Airline passenger charged for phone use
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline passenger charged for phone use
source; AAP
"A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone off during a flight out of Sydney has been charged with endangering an aircraft.
Police say the man boarded a Jetstar flight from Sydney to Queensland's Hervey Bay early on Wednesday, and then argued with the cabin crew when he refused to switch off his mobile.
"He allegedly refused to stop using his mobile phone," a Queensland Police spokesman said in a statement.
"It's alleged that around 8.30am (AEST) the man became abusive towards a flight attendant after his mobile phone was confiscated."
At Hervey Bay airport police were waiting for the man. He was arrested after he disembarked from the plane and taken into custody.
The man has been charged with an offence against Section 22 of the Crimes Aviation Act, for endangering the safety of an aircraft.
He is expected to appear in the Hervey Bay Magistrates Court on September 25."
"A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone off during a flight out of Sydney has been charged with endangering an aircraft.
Police say the man boarded a Jetstar flight from Sydney to Queensland's Hervey Bay early on Wednesday, and then argued with the cabin crew when he refused to switch off his mobile.
"He allegedly refused to stop using his mobile phone," a Queensland Police spokesman said in a statement.
"It's alleged that around 8.30am (AEST) the man became abusive towards a flight attendant after his mobile phone was confiscated."
At Hervey Bay airport police were waiting for the man. He was arrested after he disembarked from the plane and taken into custody.
The man has been charged with an offence against Section 22 of the Crimes Aviation Act, for endangering the safety of an aircraft.
He is expected to appear in the Hervey Bay Magistrates Court on September 25."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not arguing the result but interested in the proposed proceeding
I have not been following the matter of mobile phone use on RPT - last I saw there was a legion of myths and mights. Does anyone have a link to legally sustainable proof that supports the contention?
for endangering the safety of an aircraft
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the point here is that a person wilfully disobeyed a directive given by a crew member.
Whether or not the phone is a direct threat, the issue here is non compliance from a pax to a company directive which was carried out by a crew member.If someone get's away with this then what will some other pax do if they feel so inclined to thumb their nose at authority and a safety directive.
How many pax really understand the environment that aircraft operate in and possible dangers involved.....not many.If you can't live with out a mobile phone for an hour or two then that is your problem not the crew and other pax.
If they do not want to comply with safety or other directives then they can drive to their destination.
Whether or not the phone is a direct threat, the issue here is non compliance from a pax to a company directive which was carried out by a crew member.If someone get's away with this then what will some other pax do if they feel so inclined to thumb their nose at authority and a safety directive.
How many pax really understand the environment that aircraft operate in and possible dangers involved.....not many.If you can't live with out a mobile phone for an hour or two then that is your problem not the crew and other pax.
If they do not want to comply with safety or other directives then they can drive to their destination.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm
lowerlobe i agree with you.
However i would like to know as James Michael would, has there been a study, or has there been proof of mobile phone interference with navigational equipment in aircraft?
However i would like to know as James Michael would, has there been a study, or has there been proof of mobile phone interference with navigational equipment in aircraft?
I work for an Asian Airline and on landing you can hear the phones ringing away. The only effect seems to be an increase in my blood pressure. The Cabin crew seem unable to stop them.
The issue is not "has there been a study that shows mobile phone interfere with an aircraft...?"
Your question should be, "Has there been a study that shows mobile phones do NOT interfere with an aircraft's ... equipment?"
There is ample evidence that there has been some interference at various times. A cursory search of these fora will reveal that.
I believe that there have been trials overseas with mobiles in flight - using retransmitting equipment on the aircraft. Trying to explain this concept to the average JQ passenger would not be easy.
And yes, the other issue is willful disregard for the authority of the crew.
Your question should be, "Has there been a study that shows mobile phones do NOT interfere with an aircraft's ... equipment?"
There is ample evidence that there has been some interference at various times. A cursory search of these fora will reveal that.
I believe that there have been trials overseas with mobiles in flight - using retransmitting equipment on the aircraft. Trying to explain this concept to the average JQ passenger would not be easy.
And yes, the other issue is willful disregard for the authority of the crew.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idiot
I think the merits of a study on the effect of phone use on systems, is the topic of another discussion.
In this case, the pax is a complete tosser. The very fact that we don't "know" there are no effects from mobile use, should be enough of a reason to leave the thing off. I'm always amazed at how these "city slicker know it all" type pax seem to have a healthy disregard for just about anything that makes common sense.
I agree, here is the book, throw at will...
In this case, the pax is a complete tosser. The very fact that we don't "know" there are no effects from mobile use, should be enough of a reason to leave the thing off. I'm always amazed at how these "city slicker know it all" type pax seem to have a healthy disregard for just about anything that makes common sense.
I agree, here is the book, throw at will...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents
I have no argument, as indicated earlier, with the assessment of the pax.
My issue is that AAP reported this as
If the charge is to proceed on that basis, it is incumbent surely on the prosecution to provide evidence NOT that he refused a directive from cabin crew BUT that use of the mobile DID actually endanger the aircraft.
