Government

‘Am I Now a Terrorist?’ FAA Slaps Man Who Used an iPad to Film In-Air Bird Strike With a Flight Record

Last month, we brought you the story of a bird strike filmed by a passenger mid-flight and the reactions of those aboard. They described how it felt when the birds zoomed into the engine, forcing the pilot to land as a precautionary measure. Now, the Federal Aviation Administration is issuing a warning to the man who, by chance, caught footage of the birds while he was using his iPad to film out the window.

FAA Sends Letter Issuing Two Year Record to Man Who Used iPad to Film Bird Strike During Flight

Footage taken by Grant Cardone using his iPad out his Delta flight window right before the birds flew into the engine. (Image: Screenshot Grant Cardone)

CNN (via The Consumerist) reports Grant Cardone was sent a letter from the FAA after it had conducted an investigation and found Cardone had been using his device just minutes after takeoff during a time when all electronic devices were supposed to be powered down and stowed. Here’s a portion of what the letter said:

“We have given consideration to all of the facts. In lieu of legal enforcement action (a civil penalty), we are issuing this letter which will be made a matter of record for a period of two years, after which, the record will be expunged,” James Giles, FAA supervisory principal operations inspector, wrote in a letter to Cardone.

[...]

The FAA told Cardone, “Your failure to comply during a critical phase of flight and an aircraft emergency could have affected the safe outcome of the flight.”

Cardone appeared on CNN Wednesday to share his thoughts on his new two-year record with the FAA:

On the show, Cardone expressed concern over what this “record” means. “What I’m concerned about is what watch list am I on? Am I now a terrorist for the FAA? Am I going to get double-screened? They just need to clarify what the deal is,” he said.

Even though use of electronic devices is banned during certain phases of flight, some — including Cardone — question the effect of their usage on aircrafts. In March, Nick Bilton wrote on the New York Times BITS blog that he had recently contacted the FAA to “pester” them about the need to update this regulation and received a comment that shows the agency is considering it. He writes:

When I called the F.A.A. last week to pester them about this regulation — citing experts and research that says these devices could not harm a plane — the F.A.A. responded differently than it usually does. Laura J. Brown, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs for the F.A.A., said that the agency has decided to take a “fresh look” at the use of personal electronics on planes.

[...]

As Ms. Brown said: “With the advent of new and evolving electronic technology, and because the airlines have not conducted the testing necessary to approve the use of new devices, the FAA is taking a fresh look at the use of personal electronic devices, other than cellphones, on aircraft.”

(Related: Does electronic device use during takeoff and landing really matter?)

But with the FAA regulation remaining intact for now, do you think Cardone has a right to be upset over his warning letter? Or since “rules are rules” should Cardone — and everyone else griping about powering down on planes — remain understanding as the FAA continues to take a “fresh look” at the regulation? Let us know in the comments section.

This story has been updated.

Comments (95)

1 2 3
  • percylee
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:26pm

    This regulation should have been changed years ago all though I would hate to sit by someone who talked for an hour on a phone in a loud voice….

    Report Post »  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:51pm

      No the FAA should have been shut down years ago. there is no Constitutional; authority for them. The free market could easiy replace them.

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • turkey13
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 2:40pm

      You folks don’t get it – it’s all about scarying people that are all ready afraid to fly. My sister stopped after the Flight on the Hudson went down. She now travels by train or car. Train service is limited now but after Nov. Obama and Buffet are going to install 150 MPH trains all over America.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 3:08pm

      ‘See no evil… Speak no evil… Hear no evil’… or ELSE!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Smokey_Bojangles
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 4:46pm

      No,Instead Republicans,such as Allen West, give the FAA powers to fly spy Drones over our houses.

      Report Post » Smokey_Bojangles  
    • TexasIndependant
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 4:49pm

      I agree with Baddoggy, Shut the FAA down..Air Traffic Control can be done by the private sector.

