Where do you go after a failed CPL exam appeal to CASA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 45
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you go after a failed CPL exam appeal to CASA?
Hey Guys,
I've sent of an appeal to CASA and they rejected it once. The first email I sent it was pretty slack, it just mentioned the regulation that I was following and didn't really offer any insight in to my decision.
I've just sent off my second email to them. It contains an in depth explanation, with my reasoning as to why I gave the answer that I did. I also supported my explanation with the CAR's.
I don't imagine that CASA would want to give me the point since it would almost be like them admitting that they were wrong (like most organisations they are unlikely to want to admit fault).
If they don't come to the party is there any where else I can go? Surely they're not the be all and end all. To add to the frustration they won't explain themselves, they just say "No" and leave you in the dark. It's like they don't have to justify their reasons and it frustrates the hell out of me! How can you debate a point when the other side can hide behind their iron curtain?!
That's the end of my rant but any advice would be much appreciated!
I've sent of an appeal to CASA and they rejected it once. The first email I sent it was pretty slack, it just mentioned the regulation that I was following and didn't really offer any insight in to my decision.
I've just sent off my second email to them. It contains an in depth explanation, with my reasoning as to why I gave the answer that I did. I also supported my explanation with the CAR's.
I don't imagine that CASA would want to give me the point since it would almost be like them admitting that they were wrong (like most organisations they are unlikely to want to admit fault).
If they don't come to the party is there any where else I can go? Surely they're not the be all and end all. To add to the frustration they won't explain themselves, they just say "No" and leave you in the dark. It's like they don't have to justify their reasons and it frustrates the hell out of me! How can you debate a point when the other side can hide behind their iron curtain?!
That's the end of my rant but any advice would be much appreciated!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to go if CASA do not rule in your favour, I'm not so sure.
However, if you feel you have been treated unfairly, or CASA haven't justified themselves in your ruling, The Indutry Complaints Commissioner is a good place to air your concerns.
Unfortunately, I've had to raise my case with them once before, within 2 days of the complaint, my problem was rectified. So definitely worth a go.
About CASA - CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner
However, if you feel you have been treated unfairly, or CASA haven't justified themselves in your ruling, The Indutry Complaints Commissioner is a good place to air your concerns.
Unfortunately, I've had to raise my case with them once before, within 2 days of the complaint, my problem was rectified. So definitely worth a go.
About CASA - CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: australia
Age: 34
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have actually had Casa ( DCA maybe DOT ) review an engineering exam wayback and i didnt ask for it , they came up with a pass for several of us , apparently someone requested it because we did so bad , they had mixed up the marking sheets . I have requested a remark for some flying exams and was given the same reply as you . Back to the books i,m afraid their is several correct answer but only one really correct .Remember there is always light at the end of the tunnel but first you have to find the tunnel . Good Luck
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It might be an idea to wait for a reply to your second email! In general if you quote an applicable CAO, CAR, or part of the act, you will probably get a favourable result.
If not, you might try the 'Commonwealth Ombudsman', or an Aviation Solicitor. I don't know how much help they would be, but CASA may back down if threatened with legal action, just be sure first that your interpretation is correct!
PS: Wanna give us a hint what it was about?
If not, you might try the 'Commonwealth Ombudsman', or an Aviation Solicitor. I don't know how much help they would be, but CASA may back down if threatened with legal action, just be sure first that your interpretation is correct!
PS: Wanna give us a hint what it was about?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 45
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point about shedding some light with the question/answers involved.
It was my CPL Law exam and here is some more info
The question was about a blind or def guy with his dog on the plane. Following are the two answers you had to choose from as usual the other two were pretty stupid and I don't even recall what they were.
"The dog should be restrained in the passenger cabin". or "The dog should be placed in a container in the cargo area".
When looking over the options I read over CAR 256A (2) Which states:
Subregulation (1) does not apply to the dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:
(a) carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft; and
(b) placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable; and
(c) restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.
Subregulation (1) states:
Subject to subregulation (8), the operator of an aircraft may permit a life animal to be in the aircraft only if:
(a) the animal is in a conatiner and is carried in accordance with this regulation; or
(b)the animal is carried with the written permission of CASA and in accordance with any conditions specified in the permissions.
Subregulation (5) A container in which an animal is kept must not be in the passenger cabin of an aircraft.
So I wrote an email to them and finished with the following:
"In all fairness it is unlikely that you would be able to specify all of those details down to every last detail however since point (b) and point (c) are both focused on the "moisture-absorbent mat" and there was no mention of the mat in any of the answers I felt that subregulation (2) was in no way fulfilled.
