, the vote at the rigging committee seemed to favor my proposal, yet the head of safety and training highlighted that certain votes were invalid, as only advanced riggers and examiners are allowed to vote on my proposal.

I replied stating that the terms of reference for the rigging committee permits all riggers to vote on my proposal, as I did not ask for any amendments in alignment with the stipulations in item 5 B – 1 & 2.

The rigging chairman swiftly replied that only advanced riggers and examiners would be eligible to vote, overriding the terms of reference without hesitation.

There was no discussion on this matter but, as per item 5 e of the terms of reference, this falls within the chairman’s authority.

The rapid responses from both the head of safety and training and the rigging chairman made it apparent that their stance had been established prior to the meeting, and they were unwilling to engage with the terms of reference statements.

From my perspective, this lack of alignment with the wording in the terms of reference is unacceptable; these guidelines should be upheld rather than interpreted subjectively by any individual rigger. At the very least, all riggers should have been allowed the opportunity to discuss this prior to the chairman’s ruling.

The outcome was a vote of 4 against my proposal and 3 in favor, as the chairman ruled that I could not participate in the vote due to my role in initiating the proposal. A further deviation from the rigging terms of reference.

I believe my vote should have been counted, as I don’t stand to gain or lose anything from this proposal, a point recognised by the chairman who acknowledged that I am still able to run courses, just can’t label them as such.

Ultimately, my proposal was not approved.

Let us now turn to the discussions that took place during the meeting, as the reasons for rejecting my request were equally perplexing.

Following my explanation, a statement from one examiner was made

The examiner expressed concern that having only one examiner could lead to issues, such as potential complaints regarding bullying. Therefore, we ought to consider the broader implications of possible grievances, although I must note that I have not personally heard of any complaints against rigging examiners.

The chairman then suggested that we can already front-loaded the method 2 training system involving four days of intensive training, followed by supervision, but emphasised that this should not be called as a course.

I responded to the first examiner, clarifying that we already have individuals conducting training courses under the 200-hour method 2, raising the question of whether similar concerns should apply to them. Or is this complaint concern exclusively directed towards examiners and is not relevant to the parachute riggers running the method 2 course.

The examiner acknowledged the complexity, but reiterated that we need guidance from the British Skydiving training department due to the official course requirements.

I inquired about the identity of that guiding body, since we as examiners provide advise on all aspects of rigging training, which falls within our remit.

The head of safety and training concurred with the first examiner, stating that the association would have no oversight of potential complaints as it would devolve to a matter of one word against another. He elaborated that the association bears a responsibility toward its members to ensure that any courses attended are safeguarded against malpractice.

He likened this to a PTO process, then indicated that it is up to examiners to evaluate the acceptability of the proposal.

Basically, they have completely side tracked the subject being discussed which is a rigger examiner qualified to teach on a rigging course, and introduced a concern about having candidates complain to try and derail this very simple request.

A second examiner sought clarification regarding the thinking behind the proposal but generally supported it, noting that having more personnel involved in the training is preferable to a one-on-one approach (referring to method 2). He also mentioned that there are lesson plans that may need attention so we can be sure that candidates are being taught properly.

This is another “side argument” in my opinion as surely it’s the end result that counts. If I do my job properly the end result would mean a qualified rigger, when he goes on the examination. Every examiner and instructor teaches differently, but as long as we cover the syllabus why would one examiners lesson plans be better than another. You don’t get to become an examiner without having proven that your lesson plans are adequate.

I replied to the head of safety and training and explained that his reasoning could be construed to suggest that we should also require two individuals to run advanced packing courses (currently taught by one person). I highlighted that as an examiner, I am qualified to teach advanced packing courses, yet I am barred from teaching rigging courses on the grounds of a potential complaint. I stated that his logic is flawed unless applied consistently across all our activities.

I replied to the second examiner with my motivations for the proposal, emphasising my belief that a focused training approach would yield better results if we separate the teaching course from the examination responsibilities. Concentrated attention on a singular task is much better for everyone.

There were no other comments on the proposal apart from those mentioned above.

In summary, I have documented this events to illustrate how decisions are made within the rigging committee, aiming to share this with the industry and gather feedback from skydivers, advanced packers, and riggers to assess whether I am the issue or if the committee’s logic indeed holds validity.

I hinted at the beginning that I would try and highlight the possible real reason as to why my proposal was refused. The reason for this is because riggers will come up with anything the can think off to stop a proposal they don’t like, but the real reason is usually something very different. Something that they can’t mention during an official meeting.

I would like to present an example from a previous proposal I submitted, which I believe effectively illustrates my point. I once proposed the removal of the requirement for a round parachute reserve packing qualification for reserve packers wishing to attend a rigging course.

The thinking was straightforward and logical , as round parachutes were no longer in use, making the requirement redundant. However, during the meeting, several riggers provided various technical justifications for maintaining this requirement, and ultimately, the proposal was declined.

