> For anyone seeking a legitimate source on the bluetooth device comments: you can listen to the KEWR Ramp/Company/Misc archive. Keep the date set to 2026-05-31 and the feed set to ramp/company/misc, but change the time to 0200-0230Z. Then, skip ahead to about 22:55
> Do you guys know what happened with that - uh what is that a - 7-6 on the left?
> There's a security detail out there. Someone had a bluetooth they named a certain four letter word; so they have to inspect the whole aircraft including the cargo area. The passengers have to evacuate.
>Heard on ramp frequency. United appeared to tell the captain of a different United flight that there was a Bluetooth device with a “certain four letter word” (quoting) on the plane causing the emergency.
I like to do that more subtly. If I want to have IT check on an ongoing engagement, I usually use Raspberry Pi based OUI/MAC addresses.
Other than that, I can recommend going for IoT devices like VOIP phone MAC addresses in conference rooms, because they're specifically allowlisted for everything and/or are in a different VLAN that doesn't block the endpoints.
"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."
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.
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.
That'd be a great way of getting your flight to LAX very very quickly, probably even with military escort. But of course afterwards you'll be stuck at the tarmac while a million police and military surround the plane figuring out what to do.
Don't try this at home, kids, (I mean, in the sky).
> 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?
Devices with built-in batteries are ok for checked bags in the US (though, the temperature swing isn't good for their long term health, and whichever airline you choose may have their own further restriction on that). It's just removable batteries that must be removed.
What about the airport? Will they evacuate when they detect a Bluetooth called bomb? That will open so many pranks that can be remotely executed and impossible to detect.
While it may or may not be infeasible, it is entirely possible to determine the source of a radio signal. It is also possible to overlay that tech on a camera feed so that you get a composite image showing like, someone standing in the airport & their Bluetooth info above their head.
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.
Wild they go back to a major city & major airport when there "might be a bomb". Does the US not have designated airports for bomb threats / hijacks with tooled up special forces etc?
According to the thead they squawked 7700 so this wasn’t just a “fuck it we’re going back” this was a full blown “we’re declaring emergency, roll all the shit.”
I wonder if there’s Bluetooth interference or if they’re suspicious of something else.
It was a Bluetooth speaker named "bomb" in the cargo. Really stupid shit on the part of whichever passenger owned it. Even in general, you don't just leave devices powered on in your luggage, but especially not if they are called "bomb".
From u/cupofmesideofyou
> For anyone seeking a legitimate source on the bluetooth device comments: you can listen to the KEWR Ramp/Company/Misc archive. Keep the date set to 2026-05-31 and the feed set to ramp/company/misc, but change the time to 0200-0230Z. Then, skip ahead to about 22:55
https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=kewr_co
From ATC
> Do you guys know what happened with that - uh what is that a - 7-6 on the left?
> There's a security detail out there. Someone had a bluetooth they named a certain four letter word; so they have to inspect the whole aircraft including the cargo area. The passengers have to evacuate.
> That's crazy
>LolasLakehouse
>43 points 33 minutes ago
>Heard on ramp frequency. United appeared to tell the captain of a different United flight that there was a Bluetooth device with a “certain four letter word” (quoting) on the plane causing the emergency.
My guess is a device was named "Bomb" or something.
i like to make my hostname "virus" because it gets me a surprising number of check-in pings from network admins
I like to do that more subtly. If I want to have IT check on an ongoing engagement, I usually use Raspberry Pi based OUI/MAC addresses.
Other than that, I can recommend going for IoT devices like VOIP phone MAC addresses in conference rooms, because they're specifically allowlisted for everything and/or are in a different VLAN that doesn't block the endpoints.
Enterprise-grade security is always fun :D
"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."
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.
That'd be a great way of getting your flight to LAX very very quickly, probably even with military escort. But of course afterwards you'll be stuck at the tarmac while a million police and military surround the plane figuring out what to do.
Don't try this at home, kids, (I mean, in the sky).
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 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?
> They do need to have some form of dedinator
And some dedotaded wam.
I mean you could make the argument that a real bomber wouldn’t make a bomb threat either
[dead]
and he didn't think to turn off his speaker after the flight crew requested all BT devices to be turned off repeatedly?
or was it one of those in-ear headphones that are borderline impossible to turn off when outside of their case?
It was in the luggage compartment. Even if he had thought about it he probably would not.
I wonder if the speaker had built in lithium batteries too.
Devices with built-in batteries are ok for checked bags in the US (though, the temperature swing isn't good for their long term health, and whichever airline you choose may have their own further restriction on that). It's just removable batteries that must be removed.
This will cause future pranksters to name their BT devices the same and cause the plane to panic.
Arghhh
What about the airport? Will they evacuate when they detect a Bluetooth called bomb? That will open so many pranks that can be remotely executed and impossible to detect.
While it may or may not be infeasible, it is entirely possible to determine the source of a radio signal. It is also possible to overlay that tech on a camera feed so that you get a composite image showing like, someone standing in the airport & their Bluetooth info above their head.
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.
Wild they go back to a major city & major airport when there "might be a bomb". Does the US not have designated airports for bomb threats / hijacks with tooled up special forces etc?
Someone was airdropping bomb threats?
They certainly did turn around: https://www.flightradar24.com/UAL236/
According to the thead they squawked 7700 so this wasn’t just a “fuck it we’re going back” this was a full blown “we’re declaring emergency, roll all the shit.”
I wonder if there’s Bluetooth interference or if they’re suspicious of something else.
> I wonder if there’s Bluetooth interference
This would be both extremely unlikely, and absolutely impossible for the crew to diagnose in flight.
It was a Bluetooth speaker named "bomb" in the cargo. Really stupid shit on the part of whichever passenger owned it. Even in general, you don't just leave devices powered on in your luggage, but especially not if they are called "bomb".
Well, the passenger was reportedly a 16 year old. They are not generally known for being the most intelligent.
Hey! When I was 16 I was the smartest to ever live!
Apparently something happened afterwards …
How do you know everyone else wasn't just dumb instead? I know I feel that way sometimes.
Lol username checks out?
> Live flight not found
> Sorry, but we couldn't find data about this flight.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua236