Examiner Testing Own Student

[S-Works]

Could someone help out with a reference that prevents or oermits an examiner testing there own student for the issue of an EASA PPL(A)?

Student has done training for a conversion from an ICAO licence for a PPL with an Instructor who is also an examiner and then subsequently done the skill test with them.

Permissable or not?

[Whopity]

Regulation 1178 FCL.1005

FCL.1005 Limitation of privileges in case of vested interests
Examiners shall not conduct:
(a) skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate:
(1) to whom they have provided flight instruction for the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test or assessment of competence is being taken; or
(2) when they have been responsible for the recommendation for the skill test, in accordance with FCL.030(b);
(b) skill tests, proficiency checks or assessments of competence whenever they feel that their objectivity may be affected.

[S-Works]

Thanks whoppity. Just what i was after.

[condor17]

Hi guys , can't provide a quote ...but have I heard that it's changing and examiners can do up to 25% of candidates training ?

rgds quoteless condor .

[cyclic flare]

Many moons ago you could train and examine not sure when it changed cause I'm not an examiner but certainly in the late 90's it was ok

[OhNoCB]

I think you can get an exemption though can't you, for circumstance? When I was doing my IMC rating (as it was) after my PPL, the only instructor qualified to teach it was also the only examiner. I believe he was also the only (known) examiner in the region aside from those employed by airlines who weren't interested in doing it. Therefore he did both my training and exam, which the CAA took no issue with.

[Whopity]

I think you can get an exemption though can't you

No! FCL.1005 is EU Law.

IMC is a National rating and is not subject to EU Law, there is nothing to prohibit an Examiner training and testing an IMC candidate apart from "good practice".

[OhNoCB]

I stand corrected. The fact that as a national rating it wasn't subject to the EU law had completely escaped me!

[BEagle]

This is one of the latest EASA proposals for amending the Aircrew Regulation:

Examiners shall not conduct:

(a) skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate:

(1) to whom they have provided more than 25% of the required flight instruction for the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test or assessment of competence is being taken

However, this depends on a forthcoming EC vote and it is NOT guaranteed that it will definitely be adopted.

[Whopity]

Looks familiar!

[Mach Jump]

If this is voted in, will it then apply to national licences and ratings like the NPPL and IMC?


MJ

[Whopity]

No, because they are outwith the EASA regulation.

[Level Attitude]

IMC is a National rating and is not subject to EU Law, there is nothing to prohibit an Examiner training and testing an IMC candidate apart from "good practice".

Whopity - You are wrong.

It is the UK CAA that authorises Examiners and Examiners have to abide by the limits of that authorisation. In September 2012 the UK CAA aligned the requirements for the testing for National Licences/Ratings to match those of EASA.

Standards Document 21v2 August 2013
Section 1.2 Page 6
"Examiners are certified by the CAA ........... The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"
= No Testing of own students.

Flight Examiners Handbook July 2014
Supplement 2 - National Licences and Ratings
Section 6.1
"Except for Microlights Examiners shall not test applicants to whom they have given instruction"

[Whopity]

The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"
= No Testing of own students.

Correct, if the Licence Rating or Certificate is subject to EU Regulation. An IMC rating is NOT!

Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law.

[ifitaintboeing]

Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law.

Indeed. The FEH is INCORRECT in this respect. Whilst it is preferable to use an examiner who has had no involvement in training the candidate for a NPPL, NPPL class rating, or IMC rating it is not a requirement.

ifitaint...

[Mach Jump]

Whopity, Ifitaint.

Yep. That's my understanding of the present situation as well.


MJ

[BEagle]

ifitaintboeing, indeed you are entirely correct.

When we created the NPPL, it was a specific requirement that the pre-JAR UK situation regarding examiners would apply. In other words, although 'best practice' should mean that normally an examiner wouldn't test an applicant with whom he/she had done a lot of flying, there was no such legal restriction.

When I saw the error, I informed the relevant person at the CAA. However, he elected to include this CAA gold plating in the FEH.....

