Bloody ABC!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canberra Aust
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My local ABC in Canberra this morning reported the Jetstar Aircraft as an Airbus A380. Thought wow those Jetstar loads to Cairns must be going through the roof !!!!!!!! lol
On a more serious note good to see Jetstar reported on tonights news as looking seriously at seeking financial compensation from the goose who put the gas cylinder in his/her luggage.
.
On a more serious note good to see Jetstar reported on tonights news as looking seriously at seeking financial compensation from the goose who put the gas cylinder in his/her luggage.
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Migratory bird
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's probably a good thing it was not on the hold, coz if it had gone off there's a fair chance it would have taken the aircraft out.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is that if it 'went off' in the cabin there are trained people with fire extinguishers to deal with problem. Whilst potentially serious, still managable. If it 'went off' in the hold, the results are in the lap of gods/fate.
I predict no prosecution will result. Whilst a basic legal premise is that ignorance is no excuse - it is still beholden on the airline to ask the right questions. A few defence questions in court along the lines of:
Q: Were you aware that you could not have a butane cyclinder in your check-in luggage? A: No.
Q: Did you read the fine print on your booking? A: No - it's incomprehensible.
Q: Where you aware that a butane cyclinder is classified as a dangerous good? A: No - What's a dangerous good?
Q: Did the check-in staff ask you if you had any dangerous goods in your check-in bags. A: No.
Q: Did the check-in staff ask you if you had a butane cyclinder in your check-in bags. A: No.
etc etc would have the prosecution case unravelling quickly.
I think prosecuting an ingorant (but essentially innocent passenger) because professional staff didn't do their jobs properly would be a touch embarrasing.
I predict no prosecution will result. Whilst a basic legal premise is that ignorance is no excuse - it is still beholden on the airline to ask the right questions. A few defence questions in court along the lines of:
Q: Were you aware that you could not have a butane cyclinder in your check-in luggage? A: No.
Q: Did you read the fine print on your booking? A: No - it's incomprehensible.
Q: Where you aware that a butane cyclinder is classified as a dangerous good? A: No - What's a dangerous good?
Q: Did the check-in staff ask you if you had any dangerous goods in your check-in bags. A: No.
Q: Did the check-in staff ask you if you had a butane cyclinder in your check-in bags. A: No.
etc etc would have the prosecution case unravelling quickly.
I think prosecuting an ingorant (but essentially innocent passenger) because professional staff didn't do their jobs properly would be a touch embarrasing.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: House
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you realise you were flying on an airline staffed by people unable to make it in the real airline world? NO!!!!!!!
Did you realise you were flying on an airline staffed by people who think that by undercutting the going rate for a type in Oz they are somehow now acceptable? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember this time they can't say it was because they were on the scrap heap.
Listening JPC?
Did you realise you were flying on an airline staffed by people who think that by undercutting the going rate for a type in Oz they are somehow now acceptable? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember this time they can't say it was because they were on the scrap heap.
Listening JPC?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Migratory bird
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on what you mean by "if it went off" in the cabin.
If it started leaking and ignited a nice slow-burning, little flame, then sure, a hosty could put out the fire with an extinguisher.
But if it went off, as in exploded, which is what I think the other guy meant, then I don't know what use an extinguisher will be when there's a gaping hole in the cabriolet.
As for the legal questioning:
1st Ignorance is no excuse. Possession has precedent. Ask Schappelle.
2nd The fine print is comprehensible. Just. Smart people are paid to make sure it is and that it covers everything.
3rd You've got me there, I suppose they rely on the questioning by check-in staff and the displays everywhere. That and common sense. This isn't India we're talking about.
4th It'll be his word against theirs. Being trained in their job, the company will win.
5th They don't have to.
If it started leaking and ignited a nice slow-burning, little flame, then sure, a hosty could put out the fire with an extinguisher.
But if it went off, as in exploded, which is what I think the other guy meant, then I don't know what use an extinguisher will be when there's a gaping hole in the cabriolet.
As for the legal questioning:
1st Ignorance is no excuse. Possession has precedent. Ask Schappelle.
2nd The fine print is comprehensible. Just. Smart people are paid to make sure it is and that it covers everything.
3rd You've got me there, I suppose they rely on the questioning by check-in staff and the displays everywhere. That and common sense. This isn't India we're talking about.
4th It'll be his word against theirs. Being trained in their job, the company will win.
