PPL application rejected

[Claverley04]

Having passed my skills test recently, I applied for my PPL with all the usual documentation, log book etc. After a rather long day at work today I returned home to a Fed-ex package from the CAA.

Excellent I thought, my license has arrived.

How utterly despondant I now feel to find that the package did not contain my license, it did however contain my log book, ID and a letter from the CAA stating that my application has been rejected on the basis that the FE's priviliges expired 6 or so weeks prior to me undertaking my skills test, and he was therefore not authorised to examine me.

I am now unsure where this leaves me, and I face stewing over it all weekend until I can make contact with the CAA and the FE on Monday morning.

Has anyone ever heard of this happening before, and does this mean I am going to have to go through skills test with all associated expenses all over again?

Any re-assuring comments would be greatly appreciated right now!

[AdamFrisch]

Wow. What a left field thing. I hope they will all see sense on this.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

If this doesn't get resolved, it would be reasonable to expect the FE to reimburse your expenses. How did you come to use this FE?

[IO540]

This kind of thing has happened "around the place", and various people ended up with invalid licenses or ratings which they had to re-do, sometimes a year or more later when it came to light, but I have not yet heard of a case at a straight UK PPL flying school.

You are obviously entitled to a total refund of all expenses connected with re-doing the flight test.

It is especially bad because it is hard to imagine a UK FE not knowing when his FE privileges expire. In the other cases I know about it was 99.9% certain that the person concerned was fully aware he could not do testing.

[austerwobbler]

Bloody disgrace ! Your expected to keep your papers in order so you would expect a F/E to do the same , he or the club should pay up for a re sit ! Surely the club must keep tabs on there examiners to see if there in date for insurance purpose's
Gutted for you :(

[The Old Fat One]

I would advise thus...

Speak directly to the owner of club/school first thing Monday morning and appraise him/her of the situation. Have the CAA letter to hand. Politely make your point that you expect the club/school to meet all the costs of the retake and reapplication, whatever they may be. Be polite but forceful...do not accept any negotation or waffle. When the postion is agreed, get it in writing on company paper.

If the outfit is decent there will be no dispute...just embarrassment (on their part) an apology, and a sincere desire to put things right.

And, if the outfit is found wanting, just point out the readers of Pprune will enjoy reading the details.

As you are in England the small claims court will easily recover any costs they do not make good.

[Lyman]

That sucks. In America, Licensure is an administrative excursion, subject to waiver and hearing, and appeal.

I have heard of an examiner's license being "bridged", and work accomplished outside the time of expiry can be honored. Worth a try.

Good Luck.

[ExSp33db1rd]

.......I hope they will all see sense on this.

Regrettably, how can they ?

If we accept that a regulatory authority has to exist at all, then even the Campaign Against Aviation has to follow their own rules; if they allow unauthorised examiners, however competent at 'handling the hardware' they may be, to conduct flight tests, then what is the point of their very existence ? ( many will debate that, I know ! )

If you read accident reports to the last word, there is usually - almost a first - clause that " the crew licences were inspected and found to be in order" in other words if a 20,000 hours pilot-in-command of a transport aircraft had a crash because the engine fell off over the threshold due to no fault of his own, or the engine stopped because of ice in the fuel even, if the co-pilots' licence - who wasn't even handling - was proved to be so much as one minute out of date - that is the prime cause of the accident, everyone else, including the insurance companies, can all go home. End of story.

You think I'm joking.

One of my early mentors impressed on me that far from thinking about how I would handle an abnormal event, my first thoughts must always be what I would tell the subsequent Court of Inquiry. Sadly true.

The fault here lies with the FE, or his employer, and they must make reparations.

Commiserations and Best of Luck, whatever the outcome there is no recompense for your waste of time and effort.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would advise thus...

Speak directly to the owner of club/school first thing Monday morning and appraise him/her of the situation. Have the CAA letter to hand. Politely make your point that you expect the club/school to meet all the costs of the retake and reapplication, whatever they may be. Be polite but forceful...do not accept any negotation or waffle. When the postion is agreed, get it in writing on company paper.

If the outfit is decent there will be no dispute...just embarrassment (on their part) an apology, and a sincere desire to put things right.

And, if the outfit is found wanting, just point out the readers of Pprune will enjoy reading the details.

As you are in England the small claims court will easily recover any costs they do not make good.

Yes, I agree.


I have come across a similar case - a CRM instructor who failed his re-rate which was based upon an assessed course he was given. CAA required the members of that course to re-sit, and the CRM instructor had to go off and requalify. An utter embuggerance for all concerned but eventually rectified.

You'll certainly have to re-do your test, and are legally and morally entitled to your money back. The exam fees should be easy, the aircraft costs may be a bit harder since you still got logged time and still burned fuel, but personally I'd recommend digging your heels in about that as well -albeit very politely. Asking for the club to pay for the resit, including the aircraft time, as suggested above, is an elegant solution to this.

G

[Lyman]

All endorsements require the expiration date of the examiner, check your logbook, and see that your CFI doesn't include it each flight. Recompense for each oversight, imo.

[BackPacker]

Whatever you do, first make sure that the situation is indeed as described in the CAA letter. Both the FE and the people at the CAA are human and make mistakes. It may also be a simple case of the FE having properly extended his authorization, but the paperwork stating this getting lost en route to the CAA. Or something simple like that. In my experience FIs and FEs don't normally let their licenses and authorizations lapse by accident, but continue teaching and examining on them.

So something (embarassing?) happened, certainly, but do not make it worse for yourself by going in with guns blazing. Figure out what truly happened before making demands.

[Grob Queen]

What a nightmare, I feel really sorry for you! Is it not always impressed upon US as the STUDENT to keep our paperwork bang up todate and that the PIC should check ALL paperwork before a flight??? Whenever I do my Skills test, I may jsut check that all the examiner's paperwork is in order. He may think i'm barking but...

We have had issues over club aircraft paperwork found to be wanting. So I suppse everyonie can make a mistake, but when it comes down to someones Skills test and the issue of a PPL, I would have thought it was even more imperative that all paperwork was thoroughly checked before the flight.

Well, good luck with your quest for justice, and even better luck with your next skills test.

[Zulu Alpha]

...and if you paid by credit card then you may have a way to claim the amount paid back via the card if the goods promised were not delivered.


Good luck, I hope the school do the decent thing and that all you have to do is the test again.

