Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France [Archive] - Page 9

crossingclimb

27th Mar 2015, 15:17

I've been following this thread for a couple of days, but I haven't yet seen this particular argument (individual bits collated from numerous sources including the French BFMTV Live Feed):

1. Andreas Lubitz was a very intense young man. One of his friends from years ago said that "he would have died if he had failed to become a pilot". He clearly set himself very important goals which could not be missed or changed.

2. He was a perfectionist. This and 1. above are well-known causative factors in depression.

3. His severe depression led to a lengthy period off work. Lufthansa of course knew about this depression: this in itself would have been very difficult for him to accept.

3. His colleagues mocked him for having been a flight attendant for a period.

4. He wanted very much to go long-haul but was not accepted.

5. High intensity short-haul, for someone with Lubitz's make up. would soon become tedious, stressful and unsatisfying (as it did for me, and others I know). He could at this stage be thinking: "I sacrificed all of those years and efforts for this?" (as I regret to say I did).

6. Criticism from training captains would have been very difficult for him. Much more than for an easy going FO.

7. Any or all of the above could have led him to see a lapse back into severe depression as a fate worse than death. See 1. again.

There is a possibility than very driven highly perfectionist young men are not the ideal candidates for this career. I have flown with FOs like this, and it's not much fun, and doesn't make for a good flight deck environment . They often have a rigid view of what is correct and what is not, and rarely relax, which is contagious.

Some airlines put sociability at the top of the list of desired qualities when hiring. I'm guessing here, but perhaps LH doesn't?

Denti

27th Mar 2015, 15:19

I think it has been posted that the FO started training in 2008. I also read he had only about 600 hours. Doesn't compute??

It does actually, check the available information again, something like months off during training, working as cabin crew before he was up for a flight deck job and so on. He started his type rating in 2013.

mary meagher

27th Mar 2015, 15:20

The AME has been consulted by the pilot, and gives him a sick note. His depression has returned. The airline will give him time off work to recover, and SHOULD NEVER LET HIM FLY AGAIN! So of course he will hide the news. Therefore,it is the duty of the AME, or his private physician, to inform the Company directly, as a matter of urgency.

But pilots who want to keep on flying, will avoid the medics altogether. Or find a medic who is too busy to notice. So who is going to be the whistleblower ?

It has to be his mates, his co-workers. Or his family. After this shocking event, perhaps friends and family would be willing to express concern to a doctor, any doctor, who should then have a legal duty to inform the airline.

Slats 11, who posted from Sidney at 13.22, has a good suggestion.

Is it possible, logistically, for an airline to schedule aircrew to work as a team on a REGULAR BASIS? A small group well acquainted with each other will soon spot when one of the team is not right.

GearDown&Locked

27th Mar 2015, 15:21

Screening pilots is not that hard, however airlines HR and/or management current procedures may overlook something that the military do for some time prior to put a multi-million very lethal F-16/F-18/Mirage/Eurofighter/etc in the hands of someone.
There are not many stories of screwed up military pilots that crashed their warbird in the worst possible way. And at first glance most of those topgun military pilots seem a bit beyond of what you might consider ‘normal’.

Cater

27th Mar 2015, 15:21

Why did the Doctor not advise LH ??? as I am sure he would have know he was a Pilot

Denti

27th Mar 2015, 15:21

4. He wanted very much to go long-haul but was not accepted.

How do you figure that? There is no way for a lufthansa cadet to start directly on longhaul, they all have to start on shorthaul for at least four years before they can move on to longhaul.

Why did the Doctor not advise LH ?

How could he? Doctor patient confidentiality laws play into that, telling anyone would have been a breach of law.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 15:22

Diesel8 says in #2041, "Aircraft does not take corrective actions in case of GPWS".

The GPWS itself might not have the capability, but what about the software controlling the a/c? Does it not think to apply some "stick back" to level out at a height which complies with local legal regs?

At present the A/C does not provide any form of protection when it comes to terrain, it merely provide warnings.

crossingclimb

27th Mar 2015, 15:23

@Denti: I didn't figure it - it was mentioned by the French TV news feed. Maybe he didn't know about the 4 years (if this is the case) when he joined.

Landflap

27th Mar 2015, 15:23

SOPS; Totally agree. Not soap-boxing at all. Once airlines get back to rigid selection criteria and pay to train highly selected applicants, the psychologically challenged candidates won't even get past phase one of at lease a six phase selection procedure.Can't believe the trolls on this site who would have us give this deranged killer a cuddle and and tell his likes, "There there poor little darlings........overworked, underpaid, paying to fly too......................booo hooo!"
Families of those lost in this tragedy should sue Germanwings for appalling selection procedure.

Eboy

27th Mar 2015, 15:27

3. His colleagues mocked him for having been a flight attendant for a period.

Is there a culture of bullying at the airline? With his other apparent issues he might not have responded as constructively as you or I.

Denti

27th Mar 2015, 15:27

Families of those lost in this tragedy should sue Germanwings for appalling selection procedure

Hmm, known as one of the hardest selection procedures in the business. 1% pass rate. But, as all current selection procedures, they do not check for mental illness. They check psychological profiles of course, but those simply determine if someone fits into the job and company, not if he has a mental illness.

But then, i guess you are in favor of a three month interval psych eval for every current pilot as well.

acpm

27th Mar 2015, 15:29

my theory is that gw9525, the 6 other cases... PLUS 9-11...would have never occurred had we kept the flight engineer position. the F/E sits sideways next to the cockpit door, has his hands free and can stop intruders quickly and control the position of the door. best example the FED Ex DC-10 attempt. There was an old FAR that required a F/E on any airplane above 80k (or something like it). DC-6,DC-7 connie, A300, early 737( at western and air france) all had f/e's. besides if new airlines insist in putting 600hr wonder kids in the right seat of a320's at least a 3 set of eyes will help improve safety..just ask any crew that flies long range with a relief pilot

LadyL2013

27th Mar 2015, 15:33

Landflap - you do know mental illness can strike at any time to anyone for no reason, don't you? You are also aware that it is perfectly possible to perform perfectly whilst suffering and can go back to performing perfectly after a bout of mental ill health with appropriate treatment don't you?

Fujitsu10

27th Mar 2015, 15:33

wheelsright

27th Mar 2015, 15:34

At present the A/C does not provide any form of protection when it comes to terrain, it merely provide warnings.

There does not appear to be any easy way to provide terrain protection without taking control away from the pilot (full automation). At the end of the day the aircraft has to land either at airport or otherwise.

A pilot would always have to retain the ability to disengage terrain protection for obvious reasons. In the future it is probably inevitable that machines will be able to fly safer than humans, but until that is possible we must rely on humans with all of their frailties.

BaronVonBarnstormer

27th Mar 2015, 15:34

Pace. I am not an A320 captain but will give you a response to your Master Key idea.

No it will not work.

Actually its along the right lines. I work in the access control business and we had this discussion over lunch today.

Bio-metric ID could be used in conjunction with a PIN to access the door. So like Pace said you have they key (your iris or fingerprint), and then a PIN. This PIN/Key arrangement is quite common in high security buildings. You would have to remove the ability to prevent valid "keyholders" from being denied access from inside the cockpit, which is currently the case.

In a duress situation the PIN would be changed slightly by the keyholder to trigger a "duress alarm" whereby access is still given. The "duress alarm" could then be used to trigger a distress signal, possibly a squark 7500, to allow a controller to see that someone has gained access to that cockpit under duress.

Certainly the knee-jerk reaction we are currently seeing could present more problems than it solves.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 15:36

the_hawk

27th Mar 2015, 15:37

Originally Posted by Eboy
Is there a culture of bullying at the airline?

I wouldn't be surprised if there is bullying at almost every airline (almost every workplace). When does it qualify as a "culture"?

Pace

27th Mar 2015, 15:40

6. Criticism from training captains would have been very difficult for him. Much more than for an easy going FO.

Crossing climb

I would go with your view as of his possible character as someone interspersed with moments of explosive anger and then deep depression perfectionists who cannot take criticism but in certain company have to restrain themselves from venting that anger and Criticism.

The clue was in the change of mood when the Captain started the briefing something triggered him.

When the Captain left the cockpit my guess is he started a descent dialling in 100 feet, closed his eyes into a meditative state and allowed the jet to descend to destruction on an unaltered heading. He would have been oblivious to everything and anybody. Maybe that would account for his steady breathing an acceptance and resignation to what he was doing.

Why does a child or young adult who hates school suddenly turn up at the school yard and shoot innocent children in the play ground? its hard to understand the mentality of someone like that

Can you forgive someone like that NO what he did was an attrocious evil act

chopjock

27th Mar 2015, 15:42

The key pad access procedure is there in case of incapacitation, not normal access. Well at least at my company.

But what if the pilot that left the fd can't remember the emergency code?

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 15:43

Actually its along the right lines. I work in the access control business and we had this discussion over lunch today.

Bio-metric ID could be used in conjunction with a PIN to access the door. So like Pace said you have they key (your iris or fingerprint), and then a PIN. This PIN/Key arrangement is quite common in high security buildings. You would have to remove the ability to prevent valid "keyholders" from being denied access from inside the cockpit, which is currently the case.

In a duress situation the PIN would be changed slightly by the keyholder to trigger a "duress alarm" whereby access is still given. The "duress alarm" could then be used to trigger a distress signal, possibly a squark 7500, to allow a controller to see that someone has gained access to that cockpit under duress.

Certainly the knee-jerk reaction we are currently seeing could present more problems than it solves.

BVB

What if for legitimate reasons you do not want to allow access?

A person might be threatened to allow access to FD.

The GermanWings crash is a very strange scenario, although these events have happened before. Is there a sure fire solution, well at present I don't see one. Whatever scheme one could think of to prevent this from ever happening again can be defeated.

ams6110

27th Mar 2015, 15:43

[quote]Bio-metric ID could be used in conjunction with a PIN to access the door.[\quote]

Not without defeating the entire rationale for the door being there, which is to give the flight deck crew the ultimate authority on who is allowed to enter.

The moment you allow any sort of bypass or override from the outside, you allow for the possibility of a hostage under threat of death being forced to open the door.

atakacs

27th Mar 2015, 15:45

As others have mentioned the FDR seems to have vanished ?! I for one don't think it will change much in the "big picture" here but still surprising that it has not been recovered.

gcal

27th Mar 2015, 15:45

@the hawk

I think we have first to define bullying. Is that possible?

Evanelpus

27th Mar 2015, 15:46

I wouldn't be surprised if there is bullying at almost every airline (almost every workplace). When does it qualify as a "culture"?

I'm guessing he was addressed as the German equivalent of a trolley dolly?

I tend to call it banter and we have lots of it where I work. Banter turns into bullying if one or two ring leading individuals take it upon themselves to constantly 'banter' someone.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 15:51

Hi Pace... re:A master key hung around the neck of the exiting crew member which would override any blocking attempt by the remaining crew member in the cockpit would work with a proviso...
Still waiting for a response from a A320 Captain regarding whether this could work ? Before seeking a solution, we need to clearly define the problem?

With this crash what is the "problem" we are trying to solve? The ill FO on the Flight Deck, or the Captain being locked out of the Flight Deck as per design requirements?

Guildenstern

27th Mar 2015, 15:57

In the US, doctors cannot share personal health information (PHI) without consent.

However, in some circumstances, a patient can be involuntarily committed for treatment. It's an extreme step, usually warranted only when the patient is a danger to himself or others. Obviously, this would have a negative impact on the person's career.

There should be a middle ground. How would people feel if doctors were allowed to convey to the airline a pilot's fitness for duty without specifying the exact reason?

Ingenieur

27th Mar 2015, 15:57

I'm not sure abhorent thought process brought on by thinking more of yourself than others is 'illness'
It may lead to more extreme thought/action but the root cause is lack of self-control or being able to impose self-restraint or limits
This is developed over years from a young age through guidance and imposed discipline
Learning to accept you most likely will not get all you want

Cancer is an illness but does not lead to mass homicide

Mental 'illness' needs catagorized differently since it can have severe consequences for the individual and society

What is difference between what this guy did and a suicide bomber?
Documentation, he could afford to be treated
The poor terrorist could not
But both results are the same
Both are obviously 'crazy' and have a disturbed/distorted thought process
ANYONE who kills dozens for ANY reason is not mentally healthy
Both are 'evil'
Why are people afraid to say this?

Lost in Saigon

27th Mar 2015, 15:58

The key pad access procedure is there in case of incapacitation, not normal access. Well at least at my company.

But what if the pilot that left the fd can't remember the emergency code?

If the pilot can't remember the emergency code he can ask one of the Flight Attendants. They all have to know it.

EEngr

27th Mar 2015, 15:58

As others have mentioned the FDR seems to have vanished ?!It could be buried. Once the surface debris has been cleaned up, a sweep with metal detectors might locate it.

silverstrata

27th Mar 2015, 16:00

There there poor little darlings........overworked, underpaid, paying to fly too......................booo hooo!

I think you misunderstand entirely, Landflap. The point is not to excuse what has happened, or the person who did it, but to learn from it. How many more Lubitzes are out there? How many more Lubitzes is the industry creating? And if you don't ask these uncomfortable questions, how can you prevent this happening again?

As we have all been told so many times in CRM, the holes in the cheese all have to line up for an accident to take place. In other words, there was more than one hole in the cheese here.

So what are the other holes are there, in this cheese?

... Did the selection process play a part? Was this self-selection, or was Lubitz the best of the bunch?
... What about these do-gooders, who say we should not stigmatise mental health (like that letter by psychacrists). Did they pressurise Lufthansa to keep Lubitz?
... Doctors who cannot even advise authorities, if they think they have a mass murderer on their hands. If a patient confesses to the doc that he is about to kill someone, is the doc really duty-bound to keep quiet? If so, something is very wrong.
... Authorities who knee-jerked into locked doors - and in their ignorance genuinely thought we would never have to leave the flightdeck during a 4-hour flight. (a locked door that is opened ten times in a flight, is not a locked door)
... Authorities who allowed companies to hit every flight duty limitation in the book - simultaneously - and did nothing about it.
... Authorities who ordered pilots to stand outside and guard the aircraft, until every passenger had boarded and the doors were closed (do you remember that nonsense...!!)
... Authorities who allowed companies to stop serving crew food, and then allowed security to confiscate any food the crew brought themselves (do you remember that nonsense). (probably does not pertain to Germanwings)

How many other holes in this particular cheese, can readers think of? And why did nobody discuss and close those holes, before this incident? What are we paying the aviation authorities to do, bar drink coffee and have a chat about the latest soap opera?

wishicouldland

27th Mar 2015, 16:01

There are an awful lot of armchair pilots chucking in theories and a fair amount of nonsense here.

So as a professional pilot, let me tell you my experience of a mental health issue.

I had been flying around 12 years and suffered reactionary depression from a serious life event. I sought help from my GP and was signed off work and prescribed anti-depressants and sleeping tablets. In accordance with the established regulations I reported the matter to my employer and the UK CAA and received a temporary unfit letter. It took time to recover and I used every tool available, counselling, medication and so on. I was off medication and about to return to work for what I hoped would be a managed return when I was disciplined by my airline for absence. I was given a final warning despite my, and Balpa's best efforts. I struggled with the concept of returning to work in what would be a difficult set of circumstances and eventually relapsed into depression again. I had hoped I would have been treated with respect and dignity, I was not.

I was never given a golden ticket into a shiny cockpit. I worked my way their, the old way, PPL, CPL, FI, FO and so on and became a captain at my company and happily flew for them for 9 years without any incident or problem, I can't even remember being off with a cold.

I did recover, regained my class 1 medical and hunted for work. It's been 2 years now. I have never flown anything since. I have drifted from job to job and dream of flying almost every day but now accept it is unlikely ever to happen again. I miss it dreadfully and wish almost every day I had not told anyone, but I did and now I'm paying for it big time.

The whole industry needs a serious shake up in terms of viewing of mental health. Performance management by sending pilots to simulators and bashing the hell out of someone who has suffered from depression is not the way forward. If airlines keep treating crew like something on the bottom of their shoe things will never improve.

None of this of course condones what has happened, if indeed the final investigation proves this to be the case and at no point did I ever fancy killing anyone, although my feeling towards the HR manager weren't very nice at the time.....

Anyway, just my experience, from a former ATPL holder.....

mcdunav

27th Mar 2015, 16:02

It is only a matter of time until the FDR is recovered.
Question: Does the FDR record the state of the cockpit door switch?

IMHO, making 2 people to be present in cockpit rule will not really prevent situations like this as others have noted.

Can we have a system which recognizes that every thing is ok with the plane and still it is too close to terrain and automatically pulls up and maintains safe level flight?

Wader2

27th Mar 2015, 16:07

Murexway

27th Mar 2015, 16:07

After reading news accounts of the young man's past, it's possible that he never really wanted to be a pilot at all.

He had a high-achieving, financially successful German father with whom he still lived part-time and who was probably paying for the young man's apartment. The piano-teacher mother is barely mentioned - while the son was running half-marathons with his father.

Perhaps the son was always trying to meet his father's high standards. Maybe that's why he "burned out" during pilot training - he may have hated flying. He didn't really want to be a pilot, but knew that "Tomato Andy" the flight attendant, couldn't possibly meet his father's lofty expectations.

He was reportedly having relationship problems - going on holiday in Miami with a male acquaintance; then living with a girlfriend in the apartment.

Inside, this young man might have been a totally different person who hated the life he felt he had to live outwardly. Perhaps his final desperate act was to kill his public persona......

sAx_R54

27th Mar 2015, 16:08

@Ranger1

...definition of 'terrorism' is in the method, not the motive..

It always seems that an affliction served on a third-party is generally considered from the point of view of what was meant, rather than what was felt. All the way from minds scrambling as to why the plane was descending so soon after take-off, to the final unfortunate moment of unbelievable realisation is where the true terror lies!

EEngr

27th Mar 2015, 16:09

In all Organisations there must be basic discipline. And whilst I fully appreciate that aviation is different, an aircraft is an Organisation and it needs a CEO. That being the Captain. It seems to me that having a member of the Cabin Crew serve as a spy on the Flight deck when one of the "Senior Executives" leave temporarily doesn't do much for the discipline or, perhaps more importantly, morale in this Organisation? In every business I've dealt with, the CEO has a board of directors or some sort of executive committee looking over his/her shoulder. Get used to it.

In my line of work (engineering) everything I do is subject to peer/group review at a minimum. And there will be subsequent certification analysis and/or testing done to validate the adequacy of my work. People who think they are too good or too smart to be second guessed aren't suited for the job.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 16:09

Can we have a system which recognizes that every thing is ok with the plane and still it is too close to terrain and automatically pulls up and maintains safe level flight?present the A/C does not provide any form of protection when it comes to terrain, it merely provide warnings".

This seems outrageous. When the dust has settled, something needs to be done about it. Why? That's why you have pilots?

Yes - when we have a pilotless aircraft, then things like EGPWS will have built in reactions. Until then they provide warnings, and the pilots take appropriate actions.

Please note, our Operations Manual permits us to ignore (E)GPWS warnings under certain circumstances. The technology maturity is not yet at a point where it can be relied on...

