Yes i did know that. But that doesn't change the reason why airlines don't allow mobile phone usage in flight.
I don't know if it's a valid reason on modern aircraft, but it's better to be safe than sorry IMO. Cheers, Dave. On 10/14/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that the situation with Flight 93 involved inbound calls to > passenger cellphones, which the built-in payphones would be useless for. > > -Adam > > > David Savage wrote: > > What? Terrorists? > > > > Airliners are concerned about the possibility of radio/navigation > > equipment interference, hence the shielding reference. > > > > That's why every seat on most modern aircraft have built in payphones. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > > > On 10/14/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If it were not for cel-phones that last 9-11 airliner would have hit > >> something > >> too. It seems sad that the price all those folks paid to save others is now > >> rewarded by an absolute ban on using them??? > >> > >> I would like to make the point that it has been proven over and over that > >> airlines would not know a terrorist or hijacker if they walked onto one of > >> their > >> airplanes. It would be worth putting up with all the BS if it did some > >> good, but > >> it is only a show put on by people who are basically incompetent. What we > >> are > >> dealing with as in almost all these kinds of cases is an authority problem, > >> sometimes referred to as a God Complex. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cotty wrote: > >>> <http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2201081/man-arrested-iphone> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
