iPad Gets Guy On No-Fly List

When the flight attendants ask you to turn off all your electronic devices, that includes you, Mr. Cool iPad guy.

Blogger Lux Alptraum shares her story of how she was sitting next to this guy on an airplane this week who started the flight turning on his iPad and ended it getting arrested and place on the no-fly list.

In between those two points he turns the iPad back on behind the attendant’s back, gets huffy when they won’t serve him alcohol and continues being a pain even after the captain, the captain!, comes back to personally tell him to behave.

Moral of the story, FAA regs are no joke.

How An iPad Got A Guy Placed On The No-Fly List [Jalopnik]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    When you’re an asshole, you get treated like one. Sure, you might get treated like one regardless, but this is a guarantee.

    • Nuc says:

      Exactly. Being an ass got him on the “no-fly” list. Not using the iPad.

    • andyg8180 says:

      “Mister No-Fly” lmao that was great… Youre right, he was kicked off for being an asshole, not for the ipad… We’ve had the “No electronics on the runway” rule for how long now? YEARS! i think way back to the walkman days… Its like, dont smoke at a gas station and wash your hands after you pee, you know its the rule, but not everyone wants to follow it…

      dear mister no-fly, HA HAAA

      • FredKlein says:

        We’ve had the “No electronics on the runway” rule for how long now? YEARS!

        ‘We’ve done it for years’ =/= ‘it makes sense’.

        They were stuck for an hour and a half. That means there was no possible way any electronic devices could interfere with the control of the aircraft- it wasn’t going anywhere! (And that’s ignoring the fact that 99.99999% of the time, electronic devices don’t cause problems anyway.)

        announced that she wasn’t a waitress, but a safety professional, and that dealing with his petty concerns was not her priority.

        “Safety professional”. That’s a good one. Look at the name of the job: Flight Attendant. An attendant that attends to the passengers during a flight. (attendant: “someone who waits on or tends to or attends to the needs of another”. I see nothing in there about safety.) In other words, a sky waitress. Granted, they have some safety training- they need to point to the exits during the canned safety speech, and demo the flotation devices and such, but… In the absence of an overriding safety issue, dealing with passengers is indeed her priority.

        The moral of the story? Until airlines change their rules, turn off your electronic devices during take off.

        “Take off”? Agreed. “Sitting on the tarmac for an hour and a half”? Nope.

    • danmac says:

      Thank you…this is the first thing I thought: “Being an asshole got him on the no-fly list…end of story.”

    • kc2idf says:

      Yes, the iPad was just an element of his assholeship, but he was an asshole from the word ‘go’.

    • kobresia says:

      I just wish that flight attendants would start tasering assholes and fit them out in straightjackets and gags and put them on display at the front of the passenger cabin for the remainder of the flight. It’s really not enough just to kick them off the plane.

  2. ubermex says:

    The iPad didn’t get him on the list, his behavior did. The iPad was a TINY part of what happened which alone would most definitely not have gone anywhere.

    • c!tizen says:

      ah, beat me to it.

    • MaarekElets says:

      Although having an iPad might not be the cause of a person being a self important jerk, it may be that it is a great indicator of a person being one. Seems fitting that since it was his refusal to turn his iPad off that started the chain of events that caused his arrest and no-fly-listing.

    • MaarekElets says:

      Although having an iPad might not be the cause of a person being a self important jerk, it may be that it is a great indicator of a person being one. Seems fitting that since it was his refusal to turn his iPad off that started the chain of events that caused his arrest and no-fly-listing.

    • Julia789 says:

      Yeah same thing would have happened if it was a kid and a handheld Nintendo game.

    • sakanagai says:

      “Oh my gosh, a guy was kicked off the plane for disobeying several direct orders from flight crew. And he had an iPad. The iPad MUST be to blame.”

      He easily could have been trying to use a TI calculator instead with the same result. If the guy had just remained in his seat, he probably would have been fine.

      • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

        Think of the iPad as a, say, marker for assholishness, if that helps.

  3. c!tizen says:

    I’m not an Apple fan, but I’m sure it was the guys crap attitude that got him put on the no-fly list; not so much the ipad.

  4. B says:

    Alternate title: Behaving like a self-entitled jerk gets guy placed on no fly list.

