Originally Posted by
nk15
Why they keep saying that, UA does not understand that this incident being only voluntarily disclosed (as opposed to mandatorily) is very alarming, negligent, and dangerous.
Originally Posted by
EWR764
It's just the opposite. Voluntary disclosure (and safe harbor) makes the entire system safer by encouraging pilots to self-report anomalies, deviations, irregularities, etc. in a non-punitive setting that promotes information-sharing without fear of retribution.
I don't get it. UA says it was voluntarily disclosed. From what I read it was disclosed "earlier this year", while the event happened last December, which would be "last year". So obviously there is a time gap. And the NTSB didn't learn til months later?
Who was it disclosed to? Is voluntary disclosure when you are retiring 50 years later useful? There's no sense of promptness?