[airpolice]

The OP wrote this a few weeks ago:My examiner was a thoroughly decent guy, who I am sure would have failed me if he found I could not fly, navigate and communicate safely.
I suppose the other comfort you should take into your skills test is that your instructer does know your abilities (or lack of!) better than you do, so if he has put you forward then you are almost certainly good enough to pass.

So if you are about to do your skills test, remember your examiner wants you to pass and your instructer already knows your good enough, so so should you.

On a slighty different note, is it me being tight or do the CAA seem to want to extort money out of us at every turn? £180.00 just to issue a PPL, I cant imagine the cost of admin plus printing the license plus reasonable profit would be a fraction of that in reality.


In fairness to other students, you ought to at least make others at Halfpenny Green aware of what the CAA have told you, and do so right away.

I wonder if you now see the £180 as a more realistic figure considering the extra work involved in finding your guy was (allegedly) out of date, rather than just issuing a licence.


I suspect that in the lawyer friendly state of California, you'd be swamped with offers to sue the "examiner" for punitive damages due to the distress and mental anguish of needing to sit your test again.

[airpolice]

I'm not sure where the CAA are supposed to have failed in what we have been told so far. I am sure the examiner knew when his rating would expire, although he may well have forgotten.

The CAA would have issued him a document, with the rating expiry date clearly marked on it. What can the CAA do if he continues to operate beyond that date?

[BackPacker]

Yep. If his authorization was expired, he knew it and still conducted exams, the only term I can think of to describe that situation is "fraud".

[airpolice]

Silvaire1 wrote:
Again, do they have reason to believe the student did not meet the standard required?



Like it says in the Andrex advert, "The job's not complete until the paperwork is all done."


I'm not sure that Jail is an option, but I suppose someone will come along shortly with details on the level of offence involved and which court would see the prosecution.

Aside from aviation, there is a matter of fraud, in the commercial exchange here. Potentially fraud by the school/club as well as misrepresentation by the FE.

Where the FE has (allegedly) received pecuniary advantage for a service he is not entitled to provide, and in signing the licence application and test certificate, he has "uttered a false instrument" to the CAA and the Student.

A good defence would be "mens rea" as obviously he would know he'd get caught and would therefore not do this willingly. Ignorance is no excuse, but it would mitigate allegations of intentional fraud.



C'mon Flying Lawyer, tell us how it really is.

[airpolice]

Legally:

I think that for a "deception" case to stand up you need to prove that the examiner knew, and was aware of the wrongdoing. As I already said, this was never going to go un-noticed at Gatwick so who would believe it was intentional?

He "ought to have known" will probably not be enough to convict him/her or fraud.


Morally:

This examiner needs to take up another line of work. I know that's a loss to GA of an examiner, and what are the chances of re-offending?

But the shame value alone would make a reasonable man's eyes water.

Should the club / school need to reimburse flight time and instructor (& CAA) fees for all students over a 12 week period, than bankruptcy must be looming and only the lawyers and accountants will get anything.

[DX Wombat]

Again, do they have reason to believe the student did not meet the standard required?
They have only the word of someone currently not in a position to make the decision. We have been told that the examiner's rating had expired but could expired possibly be CAA polite terminology for suspension for some reason known to them but not available to the general public?
Claverley, do as has been suggested and go out there and get the test passed then come back here and let us all know.

[airpolice]

DX, I don't think it matters what the technicalities are. In black and white, the examiner (allegedly) was not authorised to conduct the tests.

In that case, I wonder if he was current as an instructor/pilot.

[rmcb]

I'm not sure where the CAA are supposed to have failed in what we have been told so far

When you book your test - and pay your fee - you are allocated an examiner, date and time by the CAA, surely? This should prevent this sort of cock up happening at source.

This is where the CAA has failed. Period. So what will they be doing about it?

There is too much nonsense coming from the CAA with licencing at all levels. If you hold a monopoly, the very least you can do is get your own life in order. The original poster is entitled to feel pissed off; chances are he will have to resit the test. I hope his theory exams. are still in date.

In my opinion, the CAA are liable for all costs; the FTO shouldn't be held responsible for the CAA's failure to pursue their own protocol. Time for the CAA to pull their finger out. What they do with the FE is their problem.

[airpolice]

rmcb,


When you book your test - and pay your fee - you are allocated an examiner, date and time by the CAA, surely? This should prevent this sort of cock up happening at source.

This is where the CAA has failed.

which planet are you on?

[rmcb]

which planet are you on?

This one...

When I did my CPL and IR skill tests, this was the process; when I did my PPL skill test, granted, the FTO dealt with the booking, but I have no reason to think the process isn't the same.

[DX Wombat]

rcmb - either you are suffering from amnesia or you did your PPL outside the UK because the test is not booked through the CAA nor does the CAA allocate the examiner and you certainly do NOT pay up front. I did my PPL at HGFC who had their own examiners, the test was booked for a mutually convenient time and I paid AFTER I had done the test. At the time (2006) this was standard procedure at EGBO. I had a great, most reassuring examiner of unquestionable integrity who did his best to make me feel at ease throughout the test. Sadly for Claverley he is no longer there.

[rmcb]

It is true, I did my PPL in 2004 in the US. When the test was booked, however, we had to wait until the next day for confirmation from the CAA. If the booking system doesn't exist at PPL level, maybe it should.

The CAA can consider themselves forgiven on this count and the FTO/FE returned to the dock!

[airpolice]

It is an offence to make, with intent to deceive, any false representations for the purpose of procuring the grant, issue, renewal or variation of any certificate, licence, approval, permission or other document. Persons doing so render themselves liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (currently £5000, or in Northern Ireland £2000) and on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. A Cancellation Charge may be applied as per the CAA scheme of charges when an active application request has been cancelled by the CAA or the customer.


The important bit here is "with intent to deceive" in the first line. I think that will be hard to prove.

[airpolice]

Silvaire1, within the bounds of what has been alleged in the Original Post, the CAA have done nothing wrong.

The CAA issued the examiner with a rating and it has an expiry date, clearly written on it. He is alleged to have continued operating after the expiry of this.

There is another possibility here. If the examiner has had his rating renewed by another examiner, who has in turn, failed to deliver the paperwork to Gatwick, that would explain the CAA thinking the OP's examiner was not (and indeed would not be) legal.

There may be no malpractice in any of this, but nevertheless, the OP's skills test pass is not valid. This is why the CAA state that you must not fly as PIC until you have the signed your licence.


I'm not sure where that stands for ratings. Acting in good faith, I have flown after an examiner signed my ratings page. I am not aware of any means of me checking his lawful ability to do so.

