Legal action against the CAA and examiner

[cookiimonstar1]

I took a CPL skills test, and failed it as the examiner said i flew the flight with the wrong QNH set, the examiner said i had 1023 set when i should have had 1024 set! I appeal the result with the CAA and got a free Re-test (which I passed!) my appeal was successfully because I argued that the millibars are so small, depending where you sit in the cockpit it can look like you have different QNH's set.

The problem is the original fail still stands as the CAA can not alter the result of the test (which i am so Pis*** of about!).

So 2 months ago I began Civil proceedings against the CAA and a separate case against the examiner himself, claiming re-reimbursable for the Aircraft hire for the 2 test, Loss of earnings and Defamation of Character.

My sister is a Barrister, so I don't have to worry about legal fees so i think it is worth perusing.

Just over a month ago i sent my license to the CAA to have my IR added to it (36 days today) and they have not sent it back! i keep phone them an all they say is that it is with a Licensing officer! and that it is being processed!

Anyone recently applied for a CPL/IR who can tell me how long it is currently taking? as i think they just taking there time because i'm suing them!

[truckflyer]

I am more interested in if you set 1023 or 1024?

Pretty sure you do not dare to reply this honestly!:ugh:

I am not a legal expert, but if you want take that approach, it could easily be reversed against you, for defamation of character of your examiner. If he insists he was correct, it will be his word against your word!

The CAA gave you a freebie, due to your argument on a technicality where you most likely did a mistake, do you really want to keep the arguments going with the CAA?

Unless the examiner has a bad history, it is credible to believe the examiner due to passed history was correct in his assessment, however you have been lucky and got something out of your appeal!

Doubt it will come to much, I might be wrong, however I would have tried other options before starting legal proceedings!
Sometimes a little conversation will get you further, talking with the right people!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Good grief.

Failure to set the right QNH, even by 1mb is a fail, but CAA were pretty good about offering a free-re-test.

Get over yourself, and get over that attitude of blame and entitlement which will render you far more unemployable than a failed first CPL skill test. If I were an airline employer I'd employ somebody with a successful re-test, but not somebody prepared to sue the authority over the first failure.

Regarding the IR, it's just totally separate, but if you are known to be prepared to act as an arse in this way, I wouldn't be surprised if they're taking extra time to make sure everything is absolutely in order. You probably brought that on yourself.

G

[lurkio]

So what are you going to do when (if) you get a job at an airline with a strict training dept and then fail your LPC/OPC, sue them for loss of duty pay?
A lot of us got partials/retests and just sucked it up, found the money and did it again.
As for legal fees, what if you lose, thought about that?
Now go away and use the time you will be waiting for this to come to fruition to learn how to spell and construct a sentence properly.

[mad_jock]

The poster wasn't actually saying they did have the wrong QNH set just that the examinor thought they had it set wrong with parallax error.

More to the point why after 5 mins did the examinor didn't note the wrong QNH and then get the person to set the correct one is strange. If they then reset the correct one and continued on there wouldn't be grounds for appeal. By not saying anything it gets into two people with different opinions and nothing to prove things either way.


Sensible sueing them I am in two minds about.

The caa interpretation of the rules has become more and more bullish. The IACO IR recognition for exams validility is point in case.

In one way I think it is good that pilots are standing up to them.

The other side of the coin is that this isn't the case that would do much good in the grand scale of things for all pilots. If the OP wins or looses. Its just costs are going to get fed back into the fees structure.

But then again I think its wrong if they are trying to punish by witholding a rating (if in fact they are) because of the court case about the CPL issue. To be honest in my mind its quite a stupid thing to do as it can be used against them in the primary case with possible damages awarded if it all goes through in the OP's favour.

[pudoc]

From my understanding, the examiner made a mistake by not saying anything or parallax error, the CAA have obviously agreed this.

So IMO, the first test shouldn't count on your record, you failed but unfairly. That's like sitting an ATPL exam and passing because you cheated, it wouldn't count because you passed but unfairly. Or failing an ATPL exam because every question wasn't on the syllabus, you failed but unfairly. The CAA would probably do a re-sit, well they should.

I hope you win the case, thanks for standing up for pilots. No way should they first exam count on your record, especially when some employers use it as a filter. I've heard stories of people lying saying they passed everything first time and their employer was none the wiser. Not sure if I'd do that though.

[springbok449]

Flippin hell CM talk about opening a can of worms for yourself, I think that you have a lot to learn in this game, that's if the CAA will give you the opportunity, I think your license application could be sitting on the Licensing Officer's desk for a while, at least until you come to an amicable outcome with the CAA ie: when you drop your case against them.

I am not saying that you are wrong but sometimes it's better to say to the examiner or the instructor the 3 magical letters of the alphabet: OIC and accept the injustice even if you know that they are wrong and just move on.

You will come across these types more than once in your career (fewer these days luckily) and they can ruin your career so as much as it hurts take it on the chin.

This industry is very small and names often get mentioned whether it's in a crew room, flightdeck or in a bar.
As my first ever chief pilot once said to me: "don't piss anyone on the way up because you will meet them on the way down!"

Do what you will with my advice.

Good luck

[FOUR REDS]

Good luck with the job hunting...... and keeping it! And don't forget to mention that your sister is a barrister!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[MIKECR]

If the Examiner was indeed wrong then absolutely yes you have grounds for appeal. The only 2 onboard however were you and the examiner so proving who was right and who was wrong will be nigh on impossible I would imagine. Anyhows, processing time at Gatwick is currently 2 to 3 weeks for licenses. It should be 10 working days(as advertised) but things seem to be taking a bit longer. Im told Wednesdays are now staff training days for EASA changeover so processing is now down to 4 days per week.

[talkpedlar]

... another almost illiterate 20-something who thinks he's the mutt's nuts and can take-on the whole world...

Best case of career suicide I've seen in a long time :ugh:

[Mariner9]

I'm sure your sister told you that in order to succeed in trial you will have to prove in the balance of probabilities that you were correct and the examiner was wrong. Not easy when it's your word against his, especially given that it's the word of a newly qualified CPL vs the word of a (presumably) hugely experienced examiner.

PS. My licence was received by the CAA for the addition of an IR on the 27th Feb. I'm still waiting for it back too, despite not suing the CAA ;)

[Lightning Mate]

... another almost illiterate 20-something who thinks he's the mutt's nuts and can take-on the whole world...

Says it all.

As an ex-IRE, I would fail anyone who used the incorrect altimeter setting - it is totally unprofessional.

[Genghis the Engineer]

An experienced examiner consistently misreading an altimeter subscale when a low hour pilot got it right?

A court deciding that the CAA is setting too high standards in assessing commercial pilots?

Sorry, I'm struggling with both concepts. Could somebody explain them to me?

G

[Cows getting bigger]

Any LHS guys want to fly with this chap in the RHS?

[Anonystude]

Careful chaps and chappesses, he might set his sister on you to sue for defamation!

[mad_jock]

He would more than likely be fine. In fact if they did win the case there would be more than a few Chief Pilots quite taken with someone that got one over on the CAA. Especially if they had just been reamed for a load of petty stuff in a flight ops inspection.

There are folk on here that come across as aggressive and hard which I know are actually quite nice people to fly with, with the majority of pilots who arn't talent limited. I believe the late 411A was one of these.

And there are posters who come across quiet reasonable but when you get them into a cockpit they turn into a bullying tyrant. Ie they can talk a good game but never quite put it into practise.

At least the poster is willing to stick up for what they think is right. If they are then not willing to change there views with the benefit of additional information from those with more experence than themselves that then shows a different character trait. Which to be honest is a more annoying atribute of never admitting that the person is wrong or talking ****e in the face of compleling evidence.

