I hear there has been a recent resignation at ASL - one of the more senior people so perhaps the email address given previously will not be of much use shortly. Rumour has it another long-term employee is looking elsewhere as well...
That said it's easy to be hard on ASL, they certainly do have their problems, but what do you do to make it better? How can one more objectively assess a persons competence to fly? The nature of the test means that it's subject to a certain amount of, well, subjectiveness. Human nature being what it is one person is likely to view a certain situation, maneuver or whatever differently to another. It's unrealistic to expect just one person to conduct all the NZ tests (ensuring some degree of consistency notwithstanding bad hair days or similar
) given the present demand so just how do you deal with it? I've no answer - I'm not sure there is one - but perhaps a reasonable round-house discussion could result in some improvments here, how about some
constructive comments people?
On the other hand I'm disappointed to hear that they appear to be witholding information. If it's bad (for them) then so be it, they should be honest, front up with it and deal with the problem. As I understand it ASL is 'owned' by the industry (although I'm not totally sure what that means) so the industry, not parliament, should be the directors of what/how ASL deals with things. Perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the ownership and control path of ASL could assist here so that any comments people have may be properly directed to the right person(s).
Another possibility exists of course - I don't think ASL are a mandated monopoly. In other words it is technicially possible (I think?) for another organisation(s) to seek CAA approval and provide examination services. There's nothing like a bit of competition for cleaning up ones act.
I see also some comments on the theory exams, I understand ASL's reasoning for not returning the papers - they use standard test q & a's - but I don't necessarily agree with them. If you have sat a test then you are entitled to the full thing in return - so that you may properly assess their competence as well as them assessing yours. I'm not sure that I agree with standard multi-guess tests either, then again they (theoretically) ensure a greater degree of consistency - so one is damned if one does and damned if one doesn't (sigh!).
FP.