interference with a flake crew and i as the tenant to acts that endanger recklessly endanger an aircraft or airport here comes down to what is that line of demarcation we knew that an element of the crime of a violation of forty nine us code for six five zero four is that you have to interfere with the flight get right to it there was some suggestion that he was running around hysterically he did whether he mentioned i have a bomb right could get a bomb or there was a bomb  emergency exit and there was great concern that he got toward that emergency exit there because he wanted the plane to land he was making every effort to get to land that he was going to pull that emergency exit and blow that door open now whether that's possible or it isn't possible i don't know but they certainly thought it was possible because they were all everybody was hysterical on the plane apparently and he's not in danger in the aircraft having people running around the aircraft like that and people are afraid to you know somebody's going to pull the emergency exit latch and seems to me like that's pretty dangerous legs and arms were flying insulin and so forth so some of the passengers apparently speculated that he was moving towards the of emergency door whether he was or not there's no factual finding in this record to that effect and we do think that the other issue just upsetting the flight attendants and getting them all riled up or interfering with them is not sufficient and you need something more the statements about the bomb and taking the plane down those are the ones that bother me and make the wonder play isn't that in the course in the nature of flying an aircraft of course one doesn't just bring it down in any particular location we have to look at in this case whether or not that threat there is a causal connection between a threat and an actual endangered made of the aircraft and when i say that if you look at this the mechanics the actual structural go just briefly segue back to a previous question i x of a record one twenty five one of the sphere the path that a flight attendant crew members testifies that that door emergency room door cannot be opened in that flight which would make sense given the pressures ation of the cab the airplane land like to say i have a bomb the question is reason for that is that there are all kinds of consequences that can flow from that for instance saying i have a gun can cause a security guard or a police officer to pull a gun and fire maybe missed the bank robber in hidden in the said third party now in this case you have a guy who says do i have to so i have a bomb and then he goes up to the overhead bed should try to get a bag down and people obviously believe that there was a reasonable possibility that this man had a bug in my kids or is this you know i think it's common knowledge of where and how to take the consideration of common knowledge have you ever seen a map of what the skies over the united states look like with airplanes at any given time little white dots there are so many little white dots that you can't even see the ground and here you have a pilot who is supposed to be paying careful attention flying this airplane has changed all the instructions captain that says ok not only did i wear the flight attendants afraid there was mass chaos on the airplane and i was turning around and changing course but you would need testimony to say that recklessly endangered the safety of the aircraft the need to have actual factual elements put into the record that prove that this civic aircraft was endangered and i will note that when the government strongest argument in my opinion is the fact that the airplane was diverted passengers up in arms a possible bomber thing i mean even if he had a real bomb on there would that be if it was are going to actually go off with that big enough in question i my contention must be that thread alone could be enough if they can prove that the reaction to the threat in pared aircraft mechanical function endangered the structural integrity of that aircraft and i see on well no dangerous weapon here flight crew have to take him up or deal with him interfere with their other duties i would argue that does not rise to the level where it's endangered the safety of the aircraft the that individuals just conducted themselves in a manner which is interfering with their of their abilit someone who merely as i talked about gets drunk falls into the aisle has to be pulled out and becomes politically while they're trying to put the passenger back in the plane that would arguably be a nine if you have a someone who as and i would argue in this case goes well what is that about i mean that's not talking about i would argue it's more than just the physical aircraft it's the people inside in other words if it's his airport their aircraft and it's nonsensical to think that someone who walked up to the outside of a san francisco airport and start banging on the but even if you're just talking about the airplane itself the aircraft itself it's what you assume that's what it means i'm not sure that it does but again if you soon that that's what it means in this case we know that is a direct approximate result of what he did this plane had to deviate from a well established flight plan in the sky that's crowded with thousands of other airplanes and to turn back  not only impacting the potential for admitting error catastrophe because you have very agitated pilots obviously who think that there is a riot going on in the back of their airplane who must  change course abruptly not only impacting that airplane but every other aircraft in the vicinity which then must be rerouted so that they don't run into it because they're not supposed to be there they're supposed to be going one way and not that the other way and plus they have to make a turn and so you well you have that potential of a problem when you're supposed to have composite it's you've got very agitated pilots who are very concerned and i exactly right i read wholeheartedly in that this is about endangering the increasing the potential for harm so i wonder why we even need to get to the question of weather there is it whether it be endangering the aircraft means the people or the airplane because in this case even if you're talking about just the metal skin of the airplane you have a situation where we know as a matter of fact not indisputed that this plane had to deviate from its flight path thereby and with your living in fantasy land increasing the potential even if it's microscopically increasing the potential for danger to the airplane making these on abrupt and anticipated maneuvers in the middle of the sky and his judgment you can put out this is not a piper cub and i agree or are we don't really need to get to that argue that the guideline doesn't mean that that that the standard that the defense is putting forth and that somehow the government has to prove that the physical actually aircraft is endangered versus what seems to be tha