5th They don't have to.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect:
I couldn't tell you the last time I was asked if I was carrying anything classed as dangerous in my luggage. The Etkt check in thingees aren't much help in that respect are they? No need to go to the check in counter for that face to face experience if you're not checking in any baggage. (1 tick for a viable defence)
So, as per the above, the pax and the carry on baggage pass through screened security points - I wonder why it wasn't picked up there? (2nd tick for a viable mitigating circumstance)
If that pax was a regular traveller, ignorance most likely would not even get a start - the more often you do something, the more likely you are to be aware of certain factors, ie carrying certain items. Courts will accept that if you do something a few times (say 4-5 or more) in for example a 12 month period, then you are most likely to be aware of any conditions associated with that, as compared to 4-5 times over a 5 year period. (need more info to decide)
Butane gas is widely known to be the stuff inside of lighters, and lighters are identified on various posters by word and also pictures as being classed as a dangerous item. (need more info to decide)
If the company does go after the pax, I'd suggest the pax has an even better shot against the security screener, and the company if they're using the easy checkin method. (I'm not privy to how they actually check in, not being a customer of theirs).
As for India, hah! I felt safer travelling around there than I did in some other places! I lost lighters and batteries on a regular basis!! In Fiji, lighters are not allowed inside the ruddy terminal if you're a pax!!
I couldn't tell you the last time I was asked if I was carrying anything classed as dangerous in my luggage. The Etkt check in thingees aren't much help in that respect are they? No need to go to the check in counter for that face to face experience if you're not checking in any baggage. (1 tick for a viable defence)
So, as per the above, the pax and the carry on baggage pass through screened security points - I wonder why it wasn't picked up there? (2nd tick for a viable mitigating circumstance)
If that pax was a regular traveller, ignorance most likely would not even get a start - the more often you do something, the more likely you are to be aware of certain factors, ie carrying certain items. Courts will accept that if you do something a few times (say 4-5 or more) in for example a 12 month period, then you are most likely to be aware of any conditions associated with that, as compared to 4-5 times over a 5 year period. (need more info to decide)
Butane gas is widely known to be the stuff inside of lighters, and lighters are identified on various posters by word and also pictures as being classed as a dangerous item. (need more info to decide)
If the company does go after the pax, I'd suggest the pax has an even better shot against the security screener, and the company if they're using the easy checkin method. (I'm not privy to how they actually check in, not being a customer of theirs).
As for India, hah! I felt safer travelling around there than I did in some other places! I lost lighters and batteries on a regular basis!! In Fiji, lighters are not allowed inside the ruddy terminal if you're a pax!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope they do prosecute the 
!!!
As for check-in staff asking questions, I myself without fail ask every passenger of mine the two required questions: sharp objects and DG's. I regularly use butane cylinders and bleach as examples.
It's not the check-in staffs' job to make sure pax aren't stupid. That's up to them!! Not reading the conditions isn't a defence. That's like saying you didn't read the warranty conditions or exclusions on your insurance. House burns down "oh but I didn't know that wasn't included." Too bad, you still wont get a payout if it isn't included...
Plus, you can see quite clearly that examples are given, both in the cabinets and on the posters littered throughout the airport: (Pic from CASA, hosted on Photobucket so as not to use their bandwith):
A bit fuzzy as I had to reduce size, but you get the idea.
I've heard it wasn't you usual small cylinder, but a 30cm monster...! Who in their right mind wouldn't think "hmmm... maybe a cylinder of a flammable gas IS dangerous, especially in an aircraft?"
As for security not picking it up, that's another story... but is it possible the shape could have been thought to be just a glass bottle? I don't know anything about the colours used to indicate density etc, and don't want to be too specific, but given the way pax rush through security it's quite likely that it got missed, and not surprising. Yes the over-focus on scissors etc is not necessarily a good thing imho.....
!!!As for check-in staff asking questions, I myself without fail ask every passenger of mine the two required questions: sharp objects and DG's. I regularly use butane cylinders and bleach as examples.
It's not the check-in staffs' job to make sure pax aren't stupid. That's up to them!!
Not reading the conditions isn't a defence. That's like saying you didn't read the warranty conditions or exclusions on your insurance. House burns down "oh but I didn't know that wasn't included." Too bad, you still wont get a payout if it isn't included...Plus, you can see quite clearly that examples are given, both in the cabinets and on the posters littered throughout the airport: (Pic from CASA, hosted on Photobucket so as not to use their bandwith):
A bit fuzzy as I had to reduce size, but you get the idea.
I've heard it wasn't you usual small cylinder, but a 30cm monster...! Who in their right mind wouldn't think "hmmm... maybe a cylinder of a flammable gas IS dangerous, especially in an aircraft?"
As for security not picking it up, that's another story... but is it possible the shape could have been thought to be just a glass bottle? I don't know anything about the colours used to indicate density etc, and don't want to be too specific, but given the way pax rush through security it's quite likely that it got missed, and not surprising. Yes the over-focus on scissors etc is not necessarily a good thing imho.....
