Would it happen here?
Start by understanding that human beings have this interesting failure mode, in which they self destruct, and sometimes seek to destroy other humans in the process. We (because we are all at risk of this failure mode) may also seek to make a statement, make an impression, or even to vanish without a trace (usually achieved by, say, jumping off a ship at sea, rather than attempting to make an entire plane vanish in the Southern Ocean).
Now add in the fact that while self-preservation is impaired, the ability to devise ways to execute this failure mode, so to speak, is not. So for every clever preventative measure we can come up with, one of us who has the misfortune to suffer this failure mode will likely attempt to devise a workaround.
This failure mode happens at a very low incidence (though not as low as you might think) but since there are billions of humans, it is not uncommon.
Now recognise that at present we have a limited ability to recognise this failure mode before it emerges. In some cases it is moderately predictable (terrorism), but in many other cases there are few if any warning signs.
The warning signs that are available are purely behavioural; either the person takes actions appropriate to their objectives, or sometimes they might even discuss their intent at some more or less hypothetical level.
For example, this pilot is quoted as answering instructions to prepare for approach to the destination in an ambiguous manner ("we'll see"), and to have discussed at least hypothetically an action of this sort with his ex girlfriend, clues we recognise with hindsight.
The trouble is that this "failure mode" is so rare that few people ever recognise the warning signs, and that even where there are recognisable warning signs, the failure mode, at least on this scale, usually never eventuates. And many of us desperately want to believe that anyone who could "fail" in this way is fundamentally broken and not like us and our friends and colleagues. So we don't see the warnings.
Now consider that some of us will voluntarily step forward, recognising stress or distress in our lives, and seek help, with a resultant reduction in adverse outcomes, while others will recognise that seeking help will destroy much of our life and so attempt to tough it out on our own, increasing the risk of an adverse outcome, which, if the failure mode comes, will seem perfectly reasonable and logical.
So who do we trust?
The person with insight, who is prepared to ask for help, and to cooperate with treatment, or the person who insists all is well?
The problem is of course that as long as you believe that this failure mode we've been discussing is vanishingly rare, then the person who insists all is well is *almost* certainly fine, while the person who seeks help is seemingly a permanent, career ending, increased risk.
But once you recognise that mental illness is not actually terribly rare, especially if you include people who are at no risk of suicide but who are so preoccupied by their worries that their performance is impaired, you begin to see that identifying and treating mental illness, without making the personal consequences so dire that people will do almost anything to avoid being detected, is vital.
So, taking our hypothetical pilot with a failure mode, who has escaped detection and has resolved to act on his impulses, what can we do at this late stage to prevent disaster?
Suicide bridges are a well known phenomenon; many big cities have them. Often they eventually are equipped with anti-suicide measures such as barriers (West Gate Bridge in Melbourne, for example) and emergency phones (the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco), which reduce suicides at the site in question.
Some people take the entirely logical position that such measures are a waste of money, since people will simply go somewhere else to kill themselves. The Bolte Bridge in Melbourne is just as tall as the Westgate and just a couple of miles away for example. But the person who goes to a suicide bridge to jump is not logical; they have latched onto the concrete idea of jumping from that particular bridge.
It may well be that a cabin crew member in the cockpit, ostensibly only there to let the other pilot back in, may serve to force a suicidal pilot to act in the presence of someone else. Undoubtedly some will do so anyway, but I can well believe that some will be dissuaded, giving us some more time either to detect them or to persuade them to seek help themselves.
One of the difficulties is that this particular failure mode of humans is well beyond the expertise of pilots, engineers and ergonomists; the solutions will lie with psychologists and psychiatrists, and they will not be perfect.
Now add in the fact that while self-preservation is impaired, the ability to devise ways to execute this failure mode, so to speak, is not. So for every clever preventative measure we can come up with, one of us who has the misfortune to suffer this failure mode will likely attempt to devise a workaround.
This failure mode happens at a very low incidence (though not as low as you might think) but since there are billions of humans, it is not uncommon.
Now recognise that at present we have a limited ability to recognise this failure mode before it emerges. In some cases it is moderately predictable (terrorism), but in many other cases there are few if any warning signs.
The warning signs that are available are purely behavioural; either the person takes actions appropriate to their objectives, or sometimes they might even discuss their intent at some more or less hypothetical level.
