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

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951

Post by godelski »

Scroll_Swe wrote: post #697
godelski wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they aren't actively harming people nor threatening to do so with their words then that's their right. Can by tacky or in bad taste, why's that matter? It's not harming anyone and is a bad WiFi name even meaningfully annoying?

It's the woke shit behind it that is annoying. Would you say the same if it praised Israels bravery? Honoured Charlie Kirk? Said anything you don't agree with?

And that's worth stating a fight over?

I don't care if your SSID says "godelski smells bad", it's a silly thing to start a fight over.

Just be a functioning adult. Ignore it and move on with your life. It'll never affect you as soon as you decide not to look at it. It's really that easy

Stop making this about partisan politics. It was never about that

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

#952

Post by godelski »

throw368498 wrote: post #707
defrost wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misuse by idiots doesn't make them equivalent terms.

Depends on who’s saying it. Often times it’s obvious from the context that “Zionist” is just being used as a loophole, and pretending that the difference is then still important is disingenuous.

Why are you giving idiots a bigger voice?

You admit they're idiots, so why defend them?

Seriously, this conversation is making me dizzy

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

#953

Post by daemon325 »

godelski wrote: post #941
pc86 wrote: post #904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see how what you said is irrelevant whether it's the right way to think about it or not? The captain saw it, or had it brought to his attention, and decided to get rid of it. End of story. It doesn't matter whether or not it's easy to ignore, or whether anyone was truly affected by it, or anything else.

No, I do not see that. The captain is not a dictator on the plane. They can act according to reasonable and credible threats but their power is not infinite. They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt. If a fight breaks out then arrest the person that started a fight. But if your argument is "we can't let X happen because it might start a fight" then maybe conside…

I'm always confused as to why there's such a trend on the internet of romanticizing pilot's judgement and whatever they arbitrarily decide to do when flying a plane. Like videos of some pilot refusing to fly the plane because something feels off. And everyone in the comment praises the pilot and says that whatever maintenance said must be wrong and the pilot's instinct is some sort of all-seeing, all-encompassing entity that can see beyond the puny engineers and mechanics tasked with putting a plane in operating condition.

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

#954

Post by Aeolun »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #402
Aeolun wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is true to some extent. On the other hand, the Jewish community in the US and the (unconditional) support it leadership gives Israel is a large reason any of this is possible. Saying you weren’t directly involved is only an excuse up to a point.

This kind of generalization is exactly the issue though. There is no singular “Jewish community” in the us. Every single temple or congregation is independent, there is no central authority. You saying that there is unconditional support is just a different degree of yelling at random Jews in the street. Every one of my Jewish family members and friends is horrified by Gaza and the AIPAC/GOP collaboration and speaks…

> Why aren’t we anti-war Jews the “Jewish community”?

I'm not blaming you individually for that, just like I don't blame Russians individually for the invasion of Ukraine, but to say that they have no power to stop it as a whole feels a bit like individual Germans claiming they didn't know what was happening in the camps and had no power to stop it anyway.

Really has little to do with faith, except that one of the nations involved is built on faith. As an American or Israeli your country is complicit in genocide. It's your responsibility as a nation to elect people that don't do that.

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

#955

Post by refactor_master »

godelski wrote: post #886
refactor_master wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually even simpler than that. The airplane isn't just a "private business, and you shouldn't mess with their space". They're protected and empowered by broadly ratified conventions (which includes virtually every country in the word), starting with the Tokyo Convention: > The convention [...] recognises certain powers and immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may restrain any perso…

> he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence Punish the person who starts a fight over some tacky device name that is trivial to ignore. That is the person that is committing (or about to commit) an offense. You're being unreasonable. Think about what you're saying. It's the equivalent of "You can't wear that shirt, someone might get offended and punch you in the face." We don't…

> We don't act like this in society

Did you miss the part where the convention was ratified by 180+ countries, because clearly society can't just take a seat?

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

#956

Post by willy_k »

brigandish wrote: post #936
willy_k wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Yes, I nor many other people are arguing that “BOMB” couldn’t be interpreted as a threat. “F the captain” does not carry reasonable fear of harm. It carries reasonable suspicion that the individual is erratic, that is all. Unless one is an HR representative, there’s no reasonable implication of harm in the statement “F the captain”.

Asking people to turn their Bluetooth off can be reasonable in certain scenarios, like that of the “BOMB” incident. Saying “F ” is not a threat.

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

#957

Post by teiferer »

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,…

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

That's likely a false statement, even if unintentionally so.

If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made. After all, how are a "bomb" bluetooth name or a "free palestine" wifi ssid much different from a t-shirt with similar contents?

Try wearing a t-shirt with "I'm carrying a bomb and will blow this aircraft up" and see how far it gets you on your next flight. The crew (including the PIC) won't be amused.

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

#958

Post by joxdosba »

imoverclocked wrote: post #933
joxdosba wrote: post #932

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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

“Frozen ATPL” is the industry term, and I could never have imagined an adult trying to debate the difference when it comes to theoretical education (hint: it’s the same).

> There are definitely directions that, if not followed, result in committing a felony

So? Nobody is disputing that!

It’s certainly not a felony to disobey directions that are not relevant to flight operations or safety.

You’ve utterly failed to communicate what it is that you apparently disagree with me about, instead you’ve just dropped a bunch of unnecessary personal attacks.

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

#959

Post by joxdosba »

teiferer wrote: post #957
joxdosba wrote: post #932

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off. That's likely a false statement, even if unintentionally so. If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made. After all, how are a "bomb" bluetooth name or a "free palestine" wifi ssid much different from a t-shirt with similar contents? Try wearing a t-shirt with "I'm carrying a bomb and will…

Well duh, obviously the PIC can order you to undress if you’re wearing a shirt made out of flaming batteries.

> If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made

I’m pretty sure I’ve explained this: if it is necessary for the safe operation of the flight, then yes.

The PIC does not get to do this because he personally finds your shirt offensive.

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

#960

Post by tardedmeme »

godelski wrote: post #946
tardedmeme wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free Palestine, F Israel" being treated as a threat is consistent with how all other Palestine/Israel speech is treated. E.g. in the UK if you said that in public you'd be considered a terrorist sympathiser (which is criminal). If you said it in Germany you'd be considered a Nazi (which is criminal). If you said it in the USA, they couldn't directly criminalise you based on speech but they'd find something else, lik…

> If you said it in Germany you'd be considered a Nazi Damn. If that's true then we're really labeling the wrong group of people as "Nazis". (I don't believe it's actually true though) I mean we do understand that "Israel", "Jews", and "Zionists" are 3 different things, right?

The German government either does not understand that, or pretends not to understand that. Saying "F Israel" would be treated as a hate crime against Jews, which is treated even stronger than a regular hate crime due to history.
Post reply on HN