      Report Post »  
  • mhnjr4
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:22pm

    As a commercial pilot with 5,000 hours experience I will agree the law is a bit out dated. The effect of the new digital phones compared to the old analog cell phones is minimal. I have yet to see any interference with the navigational system, BUT I know every time some one is sending or receiving messages or email. It makes a buzzing noise in my head set the same head set that I use to communicate with Air Traffic Control. People once the aircraft is at cruse flight level or above 10,000 feet you can have 99% of your electronics back it’s only going to be a few minutes. If you can not handle being disconnected for that short amount of time you’ve got an addiction problem.

    Report Post »  
    • percylee
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:29pm

      You must have an equipment problem.

      Report Post »  
    • Rock_Thrower
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:36pm

      I work as a firefighter, and we wear headsets the same as pilots, and our cell phones do create a static at times when they are to close to the headset or radio base. While you can still hear it could cause you to miss part of a transmission.

      I am sure there must be a way to filter out that static.

      Report Post »  
    • SageInWaiting
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 1:03pm

      I can hear my ‘berry making its periodic check-in with the cell tower on some of my radios and computer speakers. Shy of pulling the battery, it’s hard to know exactly when it will attempt to talk with the outside world.

      Report Post » SageInWaiting  
    • SgtB
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 1:35pm

      That static you hear is from the radio waves emitted by the electronic device interfering with the magnetic field that your headsets use to create sound. It could be easily avoided by placing the headsets in a kind of Faraday cage type shielding and shielding the wires leading to your headset. This effect depends mainly upon the strength of the radiation produced by the phone and the more powerful the phone, the more static you will hear. This kind of thing should be fixed with just a few dollars in parts and not in a nationwide ring of bureaucracy that attempts to make us all into criminals.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • PaxInVeritate
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 2:00pm

      SGTB… Thank you for a rational solution. Unfortunately the F.A.A. won’t follow this rational approach to the problem. It would require them to give up some power, which is antithetical to the nature of government agencies.

      Report Post » PaxInVeritate  
    • markdido
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 3:47pm

      So what do you think of the proposal by the FAA to allow airline pilots to use charts and pubs on iPads instead of paper?

      Wouldn’t a pilot using an iPad to look up a SID or STAR cause much more interference than the guy back in 35C playing Angry Birds?

      Report Post »  
    • One of the Quiet Ones
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 4:02pm

      To my knowledge most consumer electronics don’t interfere with other consumer electronics. So why do they affect headsets? Cheap design? It sounds more like the electronics are poorly designed if it is an issue. Have you ever had to walk away from cell phone user because his phone made yours hiss?

      Report Post »  
    • eric55
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 5:14pm

      I think your full of crap, there is no way you hear a buzzing sound when someone is sending messages you sound like a faa troll

      Report Post »  
    • Docrow
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 5:27pm

      Well quit texting while flying! ;-)

      (*sarcasum! sorry couldn’t help it!)

      Report Post » Docrow  
    • wolverine
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 7:41pm

      Perclee
      You are full of c**p almost any communications equipment can pick up the ping from a cellphone

      Report Post » wolverine  
  • SageInWaiting
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:12pm

    It seems strange that on one hand, airlines are installing WiFi, yet the emissions from the crystal oscillator in an iPad will bring down a plane. I’m familiar with electronic interference concerns and the need to protect aircraft communications. I, for one, prefer to keep the WiFi and Bluetooth transmitters on my electronics turned off if I can and use those features only when needed; no need to announce my presence or open myself to drive-by malware infection and, for safety’s sake, limit signal propagation within the aircraft. Yet, this just seems to be another heavy hand of government coming down on the sheeple. If cell phones are a concern, what about all the cell towers the plane flies over at low altitude during take-off and approach?

    People for years have recorded their take offs and landings, initially with Instamatics and 35mm SLRs; as VCRs and later digital cameras, and now camera equipped phones, came along, it’s been hard for people to realize or believe historic “dangers” and change their ways. Besides, wasn’t there recently an article about approval for aircrew use of iPads? Aren’t THEY more likely to interfere with that crucial flight equipment?

