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

441–450 of 1001 posts

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

#441

Post by 15155 »

vl wrote: post #309
notorandit wrote: post #294

Flight policies have always been very weird. I remember I was not allowed to use a laptop with a CD or DVD attached. Now you have internet on board.

What is even better now phone calls are prohibited, but all these airlines had actual credit card phones installed in every seat just 20-15 years ago and really wanted you to do phone calls for $1 a minute. And some people did, and it was annoying, and it was “fine”. Now that they can’t charge extra suddenly it’s “against regulations”.

Can you potentially see the difference (red-tape-wise) between a centralized/trunking FAA-certified radio on one highly-specific frequency vs. random, uncertified rogue transmitters all over the spectrum? This wasn't a carrier regulation.

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

#442

Post by [deleted] »

hectormalot wrote: post #264
neilv wrote: post #214

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,…

The thing that surprises me is they flew back to Newark for almost 90 minutes. It doesn't make sense to me. (1) Either you believe the threat is credible and you put it down at the nearest suitable airport in the least amount of time. Say Sydney at about 200km to your west, or FSP at 150km in the direction you're going (not a great fit, but doable). In both cases you could probably land within 20 minutes, a bit more…

[deleted]

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

#444

Post by koolba »

lostlogin wrote: post #108
koolba wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting, but a hell of a way to dox yourself for being on the flight manifest.

Are flight manifests public? Internal flights in New Zealand don’t need ID. So if you knew you were going to posting your terrible flight experience, you could fly under a fake name.

Not public but definitely written down and semi permanent. It’s like leaving a trail of breadcrumbs that could eventually lead to you. In this case, it gives a determined actor a specific course of action to follow (find the manifest).

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

#445

Post by vl »

15155 wrote: post #441
vl wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even better now phone calls are prohibited, but all these airlines had actual credit card phones installed in every seat just 20-15 years ago and really wanted you to do phone calls for $1 a minute. And some people did, and it was annoying, and it was “fine”. Now that they can’t charge extra suddenly it’s “against regulations”.

Can you potentially see the difference (red-tape-wise) between a centralized/trunking FAA-certified radio on one highly-specific frequency vs. random, uncertified rogue transmitters all over the spectrum? This wasn't a carrier regulation.

What transmitters? Now calls happen over WiFi which companies sell.

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

#446

Post by lallysingh »

mlyle wrote: post #288
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…

Here's the options: - 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 d…

This was a teenager. Then again, there's a whole line of bluetooth speakers called "SoundBomb." And lots and lots more products named "Boom" (still, yes) in some way. There isn't any need for this to be anything more than a reasonable name for a speaker.

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

#447

Post by jMyles »

Zak wrote: post #248
neilv wrote: post #214

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…

> 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.

To qualify even for the 'far end of reasonable', you'd have to divert the plane. Returning to origin, especially when the origin is not one of the 10 closest airports and is in a much more densely packed urban area (with a much more harrowing approach) than any of those 10 renders this entire incident totally unserious.

There are real actual safety concerns to address in aviation. This doesn't make the top 1,000 list. It's wasted effort in a world where economy of opportunity is significant.

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

#448

Post by dap »

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.

This is explicitly mentioned in the article:

> Though some have questioned why anyone intending to blow up a plane would broadcast the word bomb, many terrorist acts have relied on the threat of a bomb as leverage during attempted hijackings or hostage situations.

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

#449

Post by clnhlzmn »

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.

The really crazy thing is they returned to the origin instead of the nearest airport. If it was really an emergency they would have got out of the air at the nearest runway of suitable length instead of flying all the way back. Just theater.

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

#450

Post by dfedbeef »

dataflow wrote: post #433
Eridrus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? You seem overconfident. For one thing, someone getting a Bluetooth signal has absolutely no confidence the device is genuinely only a speaker. For another, it is entirely possible that a nefarious actor could screw up and forget to turn off a wireless transmitter. Can you i…

I don't think people would be mocking bombing victims
Post reply on HN