Legal action against the CAA and examiner
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to hear Capt Booth is still the same after 10 years. He did mine as well. A proper gent and aviator.
If what you say is true, I don't blame you for being pissed off. If its one of the cases of I have given to many first time passes recently your quite right to go for compensation. Although I would suspect that you will get so far and then it will be decided its between you and the examinor unless they were a staff one.
Although putting to many details on here might not be in your best interests check with your sister.
If what you say is true, I don't blame you for being pissed off. If its one of the cases of I have given to many first time passes recently your quite right to go for compensation. Although I would suspect that you will get so far and then it will be decided its between you and the examinor unless they were a staff one.
Although putting to many details on here might not be in your best interests check with your sister.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is really quite sad. I can't argue on the basis of only hearing one side of the story but something is up when the examiner tells you everything was perfect but you need to fly a whole test again because you had the wrong QNH set. If you failed section 1 then he should have told you immediately. Crappy debrief or mistake I don't know but that's going to cost someone more than 1grand so it needs to be thought about very carefully.
It does underline the fact that we have no recourse with the CAA if they or one of their appointed officers acts inappropriately. Why do we have to take it to court before we get to have our complaint heard by an independent body?
I think it's a shame that a guy with what seems like a reasonable complaint needs to sue. Good luck to you, I hope you get the correct result but sadly it will definitely result in the CAA behaving prejudicially difficult with you because they want to make sure that they fall within the rules (and probably to remind you who the boss is). So if your IR is taking longer than 14 days to come back then that's why and there's nothing you can do to stop it
.
I would suggest using the same day counter for everything else from now and never let on that you sued for that, ever.
It does underline the fact that we have no recourse with the CAA if they or one of their appointed officers acts inappropriately. Why do we have to take it to court before we get to have our complaint heard by an independent body?
I think it's a shame that a guy with what seems like a reasonable complaint needs to sue. Good luck to you, I hope you get the correct result but sadly it will definitely result in the CAA behaving prejudicially difficult with you because they want to make sure that they fall within the rules (and probably to remind you who the boss is). So if your IR is taking longer than 14 days to come back then that's why and there's nothing you can do to stop it
.I would suggest using the same day counter for everything else from now and never let on that you sued for that, ever.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would add that by in large I've had pretty decent service from the CAA and when I needed to talk to someone they were very helpful but sometimes it seems that all they want to do is make sure the paper is all correct and everything else is irrelevant.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question to OP, how many altimeters did you have in the aircraft? Was all of them set wrong according to the examiner? One would probably been straight in front of him, or was it just your own altimeter that he said was wrong?
I have heard people before partial or fail because of wrong QNH.
I have heard people before partial or fail because of wrong QNH.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cookiimonstar1 - you should sue for lack of a sensible debrief alone; your examiner's attitude stinks if that was truly the reason for a fail. If he/she was going to fail you on that alone you should have gone no further in time or distance than leaving the departure circuit.
Make the frame for letters big and gold. Good luck!
Make the frame for letters big and gold. Good luck!
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Offshore
Age: 73
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truly great first-officer material then..
"I might be fighting a loosing (sic) battle but i will always stand up for myself, and i will never back down from a fight whether it is a fight in the pub or in the courts."
Young man... My task in life involves the selection and recruitment of aircrew for a well-known middle-east airline.
If your log-book showed a fail or partial, I wouldn't give a
!
If however you mentioned suing the CAA, slagging off your examiner or (God forbid!) repeated the top paragraph (above), your application would be swiftly shredded. Period.
I really, really suggest that you take a while to consider the consequences of your proposed actions and trust that you take my comments in the constructive manner in which they are intended.
Young man... My task in life involves the selection and recruitment of aircrew for a well-known middle-east airline.
If your log-book showed a fail or partial, I wouldn't give a
!If however you mentioned suing the CAA, slagging off your examiner or (God forbid!) repeated the top paragraph (above), your application would be swiftly shredded. Period.
I really, really suggest that you take a while to consider the consequences of your proposed actions and trust that you take my comments in the constructive manner in which they are intended.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It does underline the fact that we have no recourse with the CAA if they or one of their appointed officers acts inappropriately. Why do we have to take it to court before we get to have our complaint heard by an independent body?
