Should Examiners have to tolerate abusive candidates?

[updownupdown]

A colleague of mine, who is also an experienced PPL(A) Examiner, was recently subjected to a vile onslaught of personal verbal abuse following their decision to terminate an exam flight mid point. The candidate had been hostile from the onset and had demonstrated a number of very poor and sometimes, even dangerous traits in their flying. The candidate was deemed to have failed purely on grounds of safety.

This led to an interesting discussion between us were we pondered the options open to Examiners in dealing with difficult or downright abusive disgruntled candidates. One of topics we discussed was the viability of a 'black list', where individuals who had verbally of physically threatened or abused and Examiner, or for that matter an Instructor, would be listed. Available for review only by Instructors or Examiners, this might afford them a 'heads up' before accepting a candidate for test and therefore avoid the kind of abuse mentioned at the top of this post.

I for one do not know if this is a widespread problem and would certainly be interested to hear from any other Examiners or Instructors who have had first hand experience. We all understand that a candidate presenting themselves for test is more than likely to be very nervous and possibly edgy but verbal abuse and threatening behaviour...? No thanks.

Best to all,

UDUD

[BEagle]

This is a very odd tale. If the applicant was hostile from the onset, surely such a behavioural problem would already have been known to the RF/FTO instructors?

I would have no qualms about ringing the CAA and recommending that the applicant should be formally assessed by a psychologist before being permitted to fly again.

Anyone subjecting and instructor or examiner 'to a vile onslaught of personal verbal abuse' has no place at the controls of an aircraft.

[tartare]

Absolutely agree.
Lack of emotional control should on its own be grounds for failing a candidate.
Speaks to all sorts of issues... possible inability to make correct decisions under pressure etc.

[Der absolute Hammer]

Agree with the Beagle.
Also-if this happened in the air when the test was terminated then the abuse/threat is directed against the commander of the aircraft - however insignificant that aircraft might be.
A radio call the airfield, flight school etc to have the police waiting wold have had interesting results for future licence attempts.
It does raise the little question as to when the behaviour was first demonstrated and so perhaps why did they get airborne in the first place.

[DA-10mm]

especially if the examiner is an FFDO...
checride over.

[S-Works]

Another one with Beagle. Luckily my experience of candidates on flight test has always been a level of nervousness and always very polite and amicable. Even when I failed a friend on a revalidation, they took it on the chin and game back a week later with a better game.

No one should have to take abuse of any kind in the workplace. In a flight safety place like the flight deck it is an absolute no no. I would be with Beagle and talking to the CAA medical team for input.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I agree completely with all of what has been said. I know that tests can be stressful and that stress can do funny things to people, but this sort of reaction is completely unacceptable.

Even if you think that the examiner is being unfair, you can't do anything about it. If they are going to fail you, then they will fail you, swearing at them is hardly going to help your case.

There is no place for such bad behaviour in the cockpit.

[the dean]

in seven years examining i have never come across a reaction like this so i would have to say that in my jurisdiction it must be considered unusual.

i'm a bit surprised 'updownupdown' when you say your colleague experienced ' a number of....even dangerous traits' in the conduct of the flight test. he must be very tolerant.
when combined with 'an attitude problem' at the first sigh of a 'dangerous trait'..i would have taken control of the aircraft and in my jurisdiction that for a safety reason is an automatic termination of the test.

then i would complete the paperwork and debrief...and report the matter to the licencing authority for investigation with the candidates CFI and action as they see fit....and whereas we are always allocated the repeat (unless the candidate fails a second time in which case another examiner is allocated ) i would decline the retest and let him/her get another examiner next time...if there is a next time.....since i would consider my impartiality compromised for a retest.

gear up....

[updownupdown]

Thanks for your input.

If I may, I'll just clarify a couple of points. I have been a touch ambiguous about some of the details so that the individuals can remain completely anonymous!

Firstly, the individual concerned was not really known to the FTO as he/she had only approached them for some limited recurrency training prior to the flight test.

Secondly, the abuse took place on the ground in the cockpit at shutdown, not in the air and the hostility shown prior to the flight was in the form of grumpiness and unfriendliness as opposed to overt aggression. When it comes to dangerous traits, I should point out yes, my colleague is tolerant and had deemed all of the first incidents worthy of a forceful de-briefing but not a statutory failure. It was the last incident which he deemed as being a show stopper, at which point he took control.

Regardless and needless to say, he was upset and shocked at what took place and is still contemplating what, if any action he should take next

UDUD

[Level 400]

The short answer is no, under any circumstances.

Examiners are trained to prepare a test environment which gets the best out of the candidate. Most 'normal' candidates are their own best critics and are willing to admit any mistakes and willing to learn from the test experience, with a view to making a better fist of any further attempts.

On a very few occasions I have come across a candidate who tries to justify a mistake or lack of airmanship, but usually when it is explained that the test can only be a snapshot of the candidate's ability, and the mistake was made despite the pleas for mitigation, common sense prevails and any belligerence evaporates.

The reaction described points towards an unstable character trait which would not have a place in any cockpit.

As an examiner I toowould be inclined, in the circumstances described, to draw such behaviour to the attention of the Authority.
:=
L400

[mad_jock]

And whats the authority going to do?

