Orals results for all MCA Offices for OOW(D), Mates, Masters, OOW(E), 2nd E, Chiefs from 2014 to 2018

[MrStealth]

Yup!

My thoughts entirely. I think they are blowing smoke up my arse..... maybe to cover huge discrepancies? The only way to find out would be for a group of people to all stick in the same request, but for each office separately so that it falls below their magic ?600????

I feel a plan coming on!

Ian

I'd be up for that... Is there a template somewhere we can use?

[Midge]

Yup!

My thoughts entirely. I think they are blowing smoke up my arse..... maybe to cover huge discrepancies? The only way to find out would be for a group of people to all stick in the same request, but for each office separately so that it falls below their magic ?600????

I feel a plan coming on!

Ian

It is in my experience the only way round the time limit/ cost thing and get what you want. If it?s not in open data source which this wasn?t. I?m sure one of the reports on the smart scheme had stats, flobbernoggins post reminded me of it.
Is there any vexatious clause in your foi laws? If so beware of asking questions all worded exactly the same. They can decline here based on that, and there is a limit to how many questions each person can ask.

[chris]

It would be interesting to see the orals pass rate for ETO if it can be taken in Southampton and Tyneside. Tyneside since 2012 and Southampton since 2016.

[Hatchorder]

If anyone wants the PDF download of all the results then Charlie Delta has now attached them to the bottom of the first post.

Thanks CD,

Ian

[Inland Pirate]

Be interesting as well to see the number of appeals (and the number upheld) per office too? Gives an idea of people who perhaps feel they were wronged, and whether or not the MCA agrees?

[EH75]

That would be very interesting. I bet the numbers for that are very low. Does anyone actually know of anyone who has appealed an oral? Let alone been successful?

[Hatchorder]

That would be very interesting. I bet the numbers for that are very low. Does anyone actually know of anyone who has appealed an oral? Let alone been successful?

Yes, there was one recently where a candidate was failed, appealed and in the meantime passed the second attempt, but the appeal was upheld and his original result was changed.....

I hope they compensated him for the stress and the time missed at sea and the cost of the resit.....................

I wonder when they will modernise and start to record either video or audio and have a transparent process including appeals????????

Ian

[MrStealth]

That would be very interesting. I bet the numbers for that are very low. Does anyone actually know of anyone who has appealed an oral? Let alone been successful?

Yes - Me!

[EH75]

Interesting. Any details on the circumstances of the appeals? If that's not too personal a question. And they will actually retrospectively change the result of the exam? I thought the best you could hope for was a free resit!

[EH75]

I wonder when they will modernise and start to record either video or audio and have a transparent process including appeals????????

Speaking of modernising, good article in this months telegraph regarding the practice of female candidates being provided with "chaperones" in the Southampton office. If the MCA can't trust their employees to be alone in a room with a woman for an hour I suggest they need to look for some new examiners.

[MrStealth]

Interesting. Any details on the circumstances of the appeals? If that's not too personal a question. And they will actually retrospectively change the result of the exam? I thought the best you could hope for was a free resit!

Examiner asked a question relating to vessel lights (does a vessel doing XXX show YYY?). I answered per the rule book (she'd show ZZZ because of blah blah blah), examiner marked it as incorrect and failed me. Asked lecturers, classmates and a few industry contacts, all of whom confirmed I gave the right answer. Appealed to the MCA via the union, took 4 or 5 months and a lot of hounding before the MCA got back to me, but eventually the appeal was successful... Examiner hadn't understood the rule. Worth noting I'd already passed the resit by the time they got back to me though!

The chaperones article made for interesting reading. I'm amazed the MCA haven't followed the route taken by every major university and examination body in the UK and insisted every exam is recorded on CCTV.

[EH75]

So did you get a refund on your resit or any other recompense or an apology or anything? I would've expected both at a minimum?

[MrStealth]

So did you get a refund on your resit or any other recompense or an apology or anything? I would've expected both at a minimum?

I got an "Oops, sorry". We're still talking about other aspects.. Well, the union are. Apparently.

[kayak]

So the statistics for Mates(unlimited) orals at Aberdeen in 2016/17 are definitely incorrect. I know for a fact that I wasn't the only person to pass, I know of a few!

[CharlieDelta]

Speaking of modernising, good article in this months telegraph regarding the practice of female candidates being provided with "chaperones" in the Southampton office. If the MCA can't trust their employees to be alone in a room with a woman for an hour I suggest they need to look for some new examiners.

I think it's for the examiner's benefit rather than the candidate so there's no question of any impropriety. If you put yourself in the examiner's shoes, would you want one false allegation to forever colour your reputation? The mistake they have made is assuming that only women make such claims. They don't. Dishonest people do, male and female. In making this assumption, in associating dishonesty with gender, they have created a very awkward culture where women are not getting the same exam experience as men and may feel singled out. I know I would.

The only sensible option is to record all exams by CCTV to protect examiners and candidates. This could then also be used for appeals, quality control and training. Either that or have a second person in all exams, but CCTV is cheaper!