However, when I passed my skills test, I took (by road) all my document to Turweston, where a very nice lady checked them over for me prior to sending them to Gatwick. The first step in her checking process was to type in the registered number of the examiner to check he was authorised and current for signing the forms. The staff at Turweston have/had an online system allowing them to verify the CAA status of any examiner that they need to check up on. Perhaps we all need access to that, in some form.

If the situation is as has been suggested in the OP, then some blame may be attached to slack admin by the FTO as they ought to be on top of this stuff as well as the individual examiners and instructors should be.

I'd expect a trawl by all FTOs early next week, wanting to see the documents for all licensed staff.

[Whopity]

Since 1999 Examiners have been independent of schools, though they may work for, or even own a school. The CAA used to send all Examiners a reminder 6 weeks prior to the authorisation expiry date to prompt Examiners to complete the revalidation in time. Recently, I have spoken to a number of Examiners who have not received any notification at all. The Examiner nevertheless has a personal responsibility to ensure that his licence, ratings and relevant authorities are valid when conducting a test.

I suspect that if the Examiner completes his revalidation, the CAA will have its money, and the process can continue, there is no "safety reason" for not doing so, it is purely an administrative matter. If that is not the case, then the Examiner should return the candidate's fee and reimburse the expenses incurred.

[rmcb]

Airpolice - is the booking process at PPL level in the UK administered by the FTO or the CAA?

I ask because this could be very relevant to Claverley04's problem resolution.

[airpolice]

rmcb, in some cases, neither.

I am aware of a person turning up, out of the blue, at a school recently wanting a wet hire of an aircraft in order to do a skills test.

He had made a cash deal with an examiner, (well respected local guy, known to the school) to do his test with.

The guy was a complete stranger to the school staff, but as the examiner was signing for the a/c, they were, quite rightly, happy to allow it.

[jollyrog]

On the brighter side... the OP has been through a full skills test under proper test conditions and he "passed". He can be confident now that he'll sail through the second test.

[S-Works]

Lyman
*
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 317
All endorsements require the expiration date of the examiner, check your logbook, and see that your CFI doesn't include it each flight. Recompense for each oversight, imo.


In the US, not Europe........


I am a little surprised by this. Just as I inspect a candidates documents when I conduct a flight test I provide my documents for inspection. Which means I look at them first to make sure they are all in order! Even examiners occasionally make mistakes.

I would hardly see this incident as a case of fraud, rather an innocent mistake on the part of the examiner.

You would not believe the number of pilots I come across flying around on expired licences and class ratings........

What is it with this forum these days, it's like redneck hanging party....... :rolleyes:

[Pull what]

What is it with this forum these days, it's like redneck hanging partyYes calm down girls, stop jumping to conclusions, you cannot make judgemnets without the facts and you havnt got any really have you?

Let's treat the examiner in the way we would all be like to be treated-he probably made a mistake, although I appreciate mistake is a one way word for many on here!

If you intend to pursue any legal action your first port of call is to the examiner or school to allow them the opportunity to put the matter right. If you do not allow them that opportunity you may fail with any subsequent action you take through the county court. You need to put everything in writing and get responses in writing, its difficult to prove what somebody said over the phone!

After a reasonable amount of time if they have failed to put the situation right you are then entiled to make alternative arrangements yourself and claim for the total cost of doing this which even includes your expenses for driving to the airfield for the skills test and reposting the application.

Also you should have a receipt from the examiner for the test fee-if you havnt got a receipt and you paid cash, guess what? Every skills test is recorded at the CAA and they are great pals with the inland revenue!

By the way you have a PM

[rmcb]

Thankyou for that, Airpolice.

It would appear to me that blame would therefore lie solely at the feet of the FE; the FTO can only assume that by agreeing to conduct the test the FE is qualified. Then it is reasonable for the hapless candidate to assume the same 'because the FTO wouldn't do anything illegal...'.

So, the candidate could call on the FE to return the cost of the FE fees but may have to resort to legal channels to recover the costs of transpoprt to/from, aircraft hire and any application fees taken to date. More costs that the FE could argue are 'not my problem'.

What if the candidate chose (unwisely, granted, but within the rules) to take the test on the last day of theory exam. validity? Retake the lot before retaking the skills test. More cost. Can he/she then return to the FE for those costs?

As mentioned earlier in the thread, licences can be revoked years later when these issues come to light - even when the most affected party has pursued the privileges in good faith.

What a nightmare. So avoidable with the supposed strong grip of the regulatory regime and the internet; time to change the system. It may cost more, but I believe we need more support from the CAA.

[The Old Fat One]

rmcb

Ease up on the posts old chap. You were utterly wrong about the CAA earlier (as you now see) and now your assertion that it is just the FE is equally questionable. At every half decent FTO, somebody (maybe the CFI, maybe Ops, maybe the owner) will have records of instructor/examiner currency, which will be kept up to date and regularly checked.

The FE will be only wholly to blame if he:

a. Is a lone wolf, operating as sole trader.
b. Has wifully misled his employer.

What's more, even if it is b. (above), the OPs beef will still legally be with the FTO (ie the trading company) and not with an employee of such...it is the law in the UK.

There is nothing complicated about this unless the FTO choose to make it so. In which case that is what the Small Claims Court is for, and it works!

As for the CAA, whatever they may or may not be guilty of, all they have done here is their job. And by catching this in a timely manner, they have potentially stopped all manner of future grief for the OP.

[Whopity]

the OPs beef will still legally be with the FTOWhen conducting a test, the Examiner is acting on behalf of the CAA who issue the authorisation to a specific person. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the FTO/RF, who are acting as a third party in recommending an examiner. The Candidate is free to use an examiner of his own choice.

[rmcb]

The Old Fat One - I fell foul of a very similar cockup, not of my making, and paid through the nose to rectify the situation.

I stand by wot I have writ and maintain the system needs changing.

Signing off.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know I've become a bit of an evangelist for electronic logbooks these days - but I've set mine (in Excel) to flash the date red at me if any of the expiry dates (medical, licence, class rating, instructor rating, IMC rating....) have expired.

Which does illustrate the point that any fairly well qualified pilot has a lot of these to monitor.

Anybody here ever accidentally driven their car past its MoT, had a rush to get your medical renewed? I certainly have. And dealt with it because perhaps I'm not as conscientious in the rest of my life as I am with my flying.

It happens, and just as an examiner will judge their student on how well they deal with their mistakes - the world will judge this school and examiner similarly. I hope they're not found wanting, because they certainly will have a perfectly good opportunity to sort themselves out.