There have several documented nutters behind the stick and nothing is ever done about it

[hugh flung_dung]

As others have said, that's all rather odd and something that I haven't experienced.
It's always tough to have to fail someone so the last thing an examiner needs is to have the candidate acting-up and making it worse; terminating a test must be the worst situation because you are both stuck in the aircraft for a period afterwards. The nearest I've come was terminating a nav leg that had gone horribly wrong so we could move-on to the next part of the test, that certainly led to a slightly hostile atmosphere but nothing more.

( I don't think a black list is either desirable or necessary)

HFD

[the dean]

UDUD...
ok thanks for the clarification.....but nothing changes in my opinion.

first, the fact the candidate was unknown to the FTO should be irrelevant. i make it a practice to never discuss a candidates abilities or performance with the CFI prior to a flight test. by all means glean what you can from the students file for comments about his/her flying but i feel it is just possible that a CFI might just say something wittingly or otherwise that might influence my judgement...so i prefer not to discuss the candidate with the CFI before a flight test so as to remain totally impartial. well intentioned as it may be, i do not (as i am sure all examiners feel ) need the opinion of another to help me decide if a candidate should pass or fail. that is a task delegated by the licencing authority , to me.

if it were me, i would ( hurt as your colleague may feel ) do nothing. i consider it is not my place to take up the matter personally. that is a matter for the licencing authority and if as you perhaps imply ' mad_jock' that they (not talking about you CAA here but a licencing authority in general) do nothing...nevertheless, it is a matter for them. i have no powers to do anything except report so its on the record...after that it up to the authority to action or not as they see fit. i would not want to get personally involved.:=

hope thats of some help.....

[updownupdown]

Hello The Dean, (and all)

Thanks for your reply. What I said about the candidate not being previously known was actually in response to BEagle's reply at the top of the thread. I was pointing out that because this individual was not really known well inside the FTO, they had no way of knowing whether or not he had a behaviour problem! By all accounts he was grumpy and a bit arrogant -but then aren't many of us!? ;)

I suppose the real question, as alluded to by others here, is whether or not the candidate should a: be reported to the CAA for his conduct and b: will the CAA think it appropriate to take action? and c: What type of action can/should the CAA take anyway?

In my mind this individual should simply not be afforded the privileges of a licence if he is willing to behave like that, demonstrating very poor judgement and a distinct lack of respect for an Examiner doing their job. One must also question his suitability on grounds of safety, as he obviously can not remain clear headed under pressure. At least on this occasion he has prevented himself from holding a licence but no doubt, he'll pass a test somewhere else at some point? Possibly when he's in a better mood! That is what really concerns us and is why we would like there to be some mechanism for vetting or preventing such people holding privileges... either because no Examiner will agree to test them, or because the authority declines to licence them.

UDUD

[BillieBob]

The UK CAA has been known to refuse to issue/limit the privileges of a licence on psychiatric medical grounds. I would say that the examiner owes it to this individual's potential future passengers to report the matter to the Chief Flight Examiner in the first instance.

[Mach E Avelli]

BillieBob is absolutely right. Also, when making the report, require it to go on the record.
Many years ago I had to deal with a situation with a First Officer who was a very marginal performer. Any criticism brought out the 'race' card (because he was not an Anglo Saxon and he assumed that I was). One day he got into a struggle in the cockpit with a very experienced Captain who attempted to take over to fix up a hopelessly mishandled approach. Needless to say, I fired the F/O on the spot and reported it to the authorities, who were not inclined to act. Until I brought out the 'unlawful seizure of aircraft' act. Their investigation revealed that the guy had been assessed years previously as a nut-case, but somehow had got a licence anyway.
Having learned from that experience, on the only other occasion I came across a guy who was seriously incompetent and a bit odd, after the worst test I have ever witnessed, I recommended revocation of his instrument rating. Again, CASA did not want to act until I required it to go on the record, because I was concerned that this peanut could go to some little flying school and get a renewal from a friendly. That forced CASA to send an examiner to observe his next simulator test. The CASA man terminated it within 15 minutes of commencement and I believe his IR was revoked.
Both these guys were unco-operative during testing and particularly argumentative during debriefings. So your problem person may indeed be a loose nut.

[windriver]

Some years back I failed a PPL candidate for getting just under the required pass mark in an Aviation Law ground exam.

Debrief..pink slip and "better luck next time" and off we went for a coffee, after which he said goodbye and went home. That was that so I thought.

About 3 hours later he staggered back (very very pi$$ed) into the school and launched a viscious torrent of abuse at me culminating in a statement to the effect that he knew where I lived and was going to burn my house down!

Fortunately for me a couple of school members pitched up and "ejected" him...

Didn`t call the police but in the event I didn`t need to as he was picked shortly afterwards having driven his car into a wall on the way to wherever he was going.

Never saw him again - but alerted colleagues at other schools and clubs to watch out for him.

Presumably he had other issues going on - but prior to this as I recall nobody at the school had any reason to suspect anything 'dodgy' about his character.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sounds like that candidate is unsuitable to be a pilot.

