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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by tim-tday »

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?

If you’re broadcasting strong language associated with violence? I’d hope the captain would remove you whatever side of whatever conflict you’re on.

What are some things Israeli settlers shout before they murder Palestinians? Shout a couple of those on a plane and see what happens.

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

#932

Post by joxdosba »

imoverclocked wrote: post #894
joxdosba wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am a pilot, this is totally wrong. PIC authority is strictly limited to in-scope items, this very obviously wasn’t in scope unless it was e.g. causing other passengers to behave in an unruly manner.

The Pilot in Command (PIC) holds absolute, ultimate responsibility and final authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft. Also, in another reply you state, "aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew." Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. PIC has authority over things which relate to the operation of the aircraft, yep.

The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it.

The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off.

>Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?

I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.

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

#933

Post by imoverclocked »

joxdosba wrote: post #932
imoverclocked wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pilot in Command (PIC) holds absolute, ultimate responsibility and final authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft. Also, in another reply you state, "aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew." Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. PIC has authority over things which relate to the operation of the aircraft, yep. The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it. The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off. >Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert? I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that,…

> I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.

Hmm. So by, "yeah," you mean, "no."

> The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it.

Straw man much? A captain of a 121-op is not going to get on the intercom and ask for this ... and expect to keep their job. Given that most people don't know where the line is drawn, there is an expectation that you do need to follow all directions. There are definitely directions that, if not followed, result in committing a felony. The other side of the expectation is that of professionalism on behalf of the crew:

Google "professionalism" > It is a combination of competence, ethical behavior, and respectful communication.

You would do well to consider the effects of this statement before continuing too far past 1500 hours.

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

#934

Post by brigandish »

danaris wrote: post #827
brigandish wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk is not a synonym for the likelihood of something happening, but the likelihood and its possible effect . For example, the risk of not wearing your seatbelt on the motorway is high because, even though most journeys will not require a seatbelt to stop any negative effects, if something bad happens it will become very high risk without the seatbelt. Without the negative effect there is no risk, so it's not just pr…

As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk. That's not a sane way to do risk management. You have to be able to use common-sense human judgement as well as situational training. And common-sense human judgement would tell you that, even if the possible effect is a plane full of people blowing up and that starting a war…

Your first two statements are a straw man and thus, become a non-sequitur.

> As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk.

The possible effect is not effectively infinite in magnitude, and no, it does not justify any level of response. Even if a rogue state decided to bomb a plane, that would not justify a nuclear strike in response.

The common sense that you urge is already being applied, and based on well established, well tested protocol. It's not authoritarian to tell someone to turn off their bluetooth on an aeroplane because they named it in an offensive way. That's common sense.

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

#935

Post by defrost »

ChrisRR wrote: post #830
defrost wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. What about non emergency situations such as, say, an objectional (to some) device name on a network? I can't help but wonder would any of this happened had the device been named "Bomb" in Farsi using unicode. Il nome della rosa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose

It's only an objectionable device name once you know it's safe. When you're on a plane, you have to err on the side of caution If the story had been "Bomb detonated on plane after bluetooth name sparks alert" then it would've been more than just objectionable

But it wasn't, it was the far more common and explainable case, seen near daily, of an edgy device name on a fitbit watch.

The Treachery of Images (and names) dates back to 1929; Ceci n'est pas une pipe bomb.

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

#936

Post by brigandish »

willy_k wrote: post #565
brigandish wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> explicitly not a threat I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane , would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?

Threatening is not the same as an actual threat. If someone stood up on a plane and yelled “bomb”, the default implication is that there is a bomb present. If someone gets up and yells “F the captain”, it is reasonable to be fearful that they might act on that sentiment, but the statement itself is not a threat; not an expression of intention (or in the former case, presence of an object that is intended) to inflict…

Common law has dealt with this for nigh on a thousand years. If you put a person in reasonable fear that your behaviour may lead to them harming you, then they are threatening you.

The captain and established protocol follow what has been found to be useful and reasonable when on an aeroplane, not teenagers, jokers, or l33t haxx0rs, and asking people to turn off their bluetooth is reasonable, as is turning a plane around when they won't.

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

#937

Post by brigandish »

joxdosba wrote: post #622
brigandish wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> explicitly not a threat I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane , would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?

Name a single one of those situations, I can’t imagine any.

You don't need to imagine any, I provided one already.

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

#938

Post by defrost »

Scroll_Swe wrote: post #929
defrost wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all Jews are Zionists .. so they are not equivalent words. eg: https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are

I will ask you the one question. Should Israel exist at all according to you? If you say no, you basically are saying "Fuck Jews" to 99% of Jews.- Linking some fringe group wont change that. :) Either leftie or nazi, they both have the same views on Israel it is crazy.

The core of Israel is orthogonal to settler expansionism.

The first is what we, Australia, beach headed for Jewish communities back in 1917. The second is deplorable behaviour that was initially somewhat excusable and has since degenerated into a sickness.

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

#939

Post by godelski »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #890
srean wrote: post #518

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. I agree with your comments more often than not, I empathize with your annoyance, but if you play out the game theoretic consequences there are no non-annoying outcomes. I don't like it but that's how it is. Low probability events with outsized consequences are very difficult to reason through. One poten…

I think godelski is being far too permissive in his odds. As he says, we need to examine how (un)likely is it that somebody is trying to execute this terrorist action, including being competent enough to create a workable bomb, to sneak it through security, and so forth. That's all his numbers show. But we've also got to factor in A) How likely is it that this bomb is going to have some bluetooth component? It seems…

Oh for sure. I'm admittedly several orders of magnitude too conservative in the simple case. I'll be honest, I expect that to be several orders of magnitude conservative to reality, as you point out.

It's exactly why I'm telling people they are being crazy in this thread. Because people are still defending the "Free Palestine, F Israel" device name as if it's a threat. The supposed threat there is that this starts a fight on the plane. To which the obvious answer is to arrest the person that gets so irritated by a trivial to ignore protest that they decide to start a fight on a plane. Arresting the person making the tacky protest is crazy. The logic people are arguing for is "arrest an annoying person because their annoyance might cause a crazy person to act crazy". Why isn't the answer "arrest the crazy person?" This whole thread is batshit levels of insane

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

#940

Post by godelski »

brigandish wrote: post #934
danaris wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk. That's not a sane way to do risk management. You have to be able to use common-sense human judgement as well as situational training. And common-sense human judgement would tell you that, even if the possible effect is a plane full of people blowing up and that starting a war…

Your first two statements are a straw man and thus, become a non-sequitur. > As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk. The possible effect is not effectively infinite in magnitude, and no, it does not justify any level of response. Even if a rogue state decided to bomb a plane, that would not justify a nuclear strike…

  > Your first two statements are a straw man
I think you're reading two comments up.

You can't just make a strawman and then when someone calls you out on it claim that they're making a strawman.

Though I'll admit, you gave me a good laugh. But troll harder. Either try harder to sound like an intellectual or learn more into the crazy fingers in your ears "la la la" character

Post reply on HN