Wed May 22, 2019 9:41 pm
I do find interesting the discussion of why and how people use different (allowable) techniques for logging time.
But the thread discussion has diverged some way from what I took from the OP, which I found rather depressing as it would appear that the CAA reviewer found it acceptable to bounce the application at first sight without the simple sanity check of looking at even one line of the logbook to line up clock times with elapsed time to see how the applicant had logged the training.
Instead, the assumption seems to have been that of course the applicant and training organisation were wrong/trying it on, rather than initially taking the applicant's side and assuming that it was correct so then checking why it apparently wasn't - rather than the other way around. If they had, it would seem that the actual times could have been determined from available paperwork rather than causing the time, angst and further expense to the applicant that did result. And let's not forget the applicant will have paid a fair wedge anyway to get the apparently cursory examination that they did.
If that sounds jaded, then it is: Since I have recently experienced exactly that attitude with a friend's applications (yes, more than one) where the worst possible interpretation by the CAA reviewer has been taken each time - regardless of tests passed or competences previously demonstrated - with the upshot that he is facing a likely >£1,200 additional cost for no practical or safety reason.
I can't say I've been that impressed with one of his (several) training providers either, who effectively left it to him to fill out complex application forms with limited to no guidance and in fact erroneous records signed off which twice needed to be corrected. Which was done with poor grace despite being (a) Their error, and (b) uncorrected would have definitely led to a CAA bounce in itself.
Those are situations that I have direct knowledge of. Yet these stories are not uncommon on here either.
My conclusion is that there is something apparently awry in the training and approvals process in too many cases in the UK at the moment.
Thankfully there are knowledgeable, positive, generous and helpful people who give freely of their time to help put things right. Pleasingly, many of them post on here.
And no, I don't intend to provide further details here on the above just yet as the situation is rightly under review for appeal.