The appeal process is clearly defined and well proven.
That is not so. Many CAA's across Europe are known to be pretty vindictive against complaining individuals.
It just smacks of sour grapes from a candidate unable to make the grade and complaining the examiner was unprofessional and the reason they failed but are not prepared to actually back it up.
yet more unhelpful patronising. Peter never asserted that that he should have passed the 170A. He just sketched some circumstances that I see as detrimental. They might be grounds for a complaint, but only to get your exam fee back, not to get a pass. If the environment were less small and less vindictive - quod non, such feed back would be useful to regulate the system.
One thing that got lost in the discussion is your examiner qualifications. What exactly are you authorised by the CAA to examine ?