CP - The point of administrative actions against licences etc is that the holder no longer satisfies the criteria for holding the licence etc. Failure to satisfy those criteria may not be, and in most cases is not, a crime, etc.
Clinically, Creampuff is correct (again), but who decided this and on what grounds ?? – and here's the rub.
Phelan - No analysis of the safety risk is required, and “reason to believe” is deemed sufficient cause at this point. CASA has often cited the “serious and imminent risk to air safety” concept in actions of this kind since its introduction in new legislation in 2003, etc.
Not only does a business shutdown cripple an organisation which is usually running on pretty tight margins. It also publicises the situation to the company’s commercial disadvantage by creating doubt amongst customers, sales agents, suppliers, creditors and competitors. It also places instant additional stress on management, which may be faced with the need to dismiss staff, thereby putting workers under stress as well. Up to this point CASA hasn’t been called on to prove anything at all.
No - it's all just a bit too cosy for me, too light on proof, too long on practice, far too subjective and wide open to corruption, in the way that total power corrupts. Currently CASA uses this is flawed system aided and abetted by a system which is obliged by it's charter to assist in the bastardry.
No one could afford to challenge them on Constitutional grounds though they have had a hammering every time out of the box, even then the administration would just find some wriggle room and slither out from under (again).
I'm not sure just what CASA think they are trying to achieve, but it has sweet sod all to do with improving safety or gaining the confidence, respect and cooperation of the industry, domestically or internationally.
The latest rubbish related to J* apples and Tiger oranges has the FAA rolling in the aisles.
Nope, this is a job for responsible gummint, CP has the right of it.