The decisions of the flight crew on United Flight 236, where a kid had named his Fitbit "Bomb"
Posted by Tetracropolis@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 75 comments
The flight was in the air, the crew found out that there was a device onboard broadcasting the word "bomb".
I cannot get my head around what the crew did next.
They announce to the plane that someone's playing a joke and ask them to stop it. The device continues broadcasting because the guy is unwilling or unable to switch it off. They announce that the plane is turning around because someone's playing an unfunny joke.The plane turns around, they land it and are met by police.
It seems to me that this creates a scenario which guarantees the worst possible outcome
If there is a bomb that the terrorist has accidentally left on, he knows to either detonate it immediately because they're onto him, or turn the Bluetooth off on the bomb and wait until they're approaching the destination city before blowing it up.
If there is no bomb, they've wasted everyone's time and a lot of money with a completely unnecessary diversion.
If they think there's any real chance that there's a bomb, surely they should have announced that they were landing at the nearest airport due to difficulties with air traffic control and expect to be back in the air after a short delay to minimise the chances of the terrorist doing it immediately.
Since they didn't do that, they must have been almost certain that there was no bomb. Have they just got so pissy over what they knew was a joke that they've decided to send everyone back being prepared to take the chance that it was real and everyone would be killed?
bulldogsm@reddit
this is whole post is rediculous, no one thought literally there was a bomb, and no half wit bomb maker is naming his stuff bomb
the crew was forced to divert and play the game end of story
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
Then why divert?
Diligent_Digiridoo@reddit
Because it policy to divert when there’s a bomb threat?
You’re mad they went all the way back to the departure airport?
What would you have said if they landed a plane with a couple hundred people in some podunk airfield with no services and no way to get passengers off the aircraft? “Oh those idiots stranded all those people for a Bluetooth device???”
And then what would you have said if they DIDNT divert and the bomb exploded? “Oh my god they literally were told there’s a bomb and didn’t land. What idiots”
They followed company policy with enough discretion to get them back to a suitable airport. Quit with the fucking armchair quartbacking
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
I'm mad that they told the person who brought the device on board that they were onto them and told them to turn the Bluetooth off.
It's like they were more worried about someone broadcasting the word than they were about the threat of an actual bomb.
SuggestionUpbeat2443@reddit
they flew over NYC and BOS with their non-bomb bomb as well. there was clearly no "emergency" that could not have been taken care of in Spain.
bulldogsm@reddit
security theater, tsa style we all are forced to do things because it makes people feel like something is being done
im sure tsa existing has stopped something bad happening but 99+% of the time its as stupid as it looks
spastical-mackerel@reddit
That’s exactly what someone who named their bomb “bomb” would say!
lil_layne@reddit
The crew did not actually think it was a bomb, but it is their company policy to divert when someone claims they have a bomb (which this is an extension of). The crew also wanted to announce that they are going back so the passengers are kept in the loop, and out of frustration for being required to go back they shamed the person that they knew did this as a joke. It’s really not that hard to wrap your head around.
SuggestionUpbeat2443@reddit
so they flew over NYC and BOS eith their bon-bomb bomb?
Tough_Trouble_1139@reddit
CNN published a video of the announcement. Is it airline policy to publicly shame a terrorist/prankster while still in the air? I felt the announcement was unprofessional.
Announce a diversion for a mechanical issue. Deal with the bomb threat when you're on the ground.
f8amenable2change@reddit
Exactly this. It’s the same thing Ng as someone yelling bomb while on the plane.
Strega007@reddit
Airlines have security plans that crews are obliged to follow. Since those security plans are not public knowledge, it isn't really possible to evaluate the crew's actions.
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
Surely no security plan would include letting the terrorist know you're onto him. If they do, they need a new plan.
Miraclefish@reddit
A terrorist is going to use the bomb regardless.
An idiot playing a terribly badly thought out prank may turn off the device it admit to it.
They likely knew it wasn't a bomb but airlines aren't permitted to take the risk once the word is mentioned.
A chance if the person stopping or owning up would have saved everyone a huge amount of hassle, and if they don't turn round, it sets a precedent that you can make bomb hoaxes and get away with it.
