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!

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

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

Just a thought...
 

I think you need to give some more details if you want some meaningful advice.

e.g. Which exam, which answer were you contesting, etc.

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!:ok:

PS: Wanna give us a hint what it was about?;)

Good point about shedding some light with the question/answers involved.

It was my CPL Law exam and here is some more info :ok:

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!

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.:ugh:

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!:ok:

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.

I like your style Mr.Buzzy.....and i agree with you 100 percent :ok:
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.

get over it and move on. you are wasting your time and other peoples time.

What makes you think we haven't dealt with them Robinson Crusoe?

bbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

At $160 per shot, I'd be fighting for an extra 3% if I needed it!

Why would a DEAF person want to take his dog on a plane?

Was the dog a blind dog? If so, he wouldn't care where he was on the flight.

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.....

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.:ugh:

Watching,
I

I reckon I sat SCPL at least 500 times and there were worse buggers than me :}

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

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 :mad: 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!

Mate, don't tell me you went into an Air Law exam without an AIP?

I found Air Law the easiest of the CPL's, as you just tag the hell out of all the doc's and get to know them back to front - if you know where to find the answers then it has to be impossible to stuff it up. It basically turns into an open book exam.

povopilot.

Yer well said!!! make every newbie have to do the HARD yards like pilots before them.... Make every newbie work for condition less than the poverty line, Make every Pilot work his first job for free, make every newbie pay for his endorsement, make every newbie put up with Management that treats it's pilots with less respect than a Manigrida camp dog.

The pilots of yester year have truly paved the path for the newbies to have a long and lustrous career, paying for endorsement, excepting C$%P EBA"s, lying down to CASA etc, ect, etc .....

Your attitude of "I did it tough, so every other bastard has to as well" smells of a person who has spent his career, ass sniffing his way to what ever whole you are in now.


Integro..... Congratulations in having the balls to dispute your exam results with CASA, dont let these bitter and twisted w@nkers on here stop you from demanding what is fair. I hope you have success with your exams and hope you dont lose your grit like the twits on here have.

It's a long career, keeping your intigrity makes it so much more enjoyable.:ok: unless you get enjoyment about boasting how tough you have had it....




p.s to the spelling police.... I dont care...:E

Integro buddy, in short, you are going to get no where with CASA or ASL in relation to this. I'm on my last CPL exam and have noticed wrong questions in the exams i've done. They won't change them mate. Just have to move on, i know it sucks but thats the way casa roll.

too right
 

If the guy has missed out by a bees dick then why not dispute if he believes he should have got through. Those Casa exams are an irrelevant pain in the arse. Streuth, if I failed ATPL flight planning by 1% and reckon i got a hard deal I'd give CASA the full Darryl Kerrigan treatment!

It sure is..... and those choices that we make effect the industry as a whole...

The exams are hard, and one doesn't always agree with the answers, but they set the rules. Many before have passed. So just have a stiff drink and (next day) book another test, do some more study, and you will pass. Get over it.........

Jesus, talk about a case of 'back in my day!'. Let me guess, you had to walk 40 miles to school in the driving snow back home in Dubbo?

:rolleyes:

If you're right and you know it, you should bloody fight for the correct result. The concept that you should just swallow it and be proud of the fact that you're a down trodden idiot is hopefully a dying one.

And yes, I got 100% for CPL and ATPL law.

CASA (ASL) exams are unjustifiably expensive. I did my first exam a few weeks ago and, after forking out $170 for it, the supervisor was 20 mins late and the exam arrangements were less then satisfactory. :*

If you think you can claw the extra marks out of them, go for it mate! :ok:

The Regs are written to allow a blind or deaf person to take his or her dog on board. You have allowed yourself to get tangled up in the regs in a belief that CASA is out to get you rather than in what ther regs are trying to achieve. I have read the regs that you have sighted and I believe that you are wrong. My decision is not based on what I believe should happen but on my interpretation of the regs and I don't believe that you have a case.

