|
‘Suicidal Pilots are becoming main cause of fatalities’
London Times yesterday analysis item triggered by new MH370 story.
The takeover of Flight MH370 by a pilot who crashed the Boeing in a remote site in the Indian ocean emerged as the most plausible explanation of the disaster after the airliner’s track was identified and debris was found in 2015 (Charles Bremner writes). Pilots who deliberately crash their airliners, taking all aboard to their doom, have become a leading cause of fatal crashes as safety advances have greatly reduced accidents to a near negligible level, at least in the developed world. As recently as March this year, a pilot on a China Eastern Boeing 737 is thought to have taken over the aircraft and dived it into the ground near the city of Wuzhou, killing all 132 aboard. The investigation is still open, but people involved in the downloading of the airliner’s black box flight recorders in the United States said in May that only human action such as murder-suicide by a pilot could explain the near vertical trajectory of the aircraft. If the China Eastern crash is confirmed as intentional, it will raise suicide-murder by a pilot to the biggest cause of loss of life in commercial airline accidents in recent decades. In June, a Bloomberg study of crashes involving Western-built commercial airliners found that pilot murder-suicide was the second most common cause of deaths in airline crashes from 2011 to 2020. Apart from the China Eastern crash, at least five other airline pilots have deliberately killed themselves along with 543 people in the past 25 years. Airlines have screened their flight crews for psychological difficulties for decades but medical secrecy and pilots’ reluctance to reveal troubles make it difficult to supervise their state beyond initial training. This was demonstrated by the crash of the Germanwings Airbus into the French Alps, killing 150, in 2015. Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot, had been treated for suicidal tendencies but concealed his depression from his employers. He locked the captain out of the flight deck and put the airliner into a dive until it hit the French mountains on a flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf. Airlines in Europe tightened their monitoring of crews’ mental state after the disaster as a result. Most of the homicidal airline pilots have been under stress over legal, work, financial or relationship crises or suffering mental problems and all appeared to have planned their crimes, the accident record shows. The suspected rogue pilot of Malaysia Flight 370 would have gone to great lengths to divert the Boeing 777 while switching off its radar and radio transmissions then flying it for six hours across the Indian ocean, presumably with the passengers all dead from hypoxia (insufficient oxygen). Airlines and their governments when national prestige is involved, are sometimes reluctant to accept crash investigators’ conclusions of murder-suicide by pilots. American investigators concluded that the captain of a SilkAir Boeing 737 had deliberately crashed the aircraft into a river after plummeting from 35,000 feet in 1997. Indonesian authorities rejected the findings and their investigation concluded that there had been no identifiable cause for the disaster that killed 104 people.. |
So the pilot became the most dangerous guy on board...
|
"Well trained pilots are main cause of prevention of X times the number of fatal crashes that occur" would be a better headline. Dear oh dear.
|
I did just post it without comment!
|
Originally Posted by slast
(Post 11347740)
I did just post it without comment!
|
Originally Posted by slast
(Post 11347643)
London Times yesterday analysis item triggered by new MH370 story.
In June, a Bloomberg study of crashes involving Western-built commercial airliners found that pilot murder-suicide was the second most common cause of deaths in airline crashes from 2011 to 2020. |
Pilot suicide is only a relatively recent addition to accident statistics. There were many accidents in earlier days (prior to FDRs etc.) which remained unsolved. They were attributed to unknown factors and in those days suicide probably never entered the equation. It is not unreasonable to consider that a minority of those may indeed have been the result of suicide. We just don't know. Therefore, I'm not overly convinced that it is a more recent trend.
|
I have stopped paying attention to anything written in Newspapers. Suggest you all do the same too. Nothing journalistic about The Times anymore. Just opinions.
|
This is the most uncomfortable topic this forum has ever debated or discussed. A problem
without a solution as long as pilots continue to fly airplanes. |
Originally Posted by ferry pilot
(Post 11348057)
This is the most uncomfortable topic this forum has ever debated or discussed. A problem
without a solution as long as pilots continue to fly airplanes. |
Not denying the "issue" but at this time it feels like part of the next campaign to promote single pilot cockpits.
|
You could argue the complete opposite that this has anything to do with single man cockpits. Two pilots reduces the risk. At least that is what the authorities argued after the Germanwings disaster. As a now retired captain but with a solid background in work design I think this is much more about working conditions and job satisfaction. The pilot job has been continuously simplified and tasks automated. The focus from the manufacturers has been on safety and efficiency with a big upside for the paying public. The downside is that the job is much less interesting and ultimately requires less skill. If you pay people less and work them harder in uncomfortable shift work with boring repetitive routines where they don't feel they are adding much value, then some of them are going to struggle with their mental health.