And genghis next time you are up and you have an alt on the RHS as well as the LHS have a look at how much the error is in a smaller single then imagine what it would be like in a wider twin. One mb is less than the allowable error between the two on your instrument checks. I have had FO's half way through (and I have done the same) an approach reset the QNH when I had done a cross check and it looked fine. I have also said "can you check your QNH" when it didn't look right but it turned out to be set properly, and its been said to me as well and its been wrong :}

The examinor was a bit daft for only putting that down as the sole reason for failure. Personally I would have added another couple of things which you couldn't have argued with such as unstable approach or they are bound to have stepped outside the agreeded speeds at some point. In any case I would have let them fly for five mins after setting the QNH and then asked them what the QNH was set at. I think my EXAM callsign did that in my IR but its been that long ago. But the altimeters on G-REAT were the old multi layered using disks for above 100 and I could quite imagine that you couldn't see it.

[rmcb]

And there are posters who come across quiet reasonable but when you get them into a cockpit they turn into a bullying tyrant. Ie they can talk a good game but never quite put it into practise.
This is the benefit/pitfall of anonymity.

There is probably more to this than meets the eye - start of flight sloppy setting but how many ASRs do you fly through at test? I entered five, not to mention QNE changes over the MATZ and local changes overhead airfields. Being tall I always contort myself to ensure parallax error isn't an issue for my purposes, let alone that of the examiner.

To the OP - whatever happens, you should frame the letter from the CAA giving you a test gratis and hang it in the khazi! mad_jock has a point there.

Does your sister do medical negligence work? :)

[B2N2]

This thread is in the Instructor and Examiner forum, the irony does not escape me:
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/480231-sad-story-about-high-mighty-check-airman.html

If you're right you're right and you need to fight it.
Don Quichote comes to mind as these kinds of organizations tend to close rank if one of their brethren gets in hot water.
Becoming an examiner is pretty much another result of the nepotism which is rampant in these types of good-ol-boy networks.

1 millibar is an 8 meter difference which is well within the error range of an analogue altimeter specified for IFR flight which is 75 feet or 25 meters.
If and if the altimeter was set 1mbar off that should have been a debrief item not a fail item, that is ridiculous.

Question for the original poster:
Are you sure this is the only item or were you skating along the edges of tolerances the entire flight and this was the only thing the examiner could hang his hat on? Pushing his buttons the entire flight?
They are supposed to be above that but alas they are human.



... another almost illiterate 20-something who thinks he's the mutt's nuts and can take-on the whole world...


Totally uncalled for.

[mad_jock]

As you say you can get +-1mb with seat height thats why they have the two balls to set your eye line on cat II/III aircraft. Sitting in front of the instrument. How the bloke in the RHS is meant to spot 1 mb apart from asking what you have set it at I don't know.

FYI ASR generally is known as "air safety report" in commercial circles. My first reading was 5 air safety reports in the space of one test that must have been a hum dinger of a flight.

[cookiimonstar1]

Thanks for all your reply's and advice guys, I might be fighting a loosing battle but i will always stand up for myself, and i will never back down from a fight whether it is a fight in the pub or in the courts.

To be honest it was not just the point that me failed me over a little thing like the QNH.

I did my IR with Kerry Booth, and if I had done my CPL with him and he had failed me chances are I would have just taken it on the chin, and let the whole thing drop, because he explains everything in great details, and his de-briefs are great and he comes across as a just an all round nice person.

But when I did my CPL the examiner firstly let me fly the whole flight when there was no need to if i had already failed which cost me money and landing fees then when we landed i met him inside an he just said "Sorry you failed you had the wrong QNH set"

And my instructor was not around as he was on a flight and he didn't even bother to wait around for my instructor to get back for a de-brief, he just left! not before saying "your flying was excellent there is no need for further training it's just one of those things"

When my instructor got back he had to phone the examiner to get a de-brief of him.

I feel really hard done by and i can't just let this go!

[mad_jock]

Nice to hear Capt Booth is still the same after 10 years. He did mine as well. A proper gent and aviator.

If what you say is true, I don't blame you for being pissed off. If its one of the cases of I have given to many first time passes recently your quite right to go for compensation. Although I would suspect that you will get so far and then it will be decided its between you and the examinor unless they were a staff one.

Although putting to many details on here might not be in your best interests check with your sister.

[Dan the weegie]

This one is really quite sad. I can't argue on the basis of only hearing one side of the story but something is up when the examiner tells you everything was perfect but you need to fly a whole test again because you had the wrong QNH set. If you failed section 1 then he should have told you immediately. Crappy debrief or mistake I don't know but that's going to cost someone more than 1grand so it needs to be thought about very carefully.

It does underline the fact that we have no recourse with the CAA if they or one of their appointed officers acts inappropriately. Why do we have to take it to court before we get to have our complaint heard by an independent body?

I think it's a shame that a guy with what seems like a reasonable complaint needs to sue. Good luck to you, I hope you get the correct result but sadly it will definitely result in the CAA behaving prejudicially difficult with you because they want to make sure that they fall within the rules (and probably to remind you who the boss is). So if your IR is taking longer than 14 days to come back then that's why and there's nothing you can do to stop it :(.

I would suggest using the same day counter for everything else from now and never let on that you sued for that, ever.

[Dan the weegie]

I would add that by in large I've had pretty decent service from the CAA and when I needed to talk to someone they were very helpful but sometimes it seems that all they want to do is make sure the paper is all correct and everything else is irrelevant.

[truckflyer]

One question to OP, how many altimeters did you have in the aircraft? Was all of them set wrong according to the examiner? One would probably been straight in front of him, or was it just your own altimeter that he said was wrong?

I have heard people before partial or fail because of wrong QNH.

[rmcb]

cookiimonstar1 - you should sue for lack of a sensible debrief alone; your examiner's attitude stinks if that was truly the reason for a fail. If he/she was going to fail you on that alone you should have gone no further in time or distance than leaving the departure circuit.

Make the frame for letters big and gold. Good luck!

[talkpedlar]

"I might be fighting a loosing (sic) battle but i will always stand up for myself, and i will never back down from a fight whether it is a fight in the pub or in the courts."

Young man... My task in life involves the selection and recruitment of aircrew for a well-known middle-east airline.

If your log-book showed a fail or partial, I wouldn't give a :mad:!

If however you mentioned suing the CAA, slagging off your examiner or (God forbid!) repeated the top paragraph (above), your application would be swiftly shredded. Period.

I really, really suggest that you take a while to consider the consequences of your proposed actions and trust that you take my comments in the constructive manner in which they are intended.

[Spitoon]

It does underline the fact that we have no recourse with the CAA if they or one of their appointed officers acts inappropriately. Why do we have to take it to court before we get to have our complaint heard by an independent body?Not really true. As the OP explained, he appealed and was granted a free re-test.

I can't easily check the current rules but it used to be regulation 6 of the CAA Regulations (or some similar title) that enabled anyone to appeal against a decision taken by the CAA (or an employee thereof). The appeal was usually heard by members of the CAA board and, in my experience, if there were any valid grounds for the appeal the result came down in favour of the appellant.

In reality, the grounds for appeal must be that some procedure was not followed, or not adequately explained - not just that you didn't like the result. It sounds like the OP went through this process and, at the very least, was given the benefit of the doubt.

Taking legal action is open to all of us...but following such a route needs careful consideration. It can be costly and can get one a bit of a reputation - such a reputation. Whether deserved or not, the reputation can stay with you for far longer than any interest in a failed flight test. As to the costs, if you lose your case you can easily end up having to pay the other side's costs and, trust me on this, the CAA doesn't use cheap barristers.

As to the original question of whether the licensing people are holding up the work on your licence - well, I'd be surprised if this were the case, except as Genghis pointed out, they may be making sure that they do everything absolutely by the book because they're dealing with a demonstrably litigious individual. And that's assuming the person dealing with your new licence even knows or cares about your legal action.

To the OP, I'm all for everyone getting a fair hearing but as I approach the twilight of my career, my advice to you would be to stop wasting everyone's time. There's probably more to this whole business than meets the eye, whether you recognise it or not, but as/if you progress through you career you will probably come to understand that your reputation with your peers is based far more on your competence, credibility and reliability rather than whether you got one over the CAA....and that there are better things in life than winning arguments.

