I don’t see anything wrong with SLF posting to this forum, in many ways it provides good customer feedback; they pay the wages.
What many contributors to this thread appear to lack is the ability to differentiate between criticism and critique.
Our industry attempts to avoid criticism, finding fault or blame. We seek an honest, open, and fair culture to maintain and improve our good safety record by seeking to understand events and learn from them. Pilots are taught to use techniques of critical thinking to evaluate situations, to separate fact from supposition, to consider alternative points of view, and find additional data in order to form a mental picture, which is then open to review and revision over time. And then with a robust picture, consider the best understanding to judge a situation for improvement, where that judgment considers objectives and risks in the outcome, including an incorrect choice. And if the judgement is inappropriate, being prepared to admit it, at least to ourselves.
Those who rush to a judgement are at risk of errors of thought. Perhaps the non aviation contributions lack airmanship or other professional attributes, or they have been influenced by the changes in general social culture promoting instant gratification, political correctness, and the need to rush and hurry resulting in action before thought.
The weaknesses above are not limited to SLF, and there is much in this thread to be learnt by aviators. The originating incident, worthy of discussion in the forum, might have been handled differently with additional thought and critical reasoning, (but this is with hindsight) e.g:-
Consider all of the apparent facts in the situation; have you misinterpreted something, what’s the urgency.
Communicate information as opposed to potentially challenging conclusions. Consider individual or cultural aspects; no one likes being told that they are in error or what to do.
As an alternative, the communication could have been:
“C/S xx, I am on stand zz, it appears to me that your (xx) left wing is covered in snow.” This puts the originator’s view in positional context, covers the possibility that xx cannot see the wings (or that s/he hasn’t looked out), or that the originator might have mistaken a reflection for snow. The communication does not challenge or judge correctness of actions that might have to be taken; it’s an opening gambit, subject to question and clarification.
We might all learn something from this event, especially SLF who might not be familiar with the diverse range of cultures in the regulatory agencies (stick and carrot, tea and biscuits, sangria and nachos), where the result of a not-so-confidential report may or may not aid safety.