Man charged over Mid Air Mobile row.

[Adrian B]

From todays Herald Sun (http://www.theage.com.au/national/man-charged-over-midair-mobile-row-20080911-4e09.html)

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 today, 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 tonight.

"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.

AAP




some people will never learn........

[Simon L.]

It's pretty sad to hear these incidents really, but this is life. I also know a case which the flight attendant refused to provide any alcohol to a male passenger in accordance with relevant RSA codes and the guy then threatened the cabin crew so the air marshal restrained him and was handed over to the police after landing. Unfortunately, the guy only got a temporary detention of a few days and was eventually released with a police caution - well, at least this happened in another country.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Ian Garton]

I know a couple of people that never turn their phones off whilst flying just because they are stuborn and don't think much of the regulations.

[Greg W.]

I know a couple of people that never turn their phones off whilst flying just because they are stuborn and don't think much of the regulations.

I place this type of offending in the same category as that of speeding; A complete disregard for other people's safety, not to mention their own. :(

Being a goose on an aircraft is a sure fire way to notch up a criminal history, as it is almost certain that the AFP will refer it for prosecution.

[Mike Scott]

Over here we ask you to turn the phones off nicely then if someone doesnt comply the FA's are under instruction (we go over it during briefing) to confiscate the phone and not return it until the passenger is leaving the aircraft. Should there be a problem then we either dont leave the gate or reurn to the gate where the problem child is escorted of the aircraft by waiting police. I/we have zero tolerance for people who dont comply with crew member directives....if you dont like it then dont fly.:mad::mad::mad:

MS

[Jamie D]

. I/we have zero tolerance for people who dont comply with crew member directives....if you dont like it then dont fly.:mad::mad::mad:

MS

Thats the way it should be too! It's not hard to follow crew directives on a flight

[Philip Argy]

Just out of curiosity, what is the reason for the ban on mobile phones? Do they really have enough transmitting power to cause a problem, or is it that once you allow a transmitting device you open up a can of worms?

Popular mythology amongst FFs is that it's because airlines don't want people jabbering on their phone and annoying surrounding passengers, and that there's no technical reason at all for the ban. That might be why some pax flout the request. It's a bit like the ban in hospitals which is supposed to be because there is a risk of interfering with life support technology. But medical staff use conventional mobile phones throughout the hospital without mishap. They do not use 'specially shielded' phones as some signage asserts. They are simply more aware of where and when usage is appropriate and safe, which makes a blanket ban safer when you're dealing with ignorant public.

I use a Palm Treo 750 which requires the power button to be held down for an extended period to turn off the phone function (= flight mode). When I first got it and was unfamiliar with the visual indications, there were two occasions where the hold down was insufficient to power off the phone and unbeknown to me it actually stayed on throughout the flight but with the ringer muted. When I arrived and went to turn it on, I found two missed call messages and three SMS messages had arrived during the flight, obviously without mishap.

Given the proliferation of personal technology in all shapes and forms, I'd have thought a design requirement of any modern aircraft is that the avionics not be vulnerable to interference from any of these sources. It's impossible to believe that every device is always turned off on every flight, especially with many devices that are now used by children.

[Marty H]

Thats the way it should be too! It's not hard to follow crew directives on a flight

Ohh you will be amazed:eek:

[Mike Scott]

I think this will answer some of the queries regarding potential electronic interference etc which is the prime reason for the requirement. A much better source of information than me trying to go through the whole thing and screwing up all the detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

Just fyi there was an airborne test recently of a hand held device that detects any RF emission as the holder (FA or Air Marshal) walks up and down the aisle. Communications devices (cell phones, Wi Fi,and the like) generate specific types of signals when their receive circuits are in use (not in flight mode etc) These devices are already being deployed so those who might want to keep those phones on might also want to think twice before doing so.

Bottom line is still the same though...we ask you to turn them off..its not optional...so if you dont want to do it (as I said previously) dont fly...its that simple.;)

Cheers

MS

[Chris Roope]

Popular mythology amongst FFs is that it's because airlines don't want people jabbering on their phone and annoying surrounding passengers, and that there's no technical reason at all for the ban.