[Level Attitude]

When I saw the error, I informed the relevant person at the CAA. However, he elected to include this CAA gold plating in the FEH.....

Who says it was an error and not what the CAA intended?

Why do you say it is it 'gold plating' if it is only a suggestion or a recommendation and not a requirement?

Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law

Please quote the law that says Examiners have to be certified by the UK CAA in order to conduct flight tests for UK National Licences or Ratings - but that they do not have to comply with the requirements or guidance promulgated by the UK CAA.

"Examiners are certified by the CAA ........... The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"

Standards Doc 21 does not say that the privileges and requirements of CAA certified Examiners changes depending on which (National or EASA) Licence or Rating is being tested.

This would be a nonsense with different requirements being applied to an IR student/test candidate (for example) depending on whether they held only a UK National Licence or only a Part-FCL Licence.

[Level Attitude]

Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law.

I asked that the law be quoted that shows that the requirements listed in the above documents could be ignored for UK National Licences and Ratings.

Unsurprisingly no one has, because it is not possible. In fact the law confirms the requirements:

CAP393 ANO 2014

PART 7 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING – GRANT OF LICENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF PRIVILEGES
Grant, renewal and privileges of United Kingdom flight crew licences (NPPL, UK PPL, etc)
64 (9) The CAA may grant a licence subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. Which would include who might conduct an initial test
Ratings and qualifications (IMC, etc)
65 (6) The CAA may grant a rating or qualification subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. Which would include who might conduct an initial test

SCHEDULE 7 Articles 64 to 71 and 78
Flight crew of aircraft – licences, ratings, qualifications and maintenance of licence Privileges
Certificate of test
2 A certificate of test required by article 66(2), 68(1) or 69(2) must be signed by a person authorised by the CAA to sign certificates of this kind and certify the following: An Examiner is authorised by the CAA to sign certificates and to conduct Skill Tests

PART 31 POWERS AND PENALTIES
Certificates, authorisations, approvals and permissions
245 Wherever in this Order there is provision for the issue or grant of a certificate, authorisation, approval or permission by the CAA, unless otherwise provided, such a certificate, authorisation, approval or permission:
(b) may be issued or granted subject to such conditions as the CAA thinks fit
So: The CAA is perfectly entitled to impose conditions on Examiners for National Licences or Ratings

The CAA is empowered, in law, to impose conditions on Examiner authorisations and it has promulgated via multiple routes that (for simplicity if nothing else) all Examiners' privileges and requirements (for whatever Licence or Rating) shall be as set out in Part-FCL. To avoid any doubt the CAA also specifically stated, in the last two FEHs, that Examiners could not test candidates for initial issues of National Licences or Ratings if they had been involved in their training.

All UK Examiner certificates are linked to Part-FCL, either directly or via the ANO.
Which also means that if Part-FCL changes (as per condor17 Post 4) then any relaxation will instantly apply for National testing as well.

I look forward to having it explained to me why CAP393 does not apply to National Licences or Ratings; or how I have misunderstood it..............

[Whopity]

Which would include who might conduct an initial test

then you state:

Which also means that if Part-FCL changes (as per condor17 Post 4) then any relaxation will instantly apply for National testing as well.

So as Part FCL only specifies that certain tests are to be conducted by nominated Examiners, them the CAA must be acting illegally in respect of the others!

It has always been the case that the CAA shall issue licences and ratings as it thinks fit; This refers largely to administrative procedures and experience requirements. The CAA are not entitled to make or change laws; they may assist government in the process. To limit an Examiner's privileges requires more than a note in a variety of guidance or information documents. To change the status quo they will need to conduct a regulatory impact assessment, provide a safety case and make appropriate recomendations to government, none of which has been done because it is an expensive and lengthy process with no safety case to justify it.

Note also in CAP 393

Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Published for the use of those concerned with
air navigation, but not to be treated as authoritative
(see Foreword)
CAP 393