AR1

27th Mar 2015, 16:10

I'm not sure abhorent thought process brought on by thinking more of yourself than others is 'illness'
......but the root cause is lack of self-control or being able to impose self-restraint or limits

And that's exactly why people keep quiet about it.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:11

Not in the industry so admit to ignorance in advance, but after a long career in business at Senior level (G-4/5 so not much commercial experience of late), see some issues:

Problems created by technology are normally best solved by technology. Not sure I really understand the need for a "Third" "Deadlock" option for Flight deck door locking. What does that really achieve?
In all Organisations there must be basic discipline. And whilst I fully appreciate that aviation is different, an aircraft is an Organisation and it needs a CEO. That being the Captain. It seems to me that having a member of the Cabin Crew serve as a spy on the Flight deck when one of the "Senior Executives" leave temporarily doesn't do much for the discipline or, perhaps more importantly, morale in this Organisation? Or perhaps you Guys in aviation view this differently. Perhaps a new CRM (CABIN resource management)?

Has nothing to do with spying. Not a concern, at least for the vast majority.

Ingenieur

27th Mar 2015, 16:12

The 'industry' did not create this guy
Utter nonsense
This guy created this guy

Blaming everything but this guy
The industry
The pay
The security system
The process
Etc

This guy is solely responsible for this
Period

What is scary is pilots are trying to make excuses or transfer responsibility
To justify these actions
Very disturbing

This has happened a few times out of millions and millions of flights involving 100's of 1000's of pilots

This has nothing to do with aviation
The occupation just made it easier and more catastrophic

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 16:13

In every business I've dealt with, the CEO has a board of directors or some sort of executive committee looking over his/her shoulder. Get used to it.

In my line of work (engineering) everything I do is subject to peer/group review at a minimumUnderstood, but are you really suggesting that an airliner pilot must refer to a cabin crew to approve every decision?

I ask again - to those who want a second crew member in the Flight Deck what is their role?

Gosia4

27th Mar 2015, 16:14

not a pilot - first post here - i'm just an air-enthusiast who loves flying and planes...
wanted to post some thoughts about this disaster.
The speed at which they claimed suicide is alarming - since not all of the facts are known (although that is what this likely is - it's just odd to me that the investigation is sort of being conducted 'live').
the tidbit about him getting 'kurt' when discussing the landing means nothing in my opinion - he had NO way of knowing the captain was gonna leave the FD... it was a short flight - it was more likely on such a short flight that the captain would not leave at any point. there was no way for this copilot to know that this day was the day he could do this. also - "kurt" based on someone's opinion? how was he kurt?

secondly - as far as the passengers knowing what was happening - as a passenger, i would see the captain trying to break down the door and I'd think either it malfunctioned or the co-pilot was in trouble - i'd see the descent and I'd think - we're going to try for an emergency landing - maybe there's a small airport of a piece of flat land up ahead - i'd definitely be freaked out, but i would not assume i had moments to live - i'd be hoping that this gets resolved safely... i would not suspect we were going to be flown into a mountain... until the end. so tragic.

thirdly - regarding the door locks - i'm worried this incident will introduce more complexity and rules that will really not help. if someone is intent on killing everyone - they will do it. the 2 person rule is the only logical solution to MINIMIZE the risk (you get another chance for someone else to open the door) but nothing will mitigate the risk - and we can't get rid of all risk. the door locks i believe are important and I think they should stay. one other thought i have - is it at all possible to allow for the door to be opened remotely by ATC in the even of an emergency? that would be a possible solution - IF they can get ahold of ATC from outside the FD.

finally - the debate about airline pay - i agree with someone else who said higher pay does not equal more stable pilots/won't necessarily solve anything.. that may be true - but higher pay and better benefits would entice a larger pool of candidates into the field... you'd have more pilots and that would be a good thing. as it stands - everyone knows how difficult it is to get into and how stressful it can be (well - not everyone - but anyone who's considered it). also i agree that airlines have become too corporate - these should not be run by accountants and finance folks - it should be pilots, engineers and the like. it shouldn't be about stocks and shareholders... but again - not a pilot - so i don't understand all the politics.

west lakes

27th Mar 2015, 16:16

I really wonder how many of the intelligent(?) posters on here have any experience of mental health (MH) issues in themselves or others?

I think very, very few!

You all need to understand VERY, VERY clearly that just because someone has MH issues it does NOT in anyway make them suicidal.
Folk talk about the reaction of employers, they are very rarely the issue

It is the likes of posters on here if they are within the same workforce and quite often members of the persons family that are the biggest issue to folk not wishing to be honest about their situation.

You know the fear of some of the unsensitive remarks folk are posting on this thread, the fear of being treated differently by colleagues, the fear of exclusion by colleagues.

I don't have MH issues in the main, well I did last year as a result of being diagnosed with two forms of cancer, but help and support from family, friends, employer and colleagues got me over the issue (though I never openly admitted it to anyone).
My other half has suffered for over 30 years and has needed a huge amount of support, but guess what has NEVER wanted to commit suicide. Nor wanted to kill others which was a possibility because of occupation

Looking at some of the discriminatory remarks on here, it is no surprise that sufferers do it in silence partially in fear of the reaction of friends, colleagues and others.
And through absolute ignorance on the subject

It is an issue where sufferers do need to know they will get support from all directions.
Sadly in this situation and as much the fault of colleagues innocent folk have lost their lives.
So if you are in the industry YOU need to stop and rethink your attitudes to the suffering of others as much as employers, family and even customers!

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:20

Understood, but are you really suggesting that an airliner pilot must refer to a cabin crew to approve every decision?

I ask again - to those who want a second crew member in the Flight Deck what is their role?

They are there in case of the flying pilot suffering from sudden health incapacittion and for cockpit access security.

They have no AC operational function.
Had a Flight attendant been present on the flight deck of the GermanWings flight, this disaster would most likely not have occurred.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:24

;) Cabin Alt warning goes off.

Capt puts on Oxy Mask. CC hunting round for theirs...
"Miss Jones, will you please peer review my decision to descend the aircraft - I can only do it when you approve"
(Miss Jones slumps to floor)
"Miss Jones, Miss Jones, please allow me to descend the aircraft"

Now you are being intentionally obtuse. Have a great day.

LadyL2013

27th Mar 2015, 16:24

Great post west lakes. That does of course not excuse his actions or make them OK. But other pilots who are all vulnerable to MH issues shouldn't have to have their names and careers tainted if they ever became unwell because of this guy.

costalpilot

27th Mar 2015, 16:25

i can imagine that nothing about this disaster is any help to anyone out there who is struggling with depression, known or unknown, diagnosed or undiagnosed.

so I offer this up: when I was in my 40's I found myself feeling very unhappy with my day to day life. It was very subtle but over time, unmistakeable. Eventually I pretty much knew I was depressed. I did whatever I could to combat it, including running, which had always helped my mental state in the past.

At the time, depressive drugs were not allowed. I don't know how many pilots self reported depression at the time. I can't imagine it was very many. I had a family to support, and I saw the world through a warped lens.

But it became so bad I finally sought help from my family Dr., who scheduled a meeting with a Psychiatrist. The first thing he did was order a blood test which searched for a medical reason for depression.

And it turned out I had a severe case of hypothyroidism, which is not apparent from standard blood tests but requires a different test altogether.

There are medical reasons for depression that can be cured. I was off the line for three months while they readjusted my thyroid levels. I flew for 34 years b4 I retired. I never felt like that again, ever.

(Also, I never thought about killing anyone else. Not even my wife at the time, who had no idea about any of it, nor my FAA medical Dr, who didn't have a clue either.)

There are many medical reasons for depression, which, when addressed, completely cure the disease and the symptom, depression.

in case you didn't know.

Hunter58

27th Mar 2015, 16:28

rantanplane

27th Mar 2015, 16:31

lot of awful discriminating and stupid posts here even by professional pilots, except the ones who have a little bit of understanding, insight and perhaps self experience of mental health issues.

Years ago we had Hitlers and Stalins, destroying whatever they could.
Now we have Breiviks and Lubitzes. As long as there are humans there will be madness. As sad and tragic as it is.

Perhaps some madness could be prevented by a better understanding of it?
But this chap could have had an underlying serious personality disorder, making him depressive as he was not functioning as he wanted? He could not fulfill his own expectations? This is where some societies or the culture of a country fails every so often. For example, look at Japan and their demand for perfection but then the suicide statistics ...

As sad and tragic as it is, it was a question of when and where.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 16:32

Hi Dieseal8Now you are being intentionally obtuse. Have a great day. I am giving, I admit, a rather extreme example. But it does get to the basis of the issue.

So if my example is invalid, maybe you can give the most extreme scenario where the CC could be trained in when and how to intervene and countermand the actions of the (acting) aircraft Commander?

astroduffer

27th Mar 2015, 16:33

Perhaps I missed something, but as a retired air carrier pilot, and former Airbus driver, who just happened to be working on 9/11, I was under the impression that the requirement for a cabin crew-member to come to the flight deck in the event of one of the pilots having to leave the flight deck was primarily to look through the peep hole and verify who was trying to enter. It's true that on the "Bus," and other two pilot A/C, you can unlock the door without leaving your seat, but without CCTV, you can't actually check who is on the other side without getting out of the chair. Emergency entry code or no code!
Also it was FAR regulations that above FL250 when one of the pilots left their station the other had to be on and breathing oxygen. Above FL250 not only would you have to actually leave the seat but you would have to remove the mask. Of course "secret code" knocks were arranged to circumvent the regulation but the rule still was in place.
I don't recall it ever being mentioned that the purpose for the two on the flight deck rule was to have the F/A subdue the sole remaining pilot if he or she should go "over the edge."
As I recall the policy was crafted out of a concern that someone from the cabin might attempt to take advantage of a pilot leaving the Flight deck to somehow take control of the controls. Similar to the ban on congregation near the forward lav.

As I said, I might be mistaken. It wouldn't have been the first time I was daydreaming when something relevant was discussed in ground school.

AfricanSkies

27th Mar 2015, 16:33

Can everyone who is harping on about the cockpit doors please stop and think before posting rubbish.

A pilot could destroy the plane with the other pilot strapped in next to him and the Chief Pilot in the jump seat. Chuck bloody Norris in the jumpseat. It's easy. You've got the controls.

Forget about the door. It is not relevant.
Forget about the door. It does what it was designed to do.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:34

The process of having a person coming and going to the cockpit on a procedural level creates a potential entry point for a malicious intent. The whole cockpit closure scenario should be reassessed from the start.

There could be times when access to the flight deck during flight is in the best interest of flight safety.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:36

mcdunav

27th Mar 2015, 16:36

@Murexway: It obviously detects when the aircraft is in landing config although EGPWS is still active.

About the FA being present in cockpit rule, if the FA hears someone banging from outside how will they prevent who-ever is in cockpit to stop denying entry? All FAs need to be taught how to use the cockpit lock switch operation?

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 16:38

astroduffer:but without CCTV, you can't actually check who is on the other side without getting out of the chair ..... I don't recall it ever being mentioned that the purpose for the two on the flight deck rule was to have the F/A subdue the sole remaining pilot if he or she should go "over the edge." Spot on :ok: Hence my questions to others about moving to your second sentence...

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 16:39

All FAs need to be taught how to use the cockpit lock switch operation? ...and they are given the authority to override the Commander to do so?

Ingenieur

27th Mar 2015, 16:40

Again
This guy is solely responsible for this

The fact that 1/4 US women are on psych meds speaks more to the profit motivation of the industry than their state of mind

I'm not sure I believe that number either
That equates to 40,000,000 mil females

Self medication with medical assistance
How many drink
Do illegal drugs
Over eat
Are all mentally ill

Everyone is mentally ill to some degree
Just as they are physically ill

Mental illness has become an industry and an excuse

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:44

All FAs need to be taught how to use the cockpit lock switch operation?

Not to be rude, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are not a pilot on these types of airplanes?

Murexway

27th Mar 2015, 16:45

NigelOnDraft: Understood, but are you really suggesting that an airliner pilot must refer to a cabin crew to approve every decision?

I ask again - to those who want a second crew member in the Flight Deck what is their role? To open the cockpit door?

On 9-11 I was flying as a captain for a major U.S. carrier. After going through some interim procedures to prevent breech of the cockpit door (serving carts blocking the aisle with flight attendants standing behind them, F/C pax volunteering to tackle anyone trying to get over the cart, etc.) we finally got the reinforced doors. We then went to having an F/A stand just inside the door anytime one of the pilots needed to use the lav. Their sole functions were (and are) to raise the alarm in case the sole pilot at the controls collapses, and to physically open the door for the returning pilot in case the electric lock mechanisms malfunction.

too_much

27th Mar 2015, 16:46

So they are panicking saying we need to have stricter screening, pilots with emotional problems banned for life and license taken away...

This is going to do more harm than good, as the genuine pilots who want to seek help and get better will now bottle it up and not disclose for fear of losing their careers!

It's one incident! Very sad but no need for drastic action to be taken...

Aviation is still safest

Squawk 8888

27th Mar 2015, 16:51

Unfortunately we've reached the stage where the only solutions looked at are the imposition of new rules, which inevitably lead to the Law of Unintended Consequences biting us all in the ass. This applies to society as a whole, not just aviation. Kids scrape their knees? Don't let them play, then wonder why they're getting fat. Drug might have nasty side effect? Ban it and let the people who need it die. The list is endless.

susier

27th Mar 2015, 16:53

From the BBC website:

'In a statement (http://www.sta-duesseldorf.nrw.de/behoerde/presse/Pressemitt/index.php) (in German), prosecutors said they had seized medical documents from Mr Lubitz's two residences - his Duesseldorf flat and his parents' home north of Frankfurt - which indicated an "existing illness and appropriate medical treatment".
The "fact that, among the documents found, there were sick notes - torn-up, current and for the day of the crash - leads to the provisional assessment that the deceased was hiding his illness from his employer", the report states.
Germanwings confirmed it had not been given a sick note for the day of the crash.
Duesseldorf's University Hospital issued a statement (http://www.uniklinik-duesseldorf.de/presse/detailansicht/article/co-pilot-der-germanwings-maschine-war-zu-untersuchungen-im-universitaetsklinikum-duesseldorf/?tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=6004&cHash=28d1d09434d01bc04a0466586110df88) (in German) saying Mr Lubitz had attended the hospital on 10 March and last month.
Adding that it had handed his medical records over to prosecutors, it said reports the co-pilot had been treated there for depression were incorrect.
Germany's Rheinischer Post newspaper, which spoke to the hospital, quoted its own unnamed sources as saying Mr Lubitz had been suffering from a physical, rather than a mental, illness.'

I had wondered if he was ill, I mean physically ill, yesterday thus my post asking about the dates of his medicals (I think he had one due in June).

AfricanSkies

27th Mar 2015, 16:54

[quote} please stop and think before posting rubbish.

My answer to you is yours above! Firstly the probable cause of this was the fact that the FO was secure and alone with whatever dreadful thoughts he had.
Had the Captain burst through that door that peace would have been shattered and the FO would probably have collapsed into a snivelling nervous breakdown to be carried off by the medics on landing you presume he would be aggressive and fighting the Captain to death?

Secondly with the door open not only the Captain but also members of the Cabin crew would assist in overpowering him It has happened with violent PAX and cabin crew.

lastly even on your own if you know someone is trying to kill you and 150 people you will be surprised at the strength you will find [stick your fingers in his eyes he will soon stop)[/QUOTE]

Please use your loaf. If the pilot wanted to prang the plane all he has to do is stamp on a rudder at the wrong time or start lever to cutoff at 500 feet or rotate, pitch up, pitch down roll. It's all over red rover.

The door will not help you against crew. Geddit?

vanHorck

27th Mar 2015, 16:54

I do not cease to be amazed by the mono dimensional comments of people posting (hopefully not airline pilots or engineers!), stating that simply the FO was guilty and that no external factors or bodies or people bear any responsibility in these cases.

The world is not as simple as that. the entire environment of this young man will need to ask themselves questions and learn what they could have done better.

We are all the complement of our DNA, our environment and our experiences.

WelshHack

27th Mar 2015, 16:54

I agree completely with the need to support any pilot who develops mental health issues during their career. But I think that is quite different from hiring a pilot who had the serious problems during training that Andreas Lubitz displayed. If the precautionary principle had been applied, Lubitz's ambitions would have been frustrated, but 150 people would still be alive.

captainloser

27th Mar 2015, 16:56

Just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings regarding confidentiality within a doctor-patient relationship. Breaching confidentiality isn't something we do lightly, but there are numerous situations where NOT doing so would be illegal; for example, doctors have a legal obligation to inform vehicle licensing authorities if someone develops a medical condition rendering them unsafe to drive - epilepsy, for example. In the case of pilots, the list of such conditions is much longer, and rightly so. Any doctor who suspected a pilot of being unsafe to fly and who failed to breach confidentiality and inform his employers as well as the relevant licensing and safety organisations would leave themselves open for criminal negligence proceedings.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 16:56

Hi Dieseal8I am giving, I admit, a rather extreme example. But it does get to the basis of the issue.

So if my example is invalid, maybe you can give the most extreme scenario where the CC could be trained in when and how to intervene and countermand the actions of the (acting) aircraft Commander?

Again, the FA is not there to over ride the remaining pilots actions. The second person is there in case of sudden incapacitation of the remaining pilot. That person is also there for access security.

Had there been a second person in the Flight Deck that morning, that person could have opened the door for the Captain. This crash more than likely would not have occurred had that been the case. You agree?

Many carriers around the world operate on this principle, a few more have now announced they will change their procedures to always have two people on the flight deck. Why that wasn't the case before is beyond me considering the lock mechanism now employed.

Ziaii

27th Mar 2015, 16:56

The challenge is how to prevent these lunatics from entering the flight deck.
With due respect to doctor-patient confidentiality, there should be a regulation for reporting (to employers) if the doctor recognizes a red flag.

Operators cannot just wash their hands by saying 'he hid his illness'.

darkroomsource

27th Mar 2015, 16:57

There is no solution to this problem.
Period.

For every situation that you attempt to prevent, there is a different situation that can arise as a result of that solution.
For example, if the emergency code opened the door, and the PF was unable to prevent that, then in the case of the captain who went "nuts", the FO could not prevent him from entering the FD.
If we used a CC to stand inside the door and wait until the PNF returned, then verified them through the peep hole, we have the possibility that the PNF has been incapacitated by a hijacker and is standing there with a gun to his back.
If you have a completely isolated FD (moving the locked door back), then what do you do if the crew become incapacitated (bad fish dinner).

Whatever "solution" you come up with, there will always be another situation that is not covered by that solution.

This is not something that can be solved by putting in more or different technology. It is a symptom of our society, and we need to address the problems in society.

But that's a far greater challenge.

(all of the above is based on accepting the - to my mind extremely premature - conclusions of the investigations so far) OR if you don't accept those conclusions, then at least considering the possibility of a pilot who "loses it" and decides to either lash out against the other pilot, or prove to his "ex" that they will miss him, or thinks that it will ensure something or other in the life hereafter. We have to remember that the person who wants to destroy the pilot, could be on either side of the door.

So we can only have a partial solution, one that solves a percentage of the problems, and then we have to hope that we've chosen the right portion.

And, as some have attempted to say that this policy is worse than the opposite, because "more have died" from this policy than it has saved, then we should recognise that there is absolutely no way to count the number that have been saved.

OPENDOOR

27th Mar 2015, 16:58

@Murexway: It obviously detects when the aircraft is in landing config although EGPWS is still active.

