PPL application rejected

[mur007]

(assuming they couldn't call it an administrative error and give him the stupid license right away)

At what point does the lapsed rating cease to be valid in your eyes? If it has lapsed by a day? a week? a year? ten years? Ever? If the examiner's rating was not valid then it was not valid.

If I were responsible for the CAA group that let this happen through lack of oversight and proper designee selection, there would be hell to pay: if I found somebody who thought the limit of their responsibilty was collecting money and pushing paper, they'd be out the door.

And what exactly can the CAA do to regulate lapsed ratings? If someone decides on a career change and chooses not to revalidate their examiner rating should the CAA ring them every month to make sure they haven't secretly carried on? How exactly could they have done more here?

There are too many unknowns here to definitively blame anyone. I'm sure the OP has contacted his/her club by now anyway and will be along in due course to fill in the many gaps.

[BillieBob]

What none of us knows is by how much the rating had expired.

Try reading the original post again.

Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted. The responsibility to ensure that the authorisation was valid lay entirely with the examiner himself and, on the principle of 'caveat emptor', perhaps to a lesser extent with the candidate. Like Bose-x, I always offer my licence for examination by the candidate during the initial briefing.

The practice of examiners for the CPL and IR Skill Test being designated by the CAA should disappear on the introduction of Part-FCL. The 'competent authority' will be obliged to maintain and publish a list of examiners that they have authorised and the candidate will be free to select an examiner from the list. The 'competent authority' will, as part of its oversight programme, always have the right to decide that a test will be conducted by one of its inspectors but, beyond that, the choice remains with the candidate.

To expect the Authority to monitor all examiners on a day-to-day basis is, clearly, unrealistic. However, there is little question that some punitive action should be taken against the examiner involved in this case. Under Part-FCL, the restrictions placed on examiners are significantly more strict and a similar breach of the Regulation should result in a 3 year suspension of examiner privileges.

[2 sheds]

A pertinent comparison - in the case of an AGCS examination, the examiner has to enter the expiry date of his/her authorisation on the candidate's application form. That would seem to be a very easy way to highlight that "Do'h!" moment.

2 s

[Redbird72]

Aren't we being a bit hasty in blaming the FE? The CAA's administrators are human too, could it not also be true that the FE's last renewal was recorded incorrectly?

Either way, this is likely to be an honest mistake, and if it's the FE's, I'm certain he will be sufficiently mortified to make amends. Small comfort for the og, as no-one likes doing tests, even if you are sure that you will pass.

As a side note, my FTO used to have a large whiteboard on public display that showed all of the expiration dates/hours to next check for the club aircraft and instructor/FE licences. Quite a simple way to keep track (although not so helpful if a non-club FE is used).

[Pull what]

Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted.

Thas not quite right in relation to the flying school. Forget the legislative aviation requirement for a moment. A verbal contract has been entered into here by the student and the flying club for the provision of a service, unless of course the examiner just happened to be passing and popped in and said, "anyone fancy a skills test"?

The supply of goods and services act 1982 says that a person providing a service must do so with reasonable care. Clearly in this case a service has not been provided at all. If the flying school arranged the test (in any way)and have not stated to the student that they only acted as agent in the matter they (IMHO) are liable. If the student made all his own arrangements solely with the examiner then the examiner is liable. I would say that if the school charged the dual rate for the hire of the aircraft during the test that could prove they were complicit in the matter.

[Pull what]

There isnt much excuse these days with the internet to forget anything. Google has an excellent calendar in which you can set up reminders very easily, I even have it set to every afternoon in the week to remind me that the post goes at 16.45!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Try reading the original post again.

Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted.

That is not clear to me. If the OP was training at a school, and booked a test with the school, and the school supplied the examiner, then the school has a responsibility to check the examiner's dates just as they check their instructors' dates.

The school can't say "you ordered an examiner, we contracted to supply an examiner, but actually we supplied someone who wasn't an examiner, but somehow that's not our problem"!!

[The500man]

I haven't read the whole thread but where do you stand legally if you have paid an examiner for a flight test but he was no longer able in the eyes of the authority to act as an examiner when he carried out that flight test? If you'd paid by credit card would it be easy to get a refund?

I seem to remember my PPL examiner demanding payment in cash, for fairly obvious reasons. Perhaps not so good for students though, and I don't remember ever checking his license/ ratings etc.

[Pull what]

This is the reason the small claims court exists, to sort these type of things out.

[DX Wombat]

BillieBob - my apologies. It just proves that I shouldn't post when I have a high temperature & sore throat. Both of which are now improving.

[Whopity]

It is amazing how everyone gets on their high horse about responsibility and legal action. This is not an uncommon occurrence, and in every previous case I have seen, the Examiner who will no doubt be quite embarrassed, will renew his Authority, the CAA will then honour the test and Bloggs gets his licence albeit slightly delayed. No additional cost to anyone especially the lawyers.

[BillieBob]

That is not clear to me. If the OP was training at a school, and booked a test with the school, and the school supplied the examiner....

