3 Wing Change of Command “Delayed”

[SupersonicMax]

.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good point…






But on topic, if the attendees at a CSRB can’t stay away from being offensive during the proceedings, let alone potentially assign a tone-deaf offensive call-sign, there are a few folks who need to put on RMs until they get it…

I think you found the gentlemans new call sign

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Maybe the RCAF should switch to "army" style call signs: Just numbers. "Six, this One, over"

Or Navy style: combination of three number/letter that you change every four hours. "Alpha two Echo. this is Mike Seven Romeo, over."



Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, best USN call sign I've ever seen (on Mighty Ships episode on an Aircraft Carrier) was a pilot who forgot to shut off his fuel dump valve (before landing on a carrier, pilots jetisson their extra fuel) and hosed everybody on deck with Avgas. He got the call sign "Cyndi", for Check You're Not Dumping Idiot!".

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I had to look up DP for craps sake,....

Some of us un-cool older cats think "displaced person" seeing this .... #AgingMyself

 

[Good2Golf]

Some of us un-cool older cats think "displaced person" seeing this .... #AgingMyself

Sure…let’s go with that…

 

[Kilted]

Can they be misinterpreted to be inuendo?

We are right back to "impact, not intent" these days, so what you intended the callsign to mean doesn't make it less offensive.

The problem with that is that it does not fit in with our justice system. No one can be found guilty unless the meas rea (intent) can be proven along with the actual act.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Incorrect.

For strict infractions, the mere breach of the rule, with or without intention, constitutes guilt. For instance, speeding. It is irrelevant wether you intended to eceed the limit or not - you exceeded, you are guilty. In the military, I would use AWOl as an example. If you miss the ship sailing, the mere proof you were not there at the expiry of leave is sufficeint for a guilty verdict, regardless of your inten. (That is not to say you couldn't have a valid excuse, such as being in an accident that sent you to hospital - but those are defenses not part of the proof of intent which is not required for a guilty verdict)

 

[Kilted]

Incorrect.

For strict infractions, the mere breach of the rule, with or without intention, constitutes guilt. For instance, speeding. It is irrelevant wether you intended to eceed the limit or not - you exceeded, you are guilty. In the military, I would use AWOl as an example. If you miss the ship sailing, the mere proof you were not there at the expiry of leave is sufficeint for a guilty verdict, regardless of your inten. (That is not to say you couldn't have a valid excuse, such as being in an accident that sent you to hospital - but those are defenses not part of the proof of intent which is not required for a guilty verdict)

If we are talking about quasi-judicial matters such as speeding that are considered strict liability or absolute liability offences. These generally carry lower penalties and cannot include jail time.

With regards to AWOL, while I have not read up on any current cases, my guess would be that many of them included intent. That being said, it would be interesting to see what happened if it were to go to the Supreme Court. I'm sure there are more than a few things in the NDA that wouldn't stand up to a Charter challenge.

Now charging someone for something that is subjective and only before the justice system because of the opinion of one individual, which would essentially prevent the accused any ability to defend themselves, would be a Charter violation if jail time is a possibility, which it is under the NDA.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There are strict and absolute liability crimes in the Criminal Code that can send you to jail. Be found in possession of a handgun without having the proper permit and then, come talk to me about intent being necessary, just as for instance.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It's ok though, don't worry, the pilot in question was a female

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There are strict and absolute liability crimes in the Criminal Code that can send you to jail. Be found in possession of a handgun without having the proper permit and then, come talk to me about intent being necessary, just as for instance.

That's the way it's supposed to work. Not anymore. Those types are now cut loose daily, to go buy another gun and go back to work.

 

[eliminator]

Here we go again!

Canadian air force investigating 'inappropriate and unapproved' call sign broadcast on U.K. flight

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is investigating an ‘inappropriate and unapproved’ call sign that was transmitted electronically from one of its aircraft on Monday.

toronto.ctvnews.ca

 

[markppcli]

Here we go again!

Canadian air force investigating 'inappropriate and unapproved' call sign broadcast on U.K. flight

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is investigating an ‘inappropriate and unapproved’ call sign that was transmitted electronically from one of its aircraft on Monday.

toronto.ctvnews.ca

I expect nothing less from grown ass men who only refer to each other by nicknames.

 

[Haggis]

There are strict and absolute liability crimes in the Criminal Code that can send you to jail. Be found in possession of a handgun without having the proper permit and then, come talk to me about intent being necessary, just as for instance.

You'll be released on a promise to appear. and go get another gun.