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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by kube-system »

Haven880 wrote: post #82
kube-system wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many threats did actually turn out to be real to date? I couldn't find this being published. But how many threats did happen without any indication (only after the perpetrators tell). I can easily recalled maybe 3-4 incidents. So the issue here is do knowing threats really help?

You only hear the edge cases in the news. There are tens of thousands of incidents of unruly passengers some of which are just threats and some are actual violence.

But also, just because someone is making what could be perceived as a threat doesn’t mean it won’t escalate, which is why threats are taken seriously even if we don’t know whether something is guaranteed to go wrong. You don’t want a crazy person making bomb threats on a flight even if they don’t have a bomb, because they can inflict other issues while trapped in a metal tube at cruising altitude.

https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheet...

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

#422

Post by dhosek »

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,…

A minor grammar nit. Its commend whoever decided to follow protocol, not whomever. You choose the case of who(m)ever based on its function in the dependent clause not the clause’s function in the sentence.

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

#423

Post by andix »

dualvariable wrote: post #283
abejfehr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just found the theory referenced on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/KidsAreFuckingStupid/comments/1tsts...

> A redditor who's wife and her friend were on the flight said that the 16yo boy next to wife's friend admitted to naming his speaker "Bomb" long enough ago that he had forgotten he'd named it that. Wife's friend got to hear the questioning That is also stated clearly in the comments. Reddit really wants to run with the default speaker name theory, though.

It's not extremely far fetched that someone would call a speaker "bomb". Especially if it's loud and has a lot of bass.

We used to call such devices "boomboxes". And a bomb makes "boom".

Wiktionary also has this meaning listed for bomb: "9. Something highly effective or attractive."

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

#424

Post by andix »

f_allwein wrote: post #383
dualvariable wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A redditor who's wife and her friend were on the flight said that the 16yo boy next to wife's friend admitted to naming his speaker "Bomb" long enough ago that he had forgotten he'd named it that. Wife's friend got to hear the questioning That is also stated clearly in the comments. Reddit really wants to run with the default speaker name theory, though.

Also, who carries a Bluetooth speaker on a plane? And for what purpose?

I do, because I want to listen to music when I travel. Not in the plane, but at my destination.

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

#425

Post by laweijfmvo »

hackyhacky wrote: post #125
xrd wrote: post #85

What's to prevent terrorists from going through TSA, waiting in the scanning line when everyone is still going through, and then planting a bluetooth device into someone else's bag? I never open my carryon once I have packed it. This reminds me of the SNL sketch where TSA employees had no answer for someone bringing two separate bottles of 3.9 ounces onto the plane. I'm sure Sean Duffy, of Real World and now Sec of T…

This is the SNL sketch in question: https://www.tiktok.com/@hamtelevision/video/7276358099089231...

it never made sense. i could bring two or more identical 4oz sunblocks, for example, but not a single 5oz toothpaste.

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

#426

Post by fluidcruft »

jim33442 wrote: post #374
stephen_g wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless it has changed for a while the TSApre lines don't make you take off shoes and belts vs the regular lines. I also think they stopped making TSApre tahe laptops and iPads out of bags. But it may also have to do with equipment upgrade cycles and what was deployed to which lines.

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

#427

Post by Balgair »

godelski wrote: post #379
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.

> 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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000.

It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo.

Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they had them those days.

Also, most of the incidents ended up being fairly well handled and there weren't many casualties. But if I were a pilot and I were getting paid regardless of turning the plane around or dealing with a possibly fatal multi-day saga, I'd likely just turn the plane around too.

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

#428

Post by laweijfmvo »

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.

Wait so they thought there was a bomb on board but if they “turned it off” they’d keep flying? or they knew it wasn’t a bomb but turned around anyway to teach everyone a lesson? i’m not sure which is worse

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

#429

Post by rincebrain »

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…

In this particular case, I think the point is less 1 or 2 but more point 3

(3) the contrapositive, where you continued the flight, it really was someone stupid enough to name the broadcast name of a bomb "BOMB", it goes off, and now you have to explain to the press "we thought nobody would be stupid enough to really name it 'BOMB'"

So you assume it's a low risk event, and tell everyone onboard to turn off their devices to remove the chance it's just someone making a bad joke or a coincidence, and then you end up with the outcome of trying to avoid having to say that in a press conference where everyone is already primed to think you didn't do enough.

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

#430

Post by jtbayly »

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,…

Literally no pilot ever has been able to know that no other threat was going on.
Post reply on HN