I know AAP may have this wrong but my mind is working like so - let's say he did stop using the mobile on request, thus obeying a crew directive, (we know he didn't but let's think of a future case) he cannot be charged with refusing a directive but has still used the mobile phone.
Therefore, somewhere in future, the onus may exist to PROVE that such use actually endangers the safety of that specific aircraft at that time. UFO summed up my thinking.
Am I making sense? Stallie, I don't believe in law your argument is sustainable as the onus surely rests with the prosecution not the defendant (We may need Creamie and Clapton to provide an opinion).
I have no argument, as indicated earlier, with the assessment of the pax.
My issue is that AAP reported this as
The man has been charged with an offence against Section 22 of the Crimes Aviation Act, for endangering the safety of an aircraft
I know AAP may have this wrong but my mind is working like so - let's say he did stop using the mobile on request, thus obeying a crew directive, (we know he didn't but let's think of a future case) he cannot be charged with refusing a directive but has still used the mobile phone.
Therefore, somewhere in future, the onus may exist to PROVE that such use actually endangers the safety of that specific aircraft at that time. UFO summed up my thinking.
Am I making sense? Stallie, I don't believe in law your argument is sustainable as the onus surely rests with the prosecution not the defendant (We may need Creamie and Clapton to provide an opinion).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT that use of the mobile DID actually endanger the aircraft
I remember that some time ago there was a link that basically showed different airlines in-flight problems and the causes that were related to these problems. A lot of them were directly contributed to mobile phone use and laptop use. Once said Mobile Phone or Laptop was turned off or removed the glitches and/or problems disappeared with them.
So there is good cause to be concerned about it. I'll try and dig up the old post with the link for everyone!!
So there is good cause to be concerned about it. I'll try and dig up the old post with the link for everyone!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The question this half wit will have to answer in the Court is whether or not he breached the law. My limited understanding leads me to believe that the law is that failing to comply with a direction of cabin crew deems you to have endangered the safety of an aircraft.
If the evidence says that he refused to comply with the directions of Cabin Crew then I guess he's off to porridge. Good on 'em too.
Here's a song for him to consider in the meantime:
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
Keep your back against the wall
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
Do not bend at all
Oh don't pick up the soap, pick up the soap
It's bad for you
Oh don't pick up the soap, pick up the soap
Someone will be waiting there for you
When you're in prison be sure to stay awake
Always lie upon your back
When you're in prison be sure to stay awake
Keep you from attack
Oh don't be no one's bitch, be no one's bitch
It's bad for you
Oh don't be no one's bitch, be no one's bitch
They won't help you make it through.
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
Follow what I say to do.
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
You can make it through
You can make it through
You can make it through
Gotta love The Offspring
If the evidence says that he refused to comply with the directions of Cabin Crew then I guess he's off to porridge. Good on 'em too.
Here's a song for him to consider in the meantime:
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
Keep your back against the wall
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
Do not bend at all
Oh don't pick up the soap, pick up the soap
It's bad for you
Oh don't pick up the soap, pick up the soap
Someone will be waiting there for you
When you're in prison be sure to stay awake
Always lie upon your back
When you're in prison be sure to stay awake
Keep you from attack
Oh don't be no one's bitch, be no one's bitch
It's bad for you
Oh don't be no one's bitch, be no one's bitch
They won't help you make it through.
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
Follow what I say to do.
When you're in prison, don't turn the other way
You can make it through
You can make it through
You can make it through
Gotta love The Offspring
Well, did a quick search around, couldn't find quite the post i wanted BUT i did find this study on the use of Mobile Phones which certainly does show that mobile phones can affect the eletrical equipment on an aircraft.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
Oh and some good discussion found on Airliners.net as well inregards with plenty of links, testimonials etc...
Cell Phones On The Plane, Are They A Danger? — Aviation Polls Forum | Airliners.net
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
Oh and some good discussion found on Airliners.net as well inregards with plenty of links, testimonials etc...
Cell Phones On The Plane, Are They A Danger? — Aviation Polls Forum | Airliners.net
Last edited by Ixixly; 11th Sep 2008 at 04:57. Reason: Helps if i put the darned link in!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Not to be too picky but cabin crew aren't actually legally empowered to issue any directives to passengers. If they are passing on a directive from the PIC, fine.
In the air, mobile phones will automatically go to their highest transmission power setting in order to find a ground station to log on to. This level of power is sufficient to affect aircraft systems especially if any shielding of wires has deteriated during the years of aircraft service. The system to allow mobile phone use onboard, that has been trialled on a QF B767, commands all the mobile phones onboard to their lowest power setting which has been determined to be low enough as to not affect any aircraft systems.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology isn't always the answer but I used to imagine a system which when activated, such as in a cinema before the movie starts or on an aeroplane, would cause a phone to respond with a beep if it was turned on and not made silent. It possibly wouldn't stop someone who wanted to fly around in silent mode but it'd make the honest ones aware that they'd forgotten to turn off their phones.
It'd take some collaboration on the part of phone manufacturers but surely bluetooth phones would just need a software upgrade.
Just a half-baked idea,
~FRQ CB
It'd take some collaboration on the part of phone manufacturers but surely bluetooth phones would just need a software upgrade.
Just a half-baked idea,
~FRQ CB