PPL application rejected

[rmcb]

I'm not sure where the CAA are supposed to have failed in what we have been told so far

When you book your test - and pay your fee - you are allocated an examiner, date and time by the CAA, surely? This should prevent this sort of cock up happening at source.

This is where the CAA has failed. Period. So what will they be doing about it?

There is too much nonsense coming from the CAA with licencing at all levels. If you hold a monopoly, the very least you can do is get your own life in order. The original poster is entitled to feel pissed off; chances are he will have to resit the test. I hope his theory exams. are still in date.

In my opinion, the CAA are liable for all costs; the FTO shouldn't be held responsible for the CAA's failure to pursue their own protocol. Time for the CAA to pull their finger out. What they do with the FE is their problem.

[airpolice]

Don't call me Shirley.

rmcb,

When you book your test - and pay your fee - you are allocated an examiner, date and time by the CAA, surely? This should prevent this sort of cock up happening at source.

This is where the CAA has failed.

which planet are you on?

[rmcb]

which planet are you on?

This one...

When I did my CPL and IR skill tests, this was the process; when I did my PPL skill test, granted, the FTO dealt with the booking, but I have no reason to think the process isn't the same.

[DX Wombat]

rcmb - either you are suffering from amnesia or you did your PPL outside the UK because the test is not booked through the CAA nor does the CAA allocate the examiner and you certainly do NOT pay up front. I did my PPL at HGFC who had their own examiners, the test was booked for a mutually convenient time and I paid AFTER I had done the test. At the time (2006) this was standard procedure at EGBO. I had a great, most reassuring examiner of unquestionable integrity who did his best to make me feel at ease throughout the test. Sadly for Claverley he is no longer there.

[rmcb]

It is true, I did my PPL in 2004 in the US. When the test was booked, however, we had to wait until the next day for confirmation from the CAA. If the booking system doesn't exist at PPL level, maybe it should.

The CAA can consider themselves forgiven on this count and the FTO/FE returned to the dock!

[airpolice]

Form FCL504 Issue 7 (SRG1102)

It is an offence to make, with intent to deceive, any false representations for the purpose of procuring the grant, issue, renewal or variation of any certificate, licence, approval, permission or other document. Persons doing so render themselves liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (currently £5000, or in Northern Ireland £2000) and on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. A Cancellation Charge may be applied as per the CAA scheme of charges when an active application request has been cancelled by the CAA or the customer.

The important bit here is "with intent to deceive" in the first line. I think that will be hard to prove.

[airpolice]

Silvaire1, within the bounds of what has been alleged in the Original Post, the CAA have done nothing wrong.

The CAA issued the examiner with a rating and it has an expiry date, clearly written on it. He is alleged to have continued operating after the expiry of this.

There is another possibility here. If the examiner has had his rating renewed by another examiner, who has in turn, failed to deliver the paperwork to Gatwick, that would explain the CAA thinking the OP's examiner was not (and indeed would not be) legal.

There may be no malpractice in any of this, but nevertheless, the OP's skills test pass is not valid. This is why the CAA state that you must not fly as PIC until you have the signed your licence.


I'm not sure where that stands for ratings. Acting in good faith, I have flown after an examiner signed my ratings page. I am not aware of any means of me checking his lawful ability to do so.

However, when I passed my skills test, I took (by road) all my document to Turweston, where a very nice lady checked them over for me prior to sending them to Gatwick. The first step in her checking process was to type in the registered number of the examiner to check he was authorised and current for signing the forms. The staff at Turweston have/had an online system allowing them to verify the CAA status of any examiner that they need to check up on. Perhaps we all need access to that, in some form.

If the situation is as has been suggested in the OP, then some blame may be attached to slack admin by the FTO as they ought to be on top of this stuff as well as the individual examiners and instructors should be.

I'd expect a trawl by all FTOs early next week, wanting to see the documents for all licensed staff.

[Whopity]

Since 1999 Examiners have been independent of schools, though they may work for, or even own a school. The CAA used to send all Examiners a reminder 6 weeks prior to the authorisation expiry date to prompt Examiners to complete the revalidation in time. Recently, I have spoken to a number of Examiners who have not received any notification at all. The Examiner nevertheless has a personal responsibility to ensure that his licence, ratings and relevant authorities are valid when conducting a test.

I suspect that if the Examiner completes his revalidation, the CAA will have its money, and the process can continue, there is no "safety reason" for not doing so, it is purely an administrative matter. If that is not the case, then the Examiner should return the candidate's fee and reimburse the expenses incurred.

[rmcb]

Airpolice - is the booking process at PPL level in the UK administered by the FTO or the CAA?

I ask because this could be very relevant to Claverley04's problem resolution.

[airpolice]

rmcb, in some cases, neither.

I am aware of a person turning up, out of the blue, at a school recently wanting a wet hire of an aircraft in order to do a skills test.

He had made a cash deal with an examiner, (well respected local guy, known to the school) to do his test with.

The guy was a complete stranger to the school staff, but as the examiner was signing for the a/c, they were, quite rightly, happy to allow it.

[jollyrog]

On the brighter side... the OP has been through a full skills test under proper test conditions and he "passed". He can be confident now that he'll sail through the second test.

[S-Works]

Lyman
*
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 317
All endorsements require the expiration date of the examiner, check your logbook, and see that your CFI doesn't include it each flight. Recompense for each oversight, imo.

