Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France

[abgd]

There could be a legal obligation placed on doctors to inform the appropriate aviation authority and employer if they consider a patient who works in any safety critical industry is unfit for duty due mental health issues.

A similar situation arises with fitness to drive - you have a duty to breach confidentiality if you believe your patient is driving despite a medical condition (e.g. poor vision) that makes them unfit.

In practice, unless you're a village doctor you're unlikely to see your patient driving about town so it comes up relatively rarely.

There are other situations in which you have to breach confidentiality and I'm fairly sure that if you felt that a patient was 1) unfit to fly and 2) was likely to do so, you would phone up your legal advisers who I'm fairly sure would tell you to breach confidentiality in this situation.

But with psychiatric issues you really don't want to discourage people from seeking help so better to accept that if a patient states they won't fly, you don't go behind their back to their employer.

There could be a legal obligation placed on doctors to inform the appropriate aviation authority and employer if they consider a patient who works in any safety critical industry is unfit for duty due mental health issues. They would not need to specify why that person is unfit for duty.

Think about it: they don't need to say why the person is unfit for duty, but only need to inform them if it's a psychiatric issue? How's that going to encourage people to seek help?

What you could do would be to have a mandatory obligation to inform the employer that they were unfit for duty for any and every cause, without giving the reason. Even and especially a bad cold.

[rideforever]

In the UK there is already is legal duty placed on Doctors to make a disclosure contrary to the usual duty of absolute confidentiality where the Doctor believes there is a risk of death or serious harm to others.

Pilots already take action against unwanted snooping - unions and CVR disclosure.
Any change to medical confidentiality will probably be met with concealment and avoiding treatment.

WRT Lubitz; if he had been breathing fast or not at all, the papers would have easily wound that into his portrait as a murderer. Likewise if he had had an argument with the waiter in a restaurant last week. Or if he had only lived at home and not had a second apartment 'Oh he still lives at home'. If he had not won that award at the flying school 'He was just an average student'. Or if had no gf 'He was a loner'. Far too much imagination is going on.

Motive / Illness is very unclear. And any response must reflect the actual cause of the crash.

[Pace]

Fireflybob

Yes but you would still drive pilots away from receiving proper medical attention into the hands of alternative or quack therapies
In an era where mental health issues are being encouraged in television adverts by the government and various bodies is it right to treat pilots as potential mass murderers ?
If you identify that people with cancer of the liver are potential mass murderers then identify people with cancer of the liver not someone with toothache
We had a number of posts by so called psychologists giving their opinion that this poor guy suffered with depression
This guy suffered with far more than depression! With more and more coming from the tapes he appears to have been very calm and calculating had pre meditated a mass murder / determine firstly what was wrong with him and then eliminate people with that specific mental disorder from ever being at the controls of an aircraft not a blind witch hunt against thousands of pilots
No one has yet determined what was specifically wrong with this guy or what specific mental illness he had which would make him pre meditate the mass murder of 150 people

[NSEU]

1. THe complete explication (and accusation) was issued after only 48hours.
2. Other experts claim "normal breathing" would NOT be picked up by recorder.
3. No specific place of impact on ground.
4. The prosecutor said that one could hear the Co-Pilot change altitude settings whereas other experts claim this makes no sound whatsoever. The change of settings would be picked up by the other flight data recorder which - well - have they even found it or mentioned it?
5. At no point has there been any reference to the sound of deadbolting the door (now this makes a sgnificant sound) after the PIC tried to re-access the cockpit.

2. Who are these experts? For the purpose of CVR recording, the headset boom microphones are always live. No button pushing is required. Surely a microphone placed a centimeter or two from the mouth would pick up normal breathing (It's already been stated in this message thread that other crew members can sometimes hear breathing).

4. It was mentioned earlier that some make sounds, some don't (an option).

5. There are different types of deadbolting. Some are relatively quiet. Having said that, most likely the F/O's seat would have made a noise if he stood up to walk to the door (the investigators did say they heard the captain's seat earlier).

[KClemens]

@Wedge

In the UK there is already is legal duty placed on Doctors to make a disclosure contrary to the usual duty of absolute confidentiality where the Doctor believes there is a risk of death or serious harm to others.

This is the same as in Germany.

[chopjock]

LandIT

On the CVR and because of the pounding on the door, we can deduce the denial of re-entry of the Captain to the cockpit.

Deduce, exactly. Is that evidence though?
We still don't know that the capt. actually used the emergency code do we?

[papershuffler]

Re: sick notes in Germany

What is the procedure for issuing them? Are they issued by request of the patient, or is it down to the doctor to suggest?

In the UK, I've had doctors spontaneously thrust them at me, and I've had to specifically request them in response to being told to 'rest'. I've also had a GP write one out and say it was up to me if I used it or not.