G

[DX Wombat]

What none of us knows is by how much the rating had expired. I'm sure that at some time or other most people will have thought eg: "It's Thursday today" or "It's 14th today" when it has actually been Friday or 15th. So, it may well be that such an error meant that the rating was a very short time out of date because of a genuine mistake but because it was out of date the CAA was compelled to act.

[madlandrover]

As said before, the CAA don't check FEs before every PPL test - we are however checked after each test, since part of the post-test paperwork is sending a copy of the test form to the CFE (or SFE now!) at Bournemouth, where sampling is undertaken to check that PPL tests are being conducted within the bounds of the schedule. As a new FE I would be mortified if I conducted a test I wasn't allowed to do, and would make every effort to make the situation right.

I don't suppose though this is the same FE though who recently insisted he could conduct a MEP Rating LST despite having done the training course himself? Being a FTO HoT doesn't sadly guarantee perfect knowledge, although customers have every right to expect it.

[mur007]

(assuming they couldn't call it an administrative error and give him the stupid license right away)At what point does the lapsed rating cease to be valid in your eyes? If it has lapsed by a day? a week? a year? ten years? Ever? If the examiner's rating was not valid then it was not valid.

If I were responsible for the CAA group that let this happen through lack of oversight and proper designee selection, there would be hell to pay: if I found somebody who thought the limit of their responsibilty was collecting money and pushing paper, they'd be out the door.And what exactly can the CAA do to regulate lapsed ratings? If someone decides on a career change and chooses not to revalidate their examiner rating should the CAA ring them every month to make sure they haven't secretly carried on? How exactly could they have done more here?

There are too many unknowns here to definitively blame anyone. I'm sure the OP has contacted his/her club by now anyway and will be along in due course to fill in the many gaps.

[BillieBob]

What none of us knows is by how much the rating had expired.Try reading the original post again.

Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted. The responsibility to ensure that the authorisation was valid lay entirely with the examiner himself and, on the principle of 'caveat emptor', perhaps to a lesser extent with the candidate. Like Bose-x, I always offer my licence for examination by the candidate during the initial briefing.

The practice of examiners for the CPL and IR Skill Test being designated by the CAA should disappear on the introduction of Part-FCL. The 'competent authority' will be obliged to maintain and publish a list of examiners that they have authorised and the candidate will be free to select an examiner from the list. The 'competent authority' will, as part of its oversight programme, always have the right to decide that a test will be conducted by one of its inspectors but, beyond that, the choice remains with the candidate.

To expect the Authority to monitor all examiners on a day-to-day basis is, clearly, unrealistic. However, there is little question that some punitive action should be taken against the examiner involved in this case. Under Part-FCL, the restrictions placed on examiners are significantly more strict and a similar breach of the Regulation should result in a 3 year suspension of examiner privileges.

[2 sheds]

A pertinent comparison - in the case of an AGCS examination, the examiner has to enter the expiry date of his/her authorisation on the candidate's application form. That would seem to be a very easy way to highlight that "Do'h!" moment.

2 s

[Redbird72]

Aren't we being a bit hasty in blaming the FE? The CAA's administrators are human too, could it not also be true that the FE's last renewal was recorded incorrectly?

Either way, this is likely to be an honest mistake, and if it's the FE's, I'm certain he will be sufficiently mortified to make amends. Small comfort for the og, as no-one likes doing tests, even if you are sure that you will pass.

As a side note, my FTO used to have a large whiteboard on public display that showed all of the expiration dates/hours to next check for the club aircraft and instructor/FE licences. Quite a simple way to keep track (although not so helpful if a non-club FE is used).

[Pull what]

Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted. Thas not quite right in relation to the flying school. Forget the legislative aviation requirement for a moment. A verbal contract has been entered into here by the student and the flying club for the provision of a service, unless of course the examiner just happened to be passing and popped in and said, "anyone fancy a skills test"?

The supply of goods and services act 1982 says that a person providing a service must do so with reasonable care. Clearly in this case a service has not been provided at all. If the flying school arranged the test (in any way)and have not stated to the student that they only acted as agent in the matter they (IMHO) are liable. If the student made all his own arrangements solely with the examiner then the examiner is liable. I would say that if the school charged the dual rate for the hire of the aircraft during the test that could prove they were complicit in the matter.

[Pull what]

There isnt much excuse these days with the internet to forget anything. Google has an excellent calendar in which you can set up reminders very easily, I even have it set to every afternoon in the week to remind me that the post goes at 16.45!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Try reading the original post again.

Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted.
That is not clear to me. If the OP was training at a school, and booked a test with the school, and the school supplied the examiner, then the school has a responsibility to check the examiner's dates just as they check their instructors' dates.

The school can't say "you ordered an examiner, we contracted to supply an examiner, but actually we supplied someone who wasn't an examiner, but somehow that's not our problem"!!

[The500man]

I haven't read the whole thread but where do you stand legally if you have paid an examiner for a flight test but he was no longer able in the eyes of the authority to act as an examiner when he carried out that flight test? If you'd paid by credit card would it be easy to get a refund?

I seem to remember my PPL examiner demanding payment in cash, for fairly obvious reasons. Perhaps not so good for students though, and I don't remember ever checking his license/ ratings etc.

[Pull what]

This is the reason the small claims court exists, to sort these type of things out.

[DX Wombat]

BillieBob - my apologies. It just proves that I shouldn't post when I have a high temperature & sore throat. :O Both of which are now improving.

[Whopity]

It is amazing how everyone gets on their high horse about responsibility and legal action. This is not an uncommon occurrence, and in every previous case I have seen, the Examiner who will no doubt be quite embarrassed, will renew his Authority, the CAA will then honour the test and Bloggs gets his licence albeit slightly delayed. No additional cost to anyone especially the lawyers.

[BillieBob]

That is not clear to me. If the OP was training at a school, and booked a test with the school, and the school supplied the examiner....The school cannot 'supply' an examiner - it is not a commodity that it controls. The examiner authority is issued by the CAA to an individual who, when exercising the privileges conferred, then acts as an agent of the Authority. The school has provided the contracted service when the training is complete and a recommendation for test has been made iaw JAR-FCL 1.080(e). Whilst it may offer to assist the candidate in finding an examiner, the school has no legal responsibility to check the validity of the individual's authorisation. Whether there is a moral obligation on the school is quite another matter.

