| Re: Mobile phone interference |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: aus.aviation · Group Profile
Author: B J FosterB J Foster Date: Sep 15, 2008 15:38
TomTom wrote:
>> TomTom wrote:
>>>> TomTom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alpha_77DX" microsloth.con> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gaj3u0$fuh$1@aioe.org...>>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should it matter what problem the phone may or may not cause?
>>>>>> If it's against the rules it's bloody well against the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. The question being discussed is whether it is against the
>>>>> rules. Not the rules in someone's head, but the written rules, the
>>>>> L-A-W- law. There is some concern that it might not be actually
>>>>> against the law, We shall see.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not always. Sometimes the written l-a-w depends on the reasonable
>>>> person in your head
>>>
>>> Example?
>>
>> Use of reasonable force in defending your home?
>
> You will find that what you think is reasonable is of no significance -
> it's about what the police and the DPP think, and then what a judge and
> jury think.
When I am in that situation then what the I think is the significance as
I will not have the DPP, Judge or Jury with me to assist with making the
right choices.
Anyhow, you asked for an example, not necessarily a relevant one. Make
it relevant. What if a rogue pilot takes over the plane. Would not a
reasonable person attempt to make contact with people outside the plane?
Would that person be arrested for endangering to plane? Clearly not.
Mobile phones use UHF frequencies and do *not* interfere with aircraft
navigation systems. The issue is that whilst the interference is
infinitesmally small it cannot be entirely dismissed - so the rule
remains. In practice it is ridiculous.
| 