[CrabbitOldBugger]

IN-2015/021: Minimum Number of Authorised Persons in the Flight Crew Compartment | Publications | About the CAA

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by peekay4

Ian W:

That is not true generally, and especially not true in France, where criminal inquiry is initiated when there is a fatal accident. ** In major fatal aircraft accidents there will be two (or more) inquiries: one by the judiciary and one by the transportation safety board (BEA).

Even if a crime had been committed, the two inquiries continue to run in parallel.

The BEA will continue to investigate the crash and may make safety recommendations to prevent similar scenarios in the future. E.g., they may recommend rule changes with respect to pilots's mental health, requirements around minimum number of crew in the cockpit, changes to door locking system, etc.

The judicial investigation will also continue with the aim in assigning fault and determining civil or criminal liabilities.

In France the judicial investigation has priority over the safety investigation.

(** Strictly speaking, Annex 13 is not law in any country and does not apply to any accident. Annex 13 isn't binding to any signatory. Countries are free to adopt parts of Annex 13 into it's own procedures. In particular, major provisions of Annex 13 do not apply in France -- under any circumstances.)

Peekay4
I think we are in general agreement

Pukin Dog
No criminal investigative authority from any country is going to sit on its hands in the face of evidence being uncovered that suggests that a purposeful, criminal act may have been committed, particularly one that causes the deaths of others, and wait for months or years for the aircraft accident investigators to complete their investigation and then only act if the conclusion of the accident investigators rules out all other possibilities. It would be idiotic for them to do so.

Let us be perfectly plain. If a mass murder has happened and the criminal investigators believe that the air accident investigators are withholding evidence from them or impeding their criminal investigation, then I would expect the investigators themselves to find themselves charged with a criminal offense.

There seems to be a blank here in people's understanding of what has happened and the cross impact of State criminal law and ICAO treaties. As far as I am aware a UN (ICAO) treaty recommendation never trumps State criminal law especially in cases where large numbers have died (been killed). People here may not like that possibly because they are worried that the breach of trust by one of their number will rub off on all flight crew. But that is what will happen, as Peekay4 says, the criminal and aviation inquiries will continue in parallel using their own rules of engagement and obtaining different levels of information. Without the criminal inquiry much of the background information on Lubitz would not have been found that was obtained by police acting for the criminal investigation with police powers not the air accident investigation powers of the French BEA. (This also happened with the pilots of MH370 with no complaint from anyone here)

I cannot see that there is any way that criminal investigation will not take over. Step in their way and you could find yourself imprisoned for impeding police carrying out a criminal inquiry into what they see as mass murder. The FBI would do precisely the same had a similar crash occurred in the USA.

[mcdude]

Lubitz Hit EXPED

EXPED button not installed on the aircraft (D-AIPX)

http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/storag...ion=1427380668

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by LandIT

Code:

Deduce, exactly. Is that evidence though? We still don't know that the capt. actually used the emergency code do we?

Evidence? Are you in denial? So the Captain has to use the emergency code (not the normal intercom) to get back into the cockpit?

After the co-pilot has dialed up zero altitude. (for what valid reason?). Really?

Really what? Some of us are trying to figure out what the published facts are.

While I in fact deduce the same as you do, there is no mention yet that a) the captain used the emergency override code, b) that such request had been denied. On the contrary, the prosecutor responded to a direct question with saying no such feature had been fitted to the aircraft.

c) - while I think the altitude selection was indeed voluntary/deliberate, there is no published fact (yet) to suggest the FO remained conscious thereafter.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

Crash A320: Les trois éléments qui ne collent pas avec la version officielle - DH.be

Not sure if this has been posted here already, but IMHO raises a few interesting questions:

1. THe complete explication (and accusation) was issued after only 48hours.
2. Other experts claim "normal breathing" would NOT be picked up by recorder.
3. No specific place of impact on ground.
4. The prosecutor said that one could hear the Co-Pilot change altitude settings whereas other experts claim this makes no sound whatsoever. The change of settings would be picked up by the other flight data recorder which - well - have they even found it or mentioned it?
5. At no point has there been any reference to the sound of deadbolting the door (now this makes a sgnificant sound) after the PIC tried to re-access the cockpit.

A Swiss newsaper writes along the same lines mentioning that the release of this cockpit data is against all laws and regulations and a lawsuit will be filed by several unions agains the prosecutor. Let me know if you'd like me to fully translate either article!
Die seltsam schnelle Festlegung auf eine Wahrheit - News Panorama: Vermischtes - tagesanzeiger.ch

These unions may be in for a real surprise. The prosecutor will say he was acting in a case apparently of mass murder, had to tell other airlines of the weakness of their system and as part of that would need to supply sufficient evidence to make them understand what happened.

Imagine if the prosecutor had warned aircraft operators and regulators that he believed that they had a weakness with their cockpit door procedures - but NOT provided CVR evidence. He would not have been believed. Even in light of the CVR and mode-S evidence there are people here who do not believe what happened. He had to release the information for his warnings and subsequent taking legal action to be understood.