In the US, not Europe........


I am a little surprised by this. Just as I inspect a candidates documents when I conduct a flight test I provide my documents for inspection. Which means I look at them first to make sure they are all in order! Even examiners occasionally make mistakes.

I would hardly see this incident as a case of fraud, rather an innocent mistake on the part of the examiner.

You would not believe the number of pilots I come across flying around on expired licences and class ratings........

What is it with this forum these days, it's like redneck hanging party.......

[Pull what]

What is it with this forum these days, it's like redneck hanging party

Yes calm down girls, stop jumping to conclusions, you cannot make judgemnets without the facts and you havnt got any really have you?

Let's treat the examiner in the way we would all be like to be treated-he probably made a mistake, although I appreciate mistake is a one way word for many on here!

If you intend to pursue any legal action your first port of call is to the examiner or school to allow them the opportunity to put the matter right. If you do not allow them that opportunity you may fail with any subsequent action you take through the county court. You need to put everything in writing and get responses in writing, its difficult to prove what somebody said over the phone!

After a reasonable amount of time if they have failed to put the situation right you are then entiled to make alternative arrangements yourself and claim for the total cost of doing this which even includes your expenses for driving to the airfield for the skills test and reposting the application.

Also you should have a receipt from the examiner for the test fee-if you havnt got a receipt and you paid cash, guess what? Every skills test is recorded at the CAA and they are great pals with the inland revenue!

By the way you have a PM

[rmcb]

Thankyou for that, Airpolice.

It would appear to me that blame would therefore lie solely at the feet of the FE; the FTO can only assume that by agreeing to conduct the test the FE is qualified. Then it is reasonable for the hapless candidate to assume the same 'because the FTO wouldn't do anything illegal...'.

So, the candidate could call on the FE to return the cost of the FE fees but may have to resort to legal channels to recover the costs of transpoprt to/from, aircraft hire and any application fees taken to date. More costs that the FE could argue are 'not my problem'.

What if the candidate chose (unwisely, granted, but within the rules) to take the test on the last day of theory exam. validity? Retake the lot before retaking the skills test. More cost. Can he/she then return to the FE for those costs?

As mentioned earlier in the thread, licences can be revoked years later when these issues come to light - even when the most affected party has pursued the privileges in good faith.

What a nightmare. So avoidable with the supposed strong grip of the regulatory regime and the internet; time to change the system. It may cost more, but I believe we need more support from the CAA.

[The Old Fat One]

rmcb

Ease up on the posts old chap. You were utterly wrong about the CAA earlier (as you now see) and now your assertion that it is just the FE is equally questionable. At every half decent FTO, somebody (maybe the CFI, maybe Ops, maybe the owner) will have records of instructor/examiner currency, which will be kept up to date and regularly checked.

The FE will be only wholly to blame if he:

a. Is a lone wolf, operating as sole trader.
b. Has wifully misled his employer.

What's more, even if it is b. (above), the OPs beef will still legally be with the FTO (ie the trading company) and not with an employee of such...it is the law in the UK.

There is nothing complicated about this unless the FTO choose to make it so. In which case that is what the Small Claims Court is for, and it works!

As for the CAA, whatever they may or may not be guilty of, all they have done here is their job. And by catching this in a timely manner, they have potentially stopped all manner of future grief for the OP.

[Whopity]

the OPs beef will still legally be with the FTO

When conducting a test, the Examiner is acting on behalf of the CAA who issue the authorisation to a specific person. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the FTO/RF, who are acting as a third party in recommending an examiner. The Candidate is free to use an examiner of his own choice.

[rmcb]

The Old Fat One - I fell foul of a very similar cockup, not of my making, and paid through the nose to rectify the situation.

I stand by wot I have writ and maintain the system needs changing.

Signing off.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know I've become a bit of an evangelist for electronic logbooks these days - but I've set mine (in Excel) to flash the date red at me if any of the expiry dates (medical, licence, class rating, instructor rating, IMC rating....) have expired.

Which does illustrate the point that any fairly well qualified pilot has a lot of these to monitor.

Anybody here ever accidentally driven their car past its MoT, had a rush to get your medical renewed? I certainly have. And dealt with it because perhaps I'm not as conscientious in the rest of my life as I am with my flying.

It happens, and just as an examiner will judge their student on how well they deal with their mistakes - the world will judge this school and examiner similarly. I hope they're not found wanting, because they certainly will have a perfectly good opportunity to sort themselves out.

G

[DX Wombat]

What none of us knows is by how much the rating had expired. I'm sure that at some time or other most people will have thought eg: "It's Thursday today" or "It's 14th today" when it has actually been Friday or 15th. So, it may well be that such an error meant that the rating was a very short time out of date because of a genuine mistake but because it was out of date the CAA was compelled to act.

[madlandrover]

As said before, the CAA don't check FEs before every PPL test - we are however checked after each test, since part of the post-test paperwork is sending a copy of the test form to the CFE (or SFE now!) at Bournemouth, where sampling is undertaken to check that PPL tests are being conducted within the bounds of the schedule. As a new FE I would be mortified if I conducted a test I wasn't allowed to do, and would make every effort to make the situation right.

I don't suppose though this is the same FE though who recently insisted he could conduct a MEP Rating LST despite having done the training course himself? Being a FTO HoT doesn't sadly guarantee perfect knowledge, although customers have every right to expect it.