[Flaymy]

That does sound like unprofessional behaviour on the part of the examiner, if true, both in allowing the flight to be completed and in failing to offer a thorough debrief.

As examiners I know have explained to me, every test is also a lesson and the candidate should learn something. This is most obvious for a test the candidate has failed. How is cookiimonster to learn without a good debrief? How does he even know if he is ready for a retest, or what to study further if not?

The examiner would need to allow the student at least to start the second section of the flight, probably the navigation leg, to decide it was a fail; had cookiimonster then set the QNH to the examiner's satisfaction he could have continued and perhaps gained a partial pass, and had to refly the departure section. Failing two sections is a fail, so as soon as cookiimonster started on his navigation leg with QNH not set to the examiner's satisfaction the examiner should have stopped the test and flown the aircraft himself back to the airfield.

By not stopping the exam at the point of failure the examiner himself has muddied the water. In a balance of probabilities, if the court is persuaded the test should have been stopped earlier but wasn't then the balance of probabilities goes to cookiimonster. I for one would suspect that the examiner didn't notice until near the end of the test. This implies either that he was not very attentive, that the subscale was too small and perhaps set between figures or else the subscale had somehow been knocked, and the student was either not at fault or might have deserved a partial pass.

The CAA has given cookiimonster a free retest. From their point of view this is the worst thing to do. They have admitted that cookiimonster at least has a case, and might have been correct. Yet cookiimonster is still out of pocket for the aircraft hire, and the examiner compounded this by making cookiimonster fly longer than necessary. They then did not cancel the first attempt, which is I think the least of the offences but brings in pride.

This is all, of course, only my inexpert opinion. However I know a very good expert witness, who has instructed CPLs and IRs, who has worked a few legal cases and always gives his honest opinion regardless if that is what the client wants to hear. If he agrees with me I would say you have a strong case, and he might be able to stand up in court and give that opinion too.

That should be your first move, though, to talk to a court-accredited expert witness. There are some poor ones around, it is not a great system, so be careful who you pick and emphasise that sound advice is more important than building a case. I know of one individual who lost a lot of money because his expert witness persuaded him he had a case, and the company he sued disagreed. Any objective person could have told him he did not have a leg to stand on, and he ended up paying a lot of costs, for both sides.

[mad_jock]

But then again spitoon maybe thats the reason why we are in the position today that the CAA really don't care what the customers think and just shaft folk without any thought with the full knowledge nobody will ever come after them.

That sudden change in policy about IACO IR's keeping theory exams valid will have shafted severaL 100's of pro pilots. And if not challanged its going to cost each one of them 1-3K to sort it out not with standing the time spent studying for the exams and transport back to the UK. And all the other stuff.


Mind you I think they might have bitten off more than they can chew with that one as they arn't dealing with an impoverished wannabies who they can pat of the head and say suck it up here is a free test.

[Mariner9]

If you failed section 1 then he should have told you immediately

By not stopping the exam at the point of failure the examiner himself has muddied the water

Sorry, but wrong on both counts. A fail in the first section only would result in a partial pass if the other sections were passed. It would hardly be fair therefore to fail the candidate after only 1 section!

Furthermore, the examiner does not discuss the sections as they are completed - indeed he will likely have stressed to the candidate in the briefing that even if the candidate thinks he has failed a section, to put it behind him and continue the flight.

Can I suggest that posters read The CAA guidance on the CPL skills test (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_FCL_03_A.PDF) before postulating on the actions of the examiner?

As for the debrief - your post says that he told you that your flying was "excellent" but you had the wrong QNH set throughout. What more did you want him to tell you? Furthermore, what benefit would have been gained if he had waited for your instructor then told him the same thing?

[BigGrecian]

Defamation of Character.

Regardless of what actually happened I think most people would consider you defaming your own character more than the examiners by suing and most people will automatically discard you as having a bad attitude.

Might not be what a lot of people say but it is what their thinking.

My personal opinion which is echoed above is that's a perfectly fair fail and I would respect the examiner less if he hadn't failed you.

[Dan the weegie]

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.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Sueing for defamation of character due to failing a test? Whaaaat??? If your sister thinks that constitutes defamation she knows even less about the law than I do, and that isn't much.
Sueing on the basis of your word against his? Oh dear God!
The court are going to be in stitches when this case is introduced!

Unvbelieveable. You must be a joy to be around if that's the way you resolve life's little ups and downs. If your altimeter setting skills are as careful and accurate as your spelling and grammar - and what else can one go on? - I know who I'd believe.

Hard to believe a lawyer would think there was even a case to answer in this, let alone win the unequal battle between the CAA and an individual. Is the sister-barrister a completly self-obsessed rookie too I wonder?

Get over yourself fella. Come back to planet Earth...
And best of luck job-hunting if you take this much futher in public- because that too will be an unequal struggle.

[Halfwayback]

The Gotcha lies here:

Set and cross check altimeters to QNH, Regional Pressure setting RPS, Standard pressure setting, or QFE as specified in checklist, Ops Manual or as appropriate


This unfortunately is a recurring statement for each phase of the test.

You should also bear in mind that the CAA is not a 'static' body from the view of manpower. Their management regularly gets head-hunted into the airlines (particularly at present when their salaries are dropping rapidly behind those of airlines) so it is entirely feasible that your may cross paths with one of those involved in your case - not quite where you want to be at an early stage fo your career.

Talkpedlar speaks wise words; in your shoes I would listen.

HWB

[Callsign Kilo]

Taking this up with the CAA and being permitted to take a free recheck is one thing. Dragging it through the courts is entirely another. As other posters have stated already, this is a small industry. Mentioning this to anyone with any sort of influence in any area of this profession will see potential employers run a mile. People will brand you from being anything from an HR nightmare, to a likely union rabble rouser or a potential CRM disaster rather than a person of principle. They will decide this before they have even met you. Really.

.....and why in the hell are you publishing a very individual case on a very open public forum?? You dont appear as smart as you clearly think you are! I believe this one could bite you in the posterior with quite spectacular fashion.

[Lightning Mate]

you can get +-1mb with seat height

Please explain just how you can do this :mad:. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

cookiimonstar,

Maybe a career in B&Q or Argos will serve you better!!

[truckflyer]

I am curious did the aircraft have 2 altimeters? (or more)

Was these both cross checked and set with different or same QNH?

Did the QNH check and get checked regularly during the whole flight?

I don't think the OP is telling the full story on this, some info is missing in my opinion.

But I would not have gone to legal action, that seems a bit overboard!

[Callsign Kilo]

you can get +- 1mb with seat height


Dum, dum, dum.....Green Giant!

[yates]

By publishing this on, as has been said, a very public forum, you have;

1. Perhaps opened yourslf up to all sorts of problems in court by making completely unsubstansiated accusations and insinuations against the CAA and it's staff.

2. Put yourself in a very difficult position regarding your future career - every airline will know who you are, even if you pulled this post today.

3. Put yourself at great financial risk - your sister may be a Barrister but, unless she owns her own Chambers, she will not be allowed to represent you without the express permission of the Senior Partners of the firm. They may decide that your, already very weak case for any compensation, is so ridiculous that they wouldn't risk their reputation in allowing their name to be sullied by being associated with you.
It's not just your own legal costs you have to consider, before you can "take the CAA to court", you have to bear in mind that you are liable to cover their costs as well and that will almost certainly bankrupt you if, sorry, when you lose.

You are naieve in the extreme; Be grateful you got a re test and that shortly you will have the full rating.
You've already caused untold harm to your own professional reputation - stop being an idiot, quit and repair the damage while you still can.

[mad_jock]

Try zero cushions and enough to have your head touching the roof and you will see.

Those that have the seat on its upper limit more than likely won't have experenced the parallax in the vertical plane.

Those of us that arn't vertically challanged and arn't eyes level with the altimeter at the top of travel are quite aware of it like the previosu poster has mentioned having to squidge down to a more horizontal view to get rid of it.