The Authority's ability to bring matters to a pragmatic solution as described by Whopity will, of course, be severely curtailed after 8 April 2012.

[BackPacker]

The school has provided the contracted service when the training is complete and a recommendation for test has been made iaw JAR-FCL 1.080(e).

How many PPL packages include the exam? In other words, you pay the school for, amongst other things, the exam (examiner, plane, whatever) and the school pays the examiner, fuel supplier and whatnot. At least, that was the case when I did my PPL training. I did not engage in a separate contract of any kind with the examiner, and I certainly did not pay the examiner directly.

So in that case the legal contract is between the student and the school, and the school would be the first to hear from me if something like this went wrong.

[The500man]

Most of the packages I've seen don't include the flight test. They don't normally seem to include aircraft rental for the test either. Like I said in my previous post I paid the examiner directly, and rented the aircraft for the test from my school. After the test the examiner gave me the test sheet to send to the CAA, and then signed my log book. After that a flying school instructor helped me fill in the license application and then certified my logbook entries with a school stamp and signature.

It all went to the CAA and in typical CAA fashion they phoned to ask me to pay the £4 shipping to send my logbook/ license etc. back to me!

If the examiner only has to renew his authority for the OP's test to be valid then that doesn't sound too bad for the OP. Having to re-do an already passed flight test would be a nightmare.

[Whopity]

The Flight Examiner's Handbook makes it quite clear that the Examiner is authorised by and operating on behalf of the CAA. It also states that the Test Fee should be paid in advance and Examiners are advised to administer this on their training course. I accept that many do not.
Standards Doc 21 Para 2.11.2 clearly lays down the Examiner's personal responsibilities.

[Pull what]

Strange that the only person not entering the discussion is the OP

[StavDav]

OP did mention that he can't do anything til Monday...

[Claverley04]

For the benefit of pull what, I had not intended to post anymore on this until Monday when hopefully I will have a much clearer picture of what the position is.
However, just for the record I have been keeping a close eye on everyones comments over the weekend, thank you all.
A lot of emphasis has been put on the legalities of this situation, and whilst I do appreciate everyones opinions, I sincerely hope that legalities are a road I will not be travelling down.
I do know my examiner, and have known him for some years on and off, I have absolute confidence in his integrity and I am 100% certain that if the fault is his then it is absolutely not intentional. If I had to guess I would say that there has been an administrative error of some sort that has caused this situation.

The reason for me posting this thread originally was to enquire if this situation or similar had ever affected anyone before, and if so what was the result? I guess I was looking for some consolation to minimise the certain stewing that I was going to be doing over the weekend until I could get onto sorting this mess out on Monday.

As I am sure you can all appreciate, the feeling of passing your PPL and then having it potentially taken away in a manner such as this has been very hard to swallow, as is the possibility of having to go through skills test again despite having already passed.

Hopefully I will be posting a final update on this on Monday evening confirming what the outcome has been.........hopefully.......

[mrmum]

I am aware of a similar situation earlier this year, where a RTF examiner, rather than a FE, had inadvertently let their authorisation lapse. The CAA rejected an application from another school's student when we had someone about to send their's off. I believe that once the examiner had submitted his renewal paperwork and fee, his authorisation was renewed and the customer's PPL was issued, our student just sent his off a couple of weeks later. As far as I'm aware, there were no retests done.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I find a 'forgetfullness' to renew ones' status as an examiner for over 6 weeks, as indicated in the OP, a bit hard to accept.

My Instructors' Rating requires a BFR as an Instructor every year - this happens in November and so far I've had no difficulty in remembering that, tho' I have to look at my logbook to pin the exact date down - which I tend to do about now.

Ironically this year I have a problem, the local Super Instructor authorised to re-test me is not available, nor is the next nearest one, albeit still some distance away, so unless I can find a solution, either travel a much greater distance, or pay for an examiner to travel an equally great distance to me, then my Instructor privileges will end until I can resolve the issue.

One of my present students is already lapsing into deep gloom at the thought that he might have to fly with someone else for a few months, until I can get myself re-qualified !

The point I'm making is that I'm already aware of a coming problem, not discovering it some 6 weeks later.

I'm not sure that the CAA, even if satisfied that the examiner still meets their requirements to be an examiner and is maybe re-qualified next week, can issue a licence against a skills test that was conducted during a period when he was not authorised. Logically, and from a commonsense point of view, why not, what's to say that he conducts a flight test whilst properly qualified but doesn't present the paperwork for some considerable time, is there a Statute of Limitations regarding the time that can expire between flying the test and sending the result to the CAA ?

A licence is not there to prove that you CAN fly (or examine ) it is only there to ALLOW you to, so commonsense says that if re-qualified then the examiner can present the same flight test results again.

But .... commonsense and the Law !!!

[Claverley04]

It would appear that I have resolved this issue.:O
My examiners priveleges were indeed supposed to expire on the date that the CAA claimed.
However, in advanced of this date my examiner had written to the CAA requesting a short extension to his ratings due to certain logistical constraints in getting them renewed.
The CAA did then write back to my examiner confirming an extension had indeed been granted until mid October. ( This may be usefull information to you ExSp33db1rd, as you may well be able to do the same thing and get an extension on your ratings until you can get re-examined)

So in a nutshell, all of this is down to an administrative cock up by the CAA!
I am very pleased that the extortionate fee I have paid to get my license is being used to fund such a well respected and professional organisation, enough said I think!

As I previously indicated in this thread, my examiner is a gentleman of great integrity and I would have been very surprised if this situation had turned out to be of his making, it is yet another example of CAA modus operandi.

[Heston]

OK so the CAA suffered a "left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing" moment for a while - presumably resolved relatively rapidly after a phone call or two (its only three hours into business hours on Monday). That doesn't sound like too big a deal to me, frankly.

Where are the plaudits for the CAA in allowing the examiner the extension in the first place? That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a faceless unbending bureaucracy to me, more like a helpful and reasonable one.

I'm just saying...:O

H

[rmcb]

Sounds like a complacency wrapped in a shambles tied with a bureaucracy to me.

There is no excuse for this. Time for change.

[S-Works]

Lets hope the PPrune hanging party only used a rubber rope then?
:ugh:

[jez d]

Hear, hear, Bose

And shame on you, rmcb - do you perhaps have a personal axe to grind with the CAA ?

Compared with many other NAAs one could mention, the UK CAA are efficiency personified. Bloody expensive though...

[dublinpilot]

I wonder why, in view of the seriousness of the accusation, the CAA didn't lift the phone to call the examiner to enquire about why he (according to their info) did a test when not authorised.