Once again to be clear the requirements of subregulation (2) were not met, when the subregulation specifically says that subregulation (1) does not apply "if the dog is:" and then lists 3 requirements point (a) (b) and (c)....Yes, point (a) was covered, point (b) was not covered at all and point (c) was half covered however with no mention of the mat.
I'm sure if I were flying a blind PAX and his dog from Ayers Rock to Darwin and upon arrival at Darwin a CASA representative were to find my blind PAX and his dog in the back of my aircraft with urine and faeces all over the cabin floor (according to Dr Tami M Hawes it is natural for a dog to defecate when stressed) with no moisture absorbent mat I would be penalise for such an incident. Given that most humans are stressed by travel in light aircraft it is highly likely that a dog would be to, which is why one would assume subregulation (2) is so specific with regard to the moisture-absorbent mat (for passenger and cabin crew health and safety).
It is obvious that this question and the answers were placed there to try and trip up the candidate that is unaware of the other subregulations of regulation 256A. However it seems that I have been penalised for following the laws as specified in the Civil Aviation Regulations. Having made the same decision that CASA would expect me to make in a real world situation. I don't see how you can expect a pilot to give one answer in an exam and then interpret the law differently when flying.
As you would be well aware we are not lawyers and this email is probably not the strongest argument that can be put forward. Had I wanted to become a lawyer and spend the rest of my life twisting, interpreting and reading laws in a way that suited me or my client I would have pursued a law degree.
I have followed the laws as given and in a way that would avoid any fines or potential conflicts in a real world situation (which I would assume is the purpose to these exams, to see that a pilot can understand how to operate once he/she has attained a Commercial Pilots Licence) and I would expect that to be recognised.
This was a calculated response and when I saw that I had been penalised for it I was shocked when I'm sure I was one of the few people that spent the time to fully understand and interpret the question."
Thanks for your advice so far. I'm sure they just hope that one would give up before getting a lawyer and you have to start looking at costs etc. All too often it's the ones that are willing to spend the time, effort and money complaining that win!
It was my CPL Law exam and here is some more info
The question was about a blind or def guy with his dog on the plane. Following are the two answers you had to choose from as usual the other two were pretty stupid and I don't even recall what they were.
"The dog should be restrained in the passenger cabin". or "The dog should be placed in a container in the cargo area".
When looking over the options I read over CAR 256A (2) Which states:
Subregulation (1) does not apply to the dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:
(a) carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft; and
(b) placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable; and
(c) restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.
Subregulation (1) states:
Subject to subregulation (8), the operator of an aircraft may permit a life animal to be in the aircraft only if:
(a) the animal is in a conatiner and is carried in accordance with this regulation; or
(b)the animal is carried with the written permission of CASA and in accordance with any conditions specified in the permissions.
Subregulation (5) A container in which an animal is kept must not be in the passenger cabin of an aircraft.
So I wrote an email to them and finished with the following:
"In all fairness it is unlikely that you would be able to specify all of those details down to every last detail however since point (b) and point (c) are both focused on the "moisture-absorbent mat" and there was no mention of the mat in any of the answers I felt that subregulation (2) was in no way fulfilled.
Once again to be clear the requirements of subregulation (2) were not met, when the subregulation specifically says that subregulation (1) does not apply "if the dog is:" and then lists 3 requirements point (a) (b) and (c)....Yes, point (a) was covered, point (b) was not covered at all and point (c) was half covered however with no mention of the mat.
I'm sure if I were flying a blind PAX and his dog from Ayers Rock to Darwin and upon arrival at Darwin a CASA representative were to find my blind PAX and his dog in the back of my aircraft with urine and faeces all over the cabin floor (according to Dr Tami M Hawes it is natural for a dog to defecate when stressed) with no moisture absorbent mat I would be penalise for such an incident. Given that most humans are stressed by travel in light aircraft it is highly likely that a dog would be to, which is why one would assume subregulation (2) is so specific with regard to the moisture-absorbent mat (for passenger and cabin crew health and safety).
It is obvious that this question and the answers were placed there to try and trip up the candidate that is unaware of the other subregulations of regulation 256A. However it seems that I have been penalised for following the laws as specified in the Civil Aviation Regulations. Having made the same decision that CASA would expect me to make in a real world situation. I don't see how you can expect a pilot to give one answer in an exam and then interpret the law differently when flying.
As you would be well aware we are not lawyers and this email is probably not the strongest argument that can be put forward. Had I wanted to become a lawyer and spend the rest of my life twisting, interpreting and reading laws in a way that suited me or my client I would have pursued a law degree.
