 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / September 2008Terrorists in business suits?
The Americans have won folks. I'm not sure which disturbs me more, that Australian police are introducing themselves as "anti-terrorist" or that Qantas called the cops on a bloke who left his laptop switched on during a landing. <http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/laptop-lands-qantas-flyer-in-hot-water/2008/09 /04/1220121393686.html> I expect that there's a bit more than the journaliar reveals mind you. The bloke probably gave the flighties some lip or something, but as the journaliar has worded things, it sure looks like the Americans have won :-/ (Nutshell: Qantas 418 from Melbourne to Sydney. Punters advised that disembarkation is delayed due to a "technical issue". Coppers arrive and introduce themselves as "anti terrorism taskforce" and invite a "well dressed businessman" in row 7 to accompany them off the aircraft. Confronted by 6 coppers, the "businessman" was later "released without charge".) GB  SignatureMy friend Steve is an atheist. He has a bumper sticker that reads "Honk if you love Jesus". When someone honks, he gives them the finger. what were the odds against this guy. First, a Qantas flight actually happened. Although probably not on time Secondly, it didn't crash. > The Americans have won folks. I'm not sure which disturbs me > more, that Australian police are introducing themselves as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > GB > The Americans have won folks. I'm not sure which disturbs me > more, that Australian police are introducing themselves as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > GB "A Melbourne man arrested after leaving his laptop on at the end of a Qantas flight to Sydney today has been released without charge. ... Qantas also confirmed the passenger had been taken into custody after he "failed to comply with a captain's directive." Oddly, the law on captain's directives is expressed in terms that only allow a captain to restrict actions, not mandate them. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s309a.html "(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the operator, or pilot in command, of an Australian aircraft may give an instruction, either orally or in writing, prohibiting or limiting the doing of an act on board the aircraft during flight time in the aircraft." Thus it appears that the instruction should be "do not leave your laptop turned on" rather than "turn you laptop off," even though in the normal way of things one would think that the two forms were equivalent. Quite why the law should be expressed that way escapes me, given the restriction in (2), which in any case prevents the captain from giving arbitary directions. "(2) The operator, or pilot in command, must not give an instruction unless he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the instruction is necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation." Sylvia. I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a 'very important' meeting. But, he just didn't want to put the laptop away, and for some strange reason thought that I couldn't do anything about it. He missed his meeting. SignaturePosted at www.Usenet.com.au > I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a 'very > important' meeting. But, he just didn't want to put the laptop away, and > for some strange reason thought that I couldn't do anything about it. He > missed his meeting. It's a strange mindset that leads people to disobey the crew in such situations. Perhaps the position just isn't being made clear enough: "I need you to turn that off now, because if you don't, the plane may crash." Sylvia. > It's a strange mindset that leads people to disobey the crew in such > situations. Perhaps the position just isn't being made clear enough: "I > need you to turn that off now, because if you don't, the plane may crash." For such people, it doesn't matter how clear the directive is, they'll just continue to do what they want regardless. In my recent experience, it's always passengers in business class that are most likely to believe that a bigger seat makes them exempt from the rules that apply to everybody else. Perhaps it's the business ago. Funnily enough, I've found that first class passengers are usually the most courteous and eager to follow instructions. You will never hear a pilot give an instruction in the silly manner you have described. I trust you wrote that just to make a point. SignaturePosted at www.Usenet.com.au > You will never hear a pilot give an instruction in the silly manner you > have described. I trust you wrote that just to make a point. Well, no, I do not expect a pilot to express it that way, not least because the passengers around the offender might understand the risk to be significant and immediate, and proceed to terminate the laptop's operation, and that of its owner, with extreme prejudice. But somehow the message needs to be got across to passengers that these rules are not there just to make life difficult, but have a real safety impact. Of course, it doesn't help when the government implements rules prohibiting nail files and toothpicks in the cabin, because such absurd rules taint others by association. Sylvia. >Of course, it doesn't help when the government implements rules >prohibiting nail files and toothpicks in the cabin, because such absurd >rules taint others by association. of course. and if aeroplanes have such simple problems to fix why arent they fixed in the designs?. it cant be too damn difficult to make the passenger