4 ms·

1. Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who

by neilv 4mo ago

1. Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? Or include people of either kind, who create diversions? Or include people who make a statement in an unexpected way? 2. Did the captain, flight control, and everyone else who needed to decide, have definitive information that the report was only an innocuous Bluetooth advertisement for an innocuous consumer device, and somehow knew that no other threat was going on? If not, then I'd commend whomever decided to follow protocol, and err on the side of inconveniencing a lot of people, rather than risk tragedies that the protocol was designed to prevent.

Zak 4mo ago
Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. Demanding that people disable Bluetooth does not seem reasonable. If there's an actual bomber, tipping them off that you're reacting to their threat might lead them to set off the bomb early. Similarly, demanding that someone shut off the "Free Palestine, F Zionists" WiFi network or the flight crew will call the FBI is counterproductive; if that's cause to call the FBI, just call them. A warning lets the person cover their tracks. For the record, "BOMB" is probably cause to call the FBI and "Free Palestine, F Zionists" by itself almost certainly isn't, but is something to mention when calling them about "BOMB".
- dualvariable 4mo ago
  It seems pretty obvious to me that this situation was being treated more like a disruptive passenger issue than an actual terrorist threat of a real bomb. So more like the Minneapolis plane diverted to Wisconsin the other day because of an unruly passenger. They took everyone and their devices through screening after deplaning, and it sounds like they found the teenager who owned the device. That was the point of turning around. They probably do have to treat it seriously just in the unlikely chance it turns out to be some mentally unstable person's way of legitimately making a terroristic threat. But it also needs to be treated similarly to a drunk and violent person who needs to be duct taped to their seat until they can get handed off to the authorities.
  - mlyle 4mo ago
    Terrorists doing completely stupid stuff, like naming a cellphone "bomb" that they plan to use to control a bomb is par for the course. Forgetting to turn off bluetooth is a plausible next mistake. Terrorists have a pretty long history of making these kinds of basic operational errors, and if you don't act like they may be real, you miss the opportunity to disrupt/prevent these operations.
    - nephihaha 4mo ago
      Terrorists also work on creating alarm not just hiding their operations.
    - godelski 4mo ago
      The whole conversation is moot anyways. What's the actual odds of getting on an airplane that is going to be the target of a terrorist attack. I'll tell you, they're approximately 0. Far less than 0.0001%. If you act like they're real you're just going to end up suffering alarm fatigue because the number of actual instances is just so astonishingly low. Besides that, the terrorists win by creating fear. No damage is necessary. People being afraid to fly is the terrorist's main goal. To get you to think they could be anywhere and are everywhere. It's called a terror campaign because the literal goal is to create terror. Casualties are just a good way for them to achieve that goal, but far from the only way. We spend billions a year to fight a near non-existent threat.
    - ElProlactin 4mo ago
      And how would these stupid terrorists actually get a bomb on a plane?
    - ok_dad 4mo ago
      [flagged]
  - redsocksfan45 4mo ago
    [dead]
- mlyle 4mo ago
  Here's the options: - You have an actual bomb that's been slipped onto someone else's stuff that is cellphone triggered; perhaps when you get to UK cellular service, perhaps after cabin altitude + time, or whatever. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You want to turn back in this case. - You have a person who has a device with a name in bad taste, either because of humor or malice. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You would rather not turn back in this case. They might turn it off. - You have a person who is controlling the actual bomb on the plane. Making the announcement or turning back or even continuing -- it doesn't matter. Your moves are visible to them.
  - godelski 4mo ago
    Now take your scenarios and weight them by their probabilities - 0.001% - 99.998% - 0.001% If you think I'm exaggerating here, you're right, but in the conservative direction. There are 44k flights in the US PER DAY. There have been 8 bombings, *since 9/11*[0]. 4 of those involved US craft (not all passenger craft either), and *0* of them succeeded. My numbers are an over-estimate if you take all 8 and count it against a single day of US flights. If we take those 8 bombs, across 24 years of US flights you get closer to 0.000002%, and that's still conservative. I'm sorry, but the risk is just stupid low. There's only 2 lotteries in America that you have a better chance of winning than these absurdly conservative odds (no lottery if you use non-conservative statistics). I'm sorry, but even if there were a dozen bombing attempts a year this would still be an absurdly safe activity given the shear volume of flights per day. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a...