For example, this pilot is quoted as answering instructions to prepare for approach to the destination in an ambiguous manner ("we'll see"), and to have discussed at least hypothetically an action of this sort with his ex girlfriend, clues we recognise with hindsight.
The trouble is that this "failure mode" is so rare that few people ever recognise the warning signs, and that even where there are recognisable warning signs, the failure mode, at least on this scale, usually never eventuates. And many of us desperately want to believe that anyone who could "fail" in this way is fundamentally broken and not like us and our friends and colleagues. So we don't see the warnings.
Now consider that some of us will voluntarily step forward, recognising stress or distress in our lives, and seek help, with a resultant reduction in adverse outcomes, while others will recognise that seeking help will destroy much of our life and so attempt to tough it out on our own, increasing the risk of an adverse outcome, which, if the failure mode comes, will seem perfectly reasonable and logical.
So who do we trust?
The person with insight, who is prepared to ask for help, and to cooperate with treatment, or the person who insists all is well?
The problem is of course that as long as you believe that this failure mode we've been discussing is vanishingly rare, then the person who insists all is well is *almost* certainly fine, while the person who seeks help is seemingly a permanent, career ending, increased risk.
But once you recognise that mental illness is not actually terribly rare, especially if you include people who are at no risk of suicide but who are so preoccupied by their worries that their performance is impaired, you begin to see that identifying and treating mental illness, without making the personal consequences so dire that people will do almost anything to avoid being detected, is vital.
So, taking our hypothetical pilot with a failure mode, who has escaped detection and has resolved to act on his impulses, what can we do at this late stage to prevent disaster?
Suicide bridges are a well known phenomenon; many big cities have them. Often they eventually are equipped with anti-suicide measures such as barriers (West Gate Bridge in Melbourne, for example) and emergency phones (the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco), which reduce suicides at the site in question.
Some people take the entirely logical position that such measures are a waste of money, since people will simply go somewhere else to kill themselves. The Bolte Bridge in Melbourne is just as tall as the Westgate and just a couple of miles away for example. But the person who goes to a suicide bridge to jump is not logical; they have latched onto the concrete idea of jumping from that particular bridge.
It may well be that a cabin crew member in the cockpit, ostensibly only there to let the other pilot back in, may serve to force a suicidal pilot to act in the presence of someone else. Undoubtedly some will do so anyway, but I can well believe that some will be dissuaded, giving us some more time either to detect them or to persuade them to seek help themselves.
One of the difficulties is that this particular failure mode of humans is well beyond the expertise of pilots, engineers and ergonomists; the solutions will lie with psychologists and psychiatrists, and they will not be perfect.
And after all that, I didn't answer the question.
Yes, it can happen here. Just as it can happen in Africa, in Asia and in Europe. We're all built to the same basic design, with the same potential failure modes.
There are some cultural differences in the incidence of suicide for example, but I don't believe there are any cultures where suicide is unknown. The potential failure mode is built into all of us, and once it occurs, the human is broken and the consequences for family and friends or for a hundred or more passengers simply do not factor in.
Yes, it can happen here. Just as it can happen in Africa, in Asia and in Europe. We're all built to the same basic design, with the same potential failure modes.
There are some cultural differences in the incidence of suicide for example, but I don't believe there are any cultures where suicide is unknown. The potential failure mode is built into all of us, and once it occurs, the human is broken and the consequences for family and friends or for a hundred or more passengers simply do not factor in.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it 02.00 in the morning down there? I've scanned through your 8 pages on "Would it happen here?" and so far you guys are not as obsessed as the R&N mainstream...they have not yet deleted all of my contributions, however! (I am stuck at home with a cold, but flew at the gliding club last week - 2 soaring flights, actually!)
But one idea your Ollie Onion inspired...if a pilot suffers from emotional or mental breakdown, and tells his AME/airline, there goes his job....as Ollie says his insurance policy for losing his license specifically EXCLUDES mental illness!
Great! just the incentive for keeping a very low profile, (he he he!)
My idea is that the government require the INSURANCE COMPANIES that provide license insurance a special very large payment and a substantial payment for life for any pilot who can PROVE mental illness!
What do you think?
