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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by no-name-here »

steve1977 wrote: post #639
no-name-here wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the…

> I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? That is up to the captain to decide.

But as the GP comment asked:

1. In what way is it a risk to the plane? Or is the idea that we should not attempt to evaluate whether pilot's decisions are objective and reasonable? Is there some objective rule being used? (Or if an objective rule can't be stated, is it more like the pilot's feelings or mood about the passenger(s) at any particular moment?)

2. But if someone believes it's reasonable for pilots to turn planes around based on whether someone is wearing a pro or anti Biden/Trump shirt, etc. wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. rather than having pilots turn around planes midflight based on a whim(?), costing hundreds of people large amounts of time and money?

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

#662

Post by bonesss »

neya wrote: post #517
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.

That's such a poor argument. What is the alternative here? Just let anyone fly with a dozen devices with the names BOMB and CRASH hoping that an actual bomb doesn't go off? Systems and processes exist for a reason. Your example of 150ml liquids has no connection to this security measure nor incident either. That's just a straw man.

I think there’s a safety issue that isn’t necessarily reliant on ‘bomb’ being an explosive device: it’s the impact on other passengers.

Planes traditionally have avoided certain kinds of movies and such to avoid creating panic in the cabin. Here every passenger is looking at their phone, and if one guy makes the obvious “there’s a bomb on the plane” joke, the captain/crew could be in a situation.

Crowd management is essential to crew safety and crowd safety.

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

#663

Post by layer8 »

elliotec wrote: post #546
gpm wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> long enough ago that he had forgotten he'd named it that Actually sounds a lot like "that was the default name but now that everyone's making a big deal about it I'm assuming I must have named it that". I wouldn't assume that this "confession" means that reddit's theory is at all incorrect. Witnesses are terribly inaccurate sources of information, unfortunately. (Not to say the alternative also couldn't be the case…

Renaming a Bluetooth device like a speaker permanently for everyone (as opposed to a nickname you give it in your phone or whatever) is difficult if possible at all and usually requires firmware or hardware changes, unless the option is given by the device or its companion app (which is very rare). So your assumption seems the most likely. I highly doubt a 16 year old kid is firmware hacking a cheap speaker just to r…

It’s commonplace for Bluetooth speakers to allow changing their Wi-Fi name (SSID) using the related app. Everyone being able to identify each other’s Bluetooth speakers is exactly one purpose of that.

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

#664

Post by boisterousness »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #609
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…

What do they call a software crash? Rapid unscheduled termination?

They call it a FLOP (Functional Loss Of Performance, or something like that), I was told on a tour of an FAA ATC computer facility.

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

#665

Post by consp »

FabCH wrote: post #562
linkregister wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any evidence of TSA being a jobs program. Their mission and the agents executing it appear to be toward flight security. I'm certain there are many counterexamples of misguided policies and agents exhibiting incompetence. But the general direction of the agency is to screen passengers prior to entering secure airport areas and this is generally successful.

TSA is famous for failing tests for decades. Here’s the latest one: https://abcnews.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-ope... Over the years, their failure rate has consistently been 80-95%. I don’t think you can reasonably call that „generally successful“.

I failure is the goal: yes.

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

#666

Post by hdgvhicv »

godelski wrote: post #563
pdonis wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain context…

> This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. Do you think we're talking about a device named "bomb"? We're talking about a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel". Those are two different situations. How can you even claim the latter is a physical threat? I also don't care if it said "F Palestine". Neither is a credible threat on the plane or the passengers. The only issue I…

People like the “wash it’s not free speech” are the ones championing fcc blocking licenses and arresting g people for quoting Trump

Freedom of speech for me not thee.

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

#667

Post by Neil44 »

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…

It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.

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

#668

Post by K0balt »

chatmasta wrote: post #230
K0balt wrote: post #156

This is a hilariously stupid reaction to a stupidly hilarious decision made by a speaker manufacturer. And also a new vector for a ransom-attack on the Bluetooth namespace in certain environments via malicious BLE advertising. The worst thing that could have happened here was for someone to take this seriously.

I’ve seen multiple comments referencing this was the default device name… did I miss something in the article or is that sourced from elsewhere?

For the vast majority of “dumb” devices, it is not possible to rename the Bluetooth advertising name. You can assign a local alias to the MAC of the device so that it shows up to -you- as a custom name, but with the exception of host devices like phones or laptops, it is unusual to be able to change the advertising name.

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

#669

Post by goodcanadian »

atoav wrote: post #655
Barbing wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if the captain doesn’t like you, what they say goes & it’s a federal matter. I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think). Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accompl…

So what you're saying is if the captain doesn't like you because you're Zionist they can remove you?

That is exactly correct; it's his plane.

I think he would face discipline from his airline after the fact, but in the moment, he is in charge.

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

#670

Post by themafia »

plastic041 wrote: post #580

I kind of get that a device named BOMB made the plane turn back. However, I don't understand this part: > flight attendant told passengers over the PA system that they "must turn off Bluetooth immediately," or else the aircraft would have to turn around. If there's a BOMB, turning off Bluetooth won't make it much safer. I mean, a turned-off bomb is probably safer than a turned-on bomb, but it's still a bomb. Pilots:…

HBO's Barry, unbelievably, covers this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzzg3q1YuUE

Post reply on HN