BPA-CAA EVASION OF HSE REGULATIONS

The British Parachute Association and its ghost directorship's evasion of Health and Safety regulations over the years is well-known, as is the complicity of senior Civil Aviation Authority officials. But when the CAA's de facto parachuting regulator Tony Butler of the BPA –– now trading as British Skydiving –– described the Health and Safety Executive as "a danger" in an official BPA/BS document last February, observers wondered if the Association's longtime ghost supremo was losing the plot.

CAA-designated regulator Tony Butler: HSE "a danger".

Tony Butler flipping the finger

Butler has admitted to involvement in BPA investigations into more than fifty deaths during his time as an employee of BPA Ltd. Some BPA insiders suggest the death toll is more than sixty. As BPA Ltd's accounts show, the firm's average annual safety-related spending is around £5,000 or less. 

 

Prior to assuming the role of Chief Operating Officer, Butler was the BPA's National Safety Officer. He has always avoiding being a director of BPA Ltd, no doubt believing that this will enable him to evade responsibility for the firm's numerous questionable activities.

 

Butler's surprising outburst came in his response to the Parachute Training Organisation Association's objections to the BPA's dubious insurance practices, which have been scrutinised by BPA Watch. The PTOA responded to Butler by having its legal counsel issue notice of an intended lawsuit focusing on BPA/BS' exploitation of its illegal monopoly to force members to buy insurance at inflated rates.

BPA Watch's Don Canard wrote to CAA CEO Richard Moriarty and CAA Safety Director Rob Bishton to see if they would comment on their designated regulator's express aversion to the Heath and Safety Executive. 

 

Moriarty and Bishton could fairly be described as being responsible for Butler and his British Parachute Association's de facto quango status, a status that is in itself of questionable legality because a quango like the CAA lacks the ministerial power required to create a quango.  Don Canard obtained a comment from CAA Safety Director Richard Bishton but we feel that readers should see Bishton's entire response to Mr Canard. 

 

From: Rob Bishton
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 19:53
Subject: Re: Tony Butler and the HSE
To: BPA Watch

Mr Canard

 

The omission of ‘Mr’ was in error. I do apologise. 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

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. 

 

The CAA is primarily funded based on cost recovery from the industry we regulate thereby minimising any impact to the tax paying public, who we seek to protect.  

 

Regards,

 

Rob Bishton

CAA insiders have said of Mr Bishton that "he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer even if he thinks he is very smart.". Mr Bishton's assertion that most of the dubious behaviour associated with the BPA trading as British Skydiving pre-dates the current CAA directorship's time in office amounted to an admission that BPA conduct is indeed dubious and that he and his directorial colleagues know it. However, it also came across as a rather hollow rejection of regulatory responsibility.

 

CAA Safety Director Rob Bishton

Rob Bishton joined the CAA in 2014, serving as Head of Flight Operations and on the Safety and Airspace Regulation's senior leadership team. Mr Moriarty appointed Mr Bishton as Director of Safety and Airspace Regulation in November 2019. 

Bishton was the CAA's first non-ministerial appointment to the post. Bishton's predecessor, Air Commodore Mark Swan, was appointed in 2008 by Transport Minister Geoff Hoon. Air Commodore Swan had almost thirty years of experience with the RAF as a fast jet pilot and was Director of Operational Capability at the Ministry of Defence when posted to the CAA. 

Bishton's LinkedIn CV lists his education as Repton, a private school in Derbyshire but does not list any graduate or post-graduate educational experience or qualifications. Elsewhere, it transpires that he has been an airline pilot since 1993. From March 2007 to January 2010, Bishton served as Director of Operations at Astraeus Airlines during the firm's final slide towards bankruptcy. 

Bishton was then employed by EasyJet, where he was appointed Chief Pilot before being marched out of the firm's offices between two security guards in March 2012. After spending some time on what The Times described as "gardening leave', Bishton was taken on the budget African airline FastJet as Group Operations Director, a job he held for two years before joining the CAA in 2014.    

