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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by pc86 »

_moof wrote: post #514
anigbrowl wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. > you have the right to express it Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no…

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are…

> That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI."

Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job.

As far as I'm aware there is no law preventing the captain from deciding to go back because they don't like one of the passengers blasting their opinions to the entire aircraft. What the opinion is, its levels of subjectivity or objectivity, and whether or not it's popular is completely irrelevant.

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

#842

Post by mFixman »

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:…

Nobody in the chain of command thought this was a real emergency situation.

The point of turning Bluetooth off or having to turn around the aircraft was to follow the airline's rules on terrorism, which likely tell them to abort a flight route if there's any symbol that could be interpreted as a bomb.

The captains were risking their jobs if they didn't follow this stupid request. This is a good case for getting common-sense exceptions to checklist-style rules.

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

#843

Post by pc86 »

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?

Yes. The captain has the authority, by law, to remove anyone (or everyone) for any reason. There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.

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

#844

Post by pc86 »

47282847 wrote: post #834
lazide wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsolicited Dirty pictures via a protocol which is easy to disable (and rarely used anyway) vs getting punched in the face or shanked? Really?

Why the “vs”?! All three acts are acts of violence. We can order them by our own judgment of intensity, but they’re still all violent. And as such also expressions of pain/hurt, which will lead to further expressions until it is finally seen and addressed. We all know this , but still act like we don’t.

No - someone dropping a picture to your phone when you have the ability enabled is not violence by any definition used by people with functioning frontal cortexes. Maybe it's good to remove the "Everybody" option, maybe it's not. Maybe it's good to make it auto-disable after 10 minutes, maybe it's not. Irrelevant.

But absolutely nothing will make a photo popping onto your phone a violent act.

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

#845

Post by eudamoniac »

netsharc wrote: post #86
eudamoniac wrote: post #59

Even if you discount the possibility of an intentional threat as silly, this could have been a warning from someone under duress. Turning around was the right move.

How does that scenario work? Someone's under duress because presumably there's a terrorist on board. He lets the crew know there's a bomb onboard. The plane turns around, and the terrorist... lets the plane land safely? OK maybe the bomb blows up when it crosses some longitude, because this is like the movie Speed, and turning around means the plane never cross that longitude.. If you mean another type of duress, nam…

How does your scenario work? Someone anonymously shouts BOMB ONBOARD and the plane just continues to its destination? "I guess they can blow us up whenever, so might as well keep going..."

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

#846

Post by jMyles »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #835
jMyles wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people in the comments The commenters' status as people (I presume here you mean biological humans) seems unlikely to me.

I wouldn't like to guess either way about this particular article, but it's possible many really are people. Certainly there were plenty of online commenters for news articles reacting in exactly this sort of way long before there were LLMs.

It seems very obvious to me that certain constituencies in online commenting are at all-time highs for loudness:

* police/prison/statist notions of justice * auto industry / auto-first infra * both pro- and anti-israel * pro-IP / copyright industrial complex

There are a bunch more. Maybe it's a shift in actual human sentiment, but without evidence, I don't think it makes sense for that to be the first presumption.

Fortunately, we're gonna get this here web-o-trust thing going in the next 10 years or so and not have to doubt who the humans are anymore. Riiight?

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

#847

Post by something765478 »

MBCook wrote: post #324
DanielHB wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote: I worked with software for battery EV power-train diagnostics, one of our devs decided to add emojis to success and error messages. He added a fire emoji to one success message. When testers saw it they were afraid that the customer would think it was a thermal runway problem. Had to do a last-minute revision of the software before shipping the new version. I was already pretty anti-emoji / personal touch /…

Whether you think emojis are ok or not, there are times and places. That’s not a time and place.

Yeah. If I'm trying to debug a problem and keep running into error messages, the emojis would drive me up the wall.

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

#848

Post by chrisss395 »

Here is the reddit thread where passengers were live replying. I don't seem confirmation of what the Bluetooth device name was. There is one comment in there claiming the following:

"Wife is on the plane. Guy had a speaker named bomb. He just confessed to it. He said he named it forever ago and forgot about it. He’s 16 years old. Wife’s friend is sitting next to him as they are questioning him."

https://www.reddit.com/r/flightradar24/comments/1tsfu8y/emer...

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

#849

Post by sbayg »

rashinol wrote: post #368
megous wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Hard for to assess that stat given the polling organization has this on their Wikipedia page.

“On 29 August 2024 the Israel Defense Forces released Hamas documents[6] that it said showed that, unbeknownst to the PCPSR, Hamas had secretly falsified its levels of public support in polls conducted by the PCPSR.[7] Rejecting the IDF claims, Shikaki said it was 'highly unlikely' that Hamas had falsified its results, but vowed to probe the claims.[8]”

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

#850

Post by [deleted] »

pc86 wrote: post #843
atoav wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. The captain has the authority, by law, to remove anyone (or everyone) for any reason. There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN