Who sets the standards?

[yamada]

Imagine a large flying school which teaches solely PPLs. This school is run by a committee. It utilises one full-time instructor (its CFI). All other instruction is provided by self-employed FIs.

Now, imagine that an influential member of the Club's committee intimated to the self-employed Flight Examiners that it was not in the commercial interests of the club for candidates to fail Skill Tests....with the implication that, "if you want to continue working here...." In effect, the Flying Club is now dictating the standards, not JAR FCL.

Imagine that the Club's CFI had stated that he "had never failed a candidate" and that the mere fact that they present for test is evidence of their suitability to hold a licence.

If you were one of the self-employed Flight Examiners, what would be your response? Would you shut up for fear of losing work, or would you conform with the club's demands?

I would contend that the present system, w.r.t. Flight Examinations, is seriously flawed. Most pilots know who are the "pushovers", don't we; and we can arrange to be tested by them? But, more importantly, the system is tailored towards abuse by the flying schools.

I would like to propose that all applications for Skill Test etc, are made centrally and that the Authority delegates an examiner to the candidate. This system would be bureaucratic (a bit), but would offer some protection against the current abuses. Such a system would also allow Flight Examiners to charge appropriately for their services, ie, in line with the Scheme of Charges.

There would be an admin cost, but that could be met by a small increase in the fees payable for licence or rating issue.

What do you guys think? Is the current system a bit rotten, as I believe?

[Whopity]

The UK principle has always been that the examiner sets the standard. If the examiner fails to do that it is the examiners credibility that is on the line.

The only way that you will have a completely impartial examiner is if his income does not have any correlation with the outcome or number of tests conducted. That is why the CAA retain the examination of initial IR candidates.

Many countries do what you propose with the result that getting a test can be a nightmare with waits of several months. Are you aware of how many examiners there are, and how many people would be needed to centrally program them? Then take into account cancellations, re-sits partial tests etc. The cost would escalate with little or no overall improvement in safety.

Surely it would be more productive to standardise, and reduce the overall numbers of existing examiners. Many regard it as another tick on the CV and have no real interest in testing.

[the dean]

[quote=Whopity;3075275]

Many countries do what you propose with the result that getting a test can be a nightmare with waits of several months.


i am an examiner in JAA land...the system that yamada suggests of central application ( the authority does not permit personal approaches to examiners ) and we are paid by the authority...works perfectly well here.:D

i usually a) call the candidate immediately i get his/her papers...b) ascertain when would suit them...and c) usually ( if they are ready which often they are not ) do the tets within a matter of weeks or in a lot of cases on the following weekend.!!

months...???:* :confused:

as far as impartiality is concerned...that should be beyond question.

the dean.

[yamada]

Pleased to hear that a better system is feasible and does, indeed, exist in other countries.

Should we have it here? I think so; it must benefit both the examining professional and the GA community. The existing system promotes an unnecessarily poor standard of piloting IMHO.

[windriver]

Interesting thread.. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the contributors....

The existing system promotes an unnecessary poor standard of piloting IMHO.

The above quote however is surely what this is ultimately about... ie Is there any statistical evidence that this is the case?

Check the Regulatory Review of General Aviation (CAA website - sorry I don`t have the full url to hand but it's reg review.pdf on my PC ) .... and imagine you're the decision maker with these data to hand.

From the doc... There was no statistical evidence, based on fatal accident rates, to suggest that a fundamental change in the UK GA regulatory model was required.

You can draw your own conclusions, but for GA I`d much prefer the principle of 'If it aint broke don't fix it.'

[hugh flung_dung]

I have never felt any pressure to pass (or fail) anyone and, if pressure were applied, I would express my views in a "full and forthright manner":= and then ignore it.

As for some examiners being easier than others, I think it's a myth. Examiners have differing personalities (some seem not to have a personality :E ) and this makes them seem easier/harder. At the PPL level I believe the basic judgement that we all apply is: "is this person safe, do they know what they're doing and would I let my family fly with them". They will pass if the answer is Yes and fail/partial if the answer is No.

Some schools may have a low failure rate but I suspect you'll find a correspondingly high number of "progress checks" being performed by senior instructors (who happen to be examiners); this shouldn't be a concern. There is a concern however about schools that have an examiner on the staff and offer a fixed-price PPL - but fortunately there aren't any of these in the UK (AFAIK).

With the exception of this final situation I don't think there's a problem to fix. A simple letter would seem to be in order if you have evidence of an individual examiner who's been nobbled, rather than creating a new bureaucracy that would need to be paid for.

HFD

(edited to sort-out some grammar)

[FlyingForFun]

Since most PPLs hire aircraft from their school after passing, how could it possibly in the interests of the school for its students to pass their PPL when they are not at a suitable standard? This would surely result in an increased rate of crashes amongst hirers as these new pilots take away aircraft they are not fit to fly.... :ouch:

However..... I have come across a situation like this, when I got my floatplane rating. The school concerned used in-house examiners, and charged a fixed fee for the course, so to have students fail (or even take longer than minimum hours to pass) would have cost them more money.

I passed after minimum hours - despite doing what would have been a dangerous rough-water landing if the water really was rough (I flared too low). It didn't bother me, because I haven't ever flown a floatplane since (and I knew that would be the case). I don't believe the school in question rent their aircraft out.

FFF
---------------

[yamada]

I'm pleased to hear that this scenario is not commonplace. Nevertheless, it does exist. As such, it should be addressed, I think.

HFD, a forthright expression of your views would lead to a forthright statement that your services are "no longer required" at this very large school.

FFF, I think that the bulk of bad piloting does not lead to crashes; as the bulk of bad driving does not lead to road accidents.

What I am claiming is that some students are passing their skill tests despite not having met the required standards....owing to the examiners feeling pressurised. A similar situation exists wrt the IMC. I can state to you that this is fact, but to reveal details would cut my own throat.

A change to the more bureaucratic system would effectively eliminate the possibilites for abuse, why else would JAA land have such a system...why do we have CAAFU?

Perhaps the question to be asked is not "do these abuses actually happen?", but "is it possible for them to happen?".

I would contend that, if it possible for a system to be exploited, someone will do so. Our procedures should be designed to prevent such exploitation. Cost issues should not stand in the way of proper behaviour. It is commercial pressures which have led to the situation that I describe, so a logical extension of the cost argument would be to further undermine standards in pursuit of yet cheaper flying.

BTW, HFD, it's no myth. These guys exist.

[Whirlybird]

yamada,
You began by sayingImagine a large flying school which teaches solely PPLs.
You later said a forthright expression of your views would lead to a forthright statement that your services are "no longer required" at this very large school.

You then imply that such abuses are widespread. So, which is it? A hypothetical situation which might happen, one school, or widespread abuse?

If it's hypothetical, why do anything? Practically any system you could think of COULD be abused, if someone tried hard enough. If it ain't definitely broke, don't fix it.

If it's one school, why are you posting here, rather than reporting them to the CAA or CHIRP? Don't you have a duty to do that?

And do you have any evidence whatsoever that such things are widespread? It doesn't sound like it.

So, if I'm right, we have ONE school doing this. Don't you think that changing the system to deal with one school would be akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

[FlyingForFun]

What I am claiming is that some students are passing their skill tests despite not having met the required standards....owing to the examiners feeling pressurised. A similar situation exists wrt the IMC. I can state to you that this is fact, but to reveal details would cut my own throat
Whirlybird beat me to it - but a CHIRP report is without doubt the way to go.

Start compiling details of specific examples - names, dates, reasons why candidates were not suitable, copies of student records to back this up, etc. Then send the details to CHIRP, who will ensure that the details get passed to the correct people and that your anonimity is maintained.

FFF
---------------

[yamada]

You're right; I never thought of Chirping. I shall do as you suggest.

Don't think that I said "it's widespread" though, Whirlybird. That said, the school of which I speak has some 900 pilots.....does that constitute widespread?

I'd still like to know why our system isn't universally applied, though.

[Sleeve Wing]

You're right; I never thought of Chirping. I shall do as you suggest.

Don't think that I said "it's widespread" though, Whirlybird. That said, the school of which I speak has some 900 pilots.....does that constitute widespread?

I'd still like to know why our system isn't universally applied, though.

Thought-provoking post,yamada.

IMHO, all of us (X's) will differ in personality but be very similar in attitude to the task.
From my point of view, I wish to see that the Instructor has covered the syllabus and that the candidate's attitude to the job and performance on the day is sufficient to prove he/she is safe to carry passengers, ergo, hold a licence.

Obviously there are times when we have to consider very carefully, when confronted with a weakish student, whether to recommend further training.

Would this achieve an improvement, should it be required ?

To what degree has "test-itis" played a part ?

What can you glean from the Training records ?

In your opinion, just how much has the student applied him/herself during training ?

................Just a few of the questions.

I know the criteria I personally apply, the final consideration being that I don't want a future accident.
If I can rationalise that, then I can make the right decision.

NOBODY ELSE WILL INFLUENCE THAT.

Sleeve.

[homeguard]

yamada

From what you say you must know the candidate and are also instructing at the school. You should decline to test the student if you consider them not fit. You can hardly blame the system if you are weak and can be bullied.

The average PPL candidate undertakes in the region of 60 hours to complete. 33% excess of the minimum required. Schools appear to be acting very responsibly. Most serious accidents involve 200-300 hour pilots, out of the control of the schools therefore and a number of years will have past since their test.

How many hours on average are your schools students completing?

[bogbeagle]

I think that I know the imaginary school to which you refer, Yamada.

I've heard "rumblings" from some of the members and instructors. These have been along much the same lines as you describe.

There is merit in your proposal to implement a system akin to the European one, I think. It shouldn't be very expensive.

Don't know whether I'd Chirp it, though. I'd be tempted to keep my head down. People come and go and things will change eventually, I suppose.

By the way, Whopity, in the UK, the Examiners have never set the standards. I understand that the examiner's task is to judge whether the candidate meet those standards which are determined by the Authority and the JAA.

[noblades]

Any FE who would be influenced by commercial pressure would not last long as an FE????
As a potential PPL, would one wish to be handed a license knowing that their level of knowledge/handling was below safe standards???
sadly I think (know) the answer is yes :ugh:
I think any report to the CAA about any such attempted coertion should be dealt with in the severest manner

Thats my 2p's worth :\

NB

[Mad Girl]

As a potential PPL, would one wish to be handed a license knowing that their level of knowledge/handling was below safe standards???
sadly I think (know) the answer is yes :ugh:


My answer is NO - I enjoy living.... and only want my license when more experienced fliers (i.e. an examiner) tell me that I'm totally safe. If I'm not up to scratch then I'd better improve - or give it up!!!

And I bl**dy well hope I'm not the only student with these views :uhoh: .

[yamada]

Thanks for all the input. Been a while in replying 'cos the day job gets in the way of the PPruning!

Bit of a dilemma for me, this. Got my (imaginary) PPL there, so I feel kinda loyal to the club. By the same token, I would hate to lose my (imaginary) membership as a result of interfering. :confused: :confused:

Needs more thought.

[hugh flung_dung]

Yes it's a difficult situation.
You should write to the CAA (or maybe CHIRP) if you have evidence. Make sure you put your identifying details on a cover note rather than on the main letter, and that your details are withheld.
If you only have opinion rather than evidence then there isn't much you can (or should) do.

HFD