  5. Chmeeee says:

    As the comments say in the Jalopnik article, the title should be “Jackass behavior gets guy on no-fly list.”

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Hey, I don;t even think Johnny KNoxville is this obnoxious.

    • George4478 says:

      I assumed that when it said he had an iPad.

    • JonStewartMill says:

      I’m not sure how I feel about that. The no-fly list was intended to prevent terrorist acts, not as a punishment for people acting like jerks. Can you imagine if the DMV had this kind of power? “You were observed cutting off people in traffic and failing to yield to pedestrians. Your punishment: you can’t drive again — EVER.”

      PS: say hello to Louis Wu for me.

  6. Jeff says: "WTF could you have been thinking?" says:

    It could have been any electronic device. No Apple bashing necessary…..

    • dreamfish says:

      … but Apple users are so *special*.

      • MMD says:

        Comments like that say a lot more about you than about anyone else. Don’t like Apple? Fine, don’t use their products. But also, and more importantly, don’t make blanket judgments about people.

        • Thumbmaster says:

          But that’s the kind of headlines that draws people like this. Consumerist has been an Apple-basher for almost as long as I’ve been reading them; even more so after the split from Gawker. Heaven knows why — Apple is one of the least consumer-hostile tech companies out there. Or maybe Consumers Union is secretly funded by Steve Ballmer?

          • nonsane says:

            “Don’t hold it that way”
            is just one of the friendly apple responses.

            Jussayin

            • Thumbmaster says:

              It was never confirmed to be genuine. Besides, even if it is, it’s the response of ONE person. Granted, it’s the CEO, but we’ve all heard far worse from other CEOs.

  7. microcars says:

    The iPad is not what got him on the No-Fly List. He was a combative asshole from start to finish, that is what got him there.

    Hey Ben- why do you post things with completely mis-leading titles?
    How does this help Consumer Reports? It just makes them look bad too.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Did you read the linked article? Besides, one can correctly argue that since an iPad was involved in steps 1 & 2 of him getting on the list, it can correctly be attributed to a reason for being put on said list.

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      This may get me disemvoweled, but: Hey Dick, if you think you’re the expert on blogging, why don’t you start your own blog on consumer issues and STFU. I’m really getting sick of the fucking armchair editors flapping their gums. We don’t come here to read your criticism of the post’s TITLE.

      • microcars says:

        hate to tell you this, but you appear to be in the minority as pretty much every single other post here appears to come to the same conclusion:
        Title is misleading and is trolling at best.

        “Phil infects Ben” is a better title.

        • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

          I hate to inform you, but being in the minority doesn’t make one wrong.

        • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

          I personally don’t have a problem with the articles title, either. I think that it’s pertinent because the ipad is a new type of device and is set to become more ubiquitous.

          I hate to say it, but this particular post’s reaction of “OMGZ the title is misleading” seems more hostile than most, and screams “Do not disparage the sacred iPad” to me.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          I don’t have a problem with the headline and I bet the majority of readers don’t either. They’re mostly just not cluttering up the comments refuting your stupid, useless comment.

  8. msky says:

    Actually, its not iPad. Its the guys being a complete s**thead. So how is iPad to blame?

  9. The Marionette says:

    Sucks to be him. And to think all he had to do was follow a simple instruction

    • dg says:

      Gee, too bad he was acting like someone who has good old-fashioned American values. The right to complain about bullshit governmental regulations, unfair treatment, and other issues. The right to complain about some power-tripping stewardess. The airline caused the problem, not him.

      Stop being sheeple…

      • Conformist138 says:

        The right to complain/protest =/= the right to make threats and generally be an ass to everyone.

        The guy wasn’t making a stand against a rather silly and archaic regulation (it is dumb, modern aircraft aren’t affected by our cell phones or laptops) in order to prove a real point, he just wanted his way. There is nothing noble about it, no values involved. The guy just wanted what he wanted when he wanted it, be it his iThingy or booze or whatever else crossed his fancy.

        He may have been somewhat right in that it’s kinda mean to make people sit and stare out a window at a runway for hours while not moving, but his methods really just screamed “jerkwad” and not so much “man of the people, standing up against oppression”.

  10. Zarf says:

    Why does the title of this article (And every repost of this story I’ve so far seen on the internet) blame this on the guy’s iPad? He was a snot and acted like a 3-year-old, and that’s what got him on the no-fly list. Not his iPad. I’d expect the Consumerist, which exudes an attitude of consumer responsibility, to correctly title this story.

