Hacker News Reader

Comment by plastic041 | Hacker News Reader

I kind of get that a device named BOMB made the plane turn back.

However, I don't understand this part:

> flight attendant told passengers over the PA system that they "must turn off Bluetooth immediately," or else the aircraft would have to turn around.

If there's a BOMB, turning off Bluetooth won't make it much safer. I mean, a turned-off bomb is probably safer than a turned-on bomb, but it's still a bomb.

Pilots: "Phew, BOMB is now turned off. It's absolutely safe to continue flying. Thank you for your cooperation, passengers and terrorist(s)."

View on HN

It was not about whether to turn back or not but rather to identify whether the device is in cabin or not. If it disappears after being asked, they do not need to empty the cargo hold when searching for the device after landing. They were going to turn around regardless.

Every commercial cabin has a designated Least Risk Bomb Location (LRBL) Once a bomb is determined to be in the cabin they can move it to that location. Funny to think of them actually finding a Fitbit with that name and then moving it there. Then procedure would be to stack up luggage to absorb blast energy.

For those questioning this claim ... here's the 2008 FAA circular detailing LRBL, which itself is spelled out in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25, § 25.795(c):

<https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...>

And the relevant CFR: <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C...>.

(TIL)

it's not the case that the pilot has to think like you, it's that every passenger on the plane would need to. The pilot has unlimited discretion and every interest to keep the passengers on the plane calm, or act preemptively and land as soon as possible.

HBO's Barry, unbelievably, covers this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzzg3q1YuUE

Nobody in the chain of command thought this was a real emergency situation.

The point of turning Bluetooth off or having to turn around the aircraft was to follow the airline's rules on terrorism, which likely tell them to abort a flight route if there's any symbol that could be interpreted as a bomb.

The captains were risking their jobs if they didn't follow this stupid request. This is a good case for getting common-sense exceptions to checklist-style rules.

If you're an in emergency situation, then "probably" safer is better than nothing

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com