Designation of Examiners

[Level Attitude]

I am surprised that comment has not yet been made on CAA Information
Notice IN-2012/156 (http://www.caa.co.uk/IN2012156) v1 issued on 26 Sept, closely followed by v2 on 08 October.

Have all Examiners ensured that any ATOs whose students they might test have their details AND have notified them to CAA?

Outside of ATOs - Is everyone happy with the precise detail required in the
"Permission to Test" emails?

Seemingly NO flexibility allowed to take in to account Wx or aircraft servicibilty.
Will need to submit another request to test - which would not get a reply very
rapidly (particularly over a weekend).

Managing a Candidate's stress (not to mention the Examiner's) just
got harder!

[Stampe]

There seems to be a state of shock in the examiners in my area.Most seem to be inactive at present waiting to see the way it all pans out.I think a few in spite of all the publicity some examiners are not fully aware of the enormity of the changes already upon us.Most of my activity in the past has been revalidation/renewal of existing ratings for members of my (non profit making)club on an no charge basis.I am only willing to revalidate on experience at the present in spite of having carried out the EASA (and passed) the adobe examiner training and studied the FEH I am unsure of the necessary procedures to conduct flying tests.I do not intend to increase my activity to include many initials the legal liability threatened by the CAA in their training and the lack of CAA support for examiners is a major deterrence.I anticipate a major shortage of examiners especially given the disestablishment of all the "R" examiners.Given the cost and complexity of maintaining examiner staus versus the hassle and potential legal liability of examining, the renewal decision next time is looking very clear.VBR Stampe

[Whopity]

More to the point, RFs who have been told that they can continue as before until April 2015, have submitted lists of examiners however; it would appear from Version 2 that this procedure is only available to ATOs (Para 2.1.4) there is no such provision for RFs!

Every PPL skill test will therefore be subject to email notification which virtually eliminates all testing at weekends bank holidays etc.

[DB6]

F**k that.

[foxmoth]

Well it looks to me like a lot of this will be got round by the alternate procedure para 2.1.4, if I read this correctly the ATO basically applies for a permission with its examiners listed, does the tests and then sends in a return once a month - not, I would have thought, that onerous.
Even with the "normal" way of doing it, there is nothing to say how long the test will last, so put down 0900 as the start time (or whatever time suits) and do the briefing, that has started the test, if there are wx or tech problems, you are then merely having a break between the different elements of the test and should be OK for at least the rest of that day, don't see why you could not put in two emails anyway if doing it at the w/e, one for the Saturday and a back up for the Sunday.

[justmaybe]

This transition has been a bit of a mess:

Very poor notice about the new FEH handbook
Very poor notice about the new forms form Licence/Ratings applications, and Examiner froms
Some of the new forms are write protected and need to be downloaded and then photo-copied
Practicality of having FE nominated, particularly in the private licensing side
I think the CAA is lumbered with FE nomination by EASA. A way to approach this (at least for now) for RFs is nominate a date block (say a two week period to allow for weather etc) and see what happens. I think the Authority will see the nonsense of this procedure and will find a more sensible solution, possibly the same as for ATOs.
Finally, using the new online forms is causing a massive increase in paper and costs. More unnecessary bureaucracy and costs for absoulutely no added value or flight safety. Lastly, the new requirement for an Examiner seminar may well be a driver for FEs to say enough is enough.

[Treadstone1]

Hi

How many examiners new about this? who did it? was it worth while?

seeing that the link is now closed is the CAA going to re open it?

https://events-emea1.adobeconnect.com/content/connect/c1/1046090438/en/events/event/shared/1080877459/event_landing.html?sco-id=1087275341

i found out about this by accident, i am obviously missing something.

:ugh::ugh:

[MrAverage]

We had an initial PPL test go ahead earlier this month. The examiner merely sent the email with date and time stated as: "To be decided"

Approval email came back in less than nine hours......

[FI-Joe]

Spoke to an inspector in Flight Crew Standards the 16th Oct trying to get answers to a number of questions, one of which being the issue of wx delaying a test.

The answer was that as long as approval has been granted for the test, the CAA will not be concerned if the test is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the candidate and/or the examiner!

