Nonsense, the examiner would have clearly known (having already decided that the Altimeter was inaccurately set by 1Hpa) that the candidate was going keep flying through the entire test with it set like that and thus was heading for a fail, it would have been nothing short of obvious and infact the CAA agreed with that having given him a free retest
. Not to mention the fact that he ran through the entire test with him having failed at least two sections which, as you know having read the guidance is a fail at which point the examiner would have offered to cut the test short. Not doing so is unprofessional and also fairly inhuman.
As far as I can see the right thing to do as an examiner would have been to point out having failed the departure that the altimeter was incorrectly set, and continued for the partial no??
Put down your rulebook for a second and consider how you would have felt given the exact situation the guy describes.
I don't condone the actions of the OP after the fact but I can see why he feels hard done by. Still it's a huge mistake to take the professional body to court given that he has his entire career ahead of him. Taking it on the chin and recognising his spot in the food chain would have been a far more sensible option.
Also, we have the right to appeal to the CAA but if the CAA is not doing it's job by being unhelpful or ignoring perfectly reasonable requests for advice or assistance because A) the paperwork wasn't filled out quite correctly, this happened to me recently when I applied for a new type and was told that the TRTO (OAA) had not included the appendix to it's approval (this I was informed later by the CAA happens an awful lot) or B) It's not their remit to help unless subject to a hefty fee. We have no real independent body to talk to and feedback reasonable grievances without going all legal. Unless BALPA do this and I'm grossly mistaken.