PPL application rejected
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Shropshire
Age: 48
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that I have resolved this issue.
My examiners priveleges were indeed supposed to expire on the date that the CAA claimed.
However, in advanced of this date my examiner had written to the CAA requesting a short extension to his ratings due to certain logistical constraints in getting them renewed.
The CAA did then write back to my examiner confirming an extension had indeed been granted until mid October. ( This may be usefull information to you ExSp33db1rd, as you may well be able to do the same thing and get an extension on your ratings until you can get re-examined)
So in a nutshell, all of this is down to an administrative cock up by the CAA!
I am very pleased that the extortionate fee I have paid to get my license is being used to fund such a well respected and professional organisation, enough said I think!
As I previously indicated in this thread, my examiner is a gentleman of great integrity and I would have been very surprised if this situation had turned out to be of his making, it is yet another example of CAA modus operandi.
My examiners priveleges were indeed supposed to expire on the date that the CAA claimed.
However, in advanced of this date my examiner had written to the CAA requesting a short extension to his ratings due to certain logistical constraints in getting them renewed.
The CAA did then write back to my examiner confirming an extension had indeed been granted until mid October. ( This may be usefull information to you ExSp33db1rd, as you may well be able to do the same thing and get an extension on your ratings until you can get re-examined)
So in a nutshell, all of this is down to an administrative cock up by the CAA!
I am very pleased that the extortionate fee I have paid to get my license is being used to fund such a well respected and professional organisation, enough said I think!
As I previously indicated in this thread, my examiner is a gentleman of great integrity and I would have been very surprised if this situation had turned out to be of his making, it is yet another example of CAA modus operandi.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so the CAA suffered a "left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing" moment for a while - presumably resolved relatively rapidly after a phone call or two (its only three hours into business hours on Monday). That doesn't sound like too big a deal to me, frankly.
Where are the plaudits for the CAA in allowing the examiner the extension in the first place? That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a faceless unbending bureaucracy to me, more like a helpful and reasonable one.
I'm just saying...
H
Where are the plaudits for the CAA in allowing the examiner the extension in the first place? That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a faceless unbending bureaucracy to me, more like a helpful and reasonable one.
I'm just saying...
H
Hear, hear, Bose
And shame on you, rmcb - do you perhaps have a personal axe to grind with the CAA ?
Compared with many other NAAs one could mention, the UK CAA are efficiency personified. Bloody expensive though...
And shame on you, rmcb - do you perhaps have a personal axe to grind with the CAA ?
Compared with many other NAAs one could mention, the UK CAA are efficiency personified. Bloody expensive though...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why, in view of the seriousness of the accusation, the CAA didn't lift the phone to call the examiner to enquire about why he (according to their info) did a test when not authorised.
It would have found the solution long before their letter was ever written.
Indeed, assuming that the op contacted their school, the examiners reputation might have been quite damaged by this little incident, and the CAA are the only ones at fault here.
It would have found the solution long before their letter was ever written.
Indeed, assuming that the op contacted their school, the examiners reputation might have been quite damaged by this little incident, and the CAA are the only ones at fault here.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why, in view of the seriousness of the accusation, the CAA didn't lift the phone to call the examiner to enquire about why he (according to their info) did a test when not authorised.
It would have found the solution long before their letter was ever written.
Indeed, assuming that the op contacted their school, the examiners reputation might have been quite damaged by this little incident, and the CAA are the only ones at fault here.
It would have found the solution long before their letter was ever written.
Indeed, assuming that the op contacted their school, the examiners reputation might have been quite damaged by this little incident, and the CAA are the only ones at fault here.
However, while this has never happened to me, I know for sure that the FAA would also have washed their hands of a checkride done by a DPE whose papers have expired, or have some sort of irregularity, and they are quite happy to do so a long time after the relevant checkride.
Last edited by IO540; 10th Oct 2011 at 14:37.
Claverley04
Congrats. and thanks for the thought but I'm talking Microlight, which is run by a voluntary organisation with approval of the NZ CAA, it will be up to their Constitution as to whether they can give a 10% extension, and never heard of it, but worth a phone call !
Congrats. and thanks for the thought but I'm talking Microlight, which is run by a voluntary organisation with approval of the NZ CAA, it will be up to their Constitution as to whether they can give a 10% extension, and never heard of it, but worth a phone call !
