Releasing floating lanterns near Thai airports may be punishable by death

[webfact]

Releasing floating lanterns near airports may be punishable by death

BANGKOK, 5 November 2014 (NNT) - The Thai police gave a serious warning to the public that anybody found to be releasing floating lanterns or aiming laser beams into the sky near airports during the Loy Krathong Festival is susceptible to face the death penalty or lifetime imprisonment.

According to Acting Provincial Police Chief Region 1 Pol. Maj. Gen. Amnuay Nimmano, such action is deemed very dangerous to the safety of aircraft and is a violation of the Act on Certain Offenses Against Air Navigation B.E. 2521 (1978).

Violators may face execution or a life sentence or serve a lighter sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison, if damages done were not too severe. In addition, such offenders are also guilty of violating Section 232 of the Criminal Code and that alone carries a sentence of 6 to 7 years in prison and a fine up to 1,000 to 14,000 baht.

Members of the public have been requested by the police to refrain from releasing sky lanterns or balloons into the sky. The police will be strictly monitoring the airports to ensure that such activities do not take place.


-- NNT 2014-11-05

[RustBucket]

self censored.

But well over the top.

Edited November 5, 2014 by RustBucket

[robblok]

Its going quite far of course.. however I feel that floating lanterns near an airport is a real dangerous thing. If an airplane crashes because of one many lives are lost. Making a threat with a big stick might prevent this from happening.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Mario2008
self deleted quote removed

[smutcakes]

What happens every other year when these sky lanterns are released? I cannot remember it being a large aviation issue previously, but i stand to be corrected.

[evadgib]

They'd stand more chance banning birds!

Edited November 5, 2014 by evadgib

[ColdSingha]

how close is "near"?

5km, 10km, the parking lot??

[ginjag]

They may as well try banning birds!

Pattaya would be a ghost town ....................Does it say how far from airports, depends on wind direction and how high and far they can go.

Anyone have an Idea about the height they can achieve, or distance travelled ??? any records of the highest--farthest ???

[fab4]

---deleted----

Its going quite far of course.. however I feel that floating lanterns near an airport is a real dangerous thing. If an airplane crashes because of one many lives are lost. Making a threat with a big stick might prevent this from happening.

Just how many aircraft have crashed during the large number of years that Loy Krathong and air travel have co existed? What is the problem with doing exactly as has happened in the last few years like rescheduling flights etc? Could it be that with the junta in control, the various airlines have decided to chance their arm and are lobbying furiously so that we now end up with these knee jerk reactions?

[robblok]

---- deleted ------

Its going quite far of course.. however I feel that floating lanterns near an airport is a real dangerous thing. If an airplane crashes because of one many lives are lost. Making a threat with a big stick might prevent this from happening.

Just how many aircraft have crashed during the large number of years that Loy Krathong and air travel have co existed? What is the problem with doing exactly as has happened in the last few years like rescheduling flights etc? Could it be that with the junta in control, the various airlines have decided to chance their arm and are lobbying furiously so that we now end up with these knee jerk reactions?

Ah PTP logic.. no planes have crashed so its safe to light laterns around airports. I guess you think driving drunk is ok too. I mean most of the time nothing happens so its ok.

I think its a sensible thing to put a stop to an unsafe practice, the punishment is overkill but could be seen as a deterrent. (i somehow doubt it would ever put in practice )

[daveAustin]

Don't beat around the bush, just ban them, period!

[AGareth2]

ban air flights during the festival

sorted

[smedly]

Releasing floating lanterns near airports may be punishable by death

and or a 500baht fine

[robblok]

ban air flights during the festival

sorted

Yes inconvenience thousands of people because idiots want to light lanterns near airports. Its not so hard not to lite them near an airport.

[noitom]

The penalty for releasing flying lanterns near the Thai airport is "death."

[Costas2008]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

[Thailand]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I don't think the majority are disputing the safety factors more the penalties, which are waaaaaay OTT but in line with many recent pronouncements from the current incumbents.

[smutcakes]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I dont think people are complaining so much about the banning of them, its more the punishable by death. There are however many unanswered questions, which may be explained elsewhere eg:

1) Do these lanterns provide a real risk for airplanes?

2) Why has this problem never been raised previously?

3) How near is near?

4) if someone releases one from say 20 km away and it happens to blow that way, or into a flight path?

5) on the above, how are people supposed to know where the flight path will be on any given day?

If there is a real risk then a ban is logical, but releasing a statement like the above is not really very useful.

[ginjag]

ban air flights during the festival

sorted

Ban water at Song Khran-----ban tourists to save death and rape-------ban suspect pilots-----

[ginjag]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I dont think people are complaining so much about the banning of them, its more the punishable by death. There are however many unanswered questions, which may be explained elsewhere eg:

1) Do these lanterns provide a real risk for airplanes?

2) Why has this problem never been raised previously?

3) How near is near?

4) if someone releases one from say 20 km away and it happens to blow that way, or into a flight path?

5) on the above, how are people supposed to know where the flight path will be on any given day?

If there is a real risk then a ban is logical, but releasing a statement like the above is not really very useful.

1 yes

2 it has

3 as near as is deemed dangerous

4 it can, and achieve big height

5 wind direction, up to the local police to know where and how far is safe.

Then the ban is logical.

[ginjag]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I don't think the majority are disputing the safety factors more the penalties, which are waaaaaay OTT but in line with many recent pronouncements from the current incumbents.

There HAS to be measures in place as Thailand has been getting out of order for far too long, was this a police death statement ??

Look at the violence and it has not started in the last 5 months has it---be fair.

[binjalin]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I dont think people are complaining so much about the banning of them, its more the punishable by death. There are however many unanswered questions, which may be explained elsewhere eg:

1) Do these lanterns provide a real risk for airplanes?

