Comment by netsharc
1 day ago
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!"
This makes me idly wonder what would happen if a Bluetooth device appeared mid-flight with a title like "Bomb will explode if we do not land at LAX before 3 pm" (on a flight to LAX scheduled to land at 2:30 pm or whatever). The idea is... what if turning around is explicitly given as the actual trigger? Would they still turn around out of an abundance of caution? Kinda like Speed I guess ... gotta go fast to be safe.
1 reply →
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.
> They do need to have some form of dedinator
And some dedotaded wam.
> 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.
So much doesn't make sense to me. First, if for whatever reason you decided to blow up an airplane, why would you need to wait for so long, that the plane can turn around and land? Why not blow the airplane as soon as all passengers are on board, or at least when the plane is high enough in the air that when it is blown up, no body can survive the fall? It also doesn't make sense to use a Bluetooth detonator, because Bluetooth only works at short range, i.e. the detonator would have to also be on the same plane as the bomb. If you are ok with blowing yourself up as well, why not directly detonate the bomb without a remote detonator?
1 reply →
I mean you could make the argument that a real bomber wouldn’t make a bomb threat either
[dead]