I am not suggesting anything illegal is happening - the US authorities would, I am sure, dump on them from a great height if that was the case.
Having met a number of these wannabes acting under the delusion that they are getting their training at minimum cost (I was one once), I know that a minor medical condition in the US could wipe them out financially and curtail their training. That is their problem, however, and they should have a minimal degree of medical cover, as you would when holidaying there.
However, if, as seems in this case, the student is damaged in a FTO's aircraft while under instruction from a FTO's instructor, the FTO should be held liable. The student is as much a third party as someone damaged on the ground.
If this provision is not catered for the CAA should suspend their goodwill, strike the FTO from the list and make it public that they have taken this action for this reason.
This is not anti competitive; you get on the list abiding by a standard. You are struck off if you fail to adhere.
What saddens me in this case is that somewhere, sometime, a group of people have sat in a room and discussed how they word advertising in such a way that it propounds maximally, delivers minimally and precludes legal recourse.
In my opinion the CAA is guilty by association. Just as other civil service run departments who uphold the law. Oh, but I forget - they are not civil service.
