Windowseat,
Thank you SIr, and quite right
As I said earlier in the scenario I suggested , I would IF in such circumstances arraigned for endangering an aircraft, invoke the public interest defence.
Ponting was charged with a criminal offence under section 2 ( the catch-all provision ) of the OSA . He had nothing else to plead (other than guilty). The jury in accepting his mitigation and ignoring the Judge's direction may not have had in mind or ben aware Lord Coke's famous Judgment in Bonham's case that ( to paraphrase) natural justice sometimes demands ignoring the letter of the law but effectively that is what the Jury's verdict constituted. I would also flag up the House of Lords' Judgment in the case Latif and Shazad ( spelling?) wherein ignoring the substantive issues of entrapment and exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE, Keith L.J ( I think) ruled ( nem con) that although an undercover drugs officer had techinically committed an importation offence, his actions were in the circumstances ' venial'
Finally, within this thread my scenario has been deemed hypothetical with the inference ( I think) being that it need not be seriously considered. To that I would say the following - prior to the Pappa India crash there may well have been some version of CRM in BEA If there were it clearly failed with 3 designated flyers in the cockpit and possibly a positioning pilot in the jump seat unable to unstall despite all the warnings. If Pappa India resulted in the institution of CRM it shows that the hypothetical can become reality.