    Report Post » SageInWaiting  
  • mdr6273
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:00pm

    The official rule (according ro FAA Regulations) is that if thhe captain tells you to turn it off you are legally required to turn it iff. Once the door closes the captain is the final authority on ALL MATTERS and failure to comply with his or any crewmember instruction is a federal offense.

    The fact that the iPad wouldn’t cause and mechanical or other issues with the flight is completely irrelavant.

    Report Post »  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:25pm

      Another case of giving some minor functionary to much authority. I ran across these people over and over they got their first taste power and it went to their head. They have nothing else to do so they read the most minute regulations and enforce them.

      OMG 2012

      Report Post »  
    • rharvey23
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 4:43pm

      I have to disagree with you about the pilot being a minor funtionary. He is responsible for the safety of the crew and the passengers and the plane. He’s the one who will take the hit from the FAA and the media and anybody else reading the story if something were to go wrong inside the cockpit and passenger compartment. It’s not about a taste of power, it’s about human lives. I‘m mot much for flying myself but once I’m in the air, I know that I’m not in charge of anything to do with the flying of the plane. My life is in the pilot’s hands.

      Report Post »  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 5:47pm

      Don’t forget the taxpayers are paying a salary to the guy writing the letter. Wonder how much that cost us?

      OMG 2012

      Report Post »  
  • love the kids
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:58am

    Here’s a thought, since in another story I just read, a judge sentenced a dog to jail. So the next logical step is to issue over a loud speaker by the runway, a no bird fly zone. This way we could slap terrorist charges on the birds that are trying to kill humans. If they make this a law, then the birds will be guilty. It is funny that the birds brought down the plane and not the electronic device?

    Report Post »  
  • FromSeaToSea
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:53am

    Would someone be willing to create a web site for DOMESTIC TERRORIST IN THE US GOV.?.
    For example, Barak Obama – last known address, alleged acts with dates – times – location of action, and evidence such as specific executive orders or actions taken against the Constitutional. We need the good citizens of the US to remember if and when a revolution comes what these people have done blow by blow. There are many. Senate, Congress, Agency heads, state officials, and Czars.
    Someone needs to step forward and collect the allegations for the rest of us.

    Report Post »  
  • cessna152
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:39am

    I guess the passengers on Flight 93 will be investigated by the FAA as well? My goodness, if I thought I was going to die I’d at least want to have a chance that people would see WHY/HOW so they could avoid it in the near future.

    I guess innocent kids and grannies being roped by the TSA is no cause for investigation. Rid of the FAA, FCC, etc!

    Report Post » cessna152  
    • syjere17
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:45am

      “Take the first 5 people and ”crucify” them. Big Brother has never been bigger.

      Report Post »  
    • B_rad
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:04pm

      CAIR is drafting a press release as we speak: SEE???!!?!? It wasn’t Muslim terrorists who brought down Flight 93!!! It was the passengers using their cell phones.

      Report Post » B_rad  
    • Razlord
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:42pm

      really would like to know how people on flight 93 called…did not have wifi setup on planes at that time.
      not to mention still have not found that dam plane.

      Report Post »  
    • john koenig
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 1:18pm

      @Razlord…Ever heard of Air Phones? And since when do cell phones need wi-fi?
      As for “never finding the plane,” I suggest you take an elementary physics class to see what happens to an object hitting the ground at 500 mph. The plane was most certainly in that field…in very small pieces.

      Report Post » john koenig  
    • bikerr
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 4:17pm

      @john koenig—Don’t forget,when commenting to razlord you are dueling with a unarmed person.I.E. a idiot!

      Report Post »  
  • EGsimi1776
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:38am

    My understanding of this rules goes back to the early 90′s with the use of analog cell phones, this might be myth however as I had it explained to me back then the problem was that the airplane moved so fast that the signal from the phone would switch from tower to tower too fast for the phone company to properly track bill usage; so you would basically get free phone calls while flying.