I have followed the laws as given and in a way that would avoid any fines or potential conflicts in a real world situation (which I would assume is the purpose to these exams, to see that a pilot can understand how to operate once he/she has attained a Commercial Pilots Licence) and I would expect that to be recognised.
This was a calculated response and when I saw that I had been penalised for it I was shocked when I'm sure I was one of the few people that spent the time to fully understand and interpret the question."
Thanks for your advice so far. I'm sure they just hope that one would give up before getting a lawyer and you have to start looking at costs etc. All too often it's the ones that are willing to spend the time, effort and money complaining that win!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cloud9
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had an exam remarked and gained another 10%. That was in NZ and was a paper based exam with ASL.
Unless they come to the party I'm sad to say you may just have to grin and bear it and resit. ASL are not a very nice mob to deal with and will no doubt the mongrels will charge you for all they can.
Unless they come to the party I'm sad to say you may just have to grin and bear it and resit. ASL are not a very nice mob to deal with and will no doubt the mongrels will charge you for all they can.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you fail the exam?
If yes. Then suck it up, harden the f*&k up and study some more.
The doggy doo question must not have been the only question you got wrong; so someone is doing you a favour by giving you a kick in the arse and telling you to learn your stuff. Crying over a dud question (right or wrong) isn't helping you prepare for the "journey of knockbacks"
If no. Then move on and shout the bar!
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If yes. Then suck it up, harden the f*&k up and study some more.
The doggy doo question must not have been the only question you got wrong; so someone is doing you a favour by giving you a kick in the arse and telling you to learn your stuff. Crying over a dud question (right or wrong) isn't helping you prepare for the "journey of knockbacks"
If no. Then move on and shout the bar!
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Mr Buzzy I couldn't agree more with you on this one.
Can't imagine how the "now" generation would cope with the days when we could only take exams at times set by the department, only twice or maybe three times a year.
Can't imagine how the "now" generation would cope with the days when we could only take exams at times set by the department, only twice or maybe three times a year.
I like your style Mr.Buzzy.....and i agree with you 100 percent
I also failed my first CPL exam 17 years ago. Although it has shattered my ego, went back, studied harder without complaining and passed the second time with 95 percent.
So... take Mr.Buzzy's advice and harden the f**k up!
I also failed my first CPL exam 17 years ago. Although it has shattered my ego, went back, studied harder without complaining and passed the second time with 95 percent.
So... take Mr.Buzzy's advice and harden the f**k up!
The dog should be allowed in the cabin with its master. This is one of the least ambiguous CASA questions that I have ever seen and your argument one of the weakest. You are trying very hard to introduce confusion into a straight forward situation. Perhaps you would be better off disputing another wrong answer.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take your point about studying so that this sort of situation doesn't arise, however you have to understand how bloody FRUSTRATING it is knowing that you're right, and CASA simply won't admit to being wrong.
bbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz
At $160 per shot, I'd be fighting for an extra 3% if I needed it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 45
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah that's it anyone who's under the age of 40 doesn't know how to work hard or sacrifice to get something they really want. As soon as they complain it's because they're a soft little kid who has had it easy all his/her life.
I agree to some extent that the "younger" generation has had it easier in some regard but the "older" generation seems to think that's the reason behind everything.
If you want to whinge and moan about generation x and y start your own thread. That being said I appreciated the following comment you made Buzzy. It's a pity it was amongst personal attacks and accusations.
How about you try not to get personal in here and maintain a little bit of a professionalism. It seems like you and a few others who have posted in this thread have a bit of a chip on your sholder. I'm sorry that it's so easy for everyone who's doing their pilots licence now. Geeze we have it easy!
The issue here is not pass or fail. I would have thought in a Law exam you'd be expected to answer the questions to the letter of the Law.
Thanks for the insight Kelly Slater, however in the CPL Law exam they're not testing you on what you think should or shouldn't happen. It is an examination of your knowledge and understanding of the laws. It's pretty clear in the Reg's what the requirements are.
For those that actualy care about the outcome of this rather than just having a go at me and "my generation" for being so "soft". Here's an update:
After speaking with a CASA representative I was advised that an animal not on a moisture absorbent mat posses a safety/slip hazard and what it can leave behind could potentially cause excessive corrosion to the air frame. (Which is why the regulation was created). He also clarified that "in the real world" if a CASA representative were to inspect my PAX/Cargo and find a blind mans dog in the cabin not on a mositure absorbent mat that I'd be penalised for not following the Reg's.
obviously not.....