 

BPA Ltd has been the CAA's de facto parachuting regulator since 1996, when the two organisations drew up an Exposition together. BPA Ltd directors and councillors demanding sight of this Exposition have been subjected to constructive dismissal tactics by the ghost directorship of BPA Ltd, headed by former BPA National Safety Officer Tony Butler, who has no formal qualifications in the field. 

 

While Rob Bishton rightly says that much of this pre-dated his time at the CAA, he was certainly in post alongside his mentor CAA CEO Richard Moriarty when the CAA-BPA Exposition was superseded by a new CAA-British Skydiving Exposition in 2021. Both the BPA ghost directorship and their counterparts at the CAA are remarkably reluctant to show anyone this document. 

 

Bishton states that: "The CAA is primarily funded based on cost recovery from the industry we regulate thereby minimising any impact to the taxpaying public, who we seek to protect.". However, the CAA's continuing failure to collect appropriate annual and other fees from BPA Ltd since 1996 is widely seen as enabling the allegedly not-for-profit amateur sporting association to amass a slush fund containing more than £3 million. 

 

This has been subsidised by the taxpayers whom Bishton claims the CAA is protecting and by other fee-payers in the aviation industry who also subsidise the significant shortfalls in CAA charges to the BPA for regulation. Is this the "cost recovery from industry" to which Bishton refers? 

 

Bishton was certainly in post when the highly dubious CAP 660 governing sports parachuting in the UK was revised in 2020. The revision was pushed through without full consultation. Bishton failed to use this opportunity to render CAP 660 more compliant with Health and Safety legislation. BPA/BS, on the other hand, used the revision to advance and consolidate its illegal and lucrative monopoly on parachuting in the UK with no objections from CAP 660's co-author, the CAA. 

 

Bishton and other CAA officials were in post when fatalities and injuries occurred on the BPA/BS watch. Bishton protests that he and his colleagues inherited the BPA/BS situation and its baggage. This is true but it is just as true that none of them acted to rectify matters. On the contrary, they appear to have perpetuated the CAA's blatant aiding and abetting of BPA/BS and its various illegal activities, some of which are now the subject of a multi-million pound lawsuit brought by the PTO Association. 

Is it time for a Government Enquiry into the CAA-BPA relationship with its numerous failures, illegal activities and shocking death and injury toll and the fitness of the CAA and its mini-me quango BPA/BS to regulate parachuting? 

 

Roman Kandells

 

STOP PRESS: ACTION MAN TO LOSE BPA RATINGS

BPA insiders say that Action Man is in line to lose his BPA ratings. The iconic alpha male apparently upset the Civil Aviation Authority's parachuting regulator Tony Butler by asking him to produce his qualifications. Action Man had already incurred the wrath of the CAA when he suggested that CAP 660 ought to be printed on toilet paper. Dennis the Menace told BPA Watch: "I don't give a monkeys what the BPA or the CAA or all the rest of the alphabet spaghetti gang say! Action Man will be parachuting from my bedroom window for as long as I have any say in it. My mum says they're all shysters with the morals of backstreet money sharks. If only half this blog is true, they should all be in jail!".  

CAA & BPA: GOVERNMENT POLICY?

When Civil Aviation Authority-designated Parachuting Regulator Tony Butler finally expressed the British Parachute Association's well-known aversion to the Heath and Safety Executive and its concerted evasion of HSE regulations over the years in writing last February, some observers wondered if Butler was losing his longtime grip on the BPA, now trading as British Skydiving. 

 

CAA-designated regulator Tony Butler: HSE a "danger".

Butler's surprising outburst came in his response to the Parachute Training Organisation Association's objections to the BPA's dubious insurance practices, which have been scrutinised by BPA Watch. The PTOA responded to Butler by having its legal counsel issue notice of an intended lawsuit focusing on BPA/BS' exploitation of its illegal monopoly to force members to buy insurance at inflated rates.

