frank marriott Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 What would be reasonable selection criteria for an officer in the Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority? Would a person who for example crashes an aircraft on commercial ops whilst not having a current BFR be considered a "fit and proper person" to conduct these duties? It would seem like appointing a known criminal to run a police force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Appointing a crim to police actually has a few benifits, one of which is the fact that they know where to look to find others who are not doing the right thing. They also know how they got away with things and can shut loopholes that honest people have missed. So an 'ex' crim can make an exceptional policeman, ex being the word (of course someone still involved with criminal activities would only make a corrupt policeman, they are not good!). As for The CASA...................................... Nah I'll leave that alone:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The concept of "Fit and Proper" usually refers to criminal activity, bankruptcy, mental health or other activities contrary to the activity to be carried on. Here is a link to a typical Government Fit and Proper person test: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L01341 So for the example given, the person would have had to have been convicted of an offence, and it ain't an offence if you ain't been caught. OME 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 As for The CASA...................................... Nah I'll leave that alone:wink: (of course someone still involved with criminal activities would only make a corrupt policeman, they are not good!). I think you had already covered it here pretty good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The concept of "Fit and Proper" usually refers to criminal activity, bankruptcy, mental health or other activities contrary to the activity to be carried on.Here is a link to a typical Government Fit and Proper person test: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L01341 So for the example given, the person would have had to have been convicted of an offence, and it ain't an offence if you ain't been caught. OME Hi OME That's a good link for anyone contemplating the FPP question but an offence is an offence irrespective of whether the perpetrator has been caught...they just haven't been convicted. There can also be findings of guilt without a conviction (good behaviour bonds) ....conviction NO, guilty YES. Matters can be dealt with by diversion (no finding of guilt or conviction) where the person admits that but for the diversion they would have entered a plea guilty. Guilty NO. Conviction NO. Charged YES. So people need to answer the question carefully. Kaz 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 My great, great, great etc grandfather came out to Australia on the first fleet. A convict for stealing lead off a roof in England. Now talking about corruption in the police force, once he did his time here he became the very first Chief Constable of Police in Victoria What also makes it interesting is that for his services he was given a parcel of land however whilst the paper work was being sent back to the King, he was killed so he didn't get it. That parcel of land was number 1 Collins St Melbourne...true story. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Bummer, You could have been living at the Paris End! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 in Qld you can have a conviction and still be a fit and proper person to be a state politician. We have one at this moment, but that same person would not be considered fit and proper to be a shunter on Qld Rail if he was white. Not sure about any other colour. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 There should be a lot of emphasis placed on conviction. Until then the process hasn't gone it's course and the general view is innocent until proven guilty, at least in what I would call civilised countries. Any statement made where duress is involved should be taken with some caution. We don't accept confessions made under torture. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 What would be reasonable selection criteria for an officer in the Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority?Would a person who for example crashes an aircraft on commercial ops whilst not having a current BFR be considered a "fit and proper person" to conduct these duties? It would seem like appointing a known criminal to run a police force. The crash is irrelevant, many good pilots have crashed, just look at Bob Hoover. As for the other allegation, is this just based on hearsay? Fairly sure the insurance would not pay out if this turned out to be the case. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 'fit and proper person' is an arbatory intrenched loophole that CASA ( and other governments ) use at thier pleasure to eliminate persons it deems unfit, in the absense of other suitable evidence. There is very little comeback or defence one can mount to combat such a ruling. To demonstrate how unsound such a ruling or judgement is...the first office for the Lufthansa feeder airline who flew the A 320 into solid rock in the Alps would certainly have been deemed ' a fit and proper person ' when clearly he was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 If the authorities in Germany had known of the numerous doctor visits the co-pilot on the Lufthansa flight had had they would almost certainly have not said he was a fit and proper person. He had a sick certificate for the day! Just goes to show you need all the relevant information to judge fit and proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nong Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 "Fit and Proper" is a star chamber concept used by CASA against selected enemies and victims. "Bringing RAAus into disrepute" is the similar concept RAAus Managers have used against enemies, recalcitrants and victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 ..and having an ASIC would not necessarily show whether you're a 'fit & proper' person in the case of say the A320, just proves the point that an ASIC doesn't prove anything other than possibly show a persons past history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Having an ASIC proves they issued you with one. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Unless you use someone's else's, then it just proves one was issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now