compartment a faraday cage and put the avionics outside of it. Stealth Pilot >> Of course, it doesn't help when the government implements rules >> prohibiting nail files and toothpicks in the cabin, because such absurd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stealth Pilot High frequence signals are not so easy to screen, even with a faraday cage, and on the face of it, it shouldn't be necessary. After all, modern aircraft have multiple computers of their own, which manage not to interfere with each other or with navigational instruments, and they tend to be closer together. Nevertheless, there have been reports of effects, and at least some have been moderately well verified by turning the alleged offending device off and on again. On the other hand it appears to be true that none of these effects has been reproducible on the ground. But even if all one's left with is an air of unease about possible interference, turning laptops and other passenger equipment off during critical phases of the flight seems like a sensible, and hardly onerous, precaution. The passengers shouldn't mind anyway - they're meant to be watching the progess of the approach and landing out of the window ;) Sylvia. >>Of course, it doesn't help when the government implements rules >>prohibiting nail files and toothpicks in the cabin, because such absurd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it cant be too damn difficult to make the passenger compartment a > faraday cage and put the avionics outside of it. Perzackery, Stealth. Lots of this stuff is just not logical. Turn off mobile fones at the servo. Yeah, right. I chuck an audible, visible spark about 7 mm when I get out of the car - and I'm supposed to worry about a mobile phone? Erm - in spite of the several hundred amps the starter motors use through arcing commutators every time the vehicles start there. At hospital in the emergency department everyone and their dog are on their mobiles - Drs, Ambos etc - no problemo while ECGs and other electonic aids are in use. At the Drs surgery the nurse insists I turn my mobile off so she can do a computerised ECG! She obviously has no clue as to the level of electronic noise emitted by a PC - which is exactly the same level of electronic noise emitted by assorted confusers buried in the systems of modern a/c. >>> Of course, it doesn't help when the government implements rules >>> prohibiting nail files and toothpicks in the cabin, because such absurd [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > electronic noise emitted by assorted confusers buried in the systems of > modern a/c. I'm inclined to agree that the inconsitent requirements regarding mobile phones on the ground are silly, and some, such as the requirement not to use them while refuelling seem to be based on little more than stories that are like as not either totally apocryphal, or represent events that have been misinterpreted. However, in an aircraft there is a clear distinction between the aircraft's own computer systems and other electronics, and those in use by the passengers. The aircraft's systems have been tested together, and are know to work. The passengers' electronics are an unknown variable. Sylvia. >>>> Of course, it doesn't help when the government implements rules >>>> prohibiting nail files and toothpicks in the cabin, because such absurd [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >by the passengers. The aircraft's systems have been tested together, and >are know to work. The passengers' electronics are an unknown variable. ...and easily isolated. there is a lot of bullshit buried in the procedures in aviation. some of it is just a quick remediation of poor design which gets repeated ad nauseum because it seemed successful. Stealth Pilot >> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >> 'very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sylvia. I query the safety aspect of such a direction. Yes, I know the usual blurb is that such equipment "may interfere with aircraft systems". But how true is this? Several years ago, I was furtunate to be on a very interesting looong charter flight. The nature of the flight meant that every passenger had some type of electronic equipment ranging from digital cameras to video cameras, from laptop computers to "home made" gadgets where the EMR shielding would have been quite questionable. There was absolutely no restriction on when, where or how this equipment was used - at any phase of the flight. >>> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >>> 'very [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yes, I know the usual blurb is that such equipment "may interfere with > aircraft systems". But how true is this? The active word is "may". There have been some incidents. Whether it was really the passengers' gear that was causing the problem is in question, given the lack of reproducibility on the ground. But why take the chance? > Several years ago, I was furtunate to be on a very interesting looong > charter flight. The nature of the flight meant that every passenger had some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There was absolutely no restriction on when, where or how this equipment was > used - at any phase of the flight. Perhaps given the nature of the flight, it was considered that the risk was acceptable. Indeed, on flight in VMC in an aircraft that has mechanical or hydraulic controls, there would be little risk anyway. Sylvia. >>>> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >>>> 'very [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > was acceptable. Indeed, on flight in VMC in an aircraft that has > mechanical or hydraulic controls, there would be little risk anyway. But over possibly the most inhospitable place on Earth? Both in VMC and IFR? >>>>> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >>>>> 'very [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > But over possibly the most inhospitable place on Earth? Both in VMC and IFR? Even scheduled passenger airlines allow passengers to use their devices in the cruise, including, I assume, on flights over the poles. It's only during the climb and descent phases that such electronics have to be turned off. Sylvia. >>>>>> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >>>>>> 'very [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > during the climb and descent phases that such electronics have to be > turned off. Open slather on this flight - even at 10,000 ft over the ice, and 100 ft over the threshold at Tullamarine. And no, it wasn't exclusively an Antarctic sight seeing flight. > Sylvia. > And no, it wasn't exclusively an > Antarctic sight seeing flight. I know they used to fly inertial navigation systems out over the poles for testing purposes. Don't know about now though. Sylvia. >>> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >>> 'very [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> need you to turn that off now, because if you don't, the plane may >> crash." More silly crap, which is all we've come to expect from Sylvia. >> Sylvia. > > I query the safety aspect of such a direction. I don't, but not for any reasons of electrical/radio interference. In a rough landing, an unsecured laptop has the potential to become a fairly dangerous missile. > Yes, I know the usual blurb is that such equipment "may interfere with > aircraft systems". But how true is this? My opinion is that it's bullshit. SignatureKwyj. > > Yes, I know the usual blurb is that such equipment "may interfere with > > aircraft systems". But how true is this? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Kwyj. GSM phones can cause nasty interference to audio systems, intercoms etc. Most common point of entry is the mic amp. It can interfere (albeit rarely) with audio based navaids, and localiser is such a device. I have witnessed this on the bench. In an aircraft I've seen it once with a ramp test set, but the signal was weak. Brad. On Sep 8, 10:41 pm, "Kwyjibo" <kwyj...@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote: >> > Yes, I know the usual blurb is that such equipment "may interfere with >> > aircraft systems". But how true is this? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> -- >> Kwyj. > GSM phones can cause nasty interference to audio systems, intercoms > etc. Agreed, but the discussion was about laptop computers. SignatureKwyj. > On Sep 8, 10:41 pm, "Kwyjibo" <kwyj...@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Kwyj. The request made by the PIC is for all electronic devices to be turned off not just laptops. My example was to demonstrate that aircraft electronic systems are not bullet proof and do suffer interference. On Sep 9, 10:08 pm, "Kwyjibo" <kwyj...@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote: > "Brad" <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > off not just laptops. My example was to demonstrate that aircraft > electronic systems are not bullet proof and do suffer interference. <sigh> Once again - Agreed, but they DO NOT suffer interference from laptop computers, which is what was being discussed. SignatureKwyj. >>> I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a >>> 'very [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > There was absolutely no restriction on when, where or how this equipment > was used - at any phase of the flight. Even on simple little 2 seater trainers, all radio leads are shielded. Apparently not so on multi-million $ heavies.... ? JB wrote... > I remember a fellow like that.... He was going to Christchurch for a 'very > important' meeting. But, he just didn't want to put the laptop away, and > for some strange reason thought that I couldn't do anything about it. He > missed his meeting. Maybe you can answer this. It was discussed at length on aus.legal. But when an aircraft lands, at what point does your authority end? The discussion centred around pax being "detained" after the aircraft had landed, due to tech problems, I think. Can't remember details. Silvia will detail them undoubtedly. > JB wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > landed, due to tech problems, I think. Can't remember details. Silvia will > detail them undoubtedly. It was a rather technical matter that had more to do with law than aviation. Sylvia. Sylvia Else wrote... > It was a rather technical matter that had more to do with law than aviation. Yep, and who better to know than JB? > Sylvia Else wrote... > >> It was a rather technical matter that had more to do with law than aviation. > > Yep, and who better to know than JB? An aviation lawyer perhaps? (I'm not claiming to be one). Sylvia. >> Sylvia Else wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sylvia. I'm betting that JB knows exactly what he can and cannot do when it comes to recalcitrant passengers, or even passengers that try and endanger the crew, passengers or aircraft, without having to get approval from a company lawyer :-) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg >>> Sylvia Else wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > passengers or aircraft, without having to get approval from a company lawyer > :-) Most