The airline did exactly the correct thing.
Tough_Trouble_1139@reddit
I agree with OP. If they think there's a bomb, they need to divert to the nearest airport.
If the airline thinks it's a joke and wants to take the time to return to the departure airport, why do a bomb sweep of the airplane, and make everyone go through security again.
The actions taken are to punish the individual, and do not make sense for a real bomb threat.
Miraclefish@reddit
They don't think it's a bomb, they think it's an idiot playing a stupid prank.
Because thinking it is a bomb is not confirming it's not a bomb.
Correct, and they did not think it was a bomb, but they could not verify that in the air, and they could not allow someone to make a bomb hoax prank on a plane without consequences, otherwise what are all the other Tiktok idiots going to do?
You got it, the same thing.
By proving that there are severe consequences - your plane will NOT get to your destination, you will be turned round, you will be searched by police, you will likely be prosecuted and put on a no fly list, they then put other idiots off acting like this idiot.
It's not punishing anyone, it's showing that actions have consequences.
Tough_Trouble_1139@reddit
If the kid responded to the announcement by turning off the Bluetooth device, is there no longer the threat of a bomb? Even though nothing was verified in the air? Should the flight crew continue to the destination airport?
I'm all for creating serious consequences for this situation. But don't treat it like a prank, treat it like a real threat.
The flight crew should have informed the passengers there was a mechanical failure, and they need to divert to the nearest suitable airport. (I was incorrect in my previous comment, the departure airport was the nearest suitable airport. I didn't realize they were only an hour in to the flight. There are numerous suitable airports available for emergency diversions on a transatlantic flight) Deal with the bomb threat when the airplane is on the ground.
I really don't like the dichotomy of treating this like a prank and a serious threat at the same time.
Diligent_Digiridoo@reddit
To make a massive point that they do not fuck around at all with shit like that. And i guarantee it will help to prevent future incidents.
Also you can’t just land an airliner at a random airport. You need facilities jet bridge, buses, company ops, etc
Tough_Trouble_1139@reddit
I'm going to revise/take back my comment, because I didn't know they were only an hour into the flight. The nearest suitable airport would be the departure airport.
I 100% agree you can't land at any random airport. I meant nearest "suitable" airport, but felt that was implied.
Read up on ETOPS. A twin engine aircraft must plan their route to remain within typically 120 or 180 minutes of a suitable airport they can divert to in the event of an emergency (determined by engine reliability.) A bomb threat is absolutely an emergency.
Strega007@reddit
Guess United should have consulted with Reddit rather than law enforcement and aviation safety professionals when developing their security plan.
Flagrant_negligence@reddit
Well you can’t say surely because you don’t know what factors were considered since it’s Safety Sensitive Information. The security plans are very strict, were made by experts, and we’re trained to follow them counter intuitive or not
Lost_Foot8302@reddit
It's my own personal opinion but I would rather not take the chance so I agree with the crew. There's always another flight.. another day.
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
OK, but if you're not taking the chance surely you land at the nearest airport in a sparsely populated area. You don't announce it. By announcing it you're increasing the risk by telling the guy you're onto him.
Even if the guy turns the Bluetooth off, how is the risk any less? You're still on a plane which had a device which was broadcasting that it was a bomb. All you've learned is that the terrorist isn't deaf.
MoukinKage@reddit
Any airport big enough to handle a 767 is not going to be in a sparsely populated area
justinholmes_music@reddit
All due respect.. the fuck you talking about.
A United 767 diverted to Halifax literally last year, remember? UA195.
There are probably 10, maybe more, other airports between the turnaround point and EWR capable of handling a mayday 767.
MoukinKage@reddit
Yeah, the fastest growing Canadian city with a population of over half a million is "sparsely populated"...
justinholmes_music@reddit
lol right?
And like, even if this has been in a more remote area, there are still always places for to divert for mayday.
It's really bizarre how people (bots?) are rushing to defend the return-to-origin decision and making it seem like this is normal (or even precedented) bomb threat protocol.
