Login Now to remove this and all advertisements (GOLD and SILVER members)
Not a member? Register Now for free

Mid-air scare: bid to open plane door

Status
Not open for further replies.

oz_mark

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
18,680
Solutions
3
Points
1,425
From the SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...open-plane-door/2006/03/09/1141701615916.html

A woman who tried to open a cabin door on a Virgin Blue flight has been arrested in Sydney.

The 33-year-old woman from Gatton, west of Brisbane, was arrested after trying to open the cabin door during the Brisbane to Sydney flight last night, the Australian Federal Police said.

The woman was taken into custody after arriving in Sydney and charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft under the Crimes (Aviation) Act.

She has been bailed and will appear before the Downing Centre Court in Sydney on April 4.
 

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
6,419
Points
0
oz_mark said:
The woman was taken into custody after arriving in Sydney and charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft under the Crimes (Aviation) Act.

Wouldn't a decent solicitor be able to argue that due to the pressure differential , that the door could not be opened and so there was no danger to the aircraft and so not guilty of the alleged crime

Dave
 
Credit cards which earn frequent flyer points is a popular way to earn frequent flyer points. You can receive thousands of points on everyday spend. And, many of these cards offer generous signup bonuses! Compare to find the credit card that best suits your needs.

Recommended by the Australian Frequent Flyer

serfty

Veteran Member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
43,255
Solutions
5
Points
3,275
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Platinum
Dave Noble said:
oz_mark said:
The woman was taken into custody after arriving in Sydney and charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft under the Crimes (Aviation) Act.

Wouldn't a decent solicitor be able to argue that due to the pressure differential , that the door could not be opened and so there was no danger to the aircraft and so not guilty of the alleged crime

Dave
I suspect that a large %'ge of DJ PAX would not be aware of that fact; it would certainly cause a stir!
 

oz_mark

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
18,680
Solutions
3
Points
1,425
serfty said:
Dave Noble said:
oz_mark said:
The woman was taken into custody after arriving in Sydney and charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft under the Crimes (Aviation) Act.

Wouldn't a decent solicitor be able to argue that due to the pressure differential , that the door could not be opened and so there was no danger to the aircraft and so not guilty of the alleged crime

Dave
I suspect that a large %'ge of DJ PAX would not be aware of that fact; it would certainly cause a stir!

While this is true, it generally is a matter of what you can convince a judge of. I remember a court case years ago where a judge basically said that because the crime involved a toy gun, there ws no real threat.
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,335
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
Dave Noble said:
oz_mark said:
The woman was taken into custody after arriving in Sydney and charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft under the Crimes (Aviation) Act.

Wouldn't a decent solicitor be able to argue that due to the pressure differential , that the door could not be opened and so there was no danger to the aircraft and so not guilty of the alleged crime

Dave
That was my thought exactly. She may have wanted to endanger the aircraft, but I really don't think there was ever any real danger to the aircraft.

Perhaps she could be charged with tampering with the aircraft, or intending to endanger the safety of the aircraft. Unfortunately I do not think that stupidy is a crime - otherwise our prisons would be even more full than they are today.
 

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
6,419
Points
0
oz_mark said:
While this is true, it generally is a matter of what you can convince a judge of. I remember a court case years ago where a judge basically said that because the crime involved a toy gun, there ws no real threat.

Wouldn't this be a trial by jury ?

if an expert can show to a jury that there was no conceivable risk due to force required to open a door, would seem to be a simple matter of fact that there was no endangerment to the aeroplane

Dave
 

thadocta

Active Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
757
Points
0
Dave Noble said:
oz_mark said:
While this is true, it generally is a matter of what you can convince a judge of. I remember a court case years ago where a judge basically said that because the crime involved a toy gun, there ws no real threat.

Wouldn't this be a trial by jury ?

if an expert can show to a jury that there was no conceivable risk due to force required to open a door, would seem to be a simple matter of fact that there was no endangerment to the aeroplane

The DPP *could* argue that seeing someone attempt to open the door whilst at altitude *could* panic the rest of the passengers, and that that panic (caused by the defendant) *could* have resulted in a dangerous situation on board.

Dave
 

Groundfeeder

Active Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
651
Points
5
Dave

if an expert can show to a jury that there was no conceivable risk due to force required to open a door, would seem to be a simple matter of fact that there was no endangerment to the aeroplane

If an expert can show a jury that there was no conceivable risk in low-lifes waving an unloaded 12 gauge in ones face during robberies/bastardry etc...

Can't quite believe this argument! The critical element is INTENT and at FL 280 or whatever generally all pax FEAR the consequences - some like us FF's KNOW the likelihood of success.

Remember the episode of a French chic who wanted to step outside for a fag recently and the scrum that eventuated by the pax to prevent her?

Pretty soon it will be mandatory for all pax to remain seated/belted unless they give a note to the FA's to access the head, walk back to talk to accompanying flyers etc. Do we want that here in Straya?

JEEEZ
 

bigjobs

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
802
Points
10
if i had been on that flight it might be me trying to defend myself. you play with a door on a flight that i am on and i might take responsibility for my own safety by making an effort to stop you from playing with that door.
 

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
6,419
Points
0
Groundfeeder said:
Can't quite believe this argument! The critical element is INTENT and at FL 280 or whatever generally all pax FEAR the consequences - some like us FF's KNOW the likelihood of success.

Intent is 1 element of a crime, however there are sometimes other crimes which relate to intent. e.g. if someone attempts to commit murder but fails, they cannot be charged with that offence since it never took place; in this case there is a crime of Attempted Murder for which the person can be charged

a charge of "Endangering an aicraft" seems to be specific to actually endangering an aircraft and not to "attempt to endanger an aircraft" nor an offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or similar

Dave
 

Groundfeeder

Active Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
651
Points
5
Dave
a charge of "Endangering an aicraft" seems to be specific to actually endangering an aircraft and not to "attempt to endanger an aircraft" nor an offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or sim

Don't want to promote pedantics but when does an aircraft feel it's being endangered, or even fiddled with?

The stupidity of the statutes doesn't refer to the repercussions of subsequent compacting/squashing of pax thru this action "endangering human life" etc.

As an aside, where were the sky marshalls we're all paying for ... I know DJ didn't want part of this scheme but maybe they'll reconsider??
 

BlacKnox

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
735
Points
0
bigjobs said:
...if you play with a door on a flight that i am on and i might take responsibility for my own safety by making an effort to stop you from playing with that door.
I'd lend you a hand too :arrow:
 

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
6,419
Points
0
Groundfeeder said:
Dave
a charge of "Endangering an aicraft" seems to be specific to actually endangering an aircraft and not to "attempt to endanger an aircraft" nor an offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or sim

Don't want to promote pedantics but when does an aircraft feel it's being endangered, or even fiddled with?

The stupidity of the statutes doesn't refer to the repercussions of subsequent compacting/squashing of pax thru this action "endangering human life" etc.

As an aside, where were the sky marshalls we're all paying for ... I know DJ didn't want part of this scheme but maybe they'll reconsider??


When it comes to laws pedentry is relevent. Can't convict someone of a crime just because it sounds similar to what they did. If the charge was "attempt to interfere with aircraft" or similar I could see not issue, but I still fail to see how the aircraft was actually endangered

Why would this be a reason to reconsider marshalls? the aircraft wasnt endangered

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Community Statistics

Threads
86,622
Messages
2,101,115
Members
53,920
Latest member
vindetable
Top