Originally Posted by
EWR764
It was voluntarily disclosed to a registry which deliberately omits identifying data and flight information to shield reporting crewmembers from potential retribution and discipline (as an incentive to self-report). Certain databases are actually available to the public, too. You just have to know where to look.
This thread is an example of why the reporting system works. A sensationalist public outcry did not lead to any more investigation or analysis than had already been performed, and the system is no more or less safe as a result.
My view, as someone working in the industry and particularly in the area of aviation safety (though not for an airline) is that situations like this are best left to the professionals to analyze, study and recommend change. Incidents like this are not evidence that the broader system is broken.
bolding mine.
Could you please point out where in the OP article there was sensationalism? All of the facts listed lined up with the NTSB report (more or less rounded). Perhaps I am missing something, but the article lead to an NTSB investigation, which offered far more public disclosure and facts than was previously displayed (As shown by this thread where all the facts were denied as purely impossible). You would not have had the pilot statements, weather data, or UA provided flight data were it not for the NTSB investigation. Further if the article were not written this would have been swept under the rug by said system. This attitude IMO does not seem that safe. further, waiting for an NTSB investigation (where the threshold is for airframe to break or people to be injured/die) isn't really safety, it is an accident investigation board with another name. Safety investigation looks at what goes wrong, even in the close calls and calls it for what it is, not the 'hope we don't get caught' mentality. FWIW the PF has a training certificate. Both pilots only have a few hundred hours in the type. The public should know what goes on during events that affect them. I don't think that 'leave it to the professionals' is an appropriate remark. yes, they are the ones that know how to fix things. but they are also the ones that are biased to keep things quiet.
Originally Posted by
Jeff767
I believe several posters are getting confused about the event. United never disclosed the event to the NTSB or FAA. The flight crew voluntarily disclosed the event to United. United investigated the event internally and closed the event out with extra training for the crew. They did not apparently retain pertinent information like the flight data recordings.
Two months after the event someone whispered in the NTSB’s ear. They initiated a investigation at that time. The incident was not a mandatory required report by UAL.
Aircraft Accident and Incident Reporting- Occurrences Requiring Notification. The operator of an aircraft must immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Field Office when:
- An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur:
- Flight control system malfunction or failure.
- Inability of any required flight crew member to perform their normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness.
- Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes.
- Inflight fire.
- Aircraft collide in flight.
- Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.
- For large multi‐engine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):
- Inflight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back‐up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air‐driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;
- Inflight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;
- Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and
- An evacuation of aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
- An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.
yes, however the NTSB has a broad legislative mandate to investigate safety related transportation issues at the board's direction. The above only covers the airline's requirements. Also, do you have evidence it was a whisper in the NTSB ear vs. a formal request?