[rmcb]

Just from the principle of failure of two sections - as I interpret it the OP was allowed to fly the entire test. The moment he/she left the circuit for the next section (presumably the Nav.) he/she should have been failed there and then and then flown back incurring minimal cost.

If your altimeter setting skills are as careful and accurate as your spelling and grammarUnvbelieveableSueing
Pot, kettle and black springs to mind - toxic mushroom...

Defamation of character is a little strong, but the examiner should debrief properly - even if it is a fail - and is therefore wanting in the professionalism department so espoused by Big Grecian. I wish I could be that perfect.

Personally I am amazed the OP got through the whole test without having to change his/her altimeter at all with various agency contact. This suggests the examiner was eyeing a second altimeter, not required for the VFR CPL test. Rash not to use both, I will grant you, but not necessary.

[cavortingcheetah]

But then, if you wanted to, how could you extricate yourself from the alligator pond into which your pride, for want of anything more or less descriptive, has landed you? The idea that you might wish extrication might be a far fetched one but it's no more improbable than the thought that says the examiner is reading about himself on wrinkled plum's pages and formulating his own defamation or libel suit against you for the words you've already written?
It'll probably take one of those lawyer's letters to the CAA and to the examiner saying that, without admitting any prejudice, you are withdrawing your case. Lawyers are good at saving face for their clients. Your legal mouthpiece could take the time to thank all and sundry for the concession of a retest and perhaps acknowledge that your original legal adviser was not in possession of all the facts. A pragmatic solution might just be possible if the other parties wished to let the matter drop.

[Mariner9]

The moment he/she left the circuit for the next section (presumably the Nav.) he/she should have been failed there and then and then flown back incurring minimal cost.


Why? If I had been failed after 5 minutes in such circumstances and asked to fly back I would not have been happy. Time spent in an aircraft is seldom wasted - the experience gained in the remaining sections would likely have contributed positively to the OP's subsequent sucessful test. It would also have added a couple of hours TT towards his ATPL issue - hours he would have to fly in any event (and thus his additional costs if sucessful in Court would seem to me to be limited to 1 extra landing fee, perhaps £20?)

[Wirbelsturm]

How do you get parallax when setting a number anyway????

1023 or 1024?? Looks like a digit to me!!! :E:}

[rmcb]

OK, Mariner9, I understand your viewpoint but I believe cost should be kept to an absolute minimum at all cost.

If the examiner is taking the view this is a failure, the moment the second phase of the test is started and the candidate has failed to recognise his/her egregiousness, he/she should be told the test is failed and given the option to fart around with a SPIC flight or put money saved towards another test.

Whether the purists like it or not, I believe that the game is to get the ticket and carry on with the learning in a more relaxed environment. This does not mean reducing your own very high standards but if you live in 'perfect world' nobody would ever pass the event! We would all fall foul of self criticism irrespective of the examiner's expert witness.

[Bealzebub]

A defamation of character claim has a unique process when a claim occurs. The claim is brought in the High Court and is heard by a jury as well as a judge.
Defamation of character happens when someone says, or writes, something untrue about you (or your business or product) which is damaging to your reputation (or that of your business).
A defamation of character lawsuit will only be successful if the information published is untrue in some respect, or exaggerated, or reported in an intentionally misleading way.

How must the statement be made?
The statement must be communicated to a person other than the person whose reputation is being damaged.

I am curious as to how you were defamed?

My sister is a Barrister, so I don't have to worry about legal fees so i think it is worth perusing.
Why? Is your sister proposing to pay them for you? A Barrister is usually appointed by the solicitor who advises you. You are then the Barristers lay client. Libel claims through the High court are a "big ticket" item, and usually avoided if at all possible. I am sure your sister, and certainly a solicitor would have advised you of that.

If you appealed the conduct of your test and were offered a "free re-test," but no reversal or setting aside of the original test decision, it would appear you accepted the offer, rather than refusing it and then persisting with your claim?

Sorry, but this all sounds a little screwy. As a first post, you are commenting on a supposedly pending high court case. Further you are naming individuals (who don't seem to be directly involved) from behind your own cloak of anonymity.

To be honest it was not just the point that me failed me over a little thing like the QNH.

I did my IR with K**** B****, and if I had done my CPL with him and he had failed me chances are I would have just taken it on the chin, and let the whole thing drop, because he explains everything in great details, and his de-briefs are great and he comes across as a just an all round nice person.
There would seem to be a monumental chasm between somebody being an "all round nice person," and them defaming you? Is there a chunk of your story missing?

[Martin1234]

One reason to continue the test could have been that it might not have been a fail on that ground if the examinee would have corrected the error by changing the altimeter setting before the exam came to an end.

Perhaps it is taken to small claims court and you don't have to pay much if you loose?

I wonder what your purpose is of bringing the CAA and the examiner to court? Have you tried to get compensation from the CAA for the loss of revenue and aircraft hire for the second test? Claiming compensation for defamation of character and suing the examiner seem a little "far out". As you probably won't get more compensation by going after the examiner as well it seems like you just want to use the court system to retaliate.

Please keep in mind that the purpose of the exam is to determine if the examinee meets certain standards for the issue of in this case a CPL licence. That's it. The CAA didn't ask employers to check if someone passed the first time or not. It's not a pre-employment test, therefore it doesn't matter if you passed the first time or not other than that it might cost you time and money to retake the test.

Have you considered dropping the claim of defamation of character and letting the lawsuit against the examiner on hold until you have tried the case against the CAA? I don't see any reason to go after the examiner when you can go after his employer other than for retaliation.

I personally wouldn't have initiated a lawsuit in this case but it does sound sensible that you claimed the CAA for the compensation of the aircraft hire and loss of income to retake the exam - if - the outcome is that the exam wasn't conducted properly (because the examiner couldn't have determined the altimeter setting used by 1 mb or that 1 mb is an acceptable error on a VFR CPL test). But defamation of character, how do you substantiate that one?

[Cobalt]

I'd just reconsider, and stop this - it'll only cost time and money.

I think you got a fair deal from the CAA. You did get a free retest. If you did get your result "converted" to a partial pass, which is the best you could hope for considering there were other issues in the test, you would have to pay half the test fee for the re-test, which is not miles off the cost of the aircraft for the first test. Also, you did get some flight experience, so you could consider yourself the winner.

As some here wrote - I wouldn't know, not hiring pilots for a living - noone will care, there is just one more dual entry in your logbook amongst many.

[wingreencard]

just pick up your cpl, and foget about this 1" difference.
my God, when you will send thousand of cv and noone will answer to you because there is no job, you will forget about this unsignificant adventure with the CAA.

you goal now will be how to find money to renew your CPL, how to maintain current the IR, and how to deal with your mom and dad who treat you of a little nasty parasit everyday because you don't have a job or you live on a girlfriend or society' money.

grow up! get a normal job, and start to make real money! you are a just a bunch of unemployed troublemakers! all of you!

[Muddy Boots]

Mariner 9,

In the CAA link you posted earlier: Guidence of Applicants taking the CPL Skills Test (Aeroplanes).

You suggest we should read it, can I suggest you do so too?

There is a line:

3.5.3 The Examiner may stop the test at any stage if he considers that the applicant's demonstration of skill and/or knowledge requires a complete retest.

So, why are you so down on the poster about expressing he'd like to have been given a chance to halt the test and save some money. Especially as the examiner had clearly made his mind up going into section 2 with the altimeter setting still incorrect, that this was going to be a fail.


It is in the document you refer us to!


Please bear in mind, we have to pay an awful lot of money out of our own pockets to enable us to enter a career with no guarantee of getting a job.


Most examiners have had their career and are examining in their twilight flying years. Chances are they are ex RAF and have had their flying paid for, which isn't an option even if we wanted to sign up, ask all the lads who had their courses cancelled on them during the Strategic Defense Review. Even if they aren't ex military, they would have come up in a different era and have no idea of the sacrifices we have to go through with soaring fuel costs, etc.