Whether that is official policy is another matter - could just be a means of getting me off the phone.

[Cows getting bigger]

You know, it really does make you want to capitulate. I'm lucky in that I work in an ATO and someone else is doing all this nonsense.

Don't even get me started on the various 1119s etc......................:(

[Whopity]

Latest I heard is that Flightcrew Standards has confirmed that IN-2012/156 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts_Designation%20of%20Examiner%20for%20Skill%20Tests_v3 _Oct12.pdf) also applies to RFs even though it fails to say so.

[ifitaintboeing]

Version 3 out today... (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts_Designation%20of%20Examiner%20for%20Skill%20Tests_v3 _Oct12.pdf)

No mention of RFs though.

[Mickey Kaye]

I can't see this being workable

[Whopity]

Seen in a letter from Flightcrew Standards We are using the term ATO to refer to any training organisation that is permitted to conduct training for an EASA licence holder and as a registered facility this will be availabe to you. Even that is badly worded as as RFs don't train licence holders!

[BEagle]

ARA.FCL.205(c) merely states:

(c) The competent authority shall develop procedures to designate examiners for the conduct of skill tests.

It is purely CAA gold plating which has resulted in their cumbersome procedure, which is totally unsuitable for PPL purposes. How many Clubs know in advance which aircraft they will be using for a Skill Test, for example? Will Examiners receive replies on Sundays? What if the Club doesn't have e-mail facilities?

All the CAA has to do is to require that a list of PPL Examiners conducting tests at a Club is kept up to date. Which is what was supposed to happen under JAR-FCL, but hardly anyone bothered.

This is typical of the disproportionate banana curvature specification level of €urocr@p coming out of Köln - and something about which the GA Task Force needs to be aware!

[timprice]

There's that word again Competent!:ugh:

[Whopity]

One could argue that by giving a person an Examiner Certificate you have designated them as a person to conduct such tests. What other parameters would you then use to deny them that privilege? In so doing you would be saying that having granted a privilege you then don't trust them to carry it out!

[DB6]

Logic would imply we can ignore all this rubbish as the authority is demonstrably not competent.

[Stampe]

Spot on Whopity over the years the CAA have shown an intense dislike for giving the individaual authority for any action.They much prefer to deal with the "body corporate" even if that organisation is a sole trader as many RTFs have been.For many years the commercial pilots license has been emasculated requiring AOCs etc. and now Instructors are effectively barred from instructing without an ATO to front for them.Provides another tier of lucrative regulation for the CAA.I,m sure EASA will be horrified at the CAAs poorly communicated interpretation and inept bureaucratic delivery of of their regulations.Time to start writing to our MPs both Westminster and European.VBR Stampe

[Whopity]

It is interesting that JAR encouraged the independent examiner and enabled a candidate to take their test outside of the training organisation if they so wished. The new rules have closed that door forcing examining back into the organisation that does the training, a very unhealthy state of affairs that will play into the hands of the unscrupulous whilst discouraging the conscientious independent instructor/examiner. In safety and administrative terms, Nil Points!

[421C]

It is purely CAA gold plating which has resulted in their cumbersome procedure, which is totally unsuitable for PPL purposes

I agree. But why is this any more suitabe for anything else?

The background is very murky on that line in ARA. Originally it wasn't even there in the NPA. There was pushback from some NAA protecting their fee-charging powers and bureaucracy. The EASA Final Opinion had a concession where the text read (my underline) "The competent authority shall develop procedures to designate examiners for the conduct of skill tests for the issue of the ATPL and MPL".

The actual EU legal text dropped the underlined bit. A total disgrace which not only makes a mockery of the entire process by which the Regulations are "consulted" on, but a mockery of the principles in FCL whereby Examiner privileges and the conduct and content of tests were clearly stated, and not subject to an "NAA procedure".

[BillieBob]

There was pushback from some NAA protecting their fee-charging powers and bureaucracy.Guess how many 'competent' authorities in the EU rely on fee-charging for their existence.

[BigEndBob]

Well i have just performed a skill test and knew nothing of the above.
I have had no communication whatsoever about anything EASA other than wanting written permission to publish my contact details.
So they obviously know i'm an examiner, so why no updates from them.
Almost seems like they want it to be a mess?