    - mlyle 4mo ago
      Sure, which is why you tell people to turn the device off and only when that completely fails do you take greater corrective action. I do think we overreact on security matters, but I do think it's reasonable to not head over the Atlantic with something labelled "BOMB" if you can't figure it out. I think if you set the amount of security to zero you'd get more bombings. Before 1990 we had a 2-3 per decade. This may not sound like much, but given that we have about 0-0.5 airliner crashes with fatality per year, it would be a significant contribution.
- roysting 4mo ago
  Should we call the FBI because you have also written the forbidden character set; since you said doing so is probably cause to call the FBI?
- jMyles 4mo ago
  > Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. To qualify even for the 'far end of reasonable', you'd have to divert the plane. Returning to origin, especially when the origin is not one of the 10 closest airports and is in a much more densely packed urban area (with a much more harrowing approach) than any of those 10 renders this entire incident totally unserious. There are real actual safety concerns to address in aviation. This doesn't make the top 1,000 list. It's wasted effort in a world where economy of opportunity is significant.
- navigate8310 4mo ago
  > Passengers on the flight arrived back in Newark just before 9:00 PM on Saturday evening, and were met by a significant contingent of local and federal law enforcement. If you'll actually read the article, federal law enforcement was being called in this situation as well.
- adgjlsfhk1 4mo ago
  does landing a plane early due to a bomb threat seem reasonable? either there is a bomb, in which case landing early won't help, or there isn't, in which case landing early won't help
  - switchbak 4mo ago
    Certainly telling them to turn off bluetooth will not have any positive effect, if there was a bomb I presume it would only have a negative effect. But some people are really dumb when it comes to having common sense with respect to tech (or non-tech too, hehe).
hectormalot 4mo ago
The thing that surprises me is they flew back to Newark for almost 90 minutes. It doesn't make sense to me. (1) Either you believe the threat is credible and you put it down at the nearest suitable airport in the least amount of time. Say Sydney at about 200km to your west, or FSP at 150km in the direction you're going (not a great fit, but doable). In both cases you could probably land within 20 minutes, a bit more if you aim for Gander (Fun history for that airport, great as an emergency diversion). (2) or, you believe the threat is not credible. At this point you might as well continue the flight. Flying 90 minutes back does not seem (to me) to meaningfully reduce the risk if someone is actually planning to trigger a bomb anyway.
- blks 4mo ago
  It’s possible conditions weren’t good enough at potential alternatives.
- fooqux 4mo ago
  I don't know what it's like to be a pilot, to be responsible for not just your own life and million dollar aircraft, but the hundred-so passengers onboard. But I do know what it's like working in a draconian safety-crazy job where if you're caught not following a safety-related SOP you're basically fucked. I can't blame them too much.
- addandsubtract 4mo ago
  If someone is planning on triggering a bomb on a plane, and they haven't done so, you can assume they have a target you haven't reached yet. So going back is not only the safe option, but also the location the people & plane came from.
  - rbanffy 4mo ago
    The only thing it protects is the target. If there is a terrorist on board and they expose the fact they are aware of the bomb, or the bomb is minimally capable, the plane is doomed whatever they do.
- rincebrain 4mo ago
hammock 4mo ago
> Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? I want to think the answer is both. But I cannot think of an example where #2 has actually happened in history resulting in injury or death.
- rbanffy 4mo ago
  There was a guy who hid explosives in a shoe and we had to take off our shoes for many years because of him.
  - echoangle 4mo ago
    I don’t know how that contradicts the original comment since that plot didn’t work and didn’t result in deaths or (significant) injuries.
    - 15155 4mo ago
      The plot worked, the device didn't (nor did it need to.)
JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> I'd commend whomever decided to follow protocol Protocol would be quietly diverting to the closest airport. They didn’t do that. They chugged back to Newark. After making a visible scene on the PA. This was a hissy fit.
dhosek 4mo ago
A minor grammar nit. Its commend whoever decided to follow protocol, not whomever. You choose the case of who(m)ever based on its function in the dependent clause not the clause’s function in the sentence.
- PaulStatezny 4mo ago
  A minor spelling nit. It's "it's", not "its", when used as a contraction for "it is". ;) Sorry, you teed it up too well. I had to!
  - dhosek 4mo ago
    Arg, that’s what I get for typing on my phone
jtbayly 4mo ago
Literally no pilot ever has been able to know that no other threat was going on.

