View Single Post
Old 16th Mar 2014, 16:00
  #508 (permalink)  
dubbleyew eight
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
108. The phrase “fit and proper person” carries no precise meaning and takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is engaged and the ends to be served by those activities: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ. Whether a pilot is a fit and proper person is not to be measured by simply a consideration of whether they are competent to fly an aircraft but also requires consideration of their conduct “measured against the responsibilities, functions and duties of the holder of the [relevant] pilot licence” (Re Taylor and Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALD 312; Re Quadrio and  Civil Aviation Safety  Authority [2011] AATA 709 at [67]).
I find the implications of that judgement amazing. (Anderson v CASA btw)
CASA are always right and if you skip past something that they have done that is incompetent, or you disagree with their BS, you are a not fit and proper person.

what a frankenstein the pollies in their ignorance have set upon us.
dubbleyew eight is offline