If the prosecutor wins that case with the unions and I believe he will, then the CVR recordings could cease to have the degree of legal protection that these unions believe they have. The legal protections are in my view only there to prevent management using them, or for morbid tabloid media; they are not there to inhibit criminal inquiries or actions taken to prevent potential further loss of life. That view could be set in stone by a court case especially if obdurate unions insist on taking it to appeal to the highest levels.

[keithpenny]

BUAP

What do you professional pilots you think of BUAP? and could it have been useful in this situation?

[janeczku]

Lufthansa manager suggests the FDR might never be found.
What a strange thing to say merely days after the accident and considering the CVR was not really heavily damaged. Is it wishful thinking?

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by tmac21

Quote:
3. And, last but not least, no one ever once mentions the 30 second ear piercing alarm triggered by the Captain after entering the emergency code on the door..
I believe it was said at the beginning that nobody had attempted to enter the emergency code?

No the implication is that as the alarm was not heard the CDLS override switch in the center console had been set to override. When that happens all alarms both routine and emergency are muted. The fact that there were no entry alarms at all in the 8 minute descent also means that the override must have been reset after 5 minutes by someone on the flight deck. It is a guarded switch so cannot be accidentally set.

[M68]

Regarding exceptions of doctor confidentiality for "special" cases.
How would a doctor know what the patient's real job is? He could only rely on what the patient tells him.

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by silverstrata

The cockpit door policy post 9-11 was not fully thought through, as we can all see. (Some of us did warn the authorities.) So why rush in with new proposals, when these new ideas are equally fraught with unintended consequences?
[...]
That is what the CAA and various airlines are proposing. Is this sensible? Has anyone thought this through?

Reading this thread, I find one of the most confusing things to be posts like this which imply that these are "new proposals" or untried / untested knee-jerk responses with no track record. This is simply not the case. As SLF, flying rarely since 9/11 (although not for that reason - other life changes) I have seen this procedure in operation multiple times, in Europe, and on multiple different airlines. In fact, I hadn't realised it was not regulation (as it appears it was/is in the US).

What the authorities are doing is simply asking _all_ airlines to implement a procedure that has already been in widespread use, as long as the locked door, in a large number of airlines all round the world - just not _your_ airline.

All safety measures have some risk of unintended adverse consequences in some situations, the aim has to be to ensure this risk is low in comparison to what you are trying to prevent. As with the locked door, we can only quantify one side of those risks, because we will never know how many adverse events have been deterred by the measure, however after over a decade and millions of flight hours in use we can definitely _quantify_ the risk of adverse consequences. We know the risks of the locked door, not from hypotheticals but from real events on record, the same should be true of this procedure. There are also more cabin crew than pilots, and if as you say they are less well vetted then there should be many more incidents of rogue cabin crew than rogue pilots. We can definitely quantify the rogue pilots from the record (it's not just this one), so you should be able to stop talking hypotheticals and start talking actual events or stats...


PS: Meanwhile, I would be very interested to know how you are getting your beverages for the flight through security - 100ml can't possibly be enough, and you can't be getting them from those "recruit anyone from the streets, give them a few weeks training" cabin crew, can you ? I don't want to stoke paranoia, but for a pre-meditated incapacitation what do you think the easiest, most common choice would be, roofie or fire-axe ?

[MrSnuggles]

M68

Regarding exceptions of doctor confidentiality for "special" cases.
How would a doctor know what the patient's real job is? He could only rely on what the patient tells him.

In Sweden that would be a no brainer. I did explain how our system works a few pages back; short version is that your Doc HAS to report some illnesses to Transportstyrelsen by law, and CAN report some transient conditions by own discretion. Transportstyrelsen then hugs this information until you come to them and ask for whatever permit you need (air, sea, road, rail) and then you are supervised for a period of time, and there's a lot of paperwork and medical professions involved.

So, in Sweden the Doc does not need to know what you work with. They just report as is stated by the law. Transportstyrelsen gouverns the whole thing and when you apply for some license your name pops up from their database.

[MD11Engineer]

Papershuffler:
Re: sick notes in Germany

What is the procedure for issuing them? Are they issued by request of the patient, or is it down to the doctor to suggest?

In the UK, I've had doctors spontaneously thrust them at me, and I've had to specifically request them in response to being told to 'rest'. I've also had a GP write one out and say it was up to me if I used it or not.

Same in Germany.The sick note will only contain the start date and the estimated end date of the sick leave, but will not contain any medical details.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Ian W

No the implication is that as the alarm was not heard the CDLS override switch in the center console had been set to override. When that happens all alarms both routine and emergency are muted. The fact that there were no entry alarms at all in the 8 minute descent also means that the override must have been reset after 5 minutes by someone on the flight deck. It is a guarded switch so cannot be accidentally set.

Or perhaps the aircraft was not equipped with the feature, as per the procurator's brief?