.
......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of ice in the fuel even, if the co-pilots' licence - who wasn't even handling - was proved to be so much as one minute out of date - that is the prime cause of the accident, everyone else, including the insurance companies, can all go home.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.