It would have found the solution long before their letter was ever written.

Indeed, assuming that the op contacted their school, the examiners reputation might have been quite damaged by this little incident, and the CAA are the only ones at fault here.

[IO540]

I wonder why, in view of the seriousness of the accusation, the CAA didn't lift the phone to call the examiner to enquire about why he (according to their info) did a test when not authorised.

It would have found the solution long before their letter was ever written.

Indeed, assuming that the op contacted their school, the examiners reputation might have been quite damaged by this little incident, and the CAA are the only ones at fault here.That's my view too. It must have cost the CAA a few bob to return this man's logbooks etc by a courier. They should have got onto the examiner like a ton of bricks first for bringing the flight training system into disrepute. There are quite a few people who, having got a duff flight test, would have gone totally off their rocker and just sued, or made a big scene in front of a lot of potential customers in the school. A PPL is a huge investment in time, aggro, time, aggro, money, aggro...

However, while this has never happened to me, I know for sure that the FAA would also have washed their hands of a checkride done by a DPE whose papers have expired, or have some sort of irregularity, and they are quite happy to do so a long time after the relevant checkride.

[mur007]

rcmb - you have not really done yourself too many favours in this thread: you need to slow down and think before rushing to condemn.

[YorkshireTyke]

Claverley04

Enjoy your flying,it's too late to back off, you're hooked for life !

[ExSp33db1rd]

Claverley04

Congrats. and thanks for the thought but I'm talking Microlight, which is run by a voluntary organisation with approval of the NZ CAA, it will be up to their Constitution as to whether they can give a 10% extension, and never heard of it, but worth a phone call !

[rmcb]

...shame on you, rmcb - do you perhaps have a personal axe to grind with the CAA

Blunt axe? Due to an inability to differentiate a modular/integrated candidate and reconcile records 18 months before it counted, I lost a conditional job offer. So, yes. Ashamed? No.

Compared with many other NAAs one could mention, the UK CAA are efficiency personified. Bloody expensive though...

They've demonstrated a degree of mediocrity only possible in the civil service. I don't begrudge paying for an efficient, cohesive and integrated service, but I cannot accept their being the least mediocre makes their 'service' acceptable - or do I misunderstand you?

rcmb - you have not really done yourself too many favours in this thread: you need to slow down and think before rushing to condemn

No apology; as already pointed out, if someone had thought to pick up a 'phone and speak with the FE... I recall the frustration of getting anyone to recognise a problem existed. These problems need quick answers with solutions and ready cooperation to rectify. It may not be what you want to hear, but you need that decision fast.

This whole scenario (as mine) should have been prevented with the sensible use of IT and the management consultants that no doubt litter the landscape.

Congratulations on solving your problem Claverley04 and good luck for the future.

[mur007]

No apology?

It would appear to me that blame would therefore lie solely at the feet of the FE; the FTO can only assume that by agreeing to conduct the test the FE is qualified. Then it is reasonable for the hapless candidate to assume the same 'because the FTO wouldn't do anything illegal...'.

So, the candidate could call on the FE to return the cost of the FE fees but may have to resort to legal channels to recover the costs of transpoprt to/from, aircraft hire and any application fees taken to date. More costs that the FE could argue are 'not my problem'.

What if the candidate chose (unwisely, granted, but within the rules) to take the test on the last day of theory exam. validity? Retake the lot before retaking the skills test. More cost. Can he/she then return to the FE for those costs?You're still happy with all of the above? You don't think you should have waited until you knew the facts?

[stickandrudderman]

Oh Good, a stoning! Come on Brian!

[mary meagher]

Well, I don't know. I'm just as glad the CAA, though sometimes a slipup occurs as in this case, is keeping an eye on who is qualified to do what.

Compare with some of the problems highlighted in the Rumours and News forum, where we occasionally read horror stories of fraudulent flight certificate holders sitting in the pointy end of public transport. In parts of the world where different ethics apply....

[ExSp33db1rd]

You don't think you should have waited until you knew the facts?

Sticking to the 'facts' is borin'.

If we all knew the 'facts' there would be no need for any Forums such as PPRuNe or Facebeek ( some might say What a Good Idea ! ) as there would be no indecisions or ignorance, we'd all run along in straight lines waving the Rule Book, in the manner of the Red Guards of the '60s who ran around holding up the Little Red Book of The Thoughts of Mao, attempting to convert everyone in their path

Not knowing the facts means we have to enquire, suggest, discuss, argue, hypothesise, maybe even insult providing it doesn't get too nasty, and so we probably learn something as a result of it all ?

I've certainly learned something - I knew that some aircraft maintenance dates can be extended by up to 10% providing that they are applied before expiry has actually occurred, but I'd never heard of it being applied to personal licences, even tho' it might be Old Hat to some, as a result I've just asked my local administration to help me in a similar fashion, I've little hope, but don't ask, don't get.

[chubbychopper]

So why did the jobs worth at the CAA not call either the applicant or examiner before simply sending a rejection letter?

Because most of them are only trained to tick boxes. Using initiative is beyond the scope or remit of any of them.

[ExSp33db1rd]

In the days when the CAA was the MoT in The City, I attended at 09.01 one morning, the door was locked but almost immediately it was unlocked and I was admitted - the only 'customer'. The door unlocker disappeared.

After 10 minutes alone, the same door unlocker re-appeared, now on the other side of the counter, and inspected a large appointment book on that counter, and told me that I hadn't applied for an interview by registering my name and thereby placing myself in the queue, applicants being taken in order of arrival. I pointed out that I was still the only one there, I was ready to ask my question.

He then repeated that I had to register for an appointment according to time of arrival, and again disappeared.

After another 10 minutes, still being the only attendee, the same jobsworth appeared, looked at the book, then looked quizically around the room - and called my name out in a loud voice !!

That nearly ended my aviation career, right then, did I want to be associated with this bunch of twerps ? Fortunately I persevered.

Campain Against Aviation. Seems nothing's changed.

[rmcb]

You're still happy with all of the above?
Yes.
You don't think you should have waited until you knew the facts?
No. This is a discussion forum.'facts' is borin'

I believe successful regulation is a two way thing. The CAA shouldn't be at home to Mr. Cockup. Claverley04 performed in good faith and, with the current system, the only party likely to end up disadvantaged is Claverley04. At the very least, Claverley04 was exposed to a long weekend in discomfort.

I recognise and rejoice in regulation and I maintain - time for change. How that change comes is up to the regulators.