I was in shock and struggled to understand the reasoning behind the decision. Later, in a more informal setting, (the bar) three riggers who had opposed my proposal explained that if it were approved, we would see an increase in the number of riggers and a decrease in work for those of us currently practicing rigging. Another mentioned the importance of maintaining established standards, and the conversation continued throughout the evening as they sought to enlighten me about the underlying realities of our industry.

This experience marked a turning point for me in recognising that there are often unspoken motivations behind voting decisions that are not addressed in official meetings. Eventually, the requirement for round parachute qualifications was removed as expected.

I have contemplated the reasons why some riggers might oppose allowing an examiner to teach a basic rigging course, despite not expressing these reasons during the meeting.

One potential factor is that examiners may face financial challenges if they do not have enough candidates, resulting in inadequate compensation for their time compared to teaching a full course of eight candidates. This could be a contributing reason.

I also think that some examiners vote against my proposals for personal reasons, as they believe I don’t support BS the way they think I should. In reality, I support the Advanced Packers and Riggers over the association and sometimes over the examiners control.

Overall, I have highlighted that there are often additional, unspoken reasons influencing voting decisions during meetings.

To further elaborate, the head of safety and training has expressed intentions to bridge the gap between rigging courses and instructor courses, which leads me to another point.

Upon qualification, instructors gain the authority to teach skydiving courses without the oversight of the head of safety and training. This underscores that instructors are free to conduct courses wherever they choose, not limited to a PTO or the UK, without the requirement of two instructors, as one is deemed sufficient so basically no oversight as described during this meeting to stop my proposal.

Furthermore, instructors are not required to notify British Skydiving before running a course, unlike rigger examiners who must seek approval for rigging courses. Instructors can also conduct courses abroad and issue British Skydiving ratings, even when teaching main packing, while riggers do not have the same privilege regarding teaching reserve packing abroad.

This disparity leads to riggers being treated as second-class citizens within the association. If a rigger were to conduct a reserve packing course overseas, it would result in the loss of their ratings. There is an evident lack of equality between riggers and instructors, and I look forward to observing the changes the head of safety and training intends to implement.

Lastly, the head of safety and training has integrated himself into the rigging committee to such an extent that he influences what can and cannot be discussed among riggers. Initially, I was put off by his lack of respect for riggers during discussions about extending the reserve packing qualification from six months to twelve months. He declared at a riggers meeting that he would not allow riggers to “dilute a safety system” as long as he held control. Consequently, the discussion was cancelled, only to be reinstated for the next meeting.

He was referencing the safety systems developed and established by us, as riggers. His qualifications in rigging are limited, only having attended the AP course, and I am uncertain if he remains current. In my view, he should refrain from involving himself in matters related to rigging during our meetings.

As the head of safety and training, his appropriate platform for influence is at the STC meeting, where he can share his insights concerning the decisions made by the riggers committee, along with the other members of the STC, which serves as the governing body that the riggers committee must report to.

I welcome and encourage any feedback on this matter from all examiners as well as the general skydiving community.

It’s also important to note that the challenge faced by many holders of BS ratings is the apprehension surrounding the potential loss of their ratings if they express dissatisfaction with the BS staff, leading to hesitation in voicing their opinions.

My personal experience has demonstrated this, as it took me three years to restore my ratings, achieved only after successfully resolving 10 out of 11 complaints against the BPA, adjudicated by an independent authority and overseen by three judges. This might explain why I support AP & Riggers over the association,

This matter is of significant importance to those holding BS ratings, as their livelihood is directly tied to these ratings, which have taken years to establish and come at considerable expense.

While I am prepared for any potential repercussions, my future complaints will not be directed to BS or an independent authority; instead, I will escalate them to a court of law, given that BS has shown a lack of respect for any complaints made against them.

I intend to bring my concerns directly to the skydiving community to shed light on what I believe are excessive constraints imposed by the BS staff on riggers, which ultimately compromise the safety of parachute equipment, but especially training, and examination courses which affects all BS members. I understand this may be met with resistance from fellow examiners, and I anticipate that the head of safety and training may attempt to hinder my efforts.

For clarity, let me state the following as I have been accused of not supporting BS the way that an examiner should.

• I’m for common sense
• I’m for supporting AP & Riggers over supporting British Skydiving.
• I’m against the head of safety influencing the riggers committee with his views on equipment and training because he has no knowledge or His platform is STC not riggers
• I’ve spent thousands of hours as a BS volunteer
• I have a massive history of supporting BS
• I have contributed and indeed established, a lot of the current rigging systems
• I hate to see those in authority, abuse the rules that we created
• I’m against BS showing no respect towards riggers
• I’m against the abuse of power that can instantly stop AP & riggers from earning a living
• I lost my membership for 3 years all because one examiner thought I broke the rules. I was vindicated but that a very different story – this is why I support AP & Riggers over the association