We discussed this at length at an EASA meeting and the agreed policy was as I have stated.
I have to agree with Duchess_Driver on this. Such conduct if the case, is unacceptable. The above, may be an expression of disagreement with the original working group decision, being made by discontents. Not unusual on committees but should be treated as nothing more.
" ......Examiners shall not conduct: (a) skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate 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; and........."
The above rule is appallingly constructed and can be read in the way one chooses: i.e. is the 25% a percentage only of the mandatory dual exercise minimums? But then, not all mandatory dual exercises have a minimum duration set against them. Can the examiner have flown, with the candidate, all that is required of a particular exercise, such as the complete requirement of stall/spin (10/11) awareness, but not exceed the maximum of 25% overall? The syllabus actually "requires" 45 hours (of which ten must be student solo). It is not correct in my view to separate the solo time from 'instruction'. The solo flight must be guided, authorised, observed and debriefed by the instructor and so is not independent of training. It is therefore arguable to claim that 25% of the whole course of 45 hours is permissible. Why not then 25% of the quoted 100 hours if this has been "required".