Yes, it does. But only if it is very obvious that lifes are in danger. And even then an MD is open to a criminal case against him, the patient can sue him for any damages he has a result, which is millions in the case of a young pilot (the rest of his lifes income in that job) and of course he might lose his medical license as a result. The limits to report a patient are very high indeed. As mentioned above, a direct result of things that happened in nazi germany. Since nobody is required to truthfully state his occupation at his MD, privacy laws would have to be changed for everyone, and that is not going to happen in germany.

So they got no video/imaging out of any of the passengers mobile phones on board.
or perhaps they did and though it wiser to say nowt?

Videos and photos from the cabin would have added little but feed the lowest common denominator of public voyeurism.

On privacy in Germany if you do read the report you see:

"On the one hand, German regulations contain specific provisions to punish doctors violating medical confidentiality, including occupational consequences and imprisonment up to one year.

On the other hand, the German criminal code has very general provisions stating that any person who acts to avert an imminent danger does not act unlawfully, if the act committed is an adequate means to avert the danger and if the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with."


There is a good summary of the report here: https://twitter.com/Aerossurance/sta...90567780405248

(Warning - "Politics")

How is it that Germany can have these "special laws", even if they are in conflict with the rules in the rest of the EU? As I understand it, UK is obliged under the EU agreement to implement all of the laws passed by EU, without any conditions.

(not trying to be "political" here, but this is one of the "bugs" of EU membership that the anti-EU campaign is regularly throwing up)

there are NO EU wide laws on crimes - only things liek th eEuropean Arrest Warrent - which isn't actually just restricted tot the EU

Most of the things that get the OUT campaign exercised are to do with commercial issues

the European Court of Human Rights (founded by the UK) isn't an EU body at all

I think the BEA have got this one right - airlines (and other companies) have to give people suffering from mental health issues some sort of support - take the guy off flying but continue to employ them AND allow them to return to flying once they are well again

I've known a few people with mental health problems and TBH for most of them it's been a temporary issue that they have got through

If we demonise it and throw them in thw street who the hell is going to go and seek help or turn themselves in??

ExSimGuy

Not always true ( not making political point either , just trying to clarify this particular issue)

Whilst not wishing to sidetrack this debate, nor use it as a platform for criticism of "atypical employment", surely this is the opportunity EASA & the European Govts should use to put an end to zero hour contracts/bogus self employment etc.

The probability of someone , already depressive, self reporting a mental health issue , has got to be very low, if he understands that his income will thereafter be zero until he resumes flying duties again.

Turkeys don't usually vote for Xmas, and the elephant in the room that EASA et al will probably ignore is that the issue here is trying to make it less punitive for someone to seek help . . . . simples, give them the possibility to continue with their income protected (or at least a high percentage of it ) until the issue is resolved one way or another.

Inbetween zero-hour contracts & the brave new world of companies offering no (or inadequate ) loss of licence coverage, I don't see how we can realistically expect to increase self reporting.

Yep. Maybe that's the objective: cost cutting of a different sort. :mad:

ExSimGuy,

The problem is that the Brexit advocates never specify the difference between an EU Directive and an EU Regulation. There are relatively few Regulations. And, as Heathrow Harry has pointed out, the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU body at all. I do wish the popular press would be a lot more factual about EU processes.

A Directive is a legal act of the European Union, which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result.

A Regulation is a legal act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously.

The term psychopath has a specific meaning and Lubitz doesnt fit it. A sociopath generally is not a criminal. Many successful businessmen are sociopathic. They have no qualms about ruining lives in a different way.

Not making excuses, but as I have dealt with many suicidal people I just want to introduce into the discussion how distorted the thinking can be. It may have been in his mind that "My life is not worth living, so what makes the life of anyone on board worth living?" Another scenario is that he was just comfortable in his little office at the front of the aircraft and took the aircraft into the mountains perceiving nothing but what was going on in his mind.