I can't easily check the current rules but it used to be regulation 6 of the CAA Regulations (or some similar title) that enabled anyone to appeal against a decision taken by the CAA (or an employee thereof). The appeal was usually heard by members of the CAA board and, in my experience, if there were any valid grounds for the appeal the result came down in favour of the appellant.
In reality, the grounds for appeal must be that some procedure was not followed, or not adequately explained - not just that you didn't like the result. It sounds like the OP went through this process and, at the very least, was given the benefit of the doubt.
Taking legal action is open to all of us...but following such a route needs careful consideration. It can be costly and can get one a bit of a reputation - such a reputation. Whether deserved or not, the reputation can stay with you for far longer than any interest in a failed flight test. As to the costs, if you lose your case you can easily end up having to pay the other side's costs and, trust me on this, the CAA doesn't use cheap barristers.
As to the original question of whether the licensing people are holding up the work on your licence - well, I'd be surprised if this were the case, except as Genghis pointed out, they may be making sure that they do everything absolutely by the book because they're dealing with a demonstrably litigious individual. And that's assuming the person dealing with your new licence even knows or cares about your legal action.
To the OP, I'm all for everyone getting a fair hearing but as I approach the twilight of my career, my advice to you would be to stop wasting everyone's time. There's probably more to this whole business than meets the eye, whether you recognise it or not, but as/if you progress through you career you will probably come to understand that your reputation with your peers is based far more on your competence, credibility and reliability rather than whether you got one over the CAA....and that there are better things in life than winning arguments.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That does sound like unprofessional behaviour on the part of the examiner, if true, both in allowing the flight to be completed and in failing to offer a thorough debrief.
As examiners I know have explained to me, every test is also a lesson and the candidate should learn something. This is most obvious for a test the candidate has failed. How is cookiimonster to learn without a good debrief? How does he even know if he is ready for a retest, or what to study further if not?
The examiner would need to allow the student at least to start the second section of the flight, probably the navigation leg, to decide it was a fail; had cookiimonster then set the QNH to the examiner's satisfaction he could have continued and perhaps gained a partial pass, and had to refly the departure section. Failing two sections is a fail, so as soon as cookiimonster started on his navigation leg with QNH not set to the examiner's satisfaction the examiner should have stopped the test and flown the aircraft himself back to the airfield.
By not stopping the exam at the point of failure the examiner himself has muddied the water. In a balance of probabilities, if the court is persuaded the test should have been stopped earlier but wasn't then the balance of probabilities goes to cookiimonster. I for one would suspect that the examiner didn't notice until near the end of the test. This implies either that he was not very attentive, that the subscale was too small and perhaps set between figures or else the subscale had somehow been knocked, and the student was either not at fault or might have deserved a partial pass.
The CAA has given cookiimonster a free retest. From their point of view this is the worst thing to do. They have admitted that cookiimonster at least has a case, and might have been correct. Yet cookiimonster is still out of pocket for the aircraft hire, and the examiner compounded this by making cookiimonster fly longer than necessary. They then did not cancel the first attempt, which is I think the least of the offences but brings in pride.
This is all, of course, only my inexpert opinion. However I know a very good expert witness, who has instructed CPLs and IRs, who has worked a few legal cases and always gives his honest opinion regardless if that is what the client wants to hear. If he agrees with me I would say you have a strong case, and he might be able to stand up in court and give that opinion too.
That should be your first move, though, to talk to a court-accredited expert witness. There are some poor ones around, it is not a great system, so be careful who you pick and emphasise that sound advice is more important than building a case. I know of one individual who lost a lot of money because his expert witness persuaded him he had a case, and the company he sued disagreed. Any objective person could have told him he did not have a leg to stand on, and he ended up paying a lot of costs, for both sides.
As examiners I know have explained to me, every test is also a lesson and the candidate should learn something. This is most obvious for a test the candidate has failed. How is cookiimonster to learn without a good debrief? How does he even know if he is ready for a retest, or what to study further if not?
The examiner would need to allow the student at least to start the second section of the flight, probably the navigation leg, to decide it was a fail; had cookiimonster then set the QNH to the examiner's satisfaction he could have continued and perhaps gained a partial pass, and had to refly the departure section. Failing two sections is a fail, so as soon as cookiimonster started on his navigation leg with QNH not set to the examiner's satisfaction the examiner should have stopped the test and flown the aircraft himself back to the airfield.
By not stopping the exam at the point of failure the examiner himself has muddied the water. In a balance of probabilities, if the court is persuaded the test should have been stopped earlier but wasn't then the balance of probabilities goes to cookiimonster. I for one would suspect that the examiner didn't notice until near the end of the test. This implies either that he was not very attentive, that the subscale was too small and perhaps set between figures or else the subscale had somehow been knocked, and the student was either not at fault or might have deserved a partial pass.
The CAA has given cookiimonster a free retest. From their point of view this is the worst thing to do. They have admitted that cookiimonster at least has a case, and might have been correct. Yet cookiimonster is still out of pocket for the aircraft hire, and the examiner compounded this by making cookiimonster fly longer than necessary. They then did not cancel the first attempt, which is I think the least of the offences but brings in pride.
This is all, of course, only my inexpert opinion. However I know a very good expert witness, who has instructed CPLs and IRs, who has worked a few legal cases and always gives his honest opinion regardless if that is what the client wants to hear. If he agrees with me I would say you have a strong case, and he might be able to stand up in court and give that opinion too.
That should be your first move, though, to talk to a court-accredited expert witness. There are some poor ones around, it is not a great system, so be careful who you pick and emphasise that sound advice is more important than building a case. I know of one individual who lost a lot of money because his expert witness persuaded him he had a case, and the company he sued disagreed. Any objective person could have told him he did not have a leg to stand on, and he ended up paying a lot of costs, for both sides.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then again spitoon maybe thats the reason why we are in the position today that the CAA really don't care what the customers think and just shaft folk without any thought with the full knowledge nobody will ever come after them.
That sudden change in policy about IACO IR's keeping theory exams valid will have shafted severaL 100's of pro pilots. And if not challanged its going to cost each one of them 1-3K to sort it out not with standing the time spent studying for the exams and transport back to the UK. And all the other stuff.
Mind you I think they might have bitten off more than they can chew with that one as they arn't dealing with an impoverished wannabies who they can pat of the head and say suck it up here is a free test.
That sudden change in policy about IACO IR's keeping theory exams valid will have shafted severaL 100's of pro pilots. And if not challanged its going to cost each one of them 1-3K to sort it out not with standing the time spent studying for the exams and transport back to the UK. And all the other stuff.
Mind you I think they might have bitten off more than they can chew with that one as they arn't dealing with an impoverished wannabies who they can pat of the head and say suck it up here is a free test.
If you failed section 1 then he should have told you immediately
By not stopping the exam at the point of failure the examiner himself has muddied the water
Furthermore, the examiner does not discuss the sections as they are completed - indeed he will likely have stressed to the candidate in the briefing that even if the candidate thinks he has failed a section, to put it behind him and continue the flight.
Can I suggest that posters read The CAA guidance on the CPL skills test before postulating on the actions of the examiner?
As for the debrief - your post says that he told you that your flying was "excellent" but you had the wrong QNH set throughout. What more did you want him to tell you? Furthermore, what benefit would have been gained if he had waited for your instructor then told him the same thing?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defamation of Character.
Might not be what a lot of people say but it is what their thinking.
My personal opinion which is echoed above is that's a perfectly fair fail and I would respect the examiner less if he hadn't failed you.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nonsense, the examiner would have clearly known (having already decided that the Altimeter was inaccurately set by 1Hpa) that the candidate was going keep flying through the entire test with it set like that and thus was heading for a fail, it would have been nothing short of obvious and infact the CAA agreed with that having given him a free retest 
. Not to mention the fact that he ran through the entire test with him having failed at least two sections which, as you know having read the guidance is a fail at which point the examiner would have offered to cut the test short. Not doing so is unprofessional and also fairly inhuman.
As far as I can see the right thing to do as an examiner would have been to point out having failed the departure that the altimeter was incorrectly set, and continued for the partial no??