by neilv 4mo ago

Zak 4mo ago

Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. Demanding that people disable Bluetooth does not seem reasonable. If there's an actual bomber, tipping them off that you're reacting to their threat might lead them to set off the bomb early. Similarly, demanding that someone shut off the "Free Palestine, F Zionists" WiFi network or the flight crew will call the FBI is counterproductive; if that's cause to call the FBI, just call them. A warning lets the person cover their tracks. For the record, "BOMB" is probably cause to call the FBI and "Free Palestine, F Zionists" by itself almost certainly isn't, but is something to mention when calling them about "BOMB".

dualvariable 4mo ago
It seems pretty obvious to me that this situation was being treated more like a disruptive passenger issue than an actual terrorist threat of a real bomb. So more like the Minneapolis plane diverted to Wisconsin the other day because of an unruly passenger. They took everyone and their devices through screening after deplaning, and it sounds like they found the teenager who owned the device. That was the point of turning around. They probably do have to treat it seriously just in the unlikely chance it turns out to be some mentally unstable person's way of legitimately making a terroristic threat. But it also needs to be treated similarly to a drunk and violent person who needs to be duct taped to their seat until they can get handed off to the authorities.
- mlyle 4mo ago
  Terrorists doing completely stupid stuff, like naming a cellphone "bomb" that they plan to use to control a bomb is par for the course. Forgetting to turn off bluetooth is a plausible next mistake. Terrorists have a pretty long history of making these kinds of basic operational errors, and if you don't act like they may be real, you miss the opportunity to disrupt/prevent these operations.
  - nephihaha 4mo ago
    Terrorists also work on creating alarm not just hiding their operations.
  - godelski 4mo ago
    The whole conversation is moot anyways. What's the actual odds of getting on an airplane that is going to be the target of a terrorist attack. I'll tell you, they're approximately 0. Far less than 0.0001%. If you act like they're real you're just going to end up suffering alarm fatigue because the number of actual instances is just so astonishingly low. Besides that, the terrorists win by creating fear. No damage is necessary. People being afraid to fly is the terrorist's main goal. To get you to think they could be anywhere and are everywhere. It's called a terror campaign because the literal goal is to create terror. Casualties are just a good way for them to achieve that goal, but far from the only way. We spend billions a year to fight a near non-existent threat.
  - ElProlactin 4mo ago
    And how would these stupid terrorists actually get a bomb on a plane?
  - ok_dad 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- redsocksfan45 4mo ago
  [dead]
mlyle 4mo ago
Here's the options: - You have an actual bomb that's been slipped onto someone else's stuff that is cellphone triggered; perhaps when you get to UK cellular service, perhaps after cabin altitude + time, or whatever. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You want to turn back in this case. - You have a person who has a device with a name in bad taste, either because of humor or malice. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You would rather not turn back in this case. They might turn it off. - You have a person who is controlling the actual bomb on the plane. Making the announcement or turning back or even continuing -- it doesn't matter. Your moves are visible to them.
- godelski 4mo ago
  Now take your scenarios and weight them by their probabilities - 0.001% - 99.998% - 0.001% If you think I'm exaggerating here, you're right, but in the conservative direction. There are 44k flights in the US PER DAY. There have been 8 bombings, *since 9/11*[0]. 4 of those involved US craft (not all passenger craft either), and *0* of them succeeded. My numbers are an over-estimate if you take all 8 and count it against a single day of US flights. If we take those 8 bombs, across 24 years of US flights you get closer to 0.000002%, and that's still conservative. I'm sorry, but the risk is just stupid low. There's only 2 lotteries in America that you have a better chance of winning than these absurdly conservative odds (no lottery if you use non-conservative statistics). I'm sorry, but even if there were a dozen bombing attempts a year this would still be an absurdly safe activity given the shear volume of flights per day. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a...
  - mlyle 4mo ago
    Sure, which is why you tell people to turn the device off and only when that completely fails do you take greater corrective action. I do think we overreact on security matters, but I do think it's reasonable to not head over the Atlantic with something labelled "BOMB" if you can't figure it out. I think if you set the amount of security to zero you'd get more bombings. Before 1990 we had a 2-3 per decade. This may not sound like much, but given that we have about 0-0.5 airliner crashes with fatality per year, it would be a significant contribution.
roysting 4mo ago
Should we call the FBI because you have also written the forbidden character set; since you said doing so is probably cause to call the FBI?
jMyles 4mo ago
> Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. To qualify even for the 'far end of reasonable', you'd have to divert the plane. Returning to origin, especially when the origin is not one of the 10 closest airports and is in a much more densely packed urban area (with a much more harrowing approach) than any of those 10 renders this entire incident totally unserious. There are real actual safety concerns to address in aviation. This doesn't make the top 1,000 list. It's wasted effort in a world where economy of opportunity is significant.
navigate8310 4mo ago
> Passengers on the flight arrived back in Newark just before 9:00 PM on Saturday evening, and were met by a significant contingent of local and federal law enforcement. If you'll actually read the article, federal law enforcement was being called in this situation as well.
adgjlsfhk1 4mo ago
does landing a plane early due to a bomb threat seem reasonable? either there is a bomb, in which case landing early won't help, or there isn't, in which case landing early won't help
- switchbak 4mo ago
  Certainly telling them to turn off bluetooth will not have any positive effect, if there was a bomb I presume it would only have a negative effect. But some people are really dumb when it comes to having common sense with respect to tech (or non-tech too, hehe).