|
Originally Posted by lederhosen
(Post 11348095)
You could argue the complete opposite that this has anything to do with single man cockpits. Two pilots reduces the risk. At least that is what the authorities argued after the Germanwings disaster. As a now retired captain but with a solid background in work design I think this is much more about working conditions and job satisfaction. The pilot job has been continuously simplified and tasks automated. The focus from the manufacturers has been on safety and efficiency with a big upside for the paying public. The downside is that the job is much less interesting and ultimately requires less skill. If you pay people less and work them harder in uncomfortable shift work with boring repetitive routines where they don't feel they are adding much value, then some of them are going to struggle with their mental health.
Even the GW situation, IIRC there was little going on, that he would lose his medical, his job, earning or position. It was just the existing mental illness turning into general revenge, he no longer could deal with it himself. The changing job: Well, that counts for a lot of jobs. The world does change and the jobs have to follow. The issue is, how people deal with/accept the changes (in life). Regarding skills: I highly doubt, the need for top-level skills will go down, to take-over when automation fails. It just will be more difficult to gain those capabilities, when to much automation is being brought in. Regarding single man's cockpit (except for really small airplanes): Hmmmm. What a nonsense ...... What is important for the airline industry, is a level playfield for all airlines. Whether that be a 2-man or 1-man cockpit does not make a difference. Just let it be a level playfield, and it will not disturb the balance among airlines be it a 2-man or 1-man cockpit crew. Whatever some "captains" of the airline industry (especially the LCC's), are promoting in the press, there is, at least in Europe, a strong political pressure to decrease the amount of airplane movements. So, a decline in number of flights is imminent and unavoidable for now. So, even the LCC's will need to shrink the number of flights. And, where the supply does decrease and demand does increase, the pricing will go up. So also for LCC's the 1-man cockpit will become less relevant to bring "lower" ticket pricings into the market, let more people fly, to increase their turnover. That mechanism is (at least in Europe) over and will move to increase turnover based on increased pricing. The A380-NG would still have its chance, bigger airplanes with a lower amount of airplane movements, can still bring an increase in passengers. ...... |
Thank you for your lengthy if a little incoherent input WideScreen. I am unsure which fundamental mistakes you are referring to. Less Hair was suggesting that this was somehow part of a campaign to promote the single man cockpit. I happen to disagree for the reason I gave; namely that we were required by the authorities to always have two people in the cockpit after one of the more high profile and undisputed suicides.
I am interested by your argument that the job is not being deskilled. I am unclear what your qualification is to make this assertion. I spent the latter part of my working life flying glass cockpit Boeing and Airbus aircraft. The latest generation avionics even with failures are much easier to fly with than the steam gauge generation that preceded them. Raw data manual flying with multiple failures on a modern airbus is pretty straightforward compared to a normal day at the office on an early 707. If you have spent much time in the cockpit then you will know how mind numbingly boring long flights can be. In the early jet glory days the Pan Am pilot's job was jokingly described as 8 hours of boredom with a couple of minutes of terror at either end. These days it is unusual to have any excitement at least as far as flying the aircraft is concerned. I think more attention needs to be given to improving the working environment. Where I do agree with you is that this is not just about money. |
I tend to agree with lederhosen here. Back to suicidal pilots , in the well known GW event the reasons why the pilot was not prevented to fly are well docucumented and were debated ad nauseam in the years that followed. Basically he knwew how to play the system to remain undetected, Can it happen again , sadly yes , maybe not in all counytries, but in many other , yes. Reasons why piots would go though that extreme are too numerous to extract a definite pattern in order to make an effective general counter measure.
In addition mental health discussions are still taboo in most parts of the world and especialy in our industry. As to think bringing the subject in tthe media now to push or counter single pilots operations , I sincelery doubt it , if it is indeed a coordianted PR lobby it would be more for autonomous aircraft. |
I am only at the very beginning of my airline career, but what strikes me is the disparity between the process I have to go through to get a security ID and the process I have to go through to prove my psychological fitness. I wonder if this is because there is a lack of knowledge around what psychological fitness is within airlines? It strikes me that if you were to tell the HR department you were in counseling, that might well be your job gone right there... perhaps airlines having a more nuanced understanding of what should raise red flags and what is a normal/acceptable level of looking after your mental health might be a good thing? That might then encourage pilots to be a bit more open in self reporting before they get to the point of no return?