Put down your rulebook for a second and consider how you would have felt given the exact situation the guy describes.
I don't condone the actions of the OP after the fact but I can see why he feels hard done by. Still it's a huge mistake to take the professional body to court given that he has his entire career ahead of him. Taking it on the chin and recognising his spot in the food chain would have been a far more sensible option.
Also, we have the right to appeal to the CAA but if the CAA is not doing it's job by being unhelpful or ignoring perfectly reasonable requests for advice or assistance because A) the paperwork wasn't filled out quite correctly, this happened to me recently when I applied for a new type and was told that the TRTO (OAA) had not included the appendix to it's approval (this I was informed later by the CAA happens an awful lot) or B) It's not their remit to help unless subject to a hefty fee. We have no real independent body to talk to and feedback reasonable grievances without going all legal. Unless BALPA do this and I'm grossly mistaken.
. Not to mention the fact that he ran through the entire test with him having failed at least two sections which, as you know having read the guidance is a fail at which point the examiner would have offered to cut the test short. Not doing so is unprofessional and also fairly inhuman. As far as I can see the right thing to do as an examiner would have been to point out having failed the departure that the altimeter was incorrectly set, and continued for the partial no??
Put down your rulebook for a second and consider how you would have felt given the exact situation the guy describes.
I don't condone the actions of the OP after the fact but I can see why he feels hard done by. Still it's a huge mistake to take the professional body to court given that he has his entire career ahead of him. Taking it on the chin and recognising his spot in the food chain would have been a far more sensible option.
Also, we have the right to appeal to the CAA but if the CAA is not doing it's job by being unhelpful or ignoring perfectly reasonable requests for advice or assistance because A) the paperwork wasn't filled out quite correctly, this happened to me recently when I applied for a new type and was told that the TRTO (OAA) had not included the appendix to it's approval (this I was informed later by the CAA happens an awful lot) or B) It's not their remit to help unless subject to a hefty fee. We have no real independent body to talk to and feedback reasonable grievances without going all legal. Unless BALPA do this and I'm grossly mistaken.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sueing for defamation of character due to failing a test? Whaaaat??? If your sister thinks that constitutes defamation she knows even less about the law than I do, and that isn't much.
Sueing on the basis of your word against his? Oh dear God!
The court are going to be in stitches when this case is introduced!
Unvbelieveable. You must be a joy to be around if that's the way you resolve life's little ups and downs. If your altimeter setting skills are as careful and accurate as your spelling and grammar - and what else can one go on? - I know who I'd believe.
Hard to believe a lawyer would think there was even a case to answer in this, let alone win the unequal battle between the CAA and an individual. Is the sister-barrister a completly self-obsessed rookie too I wonder?
Get over yourself fella. Come back to planet Earth...
And best of luck job-hunting if you take this much futher in public- because that too will be an unequal struggle.
Sueing on the basis of your word against his? Oh dear God!
The court are going to be in stitches when this case is introduced!
Unvbelieveable. You must be a joy to be around if that's the way you resolve life's little ups and downs. If your altimeter setting skills are as careful and accurate as your spelling and grammar - and what else can one go on? - I know who I'd believe.
Hard to believe a lawyer would think there was even a case to answer in this, let alone win the unequal battle between the CAA and an individual. Is the sister-barrister a completly self-obsessed rookie too I wonder?
Get over yourself fella. Come back to planet Earth...
And best of luck job-hunting if you take this much futher in public- because that too will be an unequal struggle.
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gotcha lies here:
This unfortunately is a recurring statement for each phase of the test.
You should also bear in mind that the CAA is not a 'static' body from the view of manpower. Their management regularly gets head-hunted into the airlines (particularly at present when their salaries are dropping rapidly behind those of airlines) so it is entirely feasible that your may cross paths with one of those involved in your case - not quite where you want to be at an early stage fo your career.
Talkpedlar speaks wise words; in your shoes I would listen.
