Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

simpleflying.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#291

Post by mlyle »

dualvariable wrote: post #278
Zak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems pretty obvious to me that this situation was being treated more like a disruptive passenger issue than an actual terrorist threat of a real bomb. So more like the Minneapolis plane diverted to Wisconsin the other day because of an unruly passenger. They took everyone and their devices through screening after deplaning, and it sounds like they found the teenager who owned the device. That was the point of tur…

Terrorists doing completely stupid stuff, like naming a cellphone "bomb" that they plan to use to control a bomb is par for the course. Forgetting to turn off bluetooth is a plausible next mistake.

Terrorists have a pretty long history of making these kinds of basic operational errors, and if you don't act like they may be real, you miss the opportunity to disrupt/prevent these operations.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#292

Post by ssl-3 »

bluescrn wrote: post #113
basilikum wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest calling the police and saying you have a bomb planted on flight XYZ and want 100000$ or you'll detonate it, is probably also enough.

But bombs apparently use bluetooth now, so he can't detonate it from more than a few metres away...

In the most simplistic terms, yeah. That's true. But the constraints aren't really shaped like that. For instance:

A completely-innocent Airtag speaks only bluetooth, and it can be activated from continents away -- as long as any Apple phone is nearby with a shred of Internet access.

My similarly-innocent Samsung phone is programmable (using its built-in Routines function) to perform actions in response to becoming disconnected from any given Bluetooth device.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#293

Post by wat10000 »

markdown wrote: post #272
neilv wrote: post #178

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…

[flagged]

Refused, or unable? It might have been in the luggage compartment, or they just might not have known how.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#295

Post by cybrexalpha »

Eridrus wrote: post #189
neilv wrote: post #178

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 can't compare a decision made in possession of all of the facts in a calm environment with full hindsight, with decision made in the moment with limited information and hundreds of lives on the line.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#296

Post by fwipsy »

Larrikin wrote: post #265
fwipsy wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't met anyone who is actually uncomfortable with the term "master," only people concerned about what others might think of them. It's not really being inclusive; it's just signaling inclusivity. Surely the time would be better spent, I don't know, volunteering to tutor underprivileged students or something? Or just living your damn life.

Why not spend the 5 seconds it takes to do that refactor and then tutor the kids?

More like 5 days, unless by "refactor" you mean #define master main

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#297

Post by HPsquared »

neilv wrote: post #178

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…

The abbreviation "BoM" (bill of materials) is commonly used in engineering. It's also pronounced just how you might suspect. I wonder if it's consciously avoided in sectors like these.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#298

Post by lwansbrough »

Eridrus wrote: post #189
neilv wrote: post #178

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.

“Forensic investigators, reviewing the black box communications, discovered that the pilots had identified and were aware of a device named ‘bomb’ on the airplane but elected to take no action.”

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#299

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

lostlogin wrote: post #137
chimeracoder wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Free Palestine” isn’t exactly fringe. In fact, outside America and Israel, I’d bet it’s the default stance That's certainly not true in many European countries

> That's certainly not true in many European countries This suprised me. I’ve hunted for polling and can find plenty showing a plummeting opinion on Israel, but little on internal polling about a Palestinian state.

Polls are interesting. They depend exclusively on people willing to respond. Let me give you an example of how they don't tell the whole story:

In the USA, there are many, many firearms. And there's also a small but very vocal cadre of people who would like to disarm the people. In light of this, if a pollster calls and asks for your opinion on guns, and/or inquires if you have any, a common response is to hang up without answering the questions, due to the possibility that the information will be used against them.

The result? They call someone else, and don't count "declined to answer" in their results. So the poll simply is the prevailing opinion of those who wished to answer, and thus is skewed one direction. (BTW, this is why everyone says there are "at least XXX hundred million guns in America; the best they can get is a low estimate)

This happens quite a lot with controversial topics.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#300

Post by wat10000 »

kube-system wrote: post #73
stefan_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3. The level of tech illiteracy combined with airplane security theater is an affront to all thinking people.

4. A normal level of risk aversion in one of the most risk averse industries If airlines ignored every threat that was “probably not” a real threat, they’d ignore all of them. It’s better to inconvenience a few thousand passengers than it is to kill a few hundred.

The industry is usually smarter than this.

For example, there are many pieces of equipment that can be broken and they’ll still fly, because it’s not essential or there’s enough redundancy.

Child safety seats are not required even though they’d save lives, because the extra hassle and expense would cause some parents to drive instead, which is much more dangerous, leading to more overall deaths.

Normally the decisions are quite sensible. But the moment any “terrorism” enters the picture it all goes out the window.

Post reply on HN