|
Busdriver & co, I'd be interested if anyone can provide examples of events preferably since 2000 which did NOT make big headlines like Sully, Qantas, etc. but where the crew had to "improvised" a solution to a completely unforeseen event that would otherwise have been catastrophic. For example the BA B744 at Nairobi where an out-of adjustment thrust reverser caused leading edge slat retraction on lift off, putting the aircraft into an immediate stalling condition.
|
slast,
Yes indeed. The problem with nearly all the statistics that we have is that there are very few, if any, which show when the pilots did save the day. There are so many undocumented 'near misses' which we never ever hear anything about because a major problem was nipped in the bud by prompt action or by good decision making somewhere along the line. There are many causes of aircraft accidents, nearly always caused by a combination of factors (Professor James Reason's Swiss cheese concept) with pilot error or suicide being only one of them. In airline operations, the percentage due to pilot error is documented as around 15%, in smaller commuter operations it is around 65% and in general aviation it is around 75% (these figures probably need to be checked). These tend to be the ones we continually see trotted out by journalists and others. But one has to be very careful when using these figures, as there are very few accidents caused solely by pilots making mistakes or committing suicide. Most accidents have many contributory factors and occur when the pilots were already dealing with other problems/failures/weather factors, etc. But we hardly ever hear of the times when the pilots prevented an accident by making good decisions and taking suitable action well before any event escalated into something more serious. |
We don't know the exact picture and maybe we will never know. MH370 and MH17 crashed around the same time under suspicious conditions. It can not be a coincidence that this has happened at the same time or maybe it can be. Maybe we are all being part of the narrative.
|
Originally Posted by palprthi
(Post 11348349)
We don't know the exact picture and maybe we will never know. MH370 and MH17 crashed around the same time under suspicious conditions. It can not be a coincidence that this has happened at the same time or maybe it can be. Maybe we are all being part of the narrative.
If you can explain how being shot down by a missile (17 July 2014 over Southeastern Europe) is the 'same suspicious condition' as being lost and never found (8 March 2014 somewhere over the Indian Ocean) I am sure that your colleagues will receive this post more favorably. I honestly don't see the connection. |
This is how I show it on picma.info....
What the public and non-technical aviation industry sees: https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....465d8319c5.png What only those inside the industry know: https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d24ef2d308.png So the "flight operations community" still needs to remove the red section, which is primarily approach and landing events including many runway excursions, if we are not going to see pressure mounting to go down the "getting rid of pilots will prevent human error accidents" route. |
slast, A very eloquent diagram - and absolutely true. Any suggestions as to how to get this into the mainstream debate?
|
Bergerie1 - thank you. As you know picma.info is about trying to reduce what Earl Weener at Boeing called "crew-caused accidents". It dates from 2014-16 and I'm currently revising it to include events since then such as Air India at Kodhikode, the 744 at Bishkek, Pegasus at Istanbul, Air Maroc at El Hoeima, FlyDubai at Rostov, PIA at Karachi, and several others which avoided being catastrophic by pure good luck, as was the case with Air Canada at Halifax.
But I also want to make it more inviting both to pilots to and to non-pilot "interested parties" in the aviation world, and include some of the more responsible journalists and commentators. I've had a degree of interest in that so we'lll see what happens when I get the revised version up hopefuly early next year. Any other suggestions welcome! |
Steve, I wish your project well, particularly if 'interested' parties can be encouraged to engage.
Unfortunately, I fear that the underlying problem is with the regulatory authorities. They seek to retain control in the face of increasing uncertainty in complex operations, the need of a Safety-II viewpoint, and inappropriate use the term human error. "Such organizations have complex, well-developed immune systems, aimed at preserving the status quo." Re suicidal pilot; this also requires a change of viewpoint. Was German wings an individual human issue or one of a locked flight deck door. For the future, might the main cause of fatalities originate from regulatory safety management. Their numerical risk based approach being less applicable (effective) in a very safe industry, thus the outcome of ill-considered intervention - 'must do something' as a controlling authority, could be the greater risk than the safety events themselves. |
Originally Posted by T28B
(Post 11348400)
notasmodnoradmin
If you can explain how being shot down by a missile (17 July 2014 over Southeastern Europe) is the 'same suspicious condition' as being lost and never found (8 March 2014 somewhere over the Indian Ocean) I am sure that your colleagues will receive this post more favorably. I honestly don't see the connection. |
If we can back down the outrage for a minute - the issue that needs to be addressed is what can we do (that isn't already commonplace) to prevent accidents from pilot suicide.
