Examiner rotation

[galleypower]

Hi, Does anyone know if JAR knows of any regulation in regards to how often an examiner might take an LPC or OPC of the same applicant (not repetitions, just regular checks occurring ever 6 resp. 12 months)? Or is this regulated by each CAA individually?

[Whopity]

There is nothing to prevent this. The UK CAA recommends that a FI should not revalidate with the same examiner on more than 3 consecutive occasions.

[FormationFlyer]

You have me curious. Is there any where this recommendation is made? I cannot find it in my examiner's handbook nor the standards docs. I'm not doubting you - just would like a reference. Ta.

[Whopity]

Is there any where this recommendation is made?

No, Its one of those things I remember from a few years ago when it used to be applied. I have looked but can't find it either. It originally appeared in a Letter or Standards Document but may well have simply evaporated. It was certainly pre Examiner Handbook.

[Captain Jock]

I think you will find the recommendation you are referring to in Standards Document 10v5 dated January 2009. See Para 2.4

[FormationFlyer]

Got it. Cheers.

My reading of it implies that this could be an SEP LPC/LST, FI reval etc - any flight test - even an FE reauth as well.

Its interesting because I also seem to see that that says I shouldn't do any more than a PPL Skills test, an IMC test and then say an SEP LPC with the same pilot.

Is that what you all interpret that to mean?

[FormationFlyer]

Just as a thought that could be quite hard for seaplanes, depending on availability given there is what... about 4 examiners that I know of in the UK! I guess this is where written permission from the CAA may be required...

[mrmum]

FF

I would interpret that phrase at the end of para 2.4 as applying to FI tests only, as stds doc 10 is specifically titled:

10(A) & Supplement JAR-FCL Guidance for: Instructors, Authorised Flight Instructor Course Providers (FIC) and Authorised Flight Instructor Examiners (FIE). (Aeroplanes)

Therefore, it wouldn't apply to SEP LST/LPCs, IMCr renewals, NPPL NST/GSTs, FE reauthorisations, or for that matter, any MEP or seaplane ratings, even IRs.

I've had a quick look through the other stds docs and can't find it mentioned anywhere else, don't have my examiner's handbook readily available at the moment, so haven't checked that.

[FormationFlyer]

Now you see that was my first interpretation, as it isn't generally under guidance for examiners such as the other standards docs, nor is it in the examiners handbook. However, it was the wording...

In any event, no examiner
should conduct more than 3 sequential tests of any kind with one applicant whether successful or not.

I cannot see why they used the phrase 'of any kind'?

[mrmum]

Indeed, there are bits of phraseology in Section 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, Examiners, which appear to be quite general in their application, and could be regarded as being relevant to any flight test. I can't offer a good explanation for their choice of words with regard to;

of any kind

could just be ineptness?

However, regardless of that, stds doc 10 as we've said is particularly for FI tests, so whatever is written within it is only applicable to that. So, I think I'll stick with my first interpretation.

The other point to note of course, is that they use the word SHOULD not SHALL;

no examiner should

so it's not mandatory anyway.

[BillieBob]

so it's not mandatory anyway

Nothing in any Standards Document is mandatory (unless it is copied from the ANO, JAR-FCL, etc). Standards Documents provide guidance in how to comply with legislation/requirements, etc.

[FormationFlyer]

Cheers folks. Its made me chuckle this AM!