You lose reception about halfway up the climb and wouldn't get it back until descent at the other end, so I doubt thats the reason.

[Philip Argy]

You lose reception about halfway up the climb and wouldn't get it back until descent at the other end, so I doubt thats the reason.

That may be the case with conventional GSM but Telstra's NextG network, for example, claims to work up to 30 km off the coast, so at 10 km above the ground I don't think there will be a reception problem. There could be a cell registration issue if multiple cells are almost equidistant from the a/c, and that might interfere with network access/usage, for the reasons explained in the channel re-use section of the article that Mike has linked to (which is most informative).

[Ash W]

That may be the case with conventional GSM but Telstra's NextG network, for example, claims to work up to 30 km off the coast, so at 10 km above the ground I don't think there will be a reception problem. There could be a cell registration issue if multiple cells are almost equidistant from the a/c, and that might interfere with network access/usage, for the reasons explained in the channel re-use section of the article that Mike has linked to (which is most informative).

Except the cells use directional antenna which are desisgned to radiate outwards not upwards. Any power that does make it up has a much smaller power level..

The thing I dislike about the mobile rules is the inconistantcy with them. In the US (well on AA anyway) and with Qantas it is fine to turn the phone on more or less when the a/c leaves the runway (on arrival of course), yet in the UK BA and BMI you are not allowed to use it until you arrive at the gate and the captain has switched off.

I was on a BA flight recently and the guy next to me powered up when we arrived and the FA came and gave him a lecture on how dangerous it was and how we could run into the terminal building as the phone interfears with the navigation system. Now I understand the rules are the rules so the guy shouldn't have done it, but the explaination left a lot to be desired and was totally untrue.

[damien b]

Given the proliferation of personal technology in all shapes and forms, I'd have thought a design requirement of any modern aircraft is that the avionics not be vulnerable to interference from any of these sources. It's impossible to believe that every device is always turned off on every flight, especially with many devices that are now used by children.

You can certainly design avionic systems to be resistant to external interferance, however the extra weight would reduce what airliners could carry.

The extra weight would be from shielding of wiring that is in some way providing critical information - of whch there is a lot on a modern aircraft. Some systems work with very little current/voltage flow and even minor vairations due to external interference can cause havoc.

Its easier and cheaper to basically ban electronic devices in flight.

[Raymond Rowe]

That may be the case with conventional GSM but Telstra's NextG network, for example, claims to work up to 30 km off the coast, so at 10 km above the ground I don't think there will be a reception problem. There could be a cell registration issue if multiple cells are almost equidistant from the a/c, and that might interfere with network access/usage, for the reasons explained in the channel re-use section of the article that Mike has linked to (which is most informative).


The only reason you cannot use a mobile on an aircraft you cannot be billed for it.We used mobiles many times When tests on the ground were done never once did we have any trouble or interference.Mobiles were even used on the tarmac. these were carried by Controllers and foreman.

[Adam P.]

I didn't think they'd invented mobiles back in those days, Ray?? :p

[Steve B.]

Whether it can, or can not, be proven that mobile phones, or indeed any device that emits RF, interferes with the safe operation of an aircraft is not really the point.

The aircraft operator in this case considers that the operation of a mobile phone does pose a risk to the safe operation and has the legal right, through the PIC, to demand that the mobile phone be switched of. It is their aircarft and they make the rules, if you don't like the rules, travel with someone else.

It is irrelevent what the offender, or anyone else thinks, it is not their responsibility to make that determination.

I don't agree with some road rules, but I don't break those rules and then use the arguement that I don't agree with them as a defence.

This idiot should be prosecuted and if convicted should be punished for being terminally stupid and possibly endangering not only his life but the lifes of his fellow passengers.

Regards to all
Stephen

[chrisb]

There's one very good reason to turn your phone off inflight - If you don't, it'll kill your battery while the phone spends the entire flight searching for and attempting to lock onto cells...

[David Ramsay]

This idiot should be prosecuted and if convicted should be punished for being terminally stupid

It's a pity terminal stupidity isn't an offence. :rolleyes: