CS
I am afraid you have missed the point. Strictly I agree with you - and said so, but if the law is buried, few will be aware and even fewer will comply with the law. Such legislation is poor, particularly when "directed" at people who have no legal training.
In that far it is rare for the authorites to seek a civil remedy, the more so when the law is not clear. A civil remedy will very rarely be sought unless the prosecuting authority consider their chances of success are good and in this instance I doubt they would "persuade" a barrister to give that opinion. Now please dont get carried away I am not suggesting the law should be abused simply because it cannot be prosecuted.
To the extent that the use of a mobile 'phone is clearly entirely legal if it forms part of an approved installation (as in the case of Avidyne's Iridium system) I doubt anyone would rush to prosecute a case for using exactly the same equipment simply because it is not approved.
If you wire a GPS into the aircraft it is an illegal installation unless approved as a minor or major mod. At what point the unit is wired into the aircraft is debatable but many such "installations" are strictly illegal. I dont see a rush on the part of the CAA to prosecute.
Your obsession with the law is misplaced. You have been put to proof on citing the legislation, and the legislation is not clear. Far more important is whether or not the use of a mobile 'phone in the cockpit is dangerous.
Frankly I am feed up with a society in which we think we can legislate for every human activity. We must learn to accept personal responsibility. We must learn to assess what it is reasonable and unreasonable to do. Is it reasonable to make a call in VMC whilst not relying on radio navigation equiment using a quick dial function on a phone attached to a self muting headset - if it worked I think it is entirely reasonable. I dont see it as a distraction any more than head down time punching up an approach on the FMS. Is it reasonable to use a 'phone during an approach in poor weather - clearly it would not be. I am in little doubt people spend plenty of head down time dealing with all sorts of cockpit tasks these days - a mobile 'phone is just one more potential distraction but in an entirely different way than for the driver of a car. We spend time using our audio facalties regardless. I am sure you have monitored guard on box 2 as well as listening out on box 1, or had the ATIS on box 2 and the active frequency on box 1. Add into the mix a mobile call, when you are in open FIR and not talking to anyone and the workload of that call is less than either of the two former scenarios.
In short a call for common sense, the excercise of command responsibility, an understanding of what might and might not be distracting and why, rather than blind obedience to unclear legislation.
That is me done - we may well disagree, which is the joy of PPRuNe, but that is the way I see it having read each side of the debate.
FWIW in terms of your students I wouldnt bother spending hours on some obtuse piece of legislation - unless I am mistaken you are not a lawyer and they are not attending law school. Unless you have adequate training you are in danger anyway of not understanding the legislation or knowing whether or not you have fondd something that appears to support your case and missed those elements that dont. If it were that simple we would neither have these debates or PPRuNe nor would Barristers command the fees they do. In my game if I had a pound for every time a client told me he had studied the legisaltion and come to the conclusion what he was doing was entirely legal I would be a great deal wealthier than I am. If you are a FI your time would be far better spent ensuring they understand why it might not be prudent for them to use a 'phone in the cockpit.