Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
That information is not correct. How about the regulatory references, chief legal counsel interpretations, and federal register preambles?
Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
...you couldn't defend, couldn't cite a single reference...
Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
You've still provided no citation for your assertion.
Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
But then you haven't been able to link or cite regulation stating otherwise...
Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
And still no citations. No support. No leg up on which to stand.
Yet you keep stomping those bloody stumps. Why is that?
Sluggo63: **Types a response with citations and support**
JohnBurke: **That’s stupid and doesn’t make sense to me, so you’re wrong**
The fact that your company issued EFB is allowed to be used in flight and transmits a message is a straw man that has no bearing on whether or not you can use a personal electronic device during flight to take photos.
You ask others for citations and references to support their statements, but you don’t provide any supporting your side. Where are they? Where are your Chief Counsel Opinions? You do know that as recent as 2014 the FAA actively has gone after pilots who were posting photos to social media, right?
One thing I will agree with you on is that you’re right, it’s doesn’t make sense. An aircraft parked with the parking brake set is not going to be in any danger if the pilot snapped a few warbird pictures. But, the FAA rarely makes sense, and if you took that photo with a device that is capable of transmitting wirelessly (whether it was in “airplane mode” of not), you were in violation.