Lost_Foot8302@reddit
Apologies. I see your point now that I've read read your post at a normal speed....bad habit of mine.
unpluggedcord@reddit
I think op is asking why announce over the PA
Forest_Orc@reddit
To be honest, the announce if over the PA makes a lot of sense no terrorist would name it's device bomb, so it's a stupid joke. Let's try to let the stupid kid realise their mistake and turn that shit off it'll save time/paperwork for everyone.
Lost_Foot8302@reddit
Oh. I misunderstood that part. Fair enough.
justinholmes_music@reddit
> I would rather not take the chance so I agree with the crew.
What does this even mean? Isn't returning to origin (instead of diverting, as OP suggests was a more likely approach if they believed there was a real threat) "taking a chance?"
What were they "taking a chance" of?
ManQu69@reddit
Kid ? Child? or young adult? makes a difference as to what action to take, Me? Just land the plane and throw them off...
HardlyAnyGravitas@reddit
You seem to misunderstand what the issue is.
Somebody was broadcasting the word 'bomb'. If it was a joke, then they offered them the chance to stop before getting into trouble.
If they keep broadcasting the word, then the crew have to treat it as a real threat.
The idea that they thought there was a Bluetooth equipped bomb on board is ridiculous.
Put it this way - suppose they had found a piece of paper in the toilet with the word 'bomb' written on it while they were in the air? They might still ask if somebody has left something in the toilet 'accidentally' and give them the chance to collect the piece of paper and explain that they left it there by mistake. In which case - problem solved because it's obviously not a bomb threat. If nobody comes forward, then they have to assume that it is a real threat.
It's not rocket science.
justinholmes_music@reddit
Can you point to another incident - perhaps the example you present ('bomb' written on paper) where the airline directed the crew to return all the way to origin instead of diverting to one of the nearby airports, all of which are in less densely populated areas?
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
If it's a real bomb then the terrorist would simply turn the device's Bluetooth transmitter off.
If it's not then there's nothing to worry about.
HardlyAnyGravitas@reddit
Why do you think the bomb would have a Bluetooth transmitter? That's ridiculous.
Did you even read what I said?
sun_not_cold@reddit
This may be related to a legal jurisdictional issue? Return offenders to original jurisdiction for actionable prosecution?
justinholmes_music@reddit
Is that a thing, separate from safety protocols?
If someone commits insurance fraud using the in-flight wifi while still over the US, but it's not discovered until later, do they turn around to ensure that the person is returned to a jurisdiction for actionable prosecution?
justinholmes_music@reddit
The levels of sanewashing in this thread are astounding.
* Returning to origin, when the origin is not one of the ten nearest airports, and is in a densely populated area with a more complex approach, is not risk averse. It clearly indicates that this response was not consistent with a normal bomb threat protocol.
* The announcement makes no sense whatsoever, and is totally inconsistent with every other announcement in the history of safety culture of aviation as far as I'm aware. Can anyone point to another situation where a similar 'protocol' was followed? If the text of the announcement ("one person is making a funny joke that is compromising the integrity of the crew and passengers") came from company, I'll be amazed. I can't fathom what was accomplished by making this announcement, nor the people / bots in this thread acting like this is even vaguely normal.
* It's entirely plausible that the device had a name with the word 'bomb' in it as set from the factory, and this is obviously something that operations had a chance to research and discover. If they did, then it no longer makes sense to presume that the name represented an intention from a person, any more than watching a film on the IFE with closed captioning that happens to have the word "bomb" on it.
There are actual real safety issues in aviation, folks. And economy of opportunity in this industry is real. Nothing that happened here advanced anyone's safety. This was a fuckup, through and through, and ought to go in the aviation hall of shame.
CkIdiot@reddit
You need to understand that aviation industry across whole spectrum is fundamentally risk-averse industry. Safety is paramount, no funny business is tolerated. This teenage joker should be treated just as harshly as other mo-rons that jokingly mention bombs inside airports.
