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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by st_goliath »

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.

> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"?

The bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 (the Lockerbie bombing) was hidden inside a Toshiba 'BomBeat' RT-SF16 radio.

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

#263

Post by Eridrus »

866-RON-0-FEZ wrote: post #196
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.

[flagged]

I have no desire to defend people's linguistic games that were extremely low value. I do not think these games pass a cost benefit calculation. But fighting against these memes also doesn't pass a cost benefit calculation.

Having said all that, turning a plane around is a meaningfully larger cost on everyone involved than having a commit/merge hook that tells you to rename a variable.

Engineers still say blacklist, even though I avoid it in my own communications, it's not the end of the world.

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

#264

Post by hectormalot »

neilv wrote: post #214
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.

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 if you aim for Gander (Fun history for that airport, great as an emergency diversion).

(2) or, you believe the threat is not credible. At this point you might as well continue the flight. Flying 90 minutes back does not seem (to me) to meaningfully reduce the risk if someone is actually planning to trigger a bomb anyway.

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

#265

Post by Larrikin »

fwipsy wrote: post #259
HNisCIS wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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?

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

#266

Post by blks »

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.

No sane terrorist will also call about a bomb on board, but those are taken seriously, too.

And as correctly mentioned by others, we shouldn’t be concentrating on an ideal game theory spherical terrorist in a vacuum.

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

#267

Post by Stratoscope »

samgranieri wrote: post #9

A 16 year boy apparently named his Bluetooth speaker “bomb” and couldn’t turn it off, as it was probably in checked luggage. Woof.

> it was probably in checked luggage

Which would violate FAA regulations if it was powered on (as it obviously was):

"When portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries are in checked baggage, they must be completely powered off and protected to prevent unintentional activation or damage."

https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/portable-electronic-devi...

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

#269

Post by blks »

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…

It’s possible conditions weren’t good enough at potential alternatives.

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

#270

Post by happymellon »

nilamo wrote: post #234
866-RON-0-FEZ wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I've never heard of that before, is it common behavior?

All new code projects at work cannot have a master branch.

However I never heard of anyone complaining about recording masters or golf masters.

Post reply on HN