BPA STABS CAA IN BACK

For years, the Civil Aviation Authority has denied aiding and abetting the transformation of the British Parachuting Association into a commercial monopoly. No good turn goes unpunished, as the CAA and its slippery directors are about to learn. 

Facing a multi-million pound lawsuit involving insurance-related malfeasance facilitated by BPA's CAA-sponsored monopoly, the BPA has taken the unexpected defensive measure of publishing the Exposition through which the CAA delegated regulatory oversight to the BPA, trading as British Skydiving. 

Both the CAA and its parachuting regulator had tenaciously refused to disclose the Exposition in its various forms since 1996. A BPA insider said: "Our management, well, Tony Butler to be more precise, thinks the BPA can avoid civil or even criminal prosecution under anti-monopoly laws by, basically, blaming the CAA for turning the BPA into a monopoly. We call him Teflon Tony. He always finds a fall guy and now it's the CAA itself.".  

A few days before the BPA's publication of the CAA-BPA Exposition, senior CAA executive director Rob Bishton wrote to BPA Watch: "Executives of the CAA represent the CAA position and that which reflects government policy. I assure you that you will receive a reply in due course and after due consideration, given much of what is being referred to pre-dates those of us in office at this time.". 

Was Bishton attempting to exculpate the current CAA directorate for the numerous transgressions of various laws, regulations and guidelines by the authors of the Exposition? Will ministers and parliamentarians agree with his express view that the doubtful legality of this contract and its blatant codification of the monopoly enjoyed by the BPA "reflects government policy". We shall see about that.

From the 2020 Edition of the CAA-BPA Exposition

Originally set up in the early 1960s as a not-for-profit amateur sporting association with the aim of enabling skydivers to obtain cheaper insurance, BPA Ltd has been a commercial enterprise for decades and, as such, was not a fit and proper body to act as a government regulator. The original CAA-BPA Exposition of 1996 was overseen by CAA official Major Tom Oxley. Oxley was also a long-serving BPA Council member but nobody questioned the obvious conflict of interest.

Oxley's successor George Duncan has long been perceived as Tony Butler's poodle, an obedient quangocrat who approves anything Butler puts in front of him on behalf of the BPA. 

Although CAA CEO Richard Moriarty did not join the CAA until 2016, Rob Bishton had been at the CAA for some ten months the time the CAA-BPA Exposition was updated in November 2014. However, this is not really the issue. The issue is that neither Moriarty nor Bishton acted to curb the abuses of power by the BPA. 

On the contrary, Bishton failed as Safety and Airspace Director to follow Oversight and Compliance Manager Jim Frampton's recommendations that CAP 660, co-authored by the BPA and the CAA, be rendered more compliant with Health and Safety laws and regulations. Instead, Bishton permitted the BPA to use the 2020 revision of CAP 660 to extend and consolidate its monopoly over parachuting. CAA insiders allege that Frampton suffered constructive dismissal by Bishton and his mentor Moriarty for trying to do his job. 

The 2020 Edition of the CAA-BPA Exposition was signed off by CAA official Hannah Foskett who, like her colleague George Duncan, has been accused by non-BPA parachuting organisations of obstructive interference in their affairs on behalf of the BPA by withholding the parachuting approvals and permissions that the CAA is obliged by law –– in the form of the Air Navigation Order –– to grant to any person or persons whose competence is not in question. 

In fairness to middle-ranking CAA officials like Duncan and Foskett, the CAA-BPA Exposition obliges them to do as Tony Butler and the BPA tells them, just as senior executive directors like Moriarty and Bishton have to follow BPA orders. The Exposition not only gives the BPA regulatory oversight but effectively renders the CAA subordinate to the BPA. With this in mind, is it surprising that Tony Butler and his cronies think they can throw the CAA under the bus to avoid civil prosecution by the PTO Association for operating an illegal monopoly?  

Don Canard