Only discovered the Examiners manual because one of our members was on a CAA notification e-mail list and passed the link onto me.

Its only via pprune i discovered the new forms.

[CaptAirProx]

As an examiner I have not had one piece of comms from the CAA about this, I heard through one of the schools I am affiliated and also through the email notification I have signed up to for Licensing, Engineering, ATC, Medical, Standards etc. Anyone can do that but surely the CAA had a duty to inform directly the people this procedure affected.

Anyway, perhaps we should take the lead from the UK airlines - I believe the airlines have been lumbered with many awkward choking procedures that could see many pilots/instructors/examiners becoming grounded with no valid qualification. They have got their heads together and taken it to the CAA. Words to the effect of - if this ain't fixed you shall shortly have few airlines left to manage and claim you revenue from.

Perhaps we should all do the same - OR, just sit back and watch the fallout around us. I can see this whole business going a##e over t#t sooner rather than later - with any luck.

Shame on the CAA.

[Whopity]

As an examiner I have not had one piece of comms from the CAA about thisMany examiners have had no communication in the past decade. The CAA did send all pilots a letter in the last 12 months warning of changes and finally stating that they would not be issuing any further notifications. They have stuck to their word!

There is an on-line Examiner brief and quiz; one might think that would contain all the relevant information, but it doesn't.

[BEagle]

The question to ask the CAA is why there is any need for this stupid procedure, given that all the information they ask for in para 2.1.4.1 of IN-2012/156 will be provided either in the copy of the SRG 2127 or SRG 2128 Skill Test Report Form they will receive, or is already vailable from the Authoity's own personnel licensing and medical licence databases.

The CAA should develop its own internal system to ensure that the pointless €urocracy which they claim that Part ARA.FCL205(c) requires is captured from the documents they already insist on receiving, or from their own existing databases.

It seems to me that they are putting the onus on ATOs rather than themselves.

Or is it simply that their IT system is too archaic to cope with EASA?

[DB6]

Really dreadful service from the CAA. If I worked there I would not be able to live with myself. I had hoped that they would be providing some sort of buffer between pilots and the tides of ****e emanating from EASA but it would seem my optimism was sadly misplaced.
Incredible that this sort of thing can go on in connection with something as serious as aviation. We really, really need to be out of the EU.

[Whopity]

Another 8 page form has just rolled off the production line SRG1128: Examiner Certificates Issue, Revalidation, Renewal and Variation - Application (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1128FFenabled.pdf) Now one might think this form is all about Examiner Certificates, but on the first page it states:Note: Your medical Certificate must be valid on the licence issue date. If your Medical Certificate is due to expire within
14 days after the date of application for licence issue, please complete the following:

[Level Attitude]

Whopity,
I stand to be corrected but I believe Examiner Authorisations are no longer stand alone (National) authorisations but are now EASA authorisations and therefore need to be on a "Ratings Page" - hence when applying for, or renewing, Examiner privileges you will also need to apply for your first
paper EASA License.

[Whopity]

The paperwork I have seen shows the Examiner Certificate, not Authorisation as an entirely separate document that looks a bit like the EASA licence

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43823021/Examiner%20Certificates.jpg

[turbine100]

With rules changing for someone with a ME/IR class rating or similar, a renewal will become very expensive if they have to go to a ATO, do a minimum number of sessions as per the new rules for the time lapsed or more at the discretion of the ATO. Many people will walk away or slowly drop out of currency. Especially those in large debts from initial training.

What could happen is less people take up aviation training in the future, examiners have less work for initials, renewals and it may not help their income if they cannot float around examining outside of ATO's, like before.

Maybe in a few years, their could be a pilot shortage and of examiners, if examiner work reduces. Then the rules may change. Or perhaps these rules might be challenged by the expat pilot organisations that are flying abroad and have lost their IR but have an IR on another license. Those who worked for airlines that went bust and were hit by the recessions, could also be affected if their IR was renewed on types they use to fly and no longer have IR class ratings.

The FAA route is becoming more popular and some people have gone off and gained FAA licenses to get more work as its cheaper, more practical. Also some companies like UPS operate N reg in Europe to some extent or another. It would be an interesting period of time ....