|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Paul BlairPaul Blair Date: Sep 10, 2008 17:13
This may turn out to be interesting.
A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone off
during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with endangering
an aircraft.
So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that a
mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
Paul
|
| |
|
| | 113 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Sep 10, 2008 19:52
Paul Blair wrote:
> This may turn out to be interesting.
>
> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone off
> during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with endangering
> an aircraft.
>
> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that a
> mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
Added aus.legal
Probably not. The relevant legislation is
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1991165/s22.html
"(1) A person who, while on board a Division 3 aircraft, does an act,
reckless as to whether the act will endanger the safety of the aircraft,
is guilty of an offence."
So I think they'll only have to prove that he was reckless about the
safety aspect, not that the aircraft was in fact endangered or could be
endangered.
|
| Show full article (1.44Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: TomTomTomTom Date: Sep 10, 2008 20:31
> Paul Blair wrote:
>> This may turn out to be interesting.
>>
>> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone off
>> during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with
>> endangering an aircraft.
>>
>> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that a
>> mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
|
| Show full article (2.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Sep 10, 2008 20:38
TomTom wrote:
>> Paul Blair wrote:
>>> This may turn out to be interesting.
>>>
>>> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone off
>>> during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with
>>> endangering an aircraft.
>>>
>>> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that a
>>> mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TomTomTomTom Date: Sep 10, 2008 20:58
> TomTom wrote:
>>> Paul Blair wrote:
>>>> This may turn out to be interesting.
>>>>
>>>> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone
>>>> off during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with
>>>> endangering an aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that
>>>> a mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
|
| Show full article (2.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Sep 10, 2008 21:07
TomTom wrote:
>> TomTom wrote:
>>>> Paul Blair wrote:
>>>>> This may turn out to be interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone
>>>>> off during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with
>>>>> endangering an aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that
>>>>> a mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
>>>>
>>>> Added aus.legal
>>>>
>>>> Probably not. The relevant legislation is
>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (2.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: terrycterryc Date: Sep 10, 2008 21:10
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:38:42 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
> This could depend on whether the crew told him *why* they required him to
> turn his phone off.
By any chance is it somewhere a "condition for flying with this airline"?
>
>> Trying to open a door in flight, for example.
>
> That would be interesting, given that it's impossible once the aircraft
> is pressurized, unless the person has superhuman strength.
err, think again.
1) most pressuriesed aircraft doors that I have seen tend to open
outwards, and
2) The pressure is on the inside of the plane, not the outside.
AFAIK it is simply a matter of operating the safety locks before
pulling/turning the handle.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Sep 10, 2008 21:15
terryc wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:38:42 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
>> This could depend on whether the crew told him *why* they required him to
>> turn his phone off.
>
> By any chance is it somewhere a "condition for flying with this airline"?
There may be, but then a refusal to turn it off would be a breach of
contract, not a criminal offence.
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TomTomTomTom Date: Sep 10, 2008 21:26
> TomTom wrote:
>>> TomTom wrote:
>>>>> Paul Blair wrote:
>>>>>> This may turn out to be interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone
>>>>>> off during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with
>>>>>> endangering an aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt
>>>>>> that a mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
>>>>>
>>>>> Added aus.legal
>>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (3.46Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: TomTomTomTom Date: Sep 10, 2008 21:32
In news:pan.2008.09.11.04.10.37.544433@ woa.com.au,
terryc woa.com.au> typed:> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:38:42 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
>> This could depend on whether the crew told him *why* they required
>> him to turn his phone off.
>
> By any chance is it somewhere a "condition for flying with this
> airline"?
Very likely, but that's not the issue. This person is apparently being
charged with a criminal offence. The question is whether the offencet can
be made out in these particular facts ie the person using a mobile phone.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