BPA Watch's Don Canard wrote to CAA CEO Richard Moriarty and CAA Safety Director Rob Bishton to see if they would comment on their designated regulator's express aversion to the Heath and Safety Executive. Moriarty and Bishton could fairly be described as being responsible for Butler and his British Parachute Association's de facto quango status.  Don Canard obtained a comment from CAA Safety Officer Richard Bishton. After some discussion, BPA Watch feels that readers should be able to read Don Canard's entire email exchange with Mr Bishton.

quote/...

From: BPA Watch <bpawatch@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 07:21
Subject: Tony Butler and the HSE
To: <richard.moriarty@caa.co.uk>, <Rob.Bishton@caa.co.uk>

Dear Sirs,

In a letter dated 8.2.2021 to the Parachute Training Organisation Association, your delegated parachuting regulator Tony Butler of the British Parachute Association aka British Skydiving openly expressed in writing for the first time his well-known aversion to the Health and Safety Executive and its regulations.

Mr Butler wrote: "If British Skydiving did not exist, either the CAA would need to take on the role and reproduce what the Association does, at a far higher cost, or there is a danger the HSE would likely carry out the role.".

As, respectively, CEO and Safety Officer of the CAA, would one or both of you give BPA Watch a comment on the record about Mr Butler's extraordinary statement? Do you condone or agree with this hostility to HSE regulations?

We can supply a copy of Mr Butler's letter if necessary.

Regards,

Don Canard for BPA Watch

From: Rob Bishton <Rob.Bishton@caa.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 10:41
Subject: Re: Tony Butler and the HSE
To: BPA Watch <bpawatch@gmail.com>, Richard Moriarty <Richard.Moriarty@caa.co.uk>

Good morning Canard

Acknowledging safe receipt on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority and ensuring you that a colleague will provide you with a substantive response in due course.

Kind regards,

Rob Bishton  

From: BPA Watch <bpawatch@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 19:34
Subject: Re: Tony Butler and the HSE
To: Rob Bishton <Rob.Bishton@caa.co.uk>

Dear Mr Bishton,

That will be Mr Canard to you. As a taxpayer, I pay your salary and those of your fellow quangocrats. You are the CAA Safety Director and Mr Moriarty is the CEO. Why cannot either or both of you answer my simple question about the anti-HSE statement of your delegated regulator Tony Butler? I am not interested in any comments from your colleagues. I am asking you. You're the executive directors running Butler. Or is Butler running you?

Simple answer please: are YOU prepared to comment or not.

Rob Bishton: Not me, guv!

Don Canard

From: Rob Bishton <Rob.Bishton@caa.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 19:53
Subject: Re: Tony Butler and the HSE
To: BPA Watch <bpawatch@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Hillier <Stephen.Hillier@caa.co.uk>, Richard Moriarty <Richard.Moriarty@caa.co.uk>

Mr Canard

The omission of ‘Mr’ was in error. I do apologise. 

Thank you for your email.

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. 

The CAA is primarily funded based on cost recovery from the industry we regulate thereby minimising any impact to the tax paying public, who we seek to protect.  

Regards,

 

Rob Bishton

 

