This thread has gone on a bit and off thread a lot.
Fol de rol and a hey nonny no.
Blue Eagle got it right the first time;
If my memory serves me correctly licences, be they drivers, firearms, liquor or whatever, are issued by the nominated authority on the proviso that the holder meets certain standards of fitness and suitability. If these standards are not met or maintained then the issuing authority has an obligation in public interests to withdraw that privilege.
CAR 269 inter-alia allows CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence, certificate or authority if satisfied that the holder;
„h has contravened a provision of the act,
„h fails to satisfy a prescribed requirement,
„h failed his/her duty in safe navigation of aircraft,
„h is not a fit or proper person to have the responsibilities etc., of such licence, or
„h has contravened a direction or instruction pertaining to safe navigation.
Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.
I suggest that if the holder has, say, a medical condition that won¡¦t improve then CASA would be justified in effecting a life suspension regardless of the outcome of any court hearing in relation to other matters. This is supposition on my part because I do not know what the details are relating to the specific incident.
A licence is a privilege, not a right, so what is all the fuss about?
All the rest is just interesting.
Robin Hood may well have been a romantic notion emulated by the "experimental" (AUF) brigade but don't expect me to step up for a ride in your fantasy.
Risk your self by all means, but not the gormless and unsuspecting.
