281–290 of 1001 posts
Which bomb would advertise itself as such.. this is something I’d expect in the movie Airplane!, not something to happen in real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you rename a Bluetooth device from your phone, does that affect the name it broadcasts, or only the label applied in the list of Bluetooth devices in the phone? I know for certain if you change the setting General > About > Name in an iPhone it changes what everyone sees when they look at their list of available Bluetooth devices. I assume other Bluetooth devices are the same, no? Otherwise how do you distinguis…
> I know for certain if you change the setting General > About > Name in an iPhone it changes what everyone sees when they look at their list of available Bluetooth devices. > I assume other Bluetooth devices are the same, no? No. The iPhone is allowing you to configure what name it broadcasts. But you cannot just tell another device what to broadcast. That device must have its own mechanism for changing its name. Fo…
What do you mean by ”usually” here?
I’m certain all the regular name brands, eg JBL Bose Sonos B&O etc enable the device itself to be configured with a user set name via their app. I’m certain because I’ve used them and done so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen multiple comments referencing this was the default device name… did I miss something in the article or is that sourced from elsewhere?
I just found the theory referenced on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/KidsAreFuckingStupid/comments/1tsts...
That is also stated clearly in the comments.
Reddit really wants to run with the default speaker name theory, though.
I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…
This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.
You know how they ask you if you have any contraband or if you’re a terrorist or whatever?
You’d be surprised at how many people get busted because they answer truthfully
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turning it off would have solved the bureaucratic problem for flight crew. Sadly, the passengers (collectively) failed to accomplish this basic task.
It could've been in checked luggage and turned itself on from the movement. No way for the passengers to get to it. Unfortunately it didn't turn itself off (although if it did, and then later turned on again, that would've been even worse.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree from a logical perspective. However if the plane blew up and it came out that some passengers had posted online that there was a “bomb” blue tooth device and they didn’t turn around… the court of public opinion would be pretty harsh. This was more or less their only choice from a liability perspective.
> if the plane blew up and it came out that some passengers had posted online that there was a “bomb” blue tooth device and they didn’t turn around This story is just stupid. If you actually think you have a bomb onboard, you divert to the nearest airport. (And if you think you discovered a bomb accidentally left discoverable, you don’t ask for it to be please turned off.) The pilots and crew knew they were being idi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people collect their bags from the baggage claim area and then immediately reboard an aircraft to exit the terminal? How do the arrivals exist the terminal Are you not allowed to have a friend who is picking you up assist with baggage claim?
often baggage pickup is on the terminal side of the ‘one way exit’.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? Or include people of either kind, who create diversions? Or include people who make a statement in an unexpected way? 2. Did the captain, flight control, and everyone else who needed to decide,…
Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. Demanding that people disable Bluetooth does not seem reasonable. If there's an actual bomber, tipping them off that you're reacting to their threat might lead them to set off the bomb early. Similarly, demandi…
- You have an actual bomb that's been slipped onto someone else's stuff that is cellphone triggered; perhaps when you get to UK cellular service, perhaps after cabin altitude + time, or whatever. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You want to turn back in this case.
- You have a person who has a device with a name in bad taste, either because of humor or malice. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You would rather not turn back in this case. They might turn it off.
- You have a person who is controlling the actual bomb on the plane. Making the announcement or turning back or even continuing -- it doesn't matter. Your moves are visible to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's because in the US they're handling the international flights separately. It's also the reason why even when you have a layover, you need to clear customs. Domestic flights in the US are like busses/trains elsewhere. Most people fly without a checked bag
[flagged]
The U.S. is different in this way from many other regions, especially much of the EU. There are specific reasons I've noticed:
- Due to the shorter EU domestic routes, it's more common to see smaller aircraft with much less overhead space for bags.
- For EU domestic routes, limits on carry-on bag size / count tend to be lower, more frequent and enforced more stringently (even when the aircraft in use isn't space-limited).
- In many countries there are different carry-on bag size / count allowances between domestic and long-haul international. In the U.S. almost all domestic flights use the larger international allowances (the rare exceptions usually being 'puddle-jumper' connections).
- In the U.S. checking bag compliance at the gate isn't as frequent or stringent. The nominal limit is a small suitcase + a personal item. On intra-E.U. flights, I see large backpacks rejected as the 'personal item' that are routinely accepted in the U.S. A higher percentage of U.S. passengers have maximum 22-inch roller bags than I see in the E.U. You can fit a lot in a 22" bag + large backpack.
- My perception is that elsewhere in the world, the average person on a domestic flight will be away from home longer than in the U.S. I assume this is due to the other regions often having better inter-city / region train and bus options than the U.S. which take a larger share of shorter duration trips.
- Other less significant factors might include U.S. business and evening attire being a bit more casual on average, making is easier to pack small as well as U.S. airline industry competition making shorter duration (but not necessarily shorter distance) U.S. domestic flights more accessible to more consumers. A lot of U.S. middle-class consumers now frequently use flights for weekend trips over 1,000 mi away. The U.S. has a larger number of smaller commercial airports in second-tier cities that are still fairly easy to get through quickly, even with TSA security. This can make same-day jet trips to cities ~500 to ~1000 mi away not much more involved than a typical EU train trip to a nearby city. For about a year, I did same-day and overnight jet flights from San Diego to Sacramento (~900 mi / 80 mins) about twice a week, often with nothing but a bike messenger bag as carry-on. I know a guy that did San Jose - Burbank as a daily commute for several months. A larger airport like SFO or LAX can add nearly an hour on each end just due to airport logistics and location but 2nd tier airports with longer direct flights make it possible. I think that's more unusual in other countries.
I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…
I understand protecting people’s sensibilities by avoiding these words. That part makes sense. Same basic politeness as not using curse words in my variable names.
But to turn an entire flight around because of a Bluetooth device name? How does that make any rational sense?
Look at it from a Bayesian perspective. There’s some probability P that there’s a bomb on a random plane. Now, given that a specific plane has a Bluetooth device named “bomb,” what is P for that specific plane?
I argue that P is unchanged. I’d be interested if anyone disagrees with this assessment.
Given the probability is unchanged, why do anything?
I don’t think even the people involved believed there was any danger. They had closer airports they could have diverted to. Going all the way back to Newark makes no sense if you actually think there’s an increased chance there’s a bomb on the plane that might detonate at any time, or a hijacker who might decide to make an attempt, or any other threat.
Going back to the origin airport instead of a closer one is what you do when there’s some mundane problem like the weather being unsuitable at the destination, or a non-critical equipment failure.
So how does this make any rational sense? It doesn’t. It’s performance. Everyone wants to be seen Taking Things Seriously. Nobody is permitted (either explicitly by rules, or implicitly by social expectations) to say “somebody is being a real jerk, but there’s no point in diverting.”