From: BPA Watch <bpawatch@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 08:32 Subject: Re: Tony Butler and the HSE To: Rob Bishton <Rob.Bishton@caa.co.uk> Cc: <richard.moriarty@caa.co.uk> Dear Mr Bishton, Thanks for the clarification.  We look forward to a further clarification from you both, as the senior CAA decision-makers, of the CAA's position on its regulator's express hostility to the HSE, given the BPA's shocking death and injury toll over the years, during many of which Mr Butler was the firm's National Safety Officer. We do accept that the CAA's relationship with Tony Butler began before you and other current CAA executive directors joined the authority. However, our new article is not talking about the relationship as a whole. We have covered that in some detail already. It covers your designated regulator's extraordinary written outburst about the Health and Safety Executive as well as the impending legal action against BPA Ltd for what amounts to insurance fraud made possible by the illegal monopoly it enjoys, thanks in no small part to CAA complicity. Regards, Don Canard   end quote/…   Richard Moriarty is known for ignoring questions he finds awkward or for tasking subordinates with responding to them, often without adequate or accurate briefings. Rob Bishton's initial response to Don Canard aped his boss' style in declining to comment whilst promising a response from some unspecified 'colleague' at some unspecified point in the future.    Whether this reticence on the part of the two senior executive directors of this increasngly embattled quango is because they are unwilling to comment or because they are incapable of commenting remains to be seen but CAA insiders have said of Mr Bishton that "he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer even if he thinks he is very smart.".    When pushed by Don Canard, Mr Bishton's effective assertion that most of the dubious behaviour associated with the BPA trading as British Skydiving pre-dates the current CAA directorship's time in office amounted to an admission that BPA conduct is indeed dubious. However, it also came across as a rather hollow rejection of regulatory responsibility.    Richard Moriarty joined the CAA as Deputy Chief Executive in 2016 after serving as CEO of the Legal Services Board and was promoted to the post of CEO in May 2018. Rob Bishton joined the CAA in 2014, serving as Head of Flight Operations and on the Safety and Airspace Regulation's senior leadership team. Mr Moriarty appointed Mr Bishton as Director of Safety and Airspace Regulation in November 2019.    Bishton was the CAA's first non-ministerial appointment to the post. Bishton's predecessor, Air Commodore Mark Swan, was appointed in 2008 by Transport Minister Geoff Hoon. Air Commodore Swan had almost thirty years of experience with the RAF as a fast jet pilot and was Director of Operational Capability at the Ministry of Defence when posted to the CAA.    Bishton's LinkedIn CV lists his education as Repton, a private school in Derbyshire. Bishton does not list any graduate or post-graduate educational experience or qualifications. Elsewhere, it transpires that he has been an airline pilot since 1993. From March 2007 to January 2010, Bishton served as Director of Operations of Astraeus Airlines during the firm's final slide towards bankruptcy.    Bishton was then employed by EasyJet, where he was appointed Chief Pilot before being marched out of the firm's offices between two security guards in March 2012. After spending some time on what The Times described as "gardening leave', Bishton was taken on the budget African airline FastJet as Group Operations Director, a job he held for two years before joining the CAA in 2014.     BPA Ltd has been the CAA's de facto parachuting regulator since 1996, when the two organisations drew up an Exposition together. BPA Ltd directors and councillors demanding sight of this Exposition have been subjected to constructive dismissal tactics by the ghost directorship of BPA Ltd, headed by former BPA National Safety Officer Tony Butler, who has no formal qualifications in the field.  While Rob Bishton rightly says that all of this pre-dated his time at the CAA, he was certainly in post alongside his mentor Moriarty when the CAA-BPA Exposition was superseded by a new CAA-British Skydiving Exposition in 2020. Both the BPA ghost directorship and their counterparts at the CAA are remarkably relucant to show anyone this document.  CAA CEO Moriarty: tight-lipped Moriarty and Bishton were in post when the CAP 660 relating to sports parachuting in the United Kingdom was revised in 2020. CAA Oversight Manager Jim Frampton asked several HM Government-trained parachuting specialists to review CAP 660 and to produce a more Health and Safety-compliant version, published as CAP 666.  According to CAA insiders, Jim Frampton was effectively sacked by Bishton and Moriarty, CAP 666 was shelved and CAP 660 remained as non-compliant with Health and Safety legisation and regulations as previously. It also went further than previous editions in advancing and consolidating the illegal BPA monopoly on parachuting in the UK. As for Rob Bishton's statement that: "The CAA is primarily funded based on cost recovery from the industry we regulate thereby minimising any impact to the tax paying public, who we seek to protect.", the CAA's failure to collect appropriate annual fees from BPA Ltd since 1996 is believed to have enabled the allegedly not-for-profit sporting association to amassed a slush fund containing more than £3 million, subsidised by"the tax-paying public" to whom Rob Bishton refers.   However, the most questionable of Rob Bishton's statements to Don Canard of BPA Watch concerns his assertion that the CAA's position –– in relation to BPA/BS and its numerous and well-documented misdeeds, "reflects government policy.".    Do the many documented instances of BPA/BS skulduggery during its time as a CAA-designated regulator and the CAA's obviously complicity in establishing and protecting the lucrative BPA/BS monopoly really reflect government policy? Roman Kandells