Commercial aviation has never been safer - that means we're doing a lot right - both in the aircraft and the pilots. The fatal accident rate is very low. Pilot suicide is nothing new - there are documented accidents for at least the last 40 years where suicide is the probable cause. As we address the other accident causes through better design and pilot training, pilot suicide has moved up the rankings as likely accident cause. I don't see evidence that the rate is increasing, but I don't think it's decreasing either - and that's the problem. The Swiss Cheese model simply doesn't apply to a suicidal pilot - once a pilot decides that suicide is the most desirable course of action (taking a planeload of people along with), it's too late (two people in the flight deck at all times is a placebo - if the pilot flying decides to nose the aircraft into the ground during landing or takeoff - another person up there isn't going to stop it). We need to develop better ways to identify and address mental health issues among pilots, before they get to the suicide stage. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 11348577)
If we can back down the outrage for a minute - the issue that needs to be addressed is what can we do (that isn't already commonplace) to prevent accidents from pilot suicide.
The Swiss Cheese model simply doesn't apply to a suicidal pilot - once a pilot decides that suicide is the most desirable course of action (taking a planeload of people along with), it's too late (two people in the flight deck at all times is a placebo - if the pilot flying decides to nose the aircraft into the ground during landing or takeoff - another person up there isn't going to stop it). We need to develop better ways to identify and address mental health issues among pilots, before they get to the suicide stage. |
Genuine question to the pros. If an airline pilot felt the need for counselling - due perhaps relationship situation, bereavment, or whatever other form of life stress - would seeking it be considered a sign of a responsible person focussed on their ongoing good health? Would they be confident that it would be viewed in this light in proceeding to declare it on their next medical certificate renewal process? Or might there be a consideration that it wouldn't be a "good look", and that the good old "stiff upper lip" is the right approach? Do airlines offer counselling as part of their employment benefits? If so, is taking it up considered good form?
|
Suicide is neither foreseeable nor preventable. It is a fact of life. Any solution will have to be technical, and that means producing airplanes that cannot be deliberately flown into the ground.
How soon depends on the amount of press this subject generates. But it will happen. |
Originally Posted by ferry pilot
(Post 11348769)
Any solution will have to be technical, and that means producing airplanes that cannot be deliberately flown into the ground.
How soon depends on the amount of press this subject generates. But it will happen. "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" - that didn't end well for Lion Air and Ethiopian. |
One of the issues that need to be addressed re mentally fit to fly is the bullying tactics of management ignoring a pilots physical as well as mental health.
Not only the trident crash but I witnessed one of the managers of the time trying to force a new command take an aircraft out of home with a technical deficiency that was not allowed. We were then put onto airport standby just for spite as there wasn’t a serviceable aircraft at Heathrow. It was similar during the IRA bombing campaign when we were volunteered to fly Belfast and BALPA had to step in as our life insurance wasn’t valid flying into a war zone. The truth about the number of bombs placed on BEA aircraft was and is still withheld. It wasn’t the only airline that I witnessed threats to keep an unwell pilot flying especially with fatigue considerations due to paring the crew numbers below a safe number. I remember two suicides and a couple of physical arguments including one on the flight deck. |
I think that an element of the problem for all suicides is the disjoint between expectations of what life will bring and the reality from which the escape is only seen as death. People attracted to flying are probably 'thrill seekers' who actively seek out challenging situations and relish the excitement of resolving them, physically. The problem they face in the profession is that neither passengers nor management relish that and want flying to be not exciting, boring. The skilful pilot will use his knowledge and experience to make it boring, sometimes that is not enough and that disjoint arises, when it does there are various release mechanisms, dangerous and challenging sports, drink and in extremis mental illness.
|
I''m not sure about the current status in other countries but I seem to recall that many years ago (early 70s?) there was an issue with some F/Os becoming concerned that there was a Captain who seemed to be drinking to excess, including while on duty. They did not want this to be pursued through compamy channels for obvious reasons and the upshot was that BALPA set up a "Pilots Advisory Group" to provide help. However exactly how problems were resolved I don't know. I think it was copied by some other large associations but tomwaht extent these still exist I don't know, and I imagine it relied on having decent relations with the airlines which is probably more difficult these days.
Re beardy's "skilful pilot" comment, I recall being told that "the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid ever having to use his superior skills!" |
Originally Posted by slast
(Post 11348918)
I''m not sure about the current status in other countries but I seem to recall that many years ago (early 70s?) there was an issue with some F/Os becoming concerned that there was a Captain who seemed to be drinking to excess, including while on duty. They did not want this to be pursued through compamy channels for obvious reasons and the upshot was that BALPA set up a "Pilots Advisory Group" to provide help. However exactly how problems were resolved I don't know. I think it was copied by some other large associations but tomwaht extent these still exist I don't know, and I imagine it relied on having decent relations with the airlines which is probably more difficult these days.
