Is Full Disclosure Best?

Personally, it's something I'd rather not know.

By at the time you mean while in flight. If so I would be more concerned about security. Who acquired the info and placed on the WEB while in flight. This unsecured communication between pilots and the ground may cause real problems.

In my view (neither a pilot or airline owner), the pilots were correct to inform the airliner and ground crew for support upon landing. However, the airliner or whoever was not supposed to send this news for broadcasting be it the internet or other channels until at least the plane had landed safely. Issues like these need total control otherwise innocent people may panic to death.

I agree with Maggie1 completely on this one. The co-pilot needed to inform the crew and the airport of the situation but there isn't any reason far it to be broadcast to the general public.

Isn't this the reason planes have Co-Pilots? In case something happens to the pilot. The Plane was in perfectly safe hands.

No; remember the storming of the Iranian embassy in London, where a news crew was about to broadcast live pictures of the SAS storming in from the rear whilst inside the embassy the tv was on and the hostage-takers would have seen it.

and again here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War "The World Service reported the lack of detonations after receiving a briefing on the matter from a Ministry of Defence official. He describes the BBC as being more concerned with being "fearless seekers after truth" than with the lives of British servicemen". The Argentinians changed their method of delivery in response to this and the torpedoes became effective.

It is necessary to withhold or control information sometimes, but I would have thought that this particular story would have been restricted until the plane had landed; where did people see this information? To answer this question, in this case no, for obvious reasons.

If I'm on the plane this information affects me. I sould be informed.

For years now government and business have taken the view that they must "protect" me from harmful information because I might panic. I don't recall giving them that responsibility. I supose we should do away with fire alarms because people might panic if they hear one.

Nothing is more dangerous than an uninformed public IMHO and the minute our government, industry or business begins to keep secrets from us we begin the descent to .... well ....where we are right now.

Some of the replys above deal with war time actions where suprise is essential to the success of the operation. I don't think those examples relate to the original post.

Having gotten on the aircraft you have accepted being cargo, not a player. If they needed a pilot as they needed a doctor and put out the call feel free to respond if you are a pilot. But short of that what were you going to do with this knowledge?

But I'd fire whoever leaked it.

I remember being on a Qantas from Sydney to Buenos Aires in 2000. We sat in the aircraft for about an hour, at the terminal, without moving. Eventually, the Captain announced that some problems had been found concerning one of the 2 fuel pumps. He informed us that the faulty pump was being replaced, which would take another hour or so.

Thank god for pre-flight checks & thank god for "openess".

Shouls all situations be disclosed? ABSOLUTELY!!! The people who freak out can be locked up in the aft of the aircraft. Unfortunately, there may not be enough room because these days, people how a low tolerance for anything that resembles death...even though it is inevitable.

I wasn't really concerned with people freaking out, though maybe I should have been.

Just a noneya issue. (say it out loud)

I'd tell you about flight routing when it effects your land time, I'd tell you I shut down number 1 because it was overheating because it effects your safety.

But Pilot 1 of three has keeled over? None ya business and I don't care what a bunch of voyeur control freaks think.

Won't effect your arrival, won't effect your safety - you'd be amazed what you don't need to know. And what you WANT to know really isn't my concern.

And could I trust you to shut up until we notify the next of kin? Apparently not.

Just curious but why does shutting down 1 or presumably 2 engines affect my safety but shutting down 1 of 3 possible pilots not affect my safety?

Upon reconsidering, you have a point.

I wasn't voting based on our need to know as much as explaining what was observable; or what I couldn't keep from us.

In either case the folks in the back don't get a vote, cannot leave, cannot help, and the only option for 'action' is making peace with deities.

Quite a while ago, I was a member of the R.A.A.F. (Royal Australian Air Force).

On a flight from Laverton (Vic) to Wagga (NSW) in a Douglas Dakota DC3, one of the engines stopped. Within seconds & only after seeing the prop slow to a stop, a few of my 36 other crew mates were physically sick. The rest of us were a bit concerned.

About a minute later, one of the officers appeared to inform us that No 1 engine was overheating & that's why it was shut down. He also told us that we would be reducing altitude to about 5000 feet & our landing time would be delyed by about 30 minutes. Further, he then said that if anybody "freaked out" (not his exact words), they would be "constrained" until landing.

I'll never forget looking out of the window & watching the cars on the Hume Highway below us, overtake us. They were going at about 100km/h whilst we were going at about 80km/h.

To most people, education is simple & effective. To others, fear takes over. There is nothing you can do for the person who is afraid. With or without education, these people will assume the worst.

Tell everybody what's going on. As for the "fear freaks", lock 'em up out of harms way.

I had a similar experience (Convair, not Douglas). The pilot explaned that those rotating thingies are called fans, and their function is to cool the pilot. When one stops, he begins to sweat. The landing was uneventful, but it took several days to fix the fan. (As I recall, the radio was out, also, the consequence of a lightening strike)

My last trip back from Vietnam, November, 1970. Picture 220 guys on a B-707. I think it was a Seaboard Airlines MACV contract flight.

Passing by Hawaii, the Captain informs us an engine quit and landing would be delayed somewhat, but not to worry as we have 3 more engines.

Midway between Hawaii and California a second engine quits. Fortunately it was on the opposite side. Captain informs us of even later expected arrival.

Final approach to Travis AFB, California, probably a couple miles out, Captain informs us that a third engine had quit, and crew tells us to assume crash position. We land and had to be towed to the terminal surrounded by emergency vehicles.

All of us kissed the tarmac thankfully as we debarked. Me especially as I had just survived 2200 hours of helicopter time in RVN, and wasn't thrilled at the prospect of dying in a 707 crash. On the plus side we were kept informed the whole time. Not that it did any good, in this case.

Hooker

U.S. federal law (HIPPA?) regarding patient records makes it illegal to release patient health information, except to authorized people, such as FBI or next-of-kin, without a signed release from the patient. Therefore, telling the passengers that the pilot had a health problem, like a non-beating heart, would be illegal if within U.S. jurisdiction, unless, of course, the pilot had signed the correct forms.

(Don't blame me. Congress is full of idiots who pass laws for the fun of it. I don't see anything in the constitutionally enumerated powers of the legislature concerning regulation of pilot-to-passenger communications.)

****stunned silence as he contemplates the possibilities****

Being the only one to see the subway/bus driver colapse but unable to summon help because it would mean divulging a medical detail about the driver?

Waiting breathlessly to see all the news networks,bloggers,etc busted for letting it slip the Michael Jackson had a health issue (the aforementioned non-beating heart).

The mind boggles, and I haven't even started on why your FBI is "authorized people" without requiring either consent or a warrent.

Why do you suppose that no one can get a copy of Barak Obama's birth certificate (unless the Kenyan certificate is real)? That's a medical record. The birth certifcate on the web is simply a computer generated statement that he was born alive. (It does not say where or who the attending physician was and is not sufficient to prove Hawaiian citzenship) When people die, it is proper to release that informtion through authorized channels, if only so creditors and others can take appropriate action. However, if you call the hospital and ask if your dear friend, Mrs. Smith, survived her operation, they probably won't tell you. As for the dead bus driver, well, I said they (congress) are idiots.