BPA DEATH TOLL – CAA RESPONSIBILITY

The Civil Aviation Authority has a responsibility to make sure that when it issues a Permission to Parachute, the parachuting is carried out safely. The CAA is not competent to meet this responsibility and has therefore delegated regulatory oversight to British Parachute Association Ltd trading as British Skydiving, as the BPA itself confirms in various documents and on its website. 

In a letter to the Parachute Training Organisation Association dated 8.2.2021, BPA COO Tony Butler states: If British Skydiving did not exist, either the CAA would need to take on the role and reproduce what the Association does, at a far higher cost, or there is a danger the HSE would likely carry out the role.".  

Documentary evidence of BPA/BS hostility to the HSE and its regulations is rare but this is a prime and current example.  Here we have Tony Butler, who has run BPA Ltd trading as British Skydiving for many years as its ghost supremo after serving as the Association's National Safety Officer for years, expressing the BPA's hostility to the Health and Safety Executive in writing. 

CAA Safety Director Rob Bishton

BPA Watch wrote jointly to CAA CEO Richard Moriarty and Safety Director Rob Bishton asking for a comment on their designated parachuting regulator Mr Butler's express hostility to the Heath and Safety Executive. Rob Bishton responded: "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.". 

A long-serving former member of the BPA Council of Governors told BPA Watch; "Since the early 1990’s when the UK Government introduced legislation such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, the strategy of the BPA has been to avoid at all costs any form of HSE regulation or oversight.

"Although the BPA have over many years intimidated PTOs and others into not reporting accidents in accordance with RIDDOR and ordered them never to involve the HSE –– the threat being loss of their BPA ratings –– the BPA have always avoided putting anything in writing – until now. This recent letter from Butler to the PTOA clearly indicates what is happening - the BPA is conspiring to break the law.   

"There are approximately 700 people employed in skydiving, whether they are directly employed, contractors, self-employed or volunteers. All of these instructors, riggers and packers are at work and subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and therefore subject to HSE Regulation.  Butler was the BPA National Safety Officer in the 1990s when John Ward died and narrowly escaped a charge of corporate manslaughter.

"Butler's arrogance is astonishing. It's not only because he has gotten away with it for years. He actually believes that he is the Regulator, not the CAA or the HSE. Butler has total control over skydiving – PTOs, instructors, everything – it is a dictatorship. The BPA has managed to avoid being called to account for any of the 50 or 60 deaths on its watch during Butler's reign, which is why Butler doesn't want anything to do with the HSE!

"Any accident at work involving death or serious injury opens a company up to prosecution by the HSE if there is negligence. So Butler doesn't want anything to do with the HSE.  There is an added advantage, as the BPA do not categorise and report accidents in accordance with RIDDOR, which enables them to manipulate the figures. The BPA accident and injury rates are far higher than those being disclosed to the CAA and the outside world.".   

In and of itself, this would be very serious given the shocking death and injury toll on Butler's watch as National Safety Officer and, more recently, Chief Operating Officer, a title allowing him to receive a high salary and other perks whilst pretending not to be a director of the firm. Everyone knows that the BPA Council is a smoke and mirrors exercise, that it has no actual power and that Butler runs the BPA aka BS like a personal fiefdom along the lines of a Sepp Blatter or a Bernie Ecclestone.

Out of control: Tony Butler

The fact that the CAA has effectively made Butler the UK parachuting regulator and that successive CAA Security Directors have failed to reign Butler and his cronies in and to make the firm and its CAP 660 more Health and Safety-compliant a a scandal-in-waiting. BPA Watch has communicated with a number of individuals whose warnings to the CAA about the BPA have been ignored. Or have they?