Car 256a
 

As I have stated before the key to passing CASA exams is to look for the key words in the question. In this case the key words are blind/deaf. Or more accurately “visually or hearing impaired”. Therefore the question was pointing you to 256(A)(2).:eek:

The fact that they don’t give you 256A(2)(a) or (b) as an answer is irrelevant, what they are looking for is that you can find the relevant section of the Regulation and in this case 256A(1)(a) does not apply. Most people will only read the first section of the Regulation eg 256A(1)(a) and select that answer. The first part of a Regulation states its purpose as dictated by the ACT and then the rest give you the exceptions.

Don’t try and extrapolate outside the question, as soon as you apply “what ifs” you will get it wrong.

Slight Drift......

Back in 'dem good ole days - KG FSU -

"Taxying, IMT, KG for MEEKA, 2 on board, me and me dog".

True story. Good old Mr 'Mc' - he was 80 then - a legend! :ok:

One day he departed sans dog. Forgot he'd left it in the shade of the unit.
"Ah...can you fellas look after him till I get back?"

He picked it up on the return trip - some 2 - 3 weeks later. :)

(Couldn't imagine he even knew about the regs....)

oh the memories...



mate pretty straight forward exam just dont read into it as much its all there in black and white...

agree with the posts on here just resit and suck it up.

next time read the question and note the keywords... nipper has it all there.

dogs in cargo exception is if its accompanying a seeing/hearing impaired person. sorry but if you didnt put the restrained in cabin and you said in a box in cargo your wrong.

you said it yourself

about the pee and shiit mate they are trained to put up with it and would be very surprised if that happened in your "rea life" situation and wouldnt you just walk it before anyway. I have had grown people pee on seats before think a dogs would be better to clean up.

Hate to break it to ya but this isn't like at school where everyone was a winner and points were awarded for trying. Life isn't fair . Don't waste too much energy trying to make it that way cause it just won't happen. Instead of writing emails study some law and try to pass it.

Well said :ok::D

after reading this thread i can't believe how many bitter and twisted people there are in aviaition.

fight the question integro, take it to CASA and bloody ASL, they are both a bunch of rip off artists

....'splinter11' couldn't agree with you more. And to think we are ALL meant to be professionals here.. huh !



CW

I think anyone here has a story of an exam they had trouble with somewhere along the line. For me it was SCPL/ATPL Flight Planning. It was based on the 727-200 and it was the only exam I've ever failed-twice!! Can you imagine how bad that made me feel!

It's good to be able to laugh about it now.

It is contestable if the question is overly misleading (although aren't they all?) or wrong.

ATPL Law 3 years ago, passed no worries but one question gave me the irits as it was crap and could be very easily misinterpreted.

Two phone calls and it was pulled.

They are reasonable when it's easily fixed and an obivious flaw.

As an aviation lawyer, may I say that at law the answer is entirely clear; if there is no absorbant pad and no reference to the dog being restrained, it MUST be carried in a container. No ifs and no buts; the parts of the Reg are cumulative, not disjunctive, and in the real world if you tried to carry a seeing eye dog with a blind handler without an absorbant pad and a restraint you would be completely stuffed on landing when the Inspector greeted you. The question is either wrong or so misleading as to be wrong.

Heh... I did CPL Law here in NZ a short while ago...

One of the questions was relating to General Aviation Area's... ie. a "simple" lookup in the AIP about the requirements for activating, the controlling authority and the comm frequency to do so...

Unfortunately, the AIP's had been amended in the weeks leading up to the exam and of course the GAA in question had been modified (from ATC Approval to ATC Notification and the frequency had changed)...

Unfortunately, this meant that there were 2 completely wrong answers... and 2 half correct answers... one had correct activation type but incorrect frequency, the other had incorrect activation type but correct frequency.

I wrote a minor essay in the review/critique section at the end, justifying my answer...

Of course, I still got it 'wrong' (judging by the KDR's I got)... :ugh: :rolleyes:

Thankfully, I still passed comfortably...