Man charged over Mid Air Mobile row.

[Adrian B]

From todays Herald Sun

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.

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

MS

[Jamie D]

Originally Posted by Mike Scott

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

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]

Originally Posted by jamie d

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

Ohh you will be amazed

[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]

Originally Posted by Philip Argy

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.