Until recently, CAA Safety Directors were appointed by ministers of state and tended to have impressive CVs as military officers and test pilots but this changed in 2019 when CAA CEO Richard Moriarty appointed the current incumbent from within CAA ranks. In 2010, the Ministry of Defence responded to concerns about the CAA's reliability by setting up the Military Aviation Authority or MAA. 

A  currently serving member of the BPA Council of Governors, who recently contacted BPA Watch but asked to remain anonymous to avoid reprisals, expressed his exasperation and frustrations: "The BPA operates like a private members club from the 1960’s. The organisation is run by a group of doddering old fools behind closed doors, who have not moved on with the times. 

"The council have little or no say and the Chair is always Butler's puppet. I am not even sure if they are aware of current legislation. They are in charge and make the all rules and everyone must obey. The Law doesn’t apply to them or so they believe.".

He and other BPA Council members are becoming increasingly concerned that as Directors of British Parachute Association Ltd, they could be held culpable for the illegal activities and potentially corrupt behaviour of Butler and the cabal of ghost directors that have controlled the BPA for many years. 

Later on in his letter to the PTOA, Butler refers to the BPA insurance scheme, which was examined in detail by BPA Watch and is one of the main topics of the letter to BPA Ltd from the PTOA's legal counsel:  "If the current policy is changed and different sections/members are covered in different areas for different amounts, everyone is vulnerable. This could include the PTOs, instructors, riggers, packers, members carrying out student talkdown etc, anyone who may have been involved. 

"If any of the above members were operating at a PTO, that for example had obtained a policy that only covered the business in order to obtain cheaper insurance (e.g. only insured for a claim against the PTO itself from a Tandem student), a PTO could try to deflect the claim to one another person in the chain. If those in the chain were unable to obtain adequate cover, would any of them be prepared to work or volunteer at the PTO and possibly put their house or other assets on the line?". 

[Editorial note: Tony Butler is clearly admitting that people are at work––and therefore subject to HSE regulation]

A former PTO owner who served on the BPA Council for a time told BPA Watch: "The clock is now ticking for Butler and the BPA. When the proverbial hits the fan, which it will, the fall-out is not going to be good for skydiving or for anyone else implicated. The BPA are going to be assigned to the scrap heap of history and people could possibly go to jail.

"There are 60 dead bodies, some of which are genuine accidents, but others are blatant corporate manslaughter and as BPA Watch have pointed out, there is potentially a murder or two lurking in the body count. People are now talking and questioning. This is a mess; it is going to explode in everyone’s face. Eventually there is going to have to be a public enquiry or a massive cover-up.  

"The HSE is going to be severely embarrassed for being asleep on watch and having the wool pulled over their eyes by the BPA for 25 years or more. As for the CAA, they have been dragged into the cesspit that is the BPA by Butler and Co and are up to their necks in it. The BPA could not have operated outside the law for so long without the CAA aiding and abetting them.". 

BPA Watch

STOP PRESS – BUTLER INTENDS TO TAKE BPA DOWN WITH HIM

STOP PRESS  

BPA Watch has learned that the BPA aka British Skydiving have taken legal advice in relation to the recent letter from legal counsel acting for the PTO Association. Our BPA source states that the lawyer consulted by the BPA advise that that the PTOA case is based upon extremely strong evidence and the argument is founded on substantive precedent, the PTOA legal counsel letter is sound and the BPA are highly unlikely to be in a position to challenge the PTOA. Word from the BPA offices in Leicestershire is that the firm's COO and ghost director Tony Butler is in meltdown and threatening that he "will use all of the Association's £3 million to crush the PTOs.".

BPA Watch

BPA-CAA DODGY DEALS

After receiving a letter from the Parachute Training Organisation Association's legal counsel, the British Parachute Association's governing Council held a meeting on 9.3.2021. One BPA Council member, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, told BPA Watch: "We do indeed seem to be breach of The Monopolies Act and insurance laws as suggested by the PTO Association's lawyers.".  