Those reports are looked at by a expert and when there are multiple reports on one individual (they never react on 1 or 2 reports), that individual is invited to participate in an evaluation by medical and psychological staff. You can refuse, but then the report goes to the company. Of you do take part, the companult will not hear anything. When it is determined the individual has a alcohol problem, treatment is proposed, again voluntary, but again if not taken, company is informed. When you do enter the treatment, you are reported sick but the reason is not mentioned and can't be inquired by the company. It will not be on any record and others just know you are sick (thats also by law, companies can't ask what is wrong with you). And that system works quite good, there are some false positives, but a few and there are people who are really helped. They are starting a similar program for people who have mental issues, so they can be helped without fear of losing the job or being judged. |
Originally Posted by the_stranger
(Post 11348972)
Where I work......
|
Originally Posted by ferry pilot
(Post 11348769)
Suicide is neither foreseeable nor preventable
Suicide is a public health problem, not an aviation problem. When it comes to putting a human on the flightdeck, there is a possibility you take the problem to the flightdeck, and then it's an aviation problem. So the first step would be to avoid this from happening. There are programs out there that try to deal with the issue (ie peer support program). Otherwise there's a lot we can shut down in the world... how about a nuclear plant with a person with mental health working in there? The question is not "does it exist and is it a cause?" The question is "how do we prevent it?" And let me finish with one tiny correction to the quote above: suicide IS preventable. |
During my extremely long upgrade I had a fellow countryman alcoholic rotate before V1 as he thought it was a clever predicament to put me in. He had failed his command course 6 months before. Above 10,000ft I read the riot act with a few choice Anglo Saxon words..over the top with hindsight for the non British trainer…
‘Said copilot was sacked but he turned up at the fleet chiefs home on a Sunday and confessed; was immediately reinstated, sent to an extremely expensive clinic at the companies expense and given a job in engineering (very clever guy). After 2 years he was offered an Airbus course but foolishly he demanded another command course and was given a full pension. I thought it was a very considerate course of action by the company; my first lot sacked a captain caught shoplifting; another mental health condition imho. |
Originally Posted by BraceBrace
(Post 11349001)
I think we pilots should stop to think we know everything there is to know on the subject. Wouldn't that be smarter?
Suicide is a public health problem, not an aviation problem. When it comes to putting a human on the flightdeck, there is a possibility you take the problem to the flightdeck, and then it's an aviation problem. So the first step would be to avoid this from happening. There are programs out there that try to deal with the issue (ie peer support program). Otherwise there's a lot we can shut down in the world... how about a nuclear plant with a person with mental health working in there? The question is not "does it exist and is it a cause?" The question is "how do we prevent it?" And let me finish with one tiny correction to the quote above: suicide IS preventable. But is suicide really preventable ? partially yes but not all the time , Yes solutions exist , peers programs is one , making it part of CISM is another , but the core idea is make it possible to talk to someone who is not going to pull up your licence or pass judgement.. Detection is another one but teven then if the person refuses to engage or follow the peers advice , you're stuck. , or taking the well publicized Germawings case , the persons who knew did not speak up by fear to make it worse ( i.e. losing the licence) or were prevented by law ( German strict system where mental illnesses is stiil tabu from the post Nazi times) As to what you can do, even as a peer, to prevent someone with apparent mental issues to go to work, it is extremely difficult. Having in your company a CISM program in place and working well ( the 2 are not necessarily always there at the same time ) is in my opinion the best . CISM is now well developped and relatively accepted worldwide , and not only in aviation ( although we developped it globally after the United DC10 accident in Sioux City in 1989 ) is one solution . It works extremely well after an accident /serious incident and it CAN work to prevent suicide,or at lest suicidal thoughts. But it will not cover all cases . . As you correctly said suicide is not an aviation problem it is a public health one and some cases will get undected . |
I tried to help a guy who was seriously depressed with visits to his factory and phone calls..I went to his flying club on a Sunday to have breakfast with him..he didn’t turn up as he had gone to his factory and put a bullet in his head..whilst It affected me for many years his partner said he had obviously planned it for a long time, getting hold of a gun and ammunition, his partner’s in the business had heaped a lot of work on him as had his lodge which he felt he couldn’t get out of without letting everyone down.
|
I will say it one more time. Suicide is a hard, cold, irrefutable fact of life. It can happen anywhere, any time and under any circumstances. Human beings kill themselves.
The risk to passengers of suicide by pilot will remain until the pilot no longer has the means to kill himself and others while in control of the airplane. If there was any other way out of this we would have done it by now. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.