NZ Fit and proper person
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not on this planet
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ Fit and proper person
It it just me or does any one else wonder where the AIA and industry groups were when they introduced the new requirements for obtaining aviation documents.
This is amazing stuff.
ANY change to ANY aviation document - ie putting a rating on your licence now requires a police and trafic conviction history to be sent to the CAA - Each time...
This is required even for PPL.
This process takes up to four weeks even if you have no history. they obviously don't trust any pilots to tell the truth.
This is amazing stuff.
ANY change to ANY aviation document - ie putting a rating on your licence now requires a police and trafic conviction history to be sent to the CAA - Each time...
This is required even for PPL.
This process takes up to four weeks even if you have no history. they obviously don't trust any pilots to tell the truth.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a CB
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are valid for 24 months, so if you go from PPL to CPL in 24 months, you don't need to worry about getting another F & P check. (well that is my understanding of the rule changes)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wellington
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the only thing they don't want to know (so far) is how your spouse/partner feels about you having a licence or whatever.
I'm serious - the precedent has been set - if you want to get or renew a firearms license in NZ the police interview your partner - if they don't agree, you're stuffed. I'm just waiting for CAA to twig to this one.
I'm serious - the precedent has been set - if you want to get or renew a firearms license in NZ the police interview your partner - if they don't agree, you're stuffed. I'm just waiting for CAA to twig to this one.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This does seem very excessive and impractical. Do we think the new director has anything to do with it? It seems to be along the same lines as the 'dob in a pilot hotline' idea.
Don't we have enough bureaucratic crap to deal with?
Don't we have enough bureaucratic crap to deal with?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, this is to do with the clown that decided to buzz the Skytower a while back. You know, the instructor who ditched near St Heliers after having stolen an aircraft.
He will be the scapegoat for this - a standard over-reaction by the CAA to a very isolated incident.
Surely the NZ CAA is the most inept bunch of incompetents ever to infest and office. Fire the lot of them, they are worthless.
He will be the scapegoat for this - a standard over-reaction by the CAA to a very isolated incident.
Surely the NZ CAA is the most inept bunch of incompetents ever to infest and office. Fire the lot of them, they are worthless.
Guest
Posts: n/a
i'm not sure where you got the 'changing a document' from - i can't find that anywhere. as far as i can see it's only for the initial issue of a licence - not for subsequent ratings attached to that licence. you already have the 'document', which is what the fit and proper person application is for
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tropopause
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my personal fav,
"have you in any country been dealt with for any offence by way of diversion"
I thought that the whole point of diversion was so that you didnt have to declare, and forgive me if im wrong, but im pretty sure that that would constantitute an illegal question to ask.
But still i think its a bit of a laugh really, i mean unless you have countless offences for similar type offences i dont see how this shows "unfit" people anyway.
"have you in any country been dealt with for any offence by way of diversion"
I thought that the whole point of diversion was so that you didnt have to declare, and forgive me if im wrong, but im pretty sure that that would constantitute an illegal question to ask.
But still i think its a bit of a laugh really, i mean unless you have countless offences for similar type offences i dont see how this shows "unfit" people anyway.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth!
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afraid not...
Dear FL440
OZ CASA is the same.
Whilst I accept it negates the whole point of such policies you will find that other nations now running "background" checks have disclaimers allowing them to violate diversion or spend conviction laws etc.
However CAANZ and CASA also both make it plain on their websites and forms that its jail time and / or crimes against aviation, national security or those concerning violence or dishonesty etc, that they are most concerned about.
So if you got done for under age boozing or whatever when you were 16 it shouldn't disqualify you (IMHO).
But I agree it seems a bit hypocritcal...
OZ CASA is the same.
Whilst I accept it negates the whole point of such policies you will find that other nations now running "background" checks have disclaimers allowing them to violate diversion or spend conviction laws etc.
However CAANZ and CASA also both make it plain on their websites and forms that its jail time and / or crimes against aviation, national security or those concerning violence or dishonesty etc, that they are most concerned about.
So if you got done for under age boozing or whatever when you were 16 it shouldn't disqualify you (IMHO).
But I agree it seems a bit hypocritcal...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be easier to have a list of people that can't hold a pilots licence (ie if you have been convicted of making car bombs etc!!!)
rather than make everyone else prove they are able to hold a pilots licence (ie they don't build car bombs in there spare time!!!!)
rather than make everyone else prove they are able to hold a pilots licence (ie they don't build car bombs in there spare time!!!!)