The BPA insurance scam was reported by BPA Watch. The letter also mentioned the Civil Aviation Authority and the CAA-BPA CAP 660. The last revision of CAP 660 failed to address the document's lack of Health and Safety compliance but went further than any previous edition in advancing and consolidating the illegal BPA monopoly.

 It was agreed to keep the PTOA letter secret although disgruntled BPA councillors spilled the beans after the firm's highly paid COO Tony Butler signaled his intention to fight any PTOA lawsuit all the way to the highest court in the land––with BPA money. And the BPA trading as British Skydiving has plenty of money to fund Butler's Viking funeral.

As anyone familiar with how the BPA operates knows, the BPA Council doesn't actually have any directorial power. The BPA has been run for years by a small cabal of ghost directors over which Tony Butler presides. Mr Butler holds the title of Chief Operations Officer of the BPA but, as readers of our blog will know, has never been a registered director of BPA Ltd, trading since December 2020 as British Skydiving. However, Mr Butler is one of the two registered directors of another limited company called British Skydiving Ltd,

British Skydiving Ltd is registered as the same address as British Parachute Association Ltd. Some BPA Council members and insiders are concerned that Butler will hollow out BPA Ltd by transferring its funds and holdings to the new firm. BPA Ltd is sitting on a £3 million-plus fund amassed over the years because, some allege, of CAA undercharging. In other words, the BPA trading as British Skydiving has grown rich at British taxpayers' expense with the help of the CAA quango. The CAA has also delegated regulatory oversight to the BPA/BS organisation, thus transforming the shady firm into a quango, which strikes many observers as an abuse of CAA powers. Only ministers of state can create quangos.

One concerned BPA Council member, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals, told BPA Watch: "The longtime Council members who are part of Butler's cabal are adamant that a no-compromise, zero tolerance approach to the PTOA 'rebellion' is to be adopted, even if it means the matter being dragged through the courts at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds or even more. Others are worried that their responsibility as BPA Ltd directors, past or present, could be engaged by the authorities who will not accept that they had no power to curtail the various illegal activities and behaviour of Butler and his cronies over the years.". 

CAA CEO Richard Moriarty: backhanders?

The PTOA lawyers' letter was not unexpected. The BPA propaganda machine run by BPA Treasurer Natasha Higman had utilised social media, the BPA's print journal Skydive Magazine and the BPA Annual Report and AGM to put the most positive spin possible on the issues raised by the PTOA's legal counsel –– and by this blog. Addressed to British Skydiving, the trading name now used by BPA Ltd, the PTOA letter contends that BPA Ltd are in breach of The Competitions Act 1998 concerning Anti-Competitive Agreements Abuse of a Dominant Market Position. That dominant market position has been facilitated by the CAA or by corrupt CAA officials whom some allege accept cash bribes from Tony Butler, who is authorised to draw up to £10,000 at any one time from BPA bank accounts without having to account for the money. CAA directors and officials have been observed at BPA/BS-run events accepting various kinds of corporate hospitality. There is no proof that any of them have accepted bribes, leaving observers to wonder why the CAA or certain CAA officials promote and protect the BPA monopoly with such dogged tenacity. Is there something more sinister involved?

CAA Official George Duncan: Butler's poodle?

As this blog previously reported, BPA Ltd forces its affliliated PTOs (and its membership) to purchase insurance policies that are overpriced, fail to provide the requisite cover and are in any case totally unnecessary. Tandem parachuting customers or 'students' are forced to buy BPA 3rd Party cover for £11 per jump, which is incorporated into the fees they pay their PTO of choice. However, these 'students' should be covered by their instructors' insurance. Some estimates suggest that this practice generates approximately £600k per annum for the BPA. Other sources amongst PTO operators claim the figure is far higher. 