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...shame on you, rmcb - do you perhaps have a personal axe to grind with the CAA
Compared with many other NAAs one could mention, the UK CAA are efficiency personified. Bloody expensive though...
rcmb - you have not really done yourself too many favours in this thread: you need to slow down and think before rushing to condemn
This whole scenario (as mine) should have been prevented with the sensible use of IT and the management consultants that no doubt litter the landscape.
Congratulations on solving your problem Claverley04 and good luck for the future.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No apology?
You're still happy with all of the above? You don't think you should have waited until you knew the facts?
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I don't know. I'm just as glad the CAA, though sometimes a slipup occurs as in this case, is keeping an eye on who is qualified to do what.
Compare with some of the problems highlighted in the Rumours and News forum, where we occasionally read horror stories of fraudulent flight certificate holders sitting in the pointy end of public transport. In parts of the world where different ethics apply....
Compare with some of the problems highlighted in the Rumours and News forum, where we occasionally read horror stories of fraudulent flight certificate holders sitting in the pointy end of public transport. In parts of the world where different ethics apply....
You don't think you should have waited until you knew the facts?
If we all knew the 'facts' there would be no need for any Forums such as PPRuNe or Facebeek ( some might say What a Good Idea ! ) as there would be no indecisions or ignorance, we'd all run along in straight lines waving the Rule Book, in the manner of the Red Guards of the '60s who ran around holding up the Little Red Book of The Thoughts of Mao, attempting to convert everyone in their path
Not knowing the facts means we have to enquire, suggest, discuss, argue, hypothesise, maybe even insult providing it doesn't get too nasty, and so we probably learn something as a result of it all ?
I've certainly learned something - I knew that some aircraft maintenance dates can be extended by up to 10% providing that they are applied before expiry has actually occurred, but I'd never heard of it being applied to personal licences, even tho' it might be Old Hat to some, as a result I've just asked my local administration to help me in a similar fashion, I've little hope, but don't ask, don't get.
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 10th Oct 2011 at 23:14.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: europe
Age: 49
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did the jobs worth at the CAA not call either the applicant or examiner before simply sending a rejection letter?
Because most of them are only trained to tick boxes. Using initiative is beyond the scope or remit of any of them.
Because most of them are only trained to tick boxes. Using initiative is beyond the scope or remit of any of them.
In the days when the CAA was the MoT in The City, I attended at 09.01 one morning, the door was locked but almost immediately it was unlocked and I was admitted - the only 'customer'. The door unlocker disappeared.
After 10 minutes alone, the same door unlocker re-appeared, now on the other side of the counter, and inspected a large appointment book on that counter, and told me that I hadn't applied for an interview by registering my name and thereby placing myself in the queue, applicants being taken in order of arrival. I pointed out that I was still the only one there, I was ready to ask my question.
He then repeated that I had to register for an appointment according to time of arrival, and again disappeared.
After another 10 minutes, still being the only attendee, the same jobsworth appeared, looked at the book, then looked quizically around the room - and called my name out in a loud voice !!
That nearly ended my aviation career, right then, did I want to be associated with this bunch of twerps ? Fortunately I persevered.
Campain Against Aviation. Seems nothing's changed.
After 10 minutes alone, the same door unlocker re-appeared, now on the other side of the counter, and inspected a large appointment book on that counter, and told me that I hadn't applied for an interview by registering my name and thereby placing myself in the queue, applicants being taken in order of arrival. I pointed out that I was still the only one there, I was ready to ask my question.
He then repeated that I had to register for an appointment according to time of arrival, and again disappeared.
After another 10 minutes, still being the only attendee, the same jobsworth appeared, looked at the book, then looked quizically around the room - and called my name out in a loud voice !!
That nearly ended my aviation career, right then, did I want to be associated with this bunch of twerps ? Fortunately I persevered.
Campain Against Aviation. Seems nothing's changed.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're still happy with all of the above?
You don't think you should have waited until you knew the facts?
'facts' is borin'
I recognise and rejoice in regulation and I maintain - time for change. How that change comes is up to the regulators.
Oh Good, a stoning!
The CAA has numerous different IT systems that do not talk to one another. It is quite easy for a left hand, right hand disconnect to occur as organisations continue to have more and more dysfunctional IT. In the days of the Cardex and Quill Pen, this would never have occurred. It is the price or illusion of progress!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do know my examiner, and have known him for some years on and off, I have absolute confidence in his integrity and I am 100% certain that if the fault is his then it is absolutely not intentional. If I had to guess I would say that there has been an administrative error of some sort that has caused this situation.