HWB
Set and cross check altimeters to QNH, Regional Pressure setting RPS, Standard pressure setting, or QFE as specified in checklist, Ops Manual or as appropriate
You should also bear in mind that the CAA is not a 'static' body from the view of manpower. Their management regularly gets head-hunted into the airlines (particularly at present when their salaries are dropping rapidly behind those of airlines) so it is entirely feasible that your may cross paths with one of those involved in your case - not quite where you want to be at an early stage fo your career.
Talkpedlar speaks wise words; in your shoes I would listen.
HWB
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking this up with the CAA and being permitted to take a free recheck is one thing. Dragging it through the courts is entirely another. As other posters have stated already, this is a small industry. Mentioning this to anyone with any sort of influence in any area of this profession will see potential employers run a mile. People will brand you from being anything from an HR nightmare, to a likely union rabble rouser or a potential CRM disaster rather than a person of principle. They will decide this before they have even met you. Really.
.....and why in the hell are you publishing a very individual case on a very open public forum?? You dont appear as smart as you clearly think you are! I believe this one could bite you in the posterior with quite spectacular fashion.
.....and why in the hell are you publishing a very individual case on a very open public forum?? You dont appear as smart as you clearly think you are! I believe this one could bite you in the posterior with quite spectacular fashion.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am curious did the aircraft have 2 altimeters? (or more)
Was these both cross checked and set with different or same QNH?
Did the QNH check and get checked regularly during the whole flight?
I don't think the OP is telling the full story on this, some info is missing in my opinion.
But I would not have gone to legal action, that seems a bit overboard!
Was these both cross checked and set with different or same QNH?
Did the QNH check and get checked regularly during the whole flight?
I don't think the OP is telling the full story on this, some info is missing in my opinion.
But I would not have gone to legal action, that seems a bit overboard!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wales
Age: 61
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By publishing this on, as has been said, a very public forum, you have;
1. Perhaps opened yourslf up to all sorts of problems in court by making completely unsubstansiated accusations and insinuations against the CAA and it's staff.
2. Put yourself in a very difficult position regarding your future career - every airline will know who you are, even if you pulled this post today.
3. Put yourself at great financial risk - your sister may be a Barrister but, unless she owns her own Chambers, she will not be allowed to represent you without the express permission of the Senior Partners of the firm. They may decide that your, already very weak case for any compensation, is so ridiculous that they wouldn't risk their reputation in allowing their name to be sullied by being associated with you.
It's not just your own legal costs you have to consider, before you can "take the CAA to court", you have to bear in mind that you are liable to cover their costs as well and that will almost certainly bankrupt you if, sorry, when you lose.
You are naieve in the extreme; Be grateful you got a re test and that shortly you will have the full rating.
You've already caused untold harm to your own professional reputation - stop being an idiot, quit and repair the damage while you still can.
1. Perhaps opened yourslf up to all sorts of problems in court by making completely unsubstansiated accusations and insinuations against the CAA and it's staff.
2. Put yourself in a very difficult position regarding your future career - every airline will know who you are, even if you pulled this post today.
3. Put yourself at great financial risk - your sister may be a Barrister but, unless she owns her own Chambers, she will not be allowed to represent you without the express permission of the Senior Partners of the firm. They may decide that your, already very weak case for any compensation, is so ridiculous that they wouldn't risk their reputation in allowing their name to be sullied by being associated with you.
It's not just your own legal costs you have to consider, before you can "take the CAA to court", you have to bear in mind that you are liable to cover their costs as well and that will almost certainly bankrupt you if, sorry, when you lose.
You are naieve in the extreme; Be grateful you got a re test and that shortly you will have the full rating.
You've already caused untold harm to your own professional reputation - stop being an idiot, quit and repair the damage while you still can.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try zero cushions and enough to have your head touching the roof and you will see.
Those that have the seat on its upper limit more than likely won't have experenced the parallax in the vertical plane.
Those of us that arn't vertically challanged and arn't eyes level with the altimeter at the top of travel are quite aware of it like the previosu poster has mentioned having to squidge down to a more horizontal view to get rid of it.
Those that have the seat on its upper limit more than likely won't have experenced the parallax in the vertical plane.
Those of us that arn't vertically challanged and arn't eyes level with the altimeter at the top of travel are quite aware of it like the previosu poster has mentioned having to squidge down to a more horizontal view to get rid of it.