I agree to some extent that the "younger" generation has had it easier in some regard but the "older" generation seems to think that's the reason behind everything.
If you want to whinge and moan about generation x and y start your own thread. That being said I appreciated the following comment you made Buzzy. It's a pity it was amongst personal attacks and accusations.
isn't helping you prepare for the "journey of knockbacks"
The issue here is not pass or fail. I would have thought in a Law exam you'd be expected to answer the questions to the letter of the Law.
The dog should be allowed in the cabin with its master
For those that actualy care about the outcome of this rather than just having a go at me and "my generation" for being so "soft". Here's an update:
After speaking with a CASA representative I was advised that an animal not on a moisture absorbent mat posses a safety/slip hazard and what it can leave behind could potentially cause excessive corrosion to the air frame. (Which is why the regulation was created). He also clarified that "in the real world" if a CASA representative were to inspect my PAX/Cargo and find a blind mans dog in the cabin not on a mositure absorbent mat that I'd be penalised for not following the Reg's.
This is one of the least ambiguous CASA questions that I have ever seen and your argument one of the weakest
Last edited by Integro; 18th Dec 2008 at 02:13.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Integro,
I can appreciate that you are frustrated and disappointed that you didn't get through this exam. In my experience CASA (and all of it's other previous names) are not the most responsive when it comes to feedback. So perhaps persuing this tact is only going to frustrate you even more.
I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), that the current Airlaw exam is marked out of 40, requiring a pass mark of 80%. From reading between the lines I would hazard a guess that you have fallen perhaps one question short of this mark.
Throughout your career, and I hope it is a long and fulfilling one, you should always strive to do your best. You appear to have a fairly firm grasp of the regulations and I would suggest that arguing to just scrape over isn't your best.
Put it down to a bad day or that CASA questions are poorly written (nothing has changed), study a little more and get 100%.
It is probably the most efficient course of action because it will save you developing a stomach ulcer and a sore head from dealing with CASA.
Watching,
I
I can appreciate that you are frustrated and disappointed that you didn't get through this exam. In my experience CASA (and all of it's other previous names) are not the most responsive when it comes to feedback. So perhaps persuing this tact is only going to frustrate you even more.
I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), that the current Airlaw exam is marked out of 40, requiring a pass mark of 80%. From reading between the lines I would hazard a guess that you have fallen perhaps one question short of this mark.
Throughout your career, and I hope it is a long and fulfilling one, you should always strive to do your best. You appear to have a fairly firm grasp of the regulations and I would suggest that arguing to just scrape over isn't your best.
Put it down to a bad day or that CASA questions are poorly written (nothing has changed), study a little more and get 100%.
It is probably the most efficient course of action because it will save you developing a stomach ulcer and a sore head from dealing with CASA.
Watching,
I
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a side note to all this would it be wise to 'rock the CASA boat'? Afterall I often hear that any regulatory body (such as CASA) can at times have loooooong memories!
As far as the gen 'Y' Etc goes, well it's a different world we live/fly in these days compared to 'yesteryear' when we had single engined bi-planes so comparing anything to the old days has little relevance most times.
'Integro' it's human nature to want to feel as though you have not failed at anything, but if you are correct & have proof even via these pages then you have the satisfaction in knowing that you have been right in the first place despite the governing bodies reluctance to say so
Flyinggit
As far as the gen 'Y' Etc goes, well it's a different world we live/fly in these days compared to 'yesteryear' when we had single engined bi-planes so comparing anything to the old days has little relevance most times.
'Integro' it's human nature to want to feel as though you have not failed at anything, but if you are correct & have proof even via these pages then you have the satisfaction in knowing that you have been right in the first place despite the governing bodies reluctance to say so
Flyinggit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 45
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading posts from guys who are obviously just here to stir the pot it's nice to hear some constructive feedback.
Iinthesky, you raise a very good point. I went in to the last exam without an AIP or Jepps. I'm sure I'll do much better given that my Jepps has now arrived. Thanks for the insparation to go out and do better. Your advice is a little more constructive than "harden the
up".
flyinggit I have already heard stories of guys who CASA are always on to. You're probably right that it's not a bad idea to fly under the radar as best as one can.
Thanks again!
Iinthesky, you raise a very good point. I went in to the last exam without an AIP or Jepps. I'm sure I'll do much better given that my Jepps has now arrived. Thanks for the insparation to go out and do better. Your advice is a little more constructive than "harden the
up".flyinggit I have already heard stories of guys who CASA are always on to. You're probably right that it's not a bad idea to fly under the radar as best as one can
.Thanks again!