    Oh wait. If they correctly titled the story, “Belligerent Gets His Own Dumb Self on the No-Fly List”, it wouldn’t be news. But, because it involves an Apple product, a legendary artifact forged from the purest of mithril, it is suddenly news.

    If I had done this with a PSP or a Droid, it wouldn’t be news.

    • macdude22 says:

      Phil must have infected Ben. Abandon Ship!

      • microcars says:

        best title and overall winner

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        good bye then – don’t let the door hit your ass on your way out.

        I like the headline and the article. I like Phil’s articles and headlines as well as the other Consumerist writers. You don’t like them then you and the above and below whiners should go ahead and leave for good.

    • c!tizen says:

      because it will lead people to read the article, which generates pages views.

    • Blueskylaw says:

      I hate to be a stickler for accuracy, but the iPad is not forged from purest mithril, it is actually cast from unobtanium.

    • captadam says:

      It it had been a droid, the headline would’ve been “Droid Gets Guy on No-Fly List.”

    • The Marionette says:

      Because they like to sprinkle certain words or phrases over articles to make them “that much better”. It’s not just with apple, but if you come here often enough you’ll notice that they will put something in the title and story that really doesn’t help it. An example would be the story they posted about the family who didn’t pay their mortgage and was getting foreclosed. Well of course they tossed in the fact that their son had a disease. The disease had nothing to do with the story, but they dash it in to make the bank seem bad. Same with this story, they could’ve easily said he refused to turn off his tablet, actually making the consumer seem bad here and called it a day. Instead they put in that it was an ipad that got him kicked off. As some have stated if it was something else (droid, psp) it wouldn’t have been posted or at the very least wouldn’t have mentioned them.

  11. UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

    I already said on the Jalopnik article: the iPad didn’t get him on the no fly list. His being a total horse’s rear did. The guy was a jerk, and probably would have gotten himself in trouble without the iPad, for goodness’ sake.

    Using Apple in this case is just page hit trolling, in my opinion.

    It would be the same if they said, “How an Android phone got a guy placed on the no fly list.”

    Or, “How being a man got a guy placed on the no fly list.”

  12. pop top says:

    After reading the comments here (and the article on Jalopnik), I thought this might have been a Phil article…

  13. RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

    Every flight I’m on, there’s some idiot who thinks the “no electronic devices” warning doesn’t apply to hi mor her. I know it probably won’t cause interference, but until they say it’s ok, just stop being a douche and turn it off.

    • shepd says:

      Exactly, the no electronics rule makes as much sense as a “Do not use engine brakes” sign on a road where trucks are banned. Still gotta follow the rules, though.

    • catskyfire says:

      I saw a ‘thoughts from pilots’ article, and it had one good point. One electronic device might not matter. But 60? 100? Or more… (laptop plus mp3, plus cell…for one person).

      • shepd says:

        Proper shielding (which all aircraft you’d consider major have) means you have everything up to an actual broadcast station in the airplane and nothing would happen. Hell, really good shielding and you *could* be broadcasting at 50 MW and the only risk would be melting the fuselage. Well, that and I don’t know where you’d get the power from…

        Of course, there is the very real risk that using your cellphone on the plane will, instead, confuse the hell out of the cell tower network and (unlikely) cause it problems.

    • wootbot says:

      The rules are also for safety reasons not related to interference. Air near the ground is frequently bumpy. They don’t want stuff out and likely to become a projectile.

  14. Blueskylaw says:

    So this is the equivalent of shoplifting at Walmart and getting banned from all the other
    big box/grocery stores in America?

  15. MoreThanWYSIWYG says:

    He’ll have a story to tell his friends while he’s drinking PBR and wearing a cabbie hat.

  16. D0rk says:

    This article gives me a chuckle. Partly because the guy got what he deserved for his behavior. And partly because the media latching on to the iPad as the catalyst for the whole issue, when it really didn’t play a part in the guy getting kickbanned.

  17. BrazDane says:

    And just to agree with 90% of the other posters – the iPad had very little to do with this – try and make your title a little more accurate rather than thinking what title will sound most attractive or sensational.