[GS-Alpha]

Let us consider for a moment that the original poster is 100% in the right, and can win this case. What is it actually going to achieve? What is the big picture here? Does he want to become a commercial airline pilot, or does he want to win this little point and make his stand?

Personally I do not think it is worth cutting off your nose to spite your face. As other responses have already suggested, the flying world is a very small world. You could be seriously harming your career over what is, in the grand scheme of things, a highly trivial issue. If 'taking this one on the chin' is the only sacrifice you have to make in order to achieve your career aspirations, you'll be a far luckier man than most!

Good luck whatever you choose.

[frontlefthamster]

Sadly, the OP shows a truly monumental immaturity and lack of judgement.

This is becoming a genuine concern for me and others; only recently I was chatting with some visitors from a couple of major European airlines about our impressions of freshly-qualified commercial pilots from some of the big schools. We all agreed that there are some serious problems with people, to put it in Top Gun terms, whose mouths are writing cheques their bodies can't cash. They show some worrying behaviours associated with over-confidence and a lack of willingness to accept and deal with their mistakes. These are not welcome qualities in the flight deck.

One school at least has taken action to try to address this failing, partly as a result of unfavourable feedback from customer airlines.

The OP's very best course of action is to learn from this enormous mistake, delete his first post (which will delete the thread), and hope this matter is forgotten and no-one later puts two and two together. As others have pointed out, this could turn out to have been a career-shaping move should the dice roll the wrong way for him later in life...

[talkpedlar]

..there are several thousand candidates out there with an fATPL and 250ish hours... and quite a number of them don't have a seriously bad attitude, a worrying level of arrogance, gross immaturity, questionable reasoning ability or lamentable literacy skills. It is unlikely that many of them would be proud to boast their bar-brawling inclinations too.

My own guess is that here we may have a spoiled only-child under mounting parental pressure to secure an airline job and start repaying that huge debt.

With respect, my own faith in our profession's selection and recruitment practices mean that this will most likely not happen and I'd wager a month's duty-pay that this fellow has a long history of ruffling feathers.

I'm out of this thread now.... quite the most disturbing issue for a long time.

[Genghis the Engineer]

we may have a spoiled only-child
With a sister.....

G

(Agreeing with the rest of what you said)

[Mariner9]

There is a line:

3.5.3 The Examiner may stop the test at any stage if he considers that the applicant's demonstration of skill and/or knowledge requires a complete retest.

So, why are you so down on the poster about expressing he'd like to have been given a chance to halt the test and save some money. Especially as the examiner had clearly made his mind up going into section 2 with the altimeter setting still incorrect, that this was going to be a fail.


The quote is correct Muddy Boots, but with respect I think your interpretation of it is incorrect. In my view, that caveat is there to allow the examiner to abandon a test in which the candidate is obviously a complete numpty - the OP says the rest of his flying was "excellent" so he was not a complete numpty in flying terms. If the OP is going to rely on 3.5.3in his Court action, he might have trouble convincing the Court that the word may in the referenced sentence actually means should or will

The published document also states that an important remit of the test is to assess if any recommended or mandatory further training is required in any aspect of the test prior to the resit. How could the examiner do this if only the 1st 2 parts of the test were flown? In my view, it would be highly unfair to the candidate if 1 or more parts of the test were omitted due to an earlier fail, and the candidate subsequently failed on these omitted sections in a resit.

It appears to me (and hopefully, to the OP's advising solicitors) is that in order to succeed in his Court action, the OP is first going to have to convince the Court that the CAA's standard test procedure (available to the candidate in writing) is unfair in that they assess the whole test profile rather than abandoning the test as soon as a candidate has failed. In my view, this will be a difficult hurdle to overcome given the stated further training assesment remit of the test.

Furthermore, when I did my IR (I've not done the CPL but presume its the same), the CAA examiner told me clearly in the briefing that he would not discuss any of the test sections during the flight. If that was the case for the OP, then he has accepted a verbal contract. That is yet another aspect that may present severe difficulties to him in Court!

Finally, I say again, what has this actually cost the OP in monetary terms? The 2 hours flying in the original test would have been required anyway to get him up to 1500 TT, so no cost incurred there. The CAA (very fairly in my view) gave him a free retest, so no cost incurred there either.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Furthermore, when I did my IR (I've not done the CPL but presume its the same), the CAA examiner told me clearly in the briefing that he would not discuss any of the test sections during the flight. If that was the case for the OP, then he has accepted a verbal contract. That is yet another aspect that may present severe difficulties to him in Court!

Whilst I'm lucky enough to have only done the one CPL skill test, that's my recollection also.

And it's important. I recall in mine becoming slightly uncertain of position because of restrictions put on me by the examiner. I dealt with it, still was uncertain, dealt with it again, and finally worked out exactly where I was and continued to a successful diversion.

The point being that I'd made a mistake, but then recognised it, dealt with it, and got the flight back on track. Had the examiner commented upon or intervened when I initially made my mistake, or even when I got my first attempt to rectify that wrong, I'd have failed the skill test. Because he sat back and watched me, he was also giving me the time and ability to identify and fully rectify my error. Which I'm very glad to say I did, and he considered that to eventually be satisfactory performance.

What appears to me to have been the real issue in the OPs flying was not the incorrect subscale setting - we've all done that from time to time, and many of us have probably done it under test as well. The issue was almost certainly that the OP failed to pick it up and deal with the error in a timely manner, and all the examiner needs to do is say that in court - and the case is over, with the OP out of pocket and a character severely dented by the perception - perhaps accurately - that he showed poor flying, poor monitoring of the flight and inability to correct his own errors, and most damningly of all, an inability to accept and use the corrective opinions of a more experienced pilot.

This last of course is what will render him unemployable, and is the reason why his ONLY sensible course of action is to withdraw his legal action, and write a grovelling letter of apology to the CAA for the misjudgment and wasting of their time. If he's lucky, he then won't end up with a massive bill for the legal fees they've run up already.

G

[truckflyer]

Just a little update on the CPL skills test, which I assume has not changed that much recently.

The test starts with the Navigation, than diversion, after this it is either circuits or general handling, depending on what is convenient with regards to the test area.

The OP does not mention what really happen during his test, as I would assume he would, or should have done a FREDA check approx. every 15 minutes, and actually updating, cross checking the altimeters.

It is correct as last poster said, the examiner, does say that he will not talk, unless spoken to. It is possible that the examiner was waiting to see if the student would notice his error, and it possible if the flight was otherwise flawless, that he was considering to partial the student at one stage.

However at what stage would you stop the skills test based on the QNH being set wrong?
During the diversion? General handling? Circuits? During the circuits he would have been in touch with ATC, and got a QNH. What QNH did the OP write on his notepad during contact with ATC?

There are many details that the OP has not written about, to defend himself, also the OP does not explain what kind of aircraft/altimeter he used on the skills test.

Have flown Warrior, Arrow, Seneca, C172, there is no way there would be any parallax error between 1023 and 1024, seriously they not sitting in 737 or A320 cockpit! Most SEP and MEP, are pretty tight/narrow.

I recall during my skill tests, that these issues was not only checked and cross checked, but also double and trippel checked, and SPOKEN out loud for the examiner to hear what I was doing.

I also believe in the brief, the examiner tells you that you should speak out LOUD what you are doing, so that the examiner actually knows and understands what you have done.

No use of doing a FREDA check, or HASELL check inside your own mind, without telling the examiner what you are doing!

I admit I am a novice in this area, but I do agree with a majority of the posters, legal action can not be the correct way.

The CAA have an appeal process on these cases, and I can for the life of me not understand why the OP have not followed this path.

And as somebody else mentioned, probably the terms and conditions was accepted when he accepted the re-test for free. The CAA might have chosen to make a compromise and give the student the benefit of the doubt, however with legal action, he has taken it to a complete different level.