The school cannot 'supply' an examiner - it is not a commodity that it controls. The examiner authority is issued by the CAA to an individual who, when exercising the privileges conferred, then acts as an agent of the Authority. The school has provided the contracted service when the training is complete and a recommendation for test has been made iaw JAR-FCL 1.080(e). Whilst it may offer to assist the candidate in finding an examiner, the school has no legal responsibility to check the validity of the individual's authorisation. Whether there is a moral obligation on the school is quite another matter.

The Authority's ability to bring matters to a pragmatic solution as described by Whopity will, of course, be severely curtailed after 8 April 2012.

[BackPacker]

The school has provided the contracted service when the training is complete and a recommendation for test has been made iaw JAR-FCL 1.080(e).

How many PPL packages include the exam? In other words, you pay the school for, amongst other things, the exam (examiner, plane, whatever) and the school pays the examiner, fuel supplier and whatnot. At least, that was the case when I did my PPL training. I did not engage in a separate contract of any kind with the examiner, and I certainly did not pay the examiner directly.

So in that case the legal contract is between the student and the school, and the school would be the first to hear from me if something like this went wrong.

[The500man]

Most of the packages I've seen don't include the flight test. They don't normally seem to include aircraft rental for the test either. Like I said in my previous post I paid the examiner directly, and rented the aircraft for the test from my school. After the test the examiner gave me the test sheet to send to the CAA, and then signed my log book. After that a flying school instructor helped me fill in the license application and then certified my logbook entries with a school stamp and signature.

It all went to the CAA and in typical CAA fashion they phoned to ask me to pay the £4 shipping to send my logbook/ license etc. back to me!

If the examiner only has to renew his authority for the OP's test to be valid then that doesn't sound too bad for the OP. Having to re-do an already passed flight test would be a nightmare.

[Whopity]

The Flight Examiner's Handbook makes it quite clear that the Examiner is authorised by and operating on behalf of the CAA. It also states that the Test Fee should be paid in advance and Examiners are advised to administer this on their training course. I accept that many do not.
Standards Doc 21 Para 2.11.2 clearly lays down the Examiner's personal responsibilities.

[Pull what]

Strange that the only person not entering the discussion is the OP

[StavDav]

OP did mention that he can't do anything til Monday...

[Claverley04]

For the benefit of pull what, I had not intended to post anymore on this until Monday when hopefully I will have a much clearer picture of what the position is.
However, just for the record I have been keeping a close eye on everyones comments over the weekend, thank you all.
A lot of emphasis has been put on the legalities of this situation, and whilst I do appreciate everyones opinions, I sincerely hope that legalities are a road I will not be travelling down.
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.

The reason for me posting this thread originally was to enquire if this situation or similar had ever affected anyone before, and if so what was the result? I guess I was looking for some consolation to minimise the certain stewing that I was going to be doing over the weekend until I could get onto sorting this mess out on Monday.

As I am sure you can all appreciate, the feeling of passing your PPL and then having it potentially taken away in a manner such as this has been very hard to swallow, as is the possibility of having to go through skills test again despite having already passed.

Hopefully I will be posting a final update on this on Monday evening confirming what the outcome has been.........hopefully.......

[mrmum]

I am aware of a similar situation earlier this year, where a RTF examiner, rather than a FE, had inadvertently let their authorisation lapse. The CAA rejected an application from another school's student when we had someone about to send their's off. I believe that once the examiner had submitted his renewal paperwork and fee, his authorisation was renewed and the customer's PPL was issued, our student just sent his off a couple of weeks later. As far as I'm aware, there were no retests done.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I find a 'forgetfullness' to renew ones' status as an examiner for over 6 weeks, as indicated in the OP, a bit hard to accept.

My Instructors' Rating requires a BFR as an Instructor every year - this happens in November and so far I've had no difficulty in remembering that, tho' I have to look at my logbook to pin the exact date down - which I tend to do about now.

Ironically this year I have a problem, the local Super Instructor authorised to re-test me is not available, nor is the next nearest one, albeit still some distance away, so unless I can find a solution, either travel a much greater distance, or pay for an examiner to travel an equally great distance to me, then my Instructor privileges will end until I can resolve the issue.

One of my present students is already lapsing into deep gloom at the thought that he might have to fly with someone else for a few months, until I can get myself re-qualified !

The point I'm making is that I'm already aware of a coming problem, not discovering it some 6 weeks later.

I'm not sure that the CAA, even if satisfied that the examiner still meets their requirements to be an examiner and is maybe re-qualified next week, can issue a licence against a skills test that was conducted during a period when he was not authorised. Logically, and from a commonsense point of view, why not, what's to say that he conducts a flight test whilst properly qualified but doesn't present the paperwork for some considerable time, is there a Statute of Limitations regarding the time that can expire between flying the test and sending the result to the CAA ?

A licence is not there to prove that you CAN fly (or examine ) it is only there to ALLOW you to, so commonsense says that if re-qualified then the examiner can present the same flight test results again.

But .... commonsense and the Law !!!