But one idea your Ollie Onion inspired...if a pilot suffers from emotional or mental breakdown, and tells his AME/airline, there goes his job....as Ollie says his insurance policy for losing his license specifically EXCLUDES mental illness!
Great! just the incentive for keeping a very low profile, (he he he!)
My idea is that the government require the INSURANCE COMPANIES that provide license insurance a special very large payment and a substantial payment for life for any pilot who can PROVE mental illness!
What do you think?
If anything,it will probably cause some to avoid a vindaloo the night before and to not think twice about having a whizz before heading to the FD to operate on domestic sectors 
The solution to all this is rather simple..
start $hitting and pi$$ing into a bag... on the flight deck. Problem solved.
This industry just gets better everyday.....
start $hitting and pi$$ing into a bag... on the flight deck. Problem solved.
This industry just gets better everyday.....
The government and airline management, plus the general public have completely missed the underlying issue, the elephant in the room.
There will be other factors in motion, in regards to the incident being discussed.
Quite possible that friends and family were aware of "issues", yet said nothing.
Quite possible that airline management were aware of "issues", yet swept it under the carpet.
Can it happen here. You bet it can, and has, though not to the same resulting tragedy.
Looking at an individual is not the answer. Truly looking at the industry that has been created where shareholder profit and management bonuses comes first and staff are just a throw away tool, would be a start.
Internal and external reporting or monitoring systems are not effective. Companies are self regulated under the guise of safety. Management and staff prefer to put their head in the sand and hope it will go away.
No one wants to admit that there may be a problem, let alone to try and fix the underlying issues.
The real truth will be hidden, as it is in this industry. Too many $$$$ and ego's take priority.
There will be other factors in motion, in regards to the incident being discussed.
Quite possible that friends and family were aware of "issues", yet said nothing.
Quite possible that airline management were aware of "issues", yet swept it under the carpet.
Can it happen here. You bet it can, and has, though not to the same resulting tragedy.
Looking at an individual is not the answer. Truly looking at the industry that has been created where shareholder profit and management bonuses comes first and staff are just a throw away tool, would be a start.
Internal and external reporting or monitoring systems are not effective. Companies are self regulated under the guise of safety. Management and staff prefer to put their head in the sand and hope it will go away.
No one wants to admit that there may be a problem, let alone to try and fix the underlying issues.
The real truth will be hidden, as it is in this industry. Too many $$$$ and ego's take priority.
Last edited by Servo; 31st Mar 2015 at 02:01.
Bottums Up
The government and airline management, plus the general public have completely missed the underlying issue, the elephant in the room.
There will be other factors in motion, in regards to the incident being discussed.
Quite possible that friends and family were aware of "issues", yet said nothing.
Quite possible that airline management were aware of "issues", yet swept it under the carpet.
There will be other factors in motion, in regards to the incident being discussed.
Quite possible that friends and family were aware of "issues", yet said nothing.
Quite possible that airline management were aware of "issues", yet swept it under the carpet.
CC,
I agree. BUT what needs to be done now is to look at ALL the underlying circumstances as tragic as this incident is.
Don't just point the finger at an individual.
The industry has a LOT of problems. I hope management can sleep comfortably at night, knowing they did everything they could legally, morally and compassionately. I doubt it.
I agree. BUT what needs to be done now is to look at ALL the underlying circumstances as tragic as this incident is.
Don't just point the finger at an individual.
The industry has a LOT of problems. I hope management can sleep comfortably at night, knowing they did everything they could legally, morally and compassionately. I doubt it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind you
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real answer that has been suggested by myself and others is to keep the cockpit door as it is but move it rearwards so the forward toilet becomes part of the flight deck.
2 years ago I was flying business DPS-PER on Virgin. One of the pilots spent the bulk of the cruise flight chatting up the outrageously hot hostie (who wouldn't), eating snacks in front of PAX from the galley, and basically not doing his job which was to fly the aeroplane. I wrote a letter to VA to draw this to their attention, stating that he was so long doing this that I should have filmed it for them. VA replied that it was ok for the crew to leave the cockpit for any amount of time and that it would be an offense for me to film them doing so. WELL DONE VIRGIN -- I still have your letter in my email. NOW DO YOU GET MY POINT ?????? We have 2 drivers for when the sh it hits the fan and they cant fix it if they aint there !!!
