CASA & Examiner Liability
Thread Starter
CASA & Examiner Liability
All examiners, CFIs and anyone else involved in pilot licence testing or reviews, take a peep at the new CASA Form 61-2P. Seems that YOU are now liable for any charges (unspecified of course) that CASA may levy if CASA withdraws or refuses or are otherwise unable to assess any of YOUR paperwork. My understanding was that examiners were appointed to do CASA mandated testing etc because they can no longer do it themselves. Or is this a wrong assumption?
In any case, I know one examiner who won't be signing off on that liability, unless the applicant for the test can somehow provide indemnity.
In any case, I know one examiner who won't be signing off on that liability, unless the applicant for the test can somehow provide indemnity.
All examiners, CFIs and anyone else involved in pilot licence testing or reviews, take a peep at the new CASA Form 61-2P. Seems that YOU are now liable for any charges (unspecified of course) that CASA may levy if CASA withdraws or refuses or are otherwise unable to assess any of YOUR paperwork. My understanding was that examiners were appointed to do CASA mandated testing etc because they can no longer do it themselves. Or is this a wrong assumption?
In any case, I know one examiner who won't be signing off on that liability, unless the applicant for the test can somehow provide indemnity.
In any case, I know one examiner who won't be signing off on that liability, unless the applicant for the test can somehow provide indemnity.
Thread Starter
If the examiner’s paperwork is not right, and is the only issue, maybe it’s fair to require some responsibility.
But an examiner can’t know everything about every candidate tested. There may be something missing that the examiner could not verify ( e.g. claimed flying experience) or something that the candidate has not revealed ( e.g. prosecution, medical issue requiring further investigation).
Yet CASA seem to be saying that if they reject the test for ANY reason the examiner must pay if they spend any time on the case.
CASA also get things wrong, though they never admit it.
Public service.... pig’s ar$e.
But an examiner can’t know everything about every candidate tested. There may be something missing that the examiner could not verify ( e.g. claimed flying experience) or something that the candidate has not revealed ( e.g. prosecution, medical issue requiring further investigation).
Yet CASA seem to be saying that if they reject the test for ANY reason the examiner must pay if they spend any time on the case.
CASA also get things wrong, though they never admit it.
Public service.... pig’s ar$e.
If the examiner’s paperwork is not right, and is the only issue, maybe it’s fair to require some responsibility.
But an examiner can’t know everything about every candidate tested. There may be something missing that the examiner could not verify ( e.g. claimed flying experience) or something that the candidate has not revealed ( e.g. prosecution, medical issue requiring further investigation).
Yet CASA seem to be saying that if they reject the test for ANY reason the examiner must pay if they spend any time on the case.
CASA also get things wrong, though they never admit it.
Public service.... pig’s ar$e.
But an examiner can’t know everything about every candidate tested. There may be something missing that the examiner could not verify ( e.g. claimed flying experience) or something that the candidate has not revealed ( e.g. prosecution, medical issue requiring further investigation).
Yet CASA seem to be saying that if they reject the test for ANY reason the examiner must pay if they spend any time on the case.
CASA also get things wrong, though they never admit it.
Public service.... pig’s ar$e.
