PDA

View Full Version : Examiner Testing Own Student


S-Works
25th Sep 2014, 20:42
Could someone help out with a reference that prevents or oermits an examiner testing there own student for the issue of an EASA PPL(A)?

Student has done training for a conversion from an ICAO licence for a PPL with an Instructor who is also an examiner and then subsequently done the skill test with them.

Permissable or not?

Whopity
25th Sep 2014, 20:49
Regulation 1178 FCL.1005FCL.1005 Limitation of privileges in case of vested interests
Examiners shall not conduct:
(a) skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate:
(1) to whom they have provided flight instruction for the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test or assessment of competence is being taken; or
(2) when they have been responsible for the recommendation for the skill test, in accordance with FCL.030(b);
(b) skill tests, proficiency checks or assessments of competence whenever they feel that their objectivity may be affected.

S-Works
25th Sep 2014, 21:01
Thanks whoppity. Just what i was after.

condor17
1st Oct 2014, 19:04
Hi guys , can't provide a quote ...but have I heard that it's changing and examiners can do up to 25% of candidates training ?

rgds quoteless condor .

cyclic flare
1st Oct 2014, 19:43
Many moons ago you could train and examine not sure when it changed cause I'm not an examiner but certainly in the late 90's it was ok

OhNoCB
1st Oct 2014, 21:36
I think you can get an exemption though can't you, for circumstance? When I was doing my IMC rating (as it was) after my PPL, the only instructor qualified to teach it was also the only examiner. I believe he was also the only (known) examiner in the region aside from those employed by airlines who weren't interested in doing it. Therefore he did both my training and exam, which the CAA took no issue with.

Whopity
1st Oct 2014, 22:19
I think you can get an exemption though can't youNo! FCL.1005 is EU Law.

IMC is a National rating and is not subject to EU Law, there is nothing to prohibit an Examiner training and testing an IMC candidate apart from "good practice".

OhNoCB
2nd Oct 2014, 10:00
I stand corrected. The fact that as a national rating it wasn't subject to the EU law had completely escaped me!

BEagle
2nd Oct 2014, 10:10
This is one of the latest EASA proposals for amending the Aircrew Regulation:

Examiners shall not conduct:

(a) skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate:

(1) to whom they have provided more than 25% of the required flight instruction for the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test or assessment of competence is being taken

However, this depends on a forthcoming EC vote and it is NOT guaranteed that it will definitely be adopted.

Whopity
2nd Oct 2014, 11:22
Looks familiar!

Mach Jump
2nd Oct 2014, 11:50
If this is voted in, will it then apply to national licences and ratings like the NPPL and IMC?


MJ:ok:

Whopity
2nd Oct 2014, 12:10
No, because they are outwith the EASA regulation.

Level Attitude
2nd Oct 2014, 18:15
IMC is a National rating and is not subject to EU Law, there is nothing to prohibit an Examiner training and testing an IMC candidate apart from "good practice".Whopity - You are wrong.

It is the UK CAA that authorises Examiners and Examiners have to abide by the limits of that authorisation. In September 2012 the UK CAA aligned the requirements for the testing for National Licences/Ratings to match those of EASA.

Standards Document 21v2 August 2013
Section 1.2 Page 6
"Examiners are certified by the CAA ........... The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"
= No Testing of own students.

Flight Examiners Handbook July 2014
Supplement 2 - National Licences and Ratings
Section 6.1
"Except for Microlights Examiners shall not test applicants to whom they have given instruction"

Whopity
2nd Oct 2014, 19:12
The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"
= No Testing of own students.Correct, if the Licence Rating or Certificate is subject to EU Regulation. An IMC rating is NOT!

Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law.

ifitaintboeing
2nd Oct 2014, 19:30
Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law.

Indeed. The FEH is INCORRECT in this respect. Whilst it is preferable to use an examiner who has had no involvement in training the candidate for a NPPL, NPPL class rating, or IMC rating it is not a requirement.

ifitaint...

Mach Jump
2nd Oct 2014, 21:15
Whopity, Ifitaint.

Yep. That's my understanding of the present situation as well.


MJ:ok:

BEagle
3rd Oct 2014, 06:50
ifitaintboeing, indeed you are entirely correct.

When we created the NPPL, it was a specific requirement that the pre-JAR UK situation regarding examiners would apply. In other words, although 'best practice' should mean that normally an examiner wouldn't test an applicant with whom he/she had done a lot of flying, there was no such legal restriction.

When I saw the error, I informed the relevant person at the CAA. However, he elected to include this CAA gold plating in the FEH.....:rolleyes:

Level Attitude
3rd Oct 2014, 11:08
When I saw the error, I informed the relevant person at the CAA. However, he elected to include this CAA gold plating in the FEH.....Who says it was an error and not what the CAA intended?

Why do you say it is it 'gold plating' if it is only a suggestion or a recommendation and not a requirement?

Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in lawPlease quote the law that says Examiners have to be certified by the UK CAA in order to conduct flight tests for UK National Licences or Ratings - but that they do not have to comply with the requirements or guidance promulgated by the UK CAA.

"Examiners are certified by the CAA ........... The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"Standards Doc 21 does not say that the privileges and requirements of CAA certified Examiners changes depending on which (National or EASA) Licence or Rating is being tested.

This would be a nonsense with different requirements being applied to an IR student/test candidate (for example) depending on whether they held only a UK National Licence or only a Part-FCL Licence.

Level Attitude
8th Oct 2014, 02:43
Both Standards Doc 21 and the FEH are guidance documents and have no status in law.I asked that the law be quoted that shows that the requirements listed in the above documents could be ignored for UK National Licences and Ratings.

Unsurprisingly no one has, because it is not possible. In fact the law confirms the requirements:


CAP393 ANO 2014

PART 7 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING – GRANT OF LICENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF PRIVILEGES
Grant, renewal and privileges of United Kingdom flight crew licences (NPPL, UK PPL, etc)
64 (9) The CAA may grant a licence subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. Which would include who might conduct an initial test
Ratings and qualifications (IMC, etc)
65 (6) The CAA may grant a rating or qualification subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. Which would include who might conduct an initial test

SCHEDULE 7 Articles 64 to 71 and 78
Flight crew of aircraft – licences, ratings, qualifications and maintenance of licence Privileges
Certificate of test
2 A certificate of test required by article 66(2), 68(1) or 69(2) must be signed by a person authorised by the CAA to sign certificates of this kind and certify the following: An Examiner is authorised by the CAA to sign certificates and to conduct Skill Tests

PART 31 POWERS AND PENALTIES
Certificates, authorisations, approvals and permissions
245 Wherever in this Order there is provision for the issue or grant of a certificate, authorisation, approval or permission by the CAA, unless otherwise provided, such a certificate, authorisation, approval or permission:
(b) may be issued or granted subject to such conditions as the CAA thinks fit
So: The CAA is perfectly entitled to impose conditions on Examiners for National Licences or RatingsThe CAA is empowered, in law, to impose conditions on Examiner authorisations and it has promulgated via multiple routes that (for simplicity if nothing else) all Examiners' privileges and requirements (for whatever Licence or Rating) shall be as set out in Part-FCL. To avoid any doubt the CAA also specifically stated, in the last two FEHs, that Examiners could not test candidates for initial issues of National Licences or Ratings if they had been involved in their training.

All UK Examiner certificates are linked to Part-FCL, either directly or via the ANO.
Which also means that if Part-FCL changes (as per condor17 Post 4) then any relaxation will instantly apply for National testing as well.

I look forward to having it explained to me why CAP393 does not apply to National Licences or Ratings; or how I have misunderstood it..............:rolleyes:

Whopity
8th Oct 2014, 08:21
Which would include who might conduct an initial test then you state:Which also means that if Part-FCL changes (as per condor17 Post 4) then any relaxation will instantly apply for National testing as well.
So as Part FCL only specifies that certain tests are to be conducted by nominated Examiners, them the CAA must be acting illegally in respect of the others!

It has always been the case that the CAA shall issue licences and ratings as it thinks fit; This refers largely to administrative procedures and experience requirements. The CAA are not entitled to make or change laws; they may assist government in the process. To limit an Examiner's privileges requires more than a note in a variety of guidance or information documents. To change the status quo they will need to conduct a regulatory impact assessment, provide a safety case and make appropriate recomendations to government, none of which has been done because it is an expensive and lengthy process with no safety case to justify it.

Note also in CAP 393
Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Published for the use of those concerned with
air navigation, but not to be treated as authoritative
(see Foreword)
CAP 393

BEagle
8th Oct 2014, 09:56
Whopity, quite so! I had a discussion with the drafter of the previous version of the FEH about the NPPL 'testing own student' situation and reminded him that this had been agreed by the CAA's previous Head of Licensing during NPPL P&SC deliberations.

The situation is as ifitaintboeing summarised; the CAA have been asked on more than one occasion to correct their documents, but as yet have failed to do so.

Level Attitude may bluster about this as much as he/she desires, but his/her individual interpretation is fundamentally incorrect.

Level Attitude
9th Oct 2014, 18:29
So as Part FCL only specifies that certain tests are to be conducted by nominated Examiners, them the CAA must be acting illegally in respect of the others!The designation of Examiners (for PPL Tests) was first discussed on PPRuNE as my first Post. It is a ridiculous requirement, which was not needed or supported by any safety case/study. Representations have been made to the CAA about this over the years but they have not rescinded the requirement only "improved" the administration of it.

However, my understanding is that, those applicants who have been tested without prior agreement by the CAA have had their applications rejected.
Have any of these successfully challenged that decision?

In any case the "Designation of Examiners" is in Part-ARA, not Part-FCL; and certainly not in Part-FCL Subpart-K to which Standards Doc 21 refers.

Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Published for the use of those concerned with
air navigation, but not to be treated as authoritative
(see Foreword)
CAP 393Seriously? That's your argument? So you don't ever use or refer to CAP393 then?

CAP393
It has been prepared for those concerned with day to day matters relating to Air Navigation who require an up to date version of the Orders and the Regulations mentioned above.

It is edited by the Legal Adviser’s Department of the Civil Aviation Authority. Courts of Law will however refer only to the Queen’s Printer’s Edition of Statutory Instruments.I don't have a copy of the Queen's Printer's Edition, do you? Is it different?
CAP393 is a copy of (or parts of) the Statutory Instrument. It is definitive unless an error was made in copying.

To limit an Examiner's privileges requires more than a note...Have they limited Examiner privileges? Prior to EASA Examiners could not Test their own students unless the CAA had agreed to this, in writing, beforehand. Although they rarely did, they could refuse such permission and now they are simply saying they will always refuse.

Everyone seems to agree that it is 'Best Practice' for an Examiner not to Test their own student - but that no training at all (ie a Trial Lesson 4 years ago) is a bit excessive. I welcome the possibility of this being amended though, to prevent coaching, I personally do not think an Examiner should Test a candidate for initial issue if they have given any of that candidate's training during the month immediately prior to Test.

In CAP393, where equivalence exists, all Ratings (including Instructor Ratings) are aligned with Part-FCL. It would seem logical to assume that all Examiner Certificates are similarly aligned. The only place I can find any reference to Examiner requirements is in Part-FCL (I'm thinking this is because UK Examiner Certificates will now only be issued to Part-FCL Licence Holders).
However, I re-iterate, please provide (what you consider) an authoritative reference that outlines the privileges and requirements of UK Examiner Certificate holders in respect of Testing for UK National Licences/Ratings.

the CAA have been asked on more than one occasion to correct their documents, but as yet have failed to do so.That they have not done so is rather telling....

- I totally agree that the CAA did not have to align National requirements with those of EASA.
- Because it simplifies everything I think, maybe, they did intend to align National requirements with those of EASA.
- Whether intentional or not, the requirements are there and should be followed unless, and until, rescinded.
Since Examiners have to attend Standardisation Courses it is a bit much to say that Standards Document 21 does not apply in its entirety, but that Examiners may pick and choose which bits to apply.

Level Attitude may bluster about this as much as he/she desires, but his/her individual interpretation is fundamentally incorrect.Love this!

Level Attitude:
The CAA are the Competent Aviation Authority in the UK for both EASA and National Licencing purposes.
The CAA issue Examiner Certificates to UK Licence Holders which authorise the holders of such certificates to conduct Tests.
The CAA may impose conditions (CAP393) on such Certificates or Authorisations.
The CAA have promulgated, unambiguously, in writing via various sources that a UK Examiner may not Test a candidate for initial issue of a UK Licence or Rating if that Examiner has been involved in training that candidate.
Unless, and until, that condition is rescinded in writing Examiners are required to abide by it.
or
BEagle:
The CAA were told (by me?) that they were not legally required to implement the EASA 'No Testing of Own Student' rule for National Licences or Ratings.
They implemented it anyway and promulgated this in writing. But I am sure this was a mistake.
They have been told (by me?) many times over the last two years that they should not have implemented this requirement and should rescind it.
They have not done so. Instead they keep issuing more up-to-date documents with exactly the same requirement still listed.
It is a shame that they haven't acted upon my previous requests but I will keep on asking and I am sure they will, eventually, rescind this requirement.
I don't agree this requirement should ever have been put in place and I am sure it will be removed eventually.
Therefore, even though it is the UK CAA that authorises Examiners, Examiners should ignore the CAA's stated requirements in this particular instance because I believe they are wrong (even though I haven't managed to convince them of this in two years of trying).

I will let others decide who was 'blustering'.


I sense that this debate will not end unless the CAA put out a specific notice either confirming this requirement (and some will still argue), or countermanding their previous written statements on the subject.

More likely is that EASA does get amended to allow Examiners to Test candidates to whom they have given some instruction and the CAA will follow suit for National Licences.

I will then point out that they are simply following their, already published, Stnds Doc 21, whereas BEagle will claim victory in his long quest to get the CAA to "correct their mistake".

BEagle
9th Oct 2014, 20:21
Feeling better now?


:rolleyes:

ifitaintboeing
17th Oct 2014, 06:41
The situation is as ifitaintboeing summarised; the CAA have been asked on more than one occasion to correct their documents, but as yet have failed to do so.

New version of FEH due out soon. ;)

ifitaint...

pembroke
1st Dec 2014, 07:11
Latest amendment to the 2014 FEH, Supplement 2, "National licences and ratings", Para 6.1 now allows an FE to instruct and test for a national rating, albeit "not best aviation practice". (about which I strongly agree)