Comment by anonym00se1
1 day ago
"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."
1 day ago
"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."
Man, looking forward to hear the phrase of "out of abundance of caution". What a fucking stupid overdose of caution and CYA.
Would an actual bomber actually name their device "Bomb"? Chances are, not.
Is the broadcast a "bomb threat"? If so, does it disappear if the device is switched off?
And if the continued broadcast is perceived to be an active threat, and it persisted even after they turned around, at what point do you say "Well, we haven't joined MH-17, might as well do another 180 and resume our flight"?
If the device was named "turn around or bomb", I'd be more convinced we have a situation.
God, I hate this world run by 5th graders.
Someone should make a list of all these weird overreactions. Didn't they turn one flight around because a passenger found something scribbled in Arabic script inside the inflight magazine (I think a previous passenger had written out a prayer)? And another one because there was an abandoned mobile phone that had presumably dropped out of someone's pocket?
Yeah this is really dumb. If someone really wanted to cause harm, they would just name their device "April's iPhone" or something. If they really wanted to send a threat, they'd pass a note to a flight attendant or name it something like you said.
I get the "abundance of caution" mentality and it's a big part of why airplanes are so safe. But at some point, pilots _have_ to assume that the rest of the apparatus has done its job. They have to assume that when maintenance clears them, the plane actually works (at least with some degree of trust). And they have to assume that when security lets people on the plane, those people don't have bombs.
That doesn't mean they need to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears, just that they should apply some base level of reason and logic to the situation.
Yeah, it's all CYA and following procedures, who wants to take responsibility for any decision, "not me, I don't want to get sued and be in debt for 7 generations if I get it wrong"... so the bullshit rises all the way of the chain of idiots until someone thinks "Let's just play it safe and turn around, because if there's an actual bomb onboard, turning around will make it not explode!"
2 replies →
Do real bombs have bluetooth?
The type of bomb people worry about for airplanes typically are not built to code.
They do need to have some form of dedinator, and tying that detonator to a Bluetooth control seems like a design that someone might come up with.
3 replies →
I mean you could make the argument that a real bomber wouldn’t make a bomb threat either
[dead]
and he didn't think to turn off his speaker after the flight crew requested all BT devices to be turned off repeatedly?
or was it one of those in-ear headphones that are borderline impossible to turn off when outside of their case?
It was in the luggage compartment. Even if he had thought about it he probably would not.
I wonder if the speaker had built in lithium batteries too.
1 reply →
This will cause future pranksters to name their BT devices the same and cause the plane to panic.
Arghhh
What about the airport? Will they evacuate when they detect a Bluetooth called bomb? That will open so many pranks that can be remotely executed and impossible to detect.
While it may or may not be infeasible, it is entirely possible to determine the source of a radio signal. It is also possible to overlay that tech on a camera feed so that you get a composite image showing like, someone standing in the airport & their Bluetooth info above their head.
I would not find it surprising if I learned that a system like this already existed in many airports. I mean now with AI the whole thing could be automated if you don't care about a few egregious errors here and there.