Rwy20 wrote:
Where is the logic?
One sensible result of the Germanwings accident is that there will apparently be some change in the cockpit door lock rules. Not a moment too soon, I’d say. Those rules have claimed too many lives already,
A real tragedy that the Captain did not have the bladder for a short sector.
Corporate pilots might confirm their ironclad bladders, being not good form to leave the cockpit to use the facilities.
Some airlines have regular psychological profiling, although they operate in security sensitive regions. Whether the lo cost industry would invest in this, or Balpa allow it is unlikely.
How is such profiling done?
Given that the subject is at least reasonably bright, and may have educated himself on the methods in advance, it can’t be something really easy.
Re bladder capacity, there is no way anybody can be sure of how long they will last, especially as they get older 
What will change on the cockpit door lock? The head of the cabin crew has for a long time had the door code, but the keypad can be disabled from the cockpit.
RobertL18C wrote:
A real tragedy that the Captain did not have the bladder for a short sector.
It wasn’t their first sector of the day and due to delays, the turnaround had been so quick, that he couln’t go to the restroom then. It wasn’t his fault at all.
The question in my mind following the final report is how this guy could ever have gotten a medical class 1 with a pre-existing mental condition.
The report reads:
Qu
On 9 April 2009, although he was still suffering from depression, he applied to the Lufthansa AeMC for revalidation of his class 1 medical certificate, exactly one year after it had been issued for the first time. On the application form, he declared having been admitted to hospital. The medical certificate was not issued at that time by this AeMC and the co-pilot was notified that further analysis from a specialist needed to be carried out. In July 2009, a psychiatrist working for the same AeMC reported that the depressive episode was over and that the class 1 medical certificate could again be recommended. A few days later, the same AeMC issued a class 1 medical certificate with a waiver stating that it would become invalid if there was a relapse into depression. A “-REV-” endorsement stated that the medical fitness was determined after a further check
This makes me wonder what kind of standards were applied by the Lufthansa AeMC. They issued a class 1 medical to a guy with this pre-existing condition on the basis of what exactly? A clinical mental disorder which has made it necessary for this guy to be treated in a mental hospital, taking medicines over a long time and being diagnosed clinically depressive is not enough to stop him from flying for ever?
Personally, I am amazed that this was possible. Seeing how people get harasses, their medicals revoked for absolutely minor conditions such as high BMI or minor vision deficiencies, that people get denied even class 2 medicals because they have had one incident of sleepwalking at the age of 3 years (happened to a friend of mine) and all such cases, why on earth would someone who has been in a mental facility, who has been known to have such a condition get a class 1 medical?
Again, what standards were applied? LH could not have been that desparate to get pilots, there is hundreds out there with licenses, of sane mental condition and no jobs, why take on a guy like that and pull him through the programme?
These are the questions I am asking myself after this accident and again after this report.
The BEA also states that it considered the fact that no loss of license insurance was available at Germanwings a contributing factor. This did surprise me as well, as for a company like Lufthansa and it’s daughter companies I would have thought a LOL insurance to be given. Apparently the “Ryanisation” of commercial aviation has not stopped there either.
In their press conference, the BEA also stated that the 2 man policy (door unlocked and a 2nd person in the cockpit) which was imposed after this accident by many carriers, mainly to satisfy public demand, could not prevent all cases, quoting Egypt Air 990 as their reasoning. That is certainly true, however, I personally think that it would have prevented this case, as well as the case of the suicide in Namibia, where a CRJ was intentionally flown into the ground in a similar manner by a captain with burn out. Both were acts of cowardice and I am quite sure that neither of those two cowards would have tried anything with another pilot or crew member present.
But my main beef with this case is clearly with the medical evaluation of this guy, which seems to have been done with very different standards than most of us even experience for our lowly private flying. I must admit that this makes me very angry.
w_n apologies, did not want to imply it was the Captain’s fault, just that such a small change in routine, using the loo on a short sector, was one of the factors that allowed the accident to happen.
I don’t think the airlines use more profiling than the relatively standard HR multiple choice which helps define personality types. This wouldn’t be the interview type assessment which you might find harder to prepare for to gain a dishonest pass.
This incident just illustrates that of all the medical fields Psychology is still in its most embryonic form. I truly feel for the Psychiatrist who has to make a definitive statement about the recovery of a mental health patient. However with that said there are many forms of mental health patients in this case depression and suicidal tendencies should have been a red flag. The other red flag was the length of the disease and or multiple relapses. Of course the patient may not have been honest thereby clouding the severity of the issue.
I think that public welfare trumps privacy when it is clearly such a dangerous case. I wonder if he actually uttered to the Dr that he envisioned crashing an airplane as part of his suicide? As a healthcare professional I sure would not want that on my conscience no matter what the law said.
RobertL18C wrote:
I don’t think the airlines use more profiling than the relatively standard HR multiple choice which helps define personality types. This wouldn’t be the interview type assessment which you might find harder to prepare for to gain a dishonest pass.
I think LH uses both, in two stages. The first stage (BU) is only the multiple choice type of assessment, in the second stage (FQ) they do group exercises which are observed by psychologists. But maybe their goal in these tests isn’t even to catch nutcases, but the question remains (since the working group recommended large scale psychological assessments) is there a test that would be able to do it reliably.
In my opinion very interesting new aspects of the German Wings accident. Is the official version of the tragic story the right one?
The video is worth to be seen, unfortunately in german language, the most interesting part begins at Min. 28.
What is the message in the video?
There was something brief on the news here that the co-pilot’s father was saying his son was not responsible, etc.