If he has to from suffer then so be it, some lessons need to be harsh to be learned from. Otherwise he may, for questionable fun, call someday bomb threat on airport, leading to it's closure and massive loss of time and money.
justinholmes_music@reddit
If risk aversion were actually the impetus here, they'd have done what flights normally do in the event of a bomb threat: divert to a nearby airport. Returning to origin just renders this whole story fundamentally unserious.
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
I understand that, but if your thing is that we can't take the slightest chance, why are you announcing it and giving him the opportunity to detonate immediately?
CkIdiot@reddit
Irrelevant. No true terrorist would announce bomb via Bluetooth, but rather either detonates it immediately, or loudly proclaims that it is on board, and uses the threat to extract concessions. With first case, safety failed, you are dead, there's nothing you can do. With seconds, safety failed, but there's a chance that maybe you can make out of it alive.
spacecadet2399@reddit
There are specific procedures when there's a bomb on board and they involve able-bodied persons in the cabin knowing there's a bomb on board. So of course they're going to announce it.
You're not going to win any points by saying you know airline procedures for bomb threats better than they do. Airlines have experience with this. Real bombs. That includes bombs that everyone thought were fake but that they learned the hard way were actually real. You do not know better than they do.
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
I'm trying to understand what possible procedure there is where there's a bomb threat whereby you announce to the passengers that you believe there's a bomb, but decide that, if the person in control of the bomb would kindly switch the Bluetooth off on the bomb or change it to a less threatening name, you'll continue to your destination.
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
Why don't we just let the professionals like Blancolirio do all the armchair quarterbacking on this. /s
Sowhataboutthisthing@reddit
“If there is a bomb that the terrorist has accidentally left on” …
I can just imagine the next pm lessons learned call.
“So guys, let me tell you about the time I left my bomb broadcasting its Bluetooth ID.”
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
It could happen. It might be featured on America's Dumbest Criminals, but these aren't always the most professional outfits.
ddadopt@reddit
The best part is that the aircraft returned to the point of departure squawking 7700. Like... if this is a real emergency, why are you flying against a headwind all the way back to New Jersey when you're like 15 minutes from Halifax.
BaitSalesman@reddit
Because no one thought it was an emergency. It was a policy game.
MattVarnish@reddit
Also because they might as WELL go back, since they probably would have had to laps around Halifax to burn off fuel so they could be light enough to land.. MIGHT AS WELL go back, since thats where the paperwork will be filed haha.
MattVarnish@reddit
Or: they know that no terrorist is that dumb to call their bomb 'Bomb" if its detonated via wifi, they would use at least 'Brenda's iPhone 3272' and also that since they can't just keep flying since invariably 17 different Karens would go the media saying "Well, they saw Bomb and DIDNT EVEN DO ANYTHING?" and then they al lose their jobs
what they did is exactly what they had to do. they did nothing wrong
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
If they know there's no bomb, diverting because of hypothetical "Karens" is utterly absurd.
crewsctrl@reddit
I'm curious how the bluetooth device came to the crew's attention. Did another passenger notice? Does the crew check bluetooth devices names during the flight? It's not something you'd notice accidentally unless you were trying to pair devices.
Blue_foot@reddit
This speaker, by design, broadcasts its name if nothing is paired to it.
Therefore if it’s at a party, someone can link to it and play tunes. This is unusual because most Bluetooth devices must be set to pairing mode in order to connect.
And by design, its name is “company - bomb”, because that is their product name.
BaitSalesman@reddit
Did another passenger with a fear of flying melt down? That would make the most sense. I have. O doubt there is a litany of stupid bluetooth device names that crews eye-roll all the time. But with another passenger freaking out they had to get out the rulebook.
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
I'd guess someone was trying to pair their headphones and pointed it out to the flight crew. People are often using new device pairings when they're on flights.
spastical-mackerel@reddit
Not sure why there was so much confusion. They should have just restrained the passenger named Bo M. Burr.
HardlyAnyGravitas@reddit
You seem to misunderstand what the issue is.
Somebody was broadcasting the word 'bomb'. If it was a joke, then they offered them the chance to stop before getting into trouble.
If they keep broadcasting the word, then the crew have to treat it as a real threat.