  18. backinpgh says:

    So what exactly is the causal relationship between assholes and iPad? Because I know a lot of assholes with iPads. Does the actual ownership of an iPad turn you into an asshole? Or is it that assholes are more likely to purchase iPads?

    • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

      OMG haven’t you read the comments?! THE IPAD has nothing to do with it. Do not mention the iPad! The holy iPad is not responsible, so stop blaming it!

      (Being sarcastic obviously. I’d like to take a poll and see how many of the commenters who are screaming about the headline also own an iPad.)

    • BomanTheBear says:

      To quote Tycho from Penny Arcade, carrying an iPad around in public is approximately the same level of pretensiousness that carrying a sceptre around in public is.

    • s0s has a chewy nougat center says:

      I know a lot of assholes with iPads, but I know even more assholes who don’t have them. Maybe they’re just compensating?

      I love Apple’s technology and I own a lot of it, but I just don’t -get- this iPad thing. Maybe if it wasn’t something that I’d be guaranteed to drop and destroy within an hour of owning it… Oh, and if I had a use for it. I still prefer my EVO to my friend’s iPhone, too.

    • dreamking says:

      Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. (Assuming one even gets that far.)

    • Karita says:

      I have an iPad and I’m not an asshole. :)

    • microcars says:

      How is it that you know so many assholes?

  19. FeelinFroggy says:

    A good old fashioned smack in the mouth by a fellow passenger was in order. Anyone with half a brain realizes that you simply do not mess around on a plane anymore.
    Call me paranoid but I literally check out everyone who is on my flight just to have an idea of who I’ll be flying the friendly sky’s with.
    I discriminate and stereotype because I can and will do everything to protect myself.
    That being said…If this guy is on my flight causing a ruckus, especially with an electronic device, I will be inclined to “check him out” just to be sure he isn’t some dumb @#$% trying to ruin my day.
    Bottom line is he deserved what he got.

    • Conformist138 says:

      Ok, I agree the guy was a jerk, but you sound like you need to just breathe into a paper bag for a bit. I mean, really, flying is NOT unsafe, and even attempts to hijack a plane are still crazy rare. For all the flights that are completed each day, the odds of being on a flight with a hijacker are far far lower than, say, getting hit by lightning.

      Part of the problem is people are getting TOO paranoid, and then people feel uncomfortable, and then mad, and they lash out because of fear or anger. We’re being told “OMG!!! DANGER DANGER DANGER!!!!! OBEY OR BE BLOWN UP! YOU ARE ALL SUSPECTS! THAT GUY IS TOO TAN!”, then we’re packed close with tons of strangers, then either left on a runway for an hour plus or just stuck in the air (either way you’re not getting out). That stress is going to boil over more and more until we just stop, think rationally, and relax.

      Remember, the face of the “enemy” is always changing, so just because you’re stereotyping Middle Eastern men (I assume, since they’re #1 on the shitlist right now) doesn’t mean there’s not another Timothy McVeigh sitting next to you that totally passes your muster. In other words: the panic and worry is doing NOTHING other than agitating you and probably your fellow passengers. It is not in any way helping your safety.

  20. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Bleh. I get pissed off too when they tell me to turn off my ereader (no wifi, no signals, it won’t crash the plane any more than this guy’s Ipad would’ve) but its only 5 minutes or so (until the plane takes off and hits 10,000 ft – for some reason life threatening electronics devices don’t matter after that point?!?) and I can deal.

    • The_IT_Crone says:

      You expect flight attendants to be experts on every single electronic device on the planet?

    • SunnyLea says:

      Yes, because after the plane takes off, your risk of being in an emergency situation diminishes by orders of magnitude.

      It isn’t just about “interfering with the plane” (which I think most folks know is not real likely anyway) but having you alert, ready and unencumbered in case of an emergency.

  21. GenXCub says:

    Also:

    “he turns back the iPad on”

    *eyebleed*

  22. apd09 says:

    –Puts on Tin Foil Hat—

    I bet this is some elaborate set up by the movie Due Date to build pre-show hype and Apple paid money to be part of the scandal.

    —Takes of Tin Foil Hat and shows self to the door—

  23. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Also, I really think a long hard look needs to be taken with new technology. Its sure possible that back before fly-by-wire and with huge bulking analog telephones that this rule was necessary. Now, not so much.