My personal experience with the CAA, is that they are reasonable if you get into a dialogue with them. Also taking action against the examiner, I honestly find distasteful in this case.

As some say, the aviation world is not that big!

I recall my CPL skills test, I did a bummer, I was asked to do the fire drill engine out, fine started all good, I had lined up perfect for the field, and suddenly recalled I had only done engine out drill, I told the examiner I had screwed up, as I had not done the part for the fire drill, examiner was happy, told me to climb up and do the whole exercise again!

However the rest of the flight had been flawless. My experience with the examiners, are that they are very reasonable, at lest the examiners I had, and my friends had, we all had some minor niggles during our tests, but they did not fail us for those things.

Not discovering his mistakes during constant checks, or maybe he forget to do the constant checks, that would have made him aware of the error, probably made it wander from pass to partial or in the end a full fail.

CAA gave you a free retest, is not an admission of guilt! (Specially if the words "without prejudice" was written in the letter from the CAA)

I once heard of a story once, where a student managed to land with the gear up, examiner passed his CPL, for this later to be revoked by the CAA and the examiner investigated, student had to do another CPL skills test!

[Piltdown Man]

I do hope the CAA fight this. Then the name of this spoilt, denialist will be public. Then win or lose, the idiot loses.

[Cactus99]

Parallax error on an altimeter?!! Give me a break. :yuk:

If that is your excuse, then you obviously don't have much of a professional career ahead of you my friend. The examiner wasn't born yesterday, I guarantee you he will have known exactly what was set on the altimeters. It was the wrong QNH, that is a fail. Deal with it.

A little bit worrying that a few people are saying it's ok, it was only 1 mb. Where do you draw the line here, 3/4 mb's? 10 feet below minima, it's only 10 feet or maybe 20 feet, it's okay :rolleyes:

You are being tested for a professional licence, there should be no error on altimeter settings, and if mis-set, should be picked up timeously which clearly is not the case here.

TP offers sound advice which, if I were you, take heed and get this crazy notion out of your head.

Playing silly games trying to get one over on the CAA will only backfire and bite you on the proverbial.

[redED]

i will never back down from a fight whether it is a fight in the pub

What a charming chap. I can see your sister having to defend you a lot more in the future!

[Evanelpus]

I'm just wondering if the 'sister' works for Weavers of Warwickshire.;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

What a charming chap. I can see your sister having to defend you a lot more in the future!

My main non-aviation hobby is martial arts. I am qualified to examine up to shodan (the first level of black belt), and have on occasion failed people at various levels.

The joy of that is that anybody who fails, has already tried to fight me and knows that they lost!

I'm wondering if we can find a way to introduce the concept into aviation? Examination by dogfight? It would certainly make the CPL skill test a lot more fun.

G

[gpn01]

Thanks for all your reply's and advice guys, I might be fighting a loosing battle but i will always stand up for myself, and i will never back down from a fight whether it is a fight in the pub or in the courts.



The trick with arguments is knowing when it's best to accept that, even if you're right, it's more prudent to not keep pushing it.


To be honest it was not just the point that me failed me over a little thing like the QNH.


So you could have actually had a completely fumbled up flight, making mistake after mistake but have decided to pursue this one element?


But when I did my CPL the examiner firstly let me fly the whole flight when there was no need to if i had already failed which cost me money and landing fees then when we landed i met him inside an he just said "Sorry you failed you had the wrong QNH set"


Firstly, the examiner provided you with an invaluable lesson. It was just a very expensive one. Secondly, maybe the examiner saw the wrong setting at the beginning but figured (as you'd have already paid for the hire of the plane, etc). that it'd be unfair to say "turn back now" and thought he'd give you the chance to prove you could do everything else right? I'm sure the flight must have provided other learning/practice opportunities for you? If you think of the exam flight as being an opprtunity to conduct the entire flight with zero input (so there's no instructor to help you out) then it's a really useful training flight...from which some people get a pass and others don't.

[Bealzebub]

cookiimonstar1,

As you are currently reading this, and you have brought this into a public arena, I am still curious to know how you claim to have been "defamed"?

[banjodrone]

It seems to me that the altimeter setting being a little off in a commercial test situation has more to do with professionalism than it necessarily being dangerous or not. For a CPL test in VFR conditions it obviously isn't the same issue it would be for an instrument rating but you are doing a test for a professional licence and they want to see that you are a stickler for detail because some day an oversight may come back and bite you, in a not good way. Now you claim that there was the possibility of a visual error but I find it hard to believe that an experienced pilot such as an examiner would not take account of or be unware of that and there would have to be a serious height difference between both of you for it to even manifest itself as an issue, something that I never saw in my interesting but limited experience.

Sometimes in life it's best to exercise some tact. Whether right or wrong, take it on the chin and move on. I failed my FAA single engine commercial after messing up a chandelle and a bunch of other manoeuvres after that. Up to that point I'd done literally scores of them with no problems. After the test the examiner just gave me a sympathetic smile and said that he knew I could do them but the integrity of the system relied on strict application of the rules and guidelines and that he couldn't pass me on that occasion but he looked forward to next time because he was sure I would blitz it, which I did.

Now it's a different situation of course and I didn't feel hard done by, just disappointed in myself but I was impressed by how he handled it. I actually felt good after his calm and reassuring debriefing and just maybe some examiners need a bit more training in that department but you need a tough skin to be a pilot and have to know when and when it isn't appropriate to take certain matters into the legal sphere. Honestly I wouldn't worry about the odd failed checkride, it just means that you didn't meet the standards on that occasion, for whatever reason.

Take my advice and don't pursue this any further.

Regards.

[cavortingcheetah]

I say, and disregarding the dropped name, I don't suppose that cookiiemonstar1 was flying about in a Trollkraft was he?

[Another_CFI]

Having read the first post in the thread I spent condiderable time checking and cross-checking my computer's clock since I believed that it must be 1st April.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Regardless of what you may think - I am aware that in the City, references are taken informally, taken verbally through friends, ex collegues, Alumni contacts etc.... You will never know what was said, when they sense something, they will tell you something in line with the law...ie sorry your experience does not match expectations etc.. so be careful.

And everywhere else.

Most pilot recruitment involves the odd phone call to an old mate or two to check somebody's real reputation -the stuff not on their CV.

I work a lot in the academic world, where we do the same as well.

I've certainly had my share of those phone calls over the years, and on occasion have felt that in all honesty I had to be, well, honest.

Getting drunk and trashing your hotel room 20 years ago, lectures you didn't turn up to that p***d off your lecturer, that course you failed then just dropped from your CV, the affair with the Chief Pilot's wife..... All of it will follow you for the rest of your life.

Of course, all of us end up with some reputation or other for something - so the best you can do is keep the bad stuff to a minimum, bury the bodies good and deep, and try and have enough good reputation to outweigh the bad stuff.

G

[Flaymy]

Thanks for reminding me to check Facebook. Waiting for opinions on a couple of potential pilots who know people I know. This is how it works ...

[jez d]

Getting drunk and trashing your hotel room 20 years ago, lectures you didn't turn up to that p***d off your lecturer, that course you failed then just dropped from your CV, the affair with the Chief Pilot's wife..... All of it will follow you for the rest of your life.

You have been busy, G :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Darned right.

G

[Piltdown Man]

...I spent condiderable time checking and cross-checking...

Unlike someone who just 'set' and never checked.

[SFI145]

Quote @talkpedlar

'Young man... My task in life involves the selection and recruitment of aircrew for a well-known middle-east airline.'

How sad that you are in a position to downgrade CRM in the Middle East.

[172510]

A question for examiners:

I always check the altitude indication after setting QNH.
As I know the apron elevation, I cannot make a big mistake. But I would not notice a one hPa mistake, as it is to small to be significant.
(eg If actual QNH is 1023.9, the A/G will say 1023, if I set 1024 by mistake, I wont notice the error by checking the altitude indication).

Q1: Would it be a fail at this point?