Would have made a mess of Scully's ditching in the Hudson with the gear up ;)

mcdunav

27th Mar 2015, 17:00

@Diesel8: I am not but what point are you trying to make? Are FAs trained to operate the door switch? In case the FA was present in the cockpit how would have things be different if the FO was looking for an opportunity to crash the plane?

@darkroomsource: I agree with you on the fact that their is no exact solution to this problem. Pilots are humans too and are susceptible to health issues just like any one else. But what do we tell the general public who put their faith in the crew when they enter the aircraft?

ciderman

27th Mar 2015, 17:01

Can anyone hazard a guess if insurance will be valid in a case like this? 150 payouts in millions of dollars is going to hurt someone. This is not to denigrate the awful grief families must be suffering.

hsxnl

27th Mar 2015, 17:04

By The Associated Press
March 27, 2015 - 11:17 am EDT
A Duesseldorf hospital says the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 had been a patient there over the past two months.
Duesseldorf University Hospital said in a statement Friday that Andreas Lubitz last came to the hospital for "diagnostic evaluation" on March 10. It declined to provide details about his condition but denied German media reports that it had treated the 27-year-old pilot for depression.

Coagie

27th Mar 2015, 17:04

Lubitz was able to fly in this case on the condition, that he get periodic psychiatric evaluation. The problem with this is, apparently the results of this evaluation are self reported. In order to be able to fly, there should have been a mechanism to waive doctor/patient confidentiality, where the doctor could be required to inform the airline immediately, that Libitetz was unfit to fly.
I am of the opinion, 20/20 hindsight of course, that he shouldn't have been permitted to fly at all, but it's pretty ridiculous that an illness that can affect public safety, and can remain concealed, be only self reported. Require people to sign a waiver, if they are flying on such conditions.

pattern_is_full

27th Mar 2015, 17:06

Of note:

A mental-health professional was quoted this morning on one of the U.S. news channels as saying "My obligations and responsibilities regarding patient confidentiality just came to an end on a French mountainside."

Expect the laws to change regarding PC - especially for professions that hold such a great responsibility for the lives of others.

Regarding the presence of CC or a relief pilot in the cockpit to cover the temporary absence of one pilot:

By law (at least in many jurisdictions) seated pilots are required to be strapped into their seats during flight. And may be required to have their O2 masks on when alone at the controls (in case of a rapid decompression event).

Exactly how is a pilot so restrained, and in the cramped confines of the cockpit, going to attack or disable the second person in the cockpit so rapidly that (s)he cannot call for help, or unlock the cockpit door for assistance to enter?

The mere presence of another human, with eyes and a brain and a moral conscience (as opposed to a passive video system) changes the psychological dynamics in the cabin, compared to being alone. There are some things it is simply much harder to do - psychologically - when someone else is present and observing you.

Think not? Why did this co-pilot wait until he was alone to take this action? Egypt Air shows that he could have - with some probability - brought the aircraft down even with the PIC trying to stop him in a full fist-fight.

But doing it alone - in "secret" and hidden from the eyes and judgements of others - made it easier.

@NigelOnDraft - the "Commander" of an aircraft is the person with 4 stripes on his/her shoulders. Regardless of whether that pilot is PF or PM, in the left seat, or in the loo, or taking a kip in the crew rest area.

If the rules say a second person shall take his position (certainly not his place as a pilot) when absent, it is implicit that that person is also "deputized" - to monitor the remaining pilot, not for flight actions as such, but for possible physical or mental impairment. As well as simply being a pair of hands to open the d**n door when needed.

On the continuing allusions to the FO possibly having suffered hypoxia - how did this happen to him alone? The pilot was functional enough to knock and bang on the door.

On the "premature" release of evidence and some conclusions from the investigation:

Once you have reasonable suspicion of a criminal act ("probable cause"), time is of the essence. You have to start looking for additional clues RIGHT NOW, before they get destroyed. The FO's discarded down-check notice was in the trash - and might well have been lost except for prompt action by authorities.

Murexway

27th Mar 2015, 17:07

mcdunav:@Murexway: It obviously detects when the aircraft is in landing config although EGPWS is still active.So? Drop the gear and flaps in the dive....and it still crashes.

About the FA being present in cockpit rule, if the FA hears someone banging from outside how will they prevent who-ever is in cockpit to stop denying entry?If you don't know the answer to that one, then you don't have the need to know...

Mikehotel152

27th Mar 2015, 17:07

LASJayhawk

27th Mar 2015, 17:08

It would be a tough sell to the operators, but a requirement for a lav inside the secure area of the flight deck would work.

rideforever

27th Mar 2015, 17:08

The more people are tested the more dishonest they will become, and the less treatment they will request. Perhaps we are already seeing the result of this.

Many bad things are happening all over the planet, and people want to keep putting plasters on this or that, or blaming this or that person.

But the overall picture of mass shootings and violent acts just grows.

Most "solutions" are just further denial of the state of our society.

James7

27th Mar 2015, 17:09

Since 9/11 the FD Doors are now reinforced.

(this is in the public domain)

There are 3 means to open the door.
1. From inside –turn the handle
2. From inside – activate the switch. Door must be pushed.
3. From outside – use the emergency code – takes about 30s for the door to open.

The FD crew or persons in the flight deck can override all the opening methods.

As a backup the Door can be mechanically locked from the inside. The Door can now only be opened from the inside. There is now no magic key or secret code that will open the door. It is dead bolted.

The terrorist or killer as in this case, is free to do whatever he likes.
The only way to open the door would be to use the catering cart as a battering ram, may take about 10 mins to bust the door open. Hopefully if it was a terrorist attack then the pax may have something to say and intervene.

The emergency opening code should be printed on the outside of the door. This will allow anyone to open the door. It can be overridden from the inside. In the Helios incident the purser forgot the code and by the time he entered the cockpit after some 2 hours, the plane ran out of fuel. There is NO security risk. All on board died.

One solution would be to remove the mechanical locks and have a real secret code that will bypass any attempt by persons inside the cockpit to keep the door locked.

Question then is who will have the code. Can the code be compromised?
Solution would be to have this code programmed on every flight. We would now have 3 codes.
1. Door entry code – buzzer inside the cockpit, flt crew open door.
2. Emergency code – door opens in approx. 30 secs – can be overridden.
3. Secret code - disables ALL electronic locks. Door opens. Programmed by Capt on every flight.

It is all very well having a CC member sit in the flt deck but would not take much persuasion for them to leave to get something or other.

Another solution is to remove ALL reinforced doors and have them as they were. They only keep the good guys out anyway.

Basically at the end of the day you have to trust the Driver.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 17:10

It would be a tough sell to the operators, but a requirement for a lav inside the secure area of the flight deck would work.

You want to block cabin access to the flight deck completely?

susier

27th Mar 2015, 17:13

The sick note was not because of depressive illness but physical illness.

I think this changes things. We are still in the realms of speculation of course but if someone is physically unwell, due a medical in a few months and fearful of losing their license on the basis of this, as well as being in a mentally vulnerable condition then you may have the holes in the cheese beginning to align.

Essex Eagle

27th Mar 2015, 17:19

There's nothing more to see here.

It was a rare tragedy; there is not much we can do to prevent happening again. Nothing about doors, psych checks, 2 person minimum, etc can stop a determined rogue flyer doing this again.

This type of illness is easy to hide. Then it could only take one unexpected punch to knock out the colleague. It could happen.

Seriously.

Let's just pray it remains unrepeated.

Ingenieur

27th Mar 2015, 17:19

TJW

27th Mar 2015, 17:20

Duesseldorf's University Hospital issued a statement (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) (in German) saying Mr Lubitz had attended the hospital on 10 March and last month.
Adding that it had handed his medical records over to prosecutors, it said reports the co-pilot had been treated there for depression were incorrect.
Germany's Rheinischer Post newspaper, which spoke to the hospital, quoted its own unnamed sources as saying Mr Lubitz had been suffering from a physical, rather than a mental, illness.'Well, not quite. The hospital's statement (to which the RP article doesn't add anything) says that he went to the hospital twice for "diagnostic clarification" and that "reports that he was under treatment for depression at the hospital are false". It doesn't say anything about physical illness at all. It could be read that way, but it could also mean that he was treated somewhere else for depression and that he only went to the hospital for some special diagnostic procedure (e.g, MRT). Basically, the statement is a lengthy "no comment", and tells the media to get any further details from the prosecutor.

sandiego89

27th Mar 2015, 17:21

No diesel, think folks are saying that if you had a toilet inside the cockpit you would not need to open the door to/from the cabin as often. Some aircraft have it already, but a tough retrofit for many airframes.

Of course you would still have the (secured) door.

Heathrow Harry

27th Mar 2015, 17:22

there are tens off thousands of pilots - it isn't surprising that occasionaly one is going to go off the rails - note I'm not talking about mental ILLNESS here but when you are so bent out of shape you can carry out something truly dreadful

It's a price we have to face - it WILL happen again but it will almost certainly be many years away..............

suninmyeyes

27th Mar 2015, 17:27

It is a good job Pprune did not exist on 9th Feb 1982 when a Japan airlines DC8 Captain suffering from mental illness deliberately selected reverse thrust on approach on engines number 2 and 3 despite the flight engineer and co-pilot physically trying to stop him. The DC8 crashed into Tokyo bay and 24 people died. The Captain was found not guilty of murder due insanity.

Japan Airlines Flight 350 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_350)

The Pprune readers of the day would doubtless have come up with suggestions of a minimum of 4 people in the flight deck and automatics that would stop the Captain having control of the aircraft. Also a flight attendant on the flight deck for every landing briefed to restrain errant pilots etc.

In practice the rest of the industry carried on normally, reluctant to change worldwide established procedures due to a very rare incident knowing the world would quickly forget. Unfortunately in these days of mass media communication there is much hysteria and calls for kneejerk reactions. No system of door locking is perfect for keeping the bad guys out and the good guys in. All safety is a compromise.

Flightmech

27th Mar 2015, 17:28

Flying Lawyer

27th Mar 2015, 17:28

FLYING COUNSEL

I am a lawyer and do know a thing or two about examining the available evidence.
Really?
It doesn't show.

So far in this thread, I haven't seen any condemnation of this pilots actions
I regard that as commendable.
I find it quite extraordinary that you - as a lawyer - should criticise non-lawyers for waiting for the evidence to emerge and, in particular, for refraining from condemning.

Aren't you all forgetting what this First Officer did to all those innocent victims? I doubt that anyone is forgetting the tragic deaths.
I find it extraordinary that you, as a lawyer, should try to introduce emotion into the discussion.
Objective analysis of evidence, uninfluenced by and unhindered by emotion, is instinctive to any experienced and competent lawyer.
Perhaps you are an exception.

Moreover, his mental health difficulties can never justify his actions.
Mental disorder may not justify actions but, where it exists, it may help to understand the otherwise inexplicable.
It’s very easy to see somebody as either a perpetrator or a victim. It’s much more difficult to understand that somebody might be both, although I would expect a lawyer to be able to do so.

Flying Counsel?
I'm puzzled by your username.
On your own admission you are not a pilot and, in your profile, you say you are a solicitor.

FL
Barrister (Counsel) for 33 years.

Murexway

27th Mar 2015, 17:29

Diesel8: Maybe you don't want the other guy in? Exactly. There was an A-320 incident in 2012 at JetBlue. Enroute from JFK to LAS the F/O became alarmed when the Captain began talking incoherently about "not going to their destination", etc. When the guy suddenly got up and went to the lav, the F/O got a deadheading pilot up front, locked the duty Captain out, made a P/A to have the F/A's and pax restrain the Captain, declared an emergency and diverted into AMA. The duty Capt was charged with interfering with a flight crew and eventually found not guilty by reason of insanity (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/travel/jetblue-pilot-verdict/). Great job on the part of the F/O and the F/A's.

Ingenieur

27th Mar 2015, 17:29

If the captain did it it would be on the cvr
No breathing heard
And the door would not have been locked out
And no control inputs would have been made by a dead man
The alt was reset AFTER the cpt left the fd

papershuffler

27th Mar 2015, 17:30

Ex-investigator and sufferer of reactive depression (caused in part by chronic pain).

Has a reason been given for the sick note? A lot of people are jumping to conclusions that it was due to his mental state.
EDIT: earlier post clarifies it was for a physical illness.
http://www.pprune.org/8921665-post2112.html
This may change the context of what is below, or give more depth to it - physical and mental illness go hand in hand.

I know many people who have suffered and have recovered from depression. Some are the most well-balanced and thoughtful people I know, and thanks to treatment, many can now identify when the Black Dog is coming for a visit, and seek support. Very few have good things to say about anti-ds. When they are handed out like Smarties, it is rarely explained that that they are addictive and can necessitate a very long, fractious weaning-off period.

Anti-depressants can also interact with other drugs, and make certain conditions, such as tremors, worse. (I don't take them for these two reasons, as I also have a familial tremor, and after years of pain managment, I really don't like taking pills.) Anti-ds take a while to 'kick in' too, around 6-8 weeks. So, even if you start taking them, and you don't have any undesirable side-effects, you still have to get through those 6-8 weeks.

(Sidenote: Although my tremor is not disabling, I am conscious of it, and people notice it. Would it be a reason for failing a medical?)

In addition, anti-ds are not recommended for cases of mild to moderate depression, because there is insufficient evidence that they work.

Placebo treatment in mild to moderate depression (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047320/)

Regarding assessment and support: every time I have attended the GP or counselling treatment, I am handed a form to complete to assess my mental state, and the presence of suicidal feelings/plans. One day, I was in so much pain, I ticked the wrong box, handed the form in, then went home. Half an hour later, my phones started ringing incessantly, from withheld numbers. I missed the first few calls (I have trouble getting around), eventually picking up a call on my mobile. Apparently, they were on the verge of sending the police around, and weren't particularly mollified when I explained it was just a genuine error.

I have never felt suicidal (although at one time I could have happily given up my life should it have saved someone else's), and never felt murderous (apart from echoing wishicouldland's views of a certain HR manager).

IF the reason for the f/o's sick note was his mental state, IME, to visit the GP in the first place and/or admit to feeling mentally unwell takes a lot of guts. A lot. To place your well-being in the hands of others? You need to rely on them to spot if you really are a danger to yourself (and others), because you can be unable to see it yourself.

IF the reason was serious physical illness, a GP should expect and be looking for a recurrence of mental problems. This is well recognised.

It appears that is the point when the f/o (and the other deceased) was let down, and this chain of events was started. I wonder what kind of assessment took place?

Also, as coastalpilot stated, 'There are many medical reasons for depression, which, when addressed, completely cure the disease and the symptom, depression.' Was his earlier depression properly investigated?
(In group counselling sessions I recently attended for those suffering life-limiting illnesses, 9 out of 10 of us were incorrectly diagnosed. Would we have become depressed if it wasn't for our physical problems?)

As others have pointed out, many depressives think by killing themselves, that their family and friends would be better off. QDMQDMQDM's post about possible psychosis is enlightening on the psychosis aspect.

Link to QDMQDMQDM's post
(http://www.pprune.org/8920982-post1913.html)

...If the copilot did indeed deliberately fly the aircraft into the Alps, as seems very likely, then that is at first sight completely baffling. If you just want to commit suicide, why on Earth would you want to take 150 innocent people with you? It's just not rational. And that's the thing -- this act was not rational, so therefore we have to look at what could plausibly make someone act in such an irrational manner.

In this case, it is actually very easy to see what could have made him act in such an irrational manner. We know he had a history of significant mental illness -- 18 months of what seems to have been fairly severe depression -- although we don't know the details. There has also been talk that he may have been in a situational crisis recently, precipitated by breaking up with his girlfriend. Against this background, it is entirely possible he could have developed either a psychotic depression or a brief reactive psychosis. Not all psychoses are accompanied by florid delusions and odd, thought-disordered behaviour. Some can be quite encapsulated and the person can appear normal in most respects:

Delusional disorder as a partial psychosis. - PubMed - NCBI

So if he had an encapsulated psychosis for whatever cause, it would be easy to see how he could believe, say as an example, (and I'm plucking contemporary iconography out of thin air to create a random, ludicrous proposition, which is how the delusions of people with psychosis are constructed) that in order to avoid a war between Russia and the West he had to crash his aircraft and kill himself and everyone on it because he and they were all agents of Vladimir Putin.

It's crazy and very unlikely, but this whole event is crazy and very unlikely and mad people can sometimes have crazy and very unlikely delusions (though obviously the vast majority of them are not any danger to the rest of the population) and we do know he had a history of mental illness.

I can't help remembering the engineer I saw in psychiatry as a medical student. He held down a responsible job, but he had an unshakeable, encapsulated delusion that his bosses had implanted a chip in his nose through which they kept an eye on him. In all other respects, he appeared totally plausible and functioned very well. It was quite an eye-opener and I've been thinking of him a lot in the past few days.

This was not a rational act and you really don't have to stretch that far to imagine a scenario whereby it could have occurred. The more difficult question is how you might prevent such a thing again and there is no clear answer to that, especially as we are now learning these things are not quite so unlikely as we once thought. Having two in the cockpit at all times is no panacea. A sharp push on the control column at 100 feet could have the same effect as a descent from 30,000 feet.

To pick up every pilot who might fly his aircraft into the ground, you would have to have a screening test so sensitive that it would be totally non-specific, which means that you would end up screening out tens of thousands of pilots, maybe even hundreds of thousands. And that's if you can even decide what the risk factors actually are. By the very nature of the action, the perpetrators are not around to be interviewed afterwards and it's quite possible, indeed likely, that each case has a set of unique, unpredictable precipitants and characteristics.

If you want further examples of temporary psychosis:
https://youtu.be/9-bIWm08eJc
The two sisters were apparently 'totally normal' shortly afterwards, and have remained so.

Investigator hat on: very glad to see this bit of news

BFMTV en Direct: regarder la chaine info en live - BFMTV reporting that X has been indicted regarding the leaking of information to the press, X potentially being the senior French military officer, listed as the original source of NYT

http://www.pprune.org/8920844-post1872.html

Stone_cold

27th Mar 2015, 17:31

Where was all the outrage , the calls for change , the news coverage , the aviation "analysts and experts" ?? This was less than 18 months ago .No knee jerk reactions and the headline was identical except for the " airline" .

Pilot 'deliberately' crashed Mozambique plane - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/12/pilot-deliberately-caused-namibia-crash-201312225824891819.html)

skridlov

27th Mar 2015, 17:35

I posted the following earlier in this thread following the announcement of "significant finds" at the pilot's home:

There would seem to be a limited number of items that would qualify as a significant find at the FO's home(s). It's too soon for an analysis of the computer content and no suicide note was found.
My guess is that they've found anti-depressants. One of the main questions that doctors ask patients who are commencing a course of SSRIs (Prozac etc) is whether they are experiencing any suicidal feelings.
One of the reported side-effects of SSRIs is suicidal impulses (obviously only in a limited - but statistically significant - number of cases).
That would fit the evidence so far released.

Whether or not I'm right about what they've found, I think it's worth emphasising a couple of things about this. There have been a lot of cases where the suicidal impulses seem to have been have been triggered by the use of this class of drugs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) even in patients where there hasn't necessarily been any occurrence of suicidal ideation previously - or even a diagnosis of severe depression.

