Designation of Examiners
 

I am surprised that comment has not yet been made on CAA Information
NoticeIN-2012/156 v1 issued on 26 Sept, closely followed by v2 on 08 October.

Have all Examiners ensured that any ATOs whose students they might test have their details AND have notified them to CAA?

Outside of ATOs - Is everyone happy with the precise detail required in the
"Permission to Test" emails?

Seemingly NO flexibility allowed to take in to account Wx or aircraft servicibilty.
Will need to submit another request to test - which would not get a reply very
rapidly (particularly over a weekend).

Managing a Candidate's stress (not to mention the Examiner's) just
got harder!

There seems to be a state of shock in the examiners in my area.Most seem to be inactive at present waiting to see the way it all pans out.I think a few in spite of all the publicity some examiners are not fully aware of the enormity of the changes already upon us.Most of my activity in the past has been revalidation/renewal of existing ratings for members of my (non profit making)club on an no charge basis.I am only willing to revalidate on experience at the present in spite of having carried out the EASA (and passed) the adobe examiner training and studied the FEH I am unsure of the necessary procedures to conduct flying tests.I do not intend to increase my activity to include many initials the legal liability threatened by the CAA in their training and the lack of CAA support for examiners is a major deterrence.I anticipate a major shortage of examiners especially given the disestablishment of all the "R" examiners.Given the cost and complexity of maintaining examiner staus versus the hassle and potential legal liability of examining, the renewal decision next time is looking very clear.VBR Stampe

More to the point, RFs who have been told that they can continue as before until April 2015, have submitted lists of examiners however; it would appear from Version 2 that this procedure is only available to ATOs (Para 2.1.4) there is no such provision for RFs!

Every PPL skill test will therefore be subject to email notification which virtually eliminates all testing at weekends bank holidays etc.

F**k that.

Well it looks to me like a lot of this will be got round by the alternate procedure para 2.1.4, if I read this correctly the ATO basically applies for a permission with its examiners listed, does the tests and then sends in a return once a month - not, I would have thought, that onerous.
Even with the "normal" way of doing it, there is nothing to say how long the test will last, so put down 0900 as the start time (or whatever time suits) and do the briefing, that has started the test, if there are wx or tech problems, you are then merely having a break between the different elements of the test and should be OK for at least the rest of that day, don't see why you could not put in two emails anyway if doing it at the w/e, one for the Saturday and a back up for the Sunday.

This transition has been a bit of a mess:

• Very poor notice about the new FEH handbook
• Very poor notice about the new forms form Licence/Ratings applications, and Examiner froms
• Some of the new forms are write protected and need to be downloaded and then photo-copied
• Practicality of having FE nominated, particularly in the private licensing side

I think the CAA is lumbered with FE nomination by EASA. A way to approach this (at least for now) for RFs is nominate a date block (say a two week period to allow for weather etc) and see what happens. I think the Authority will see the nonsense of this procedure and will find a more sensible solution, possibly the same as for ATOs.
Finally, using the new online forms is causing a massive increase in paper and costs. More unnecessary bureaucracy and costs for absoulutely no added value or flight safety. Lastly, the new requirement for an Examiner seminar may well be a driver for FEs to say enough is enough.

Hi

How many examiners new about this? who did it? was it worth while?

seeing that the link is now closed is the CAA going to re open it?

https://events-emea1.adobeconnect.co...-id=1087275341

i found out about this by accident, i am obviously missing something.

:ugh::ugh:

We had an initial PPL test go ahead earlier this month. The examiner merely sent the email with date and time stated as: "To be decided"

Approval email came back in less than nine hours......

Spoke to an inspector in Flight Crew Standards the 16th Oct trying to get answers to a number of questions, one of which being the issue of wx delaying a test.

The answer was that as long as approval has been granted for the test, the CAA will not be concerned if the test is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the candidate and/or the examiner!

Whether that is official policy is another matter - could just be a means of getting me off the phone.

You know, it really does make you want to capitulate. I'm lucky in that I work in an ATO and someone else is doing all this nonsense.

Don't even get me started on the various 1119s etc......................:(

Latest I heard is that Flightcrew Standards has confirmed that IN-2012/156 also applies to RFs even though it fails to say so.

Version 3 out today...

No mention of RFs though.

I can't see this being workable

Seen in a letter from Flightcrew Standards Even that is badly worded as as RFs don't train licence holders!

ARA.FCL.205(c) merely states:

It is purely CAA gold plating which has resulted in their cumbersome procedure, which is totally unsuitable for PPL purposes. How many Clubs know in advance which aircraft they will be using for a Skill Test, for example? Will Examiners receive replies on Sundays? What if the Club doesn't have e-mail facilities?

All the CAA has to do is to require that a list of PPL Examiners conducting tests at a Club is kept up to date. Which is what was supposed to happen under JAR-FCL, but hardly anyone bothered.

This is typical of the disproportionate banana curvature specification level of €urocr@p coming out of Köln - and something about which the GA Task Force needs to be aware!

There's that word again Competent!:ugh:

One could argue that by giving a person an Examiner Certificate you have designated them as a person to conduct such tests. What other parameters would you then use to deny them that privilege? In so doing you would be saying that having granted a privilege you then don't trust them to carry it out!

Logic would imply we can ignore all this rubbish as the authority is demonstrably not competent.

Spot on Whopity over the years the CAA have shown an intense dislike for giving the individaual authority for any action.They much prefer to deal with the "body corporate" even if that organisation is a sole trader as many RTFs have been.For many years the commercial pilots license has been emasculated requiring AOCs etc. and now Instructors are effectively barred from instructing without an ATO to front for them.Provides another tier of lucrative regulation for the CAA.I,m sure EASA will be horrified at the CAAs poorly communicated interpretation and inept bureaucratic delivery of of their regulations.Time to start writing to our MPs both Westminster and European.VBR Stampe

It is interesting that JAR encouraged the independent examiner and enabled a candidate to take their test outside of the training organisation if they so wished. The new rules have closed that door forcing examining back into the organisation that does the training, a very unhealthy state of affairs that will play into the hands of the unscrupulous whilst discouraging the conscientious independent instructor/examiner. In safety and administrative terms, Nil Points!