The CAA is a UK Authority. County Courts do not exist in Scotland.
That document looks unconstitutional.
Is this relevant to license suspensions done by the infringements guy in the CAA?
Malibuflyer wrote:
the German CAA can’t just do what every other CAA on the world does, but the pilot has to go to the police himself to ask the police doing it.
Isn’t that the case everywhere? No one but yourself can obtain your “record” (as we call it) from the police. These things aren’t that simple though. There are different kinds of “ZÜPs” 
When I got my PPL there was a background check, and it was a called “normal record”, and it was a one time thing. However, there are now requirements for a background check if you need access to public airports, since 9/11. You need a special card to get in and out of the gates, and to get that card, you are required to hand them “papers” from the police. This has nothing to do with your license though, but is an anti terrorist thing required by anyone operating a public airports for scheduled commercial flights. These cards needs to be renewed every 5 years or so, and this involves a new “record”.
When those anti terrorist laws came into force (and airports being closed off), there was a time when a pilot licence worked to get in and out. Not anymore. With only a pilot license, you can only access an airport through the main gate now, and you get the usual “treatment” (scanning etc). With the access card you can walk in and out at will, carry stuff (tools, knives, guns, whatever). But, you won’t get that card without showing them your “record”, and it has to be a “full record”, include more stuff than what is needed for a pilot license.
Also, instructors (of any kind) that involves instructing people under 18, will have to get a “record” that includes criminal activities related to child abuse.
In no circumstance are you required to walk around with your “record”. It is not a physical or electronic “thing” anyway, it is created on demand for a particular purpose only. It is highly confidential, and there are lots of different versions dependent on content. If anyone “needs” your record, it has to be backed by law, this includes yourself. You cannot go to the police to simply “see it”. There are time dependent ones, and content dependent ones, or both. Lot’s of different laws regulating this, the actual content etc.
Rwy20 wrote:
When you see a requirement for “applying the rules, in spirit and letter” you know that this hasn’t been written by anyone with even the most basic legal education
Perhaps, but at least the UK CAA do the honor to write a note on how they assess this. To have a pilot license is no right, but a privilege. How they assess if you are fit/unfit for that privilege is, if not all that helpful all things considered, at least the honorable ting to do. They don’t need to inform about this according to the “letter”, but rather due to the “spirit” of the applicable law of which the privilege is mentioned As stated in the note, the law does not specify how the CAA should assess this, only that it should indeed be assessed. It’s the very basis for the privilege.
They do indeed set a standard here with this note IMO. If only the Norwegian CAA could do half as much.
The funny thing is that a UL “license” is not a privilege, but a right There is no license in the legal term, only letter(s) of verified competence tied to a medical check. Everyone has a right to fly UL if he/she has verified the competence and passed the medical. It is a different legal thing altogether.
To have a pilot license is no right, but a privilege
This guy would have a view on that
In the UK, you could drive a car without a license, provided you were not disqualified from applying for one. I can’t find that rule anymore so maybe it is gone. It was similar with shotguns; you had a right to have one (I am told the police had ways to get around that) while a rifle certificate can be refused without a reason. But that one is now gone also.
Good to know that Norway has some weird regs too…
Peter wrote:
Good to know that Norway has some weird regs too…
Lots of weird regs. For instance Part-NCO for Annex-I that is out on hearing now. I have looked into it, and while the “spirit” of it makes sense, the “letter” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for at least 50% of it, and that includes the basics of the validity of the regulations themselves (IMO for the time being at least, but have to discuss it a bit). How is a pilot supposed to read those regs when flying Annex-I planes? As long as we interpret in the right “spirit”, we can do whatever we want? What kind of “spirit” will the police and prosecutors use, if we brake some of those regs? I have to send this to the Ombudsman as this is insane as it is intended by the CAA.
The practical, but simplified, difference between privileges and rights is:
A right cannot be taken away from you unless you are convicted for something. The right for freedom is taken away if you kill someone for instance.
A privilege can be taken away from you if you no longer fulfill the terms of the privilege.