Aligned on threshold, I always check altitude is in line with threshold elevation before taking off.
Then again, I would not detect a wrong QNH setting of only 1hPa.
Q2: Would it be a fail at this point?
It's only in flight, after my first Freda check, that I would compare QNH set and QNH written on my kneeboard.
Then I would correct it.
Q3: If everything else is ok, would I fail the test?

[truckflyer]

If ATC tells you QNH is 1024, you set 1024, even if the altitude showing is wrong.

Would it not be better that everybody flies with the same QNH, instead of somebody making their own personal rules, and sets 1023, because that gives correct apron elevation.

[Lightning Mate]

This guy is unable to spell and has no command of the (written) English language.

Would YOU fly with a person who questions the judgement of an examiner because said person has failed a test?

If any members of the public or press are reading this, then I invite you to comment.

[rmcb]

This guy is unable to spell and has no command of the (written) English language.

This 'guy' is, therefore, part of a sizeable majority of the UK.

Questioning the judgement of authority is absolutely correct and thwarts tyranny, surely?

While I agree that examiners have the march over pitiful me in terms of experience and judgement, they are not excluded from the human traits that afflict us all at times. Fallibility is one of those traits. This 'guy' is merely exercising the rights provided by the CAA.

His/her reasoning may be questionable, as is his/her public airing before the resolution of his/her grievance, but this doesn't make him/her a bad pilot.

[172510]

Truckflyer:

Maybe I don't write a good English.
So I explain again my point for you:
If ATC tells me 1024 OF COURSE I set 1024.
BUT I might make a mistake and set 1023 instead of 1024. This could happen to you as well.

Then I (and you should too) check my altitude indication and compare with apron elevation.
If the difference is too large, I must question either the QNH setting, and then ask ATC again for the QNH, or question the serviceability of my altimeter if after having checked again with the ATC the error is still too large.
But if the error is within acceptable limits, I will have NO REASON to question my QNH setting.

The next opportunity I will have to check my altimeter setting will be my first check after take off, and then, if I wrote 1024 on first contact, I will correct it. If I wrote 1023, I wont.
So it will only be when the next ATC tells me a QNH, after changing from TWR to the information service, that I will have another opportunity to set the correct QNH.
I think that, in a VFR flight, there is no real safety issue in that case, and that a CPL applicant should not be failed.
You should not expect a pilot never to make mistakes, you should expect a pilot to have a method of work that will permit him to keep his mistakes within acceptable limits, and to correct them at the earliest opportunity.

[truckflyer]

First if you set 1023 instead of 1024, that shows sloppy work and bad airmanship!

If the rules say, wrong QNH settings = Fail, than that is what it means! I guess it is up to the discretion of the examiner to see if you pick up on your mistake fast enough yourself. I would though think if you was flying around with the wrong QNH for over 20 minutes, he would not be happy with you, simply because you should have checked your altimeters QNH setting during this time (FREDA check).

Now there is no excuse that you have not spoken to the ATC, or they haven't told you an update. If you are flying from say Stapleford to Manston, and during this time you pay attention to other ATC traffic, and they suddenly give somebody a QNH of say 1025, for their region, you should be able to deduce from this background chatter on the radio, that you check and change your own QNH.

It is about being ahead of the game and following procedures.

When you go to flight school training, they teach you a set of procedures, that they know the examiners want to see on the tests, as this is a part of the CAA's examination standards!

The pressure altimeter is not going to be 100% reliable, however you would hope and think, that everybody could check first that it is set on the correct setting given by ATC, and not an own invented QNH based on apron elevation. Although this might be a more accurate QNH, is this the way your instructor have thought you, that you disregard ATC's/ATIS information, because you yourself think there is another and better way?

Where will you put the limit? If the QNH is 3mb of limits, but showing correct apron elevation, what would you use?

All make mistakes, however some mistakes are set out in the syllabus as being more serious than others.

I do not for the life of me, see any valid good reason for somebody to set the incorrect QNH with regards to your explanation here.
Why would you while on the ground, not have TIME to make sure your QNH is set correctly, but you will check it when airborne and adjust it??

What you says makes complete nonsense, there is no excuse for making this mistake, before take off the QNH is crosschecked several times, and NO it has NEVER happen to me, that I had incorrect QNH before take off.

QNH checked, altimeters within limits of each other if multiple altimeters, within limits of field elevation, situation over.
Listen to other traffic on radio during take off prep and taxi, and if any changes to QNH, I would change them automatically, without ATC needing to tell me, if in doubt, give them a quick call!

We all do mistakes from time to time, I fully agree, but this example you mention is not a good one!

When flying SEP, VFR you should normally do FREDA checks every 15 minutes, flying around on the wrong QNH just shows laziness or sloppiness in performance!

Your way of thinking on this matter is not logical from what your instructor should have thought you!

[Luke SkyToddler]

The 1023 / 1024 QNH argument is something that can really only be settled by the people who were in the aircraft.

But I really really wish with the benefit of hindsight that me and my wife had had the balls to do what this guy is doing, and sue the examiner post flight test.

My wife is no softie (previous managerial experience in a huge company with 150 staff under her) and having spent quite a few years with her sitting next to me in the airline RHS I can personally vouch for the fact she's a damn good pilot. But back a few years ago when she sat her IR she was understandably nervous on flight test day because the examiner was a notably cranky old chauvinist who was renowned for making derogatory comments about woman pilots in the aero club bar.

On flight test day he called her a "silly girl" in the preflight brief, tore strips off her pretty much the entire flight and absolutely lost his rag on the go-round from the NPA, snatched control off her, informed her she'd failed, and he flew the aircraft back to the home airfield himself in stoney silence.

He started laying into her in the debrief as well, to cut a long story short, he reckoned she had messed up the go-round. She believed she had followed an ATC instruction. She was in tears by that stage but fortunately she was sticking to her guns and insisted they call up the tower and ask to play the tapes. No surprise, she was right and he was wrong - they had specifically told her to make an early turn onto a heading on the go-round, and he had missed hearing the call.

So once he was caught red handed, the old :mad: very graciously agreed she hadn't failed - but he now insisted the test was "incomplete" because she hadn't flown a full go-round (even though HE was the one who had taken control) and so the following weekend she had to go back down there, pay another test fee and aircraft hire, fly all the way to the controlled airfield 45 minutes away, to do one circuit and go-round and fly all the way home again.

That whole episode cost her (us) another two or three thousand quid, for no reason other than the :mad: old :mad: wanted to act the big man and teach the girlie pilot a lesson. We talked and talked about it for a couple of weeks after that but decided it wasn't worth the aggro factor of making a formal complaint or court case - as several other old-boys-network types have pointed out already on this thread, pilot hiring is often done by one old-boy ringing up another old-boy, and shaking their cage can often do more harm than good to one's career prospects. That in itself, is just as wrong as the test result was - the fact that the old boys' network in this business can prevent people from making legitimate complaints and getting people's arses kicked when they really desperately deserve a good kicking.

There's no doubt the majority of CAA examiners are top drawer, fair and conscientious - but there are a couple of rotten apples, and they do essentially maintain their privileged position by virtue of the fact that the CAA is the most well protected, do-what-it-wants-with-no-comeback, old boy's network government department of them all.

[Wirbelsturm]

Enough already.

I hate the current environment where the student makes a mistake, the examiner watches (gives enough rope) to the student to see if a correction is made. When no correction is made the exam is not passed. Wrong says the student 'you can't do that!'.

But no, now the student is always right and the examiner doesn't know what they are doing and therefore the only recourse is to legal action for some dreampt up reason such as 'defamation'.

You screwed up the test, the CAA were, IMHO, gracious enough to waive the re-test fees. The examiner treated you how they felt you required to be treated on the day. Flying around with the wrong QNH, irrespective of parallax, which I personally think is a weak excuse, is a fail. Pure simple.

The world and the job owe you nothing, far, far better people have made mistakes, taken it on the chin and got on with it. What makes you so special.

