His question was vague to me so I posted the magicjack stuff.

He just said he needed to be connected on a trip.

Google Voice is another option depending on his needs and it is available on both laptops and as an iPhone/iPad app.

Hi FTB!
Who are you switching TO. I'm a long-time TMob user, and no longer under contract. Been considering getting a smart phone for a while now. As the DC-9 is being parked, thought I might as well bite the bullet, and make the technology transition complete. From what I can tell (please, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong...) sprint with the DAL discount seems to have:

>best 3 & 4 G coverage
>best upload/download speeds
>best price for family plan (2-3 phones)

I'm paying $58. per month, never run out of minutes, never text, never take pix. What's your recommendation? Ridiculous question, but I'll ask anyway. What would your recommendation be IF (stress, IF) NewK were asking? Not like NewK needs a phone, as dispatch always calls his F/O and inquires if there is anything else DAL dispatch can do for Him.
Regards,
Chuck

Last time I checked the DAL discount does NOT apply to the Sprint unlimited everything plans, if you are going with something less, then TMO might still be competitive on price. My wifes plan was a SERO plan (Employee referral) and it was ~$60/mo for 1250 minutes unlimited text and NON-smartphone data. One of the reasons I dumped Sprint was because we couldn't keep that plan with a Smartphone (Android etc.) There used to be a really reasonable TMO non-contract plan, not sure if its still available.

I'm under contract with VZW so I will have gotten a good comparison between Sprint, VZW and TMO by next month.

Sprint's 4G coverage is actually provided by Clearwire. If VZW lives up to its press releases, Sprint's 4G coverage will be smaller by the end of this year.

Nosmo, Jack-- Thanks for the advice!

This is probably the wrong place to put this, but I think all will find this "interesting". More from our elected officials here to help us. Sheesh!!





Senator Inhofe's Letter From The FAA By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor


http://www.avweb.com/images-avweb/clearpixel.gif
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/portisabel.jpg

A letter from the FAA (PDF) to Senator James Inhofe says he has completed "remedial training" and the FAA has decided not to pursue legal enforcement action as the result of his landing on an occupied closed runway, before departing from a taxiway, last October. The FAA initiated an investigation after the 75-year-old Senator landed his Cessna 340, with three others aboard, at Port Isabel-Cameron Country, Texas, on October 21, 2010. The Senator's then chosen runway was marked with large Xs, and littered with a large red truck, other vehicles, and construction workers. No one was injured as a result of the incident. Inhofe has said he was offered the choice of possible legal action, or the training program, and took the second option. His training included four hours of ground instruction and three hours of flight instruction. It was provided by an instructor who had previously been a student of the Senator, according to TulsaWorld.com. FAA spokesperson Sarah Johnson said the agency treated the Senator as it would any other pilot. Inhofe has also had things to say.

In the days following the incident, Inhofe said, "It's unfortunate, I'm sorry, but I'm not really concerned about it." Regarding NOTAMS, he told TulsaWorld.com "people who fly a lot just don't do it." Last week, TulsaWorld reported that Inhofe, "remains convinced he did nothing wrong" and "said he considers the matter closed." The letter from FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Robert J. O'Keefe seems to suggest the agency feels largely the same way. According to the letter, dated January 4, 2011, the Senator was advised that his actions were "contrary to Sections 91.13(a) and 91.103(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations." Those sections cover "careless or reckless" operation of aircraft and preflight responsibilities -- Inhofe was not aware of the closed runway prior to his flight. The letter says that based on "satisfactory completion of the remedial training program" legal action will not be pursued and the letter itself will be a matter of record for two years, "after which the record of this matter will be expunged."

How this is not AT LEAST not 'careless & wreck-less', I'd like to know...

It's nice to know Inhofe cares enough about our troops that he's willing to continue to put them on ACMI charters were crews are fatigued & pushed beyond their limits. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the info.

Crews are fatigued on acmi charters?

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but just in case......... :)

DCA09FA048

NTSB Identification: DCA09FA048
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of World Airways
Accident occurred Wednesday, May 06, 2009 in Baltimore, MD
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/27/2010 2:19:00 PM
Aircraft: BOEING DC-10, registration: N139WA
Injuries: 1 Serious, 11 Minor, 168 Uninjured.


The flight was conducting a straight-in approach during visual meteorological conditions. The approach was backed up by an ILS and was stable at 500 feet above touchdown. The initial touchdown was firm and main landing gear rebounded, possibly bouncing slightly off the runway. Control column input and possibly momentum from the touchdown resulted in a rapid pitch down and hard nose gear impact with the runway. Wing spoilers likely did not deploy due to the main gear bounce and/or throttle position. Following the nose gear impact, the airplane pitched up as expected and the column was held in a slightly forward position. Airspeed rapidly decayed, and engine power began to increase as the airplane pitch reversed to a downward motion for a second time. One of the crew, likely the FO, called “flare flare” and the column recorded a rapid nose up input, followed by a rapid nose down input, and the nose gear again struck the runway very hard, likely causing the majority of the damage at that point. Following the second nose gear impact, column inputs stabilized at a slightly nose up command, power was set on all three engines, and the go-around was successfully executed.

A slight lag in the power increase on engine number 3 may have contributed to the nose down motion leading to the second nose gear impact, although the large forward (airplane nose down) column movement appears to be a much more significant contributor. It is unclear wnhy the engine was slower to increase. Throttle lever angle was not recorded, but the engine operated as expected for all other phases of the flight, including after the impact, therefore it is possible the pilot did not advance the number 3 throttle concurrently with the others.

The captain’s flight and duty schedule complied with Federal Aviation regulations, but he experienced a demanding 10-day trip schedule prior to the incident involving multiple time zone crossings and several long duty periods, and reported difficulties sleeping prior to the accident leg. The captain was likely further affected by a digestive system upset during the accident flight. It is likely that the captain’s performance was degraded by fatigue and some degree of physical discomfort brought on by a short-term illness.

The captain had recently completed upgrade training to DC-10, having previously been flying as an MD-11 first officer. The training program was fragmented over approximately ten months, and while in accordance with FAA regulations, may have adversely affected his consolidation of skills and experience.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the captain’s inappropriate control inputs following a firm landing, resulting in two hard nose-gear impacts before executing a go-around.