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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by stephen_g »

jim33442 wrote: post #315
rayiner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. TSA is a joke. At first, the security theater arguably had a legitimate psychological purpose. The airline industry nearly collapsed after 9/11 because people were so scared of filing. But that was a generation ago—the psychological trauma in the aftermath of 9/11 dissipated ago. But we’re still stuck with the TSA because in the meantime it turned into a massive jobs program. We’d be better off spending TSA’…

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

Not to the same extent though - for example I can't remember if I ever had to take my shoes off (maybe there was a couple of months where we had to do it back after the attempt happened in December 2021?), so I was pretty shocked to go to the US for a work trip in 2019 and have to do that. Here in Australia there's no liquid limit in carry on for domestic flights.

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

#372

Post by ajmurmann »

jim33442 wrote: post #315
rayiner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. TSA is a joke. At first, the security theater arguably had a legitimate psychological purpose. The airline industry nearly collapsed after 9/11 because people were so scared of filing. But that was a generation ago—the psychological trauma in the aftermath of 9/11 dissipated ago. But we’re still stuck with the TSA because in the meantime it turned into a massive jobs program. We’d be better off spending TSA’…

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

Isn't this because there otherwise wouldn't be allowed to fly into US airspace?

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

#373

Post by jim33442 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #372
jim33442 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

Isn't this because there otherwise wouldn't be allowed to fly into US airspace?

I mean for a flight that doesn't go to/from the US.

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

#374

Post by jim33442 »

stephen_g wrote: post #371
jim33442 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

Not to the same extent though - for example I can't remember if I ever had to take my shoes off (maybe there was a couple of months where we had to do it back after the attempt happened in December 2021?), so I was pretty shocked to go to the US for a work trip in 2019 and have to do that. Here in Australia there's no liquid limit in carry on for domestic flights.

Nowadays I don't need to remove shoes in the US. I vaguely remember times it was randomly required or not, not sure when, and back when it was always required. I'm not TSA precheck or anything. But yeah we have the liquid limit, which always seemed like the one dumbest thing to me, maybe even a way to sell drinks.

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

#375

Post by orbital-decay »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #351

> 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. That is just nutty. Are we now actively participating in the genocide?

The article links to this Reddit thread as a source: https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedairlines/comments/1tk2ktz/wif...

I consider posts like this larp/ragebait by default unless there's any actual evidence of that happening (like the flight being aborted in this case).

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

#376

Post by rashinol »

Aeolun wrote: post #362
throw3580494 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I find this very hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe a throwaway account was made specifically to spread some form of zionist propaganda.

[flagged]

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

#377

Post by itopaloglu83 »

p_l wrote: post #305
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…

Aviation documentation in general is expected to use special, constrained variant of english (Simplified Technical English) where one of the requirements is that every word has preferably only one meaning, and there's a standard dictionary of those meanings that were selected. Similarly there are various things like Aviation English for actual live comms, though they have less specifity, not to that level. And yes, t…

For the curious, it’s AST-STE100.

https://www.asd-ste100.org/

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

#378

Post by daveoc64 »

NamTaf wrote: post #186
hvb2 wrote: post #131

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

Most of the world handles international flights separately without needing to do that unless it is an international-domestic connection. However I agree that in purely domestic airports I don't see how you'd prevent general public from accessing bags. Except India, wherein you need a booked flight to even enter the airport.

> However I agree that in purely domestic airports I don't see how you'd prevent general public from accessing bags.

I don't understand this.

Why can't they have a door after the baggage claim that does not permit entry to the baggage claim area?

That's how things work in the UK.

In my local airport, the final part of leaving the arrivals area is the same for both international and domestic flights.

Passport control > Baggage claim (international) > Customs > One-way exit to landside

Baggage claim (domestic) > One-way exit to landside

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

#379

Post by godelski »

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 trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion.
To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA

  | 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.
This is clearly not a threat. I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it. There's no threat in this WiFi name. You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free , Fuck " forall X,Y. Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech and there's no clear and credible threat in this statement.

We've just grown accustomed to security theater. Don't forget, this security theater has resulted in more deaths than 9/11 ever did[0,1,2]

[0] Indirectly. The friction in air travel leads to more people driving, which is objectively a more deadly form of travel. We're talking several orders of magnitude, so even a low percentage of people shifting from air travel to car means substantial numbers. That means your risk of dying or being injured in a car crash also increases because it means more people are on the road. It's not a function of how good of a driver you are, it is a function of how good of a driver they are. So you really do want more people flying

[1] https://www.govexec.com/management/2012/11/tsa-killing-us/59...

[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677549

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

#380

Post by jim33442 »

lostlogin wrote: post #360
jim33442 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that actually get you arrested, or do you have to go to a Palestinian Action protest? Not that there's that big of a difference.

> Does that actually get you arrested I can’t see that it ever has. Making it fractionally less ridiculous. "Those attending should be aware that showing support for a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act, and we will not hesitate to act where the law is broken," said commander Claire Smart, who is leading policing operations in London this weekend.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp38z9ly…

Ah so the wording suggests that it's a thought/speech crime, not that the particular event is outlawed. Yeah that's still nuts.
Post reply on HN