hectormalot 4mo ago

The thing that surprises me is they flew back to Newark for almost 90 minutes. It doesn't make sense to me. (1) Either you believe the threat is credible and you put it down at the nearest suitable airport in the least amount of time. Say Sydney at about 200km to your west, or FSP at 150km in the direction you're going (not a great fit, but doable). In both cases you could probably land within 20 minutes, a bit more if you aim for Gander (Fun history for that airport, great as an emergency diversion). (2) or, you believe the threat is not credible. At this point you might as well continue the flight. Flying 90 minutes back does not seem (to me) to meaningfully reduce the risk if someone is actually planning to trigger a bomb anyway.

blks 4mo ago
It’s possible conditions weren’t good enough at potential alternatives.
fooqux 4mo ago
I don't know what it's like to be a pilot, to be responsible for not just your own life and million dollar aircraft, but the hundred-so passengers onboard. But I do know what it's like working in a draconian safety-crazy job where if you're caught not following a safety-related SOP you're basically fucked. I can't blame them too much.
addandsubtract 4mo ago
If someone is planning on triggering a bomb on a plane, and they haven't done so, you can assume they have a target you haven't reached yet. So going back is not only the safe option, but also the location the people & plane came from.
- rbanffy 4mo ago
  The only thing it protects is the target. If there is a terrorist on board and they expose the fact they are aware of the bomb, or the bomb is minimally capable, the plane is doomed whatever they do.
rincebrain 4mo ago

hammock 4mo ago

> Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? I want to think the answer is both. But I cannot think of an example where #2 has actually happened in history resulting in injury or death.

rbanffy 4mo ago
There was a guy who hid explosives in a shoe and we had to take off our shoes for many years because of him.
- echoangle 4mo ago
  I don’t know how that contradicts the original comment since that plot didn’t work and didn’t result in deaths or (significant) injuries.
  - 15155 4mo ago
    The plot worked, the device didn't (nor did it need to.)

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

> I'd commend whomever decided to follow protocol Protocol would be quietly diverting to the closest airport. They didn’t do that. They chugged back to Newark. After making a visible scene on the PA. This was a hissy fit.

dhosek 4mo ago

A minor grammar nit. Its commend whoever decided to follow protocol, not whomever. You choose the case of who(m)ever based on its function in the dependent clause not the clause’s function in the sentence.

PaulStatezny 4mo ago
A minor spelling nit. It's "it's", not "its", when used as a contraction for "it is". ;) Sorry, you teed it up too well. I had to!
- dhosek 4mo ago
  Arg, that’s what I get for typing on my phone

jtbayly 4mo ago

Literally no pilot ever has been able to know that no other threat was going on.