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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by amelius »

claw-el wrote: post #197
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.

What if it is not the terrorists naming them? What if it is a good samaritan trying to warn the pilot but this is the only way they can get a message out?

You watched too many movies.

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

#343

Post by jim33442 »

Loughla wrote: post #329
jim33442 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

It's not just security theater. It shifts the attack vector entirely. Instead of airplanes as weapons that could be used to kill thousands, terrorists can blow up a few hundred people. Those checkpoints are only there to provide a soft target instead of letting it be a plane.

I agree. Sure you can still get weapons through screening, in fact I've accidentally done it twice with like 4" pocket knives, but not sure what the odds are. A lot of the "security theater" argument seems to be annoyance at having to go through TSA, cause what's the alternative, just barely screen people like before?

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

#344

Post by JumpCrisscross »

overfeed wrote: post #252
userbinator wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you think you discovered a bomb accidentally left discoverable, you don’t ask for it to be please turned off That was the most hilarious part for me.

Turning it off would have solved the bureaucratic problem for flight crew. Sadly, the passengers (collectively) failed to accomplish this basic task.

> Turning it off would have solved the bureaucratic problem

The article says two Bluetooth radios weren’t turned off. Do we know if one of those was “the bomb?”

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

#345

Post by rbanffy »

addandsubtract wrote: post #339
hectormalot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someone is planning on triggering a bomb on a plane, and they haven't done so, you can assume they have a target you haven't reached yet. So going back is not only the safe option, but also the location the people & plane came from.

The only thing it protects is the target. If there is a terrorist on board and they expose the fact they are aware of the bomb, or the bomb is minimally capable, the plane is doomed whatever they do.

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

#346

Post by rbanffy »

hammock wrote: post #302
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,…

> 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? I want to think the answer is both. But I cannot think of an example where #2 has actually happened in history resulting in injury or death.

There was a guy who hid explosives in a shoe and we had to take off our shoes for many years because of him.

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

#347

Post by userbinator »

rubatuga wrote: post #332
userbinator wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might've been off when packed, but all the vibration turned it on at some point.

[flagged]

It does happen, even to products being shipped new from the factory.

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

#348

Post by openbin_kng »

I think this part of the article actually explains what freaked out the crew lmaoo: "During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft."

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

#349

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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,…

> I'd commend whomever decided to follow protocol

Protocol would be quietly diverting to the closest airport. They didn’t do that. They chugged back to Newark. After making a visible scene on the PA. This was a hissy fit.

Post reply on HN