TomTom wrote:
>> TomTom wrote:
>>>> TomTom wrote:
>>>>> It does. If you don't read it that way, the provision would make a
>>>>> criminal offence to carry out any act whatsoever on the aircraft,
>>>>> where the person was indifferent to whether it endangered the
>>>>> aircraft or not. That would be absurd, so you have to read down
>>>>> the range of possible acts. The straight-forward way would be to
>>>>> read it (in context) as limited only to acts that actually
>>>>> endanger the aircraft (eg the lighting of a fire in the toilet).
>>>>> That's the actus reus. The mens rea is the reckless bit, as
>>>>> opposed to requiring an actual intention.
>>>>
>>>> The concept of endagerment is a bit difficult anyway. Clearly
>>>> lighting a fire in the toilet has a reasonable likelihood of leading
>>>> to the destruction of the aircraft, particularly in the absence of
>>>> action by the crew, but other actions are less clear cut.
>>>>
>>>> Hypothetically, a mobile phone can interfere with an instrument
>>>> landing system (ILS), which might lead the crew to attempt follow
>>>> path through the air on a landing approach that causes the aircraft
>>>> to crash, though there are protections in place that should alert
>>>> the crew to such a situation.
>>>>
>>>> Under that hypothesis, when should we consider that the aircraft is
>>>> endangered? When the phone is turned on? During any approach where
>>>> the ILS *might* be used? During an approach where the ILS *is* used?
>>>> During an approach where the ILS is used and is affected by the
>>>> phone? During an appraoch where the ILS is used, is affected by the
>>>> phone, and the crew don't notice?
>>>
>>> Isn't it also claimed that use of a mobile phone (etc) during flight
>>> can interfere with navigation electronic gear?
>>
>> Yes. I was only using the ILS as a concrete example for the purpose
>> of a discussion about the meaning of endangerment.
>>
>> Mythbusters attempted to interfere with navigation instruments in an
>> aircraft (on the ground - they claim they couldn't get permission to
>> do it in the air, but probably didn't want to pay for the flight
>> either). They had no success even after connecting a serious antenna
>> to the mobile phone.
>
> I am absolutely shocked! Does that suggest that all that Malarkey about
> mobiles etc in flight is just Baloney?
it is utter rubbish
>
> Surely there is clear scientific evidence to support those claims?
there is nothing to prove that a mobile will or can cause interference
>
> Next we will be told that there is no risk in using mobile phones at the
> local servo.
there was but now with the speaker replaced with a differing model
almost none
We all know that you will inevitably go up in a sheet of
> flame if you do that. It's happened to me so many times.
