To: Excellence
He didn't exactly respond to host Soledad O'Brien's point that, regardless of whether or not phones present a danger to the flight, Cardone did disregard the instructions of the flight attendants. But he did express concern that the FAA letter is overly vague about the implications of having this scolding on file for the next two yearsI travel 45 weeks a year, and there's always one of these a-holes in near proximity to me, who thinks they're above the law simply because they don't believe their device poses a danger.
YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER! FOLLOW THE %/&#@ RULES!!!
6 posted on
05/03/2012 6:55:22 PM PDT by
onehipdad
(A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.)
To: onehipdad
If they pose a danger why doesn’t the FAA just ban their use outright?
7 posted on
05/03/2012 6:57:37 PM PDT by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: onehipdad
Enlighten me, please. What danger is posed by a camera used inside a flying aircraft?
Nos genuflectitur ad non princeps sed Princeps Pacem!
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)
9 posted on
05/03/2012 6:59:54 PM PDT by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
To: onehipdad
Here is the simple reason there are restrictions below 10k. How many electronic devices are there on the market today? 1000, 10,000? I don't know. When you put electronics on a plane strange things can happen. That threat is low, but the FAA doesn't want to have to test all that equipment so they came up with the 10k rule. It also limits the amount of potential objects flying around the cabin if something bad happens on takeoff or landing.
This threat is really minuscule, but it does exist.
13 posted on
05/03/2012 7:02:55 PM PDT by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: onehipdad
Phones don’t impose any danger in fact the rule of not using them from an aircraft was issued from the FCC!
From altitude the wipe out many cell towers all trying to connect to the strongest signal and being at altitude that phone is the strongest (line of sight) signal to as many as 50 of them.
Everyone that owned an aircraft and had an FCC license for their radios got the notice in the early 80s and that included me.
14 posted on
05/03/2012 7:03:31 PM PDT by
dalereed
To: onehipdad
But iPads don't have phones. How do they interfere? Well, I guess they are radio devices.
16 posted on
05/03/2012 7:06:10 PM PDT by
Excellence
(9/11 was an act of faith.)
To: onehipdad
17 posted on
05/03/2012 7:06:26 PM PDT by
Kirkwood
(It's not a lie. It's a composite.)
To: onehipdad
YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER! FOLLOW THE %/&#@ RULES!!! Belsen? Buchenwald? The US Armed Forces guidelines on following illegal orders? As a famous man once said, "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool can mind it." You mind away, Sunshine.
31 posted on
05/03/2012 8:04:59 PM PDT by
SandwicheGuy
(*The butter acts as a lubricant and speeds up the CPU*ou)
To: onehipdad
“who thinks they’re above the law simply because they don’t believe their device poses a danger.”
So how does this affect you; and why is your dander up about it?
37 posted on
05/03/2012 9:06:18 PM PDT by
HereInTheHeartland
(We are the 53%. 47% of Americans pay no taxes; end the free ride...)
To: onehipdad
...thinks they’re above the law simply because they don’t believe their device poses a danger.
It’s not a law, it’s an airline rule.
46 posted on
05/04/2012 9:57:04 AM PDT by
Atlas Sneezed
(Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson