'Disruptive' Santonio Holmes Escorted Off Pittsburgh Flight

http://www.wpxi.com/news/23318576/detail.html

From Super Bowl hero to this. Toothlessberger too. Man, how the mighty have fallen.....

Don't you mean Rapistberger?

He won't be seeing any game snaps until after mid-season.

Nice move, Jets. :yes:

Joe McKnight had a rough day at camp yesterday.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/30/rough-start-for-joe-mcknight/

Rough start for Joe McKnight
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 30, 2010 11:42 AM ET
A player's performance on the first morning of his first NFL minicamp probably isn't a very good predictor of what kind of career he's going to have. Which is good news for Jets rookie running back Joe McKnight.

According to tweets from various reporters on the scene, McKnight's morning included missing a pair of catchable balls, dropping a pass while falling awkwardly and needing trainers to work on both calves because of cramps.

And, to top it all off, McKnight threw up on the field.

As we noted in today's one-liners, McKnight has been encouraged to follow veteran running backs LaDainian Tomlinson and Shonn Greene around "until they shoo you away." By puking on the field, McKnight may have found a way to make Tomlinson and Greene shoo him away quickly.

The Jets are going to be very interesting this year with a second year QB who will struggle and well you know the other two stories. I really want them back in the playoffs here in SD for a big freaking bowl of revenge.

Reports are now that Holmes wasn't disruptive, just refused to turn off his iPod when asked to so a report was filed.

opcorn:

I never turn off my music player and nothing has ever happened. I just wait till they buckle in and can't bother you

What. There is no reason to. Nothing bad happens bc I listen to music. Its just some stupid pointless regulation.:icon_shrug:

Dude, I don't really want to get into this because it's a ridiculous conversation for a football message board... But how do you know it can't do anything? Because it hasn't yet? I've seen an episode of Mythbusters where they showed cell phone transmissions ****ing with cockpit readings. I appreciate that your MP3 player isn't the same as a cell phone. But the greater point is that you have no idea how your music player could be effecting what's happening. And it's gross negligence that you can't turn the **** off for two minutes out of respect for the lives of the other people on your flight.

NO. It doesn't endanger anyone but you(perhaps unless your in exit row). They ask you to turn them off because takeoff and landing are the most dangerous part of flight and so you can hear safety instructions on what to do in event of a crash.

It's an FAA regulation. Don't like it? Don't fly.

N4L is probably like a lot of young people these days.

Entitlement, I can do whatever I want, whenever I want.

F*** the rest of the people.

No, im just against irrelevant regulations. I turn my phone off because there is some chance of radio interference even though it is small.

With a music player not exactly. I've even talked to electrical engineers about it. If anything is at risk its soley my own safety, but if the plane ended up crashing my chances wouldn't be that good either way so... Ignoring this regulation is akin to ignoring silly travel bans to places like Cuba.:icon_shrug:


Its not like i feel entitled to listen to music, its just that their really isn't significant reason not too.:icon_shrug:

Dood - I think it was spelled out for you,


Takeoffs & Landings - The people that know more than we do determined it was safer to have electronics turned off.

There is no argument here. Unless you have empirical evidence to prove otherwise.

And then, I would still say STFU and deal with it.

PS. GET OFF MY LAWN!!! :icon_tease:

What would a electrical engineer know? Talk to a electronics engineer.

that too

:lol:

If you look at studies some even performed by boeing they couldn't get electronic devices to cause anything more than minor interference infrequently. Nothing of concern really.

Allegheny County police confirm that Santonio Holmes wasn't removed from plane

Posted by Mike Florio on April 30, 2010 8:44 PM ET
Well, it was a good story when it first surfaced. It would have been even better if it had been, you know, accurate.

Police in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has issued a statement confirming that Jets receiver Santonio Holmes was not removed from a flight at Pittsburgh International Airport on Thursday night. Here's the full text: "As previously reported, Santanio Holmes was NOT removed from any airplane (4/29/2010). He was asked to remove his Ipod (at one point), in which he complied. There's no further information to report."

The Jets previously acknowledged that Holmes failed to follow flight regulations.

So there you have it. Something happened, but it didn't result in Holmes being ejected as a "disruptive passenger." Still, this guy needs to be on his absolute best behavior, and people on their absolute best behavior don't find themselves in these situations.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hat-santonio-holmes-wasnt-removed-from-plane/

Good to see that you're a avionics expert. :icon_tease:

ok, how about this.

The plane you & your family is on has a problem at takeoff, you, being the rebel miss the announcement that may save your family's life because you think the regulation is bullshit, but your family is looking to you for direction in an emergency. You have nothing but your iTunes. If you & your family make it out, you still are going to have to deal with one very pissed off spouse.


How's that?

hahahahaha :icon_rofl:. Why wouldn't they hear it:icon_huh: Anyway i've heard the announcements soooooo many times.

Something tells me he wasn't especially polite in the way he told the flight attendant where she could shove his iPod... :icon_rofl:

I 'get' that electronic devices have the potential to interfere with the radio frequencies that pilots use when they communicate with air traffic control...

But check out this STUPID and UNNECESSARY request/demand the pilot made on both the inbound and outbound legs of a recent flight I took to Hawaii--

The pilot insisted that as a "safety" regulation, all window blinds had to be SHUT during take off and landing.

I asked "Is that so us passengers can't see the Air Force jet that's about to shoot us down in the event there's a hijacking?" :icon_shrug:

And if enough of us don't fly, the airlines can apply for and recieve those enormous government bailouts! :icon_banana:

:icon_rofl:
So, what was the response?

So hurt the airlines over an FAA regulation? Reminder: the 'F' in FAA stands for FEDERAL, meaning the airlines HAVE to comply. It isn't something they just "made up".

What a rebel!

There are some pretty decent reasons to decide NOT to fly, but this stupid FAA regulation isn't one of them. :icon_banana: