Two individuals tragically lost their lives during a tandem skydive at Dunkeswell Airfield in Devon, UK, on June 13, 2025. Emergency services were alerted around 1 PM after concerns were raised regarding the welfare of the skydivers. Upon arrival, responders confirmed that both individuals had died at the scene. Their identities have not been publicly disclosed.

The incident occurred while they were attempting a tandem jump, which involves a first-time jumper being securely attached to an experienced instructor. The Devon and Cornwall police reported that they received calls concerning the skydivers' safety prior to confirming their deaths and informing their families.

British Skydiving acknowledged the accident and stated that an investigation was underway. A report would be submitted to various authorities including the coroner and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Robert Gibson, chief executive of British Skydiving, expressed condolences to the families and friends affected by this tragedy.

The CAA also noted its awareness of the incident and extended thoughts to those grieving during this difficult time. The Dunkeswell aerodrome has historical significance as it was previously a Royal Air Force site and served as a US naval base during World War II.

Original article

The provided text exhibits a multitude of biases, which are woven into the narrative to shape the reader's perception of the incident. One of the most striking biases present is a subtle nationalism, which is evident in the way the Dunkeswell aerodrome's historical significance is framed. The text notes that it was previously a Royal Air Force site and served as a US naval base during World War II, implying that this history lends credibility to the aerodrome and its activities. This framing assumes a level of national pride and reinforces a Western-centric worldview, where military history is valorized over other aspects of cultural heritage.

Furthermore, there is an implicit bias towards traditional authority structures, particularly in the way emergency services are described. The text states that responders were "alerted" and "confirmed" certain facts about the incident, without questioning their role or agency in shaping our understanding of events. This language reinforces a top-down narrative where those in positions of authority are seen as objective truth-tellers, rather than potentially biased actors with their own agendas. This bias towards institutional authority structures suppresses alternative perspectives on how emergencies should be handled or what information should be prioritized.

The text also exhibits linguistic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases such as "tragically lost their lives," "concerns were raised regarding their welfare," and "extended thoughts to those grieving" create an atmosphere of somberness and sympathy for those affected by the incident. While this language may be intended to convey respect for those involved, it also serves to elicit emotional responses from readers without providing context or nuance about what actually happened during the tandem skydive.

In terms of selection and omission bias, it's notable that certain facts about British Skydiving are presented without scrutiny or critical evaluation. For instance, when Robert Gibson expresses condolences to families affected by this tragedy, his statement is taken at face value without questioning his organization's role in promoting skydiving safety or addressing potential systemic issues within British Skydiving itself. This selective presentation creates an impression that British Skydiving has acted responsibly without critically examining its own practices or accountability.

A subtle economic bias can also be detected through references to authorities such as British Skydiving and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). These organizations' involvement implies that regulatory bodies have oversight over skydiving activities; however, this framing assumes that these institutions prioritize public safety above all else – an assumption not necessarily borne out by evidence on how they operate in practice.

Moreover, there appears to be confirmation bias at play when considering sources cited within this article: none are explicitly mentioned beyond official statements from authorities like British Skydiving or CAA officials themselves; no external experts' opinions seem included either despite being relevant given nature complexities surrounding aviation incidents generally speaking!