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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by jollyllama »

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…

I've heard of stuff like this but I think it's fading. I remember tuning into in-flight radio a few years ago and hearing "love when you hit the ground, girl." If anything, I find the loosening strictures unimpressive, somehow - as though the collective brainpower to enforce them is dissipating.

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

#863

Post by incognos »

inoffensivename wrote: post #857
godelski wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did. The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are…

It is also their right to sue you for abuse of authority if it is proven that said captain abused their authority. Say if said captain was a zionist and decided to take it out on that person by abusing their authority. Having authority does notmake you blameless, there is still a responsibility attached to that authority.

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

#864

Post by kmeisthax »

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…

> The friction in air travel leads to more people driving

Y'know, if America didn't treat intercity passenger rail like garbage, we wouldn't be having this problem...

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

#865

Post by voidpointer »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #828
voidpointer wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general and long-term I agree with what you are saying. I assume this was a new/unknown situation. (On the other hand, the article links to other similar stories, so maybe I am cutting them too much slack). If "electronic device names" are of concern, there should be an established protocol to deal with them. Especially if this keeps happening.

IDK, this was pure technical incompetence by rubes that can barely operate a smartphone. The delay relies entirely on these supposed "adults in the room" overreacting.

I think this is just the way the decision tree works in safety-sensitive areas where many human lives are at stake. The catch-all in the decision tree, if there is no exact solution, is always the "get to safety at all costs" option. There will be some window of trying to resolve an issue (here: telling everyone to shut down devices) and when that does not resolve the issue, the catch-all kicks in. That's just the pattern and in an environment like an airplane, where margin for error is slim to non-existant, there is no deviation from that pattern.

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

#866

Post by rconti »

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…

this is one of those "if you see something, no you didn't" times. It seems to me like the fault lies more with the reporter.

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

#867

Post by godelski »

anang wrote: post #839
godelski wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would have been your estimated odds, of a plane hitting twin towers out of malice, a day before 9/11 happened. Lower than walking outside and finding the winning powerball ticket and getting struck by lightning. It's not an impossible thing to happen but it is so unlikely that I don't go around letting the idea dictate anything about my life. It doesn't matter that I know this has happened to somebody, that's…

> It's not an impossible thing to happen but it is so unlikely that I don't go around letting the idea dictate anything about my life. Another take: the likelihood of getting struck by lightening surely dictates what you do during a thunderstorm? In the same way that the likelihood (or lack there of) dictates how often you buy lottery tickets. If we didn’t attempt to mitigate terrorist attacks at all, would they be a…

  > what you do during a thunderstorm?
And now the odds have changed! But that doesn't change the terrorism odds. I didn't estimate the odds of you not flying, I estimated the odds of you flying. We are already talking about being in the middle of a thunderstorm!

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

#868

Post by henry2023 »

tayo42 wrote: post #786
henry2023 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement is neither violent nor muslim per se.

[flagged]

Most of my Jew friends and acquaintances despite zionism. The “core” conflict started 78 years ago.

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

#869

Post by Xirdus »

voidpointer wrote: post #788
Xirdus wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant. There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name un…

So, how did it eventually show up? Owner's phone goes off/airplane-mode, watch starts advertising; someone else wants to connect their BT headphones and sees the name of the watch?

I suspect it went something like this. "Please turn on the airplane mode now." Phone put into airplane mode. Phone disables BT. Watch loses connection. Because of questionable engineering choices, it automatically enters pairing mode and looks for another known device while also broadcasting its name. Most BT and WiFi devices in the area are turned off so the list of broadcasting devices is very short. The plane crew (I assume) manually check for strong 2.4G signals as part of take off procedures. "The Bomb" is sticking out like a sore thumb among the 5-10 other Fitbits and JBLs.

Importantly, the set of circumstances is so specific it couldn't have happened anywhere that is not an inside of an airplane about to take off - but also it would've happened inside every airplane about to take off.

Post reply on HN