So yes it coulda woulda happened in Australia because the airlines don't really care about safety until they are made to do so.
So yes it coulda woulda happened in Australia because the airlines don't really care about safety until they are made to do so.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Arkmark - you are sure the pilot was crew for that flight hey? No chance of it being a pilot deadheading and occupying a jump seat for the ride? Did you see him sitting in the left or right seat for take off or landing did you? Things may not always be as they seem...
Arkmark, if you fly in the next week or so you will see a captain spending the whole sector down the back! Because I am paxing to pick up a service an hour after arrival....as captain nomad says, all may not be as it seems.
.......and I'll drift into our Ops building and note the amount of time a selected Muppet spends at the water-cooler chatting-up Donna, the new HR girl.
Anyway, the issue here ain't poosay, the issue is 'monkey'
Anyway, the issue here ain't poosay, the issue is 'monkey'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There needs to be a broad spectrum approach/audit. At an Industry and Company level. The catchphrase ' It's legal' has been used for far too long, lip service is paid to things like CRM (sorry NTS because it's all new) - FRMS programs, which plot complete and utter horses%it, to keep you in the safezone and legal. Rubbish rostering/recovery practices, box ticking training programs, a continuous supply of irrelevant Self Learning Modules (which must be done in your own time)............... the list goes on. The general approach to crew/employee welfare / general respect level in the industry has taken a steep dive in recent years and unfortunately we have let it by continuing to accept it. In turn 'some' of the employers have taken this as normal.
1 in a million, maybe. Very sad indeed. Could it be prevented? The door/2 crew rule may not be the answer.
1 in a million, maybe. Very sad indeed. Could it be prevented? The door/2 crew rule may not be the answer.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
This hostie-to-the-cockpit rule achieves precisely 0.01% of SFA, the only reason they're doing it is because it doesn't cost anything to implement. Same for moving cockpit doors around and installing loos in flight decks and all these other bright ideas.
It just means the next guy won't do it in the cruise, he'll wait until he's on half a mile finals and shove the stick full forward. Or turn the engine masters off during initial climb. Or, if he wants to do it in the cruise, just stand up to get something from the coat rack and then garrot the skipper before continuing. Or one of a hundred other things he could do. A pilot who's determined to suicide will always find a way.
The best cure would be good, free, medical insurance, backed up by a company policy that will allow guys to take time off and get their head straight without fear of repercussions - or pay out a really good loss-of-licence cover in the event that they can't be recertified.
And it needs to be either government funded or legally mandated so that companies can't wriggle out of it.
It just means the next guy won't do it in the cruise, he'll wait until he's on half a mile finals and shove the stick full forward. Or turn the engine masters off during initial climb. Or, if he wants to do it in the cruise, just stand up to get something from the coat rack and then garrot the skipper before continuing. Or one of a hundred other things he could do. A pilot who's determined to suicide will always find a way.
The best cure would be good, free, medical insurance, backed up by a company policy that will allow guys to take time off and get their head straight without fear of repercussions - or pay out a really good loss-of-licence cover in the event that they can't be recertified.
And it needs to be either government funded or legally mandated so that companies can't wriggle out of it.
[QUOTE] pay out a really good loss-of-licence cover in the event that they can't be recertified./QUOTE]
Erm! Considering what's being discussed, that's not a very good turn of phrase.
Seriously, I think the best solution is the implementation of policy that's based on care, understanding and compassion. An anguished soul is, for whatever reason, entitled to no less. The 'onlooker' policy is window-dressing only being forced upon the airlines by a government desperate to be seen to be 'doing something' to protect the masses. It will not, and cannot, prevent a pilot from wanting to take himself, and his passengers, out.
Please look out for each other. Poor buggers are often driven to terrible acts as they think no one cares about them and no one is listening.
Erm! Considering what's being discussed, that's not a very good turn of phrase.
Seriously, I think the best solution is the implementation of policy that's based on care, understanding and compassion. An anguished soul is, for whatever reason, entitled to no less. The 'onlooker' policy is window-dressing only being forced upon the airlines by a government desperate to be seen to be 'doing something' to protect the masses. It will not, and cannot, prevent a pilot from wanting to take himself, and his passengers, out.
Please look out for each other. Poor buggers are often driven to terrible acts as they think no one cares about them and no one is listening.