Oh Good, a stoning!

Beards on, ladies!

[Whopity]

The CAA has numerous different IT systems that do not talk to one another. It is quite easy for a left hand, right hand disconnect to occur as organisations continue to have more and more dysfunctional IT. In the days of the Cardex and Quill Pen, this would never have occurred. It is the price or illusion of progress!

[Pull what]

I do know my examiner, and have known him for some years on and off, I have absolute confidence in his integrity and I am 100% certain that if the fault is his then it is absolutely not intentional. If I had to guess I would say that there has been an administrative error of some sort that has caused this situation.

Might have been better if you had said that in your first post.

[silverknapper]

Might have been better if you had said that in your first post.

Hear Hear, what a fuss about nothing. If you knew the guy and were so certain he was in the right why come on here bleating about it.

[IO540]

The CAA has numerous different IT systems that do not talk to one another. It is quite easy for a left hand, right hand disconnect to occur as organisations continue to have more and more dysfunctional IT. In the days of the Cardex and Quill Pen, this would never have occurred. It is the price or illusion of progress!

What amazes me is that for their massive budget they have not spent a relative few bob sorting this out.

It is not as if they are presiding over 20 million car drivers. There are only about 20k active private pilots in the UK (evidenced by valid medicals) and probably at most a few k commercial pilots.

A database of that size could be stored on my Nokia E51 phone :)

I suspect a bigger reason for this is that a lot of competent people have left in recent years. The smart ones have got jobs elsewhere, and the cynical gravy train riders have got jobs at EASA :)

[niceday2700classic]

So it seems it could easily have been cleared up by a quick phone call along the lines of:

"Bob, the CAA say your FE has expired and accordingly they've rejected my licence application. Must be some misunderstanding, can you shed any light?"

Let's say though that Bob's FE really had expired and it was a genuine oversight from him and/or the FTO. And the CAA refused to make an exception and recognise the test as valid.

If Bob is an employee of the FTO, then a cosy little meeting with our hero, Bob and the CFI (let's call him Bill) would probably have cleared things up. Our hero would politely explain how disappointed he was at not yet having his license, and that he thought between them Bob and Bill ought to be putting things right without him paying any more money. Bob (newly revalidated) would then take our hero for a pleasant little 2 hour flight, after which he'd fill out the test pass form just like he did the first time.

The paperwork would go off to the CAA and our hero would get his licence. Bob and Bill would discuss behind closed doors who'd cover the aircraft costs for the second 'test', but it's fairly clear that Bob would have to forego his fee.

[mur007]

If we all knew the 'facts' there would be no need for any Forums such as PPRuNe or Facebeek ( some might say What a Good Idea ! ) as there would be no indecisions or ignorance, we'd all run along in straight lines waving the Rule Book, in the manner of the Red Guards of the '60s who ran around holding up the Little Red Book of The Thoughts of Mao, attempting to convert everyone in their path

Not knowing the facts means we have to enquire, suggest, discuss, argue, hypothesise, maybe even insult providing it doesn't get too nasty, and so we probably learn something as a result of it all ?Absolutely! It is a well-known fact that at the core of all learning is idle speculation and gossip! :O

Being serious, I do feel a bit sorry for the FE. Some of the comments levelled at him in this thread border on slander and were made by individuals who hide behind internet anonymity and then try to use 'discussion' to justify their false and baseless claims.

[S-Works]

Whatever the 'logistical issues" were- the FE was still able to find the time to conduct check rides for that 6 week period - but it seems - unable to get his currency sorted out.
Also quite surprised that the CAA permitted such an extension.


Testing of examiners is done by the CAA. There are so few CAA staff Examiners left and then finding any that actually hold a medical to be able to fly often leaves major logistical problems with actually getting the flight test sorted.

I know of a number of examiners who are in this situation. At my last renewal it took nearly 2 months to be able to get it sorted. Fortunately I tend to do stuff early rather than late so it was not an issue for me but I can see how this situation can easily arise. At least the CAA are pragmatic enough to issue an extension.

What did surprise and dismay me with this thread is the willingness of people to automatically assume the guy was a fraudster, conman or just plain negligent.......

There is no excuse for the lack of joined up communication at the CAA but it is the way it is.

[Paris Dakar]

bose-x

What did surprise and dismay me with this thread is the willingness of people to automatically assume the guy was a fraudster, conman or just plain negligent.......

Don't be surprised - the poor guy selling his aircraft on the 'Funny Ebay Advert' thread got a similar pasting cos his spelllinnggg & grama was a bit off :( Perhaps this is the new way to behave - believe everyone is up to no good until they [the accused] can prove otherwise :confused:

[excrewingbod]

This thread brings back memories of a visit to PLD in June 1993. Back then I was a 17-year old lowly ops assistant and my employer sent me down to Gatwick to hand deliver an urgent 1179 application. Pilot in question was required to commence line training the following day.

Arrived at PLD around 11am, handed said application over and went to the CAA library to kill some time. Returned to the PLD counter at 12pm, where I was told that the application could not be processed, due to the 1179 being incomplete.

I gently pointed out the copy of a letter, in the application pack, from PLD to my employer confirming they, PLD, would process the incomplete application, on the proviso the missing element was covered during line training and that a copy of said letter must be in the application pack. The missing element was a crosswind take-off/landing on the aircraft - the weather did not co-operate during circuit training.

Cue red faced CAA clerk, who muttered something about having to confirm that the letter had originated from PLD and whether the application could be processed.

Two hours later, licence handed back with type-rating on it.

[Whopity]

Testing of examiners is done by the CAA.PPL FEs are tested by FIEs of whom there are 98, so no shortage there.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Don't be surprised - the poor guy selling his aircraft on the 'Funny Ebay Advert' thread got a similar pasting cos his spelllinnggg & grama was a bit off http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif Perhaps this is the new way to behave - believe everyone is up to no good until they [the accused] can prove otherwise

Allow me to consider this comparison unfair. The ''funny ebay advert'' clearly showed a weakness on one party, actually that was the trigger to the thread. For myself I term it an unfortunate weakness, at least - only the relevance was questionable.
In the present discussion, strong opinions were published before any error was visible.

[Pull what]

Cue red faced CAA clerk, who muttered something about having to confirm that the letter had originated from PLD and whether the application could be processed.

People make mistakes, there is nothing new there and some of the worst ones are the most obvious if you remember Tenerife

[ifitaintboeing]

whopity, I think there are 48 FIEs in the UK.

