"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."
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.
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.
And some dedotaded wam.
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?
True, blowing up a plane on the ground would ensure a lot of chaos, the airport would definitely be shut, affecting thousands of flights due to the ripple effect. Some years ago there was a suicide bombing at Brussels airport.
Hmm, looking forward to a visit from the men in black, because discussing about this stuff means we're plotting a terror attack, and "due to an abundance of caution" they have to check whether we're threats.
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.
Don't try this at home, kids, (I mean, in the sky).
or was it one of those in-ear headphones that are borderline impossible to turn off when outside of their case?
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.
Arghhh