The sheer simplicity of prescribing a one-size-fits-all medication (20mg p.d. usually) for a wide range of symptoms diagnosed as "depression" has resulted in an explosion of prescriptions for these drugs - not to mention profits for the pharmaceutical industry. What's not widely known is that the clinical trials submitted for FDA approval of SSRIs (I believe 4 statistically positive sets of results are required) were cherry-picked from the totality of these trials. Taken overall the entire range of clinical trials resulted in an effectiveness barely greater than that of the placebos: a USA doctor has published a book in which he reveals an analysis of ALL the clinical trials concerned, not just those which were submitted to the FDA. Furthermore the side-effects of SSRIs mean that anyone in the trial taking the drug, rather than the placebo, is bound to know it isn't a placebo. Which distorts the results significantly.

Given the hugely widespread prescription of Prozac, Seroxat etc, I'd be very surprised if there aren't numerous pilots out there using, and concealing the use of, SSRIs.

Doc on board

27th Mar 2015, 17:35

@suninmyeyes,

You bring up the JAL 350 incident as evidence that having another person in the cockpit won't stop tragedies like this. But this same incident also supports the opposite position, since IF NOT FOR THE INTERVENTION of the F/O and F/E in this instance, all 166 passengers and 8 crew would have lost their lives. As it is, the captain was overpowered and the remaining crew managed to regain enough control to bring the A/C just short of the runway, with 24 fatalities.

V2-OMG!

27th Mar 2015, 17:38

Was a pax in a Boeing 737-800 two weeks ago for a 2 1/2 hr. flight on an airline which does not have a curtain separating the front galley/washroom from the cabin. Mid-flight, the captain emerges from the flight deck and stands by the galley chatting and laughing with the FAs for a good 30 minutes. Just heard on the radio that the same airline has announced that a two-person flight deck will now be the status quo.

Even so, I suspect that airline's CEO will now buggar these lengthy chit-chats between the flight and cabin crew - at least those in full view of the passengers because it may be perceived as a flagrant disregard of safety and responsibility. (Those milk runs just got more tedious). It is unfortunate that the tragic action of one will now sully the job experience for thousands of apt pilots.

Aerospace101

27th Mar 2015, 17:39

Murexway

27th Mar 2015, 17:40

Lost in Saigon: Having an FA in the jump seat while one pilot is out of the flight deck might be the perfect time for a "Bad Guy" to start banging on the door and say "Let me in".Fortunately for us all, it ain't that easy. Just because someone says let me in - that doesn't cut it :=

Alain67

27th Mar 2015, 17:43

There have been cases of door malfunction before.
Well... the door didn't reset the FMS altitude a moment before !

JamesT73J

27th Mar 2015, 17:44

Ingenieur

27th Mar 2015, 17:45

The destroyed notes were for mental illness and removed him from duty
The hospital visit was for something else
Years ago he was removed from training for mental illness

This changes nothing
The actions were the same
He murdered 149 people
Whether he was diagnosed or not is moot
He locked the door
And actively crashed the plane

Murexway

27th Mar 2015, 17:48

JamesT73J: I know it's different days...... Boy, is it EVER!

banjodrone

27th Mar 2015, 17:48

mcdunav

27th Mar 2015, 17:48

@Murexway: I assume from your post that FAs know how to operate the door switch. Apologies as I am not a pilot on these types of aircraft, yet.

@Heathrow Harry: I completely agree with you as pilots are also humans susceptible to health issues. But when we know that incidents like this happen and will happen again, the industry needs to think of a solution reduces the chances of it occurring again.

Mr Angry from Purley

27th Mar 2015, 17:50

Now is the time for Pilots to go the extra mile with their interaction with the paying public, certainly in the short term. Try meet and greet or say goodbye where possible, be as informative as possible, give reassurance.

mcloaked

27th Mar 2015, 17:51

@V2-OMG "Even so, I suspect airline management will now buggar these lengthy chit-chats between the flight and cabin crew - at least those in full view of the passengers because it may be perceived as a flagrant disregard of safety and responsibility. (Those milk runs just got more tedious). It is unfortunate that the actions of one rogue will now sully the job experience for thousands of apt pilots."

True - but the consequences of the actions of this one pilot are so dire, and so totally abhorrent, and so sad with so many people's lives brought to utter misery, that it will likely be taken very seriously by all airlines whose management will feel a strong need to increase the perceived safety for all passengers thinking of buying a ticket - without re-assurance to the flying public if confidence in the very act of taking a flight is reduced it would have significant financial implications for the running of airlines. So a response to shore up confidence seems very likely. The flying public used to admire and look up to the competence and reliability of commercial pilots - that confidence may have been severely shaken by the extensive news about this incident. How many percent reduction in ticket sales will bring an airline down financially? How many percent reduction in ticket sales will bring in a need for airlines to reduce the earnings of pilots?

In running a business of any kind the management has to take seriously the low probability but extremely high impact events that might only happen very occasionally.

Also it does sound like a more enlightened attitude amongst airline managers towards pilots coming clean about their health issues would be very helpful and more likely that pilots might admit to issues if the consequences were not a significant chance of loss of career!

Denti

27th Mar 2015, 17:52

I'm afraid there is no excuse for "patient confidentiality". You're either Fit or Unfit to fly, doesn't matter what the inherent condition is. If a Dr suspected a Pilot of having a terminal illness, the pilot is immediately grounded. That Dr has a duty to report to the employer/authorities that the pilot is Unfit to fly, the issue remaining confidential. Because if the pilot doesn't declare himself unfit they continue flying...

That is true with the AME, although he can only report unfit to fly to the authority. And yes, i had the displeasure to endure that myself and came back to flying (not mental illness though, just a garden variety thing). Any GP cannot do that and in fact is barred from doing that by law. Laws can change, but i do not see it happen, instead i wouldn't be surprised if pilots have to endure a psych evaluation additionally to the normal medical. And of course part MED might change as well, i guess any kind of anxiety disorder or mental illness will lead to a permanent loss of medical in the future which is good for all those guys without a job.

GearDown&Locked

27th Mar 2015, 17:55

@Flying Lawyer excellent post.

Re MH issues:
So it may have happened to a pilot, but you would have as many chances of being in a situation where some desk jockey suddenly goes berserk and decides to start shooting moving targets at your office? Now what?

It's only human nature, some of us may or may not be affected by brain glitches, and a very tiny percentage of those who have them, flip out, and even so, a tiny percentage of those end up in disaster. But nevertheless it can happen.

Eaglebaby

27th Mar 2015, 18:03

Being German I can asssure you that the notes said nothing about an illness. They never do, they are papers to be handed to the employer and this data is private in Germany. The employer is being informed that the person is ill but not with WHICH ILLNESS

Eaglebaby

27th Mar 2015, 18:05

Moreover let me assure you that no doctor would write out a so called "Krankenschein" for depression for 1 day.....

Doc on board

27th Mar 2015, 18:06

I don't think we can look for 'guarantees' here when it comes to security, but we can imagine ways to improve on it, and to my mind having an extra person in the cockpit is better than none if a rogue pilot wants to bring down the plane.

Many have brought up EgyptAir 990 as an instance to prove the following sentiment: "well, if a pilot wants to bring down the plane, nothing and no one can stop him, even if another pilot is strapped in next to him." However, this leaves out the important detail in this case that the captain was not next to the f/o when the latter made decisive inputs for a CFIT. In fact, the capt was in the lav at the time. He returned disoriented/confused by the sudden descent and never seemed to realize that the other pilot was deliberately trying to bring down the plane (asking the f/o to pull with him (FDR suggests he wasn't, but the capt was seemingly unaware...I'm also aware that the Egyptian aviation authority disagrees with NTSB on the cause). Had he known of the f/o's intent, or had someone else in the FD seen him act suspiciously to initiate descent, he and others might have overpowered him and saved lives (as they did in the case of JAL 350).

Onboard battles don't guarantee a perfect outcome, but it seems to me physical force has a better chance of saving lives than nothing at all when it comes to a rogue pilot.

Big Pistons Forever

27th Mar 2015, 18:08

In running a business of any kind the management has to take seriously the low probability but extremely high impact events that might only happen very occasionally.

The central fallacy to your argument is that a "solution" to those extremely rare but very bad events can be implemented without affecting any other part of the operation.

I would argue that this is almost never the case. The two crew rule that was implemented in a totally knee jerk panic by Airline execs and Regulators is a perfect example. What is to stop the flight attendant brought in from waiting for the door to close, clubbing the defenseless pilot strapped to his or her seat, activating the door over ride and crashing the airplane.

Considering that flight attendants are not required to have a valid aviation medical and get a fraction of the mental health oversight of pilots, I would argue this rule actually increases the risk of a "low probability but high consequence event" occurring.

Similarly the back end is there fundamentally for flight safety reasons, not to serve cookies. Eliminating any personal in flight interaction between FA's and flight crew will over time cut the bond between crew which in extremeis must work as a team. How can that help flight safety in the long run ?

Risk can be managed but never eliminated.

It has been suggested by mental health professionals that 10 % of the population has a diagnoseable mental health issue. Absolutely airlines will evaluate their mental health protocols but it is a practical impossibility to eliminate anyone who might pose a mental health risk.

bottom line is this:

The chance for a similar accident happening on any flight is so vanishingly small that there is no requirement to do anything but let the professionals study the issue in a dispassionate and scientific manner and then make recommendations that consider all of the possible consequences of their implementation.

Eaglebaby

27th Mar 2015, 18:13

To clarify this: The doctor does not necessarily know his profession unless he told him. He knows which health Insurance he has which is all that matters these days. Privately insured? Great! Get sick notes every week if you need them.

An to repeat what I said before: Hearing a door open and close is no proof for someone having left the room.

rantanplane

27th Mar 2015, 18:14

The mere presence of another human, with eyes and a brain and a moral conscience (as opposed to a passive video system) changes the psychological dynamics in the cabin, compared to being alone. There are some things it is simply much harder to do - psychologically - when someone else is present and observing you.

Think not? Why did this co-pilot wait until he was alone to take this action? Egypt Air shows that he could have - with some probability - brought the aircraft down even with the PIC trying to stop him in a full fist-fight.

But doing it alone - in "secret" and hidden from the eyes and judgements of others - made it easier.

All very valid points! lurch into the mind of an narcissist or sociopath and you will find they are wimps, pretenders and cardsharpers (and sometimes pilots). Social control is what keeps them from doing what they wish to do in their mind. For me it looks all very considered with the information available.
Destroyed sick leave note and then a cool and normal flight until the door closes - from the outside.

What is he doing to his family? his friends? his colleagues ?

Looking at the facts already available, the deeply pathological narcissistic actions of this chap are so utterly embarrassing. He did not only kill 149 people, he destroyed the live of many others, but these people are not dead, they have to get on in live. What damage and a name in history because he was obviously not getting in his live were he wanted to get to.

I really don't think the real issue is "depression", it seems more like a well hidden serious personality disorder.

Doc on board

27th Mar 2015, 18:17

@Eaglebaby,

You wrote: "Hearing a door open and close is no proof for someone having left the room."

My understanding is you can hear on the CVR the capt imploring the f/o to let him back in (along with knocking, pounding, etc.). Also, with area mics being what they are, I'm sure not only that they (and the CVR analysts) can determine the identity of the voice on the other side of the door, but also whether one or two human beings are breathing in the cockpit.

I really don't think the theory that the capt and f/o were together throughout / that the capt is responsible instead of the f/o holds much weight at this point.

Wader2

27th Mar 2015, 18:19

banjodrone

27th Mar 2015, 18:20

All very valid points! lurch into the mind of an narcissist or sociopath and you will find they are wimps, pretenders and cardsharpers (and sometimes pilots). Social control is what keeps them from doing what they wish to do in their mind. For me it looks all very considered with the information available.
Destroyed sick leave note and then a cool and normal flight until the door closes - from the outside.

What is he doing to his family? his friends? his colleagues ?

Looking at the facts already available, the deeply pathological narcissistic actions of this chap are so utterly embarrassing. He did not only kill 149 people, he destroyed the live of many others, but these people are not dead, they have to get on in live. What damage and a name in history because he was obviously not getting in his live were he wanted to get to.

I really don't think the real issue is "depression", it seems more like a well hidden serious personality disorder.

Narcissists aren't known for suicidal acts. He may have been some form of sociopath but I doubt it was NPD.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 18:23

Rantaplane,

I don't think he much cared at the moment he made his choice.

One would hope, had he been confronted, that he would have seen the utter destruction he was about to heap on not only the people on the plane, but those left behind as well. Then again he was confronted, by the banging on the door, the screams from the back, yet he continued.

It remains cometely beyond my scope of understanding, how he could perpetrate such an act. The murder of innocent people, kids, babies.

Eaglebaby

27th Mar 2015, 18:25

Exactly....narcicists love themselves too much to fly into a mountain...

Batman737

27th Mar 2015, 18:31

EASA Have just recommended that ALL airlines are to now operate a minimum of TWO ON THE FLIGHT DECK AT ALL TIMES DURING FLIGHT.. Finally!!

Now I really hope the industry looks carefully and sensibly at ways to manage all the potential dimensions that might lead to such a tragedy!

Everybody has difficulties in life leading to a wide range of mental states from specific diagnosed conditions to simple grief for the loss of a loved one, chronic fatigue (shhhh), stress, the list is endless... This is often incompatible with the ability to pilot an aircraft to the required safe standard.. (Situational Awareness, Workload, Aptitude, Cognitive skills, responsibility etc etc).. Even if just for a short period of time or indefinitely..

In our industry there is a culture of silence and fear on these issues. If you are fatigued or depressed does one call in sick with that explanation? Or does one call in sick with a blocked sinus or a stomach bug? This really needs to be looked at sensibly and we have to come up with something that everybody can trust.

If a pilot (and I'm certainly not referring to this particular pilot as this now needs to be thoroughly investigated with official findings made) is suffering from one of a multitude of situations which is impairing them mentally right from fatigue to a specific mental condition then we all need to have the confidence of a system in place where we don't get the perception that we'll be out the door and back on the dole with no hope of return etc..

Of course in certain situations (possibly in the case of this pilot) one might be grounded for a lengthy period of time or indefinitely but in many cases with the right support for issues fairly common to all like divorce, deaths, other physical illnesses that effect us mentally too, stress, fatigue (that taboo word) the condition can be resolved.. We need to have a support system in place.. Not "you're allowed 2 days off for the death of an immediate relative then back to work son"...

Lets just hope that some positives can come out of this for the common welfare of all colleagues, passengers and operators.. We don't want this to happen again!!!

silverstrata

27th Mar 2015, 18:31

His fault and his alone
Had he not locked the door and augered it in it would not have happened
Everything else is an excuse
The reason is moot but obvious: he felt slighted and wanted revenge

Not mommies or daddies
Not his doctor
Not the industry
Not the security measures
Not hiring practice
Not pay/benefits/work environment
Not the company
Not the girl/boy friend
Not the captain
Not those who teased him

His, and his alone
I will not take one iota of responsibity for the death and suffering those innocent souls endured
He did it alone with malice, premeditation and precise controlled action
All the while listening to people begging for their lives and those of their children.

You are a doctor and a psychiatrist are you? And you have made a firm diagnosis without ever seeing the patient! Very clever of you. You must have one of Dr McCoy's tricorders, that tells you exactly what is wrong. So tell me, Mr Expert...

If a milliner went crazy and killed his workmates, would that be: "his fault and his alone?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease

If a returning soldier went crazy and killed his workmates, would that be: "his fault and his alone?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWHbF5jGJY0#t=22

So the working conditions of these people was 'just an excuse' was it? It was all their fault. How convenient. Sweep it all under the carpet. It was nothing to do with management (allowing unregulated mercury vapours), and nothing to do with the regulators (never inspecting the factory). Management and the authorities can wash their hands of the whole affair, and award themselves another share-bonus and a bigger pension on the basis of a job well done.

As you all know, that is simply a typical management cover-up and whitewash. In reality, if you don't research the problem then how do you know that there is not a systemic problem with the industry? And if you don't investigate, then how do you know if the guy you fly with tomorrow is not a fellow sufferer?

And I am not making excuses for this guy; it was an act of pure evil from an evil mind. But personally, I would like to know how and why this guy became evil, so we can stop it happening again.

nsmith

27th Mar 2015, 18:32

1, I don’t know if anyone does this, but I would like to see the idea of “flying teams” become more common. The idea being that a captain and FO, and a senior FA (or two) would normally work as a team. I don’t believe that there are any technological or medical measures that would be anything like as effective as this to keep everyone safe. The team would monitor each other and know better than anyone if one of them was unwell. Obviously such teams would come together voluntarily and so enjoy a good level of compatibility. I am not saying that this would be an absolute rule, but just be the norm.

2, I would like to see a system where pilots have access to a totally independent medical facility that would have the power to force the airline to allow the pilot to go on leave without specifying any particular reason. If I owned an airline I would insist that no one outside the medical facility would know anything about the health problems of any of the employees. This would allow a pilot to ask for medical assistance in the certain knowledge that the type of problem they have (whatever it is) could not affect their employment prospects. I have read several posts in this thread from pilots who acted very responsibility (and, I presume, legally) and told their employer the truth about their problems only to have this honesty repaid with dismissal. Bean counters cannot be expected to care about anything but beans, so let us please have a system where this does not result in the most responsible and trustworthy people being eliminated.

Airliners that use these kinds of ideas will certainly get my custom every time.

LiamNCL

27th Mar 2015, 18:32

whatever he has been going through or suffering from is absolutley nothing from what he put everyone else through on that flight & will put their familys through for years to come .
He is in my opinion a coward , a murderer and deserves no sympathy from anybody ! Be a man and face your problems , but dont bring everyone down with you to deny them happiness .

FrequentSLF

27th Mar 2015, 18:33

I think that we should not forget that he was 27 years old... I found difficult to believe that the industry, the company, the system was to blame for his problems...

Ian W

27th Mar 2015, 18:37

IFPS man - I agree with your suggestion, quite possible.
Also, I remember attending a talk a couple of years ago by a guy representing a major manufacturer (unfortunately can't remember) who described a safety system using a GPS-referenced global terrain map, detailed right down to building level, which would prevent an a/c being flown into any obstacle (in questions he said it could even have prevented the 9/11 scenario). Wish I could remember the company and name of the system - does anyone else know about this?

The Project was called 'Soft Walls'. There are/were some problems with it; but the intent was that the aircraft could only descend below the MSA if it was approaching an airport.

See http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/publications/papers/01/softwalls2/softwalls2.pdf
Or search the internet for Softwalls Aircraft

Coagie

27th Mar 2015, 18:51

Anti-depressants: side-effects of SSRIs
I posted the following earlier in this thread following the announcement of "significant finds" at the pilot's home:

There would seem to be a limited number of items that would qualify as a significant find at the FO's home(s). It's too soon for an analysis of the computer content and no suicide note was found.
My guess is that they've found anti-depressants. One of the main questions that doctors ask patients who are commencing a course of SSRIs (Prozac etc) is whether they are experiencing any suicidal feelings.
One of the reported side-effects of SSRIs is suicidal impulses (obviously only in a limited - but statistically significant - number of cases).
That would fit the evidence so far released.

Whether or not I'm right about what they've found, I think it's worth emphasising a couple of things about this. There have been a lot of cases where the suicidal impulses seem to have been have been triggered by the use of this class of drugs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) even in patients where there hasn't necessarily been any occurrence of suicidal ideation previously - or even a diagnosis of severe depression.