[Jan Olieslagers]

A database of that size could be stored on my Nokia E51 phone
I believed you competent enough to differentiate between the volume handled, and the quality of procedures. And yes, I did see the emoticon. Doesn't make you look cleverer.

I suspect a bigger reason for this is that a lot of competent people have left in recent years.
If I have understood correctly, I recently met one person in that situation/condition, and what a nice meeting that was. I was most impressed with the gentle way to word profound professional frustration.

[Whopity]

I think there are 48 FIEs in the UK. My 2011 list shows 62 +2 TMG. There were 90+ a few years ago.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Absolutely! It is a well-known fact that at the core of all learning is idle speculation and gossip!

Absolutely! How do you think it all started ? In the Beginning No-one Knew Nuffin. Probably a million years ago some geezer sat down in the pub and asked why the Sun was moving around the Earth, after all NOBODY knew at that time, so Copperknickers and his mates went about finding out.

I bet Icarus wished he'd listened to idle gossip about how the Sun was hot.

Sorting the facts from the gossip is the trick.

How many times do you have to ring your Council, Bank, Insurance Co. Plumber, the CAA, etc. getting a different answer each time, before you eventually have enough information to work it out for yourself ?.

Even Einstein is being questioned now !

[The Old Fat One]

When conducting a test, the Examiner is acting on behalf of the CAA who issue the authorisation to a specific person. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the FTO/RF, who are acting as a third party in recommending an examiner.


Irrelevant.

Under the sale of goods act in the UK (feel free to look it up) the person doing the selling forms a contract with the person doing the buying. The contract cannot be abrogated to a third party in the UK without the buyers consent.

If Joe Bloggs pays Fred Carno Flying School Ltd for a flight examination, his contract is with Fred Carno Flying School Ltd and they are responsible for providing said goods and services.

If Joe Bloggs has entered into a private arrangement with Holden MaGroin Esq (Flight Examiner par excellence), then said HM is responsible for providing the goods and services.

It's not rocket science, it's not negotiable and the CAA/Flying Schools do not have a remit to do any thing different.

If the OP paid the FTO, they have the buck. If the OP entered a private arrangement with the FE, the FE has the buck.

It's really ****ing simple...why don't you get it??

[Whopity]

Which may well be the reason that the CAA tell the Examiner to collect the fee from the candidate prior to the test. A school cannot contract to sell a service it has no authority to provide. If by allowing the school to collect monies on behalf of an examiner it assumes liability, then there is a salutary lesson for us all.

[Claverley04]

For the benefit of the obviously intellectually challenged silverknapper.
Please could you explain to me where in my first post I was actually bleating about anything?
I made it clear I was disappointed, who wouldnt be?
I made it clear that the whole point of my post was to ascertain if anyone had had this happen before, and if so could they shed some light on the outcome for me?

Where is the bleating?
Please feel free to enlighten all of us with further witless comments. Alternatively engage your small mind before posting insulting s*** on here and shut the f*** up.

[PompeyPaul]

For the benefit of the obviously intellectually challenged silverknapper.
Please could you explain to me where in my first post I was actually bleating about anything?
I made it clear I was disappointed, who wouldnt be?
I made it clear that the whole point of my post was to ascertain if anyone had had this happen before, and if so could they shed some light on the outcome for me?

Where is the bleating?
Please feel free to enlighten all of us with further witless comments. Alternatively engage your small mind before posting insulting s*** on here and shut the f*** up.
Rule 1 of PPrune.

Any topic more than 4 pages long shall be an argument with bickering.

Direction of internet argument.

It is hear by declared that an internet argument be conducted thus:

Initiation of confrontation

1. A series of statements shall be made
2. A single statement from the series be dissected and responded to in a ferociously strong manner.

NB Remember if you would be prepared to say what you are writing in real life then it is not nearly ferocious enough.

3. Original poster is to to then dissect one of the statements in response and pick that out to post a ferocious response to

It can be help if some misunderstanding of the statements and counter statements can occur.

Weight of evidence is unimportant "nobody does that" can be gloriously, greyly, disputed by showing 1 person in a population of 4 Billion DID do that. It neither proves or disporves and is awesome internet argument fodder.

Boring Cycling

In this phase it is important to keep the statements and counter statement flowing.

Remember millions of people change their opinions, and even the way they live, based on internet forums so keep going!

Willy measuring

After pages and pages of discussion the willy measuring section is entered upon. At this juncture, hirtherto unannounced qualifications that validate everything you are saying should be revealed.

Think of it as the "reveal" in poker as somebody announces they are from the CAA or a Pilot or flew the space shuttle or something.

Biggest willy wins, unless you are the looser.

End of argument

The officially sanctioned endings are:

1. Thread locked.

That is the ONLY officially sanctioned way. If you stop for any other reason then be aware:

a) Everybody is reading it, it will jeopordise your chances of work
b) Your wife won't love you anymore
c) You won't be allowed to fly aircraft ever again.

I hope that clears things up.

[BillieBob]

And the reason for that pointless waste of bandwidth was....?

[mrmum]

So why did the jobs worth at the CAA not call either the applicant or examiner before simply sending a rejection letter?
Because most of them are only trained to tick boxes. Using initiative is beyond the scope or remit of any of them.
Couldn't agree more, Makes you wonder if there are (m)any staff left in PLD with much understanding of what they're doing. One of our students sent off his PPL application earlier this year, we'd misread/wrongly copied one of his theory exam set numbers off his student records onto the application form. What did they do? Ring us and say the set number didn't exist and could we please check our records for the correct information - No, write to him rejecting his application, due to an invalid theory exam.
What could have been sorted in 10 minutes, without bothering the applicant, took over a week and resulted in a (justifiably) slightly miffed customer.
I fully accept that the initial mistake was ours, however their response just made it worse.

[PompeyPaul]

And the reason for that pointless waste of bandwidth was....?

Monty Python - Argument Clinic - YouTube
:D:D:D

[Echo Romeo]

Please feel free to enlighten all of us with further witless comments. Alternatively engage your small mind before posting insulting s*** on here and shut the f*** up.

Oh dear, outrageous!:=

[stevelup]

Please feel free to enlighten all of us with further witless comments. Alternatively engage your small mind before posting insulting s*** on here and shut the f*** up.

Nice. I bet loads of people will jump at the chance of reading and responding to your future posts.

[Claverley04]

Nice. I bet loads of people will jump at the chance of reading and responding to your future posts.


There will not be any.

[rennaps]

PompeyPaul :D:D