    If they would be realistic about it, I’d be much more likely to give a shit, i.e. – “We’d prefer if small items were put away while we take off so they don’t pose an impact hazard, including cellphones, laptops, etc”, or “The cell phone companies would be extremely angry if you jumped cells and got free long distance or roaming out of us (but who doesn’t have this now anyway) so please turn them off and put them away until we land”.

    It’s the whole charade of safety theatrics that it will CRASH THE F’N PLANE that pisses me off. It won’t crash the damn plane, and that’s why people buck the rule.

    • P=mv says:

      They have tested modern cell phones and determined that approx 1% of all devices could possibly interfere. The rule remains in place because of the incredibly low tolerance for risk when dealing with the safety of a couple hundred people on a single transport.

    • sufreak says:

      Its about paying attention to announcements more so than the fear of electronics causing issue. But then again, a whole slew of electronics could cause a problem.

    • AlfredaCosta says:

      It’s not just the electronics *causing* the crash, it’s that the potential for accidents are highest on takeoff and landing. Which would be made immeasurably worse with multiple projectiles flying around the plane.

    • Jay911 says:

      While I agree with you, if they had any intent of keeping people alert and aware during these “critical phases of flight”, they wouldn’t let people nod off to sleep as soon as they sat down. Or they would *require* you to take out the safety card and know it front-to-back. Instead you get some lecturing on how to operate a seat belt by a disinterested FA pantomiming to an audience sleeping, reading newspapers or books, or chatting with their seatmates.

  24. Sword_Chucks says:

    Are you people kidding me? iPad had nothing to do with this? It had everything to do with this. If it weren’t for the smug self-centered attitude you get with the purchase of an iPad, this wouldn’t have been an issue… im sorry, ill drop my sarcasm now…
    This is funny, people think flying is a right, not a privilege… I miss the days when people were courteous on airplanes, and actually respected flying. Now people dress in their pajamas, and disrespect everyone around them including the people who work the flights. Im glad the guy got what he deserves, I wont have to worry about sitting next to him anymore

    • Kavatar says:

      There’s no need for the sarcasm. The “Apple tax” isn’t really a tax. It’s the fee you pay for that smug, self-centered attitude.

    • MMD says:

      I’ll take smugness over your irrational, petty and irrelevant bashing of everyone who uses Apple products.

  25. The cake is a lie! says:

    Oh brother… People see ‘iPad’ and something negative and you just go crazy. Nobody said it was the iPad that got him kicked off. I’m pretty sure everybody can read and sees that it was his behavior that did it. “Asshole passenger gets on no fly list” doesn’t quite catch the readers like the current one. The fact he felt his iPad was not an electronic device was one of the things that caused the problem though. So no, it probably wasn’t what got him kicked off the fly list, but that and his sucky attitude was the catalyst for the events which ultimately got him the boot.

  26. budder says:

    I disagree with the article’s conclusion; if anything, this incident shows how much of a joke the FAA regs are.

  27. jimmyhl says:

    I side with the passenger. Yes, he used the Ipad, but he stopped. And then the crew wouldn’t let him but liquor. Yes, airlines can determine who gets booze on a flight, but they treated him like a bad little boy, basing their decision not to serve him on the Ipad incident and punishing him for something that he stopped doing. Did he act like a wanker when refused a drink? Sounds like. But getting him busted for acting like a d–k is another example example of the airlines’ using their power abusively.

  28. AI says:

    This guy was an ass.

    That being said though, can we finally re-examine the need to turn off all electronic devices? If having a damn iPad turned on actually causes a plane to crash, terrorists would just buy iPads and turn them on in flight.

  29. calico says:

    I sat across from a woman on a recent flight to Las Vegas who refused to hold her baby in the “approved” airplane manner. The flight attendant kept coming back to tell her to hold the baby properly and finally the woman just said “I refuse.” So she got some yellow card and we all had to wait when we landed so that she could be escorted off the plane by the police.

    On top of that, she was extremely annoying. Her husband and other baby were three rows ahead of her. Her other baby screamed the whole way and instead of ever getting up to hand her husband things he needed, she made the people around her pass up items and messages (I would’ve had fun playing telephone with those). So she managed to annoy everyone around her, get escorted by police and made me almost miss my connection due to waiting.

  30. NettyM says:

    If we want to make the iPad a bigger part of the story, I think that he should be made to donate the iPad to a school, autism charity, or family who would appreciate it. Just as punishment for being a jerk.

  31. peebozi says:

    The government is a little too extreme…

    No flying for being an asshole?

    maybe flight attendants need to get off their power trip!

    • FeelinFroggy says:

      Get a grip and realize that you are obligated to comply with basic instructions.
      You are required to turn it off, period end of story. If you don’t like it then don’t fly.
      The bottom line is that no matter how you twist it or cut it this guy did not comply and was obviously a dick for not doing so for something so damn petty.
      Like I said earlier, he needed a smack for causing an unnecessary commotion and he got what he deserved.

  32. vizsladog says:

    Ummmmm……..How do you know he was placed on the “no fly list”?

  33. Moniker says:

    The summary is horrible. Grammar please.

  34. damageddude says:

    We’re flying in a Lockheed Eagle Series L-1011. Came off the line twenty months ago. Carries a Sim-5 transponder tracking system. And you’re telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?

    The FCC should change the rule if it is no longer relevant but the guy was a jerk.

  35. brianary says:

    No, FAA regs clearly *are* a joke. But this guy needs to pick his battles.

  36. Jeff says: "WTF could you have been thinking?" says:

    After considering this article for a brief spell, I’ve concluded the whole point of the Ipad reference is to emphasize that even tech-savy, upscale nerds can be dickheads.
    +1 rep to the author.

  37. moderndemagogue says:

    This article is based on hearsay of one passenger from a flight attendant.

    Can we have some verification of facts?

    There’s also no such FAA regulation. If you find one, cite it.

  38. ArmitageID says:

    Nothing pisses me off more than people who have to be told repeatedly to turn their stuff off. Whether it will interfere with the plane or not….its not the point. Turn your crap off and wait for them to tell you its cool. I’m sure you can go more than 15 minutes without your tech toy….

  39. Elphaba says:

    This guy is an ass. Also, how hard is it to shut the ipad off, wait for the flight attendants to go sit down, and turn it back on?

    I also am known to unplug my noise canceling ear buds from my iPod and clearly leave the plug sitting on my lap. I’ve never had a flight attendant tell me to take my ear buds out.

  40. stevenpdx says:

    I’m thinking that this dbag wasn’t placed on the TSA’s no-fly list, but on the airline’s own internal no-fly list.

  41. Razor512 says:

    When a plane takes off it is exposed to more rf interference then can be possibly be generated if every user was to turn their electronics.

    Also the area where the time when the plane needs to be interference free the most is when it is flying and not during takeoff.

    They also tested on mythbusters what rf from electronics can actually do to a plane by blasting one with hundreds of watts fo RF (well above what the rf would ever allow a mobile device to have and well above what can be powered by a mobile device and there was no problem at all with the plane’s systems because everything in the plane that is electronic, is shielded, if it wasn’t when flying through a cloud the plane would lose control as the electronics failed due to the static generated and when ever there was any kind of storm, there would be no air traffic even if it is a extremely light thunder storm.

    Also when you go a few thousand feet up, you are exposed to a lot more RF than normal because you now have line of sight of a ton of high powered transmitters. A few ipads or laptops of cellphones wont cause any problems, it is probably just a old rule that even though no longer applies to modern aircraft, is still being enforced. (PS did you know that a portable tv can work in a airplane even when it is at it’s cruising altitude (you can generally get a few channels when you are over a city)

    • DustingWhale says:

      Sorry, but, while Mythbusters is an excellent show, they are by no means equipped to run a full test pass. Let me rough it out for you;
      Take every known radio in every known airplane. Now, for the first test case, turn on an iPhone and see what happens. Ok, now you need to re-run the test with the iPhone set to wifi/3g/2g. Ok,now damage the transmitters on the iPhone and test again. Ok, now re-run all the tests and try transmitting. Now do it recieving data. Ok, now do that for every instrument in the cockpit. Ok, now run all the same tests except with a 1st gen Droid. Now run them all again with a 2nd gen Droid… Starting to get the drift?

  42. DustingWhale says:

    I’m just glad to see them cracking down on this childish behavior. I’ve been tempted to point and yell at many iPhone/iPad user, “HE JUST BLACKED OUT THE SCREEN!!!”

    Partly because it takes 2-3minutes for my Pre to boot after landing.