The sheer simplicity of prescribing a one-size-fits-all medication (20mg p.d. usually) for a wide range of symptoms diagnosed as "depression" has resulted in an explosion of prescriptions for these drugs - not to mention profits for the pharmaceutical industry. What's not widely known is that the clinical trials submitted for FDA approval of SSRIs (I believe 4 statistically positive sets of results are required) were cherry-picked from the totality of these trials. Taken overall the entire range of clinical trials resulted in an effectiveness barely greater than that of the placebos: a USA doctor has published a book in which he reveals an analysis of ALL the clinical trials concerned, not just those which were submitted to the FDA. Furthermore the side-effects of SSRIs mean that anyone in the trial taking the drug, rather than the placebo, is bound to know it isn't a placebo. Which distorts the results significantly.

Given the hugely widespread prescription of Prozac, Seroxat etc, I'd be very surprised if there aren't numerous pilots out there using, and concealing the use of, SSRIs.

Some of theses SSRI's, such as Prozac, do not only cause certain people to become suicidal, but also homicidal, and also suicidal and homicidal at the same time. Psychiatrists often prescribe them to Paranoid Schizophrenics, before trying them on drugs such as Geodon. This is a colossal mistake, but virtually every Psychiatrist does this. In all these school, theatre, and other mass killings in the USA, the perpetrators always are under active psychiatric care. No one ever points out, that maybe the active psychiatric care was part of the cause of the the perpetrator going postal, possibly because of misprescribed Prozac and the like. Otherwise, the patients may have just harmlessly wandered down the street talking to himself or someone who isn't there.

despegue

27th Mar 2015, 18:55

So 2 persons at all times in the cockpit?

I wonder how that will work on Cargo Aircraft...or will the Freightdogs now have to use a bedpan?!:eek:

oldoberon

27th Mar 2015, 18:59

I don't know what sort of mental illness he may or may not have had, out of interest I would like to know if there were any "temper tantrums" in his school days - resistance to authority behaviour.

I 100% believe he consciously and deliberately flew the plane into a mountain either not caring if it killed 149 people or he may even have wanted to put an even bigger finger up to whom ever he was doing it to, using the loss of 149 innocents.

if there is some sort of test that can even give a 50% indication of that trait it must be used to ground such ppl from any aircrew job and possibly maintenance job.

epistememe

27th Mar 2015, 19:00

Everyone of us has to likely drive in our cars daily. There are many people driving on the very same roads that are...
-not paying attention
-extremely depressed or despondent
-intoxicated or high
-severely stressed out
-coping with untold distractions in their car

If we really were aware of the amount of cars/trucks on the road being driven by these sorts of drivers we would likely never drive again. About 100 people are killed each day in the USA in auto accidents.

Everything we do has risks. Flying is not just safe, but amazingly safe. We should all understand that the efforts needed to make something that is already extremely safe safer yet may have substantial unintended consequences and disproportionate costs. Personally I see little reason to change existing safeguards except at the margins and only after thorough analysis and reflection after the initial emotional reactions of the event have passed. I say this as a member of the flying public and not an insider. I am not making lite of this tragedy, I fully understand the loss of life and the devastation to the families involved.

Ian W

27th Mar 2015, 19:01

anengineer:
1. Camera would not have stopped this tragic loss of life.
2. I don't see the point of your question.
Based on what a great many airline pilots report, some of whom are friends of mine for decades, the cultural relationship between management and workforce in airlines is already toxic, or close to it.

What you suggest would make that set of working condition worses, not better.

Mods, if this line of discussion belongs in another thread, please move us and it.

Interesting that there are two points in your response to be made:

1. The camera would not have stopped the loss of life - nor would a DFDR or CVR. What a camera does is make it IMMEDIATELY apparent that the FO was actually alive and well and sitting in his seat and stop all this continuous hamster wheel in the media and here about different ways he could have passed out and still locked the captain out. In many previous events SME's have sat for hours trying to work out what noises were.

2. The cultural relationship between management and crews - could well have been a contributory factor in the PF's behavior. It is time that the airlines fixed themselves - if a beancounter starts taking action by going over FOQA data then he should be sacked and banned from aviation, similarly a manager trying to crawl through CVR for comments to get upset about should be grounds for immediate dismissal and no return to aviation. If you look at The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System HFACS ( https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/humanfactors_classAnly.pdf ) see figure 3. The airlines themselves (and as members of the airlines that includes pilots and cabin crew too) are a causal factor for this type of incident. This is a MAJOR safety issue that is disregarded continually. I can remember way back in the military having it drummed in to everyone that Flight Safety was everyone's business - often with examples of a pay-clerk screwing someone up and that leading to the incorrect mental state while flying -- sound familiar?

Let's hope this crash has an effect on management and they start realizing that the kind of 'industrial relations' games they are playing have a direct impact on safety of operations, they in turn will have a direct impact on their bottom line in a way that will dwarf the savings of a few thousand per year on a FO's salary.

avfactor

27th Mar 2015, 19:04

One response on this issue that hasn't been raised yet. The Mayday iniative which is specifically aimed at supporting aircrew in times of need, either after an accident , incident , domestic , or any other issue which affects our ability to safely function in our profession. The Mayday Stiftung was initiated by pilots from Lufthansa and has since grown internationally. It has the full support of many airlines and has a confidential, safe reporting system, where an individual can without prejudice declare himself unfit for flight duties and be counseled by his peers and if necessary be directed to professional help. Our profession has possibly a higher stress level than any other and the recognition of this fact can have serious implications to a pilots career.
In this case the system has failed.

320goat

27th Mar 2015, 19:10

The crew member could open the door!

We have this policy in place at work. Doesn't bother me. Nice to have a chat with the crew whilst my colleague is out the flight deck. Also good to have someone in the flight deck to help with an incapacitation, should it happen.

I agree that should you have one person who is determined to commit an atrocity then you will not stop them with a crew member in the flight deck, but it would have prevented this tragic accident on this occasion.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 19:11

So 2 persons at all times in the cockpit?
I wonder how that will work on Cargo Aircraft...or will the Freightdogs now have to use a bedpan?!And us passenger types positioning aircraft :(

Trust the airlines will have to add a 3rd crew member :ok:

Diggerpanda

27th Mar 2015, 19:12

I read this post from beginning to end, I'm mystified as to why so many posters, with the obvious exceptions are jumping onto the trial by media bandwagon. Surely there are enough intelligent people on this forum to know that making a decision Ie problem solving is done in full receipt of the facts. I'm a ground based lowly mechanic with B1 and types but I would never dream of solving any problem until I am sure of the SOLID facts. Let's reserve judgement, await the findings of the FDR when it's recovered and make an intelligent decision. I can offer no clues as to what happened, it's the most bizarre event I've seen in my 25 years exposure to aviation and I wholeheartedly reserve any judgement until I see facts and not torn up doctors notes or stupid Facebook pages. Patience and time will reveal a probable cause but a media witch hunt won't help our industry.

DaveReidUK

27th Mar 2015, 19:12

So 2 persons at all times in the cockpit?

I wonder how that will work on Cargo Aircraft...or will the Freightdogs now have to use a bedpan?!

Doesn't apply.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 19:16

VictorTango,

Why is it embarrassing to have a FA on the flight deck. That person isn't there to watch the pilots actions wrt. the aircraft but in case of sudden incapacitation and to guard access to the flight deck.

Since 9/11 it has been SOP in the US, really haven't heard anyone be upset about it. Clearly you are, so clearly it's not done at your place of employ.

negative_camber

27th Mar 2015, 19:16

@silverstrata

You are a doctor and a psychiatrist are you? And you have made a firm diagnosis without ever seeing the patient! Very clever of you. You must have one of Dr McCoy's tricorders, that tells you exactly what is wrong. So tell me, Mr Expert...

If a milliner went crazy and killed his workmates, would that be: "his fault and his alone?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease

If a returning soldier went crazy and killed his workmates, would that be: "his fault and his alone?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWHbF5jGJY0#t=22

So the working conditions of these people was 'just an excuse' was it? It was all their fault. How convenient. Sweep it all under the carpet. It was nothing to do with management (allowing unregulated mercury vapours), and nothing to do with the regulators (never inspecting the factory). Management and the authorities can wash their hands of the whole affair, and award themselves another share-bonus and a bigger pension on the basis of a job well done.

As you all know, that is simply a typical management cover-up and whitewash. In reality, if you don't research the problem then how do you know that there is not a systemic problem with the industry? And if you don't investigate, then how do you know if the guy you fly with tomorrow is not a fellow sufferer?

And I am not making excuses for this guy; it was an act of pure evil from an evil mind. But personally, I would like to know how and why this guy became evil, so we can stop it happening again.

I am a Doctor and neuroscientist of 23 years. Well said.

AVR4000

27th Mar 2015, 19:17

The door played a role in this event.

Edit: To those claiming that it didn't or was irrelevant I am afraid that I must disagree. We don't know what would have happened if the captain had been able to access the flight deck again but it is highly probable that the outcome could have been different in one way or another.

So yes, the door is a factor to consider here.

Diesel8

27th Mar 2015, 19:19

The door played a role in this event.

As did the airplane, the runway, the sky, the lav service guy, the fueler, the........

Flying Palm Tree

27th Mar 2015, 19:21

Seems to me that all visits to the GP should be reported to the medical branch of the licensing authority. That way the disconnect between GP services and operational requirements can be eliminated.

DaveReidUK

27th Mar 2015, 19:28

Yes it does. There's plenty of people on the ground who don't want to get hit by a rogue air freighter...

The OP asked how the EASA recommendation requiring two people to be present on the flight deck at all times will work on cargo aircraft.

If you've read the recommendation, you will know that it doesn't apply.

And us passenger types positioning aircraft

Nor to those.

ams6110

27th Mar 2015, 19:29

The camera would not have stopped the loss of life - nor would a DFDR or CVR. What a camera does is make it IMMEDIATELY apparent that the FO was actually alive and well and sitting in his seat and stop all this continuous hamster wheel in the media and here about different ways he could have passed out and still locked the captain out. In many previous events SME's have sat for hours trying to work out what noises were.

Camera is easily defeated with a piece of tape over the lens. Though even that would have indicated intent.

highflyer40

27th Mar 2015, 19:29

NsSmith.

The problem with working in teams that always fly together in my mind you would get to know the other person and things would start to slide. Not much at first but SOPS wouldn't be followed rigorously, sterile cockpit not enforced... Among other things.

I'm not saying this would happen all the time, but it would happen.

BeechNut

27th Mar 2015, 19:30

Seems to me that all visits to the GP should be reported to the medical branch of the licensing authority. That way the disconnect between GP services and operational requirements can be eliminated.

In Canada at least, there are reportable conditions that a GP must report to Transport Canada. I am also obliged to self-declare GP visits on my medical when I visit my AME.

The problem is that not many GPs know this (not even my wife, who is also a GP, until I told her). A couple of years ago I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes, and I had to walk my GP (not my wife!) through the reporting procedure (it has to be the doctor, not the pilot, who reports, if it's picked up between medicals). He was completely unaware.

Fortunately we did it all by the book and since I'm not insulin dependent and otherwise very fit (4500 km of cycling a year) I still have my medical though I was grounded for 3 months while sorting out the medication and undergoing a battery of extra tests to satisfy Transport Canada. And this is for a PPL (class 3 medical), not an ATPL (class 1) like most of you guys.

AVR4000

27th Mar 2015, 19:33

Unlike the fueler, the door had a direct role in the event since it prevented the captain from getting access to the flight deck in a pretty dire situation where his presence could resulted in a different outcome (for the better or worse).

I have the opinion that the presence of the captain could have acted as a "limiter" to the actions that took place so yes, that door had its impact on the event.

It is not a cause, obviously but it is totally clear to me that the outcome would have changed in one way or another *if* the captain had been able to open the door. It would be either for the worse (the F/O disconnecting the A/P and initiating a steeper descent) or better (the ability to take the control back and level off, thus preventing the crash).

grimmrad

27th Mar 2015, 19:33

Lemain

27th Mar 2015, 19:41

Possibly the actual motive was revenge and anger towards his employer. Need to sieve through all interactions between employer/line managers/work colleagues. Many airlines have become truly dreadful employers with employees in debt (flying training) and fear of losing job (health, including mental health). The prosecutor should gather all such evidence before it goes missing or is altered.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 19:41

Thanks DR - you kicked me into finding the EASA recommendation.

In fact reading it, it is a bit wider than "2 crew of Flt Deck at all times":The Agency recommends operators to re-assess the safety and security risks associated with flight crew members leaving the flight crew compartment due to operational or physiological needs during non-critical phases of flight.
Based on this assessment, operators are recommended to implement procedures requiring at least two persons authorised in accordance with CAT.GEN.MPA.135 to be in the flight crew compartment at all times, or other equivalent mitigating measures to address risks identified by the operator’s revised assessment.
Any additional risks stemming from the introduction of such procedures or measures should be assessed and mitigated.The last sentence is a bit of a nightmare for airlines and regulators to assess... as some have pointed out, there are clear added risks to be evaluated by implementing the policy.

Which is "safer" comes down to someone paid more than me to assess thankfully :ok:

ExXB

27th Mar 2015, 19:46

Just consider what would have happened to that JetBlue flight if their co-pilot hadn't been able to lock the captain out of the cockpit.

The door system is what it is. In some cases it (may have) prevented loss of life, in others it (may have) facilitated it.

Two sides of the same coin.

Flying Palm Tree

27th Mar 2015, 19:46

Would you willingly board an aircraft if you knew the pilot was suffering from depression?

mercurydancer

27th Mar 2015, 19:47

No. SSRIs do not cause suicidal ideation except in one notorious drug which is no longer available. Seroxat was quite dangerous and many had severe effects from it. Not possible that this pilot was on Seroxat.

Tay Cough

27th Mar 2015, 19:52

Flying Palm Tree,

Relating to the EASA recommendation as quoted by NoD that:

Any additional risks stemming from the introduction of such procedures or measures should be assessed and mitigated.

Would you willingly board an aircraft if you knew the cabin crew member who is now mandated to sit next to the pilot when he is on is own (between him and the fire axe) was suffering from depression?

:E

DOUBLE BOGEY

27th Mar 2015, 19:57

There seems to be an assumption that the potential distraction or stress caused by significant life events like divorce or loss of a loved one is in the same boat as clinical mental illness.

In my view they are fundamentally different human conditions that can lead to fundamentally different events. In the first case, distraction and distress can lead to mistakes and, of course, a mistake could lead to a Terrible event.

In the case of clinical mental illness the events can be deliberately instigated by the afflicted person which could be the case in this event (I don't want to condemn the man until all the evidence possible has come to light).

On the balance of probabilities, just about every one of us will suffer at some time from the first case. This case HAS to be managed routinely by Operators by normal human resources principles. Grounding, time off to come to terms, assessment to ensure the required datums have returned and a short period of supervised flight operation. This surely is not beyond the wit of man to realise these events have nothing whatsoever to do with a clinical mental condition that could lead to unreasonable and unfavourable behaviours and ultimately tragic and horrific loss of life.

I cannot help but conclude that once a licence holder is diagnosed with a clinical mental condition his/her ability to ever exercise the privileges of that licence should be permanently removed.

The alternative is quite simply incomprehensible to the fare paying public. Imagine "welcome on board Flight 123 to X, the Captain has just returned from sick leave due to a bout of depression but seems OK now so strap in....."

It's a very harsh view I know but we work in a unique and challenging environment where it seems at present, we pay huge regard to the physical health of the flying machine, provide multiple safeguards for the Computers that make our life safer and easier, yet pay scant regard for the mental stability of the crew.

I am sure there are many who would disagree with me but I have never ever been convinced that anybody truly recovers to 100% once diagnosed with a clinical mental disorder.

I think we need to clearly separate and manage normal life stressors that could lead to errors from clinical mental disorders that could lead to deliberate acts of murder or self destruction.

angelorange

27th Mar 2015, 19:59

How long did it take the BEA to fully investigate AF447? Granted the BBs were harder to find under the Atlantic. The BBC even aired a special which turned out to be mostly incorrect once the true nature of the FO and SOs actions were revealed.

Why is a Prosecutor determining an investigation that has barely started? Why did he announce "intent" just when grieving families were arriving on the scene to mourn?

It appears the authorities barely had enough time to seperate the FOs parents from the rest of the mourners...... The air their family home on TV.......

Do we not recall the Uberlingen collision and the subsequent killing of Peter Nielsen ATC operative two years later?

Constant rate breathing is not proof of prozac, or consciousness.

Improper / mistaken door unlocking has occurred before with severe aircraft Upset:

Accident: ANA B737 near Hamamatsu on Sep 6th 2011, violent left roll while opening cockpit door injures 2 cabin crew (http://avherald.com/h?article=4428f2f7)

We are talking about a 630h MPL with limited gliding background, time as a steward and only employed as an airline pilot since Sept 2013. That's a long break from flight training in 2008.

Whilst Germanwings pays better than most LoCos, the starting salary according to ppjn in 2013 was around 4200 euros and exclusive of repaying 70,000 Euro debts. Better than Flexicrew or Ryan Air FOs but still a burden. Then a wait of 12 years for command and severe changes ahead to Lufhansa group Ts&Cs.

For me the media reports are too simplistic. Absolutely no excuses for any deliberate action by the FO. But where is the FDR and ACAS to confirm speculative FlightRadar reports (ADSB is not encrypted and can be manipulated).

Binder

27th Mar 2015, 20:01

Batman 737 spot on!

Nothing but nothing excuses this act of mass murder in our profession.

But bullying and intimidation cannot pass for pilot welfare in this day and age.

I wonder how many of us are rolling our eyes at the 'two in policy' being revived when it was taken away years ago-against our sense of airmanship-by those concerned with maximising in flight sales.

I could prattle on about blasting around the skies with guys/gals 100K in debt as the least of their problems.

As an industry you just have to ask..how did the regulators let it get to this?

standbykid

27th Mar 2015, 20:03

Colleague recommended a card access system for pilots only. Would ideally over ride all internal locks and could be snapped in two in the case of hijacking where either flight crew has left the FD.

People do go 'postal' for reasons we may never truly understand. This guy chose an Airbus as his weapon instead of an automatic.

Arfur Dent

27th Mar 2015, 20:04

So any pilot who is off work for stress or any other mental illness should be permanently excluded from his/her chosen career? Or Doctors who treat people for mental illness knowing that they are still working as Aircrew should be legally forced to report them (against confidentiality 'codes')?
All this is going to do is to stop pilots self reporting any mentally related troubles.
Not an easy problem to solve. Needs some inventive Management. That's not good because how do you cost all this? - money being the only motive - sorry SAFETY (sic).

num1

27th Mar 2015, 20:06

With reference to this post QDMQDMQDM (http://www.pprune.org/8920982-post1913.html)

I dont really want to defend the FO, but having had a girl friend may years ago who hat psychosis, the similarities to this guys behaviour are shocking.
When the french prosecutor described what he heard on the tape, it was like he was describing the girlfriend during an acute psychosis, just with better words than i ever could.
The sudden mood change, the short answers, the becoming quiet and turning inward, just what I could see many years ago.

It is hard to imagine with how much effort those people try to live an ordinary life. They appear totally normal, talk with you, joke with you and then announce that they are now going upstairs to tell the CIA to stop to listening.

