Mid-air scare: bid to open plane door

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by oz_mark, Mar 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource!
Our site contains tons of information that will improve your travel experience.
Joining AFF is fast, simple & ABSOLUTELY FREE -  join now by clicking on the JOIN NOW button, and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.
Once registered, this box will disappear. And you will see fewer advertisements :)
  1. oz_mark

    oz_mark Enthusiast

    Jun 30, 2002
    17,383
    1,624
    Melbourne
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    From the SMH

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

     

  2. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    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
     
  3. serfty

    Moderator

    Nov 16, 2004
    39,257
    7,780
    MEL
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    I suspect that a large %'ge of DJ PAX would not be aware of that fact; it would certainly cause a stir!
     
  4. oz_mark

    oz_mark Enthusiast

    Jun 30, 2002
    17,383
    1,624
    Melbourne
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    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.
     
  5. NM

    NM
    Moderator

    Aug 27, 2004
    15,764
    1,214
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    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.
     
  6. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    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
     
  7. thadocta

    thadocta Active Member

    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
     
  8. Groundfeeder

    Groundfeeder Active Member

    Nov 3, 2005
    651
    30
    Brisbane
    Dave

    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
     
  9. bigjobs

    bigjobs Active Member

    Jun 4, 2005
    754
    72
    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.
     
  10. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    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
     
  11. Groundfeeder

    Groundfeeder Active Member

    Nov 3, 2005
    651
    30
    Brisbane
    Dave
    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??
     
  12. BlacKnox

    BlacKnox Active Member

    Jan 29, 2005
    732
    13
    I'd lend you a hand too :arrow:
     
  13. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8

    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
     
Loading...

Share This Page