Perhaps "Cadet" was merely a shorter way of saying that
Cadet is military jargon for a person in officers' training. It is quite misplaced in a civil environment. My point being that far too many FTO's confuse themselves with the Air Force. Also, the organisation
PPL/IR shouldn't endorse this confusion, as they are not serving the wannabee ATPL community.
A flight test is not an exercise in barrack-room lawyering.
Nobody said that. But the 170A check pilot Peter encountered clearly didn't have sufficient back ground knowledge to support his claims in the de-brief. The discussion in this (and similar threads) revolves around
- the debrief items Peter encountered
- the appalling quality of the check pilot
Maybe they were emphasised as "fail points" because the examiner thought he might be reluctant to accept them as input without this sort of emphasis.
What utter nonsense. Either they are grounds for failure or just points of attention worth mentioning. Any decent examiner should be able to distinguish between the two.
But I give you the benefit of the doubt : I needn't have been a knob, it could have been an knob with a communication problem. But definitely one the CAA should look into.