When the psychosis became acute and the symptoms above set in, hallucinations were quite common. Imagine the floor gone and you can see numerous floors down. Or imagine seeing snakes instead of people or devil heads with flames coming out of the mouth instead of normal people heads.

Now imagine that the big snake next to you has just left the cockpit, your brain is telling you the plane is full of aliens and you are going to save the world by your actions.

not to defend him, just to give you an idea what an acute psychosis could be like.

In the hospital he could have been to get a ct and/or mri, thats standard procedure from psychologists before they describe medicine to make sure that there are no tumors or the like causing this.

rantanplane

27th Mar 2015, 20:07

Narcissists aren't known for suicidal acts. He may have been some form of sociopath but I doubt it was NPD.

His actions seem very narcistic. He did not care about others at all. He choose the best opportunity to take as much people with him as he possibly ever could.

And yes, narcissists do kill themselves from time to time: if they loose the mirror to look into, the mirror feeding their insecure ego. It looks like he was going to loose this mirror in due course: his medical and then the ATPL licensense, all he wanted to become: an airline pilot. Statement by the private flying club were he became a gliderpilot.

I used to believe he had some psychotic episode but of course, what do I know. But there are facts which give a picture IMHO. What is frightening that he apparently was breathing calmly, right to the end, sitting in his seat with 149 innocent and absolutely helpless people behind him. Sorry if I am harsh and a bit direct.

I never heard anything bad from Lufthansa Pilots when talking about their company, just every pilot in Germany wants to work for LH as they have the best employee schemes. Though not as good for young pilots these days as it use to be.

StopStart

27th Mar 2015, 20:07

The German Prosecutor must be devastated now that the hospital has revealed the FO wasn't being treated for mental illness. That doesn't fit his seemingly predetermined narrative at all.

westsix

27th Mar 2015, 20:09

The Germanwings tragedy: inside the mind of a pilot | Michael Bloomfield | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/27/germanwings-tragedy-pilot-psychiatrist-psychological-evaluation-andreas-lubitz?CMP=fb_gu)

DOUBLE BOGEY

27th Mar 2015, 20:09

Arthur Dent I agree with all you say. I do not have any real solutions for the mentally ill or how we, as a total community, isolate such cases but I like the suggestions on this forum that crews should operate in known teams so there may at least be a chance of colleagues recognising the signs. However I stand by my view that once removed and clearly diagnosed there surely must be no route back to flying.

Denti

27th Mar 2015, 20:12

The last sentence is a bit of a nightmare for airlines and regulators to assess... as some have pointed out, there are clear added risks to be evaluated by implementing the policy.

Which is "safer" comes down to someone paid more than me to assess thankfully

Indeed, i'm happy as well that i don't have to make that assessment. As it stands now a "suicide watch" (yes, they call it that in my company) has to stand guard in my flightdeck while my colleague has to go to the loo. The person in question in all likelihood will be some zero hour contract flight attendant with minimal screening and training that will be gone in six months anyway, no identification with the job, with the company or aviation as a concept, paid peanuts and working to the full extent of the law (7 continuous days of 12 hour shifts with minimum rest). And after the GWI case once i dial in a descent (after a clearance of course) i could very likely end up with a crash axe in my head as they suspect i gonna kill them all...

Thank god we don't have any zero hour contract pilots, but for cabin crew those are common and normal contract FAs are declining in numbers every year and at some point they will be nearly completely gone. Easiest way to hijack any aircraft is to show up for FA training and then wait for one of those times...

volarecantare

27th Mar 2015, 20:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXCPLA7Lmh8

robert Brown, BA Captain, his 911 call to report a domestic situation... his words for have hours previously bludgened his wife to death in front of their children and buried her in a grave he dug 2 years previous at the outset of their divorce proceedings.
Note how calm , nice polite he is, the dispatcher asking the wrong questions, him answering perfectly... she needed to ask is anyone dead? He said no one needed medical attention.
He was due to fly and intended to crash the plan that day to "prove a point to her legal team" because of a prenuptial agreement he didn't agree with. Not crash a plane to kill himself... to prove a point! He claimed mental illness as a defence yet he was a fully functional pilot at the time, fine to fly but a murderer? MAD? BAD? SAD? Psychopath?

Interesing..

Adamski87

27th Mar 2015, 20:15

Two pennies worth from a non pilot whose sister was Senior CC with a major British carrier for three years until recently.

I actually registered for the forum a month or so ago after my GermanWings return flight was cancelled due to the Cockpit Pilot Strike in Feb. I flew back with a "wet lease"?? Carrier in Herts and was interested to know a bit more about them.

Having read every page and post of this thread I think serious consideration has to be made with regard to the mental health of all flight and cabin crew on board. I speak only of secondhand information but the things I have been told it is little wonder this has happened and I'm surprised it hasn't been more frequent.

Another family member still flies with the carrier and is also involved with recruitment of P2F candidates and has backed up what I thought was often incorrect or my sister exaggerations.

I am usually unwilling to support the plight of those I feel are potentially overpaid and with great privilege. Particularly as cabin crew often are on such poor contracts, however, I can only see things improving when those flying and working on our ac are given better working conditions.

I work as a H&S Manager in the nuclear sector and tbh the health, wellbeing and occ health of employees is as important as anything else as it's those staff who generally hold the key to success or failure.

Apologies now if the post is unwelcomed.

DenisG

27th Mar 2015, 20:15

I have to applaud LH and Germanwings for their very sensitive handling of the relatives. I read only positive reports about their approach to all of this. Compare this to Malaysia's handling or AF they are doing a really good job. Same is true for the locals in France, who are standing up to the difficult task brought upon them.

Lufthansa had a prepared 800 pages document for this with precise instructions how to handle the issue and when with completed wordings. This included the greying of the logos and banners, the absence of LH logos during press conferences and dressing, etc. This document has been partially published today by German newspaper Bild and others.

They do a good job. Because they were professionally prepared to stage a perfect media handling.

DenisG

27th Mar 2015, 20:25

I find it disturbing and scary how everybody jumps/jumped at the mental illness narrative regarding the FO, only to find out now that the Düsseldorf hospital stated that he was not there for mental illness on March 10th, when he got the last sick note apparently.

You know what: This observation tells more about us, and perhaps aviation industry, than about the suspect. Get some self-reflection in there, lads.

keepitflying

27th Mar 2015, 20:29

As an ex pilot who has unfortunately suffered depression and anxiety, I have first hand experience of how the system works. A few years ago, I offloaded myself from a flight and after consultation with my company, I saw my AME, then my GP. I was very quickly diagnosed with depression and Anxiety. I thought my career was over, that's it, I will never fly again. Nothing was further from the truth. I had exceptional support from my company, the CAA, my AME and GP. Never once was anything said about never flying again. unfortunatly, I could not recover from my anxiety and I took the very hard decision to leave flying. I do get upset with fellow professionals saying that pilots should NOT be allowed to return to flying following an episode of mental illness. It's thinking like this that scares and subsequently stops pilots from coming forward in the first place. The fear of loosing their Medicals for good is a horrible one. The CAA actually prefer that you come forward, get the help, get recertified and continue your career. I do believe that the First Officer should NOT have been flying, but it was the fear of loosing his job that probably stopped him coming forward. mental illness is here to stay, and the stigma surrounding it NEEDS to stop. Pilots have a very stressful, important, and highly responsible job, but at the end of the day, we are only human.

WillFlyForCheese

27th Mar 2015, 20:30

For all that suggest having a CC member on the Flt Deck is nonsense or otherwise unnecessary - would you have thought the same had you been the Captain on this flight? Does that matter?

vanHorck

27th Mar 2015, 20:32

Well said num1
Engineer you are still mono dimensional

A psychosis is, if that is what it is, not something he could have done anything with at that time, the only thing he could have done was hours, days, or even months before: stop flying, that would be his guilt.

rantanplane

27th Mar 2015, 20:35

However I stand by my view that once removed and clearly diagnosed there surely must be no route back to flying.

With due respect, this attitude has been proven to be counter productive. Less pilots will be treated, perhaps successfully, or will be removed.

However how do you draw a line in between light and medium reactive depression. Or psychiatric injuries like PTSD which have a very wide spectrum.

DOUBLE BOGEY

27th Mar 2015, 20:39

Keepitflying! Thank you for your very honest post and I am sad for you on how your situation turned out. However, your own admission rather proves the fundamental point that these conditions rarely depart the afflicted completely.

In your case your rational reasoned processes led you to make an important very sensible life decision. Imagine though if instead of depression and anxiety the condition is tinged with suicidal or manically destructive thoughts. When will they ever go away. How can such an individual ever return to safe flight duty.

I applaud your post and wish you well for the future whatever that may bring.

DOUBLE BOGEY

27th Mar 2015, 20:47

Ratanplane. I cannot draw any lines in the spectrum of mental illness as I am not qualified to do so BUT I have tried to draw a distinct line between normal life stressors, that we will all face, especially death of a parent, from the cases of mental illness. Ihave no answers but Irather suspect there are none other than remove clinically diagnosed mental illness from the cockpit and cabin.

The Aviation Medical community need to consider a better system of identifying such cases. In the UK a remarkably simple start would be to automatically grant AME access to pilots GP medical records!

fyrefli

27th Mar 2015, 20:48

SSRIs do not cause suicidal ideation except in one notorious drug which is no longer available.

With respect, the most cursory of Googles (for "SSRIs suicidal ideation") contradicts this assertion.

Here's link one of many, which manages to namecheck three such drugs in the first sentence:

Antidepressants & Suicide (http://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/)

It might concern you to know that there are so many people in the UK on these drugs (the other two people currently in the family living room in which I'm typing this are both on one of those named) that there was actually a national shortage at one point last year.

luna80

27th Mar 2015, 20:48

Hello. I am not in aviation business so this will be my only post unless I get a legitimate reason to reply.
I have dealt with depression for most of my life. Psychiatrists, antidepressants in the past, etc. I have learnt to live with it and I just accepted it that I might have some down times. I have never been suicidal, neither I ever had a wish to harm another. I believe depression is sometimes misunderstood and it doesn't automatically make you unreasonable. However when a major event happened I needed some time off, to regroup it was overwhelming. At that time I would definitely be of no help to my company.
I work in restaurant business, I am a chef. My work is nowhere as hazardous as being a pilot and I have no intention to compare it. I only want to make a reference to human nature.
We do get hectic times when work demand goes over your head and you have to know how to keep your calm. When that happens I am usually a top performer and hardly ever loose my nerve. At the same time I observe my "sane" coworkers loosing it completely. Many times I wondered why. It might only be that I am more aware becouse of all the terapies and other people act unconciously and are emotionaly unprepared for the situations. I don't know.. I believe we all have our boiling point wich a certain amount of stressors can trigger.
I have absolutelly no idea how a pilot training works, but maybe having a mandatory psychological class and mental training and observation by specialist until you reach a certain amount of experience could be a solution. By that time you should have enough experience to act confidently in the pilot seat, understand yourself and ofcourse being screened, for hazardeus behavior. Scool should mybe be free of charge for those who do not pass.

nsmith

27th Mar 2015, 20:49

Mikehotel152

27th Mar 2015, 20:52

His actions seem very narcistic. He did not care about others at all. He choose the best opportunity to take as much people with him as he possibly ever could.

If so, strange that he allegedly flew the plane into a sparsely populated mountain rather than into one of the many huge towns in southern France.

volarecantare

27th Mar 2015, 20:53

But Robert Brown was convicted of manslaughter for insanity...the judge gave him max sentence of 27 years, he appealed, yet was sane to fly? He had planned to down the jet next! Not one bit of sincere remource shown to this day

SLFplatine

27th Mar 2015, 20:53

From an article on WSJ-online (Wall Street Journal):
The person familiar with the case said Mr. Lubitz was undergoing treatment for depression elsewhere in the Rhineland area of western Germany.
Under German law, a doctor isn't required to inform the patient’s employer about any illness, nor should the note excusing him or her from work include any information about the patient’s condition.
Hans-Peter Hartung, the head of University Hospital’s department of neurology, said that while doctors in Germany weren't required by law to inform the police or a patient’s employer if the condition seemed like it could pose risks for others, they had discretion to do so.
“We are entitled under the balance of risks, and if there are looming problems, to breach medical confidentiality” by contacting the police or a patient’s employer, Mr. Hartung said.
Jochen Lamp, spokesman for the German association of psychiatrists, said only very unusual circumstances would prompt a psychiatrist to breach medical confidentiality as legal consequences of such a move can be severe.
Just my simple minded opinion but I would think changes need to be made here. Having said that considering a post I read quite awhile back that indicated that the German Pilot's Union considered ACARS data transmission to be a breach of privacy and that therefore LH ACARS data is one, rudimentary, two encrypted, and three can only be read upon approval by the Works Council this will not happen anytime soon with regard to German pilots. Personally, I am in agreement with the 'need to know' principle and as a PAX I would think airline management has a 'need to know' if any pilot has serious mental health issues.

volarecantare

27th Mar 2015, 20:54

Maybe it was when the captain went to the loo he had the chance... if it had been over a town at the time then that would have been the impact.

keepitflying

27th Mar 2015, 20:58

Double Bogey, thank you for your kind words. Yes, I do agree that maybe the illness may not ever go away? It depends how bad and for how long the illness has been present. Some anxieties and depressions are indeed temporary. I was just trying to convey my personal experience of the 'system' as a resounding positive one. What I thought in my mind about my career prospects initially were not founded. I had so much support from so many different sources. It was just In my case that the situation was worse than first thought. Very tragic situation for the families, passengers and crew of this flight.

rantanplane

27th Mar 2015, 21:02

he sudden mood change, the short answers, the becoming quiet and turning inward, just what I could see many years ago.

This could also indicate he was nervous as his plan was in place. Every step after the captain left was well considered. The breathing calm until the end. The sick note teared apart some days before.

Double Bogey, I know many professional pilots from a private background , they tell me what they don't tell at work and there are some which have been treated for mental ahem let's say some medical issues, they took time off for other let's say reasons, and came back healthy and they are much better than before.

Wouldn't it be better to avoid fear about the termination of one's career which might be one of the underlying issues here.

oldoberon

27th Mar 2015, 21:07

If crews are reluctant to have cameras, why not a c heap and easy interim measure that would help with one other modification.

Put an inward looking spy hole in the door, so CC etc can see all is well.

I realise this doesn't help in this accident, so the other mod is a cabin mic that can be turned on and record to a separate track on cvr with any serious comments/concerns.

Under normal circumstances the items should be raised in a post flight report, if not they are deemed irrelevant, however in circumstances like this they could be valuable evidence.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 21:10

For all that suggest having a CC member on the Flt Deck is nonsense or otherwise unnecessary - would you have thought the same had you been the Captain on this flight? Does that matter? It matters, but only when added to the safety case / experience to date - not as here, taken in isolation.

Others have quoted 9/11, other suicides / scenarios and the risks this policy brings in. It's not even certain the policy would have stopped this, just altered the exact modus operandi.

Pace

27th Mar 2015, 21:17

f so, strange that he allegedly flew the plane into a sparsely populated mountain rather than into one of the many huge towns in southern France.

Mike Hotel

There was a very sad picture of a very pretty young mum carrying her 4-5 month old baby in her arms back en route to her husband. They have both been torn from his life by the actions of this Lunatic evil person.
So many people here are defending him his state of mind almost as they feel sorry for this monster. No one discusses the mental state of the father and husband of that girl and child. How does he feel today with his whole future gone because of this guy! Frankly I wish he had waited till they landed and thrown himself under a train if he was so depressed.

How considerate of him that he chose a stark mountain side rather than picking somewhere like Nice and stuffing it into the City he could have
taken out another 150 people in the process maybe we should give him an award ??

Apparently his last flight was into Heathrow on the westerly runway! how considerate he was not to choose that flight and put it into central London

Some of the postings here are quite sickening! why not discuss the mental state of the father and husband of that wife and child he murdered? Not one word have i seen written about the mental state of this monsters victims only defence and understanding of a monster

c2j2

27th Mar 2015, 21:23

Not really. That was part of his statemen

unless he pushed the Pilot out of the cockpit at a certain planned time, he did not know when he would be able to start the descend, so any intention to hit a certain point is unlikely.

Coagie

27th Mar 2015, 21:26

"mercurydancer:

No. SSRIs do not cause suicidal ideation except in one notorious drug which is no longer available. Seroxat was quite dangerous and many had severe effects from it. Not possible that this pilot was on Seroxat."

Wrong! mercurydancer must be a drug company lobbyist. Prozac especially is known for causing certain people to become simultaneously homicidal and suicidal. Picturing in their mind killing "random, faceless people"(I actually overheard a patient of my Dad's say those very words to my Dad, back in the '90's, when he told him why he wanted to stop taking Prozac. Prozac and drugs like it, have helped millions of people, but, the problem is, there not a way to tell who that "certain" otherwise normal person is, that it will affect in the homicidal and suicidal way. I do know it shouldn't be given to paranoid schizophrenics, but it's given to them all the time. Like I mentioned before, my father has over 60 years dispensing psychotropic drugs from back when the only choices were Thorazine or Whiskey. Of course, maybe Lubitz was just trying to quit smoking on Chantix, but it doesn't seem that someone running foot races would be a smoker in this day and age, even in Europe.

Stone_cold

27th Mar 2015, 21:27

On the other side of the coin and in the name of full security as demanded here by numerous SLF, why don't we lock the passengers in their seats for the duration of the flight and give them portable potties . Full protection from kooks and eliminates the need for the door . Might be good for them to provide a full psych profile , medical cert prior to boarding .

Return 2 Stand

27th Mar 2015, 21:28

Mike Hotel

There was a very sad picture of a very pretty young mum carrying her 4-5 month old baby in her arms back en route to her husband. They have both been torn from his life by the actions of this Lunatic evil person.
So many people here are defending him his state of mind almost as they feel sorry for this monster. No one discusses the mental state of the father and husband of that girl and child. How does he feel today with his whole future gone because of this guy! Frankly I wish he had waited till they landed and thrown himself under a train if he was so depressed.

How considerate of him that he chose a stark mountain side rather than picking somewhere like Nice and stuffing it into the City he could hav etaken out another 150 people in the process

Apparently his last flight was into Heathrow on the westerly runway! how considerate he was not to choose that flight and put it into central London

Some of the postings here are quite sickening! why not discuss the mental state of the father and husband of that wife and child child he murdered

Unless you have suffered form something like depression/anxiety/stress you can not imagine what it is like….. and they can't control it. We will never know what went through his mind, but it will be like you can't imagine and he won't have had control over it.

Obviously everyone feels for the families involved, but if the FO was depressed, thats very different to a rational person deciding to crash a plane.

nsmith

27th Mar 2015, 21:31

Just my simple minded opinion but I would think changes need to be made here. Having said that considering a post I read quite awhile back that indicated that the German Pilot's Union considered ACARS data transmission to be a breach of privacy and that therefore LH ACARS data is one, rudimentary, two encrypted, and three can only be read upon approval by the Works Council this will not happen anytime soon with regard to German pilots. Personally, I am in agreement with the 'need to know' principle and as a PAX I would think airline management has a 'need to know' if any pilot has serious mental health issues.I'm sure we would agree that people who are ill should be prevented from endangering the public. The question is does a 'need to know' policy increase the danger to the public or lessen it. It is my contenton that, on average, it will increase the danger because the threat of losing ones career and livelihood will cause people (especially the most ill) not to seek medical assistance. If I am right, we need to find ways to encourage people along the right path. I really think in this case the carrot will be more effective than the stick.

txl

27th Mar 2015, 21:38

Just this from a native speaker: The Düsseldorf hospital has specifically denied that the co-pilot "has been treated for depressionin in our facility".

This is what us journalists call an "overly specific denial". It is not a confirmation that he has not been in treatment for depression or that he suffered from a physical condition. The hospital is just saying they didn't treat him for depression.

silverstrata

27th Mar 2015, 21:38

Obviously everyone feels for the families involved, but if the FO was depressed, thats very different to a rational person deciding to crash a plane.

Not it is not. 100% not. If your daughter has just been murdered, it matters not if the murderer was sane or mad - your daughter is still dead. And the murderer is still evil.

The only difference with the madman, is there may well be secondary culpability. If the madman was supposed to be locked up, and some ass of a do-gooder let him out, then a large part of the blame resides with the supposedly sane person who made the insane decision. And that is why a thorough investigation is necessary here. If there is secondary culpability we need to root it out and expose it - especially if evil has been committed in the name of being nice.

nsmith

27th Mar 2015, 21:43

That is a really encouraging to hear. keepitflying: Sorry, I should also have said that I really admire your honesty, and I'm sorry that it did not work out that way you had hoped. I think you did the right thing and for that you deserve everyone's respect.

B247NG

27th Mar 2015, 21:45

fyrefli, SSRI's and other antidepressants do not cause suicidal thoughts/tendencies. But in people with suicidal tendencies, they can increase risk of suicide.
If sucidal thoughts are associated with depression, the lack of motivation caused by depression will prevent that person to commit a suicide. During the initial phase of threatment, Antidepressants will give that person the motivation and energy he needs, with depression and suicidal thoughs still there... Becouse of that, it's recommended for patients with suicidal thoughts to be monitored closely during the first month on antidepressants.
just wanted to clarify this

auldlassie

27th Mar 2015, 21:49

Wall Street journal reporting that the doctor who signed him off is a neuropsychologist. Note, not a neurologist. A neuropsychologist. And BTW while the Dusseldorf Univ. hospital has said he was not treated being treated for depression there, only for a diagnostic evaluation, but that is NOT the same as saying he is not being treated for depression ANYWHERE ELSE. That we do not know, but IF it is a neuropsychologist treating him, you may well draw a conclusion from that. Also, despite a couple of reports on this thread, they have NOT said he was being treated for a PHYSICAL illness -they have only said, as I repeat, he was not being treated for depression there. They have made NO COMMENT on the nature of his illness for which they have diagnostically evaluated him. These differences need to be noted and understood.

Ellie Vater

27th Mar 2015, 21:50

I'm with Pace all the way on this one - thought for the victims must surely be at the top of the agenda, rather than sympathy for this man. (However depressed he was).

I was reading up about some of the aircraft passengers earlier, the one Pace mentioned, the two young opera singers, the newly married couple - and obviously, the 14 teenage girls and 2 teenage boys on the exchange visit, plus numerous others. Possibly the worst, was the teenager who had forgotten her passport, but somebody got it to her in time ....

I find myself constantly thinking about this awful event, and how completely needless it was, so sorry if my sympathies are not with this man.

One other repercussion of this, is that I believe the CAA were on the brink of relaxing slightly the rules regarding getting back/holding, a medical if someone had previously been diagnosed and treated for depression in the past. Can't believe that that will happen any time now.

Yes, I think I have a reasonable insight into depression, after witnessing the suicide attempt of my best friend years ago. (And no, she didn't display any outward signs either - it all came out after - but she didn't attempt to take another 150 people with her.....

susier

27th Mar 2015, 21:53

'Some of the postings here are quite sickening! why not discuss the mental state of the father and husband of that wife and child he murdered?'

Pace, for me the point is not to try to empathise with this man but to try and understand why a human being might act this way, so that people can then try to ensure it does not happen so easily again.

Having your medical and mental status probed by millions is not a privilege. None of the victims asked to be put in the limelight to be examined by strangers and I doubt they would want to.

I take your point however that he is getting a lot of attention, but that is inevitable, and almost all of it is negative.

We MUST try to understand in order to prevent this happening again.

Odysseus

27th Mar 2015, 21:55

Over many years I have treated in the ER, patients from (obviously) many walks of life. It's been my privilege to have treated a not-insignificant number of ill and injured airline pilots coming through a metropolitan ER in that time. Professional pilots, especially those over 35, have always impressed me as people who understand their limitations and in the vast majority - 99.99+% - of cases will not operate if they don't feel they can do their job properly.

Rather like younger doctors, it's more often the younger pilots (and I appreciate this is completely a generalization; but sometimes the plural of anecdote is indeed data…) tend to want to push the envelope and operate even when by the appropriately strict FAA medical guidelines, they should not. It's been my direct professional experience that for a lot of reasons which seem convincing to them, they think their specific situation is different. Again, something we see in many of our younger medical colleagues. Something which I well remember doing myself when I was in my 20s.

It is in this context that the very prolonged medical apprenticeship which follows after being trained during medical school, which lasts into your early 30s before you become a consultant, while extremely frustrating at the time does stop many younger doctors again including myself, from doing things we simply shouldn't have because we didn't think the consequences through and we lacked the experience that comes with situational seniority. And so as someone who is absolutely nowhere near being a professional pilot (only a hang-glider pilot and low-time PPL), I wonder why someone with such low hours relatively speaking, can be left in sole charge of an aircraft with so many souls on board?

I think there are two other differences in the medical profession from the pilot profession which bear keeping in mind. Although this is not universally applicable, i.e. depends on the medical jurisdiction by country, doctors are obliged to both self-report and report colleagues who are putting patients in hazard, because of the doctor's own medical problems (medical obviously including psychiatric problems). Secondly, unless you are Harold Shipman, doctors can't kill a couple of hundred patients at a time even when we go rogue. Even Harold Shipman could only kill one patient at a time… Every profession has their bad eggs. (Actually, bad eggs is insufficient. Evil people is more appropriate).

So I do wonder why there is so much resistance to cockpit video recording and real-time GPS monitoring. Video recording will not stop an event like this, but will very quickly allow everybody to know exactly what happened. Also, I'm sufficiently prehistoric that I well remember when it was first proposed that there would be real time event monitoring with paper printouts during operations so the anaesthetist's actions and reactions could be judged minute by minute; similarly, for the surgeons, over the shoulder video monitoring of particular procedures. At the time a lot of people (waaaay older people, in other words, older than I was then… and probably the age I am now…) said ‘no way no how’ / 'over my dead body' and so forth. Guess what. These days it is common. The patients expect it, our professional organisations expect it, our insurers expect it, our employers expect it and we comply. It's a condition of the privilege to practice medicine. Similarly, being video-monitored during flight operations may become a condition of the privilege to be an passenger airline pilot.

Flying Lawyer

27th Mar 2015, 21:56

rantanplaneHis actions seem very narcistic. He did not care about others at all. He choose the best opportunity to take as much people with him as he possibly ever could.My knowledge of mental disorders is limited to that required for part of my work but, as far as I'm aware, narcissistic personality disorder does not include the sort of behaviour you describe.
I am, of course, open to correction by a psychiatrist or psychologist

People with NPD swing between seeing themselves as special and fearing they are worthless. Outwardly, they may act as though they have an inflated sense of their own importance but behind that image lies fragile self-esteem that is vulnerable to the slightest criticism or rejection. They may act as if they don't care what people think of them but they actually need people to look up to them to maintain their inflated self-view. Symptoms include exaggerating their own achievements and abilities, thinking they are entitled to be treated better than other people, exploiting other people for personal gain, lacking empathy for other people's weaknesses, looking down on people they feel are 'beneath' them while feeling deeply envious of people they see as being 'above' them.
Someone suffering from NPD may have another mental disorder or disorders which may lead them to behave in such a manner as you describe but, as far as I'm aware, NPD alone would not.

PaceSome of the postings here are quite sickening! Only to those who have no knowledge of, nor interest in learning about, mental disorders.

It’s very easy to see somebody as either a perpetrator or a victim. It’s much more difficult to understand that somebody might be both.

why not discuss the mental state of the father and husband of that wife and child he murdered
Probably because this is an aviation forum and people are discussing factors that may have led directly and/or indirectly to this tragedy and, if so, what can be learnt to minimise the risk of a repetition.
Are you suggesting that they don't feel sorry for those who were killed or are unsympathetic to their families?

I have no idea whether the FO's mental health, whatever it was, has any relevance to the tragedy. I'm merely responding to some specific points.

Mikehotel152

27th Mar 2015, 22:10

Pace.

You misunderstood my posting. I was responding to and quoted part of another post which stated that He choose the best opportunity to take as much people with him as he possibly ever could'. He didn't. He flew into a sparsely populated area, and although Mary Meagher also seems to have misunderstood my post, her explanation for the decision to fly on towards the Alps is more likely.

I can't see how these observations amount to an expression of sympathy for the FO.

captplaystation

27th Mar 2015, 22:13

There was mention, some days back, about some "event" on the Southbound flight (assumedly, I thought, from something on the CVR from the previous flight ) any further on that ?

Once the initial shock/horror has died down, I hope the BEA are actually able to do their job without unfair bias. If this was a Murder trial, it has been nullified already by dint of the amount & nature of the information leaked (if we are to believe the rumours , initially by the French military ) into the public domain.

It appears the Public Prosecutor in Marseille wanted another moment of "glory" & there we went. (or to be charitable, he was trying to prevent ever more outlandish speculation :hmm: )

Massive breach of trust in the "system" here, which IFALPA have tried to publicise, but, not surprisingly seen their pleas for "correctness" smothered by the baying popular press.

Whilst agreeing that the "worst" looks the most likely, this has assuredly been a shameful episode which has tarnished what has hitherto usually (except where Airbus's or Concordes were involved ) been a procedure that has attempted to be both professional & dispassionate in their investigation of any accident that has happened.

I believe most "professionals" harbour at least some small amount of doubt in a hastily derived conclusion which (to the benefit of all parties except the poor F0 & perhaps the Medics/Luftie up to a point ) seems to get all the "Big Fish" conveniently off the hook.

c53204

27th Mar 2015, 22:15

Cockpit monitoring of flight crew......

Every called a company and heard "this call may be monitored for training purposes, so we can improve our customer service".

Why should the professionals whom we trust the most with our lives be exempt such 'monitoring'.

CCTV and audio recordings from the cockpit should be routinely evaluated by an organisation outside the airline.

Odysseus

27th Mar 2015, 22:27

In many professions and situations, we have to deal with facts which are never solid. So you'll forgive/excuse those of us who (need to) operate in ambiguity.

I can certainly find out what is wrong with a patient if I subject them to an autopsy with the detailed histological and toxicological and other examinations which are usually reserved post-mortem... but my patients would like intervention before they reach room temperature (excuse the flippancy, black humour).

So I think it's perfectly reasonable for we travelling Self Loading Freight customers to want to know what happened even when everybody is not 100% certain of all available information. And as we would I think all acknowledge, 100% certain available information is hardly ever released in sufficient or conclusive detail even when the air accident investigation is concluded. For example : SilkAir / Egypt Air.

NigelOnDraft

27th Mar 2015, 22:27

Hi OdysseusFramer - that strawman you just put together, is not going to stand up to analysis. You say that, but I can see where (s)he is coming from.

The root cause of this accident, assuming the facts are as stated, an ill pilot on the Flight Deck. End Of. The authorities therefore need to assess "how" that came about, and "what" they can do to prevent further occurrences. Bearing in mind pilots have extensive medical and employment checks.

Cabin Crew have far less stringent employment checks, and zero recurrent medical checks. It therefore seems illogical to add them to the Flight Deck equation, and guarantee them an "option" they previously did not have? Secondly, there is now a large security breach, in that it is "known" CC must regularly attend the Flight Deck with an opportunity - previously even for those airlines who did have this policy, it was not such public knowledge.

If the authorities decide they cannot prevent the ill pilot scenario, they have a big problem. And an even bigger one when they apply that to the CC chaperone aspect... as I posted days ago, do passengers and the airlines really want to bear the cost and disruption of frequent and invasive psychological checks? A good proportion of us will probably fail :(

JanetFlight

27th Mar 2015, 22:33

Many years ago we were guided to suspect about the luggage...decades later we were taught to suspect about the passengers...nowadays we are doomed to suspect about the pilots...who was won after all?
Terrorism...:rolleyes:

Odysseus

27th Mar 2015, 22:43

xollob: you are in my opinion absolutely on the nail in the respect that I would not be releasing information about a particular patient's death where there was not a wider public interest. That said, if I had an Ebola or anthrax patient... who could have contaminated many people who needed to know they needed to get tested and treated prophylactically to save their lives... the public interest would trump the patient's right to confidentiality. It would have to trump the patient's right to confidentiality. So as not to incur more collateral patient damage.

I should still not be releasing additional/extraneous information that was not necessary to inform the public of why they were at risk. And for what it's worth, I think more information has been released in this particular context, than needed to have been released. But some information did need to be released.

Again, we may politely agree to disagree.

nsmith

27th Mar 2015, 22:48

Silverstrata: I’m completely with you when you say that secondary culpability needs to rooted out, and that dangerous madmen should be locked up. What I’m not sure about is whether you are also saying that the mentally ill are just as culpable as the sane. I’d have a little more trouble with that. Of course what I think is neither here or there, but as a passenger I would feel a whole lot safer if I knew that support was being provided to those who felt they needed it. My worry is that the stigma and/or treatment of people with depression or mental illness will prevent them from self-reporting.

ksa83ai

27th Mar 2015, 22:49

I would like to know how he behaved when he was the PF. Did he start to show maybe some subtle signs of stress before his leg, and maybe a little more during "climb out"? Based on reported news of the preflight on the return leg, the FO may not have expected to be PF at TOC. We may never learn what was the final straw. I will say that I still love being on an airplane, and have great respect for those who have been able to receive their pilot's license. In too many organizations, pilots are being treated like people with far less responsibilities. These people are required to always be on the ball. Like any other line of work, appreciation usually incentivizes greater dedication and sharpness. We the public need these ladies and gent to continue to enjoy the career that they have chosen. If we did an analysis on how different sectors, organizations, or industries affect our lives, I venture we would find that pilots affect us beneficially, far better than most others. Finally, like the rest of us, pilots are also human, but often shouldering a greater burden to bring everyone from point a to point b safely.

Islay

27th Mar 2015, 22:56

So far, everything on here is pure speculation. The only things we can take as reliable information is from the people involved officially in the investigation. They have so far provided us details of what they believe happened with the evidence they have so far. This is their expertise so we can be confident that they have analysed this evidenence very carefully to be able to be confident enough to release it to the public.

There is clearly more investigation to be done and I'm sure this information will become public when they are confident to give it.

At the moment all we know is the F/O manually changed the altitude selection to something lower than 38000Ft (unofficially it seems 100ft) and allowed the aircraft to descend on autopilot. Also that he was unresponsive to the Captain trying to gain access to the cockpit and also unresponsive to ATC. It is not yet been confirmed whether the F/O moved the toggle switch for the door to lock or whether the Captain failed to enter the code.

We know the F/O had previously suffered depression in his career and we now also know that he was receiving treatment for something undisclosed at the moment.

I like to see things by facts and not speculate. I'm sure that it won't be long before we find out exactly what happened and hopefully the investigation may produce findings to stop something like this happening again.

Radix

27th Mar 2015, 22:58

The two crew rule that was implemented in a totally knee jerk panic by Airline execs and Regulators ... Eliminating any personal in flight interaction between FA's and flight crew will over time cut the bond between crew which in extremeis must work as a team. How can that help flight safety in the long run ?
The proposed Two-in-the-cockpit rule doesn't eliminate interaction at all. After all, when captain leaves the flight deck, the F/O can have a good chat to the Cabin Crew member that comes on the flight deck whilst the captain is away. All the while the captain has a good chat in the back to other Cabin Crew members whilst the F/O is up front, accompanied.

It may even bond better as some people are more of a one-on-one conversation type, as would take place between the F/O and the CC member on the flight deck...

Captain can stay away as long as he likes! Until he feels duty calls. (back to the flight deck that is, not the "other" office. :))

True?

fastjet45

27th Mar 2015, 23:14

I just wish the vast majority of non-professional posters (both in this thread and in the Fight Deck area as a whole) would take their philosophical, medical, detective-related, sociology-related, conspiracy theory-related and any other posts not related to the nature of the rumors section of PPRuNe elsewhere.

Fully agree; I have been out of posting on this crazy thread now for a couple days, it just seems to be a revolving door of nonsense theories similar to the way MH 370, AF 447 all went.
I find it incredible the number of new posters or older members posting under another name that come out of the woodwork posting basically crap.

WingNut60

27th Mar 2015, 23:39

RANTANPLANE - There is another group who may also need some support.

That is the group who will, as the result of this incident, find themselves out of a job.
When the new line is drawn in the sand there will be some on the wrong side of it.

Lubitz is surely not the only one who will have been accepted for flight duties despite having known mental health issues.
Presumably, all of the others have so far been able to manage their treatment effectively.

They are now sitting somewhere knowing that their dream career is about to evaporate.
What is the compassionate plan for them?

And I'm not just talking about Lufthansa.

LEEDS APPROACH

27th Mar 2015, 23:48

I have been following this forum for a long time now, and I'm finding that I have to keep reminding myself that the forum is on aviation matters. If you read the last number of pages it would be easy to think that it was a medical or trade union forum.

Having said that I've read with interest all the suggestions for allowing emergency access to the FD. What if for example the roles were reversed and the driver intent on crashing had been removed from the FD. How then would you reverse all the procedures for getting access to the FD?
I'm not sure it will be possible to ensure that the crew member intent on causing harm is ALWAYS on the correct side of the locked door.

The whole concept of having a barrier within an aeroplane is incorrect. It was a typical kneejerk reaction without really thinking of the future consequences. The filter must be at the airport. Passengers, cc, pilots all through x ray scanners (if you're offended then get a taxi). IF a rogue element/poorly pilot still manages to get on board and IF he has managed to bring some weapon with him better to have a plane full to stop the situation rather than a door he can get behind.

This locking mechanism has caused critical flight dials to be incorrectly pressed (narrowly missing a fatal disaster), it has locked captains out while malfunctioning, and has aided suicides that very probably would have been prevented. Is it really possible to get 2,3 or 4 terrorists onto a plane theses days? Security has changed massively since 9/11.

WingNut60

27th Mar 2015, 23:52

Sorry, but I can't quite rationalise objections to having FA in the cockpit.
How do such objections treat FA delivering meals?
What's the difference; in terms of a threat to pilot security?

ILS27LEFT

27th Mar 2015, 23:54

The 150 pax on the first sector DUS-BCN were extremely lucky indeed: probably Captain did not leave cockpit to go to the loo and this saved their life.
It would also be interesting to see what pills the FO swallowed very early in the morning before starting his duty: all anti-depressants and anti anxiety medications have very strong side-effects including suicidal thoughts, amongst many other pretty scary and dangerous symptoms.:mad:
It would be even more interesting to find out how many pilots do regularly use anti depressants before flying, possibly too many, ...is this the direct result of a very stressful life where we are all mistreated as profit making numbers by Lean Six Sigma & Pareto Charts' inspired management?

