If this is the case, the CAA should hang its head in shame. These FTOs have the blessing of the CAA; that institution seems to think sophistry is OK.
Is there anyone at the CAA out there who can justify this - I don't want to hear caveat emptor! We pay fees to the CAA; but we only pay Caesar because he's the only regulator on the block and makes the rules. The content of the Gatwick aquarium deserves to be drained.
If a CAA approved FTO - UK, Europe, US - has insufficient insurance provision, should this not be reason for suspension of approval? There are so many gotchas in this game that for newbies (and beyond) guidance should be given.
Yes, it might incur cost - but hey - when has that stopped this benighted institution?
You take the money to provide a service. Behave like a regulator and provide that service, dammit.