    I do know however that in the 90′s an experiment was done with a 737 where the scientists put a active cell phone in every seat and monitored all the flight instrumentation and noting so much as blipped, they then blasted the plane with high power radio waves from ground antennas in addition to the cell phones and again, nothing so much as even blipped…

    And don’t give me this rules are rules BS… anybody can make a rule, does not mean I have to follow it; following rules unquestioningly is just asking for trouble.

    Report Post » EGsimi1776  
    • Brainmuffin
      Posted on May 4, 2012 at 10:48am

      That is the same reason I heard. Not sure if true or urban legend. Fewer towers in those days too.

      Report Post »  
  • Teufel Hunden
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:37am

    What do you mean “What kind of a watch list am I on”, why you’re on a bird watchers list you knucklehead!

    Report Post » Teufel Hunden  
  • GrumpyCat
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:29am

    How is this any different than any other government regulation? On one hand the FCC demands all devices be certified not to pollute RFI. On the other hand its not good enough for the FAA.

    Report Post »  
    • ExSophus
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 1:24pm

      @Grumpycat said, “On one hand the FCC demands all devices be certified not to pollute RFI.”

      Wow, have you got it wrong. The FCC does NOT “demand” any such thing. Simplifying things a lot…

      For the most part consumer device FCC “certification” simply states that a given electronic device must accept interference from other devices…and VERY importantly, that does NOT mean the device must continue to work correctly while “accepting” the interference. It‘s simply a proactive legal declaration that company A will not try to claim that company B’s (or the government’s) device can‘t be used because it interferes with company A’s device.

      There are FCC compliance standards with regard to transmitter output power, frequencies, etc. but NONE of them prevent “RFI pollution” (e.g. one device from interfering with another as you seem to be using the terms). As such, the certifications do nothing re the billions of electronic devices to make them so as “not to pollute the RFI”. All electronic devices “pollute” the electro-magnetic spectrum…some more so than others and some more so on various FCC assigned frequencies than others.

      For example, I could theoretically sit 50 feet from you with my FULLY FCC certified and compliant high-power wireless router, and it could legally interfere with and keep YOUR low-power WiFi from working…at all. (BTW, same thing for wireless 2.3GHz telephones, wireless cameras, etc.)

      Report Post »  
    • ExSophus
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 1:52pm

      Continuing…

      And yes, there are FCC emissions limits on non-transmitter devices (aka Unintentional Radiators)…like Class B “Home” devices and Class A “Office” devices. But here again, the certification only places some limits on the RF energy emitted from the devices. The certification does not prevent Radio-Frequency Interference (RFI) nor does it guarantee a certified non-transmitter device won’t interfere with other devices. Too many other factors are involved when it comes to RFI from one device and whether or not it impacts other devices/equipment.

      See Wikipedia “Title_47_CFR_Part_15″ for more info.

      Report Post »  
  • AJAYW
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:14am

    under obama’s Adm. those that called love ones from the planes on 9-11 would be considered a terrorist crime

    Report Post »  
  • NoLimey
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:13am

    He broke the rules, suck it up, whiner.

    Report Post » NoLimey  
    • CulperGang
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:39pm

      He is not a criminal there should be no rules that criminalize a NON-CRIMINAL ACT. KEEP AMERICAS PEOPLE FREE FROM GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE.
      There are millions of electromagnetic waves being used, and they are not bringing down planes, should indicate to everyone that ONE MORE WON’T MATTER….especially coming from a piddly gadget like the Ipad. Too many people telling other people what to do because they are getting off on their self importance of “being in charge.”

      Report Post » CulperGang  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:54pm

      Rules that have no Constitutional base…Under what authority are they going to prosecute him? The good and plenty clause? Go away *******…

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
  • ThePostman
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:13am

    Is the EPA going to charge Delta with an illegal bird kill?

    No, because we live in a world of crony corporatism.

    They would more likely assess a fine against the passengers for participating in this “horrific slaughtering of innocent waterfowl”, out of season, mind you. LOL!