Take responsibility for your own actions, the 'defamation' for failing a CPL check ride will be nothing next to the damage your reputation will take for taking the CAA to court over this childish tantrum. The aviation world is very small from a professional point of view and names get very well known. The airlines all talk to the CAA and such stupid cases are often a talking point over a coffee or around the water fountain. Just a word of caution you understand.

Unless you can categorically prove, as in Luke Skytoddlers case, that you set the correct QNH and not the wrong one then the Examiner is in the right and you are in the wrong. Unfortunately for you there is no external agency that can confirm you set the correct altimeter setting therefore you are in the wrong.

Welcome to life.

:ugh:

P.S. Please don't ever try an I.R. :E

[rmcb]

Is the outrage here down to the idea that authority has been questioned or the OP has a weird concept of defamation?

[Wirbelsturm]

Is the outrage here down to the idea that authority has been questioned or the OP has a weird concept of defamation?

As a former instructor/examiner (not I might add for the CAA) I am well aware that everyone, myself included, makes mistakes. Personally I would watch to see if the mistakes made were self corrected. Might I suggest that correct flight following techniques as discussed above should have settled any altimeter setting discrepancies. Some examiners are more pedantic than others but that is just the nature of the game I'm afraid.

We are also all aware that poling the aircraft around the sky is not the most demanding aspect of a skill test. The ability to be aware of your position in the 3d space and the ability to maintain a high level of situational awareness with respect to other GA/OA traffic is also paramount. The mis-setting of an altimeter is, IMHO, irrelevant. What is relevant is that the setting was never checked again during the flight.

The examiner in this case had his reasons not to pass the student and, regardless of debriefing technique, those reasons must have been communicated back to the CAA on the relevant forms and the student as to the reason why they didn't pass. End of story. Unless there was a blindingly obvious reason to question the decision ( i.e. Luke Skytoddlers tale where a mistake was obviously made) then get on with the re-test. There is no 'shame' and, in my experience, an employer will perhaps ask why you needed to re-test but that's about it. They certainly will ask why a student felt it necessary to sue the CAA and that would put me on guard as to the suitability of the person in front of me.

We live in a time where many people think they have a right to sue for whatever reason they feel necessary. In some cases justified, in this case not.

[rmcb]

I think the OP has gone above and beyond with his/her claim and that legal action is going to cost. He/she seems to be doing the level best to travel the self defamation route...

BUT - why did the examiner allow the whole test to be completed, when at the first available moment in section II the opportunity was available to mitigate to partial was missed? I think this is where the CAA said fair do's.

There is, however, a worrying trend of '...examiner is always right, pipsqueak' coming out in this thread. If the examiner isn't man/woman enough to accept criticism (and then, hopefully, shoot it down in flames with their superior knowledge), should they be examiners? We haven't knowingly heard from the examiner in this case - it might be so!

[Slopey]

If the setting was wrong throughout the entire flight, and it wasn't subsequently adjusted due to a change in pressure or flight through a different asr, why didn't the OP simply invite the examiner back out to the aircraft to visually check the subscale setting to confirm what it was actually set to?

[BitMoreRightRudder]

[QUOTE]BUT - why did the examiner allow the whole test to be completed, when at the first available moment in section II the opportunity was available to mitigate to partial was missed? I think this is where the CAA said fair do's.

There is, however, a worrying trend of '...examiner is always right, pipsqueak' coming out in this thread. If the examiner isn't man/woman enough to accept criticism (and then, hopefully, shoot it down in flames with their superior knowledge), should they be examiners?/QUOTE]

It's a fair point but I think Wirbelsturm has clarified the likely reason for failure of the test in the examiners mind - not checking the correct sub-scale for the whole of the flight. And the trend in the answers on this thread I would agree supports the examiner in his decision but not to the extremes of "the examiner is always right." Clearly the concern for many is the attitude and false sense of entitlement displayed by the OP and his misguided decision to pursue the CAA through the courts.

The examiner most likely decided that in light of the OP's self claimed "excellent flying" there was value in allowing him to complete the test, probably in the hope that the altimetry error would be (very belatedly) spotted at some point. As a result the CAA have agreed a free re-test, but that does not mean the examiner was incorrect to allow the test to be flown to completion.

As he hasn't received the response he was probably looking for I doubt cookiemonster is still reading this thread but comments like "I never back down from a fight, even in the pub" and "a little thing like mis-setting the QNH" do him no favours. I'm fairly certain anyone involved in selection for any type of commercial flying enterprise will agree!

[Gentle Climb]

In my IR, heading down the ILS as Bournemouth, the headwind gusted strongly and the glideslope indicator dropped down to half scale deviation. Obviously parallax error made it look to the examiner that it was out of limits but it wasn't and I will fight anyone who says that it was. I'm going to sue the Examiner, Aircraft manufacturer, Instrument manufacturer and the CAA because it cost me a fortune and I need to blame somebody...

Get a grip!

Examiners look very carefully at certain items. I remember mine, leaning over a couple of times to check at certain stage of the flight. They won't guess!

You will have had ample opportunity to demonstrate that you had the right qnh set. What did you write down for your initial atis, what did you set on standby, what checks did you make in the air, what qnh did you get and set for your approach and what for your return? Did you SAY IT OUT LOUD?

'You never back down from a fight'...right, Ok, in that case you should be prepared to take one on the chin.:ugh::ugh:

[truckflyer]

"never back down from a fight"

Seem the OP has backed down from PPRUNE, as he has not updated any information of what happen, very sparse information given by OP! Probably saving the info for his "big day in court"

[CABUS]

I don't normally make harsh comment on prune as I don't believe it helps anyone involved BUT on this instance I make an exception.

Maybe he failed you because you were just a bit s:mad:T and that almighty :mad: up seems like as good excuse as any!

Couple of points.
If you had the incorrect mb set on both altimeters, which are going to be in different positions, that kind of rules out parallax. You probably busted your MDA to.

I would imagine you were passable but just needed a bit of extra work and if you busted the mda due to having the incorrect pressure set and cross checked on the main and stby altimeter, that's a big mistake to miss and defiantly a just fail! The examiner with more experience and much more mental capacity was probably sat there checking the altimeters out from all angles for quite sometime while watching you sweat bouncing around the hold as I'm sure he has heard of parallax error.

Just chill and moven on.

Taking legal action against the CAA, grow up!

[rmcb]

He/she was doing a VFR, SE CPL LST.

[redsnail]

Methinks he/she was a troll. :=

[rmcb]

You think? Whoever it was has certainly rubbed a few raw nerves on both sides of the fence!

[clunk1001]

We don't have all the information, but consider for a moment if the examiner has made an error in the conduct of the test which leaves the 'fail' result tenuous.

Putting the issue of costs (and any bruised ego) aside for a moment, cookiimonstar1 is going to spend the next few years filling out airline applications for his first job, and he will be ticking the "Yes" box to the question "Have you ever failed a flight test?". He will be excluded from any airline selection process which only accept a first series pass (why else is the box there but to act as a filter for the thousands of applications).

I know from personal experience it's on nearly every application for cadet positions, that box is a sore point for me and I royally screwed up my flight test entirely on my own, without any help from an examiner :).

So I can understand why he doesn't want to 'take it on the chin'.


Unfortunately I think the way he has presented himself in this thread suggests a failed CPL test is going to be the least of his worries in the future.:uhoh:

[Evanelpus]

Putting the issue of costs (and any bruised ego) aside for a moment, cookiimonstar1 is going to spend the next few years filling out airline applications for his first job, and he will be ticking the "Yes" box to the question "Have you ever failed a flight test?". He will be excluded from any airline selection process which only accept a first series pass (why else is the box there but to act as a filter for the thousands of applications).

Win or lose the case against the CAA, it aint goint to change the fact that he failed his first flight test. What's he going to put, "Yes but under appeal"?

As someone else has already said, the course of action he plans to undertake may stick to him like s**t on a blanket and if he tries to explain to a potential employer what happened the way he has here, he won't stand a chance.