曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
person authorised to authorise, so to
speak, be it a Board Member or
somebody duly delegated. If the card
carried by the AP does not carry any
proper indication that the authoriser
was in fact so authorised then it may
not be valid (this may sound like a
cheap point, but as the CAA is not a
natural person in its own right, its
range of action is limited without
proper procedures).
To enable it to be produced in Court
as part of a case, that is, to be
admissible evidence, a document must
be properly authenticated.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 of Schedule 1
(of the 1982 Act) provide that a
document received in evidence
should have the seal of the CAA on
it, and that the seal itself is not valid
unless authenticated by the signature
Legal Stuff 279
of the Secretary of the CAA (or
somebody duly authorised by the
Board). In the light of this, unless a
document carried by an alleged AP
has such a seal and signature on it,
and is dated because it is subordinate
legislation, there may be no proof
(acceptable to a court, anyway) that
he is in fact an AP, and therefore
probably should not have wasted
your time asking all those questions
in the beginning.
A constable is an Authorised Person,
but don't forget to ask for his
warrant card or note his collar
number (every policeman has one,
including detectives, so don't let
them tell you otherwise). A
policeman in full uniform is properly
appointed, but if he's not wearing a
hat, or his buttons are undone, his
authority is in question (a motorist
was stopped by two policemen
without hats, and the charges were
thrown out). He may be from plain
clothes, of course, but "constable" in
the normal sense doesn't usually
mean "detective".
Statements
Statements (made by you) can cause
a problem, especially with reference
to your Common Law Right of
Silence. If given, a statement should
give all relevant points, not just answers
to the investigator's questions, which
may only reflect what he wants to
hear. What is actually relevant is
naturally open to argument, which is
why you should either have expert
assistance or stay silent. Where a jury
is allowed to take notice of your
silence, you could explain that you
were not convinced that such points
were being covered.
As nothing generally happens except
by agreement (which means a
contract is formed), there is an
implication of confidentiality
between you and the interviewer,
essentially meaning that all that is
discussed by yourselves should not
be relayed to third parties—this
includes within the CAA, as they
make copies of everything.
Interviews
These are inquiries to which certain
rules of procedure will apply, on top
of natural justice. "Statutory Inquiry"
is actually defined (in the Tribunals
and Inquiries Act 1971) as "an
inquiry or hearing held or to be held
in pursuance of a duty imposed by a
provision contained in, or having
any effect under, any enactment".
According to Sections 7 (2) and 7
(3)(c) of the 1982 Act, the CAA is in
all civil proceedings a Tribunal
supervised by the Council on
Tribunals. Where the CAA requests
an interview, which is a civil
proceeding, Regulation 25 (2) of the
CAA regulations imposes upon them
a duty to disclose certain
information relevant to those
proceedings beforehand, which
could include copies of the evidence
to which the inquiry relates. Under
Section 12 (1)(a) of the Tribunals
and Inquiries Act, it is the CAA's
duty to furnish a written statement
of its reasons for an inquiry if so
requested at the time notice of the
inquiry is given.
In Canada, tribunals come under
Section 29 (1) of the Aeronautics Act.
Boards of Inquiry are established
under Part I of the Act in several
sections and are subject to the Acts
enabling the TSTS.
280 Operational Flying
Production of Licences
The ANO says that you must
produce your licence to an
Authorised Person within a
reasonable time after such a request
from them. This request must
obviously be made personally,
because you will need to check their
credentials, and because a request to
send your licence somewhere is
actually one to "surrender", which is
not the same thing according to the
1982 Act. The Act itself specifically
mentions "custody", "production"
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
飞行员操作飞行手册Pilot_Operational_Flying_Manual下(76)