In essence, BPA Ltd is acting as an insurance broker but forcing its affiliated PTOs to levy these insurance fees on their customers is likely to highly illegal. As one PTO owner said: "Any claim by one of our customers would obviously be against the instructor's personal insurance or the PTO as the employer of the instructor. Although it is a legal requirement, the BPA continually refuse to provide members and PTOs with a full and detailed copy of the insurance policy which they are forced to purchase.". This blog has already explored the topic of BPA insurance.

One of the PTO owners behind the lawyers' letter to the BPA said: "Every time I put a skydiver on a plane, I am losing £7, and that is just against the aircraft operating costs. This approach where the whole industry is subsidised by tandem students is totally unsustainable. Jump ticket costs will need to be more realistic moving forward. People have their life savings invested in these businesses and the only person getting rich is the BPA COO Tony Butler who is paid £120,000 plus benefits.  I for one can't afford to drive around in a Bentley like Butler, or anything like it. There is something fundamentally wrong here!".

The BPA has recently publicised its new Exposition with the CAA. As with the previous BPA-CAA Exposition, however, this new agreement remains secret. BPA and CAA officials will not even reveal who signed it for their respective organisations. In the past, CAA officials like CEO Richard Moriarty and Oversight Manager Jim Frampton have sidestepped questions about the regulatory powers given to the BPA by the CAA through these Expositions. One BPA insider, who expressed concern about company directors' responsibility for illegal practices by the BPA, said: "Apart from the dubious insurance-related activities that have upset the PTOs, the BPA is establishing and maintaining an illegal monopoly over parachuting in the United Kingdom. The revisions to CAP 660 in 2019 brought this monopoly closer to being total. 

The owner of one of the twenty-one BPA-affiliated PTOs preparing to take the BPA to court said: "The CAA charges the BPA around £30,000 a year for CAA-approved status, which amounts to the sale by the CAA to the BPA or British Skydiving of a monopoly. There is amply evidence suggesting that the BPA, aided and abetted by the CAA or a couple of its executive directors, has been weaponising charges related to parachuting permissions to prevent any potential rivals entering the market and to force everyone to work under the BPA and CAP 660. 

"If Butler and his cronies force this matter into court to protect their personal interests, disclosure rules will see the extent of any dubious BPA-CAA collusion publicly exposed. As our legal counsel remarked, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission charged the CAA with preventing legal monopolies like NATS [National Air Traffic Service] from abusing their position. This situation with the BPA is not the first time the CAA has been accused of facilitating an illegal monopoly. 

Coining it: Tony Butler

"The CAA was embroiled in the British Airways versus Virgin row and was heavily criticised.  Then there was the breakup of the BAA monopoly after government intervention in the face of the CAA failure to meet its obligations. The House of Lords Inquiry into the CAA in 2013 found that the CAA had been 'captured by a monopoly'.' And then there are the numerous lawsuits against the CAA for malpractice and abuse of power.".

There is a growing awareness amongst BPA members and associates of what has been going on over many years. As one concerned BPA Council member remarked: "The light bulbs are starting to come on.". A former BPA Ltd director said: "There is an unhealthy relationship between the BPA and the CAA and at its heart are suspiciously close ties between CAA Chief Executive Richard Moriarty and BPA COO Tony Butler, who is actually in charge of the BPA and has been so for a long time. While this does not necessarily mean that there is criminality involved, it does suggest dodgy deals behind closed doors, like this new Exposition that is not being shown to BPA directors and councillors who are not part of the ghost directorate Tony Butler rules over. We're wondering if this new Exposition even mentions BPA Ltd or if it is beween British Skydiving Ltd and the CAA.". 

BPA Watch has asked the BPA's two independent Council members responsible for overseeing BPA Ltd's adherence to corporate governance rules to comment but has to date received no response. Perhaps this new Exposition is not, as alleged, between BPA Ltd and the CAA but British Skydiving Ltd and the CAA. If so, this would indicate that CAA officials are even more complicit in BPA/BS malfeasance than previously suspected.