The applicant does not get to tell the examiner how he would like to
deviate from the standards.

Likewise, the examiner has no basis for rejecting an applicant because
he does not meet the subjective personal standards of the examiner.

Using the BFR guide as an example (it's what I have in my hand) there is
a "ground" requirement. One can deliver, by rote, the exact answers to
questions on the ground reqirement, and do so with no understanding
whatsoever of what you are saying. Should an applicant be failed for
"failing to show understanding..." if he does in fact give the right
answers? Would probing further be "coming up with your own BFR"?

There is a


--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.