So as Part FCL only specifies that certain tests are to be conducted by nominated Examiners, them the CAA must be acting illegally in respect of the others!
The designation of Examiners (for PPL Tests) was first discussed on PPRuNE as my first Post. It is a ridiculous requirement, which was not needed or supported by any safety case/study. Representations have been made to the CAA about this over the years but they have not rescinded the requirement only "improved" the administration of it.
However, my understanding is that, those applicants who have been tested without prior agreement by the CAA have had their applications rejected.
Have any of these successfully challenged that decision?
In any case the "Designation of Examiners" is in Part-ARA, not Part-FCL; and certainly not in Part-FCL Subpart-K to which Standards Doc 21 refers.
Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Published for the use of those concerned with
air navigation, but not to be treated as authoritative
(see Foreword)
CAP 393
Seriously? That's your argument? So you don't ever use or refer to CAP393 then?
CAP393
It has been prepared for those concerned with day to day matters relating to Air Navigation who require an up to date version of the Orders and the Regulations mentioned above.
It is edited by the Legal Adviser’s Department of the Civil Aviation Authority. Courts of Law will however refer only to the Queen’s Printer’s Edition of Statutory Instruments.
I don't have a copy of the Queen's Printer's Edition, do you? Is it different?
CAP393 is a copy of (or parts of) the Statutory Instrument. It is definitive unless an error was made in copying.
To limit an Examiner's privileges requires more than a note...
Have they limited Examiner privileges? Prior to EASA Examiners could not Test their own students unless the CAA had agreed to this, in writing, beforehand. Although they rarely did, they could refuse such permission and now they are simply saying they will always refuse.
Everyone seems to agree that it is 'Best Practice' for an Examiner not to Test their own student - but that no training at all (ie a Trial Lesson 4 years ago) is a bit excessive. I welcome the possibility of this being amended though, to prevent coaching, I personally do not think an Examiner should Test a candidate for initial issue if they have given any of that candidate's training during the month immediately prior to Test.
In CAP393, where equivalence exists, all Ratings (including Instructor Ratings) are aligned with Part-FCL. It would seem logical to assume that all Examiner Certificates are similarly aligned. The only place I can find any reference to Examiner requirements is in Part-FCL (I'm thinking this is because UK Examiner Certificates will now only be issued to Part-FCL Licence Holders).
However, I re-iterate, please provide (what you consider) an authoritative reference that outlines the privileges and requirements of UK Examiner Certificate holders in respect of Testing for UK National Licences/Ratings.
the CAA have been asked on more than one occasion to correct their documents, but as yet have failed to do so.
That they have not done so is rather telling....
- I totally agree that the CAA did not have to align National requirements with those of EASA.
- Because it simplifies everything I think, maybe, they did intend to align National requirements with those of EASA.
- Whether intentional or not, the requirements are there and should be followed unless, and until, rescinded.
Since Examiners have to attend Standardisation Courses it is a bit much to say that Standards Document 21 does not apply in its entirety, but that Examiners may pick and choose which bits to apply.
Level Attitude may bluster about this as much as he/she desires, but his/her individual interpretation is fundamentally incorrect.
Love this!
Level Attitude:
The CAA are the Competent Aviation Authority in the UK for both EASA and National Licencing purposes.
The CAA issue Examiner Certificates to UK Licence Holders which authorise the holders of such certificates to conduct Tests.
The CAA may impose conditions (CAP393) on such Certificates or Authorisations.
The CAA have promulgated, unambiguously, in writing via various sources that a UK Examiner may not Test a candidate for initial issue of a UK Licence or Rating if that Examiner has been involved in training that candidate.
Unless, and until, that condition is rescinded in writing Examiners are required to abide by it.
or
BEagle:
The CAA were told (by me?) that they were not legally required to implement the EASA 'No Testing of Own Student' rule for National Licences or Ratings.
They implemented it anyway and promulgated this in writing. But I am sure this was a mistake.
They have been told (by me?) many times over the last two years that they should not have implemented this requirement and should rescind it.
They have not done so. Instead they keep issuing more up-to-date documents with exactly the same requirement still listed.
It is a shame that they haven't acted upon my previous requests but I will keep on asking and I am sure they will, eventually, rescind this requirement.
I don't agree this requirement should ever have been put in place and I am sure it will be removed eventually.
Therefore, even though it is the UK CAA that authorises Examiners, Examiners should ignore the CAA's stated requirements in this particular instance because I believe they are wrong (even though I haven't managed to convince them of this in two years of trying).
I will let others decide who was 'blustering'.
I sense that this debate will not end unless the CAA put out a specific notice either confirming this requirement (and some will still argue), or countermanding their previous written statements on the subject.
More likely is that EASA does get amended to allow Examiners to Test candidates to whom they have given some instruction and the CAA will follow suit for National Licences.
I will then point out that they are simply following their, already published, Stnds Doc 21, whereas BEagle will claim victory in his long quest to get the CAA to "correct their mistake".