2) Why has this problem never been raised previously?

3) How near is near?

4) if someone releases one from say 20 km away and it happens to blow that way, or into a flight path?

5) on the above, how are people supposed to know where the flight path will be on any given day?

If there is a real risk then a ban is logical, but releasing a statement like the above is not really very useful.

1 yes

2 it has

3 as near as is deemed dangerous

4 it can, and achieve big height

5 wind direction, up to the local police to know where and how far is safe.

Then the ban is logical.

another ridiculous post "as near as is deemed dangerous" I can tell you have never held any senior positions in your life DEFINE 'near' you can't just say "as near as is deemed dangerous" "achieve big height" infantile

if they want to curtail it they need to DEFINE it (i.e. with a MAP defining the area it is forbidden - maybe within 1 kilometer or whatever)

[pinkpanther99]

Sure, there's no denying that releasing floating lanterns near airports is dangerous, not to mention the environmental impact of these things.

But why release such a ridiculous statement about it being punishable by death?

What a ludicrous thing to say.

[Commerce]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I dont think people are complaining so much about the banning of them, its more the punishable by death. There are however many unanswered questions, which may be explained elsewhere eg:

1) Do these lanterns provide a real risk for airplanes?

2) Why has this problem never been raised previously?

3) How near is near?

4) if someone releases one from say 20 km away and it happens to blow that way, or into a flight path?

5) on the above, how are people supposed to know where the flight path will be on any given day?

If there is a real risk then a ban is logical, but releasing a statement like the above is not really very useful.

1 yes

2 it has

3 as near as is deemed dangerous

4 it can, and achieve big height

5 wind direction, up to the local police to know where and how far is safe.

Then the ban is logical.

Absolutely:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-12324047

[Commerce]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

I dont think people are complaining so much about the banning of them, its more the punishable by death. There are however many unanswered questions, which may be explained elsewhere eg:

1) Do these lanterns provide a real risk for airplanes?

2) Why has this problem never been raised previously?

3) How near is near?

4) if someone releases one from say 20 km away and it happens to blow that way, or into a flight path?

5) on the above, how are people supposed to know where the flight path will be on any given day?

If there is a real risk then a ban is logical, but releasing a statement like the above is not really very useful.

As above, to answer Qs 1 and 2:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-12324047

[baboon]

This military junta illegal government are going too far now.

This military are not fit for purpose.

They would run a mile at any real conflict and only have a history of repressing their own people.

The next government should seriously look at replacing the lot of the military command.

If anyone has committed crimes punishable by death are the succession of high ranking military personnel.

Its going quite far of course.. however I feel that floating lanterns near an airport is a real dangerous thing. If an airplane crashes because of one many lives are lost. Making a threat with a big stick might prevent this from happening.

Just how many aircraft have crashed during the large number of years that Loy Krathong and air travel have co existed? What is the problem with doing exactly as has happened in the last few years like rescheduling flights etc? Could it be that with the junta in control, the various airlines have decided to chance their arm and are lobbying furiously so that we now end up with these knee jerk reactions?

Ah PTP logic.. no planes have crashed so its safe to light laterns around airports. I guess you think driving drunk is ok too. I mean most of the time nothing happens so its ok.

I think its a sensible thing to put a stop to an unsafe practice, the punishment is overkill but could be seen as a deterrent. (i somehow doubt it would ever put in practice )

A thread about floating lanterns near airports, but no - someone simply has to bring party politics into it. Dear oh dear, get a grip!

[uty6543]

I don't believe it........

They are concerned about the safety of the people and posters are mumbling about being over the top and knee jerk reactions.

What does it take to satisfy you people?

A bit of common sence.

[Artisi]

Sure, there's no denying that releasing floating lanterns near airports is dangerous, not to mention the environmental impact of these things.

But why release such a ridiculous statement about it being punishable by death?

What a ludicrous thing to say.

"What a ludicrous thing to say." normal so not unusual - just open mouth well before engaging brain.

[jvs]

I wonder what the reactions would be if an airplane got in trouble by one of these lanterns.

On second thought,i can imagine what they would say.

[Commerce]

Sure, there's no denying that releasing floating lanterns near airports is dangerous, not to mention the environmental impact of these things.

But why release such a ridiculous statement about it being punishable by death?

What a ludicrous thing to say.

Why is it ludicrous?

If after the event, it was found that pieces of lantern wire got sucked into a few Airbus engines, bringing it down (although they can run on one engine, so it would take all engine failures, i.e. 4 catastrophic engine failures upon approach), would not everybody be screaming blue murder, and thehang 'em dry brigade would step in after the event? Prevention is better than cure, or in this case the potential of 500 deaths.

Death penalty might sound harsh... but if it the death penalty for causing 500 deaths, I'm sure you'd agree that is befitting... retrospectively, of course????

[robblok]

Sure, there's no denying that releasing floating lanterns near airports is dangerous, not to mention the environmental impact of these things.

But why release such a ridiculous statement about it being punishable by death?

What a ludicrous thing to say.

Why is it ludicrous?

If after the event, it was found that pieces of lantern wire got sucked into a few Airbus engines, bringing it down (although they can run on one engine, so it would take all engine failures, i.e. 4 catastrophic engine failures upon approach), would not everybody be screaming blue murder, and thehang 'em dry brigade would step in after the event? Prevention is better than cure, or in this case the potential of 500 deaths.

Death penalty might sound harsh... but if it the death penalty for causing 500 deaths, I'm sure you'd agree that is befitting... retrospectively, of course????

Death penalty is harsh.. probably will not bed done anyway. But its a dangerous thing.. as your proof about British airports shows. Suddenly the anti group is quite silent. I like it when someone brings in facts like you did it shuts others up.