The idea that they thought there was a Bluetooth equipped bomb on board is ridiculous.
Put it this way - suppose they had found a piece of paper in the toilet with the word 'bomb' written on it while they were in the air? They might still ask if somebody has left something in the toilet 'accidentally' and give them the chance to collect the piece of paper and explain that they left it there by mistake. In which case - problem solved because it's obviously not a bomb threat. If nobody comes forward, then they have to assume that it is a real threat.
It's not rocket science.
Duckbilling2@reddit
Next to
Terry Wrist
gardenfella@reddit
And Tina Tee
Duckbilling2@reddit
and aL kyda
Paatos@reddit
You don't just restrain an overweight dwarf.
MikeW226@reddit
I don't have any info, but hey, it's reddit so I'll go ahead and post this ;O).
If the device was showing up as "bomb" the way wi-fi hotspots show up with names declared by their users, wouldn't the plane's crew know that, and think, hmmm, kid has a weird name on his Bluetooth device, but to each their own? Or is that word just no go in any situation on an aircraft and they have to immediately turnaround?
I'm envisioning getting onto my wi-fi at my home and seeing neighbors' funky names for *their wi-fi networks. But maybe that's not what was seen here.
I don't get how crew would say it was a bad joke. Maybe the dude's device was just named bomb (as in, 'it's the BOMB / I LOVE this device so much') and there was no joke to it.
ChiefHighasFuck@reddit
Used to travel for work a lot. Tired at the gate and wanted to go home. Talking louder than I should have been at my idiot co-worker about the BOM as in “Bill Of Materials”. Wondering why I was getting the side eye LOL. There is a chance at least sometimes it can be accidental
daves1243b@reddit
Presumably there will be lessons learned here, since this will probably happen again someday given that the manufacturer of the device (not the kid) named it Bomb (which presumably can't easily be changed).
freshoilandstone@reddit
"If you kids don't stop that this instant I'm turning this plane around and we're going right back home!!"
imme267@reddit
And here come the armchair security experts. Why don’t we reserve further judgment until captain steve makes a video?
Practical_Fig_7655@reddit
Is it just me or does he annoy the crap out of other people too. Just give me the facts, he goes on and on with the most mundane explanations, which are often lacking any true insigght.
doctorfortoys@reddit
The Captain probably didn’t make this decision alone, but contacted United Airlines dispatch, who gave this protocol.
Tough_Trouble_1139@reddit
These were 100% my thoughts too OP. They clearly knew it was a bad joke, and punished everyone onboard. If they suspected a bomb, they should not have announced anything, and diverted to the nearest airport.
Very unprofessional of the crew.
Torkin@reddit
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense. If they don’t identify it until they are in the air, diverting or turning around seems pointless. Just continue on and have police meet the plane.
Tetracropolis@reddit (OP)
I think you definitely divert if you think it might be a bomb.
If the bomb's on the plane and he hasn't blown it up yet, his aim is obviously to blow it up in the vicinity of the intended landing zone, in this case Madrid. If you tell him you're landing at some rural airfield in Canada because of an ATC issue and you'll be on your way to Madrid again shortly maybe he waits. Obviously there's a very big risk that he realises what's going on and detonates, but it's better than nothing.
Redditor_throwaway12@reddit
A passenger noticed an active Bluetooth device nearby named "BOMB" and alerted the flight crew. After passengers failed to turn off their devices, airline headquarters ordered the plane to turn around, resulting in a full police sweep and TSA rescreening for all 192 passengers. Reports indicated the device belonged to a 16-year-old passenger.
Because many budget Bluetooth speakers do not allow users to change the internal broadcast name, owners are often entirely unaware that their speaker is broadcasting a security-triggering word to everyone in a 30-foot radius.
brands ship speakers that broadcast "Bomb" straight out of the box: iJoy: Sells the popular, waterproof iJoy Beach Bomb speaker line.
Zebronics / Zeb-Music: Produces speakers like the Zeb-Music Bomb X.
Hama & Hellotec: European tech brands known to use "Bomb" in their product naming schemes.
Audio Bomb: A brand entirely dedicated to splash-resistant portable