Originally Posted by
captplaystation
Yep, you are probably right, but we tend to "come clean" just a little quicker
It took a near-disaster and a dreadful disaster to get there in the case of the DC-10 cargo door though.
as there is usually a mechanism in place that (eventually) forces it.
Those mechanisms wasn't in force until relatively recently - and it took a lot of tombstones to get there.
Although the Itavia DC9/Concorde etc don't support my argument.
In the first case - as soon as the military are involved, no matter what country, things become complicated very quickly, as we saw recently with the GOL/XL mid-air over Brazil. There was a lot of misreporting around Concorde, have a squiz at the recent thread where a lot of the media narrative was put through the wringer and found wanting - in summary there was a lot done to minimise the risk of tyre failures causing fire between 1979 and 2000, but the fatal accident involved a failure mode that no-one had foreseen (and had never happened before).
Regarding Russia, I don't know if things have regressed a little under Putin in terms of secrecy, but I was very impressed with the honesty over the "teenager in the flight deck" Aeroflot disaster - not only did they come clean but they shared all the details as soon as they had them.
Sunamer - Airbus altered the WoW logic after a hull loss.
Lyman - the Jackson Hole B757 had a bushing missing from the auto speedbrake mechanism, I think it's unrelated to the WoW switch mechanism, but it's certainly a similar issue from a systems safety standpoint.