Airbubba

28th Mar 2015, 00:08

Just consider what would have happened to that JetBlue flight if their co-pilot hadn't been able to lock the captain out of the cockpit.

Maybe that possible scenario will be used in the lawsuit filed today against JetBlue:

Pilot Sues JetBlue for Allegedly Letting Him Fly While Mentally Unfit

Clayton Osbon, whose behavior diverted a flight three years ago, says the airline had evidence of his condition

By Jack Nicas

March 27, 2015 7:11 p.m. ET

A JetBlue Airways Corp. pilot whose erratic behavior diverted a U.S. flight three years ago sued the airline on Friday for permitting him to fly despite what he claims was evidence of his mental-health problems.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, relates to a New York-to-Las Vegas JetBlue flight on March 27, 2012, in which the pilot, Clayton Osbon, told his co-pilot that “we need to take a leap of faith” and that “we’re not going to Vegas,” among other bizarre actions, according to federal investigators. The co-pilot locked Mr. Osbon out of the cockpit and diverted the flight to Texas, where federal authorities charged Mr. Osbon with interfering with the flight crew.

A federal judge in Texas later found Mr. Osbon, 52 years old, not guilty by reason of insanity.

The suit comes as European authorities investigate the mental health history of a Germanwings co-pilot who they allege deliberately crashed a jet into the French Alps on Tuesday, killing all 150 people on board. The Germanwings co-pilot was being treated for depression, which he concealed from his employer, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing a person familiar with the investigation.

Mr. Osbon’s suit claims breach of contract and negligence by JetBlue for allowing him to fly on the day of the incident despite evidence that he was suffering from mental-health issues. He is seeking more than $14 million from JetBlue.

Pilot Sues JetBlue for Allegedly Letting Him Fly While Mentally Unfit - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-sues-jetblue-for-allegedly-letting-him-fly-while-mentally-unfit-1427497869)

Coagie

28th Mar 2015, 00:13

B247NG: fyrefli, SSRI's and other antidepressants do not cause suicidal thoughts/tendencies. But in people with suicidal tendencies, they can increase risk of suicide.
If suicidal thoughts are associated with depression, the lack of motivation caused by depression will prevent that person to commit a suicide. During the initial phase of treatment, Antidepressants will give that person the motivation and energy he needs, with depression and suicidal thoughts still there... Because of that, it's recommended for patients with suicidal thoughts to be monitored closely during the first month on antidepressants.
just wanted to clarify this
B247NG, It doesn't matter whether a person has "suicidal tendencies" or not. It is not known why certain (few) people become both homicidal and suicidal, when taking Prozac. There seems to be no correlation with tendencies the patient already has. It's the same with Chantix. People who would be voted by their peers as the most likely to not to commit suicide, suddenly kill themselves after taking Chantix for a week. The fact you wrote that SSRI's can increase the risk of suicide in people with suicidal tendencies, shows that you do not know what you are writing about.

Ian W

28th Mar 2015, 00:21

This is not so. The ATC tag will show the altitude the aircraft is cleared to (controller manual input processed by the ATC FDPS) and the actual FL and attitude of the aircraft (climbing, descending, level) derived from mode C.

There is a huge amount of information squittered by the aircraft it would be impossible and confusing for the controllers to sort it out and action it. However, it is there and various systems can use it. The Alt Select information came from Mode-S squitter with the Mode-S ID. FR-24 passed what they had to the authorities. ADS-C allows the ground systems to ask the aircraft for more information - and the crew are totally unaware of the information being sent.

All the controllers get displayed to them is what is needed to do their jobs, but what is displayed is just the tip of quite a large iceberg of information.

Ian W

28th Mar 2015, 00:25

Such recordings (if they exist) are the property of the deceased passengers and must be returned to their relatives. Who then should be free to decide whether to publish them or not.

You cannot simply confiscate property of other people on "moral grounds".

Information is not like other 'property' it can be disclosed without its ownership being transferred. In this case a cell phone recording of what was happening in the passenger cabin - perhaps 5 minutes of increasing panic would be significantly financially advantageous to the relatives of the deceased passengers. As for some reason knowledge in advance of impending death leads to significantly increased damages awarded against the airline.

nsmith

28th Mar 2015, 00:29

@SLFplatine

Well nsmith, yes but under the current German medical confidentiality regime with the severe legal consequences for the breach this particular FO did seek the medical attention and yet still took command of an airplane with 144 passengers on board and drove it into the side of a mountain.

Of course you may be correct in this case, but I did say "on average." With a donkey you can use both carrot and stick, here you can use carrot or stick. No doubt both may work, it is just my contention that here the carrot will be more successful.

FWRWATPLX2

28th Mar 2015, 00:30

Regarding my earlier post regarding German DLR Pilot Selection Psychological Battery DLR - Institute of Aerospace Medicine - Personnel Selection (http://www.dlr.de/me/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5070/8492_read-14798/) being a complete waste of time and money, though Lufthansa endorses this preselection assessment, as do many Flight Operations, in the past ten years . . .

The DLR psychological assessment fails to recognise pilots are human beings. A cup of coffee before going to the assessment could easily account for a candidate doing well . . . or someone who is a bundle of nerves, failing to get a good night's sleep or deadheading to an interview last minute, rushing to get there, due to other work commitments being amongst those whom fail the DLR.

The DLR Psych Eval can be practiced and trained for. In fact DLR offers a "coaching" service to pilots subjected to this assessment, which defeats the purpose.

Please consider, during World War II, there were Kamikaze (shinpū tokubetsu kōgeki tai) pilots threatened with execution and dishonour, whom refused to commit suicide for the Emperor. The difference between a healthy, rational mind and one that is otherwise.

Perhaps a way for large flight operations, such as airlines, to mitigate threats from in-flight Pilot Incapacitation or committing suicide due to some hidden or undetected mental affliction would be to have Aviation Medical Examiners and Aviation Psychologists (whom are also pilots), do a brief examination of the Flight Crew, in dispatch or prior to the crew entering the flight deck, in the situations where flight plans and documents are delivered to the aircraft.

It is possible to do such an examinations in 30 minutes. Instead of showing up one hour prior to departure, crew could show up one hour and thirty minutes prior to departure . . . a minor inconvenience. I operated for an airline in China, that had this procedure . . . Not every day, but frequently. Of course, the taxi ride to the airport would get one's heart rate up, but . . . You surely can see the benefit of this preflight medical/psychological check-up. Surely, it won't be 100% perfect, but will certainly mitigate.

Let's talk Crew Resource Management . . . The Darth Vader personalities, the pilots in the Left Seat whom believe they are God's because they were (emphasis on were) Top Gun or Red Flag graduates or whom believe CRM diminishes their absolute authority or whom treat everyone as a lesser human beings, because they were anointed as Captain or those whom believe they were born to be a Captain, or the management snitches whom have their noses buried deep up someone's bum, or those whom revert to pigeon-English when going through immigration in an Asian country . . . You know whom you are. Why create any conflict in the cockpit? Often it is your rude and arrogant behaviour that creates problems and errors. Sadly, many airlines around the world encourage if not condone this cult of complete :mad:.

On the flip side, I was in the jumpseat deadheading when I observed a First Officer, who was a retired R.o.C. Air Force General overrule the Captain, who was a retired R.o.C. Air Force Major, on de-icing. And, in China, I had a smartass FO with his whopping 2,500 hours experience, who could barely make a safe landing, say to me, "You are taking my job, why don't you retire, old man." Advice to wannabe Captains, behave, be professional, bide your time, as those before you had.

If you're sick, don't fly. If your mood or head is not right, don't fly. That easy.

All this crap about the cockpit door, pass code, key around the neck, an extra crewmember on the flight deck during absences for physiological needs is just that.

Fellow Pilots and Crewmembers: We are our own worst enemies. Thirty-six years experience (military and civil) has proven this.

brittleware

28th Mar 2015, 00:30

It's called a commode. And why ever not?

sAx_R54

28th Mar 2015, 00:32

@Susier

...not to try to empathise with this man but to try and understand why a human being might act this way...

Oh right! And just how far should this empathy stretch..9/11, 7/7, Greenwich Barracks?? For those who purchased a ticket to board this plane with zero knowledge of the risk that they would become exposed to, is where our empathies should reside.

caulfield

28th Mar 2015, 00:59

My two cents:
-The last link in the chain is by tradition the "probable cause".Its the last link that made it inevitable.The door design introduced after 911 wasnt thought through properly.That Law of Unexpected Consequences again.Solve one problem but create another.
-This "two in the flightdeck" procedure might well create yet another problem down the road.They say act in haste,repent at leisure.I would say more thought needs to be given to the matter before jumping on the bandwagon.For me,the inability of the lawful commander to re-enter the flightdeck is as bad as having Mohammad Atta getting unlawful access to the flightdeck on 911.So that door is an unsatisfactory design.The authorities need to find a re-design of this DENY feature and they need it quick because this two in the flightdeck idea is a quick fix and a poor one at that.
-Talk of mental health problems is an insult to the 149 dead.Operating pilots cant have mental health problems.Death of spouse/divorce will depress even the most stable extrovert.Pilot takes time off.But chronic repetitive depression or bipolar?NO.Automatic disqualification.
-Although there have been several cases of pilot suicide-murder,it is very rare in the West.This case should not be used as justification to implement any Draconian measures that would make life anymore difficult than it already is for pilots.Lets not get caught by that Law of Unintended Consequences again.
-Pilotless airliners will happen.But they too will be victim of that very same law.

nsmith

28th Mar 2015, 01:23

@WingNut60

Sorry, but I can't quite rationalise objections to having FA in the cockpit.
How do such objections treat FA delivering meals?
What's the difference; in terms of a threat to pilot security?

I grant you that the difference might be small in the end. My objection is that this is another kneejerk reaction which might make things worse if it is not properly planned.

Nevertheless, I guess the math probably is:

A) 2 pilots + axe vs 1 FA

B) 1 pilot vs 1 FA + axe

AndyJS

28th Mar 2015, 01:36

I thought it couldn't get any worse but now this:

'I'm planning a heinous act that will be remembered forever': Killer pilot's ex-girlfriend says he shared chilling prophecy before Alps crash and woke up from nightmares shouting 'we're going down' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3015504/I-m-planning-heinous-act-remembered-forever-Killer-pilot-s-ex-girlfriend-says-shared-chilling-prophecy-Alps-crash-woke-nightmares-shouting-going-down.html)

nsmith

28th Mar 2015, 01:37

@caulfield

But chronic repetitive depression or bipolar?NO.Automatic disqualification.

If I were the pilot with chronic depression, a small family, a mortgage, and a large debt to pay off, I don't think this would this motivate me to seek help.

NSEU

28th Mar 2015, 01:51

The door design introduced after 911 wasnt thought through properly.

Hindsight always gives one 20/20 vision. Designers, no doubt, came up with the best solution for the perceived urgent threat. They probably didn't have time to factor in pilot psychology and other items which required years of debate and trend analysis.

When all pilots are given their own toilets, how long will it be before someone finds a way of locking their toilet door from the outside? :E

SLFplatine

28th Mar 2015, 01:53

A lot of discussion on the post 9/11 door that kept the pilot out of the flight deck but really none the discussion on the German medical confidentiality regime with the severe legal consequences for the breach that failed to keep the FO off of the flight deck in the first place. Just an observation.

janeczku

28th Mar 2015, 02:25

The chart is based on additional flight parameters (DAPs) that were extracted today from the raw ADS-B/Mode-S transponder data of flight 9525.

http://bit.ly/germanwings-flight-data

nsmith

28th Mar 2015, 02:39

@SLFplatine

A lot of discussion on the post 9/11 door that kept the pilot out of the flight deck but really none the discussion on the German medical confidentiality regime with the severe legal consequences for the breach that failed to keep the FO off of the flight deck in the first place. Just an observation.

So your thesis is that had the German medical system not kept the pilot's confidentiality then he would have been prevented from flying. You may be right, but you must also accept that this might have prevented him from presenting his problems to the doctor in the first place, or going to an independent doctor instead.

I am concerned with the future, which means accepting that a) there will be a set of positive and negative aspects to every policy decision, and b) one has to talk in terms of the average result rather than focusing on any one specific incident.

We will never know if FO would have presented his problems if the German system had been different, I just think it is highly probable he would not have done so if he knew it would not have been kept confidential.

bille1319

28th Mar 2015, 02:39

Isn't it strange how none of the tabloids have been seen to apologise to Gernanwings and Airbus for suggesting just prior to the crash that this A320 was past its sell by date and insinuating maintenance problems.

kappa

28th Mar 2015, 03:03

I don’t understand the misconception with the existing USA rule (plus RyanAir and others and which is now being adopted by more as a result of the GW crash).

I just read a post that “cabin crew member …is now mandated to sit next to the pilot when he is on his own.” It does no such thing! It requires that there be two on the Fight Deck. It does not require they be “seated”.

In fact, I understand that under normal circumstances when a pilot is taking a short relief break, the FA simply stands inside the door until the pilot returns. There would be no point in a FA sitting in the RH or LH seat, only to have to get up to determine if it is the pilot that is returning.

When standing behind him, even a slight female FA has quite an advantage over a seated male pilot attempting to take her out. She can manually open the door and retreat to the main cabin. In the GW case, the other pilot would have been there to battle over control, while the plane was on autopilot.

Tas62

28th Mar 2015, 04:08

either she's lying or is incredibly callous and shallow.

Or it's from the Daily Mail.....hardly a reliable source.

_Phoenix_

28th Mar 2015, 04:30

Pilots’ union: Germanwings CVR data leak ‘serious breach’ of rules
Given the level of pressure this leak has undoubtedly created, the investigation team faces a serious distraction.

Pilots? union: Germanwings CVR data leak ?serious breach? of rules | Labor content from ATWOnline (http://m.atwonline.com/labor/pilots-union-germanwings-cvr-data-leak-serious-breach-rules)

737er

28th Mar 2015, 04:53

Quote:
Do they really have an axe in the passenger compartment?
Yes it is near emergency exit to break glass of window,in case.
theAP is offline

I love when idiots espouse stuff.

1.) your wrong
2.) your an idiot

Lord Farringdon

28th Mar 2015, 05:11

An axe in the cabin? Unless an A320 driver confirms, I'm assuming that BS given the level of security given to passengers, and flight and cabin crew.

Two crew at all times is now flavour of the day. Plenty on here have indicated it has limited value. Agree. It is purely a reaction by airlines to show they are doing something in light of this incident. It is PR. Don't fool yourselves it will solve much of anything. The real problem lies in the secure flight deck door although not for this particular tragedy I hasten to add..see below.

Do away with the secure door. An over reaction to 911 before which I could happily board an aircraft with a pocket knife so long as the blade wasn't longer than 6 inches. Once aviation security was stepped up in my country after 911 it was revealed that passengers were carrying grenades, explosives, ammunition, chefs knives, and all manner of flammable liquids,gases etc. No one can do that now.

Given the preflight passenger screening (a woman was humiliatingly placed in a locked glass cage in view of other passengers until she missed her flight, for attempting to carry her expressed breast milk ...see it on You Tube) we should be reasonably confident no baddies will get aboard with anything that could be used as a weapon.

The biggest threat to air safety now is putting the pilots in an impenetrable cell upfront. Too many incidents of aircrew being locked out either temporarily or permanently for all sorts of reasons.

Passenger intolerance of misbehavior on flights is at an all time high. Unruly passengers (and in one case an unruly Captain) have been and will continue to be challenged and physically wrestled and overpowered by SLF. For all the professional pilots on this forum, I'm sure I speak for all SLF when I say you have hundreds of 'Personal Protection Officers' down back. We don't want you hurt, harmed or unable to fulfill your contract with us to get us safely to our destination. Since 911 we treat everybody who doesn't conduct themselves normally on a flight as a potential hazard to our lives. But we can't do anything to help you or us if your cell up front is impenetrable and you or a bad guy are locked in or you are locked out for any of multiple reasons. Get rid of that secure door.

Having said all that, the only part the secure door played in this particular Germanwings tragedy was in the relatively casual manner the FO could carry out his deed. It gave him time to do the whole thing relatively peacefully. As pilots have stated in this thread many times, if we put two people or even 10 people on the flight deck, or put in special bulkheads for crew only toilets, it will not stop the guy up front who is hell bent on killing himself and everyone else. Using the element of surprise, he will pick his moment for a massive control input at low altitude immediately after takeoff or on short finals when the opportunity for overpowering and flight recovery will be non-existent.

Thankfully, I am sure such events will continue to be a rare risk we all take. But for all other circumstances, the passengers and CC are not your threat. Our self interest and instinct for survival in these post 911 aviation times means we are the solution. Don't lock us out. It's has proved to be unsafe and unwise.

Edit: I don't mean never lock the door. I mean don't make the door absolutely impassable. Make it breachable if the passengers and CC allow you enough time to do so. If you are the Captain trying to get back in, they will help you. If you are a threat to the flight, they will subdue you. If you a person who by virtue of your status as a crew member takes unauthorized control of the aircraft, the door will be breached and you will be overpowered.

SOPS

28th Mar 2015, 05:23

An axe in the cabin....there sure is.

Doc on board

28th Mar 2015, 05:31

Lord Farringdon,

Actually, 2 on FD is not flavor of the day. Depending on your region, 2 on FD at all times was procedure before Germanwings. Other regions are now adopting it, and, I think, for good reason.

You are absolutely correct that high inputs at takeoff or landing would make correction almost impossible, but at cruise? I don't know. JAL 350 is a good example of a successful attempt by the f/o and f/e to overpower the capt and regain enough control to save lives. Also, and I know it's not quite the same, but the almighty battle aboard FedEx 705 is instructive.

My feeling is that an extra crew member on FD is better than no one at all in a rogue situation. In the first instance, you have a chance (albeit minimal) to incapacitate the rogue and regain control; in the second, you have zero.

vapilot2004

28th Mar 2015, 05:44

......I cannot help but conclude that once a licence holder is diagnosed with a clinical mental condition his/her ability to ever exercise the privileges of that licence should be permanently removed.

The alternative is quite simply incomprehensible to the fare paying public. Imagine "welcome on board Flight 123 to X, the Captain has just returned from sick leave due to a bout of depression but seems OK now so strap in....."

....I am sure there are many who would disagree with me but I have never ever been convinced that anybody truly recovers to 100% once diagnosed with a clinical mental disorder.

...So any pilot who is off work for stress or any other mental illness should be permanently excluded from his/her chosen career? ...

As an ex pilot who has unfortunately suffered depression and anxiety, I have first hand experience of how the system works. ... I thought my career was over, that's it, I will never fly again. Nothing was further from the truth. I had exceptional support from my company, the CAA, my AME and GP. Never once was anything said about never flying again. unfortunatly, I could not recover from my anxiety and I took the very hard decision to leave flying. .......

In the US, once you have a bout with depression or other treatable mental illness, or admit to having a substance abuse problem, your career is over. While you might be able to get your 1st Class Medical restored, no airline will hire you. Covered by myself about 30 pages back here. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-89.html#post8920509)

Can other EU/UK pilots speak to how this works in your part of the big blue marble? Thank you Keepitflying for honestly sharing your story, sir!