Depression has a very large spectrum, possibly one of the biggest catch-all diagnoses. It can range from simple reactive depression where the sleep is disturbed to suicidal and what would be called murderous intentions. Sometimes it depends on your job or what you are familiar with. If its firearms you may go on a killing spree. Depressives dont generally kill 150 but have certainly been known to kill as many as they thought or had the physical capability to do so. Women with post-natal depression sometimes kill their own children. They are not psychopaths but ill.

When do the supposed/perceived rights of the individual over-ride the established rights of the many? Does not a doctor, as well as having a 'duty of care' to his patient, also have 'duty of care' to society in general. The medical oath is to save life. Do the laws of privacy over-ride one's scariness about a patient's future actions?

Please don't ask doctors to play God. The ones who play it that way are enough of a nuisance already.


As for the rest (most doctors) you are asking them to be able to predict with a level of accuracy that the mind and emotional sciences simply can't handle.. Were it that good, suicide would have been cured long, long ago.


If the doctor to patient relationship isn't confidential, the patients will be less likely to share things with a doctor. That's good for nobody, neither the patient nor the public.

Here is the final report:

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyd...0125.en-LR.pdf

I have searched the final report several times.

Apparently the Captain or flight attendants never inputted the emergency access code - why?

How is it possible to change the selected altitude from 38,000 to 100' in one second?

Does German Wings altitude setting SOP make use the 1000' or 100' selection on the FCU?

Would it not take 4-5 twists of the altitude selector to go from 38000 to 100' even if the 1000' selection was used because one would have to switch to the 100' mode to input 100' in selected altitude?

I can't see where the report states that. Reference?

I'm obviously missing something subtle.. from what I've seen when jumpseating on a 'bus I'd have thought you'd probably do it the same way you do on a Boeing MCP, i.e. turn the knob quickly...

page 9

"He kept the cockpit door locked during the descent, despite requests
for access made via the keypad and the cabin interphone."

I read that as they entered the Emergency code but he jsut switched it to LOCK every time thus overriding the keyboard

Page 36:

"Note: The buzzer recorded at 09 h 34 min 31 most probably corresponded to a routine access request because it is the first access request following the Captain's departure from the cockpit and because the operator's normal practice calls for trying the normal access code before dialling the emergency access code. Therefore, the possibility that it corresponds to an emergency access request cancelled after 980 ms by an action on the toggle switch is considered to be extremely remote."

From what I read all requests for access were via the routine (normal) method. The emergency access method was never attempted. If it were there would be additional sounds recorded emanating from the door specific loud speaker. Also considering the time frame he would have needed to select lock only once and all subsequent requests for access (routine or emergency) would have been muted.

I fly the Bus, I can spin the selected altitude knob and maybe go from 38,000 to 22,000 then have to spin again and most likely one more time to get to 1000 and then reset it to the 100' range to get to 100' feet. So 3-5 spins - I don't think I could do that in a second - is it a big deal ofcourse not - it just stood out to me.

I did see that comment but as I read that it seems to only refer to that particular singular (and seemingly first) request for access. Even in that comment they say can't even definitively rule out that it wasn't an attempt at emergency access, just that it was extremely unlikely because of SOPs. That in turn might perhaps lead to the conclusion that the investigators had no way from the audio data of ever telling which "code" was used for entry.

Maybe it's more clear in the original French langage version.

(Edit to add:spent too long typing - I appreciate you maybe can't answer but is the buzzer sound for normal access the same as the buzzer for emergency access?)

As for the comments about the " Alt knob" :ooh: on the MCP :E Thanks for your comments, I wonder if the "one second" is plus or minus. I'm not planning to try it but you could certainly wind most Boeing MCP alt selectors down to 100' in not much more than a second.

RAT 5:
I can speak to the duties of a psychiatrist in the United States. First and foremost, psychiatrist are afforded more protection by law than other medical doctors or than other types of mental health practitioners.

Psychiatrists cannot disclose fantasies that a patient may have. Nor can the psychiatrist disclose past crimes the patient may have confessed. But, if the patient makes a credible threat to commit a crime then the psychiatrist is required by law to report that specific threat to law enforcement.