<You had to stop and think...Have people been that trained to be "non-Judgemental" and "Mind their own business" so as to even put their own lives in danger?

The other side of the coin: When someone becomes an activist on an issue, even (maybe especially) those who educate themselves on the subject first, there are always those eager to decry them as busybodies and social engineers. The result is, those who don't want to be branded don't speak up, for to speak up is to become an activist, even if only for 10 minutes.

My guess is they thought it was somebody else's job. They also may have realized that, as witnesses, they might be further inconvenienced by having to give testimony. A more telling statistic might be how many people cancelled or postponed their flights quietly, without turning the prankster in.

Medical malpractice issues are very similar to this. The medical profession doesn't police itself very well when it comes to their bad apples, so the public (including the jury) is more likely to believe the bad things said about a doctor in court by someone aggravated enough to file suit. Trouble is, that works to the advantage of unprincipled plaintiffs, too.

To protect the profession's reputation, it's not necessary for all pilots to be saints, even if that's desireable. ;) What is necessary is for the public to be aware of the standards of behavior and the enforcement policies, and to see the standards enforced publicly. The public needs to see excellent effort, not absolute perfection. Everybody knows there are rogues in every profession. Confidence in the profession comes from seeing the better members calling the bad actors on their behavior before it becomes critical.

What self-policing policies do pilots' professional organizations have to deter this kind of behavior, how strongly are they enforced and supported by the memberships, and how well does the public know about them?

Regards--
Mary Anne