    Report Post »  
  • rawmilker
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:12am

    That little smarmy biac ch Solidad is such a d o u c h e…..

    Report Post » rawmilker  
  • waynobweno
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:11am

    I sat next to an off duty pilot on my way home from a previous flight. He looked at me and said that these electronic devices have nothing to do with interference, they simply want them off and stowed away because they are perfect projectiles if the plane has to bank or if they hit turbulence. The FAA is just trying to make a stink because they have mud all over their faces. These institutions: FAA, TSA, POTUS, FLOTUS are all being exposed for how looney and corrupt they are.

    Report Post »  
    • The_Midas_Curse
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:00pm

      Originaly, yes. Now there are issues where it has been proven that it is possible to hack an aircraft. So they may ban all electronic devices.

      Report Post » The_Midas_Curse  
  • Stoic one
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:11am

    another government agency gone a muck.

    Report Post » Stoic one  
  • Conservative Hippy
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:06am

    If these devices posed any danger, they would not be allowed on the flight to begin with.

    Report Post »  
    • Rightallalong
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:45am

      its all about having so many regulations and laws that we can all be criminals when needed i.e when THEY decide to punish someone…

      Report Post » Rightallalong  
    • ExSophus
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 2:52pm

      @rightallalong
      Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate believes a typical person in the US unwittingly commits 3 felonies each day.

      Report Post »  
  • caddmax
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:06am

    They say that getting struck by lightning has almost no affect on the aircraft, but they are worried about your electronic devices.

    Report Post »  
  • HKS
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:06am

    Is this childish or what, “ya caught me but” wha, wha, wha, wha, You shouldn’t have been looking.

    Report Post » HKS  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:05am

    The more obscure and meaningless the laws….the more people they can have an excuse to investigate and monitor.

    Report Post »  
  • lawrench
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:03am

    I can see both sides of this argument. Rules are rules, and we should follow the rules until they are changed and then we should follow those rules. However, when the rules were written, the electronics used for flight was more sensitive to other electronics. Yes the rules should be changed, and yes we should follow the rules.

    Report Post » lawrench  
    • Razlord
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 12:39pm

      bs…you a child or what?

      do not follow bs rules , just because someone made them up.

      gdam . you are a slave.

      Report Post »  
  • hersey10
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:03am

    Soledad O’Brien is awful .

    Report Post » hersey10  
  • ThePostman
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:58am

    The FAA is a terrorist organization, and I have filed a letter stating such in my personal files on them. I think a 10,000 dollar bounty, dead or alive, on them, is in order. Anybody got a problem with that?

    Report Post »  
  • GeorgeWashingtonslept here
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:55am

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm, FAA is taking a fresh look at the use of personal electronic devices, other than cellphones, on aircraft.” Other than “cellphones”………………let me see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,damn I can record video from my cell phone………??????????????????????????? Let’s make another LAW …….WTH?

    Report Post »  
    • term limits for congress
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:27am

      Please, oh please, oh please!!!! Do not let people talk on their phone while in the air. It is already so annoying on the ground.

      “We just landed – I’m still on the plane.” Who cares???

      6:30am flight – half the people are on the phone. Who wants to talk to you at 6:30am??? Hang up!

      “I just landed in Atlanta.” Who cares??? Call them when you get to your destination.

      The day they allow phones in the air is the day I bring clove cigarettes, cigars, and a boom box (loud music, ya know) and make it over-the-top obnoxious.

      Report Post »  
  • The_Jerk
    Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:50am

    Shutting down electronic devices is overkill, and they know it.

    Report Post »  
    • Buck Shane
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:08am

      Rules are rules. They should be followed. They should all make perfict sense. If they do not, whoever is responsible for the incorrect rule should be subjected to whatever the penalt for violating the rule is.
      There is no reason not to use the ipad as a camera on a plane. Since the rule makes no sense, all the people who imposed this rule should recieve the maximum penalty authorized by the rule.

      Report Post » Buck Shane  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love