of the time it's clear cut anyway. The situation on the delayed flight that Snapper referred to was exceptional. However I note that the guy who was the subject of the OP had not been charged at the time of the report. If he gets a good lawyer, I doubt he'll be convicted, even if charged, because of issues with how the law is worded. I say that despite having no sympathy for him at all. Sylvia. > I'm betting that JB knows exactly what he can and cannot do when it comes > to recalcitrant passengers, or even passengers that try and endanger the > crew, passengers or aircraft, without having to get approval from a > company lawyer :-) But it WAS a company lawyer who insisted the tool to be used in such circumstances must be called a "Fire Axe" rather than a "Battle Axe". (Ok, ok - one of the reasons *did* have something to do with the cabin crew....) Atheist Chaplain wrote... > I'm betting that JB knows exactly what he can and cannot do when it comes to > recalcitrant passengers, or even passengers that try and endanger the crew, > passengers or aircraft, without having to get approval from a company lawyer Undoubtedly. If the guy can manage to get a jet from one side of the world to another without getting lost and without running out of fuel or running into things, then something as trivial as what he can or cannot do with his pax would be, to him, a no brainer. > Maybe you can answer this. It was discussed at length on aus.legal. But when an > aircraft lands, at what point does your authority end? To the best of my knowledge : "any person or thing in, or in the vicinity" of the aircraft is covered by relevant air navigation Act. That means once a person of object is on or about an aircraft at any time (parked or in progress), the PIC has certain authority, including power of arrest and the power of a police constable. (I haven't looked up the very latest legislation [too lazy] - you should get the general idea anyway). As a side note: Police do not have a lot more power than a citizen (BUT increasing by the day) - one of the main differences is the power to arrest on suspicion (varies state-to-state) whereas a citizen must actually witness a crime before making an arrest. I think QLD might be an exception tho. veritas wrote... > I think QLD might be an exception tho. QLD is an exception in its own right... >veritas wrote... > >> I think QLD might be an exception tho. > >QLD is an exception in its own right... Yep right on....for the better! That's why Southerners are flocking here in droves.....Unfortunately. Greg. >> veritas wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yep right on....for the better! That's why Southerners are flocking > here in droves.....Unfortunately. YUP - The Mexicans came to QLD to get away from it all - all they succeeded in doing was to bring it with them! > veritas wrote... > >> I think QLD might be an exception tho. > > QLD is an exception in its own right... Yep. They even have their own timezone. I believe it's called '1977' SignatureKwyj. Kwyjibo wrote... > > QLD is an exception in its own right... > > Yep. They even have their own timezone. > I believe it's called '1977' Noice one, Centurion... >> veritas wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yep. They even have their own timezone. >I believe it's called '1977' Trouble with statements like this is that they are simply not true. -- Sam ex Qlder and knows a thing or two about who is advanced and who is not >>> veritas wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Trouble with statements like this is that they are simply not true. What about this statement : "You wouldn't recognise a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment if it bit you on the arse." Any truth in that one? SignatureKwyj. >>>> veritas wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Any truth in that one? Oh come off it puhlease, there was absolutely no hint about where your tongue was. This is a text newsgroup. If you want people to read someting into your post that isn't there, then you need to indicate it, however subtly you want to do it. Otherwise, take your kicks like a man -- Sam On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:43:09 +1000,I wrote: >>>>> veritas wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >it, however subtly you want to do it. Otherwise, take your kicks like >a man Oh sh.t, now I've opened the gate for a spelling flame. Ah well -- Sam >>>>> veritas wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oh come off it puhlease, there was absolutely no hint about where your > tongue was. This is a text newsgroup. You mean that, without the use of emoticons etc. to guide you, you really believed that someone actually thought a timezone called '1977' existed? Oh gawd............ > If you want people to read > someting into your post that isn't there, then you need to indicate > it, however subtly you want to do it. The comment itself would have been enough for most people......... SignatureKwyj. >>>>>> veritas wrote... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >You mean that, without the use of emoticons etc. to guide you, you really >believed that someone actually thought a timezone called '1977' existed? No >Oh gawd............ He won't help you >> If you want people to read >> someting into your post that isn't there, then you need to indicate >> it, however subtly you want to do it. > >The comment itself would have been enough for most people......... I'm just too polite to tell you what I think of that one. SignatureSam |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.