Don't be surprised to find said person working for the regulator in the future. :E:E

[DFC]

No this should not happen.

No there will not be a blacklist.

Doing something about the situation is difficult due to lack of witness to back-up complaint. Was the abuse simply a venting of frustration or an attack which in a different environment could have resulted in the matter being reported to the Police.

Problem is that legally, no crime has been reported and there is no witness to the situation. Therefore as it stands, the CAA will find it hard to act on that basis alone.

However, the RTF / FTO are within their rights to refuse further service and the Examiner is within their rights to refuse to fly with the individual.

A report should be made and the CAA could interview the pilot to get their side of the story but unless a crime has been comitted it is very hard to find a legal basis for action.

Unfortunately the fact that your friend has cosen to discuss the details of the cvonduct of the test outside the circle of Candidate, Examiner and CAA puts the CAA in an awkward position regarding confidentiality.

Lesson to be learned - if this happens, terminate the situation politley and report the matter while maintaining confidentiality. If the level of abuse dictates do not be afraid to call the Police.

[windriver]

Failing a candidate is an unpleasant process at the best of times - and whilst I accept there may be some degree of variation in thresholds I've never seen any evidence that examiners set out to fail candidates or set the bar so high that failure becomes an inevitability through practice or expectation.

Most of us will have failed something somewhere along the line, but we dust ourselves down and carry on.

For PPL students though things can get a little more complicated as one can never be sure they really undertsand their performance requirements on test and previous statements put to them about "being a natural" - "ready for test" and "you'll walk it" can muddy the waters.

Most people take a test failure on the chin and see the process as a necessary evil.

For sure a few will mutter about it, and some try to soft talk the examiner post flight.

In my experience though the real hard nuts are the ones that can`t handle the perceived loss of face. Almost impossible to prove of course but a trait nevertheless that could manifest itself in any number of safety critical situations in the future.

[Whopity]

Under the circumstances described, I would land at the nearest aerodrome, let the student out and let him make his own way home.

[B2N2]

Flight training seems to bring out the extremes in people, the best sometimes but usually the worst.
I've seen grown men cry out of frustration.
Not a pretty sight.
No need for a blacklist, who will control such a list?
Who will determine who gets on the list and why?
Probably every single one of us has flown with a jack-ass examiner, we gonna put them on a list too?
The candidate was obviously not ready and a talk with the CFI is in place.
Any well prepared candidate would not respond that way. A little idealistic maybe but I'd like to see it that way.
I remember an idiot who deserved no place in the sky, let alone in the jet he wanted to buy. He failed twice, we politely declined his business and he passed somewhere else with a "friendly" examiner. So be it, you'll never stop this "shopping around".

[BillieBob]

So be it, you'll never stop this "shopping around".No, indeed, and it's likely to get worse. Given the idiotic EASA plan to remove examiners from the control of the NAAs, a candidate will be free to choose his examiner for any test (including initial CPL and IR Skill Tests) from anywhere in Europe. The inevitable consequence is that the only examiners that will get any business will be those with whom the candidate is most likely to pass (i.e. those who accept the lowest standards).

[DFC]

and it's likely to get worse. Given the idiotic EASA plan to remove examiners from the control of the NAAs


The EASA proposals do not remove examineers from the controls that currently apply.

What EASA does propose is lifting the current restriction on examiner numbers where NAA's prevent suitable candidates from gaining examiner qualifications simply because the number of examiners currently in the system has reached some arbitary number.

The UK has had an open system (school can book directly with examiner) for PPL level skill tests for a number of years and there is no evidence that this causes PPL standards to be lower than those acheived in other countries where skill tests must be booked via the NAA who decides which examiner will complete the test.

There is no evidence that permitting suitable industry examiners to conduct CPL and IR initial skill tests would reduce standards. The admin for booking such tests has yet to be finalised.

Anyone involved in professional flying will know that even at the Large type rating organisations there are places where the output of the TRI and TRE's is how shall we say - not quite what one would expect. There are always going to be people who you meet as a line trainer who you think "how on earth did they get this far" and when you investigate they have scraped through at every level from PPL to PIC Upgrade and somehow they have managed to get the required piece of paper and get someone to say that they "on the balance of probability won't kill themselves"!!!

It's an imperfect system at every level.

As for the school making sure that this candidate was better prepared - possible if it was an initial but since it was a renewal, we don't know the amount of the school's involvement if any in the pre-test training.

[VFE]

I would suggest contacting your local Special Branch unit (details will be available from the aerodrome or school manager). They can circulate the details to other schools in the area. We have had details of 'troubled individuals' passed to us in this way before and it seems to work in raising awareness. Can't see the CAA caring too much to be honest.

VFE.

[BillieBob]

The EASA proposals do not remove examineers from the controls that currently apply.Yes, they do.
there is no evidence that this causes PPL standards to be lower than those acheived in other countries where skill tests must be booked via the NAAYes, there is.
There is no evidence that permitting suitable industry examiners to conduct CPL and IR initial skill tests would reduce standards.Yes, there is (in the case of the CPL, at least. Industry examiners have not yet conducted sufficient initial IR Skill Tests to provide meaningful statistics).