TWO doctors ruled German co-pilot unfit for work on day of disaster--but he kept it secret

[Surya Gayatri]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013743/Germanwings-pilot-slipped-safety-net-devastating-consequences.html


Investigators revealed today that medical sign-off notes were found at Lubitz's home - including two for the day of the crash - and Dusseldorf University Hospital confirmed he had been a patient there over the past two months, although it would not disclose his condition.

...

He was facing a potential medical examination that could have seen his pilot's licence removed and it is thought he may have feared mental or other health problems would bring an end to his dream.

...

As detectives try to work out what drove him to kill himself and so many others, the grief of victims' families turned to anger at how a man with a history of mental health problems was allowed to fly a plane packed with passengers.

Speaking to the Guardian today, the president of Deutscher Fliegerarztverband, an association of German doctors that examines pilots and crew, told the newspaper: 'It’s utterly irresponsible that he flew even though he had a certificate saying he was not ready to work, and was therefore unfit to fly. Everything he did was highly criminal.'

[uppityperson]

1. Even being the Daily Mail, please edit it down to only 4 paragraphs per copyright laws

Don't want to get Du in legal trouble. Thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

[Surya Gayatri]

2. Will do... thought I had, but see that the short § add up to more...

[uppityperson]

22. Thanks, I've had the temptation to add short one line paragraphs together but have been told

that is wrong also. It has to look like it does in publication. Thanks

[KamaAina]

3. Should not one of them have informed the airline?

I mean, it's not like they have HIPAA over there.

[uppityperson]

4. They have other privacy laws, similar ones, from what I've read.

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Very stringent laws about invasion of privacy.

In the German press, you always see people referred to by their first names and a last initial only, when a story is just breaking.

They fear being sued for defamation. As long as Lufthansa hadn't yet released the pilot's names officially, Lubitz was referred to as 'Andreas L' and the captain by his first name and last initial.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. Very delicate situation unless they are bound by law

to report their findings.

[elleng]

9. In these circumstances they SHOULD be bound by law to report,

not to the media, of course, but to their patients' employer. ASAP!

[Surya Gayatri]

10. I couldn't agree more, but there are many on this

forum who would contend that that is stigmatizing and marginalizing people with mental health issues.

Any health problem, physical or mental, that puts the subject's fitness to fly into question, should be reported, IMHO.

[elleng]

11. The doctors seem to have opinions/conclusions that allowing him to keep doing his job

would likely result in harm, to many.

Reporting such to the employers of this person is in no way 'stigmatizing and marginalizing people with mental health issues,' it is recognizing facts about a particular person and taking action to protect the public from serious harm.

[Surya Gayatri]

15. How right you are...but have a look at some of the replies

to an earlier OP I posted along similar lines:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141050533

Co-pilot 'tore up sick note' on the day he crashed jet - hid secret illness from company

[elleng]

19. Just looked at a few,

and as article early on refers to 'depression,' 'signed off from training with depression in 2008,' it pretty clearly didn't consider the condition which caused his action.

'signed off by two different doctors for the day of the Germanwings disaster but failed to tell his employers,' this should NOT have been permitted to occur.

Nor should this:

A spokesman for Germanwings told MailOnline that under German employment law it was the responsibility of an employee to inform an employer if they were deemed unfit to work.

He said: ''We do not have the right to ask for this medical information from any employee. It is their responsibility to tell their superior, to tell their employer if they are sick.' He said doctors could not step in as the data would be protected.


I do NOT advocate PUBLIC disclosure of mental health conditions, and hope that reasonable DUers can recognize real need for health care providers to inform employers of those who present such problems. Such employees, while able to 'tare up sick note,' should not be permitted to sail right back into the cockpit, and I'd state that opinion to my friends on 'Mental Health Support' and 'Mental Health Information.'

[phil89]

26. Disgusting and dishonest comment

If the reporting was relevant to safety yes it should be mandatory. However you sound like someone uneducated on the subject who thinks violence correlates with mental illness.

[Surya Gayatri]

29. What comment are you referring to? Go to that link

and read some of the comments implying that reporting of mental illness is a breech of privacy, and a stigmatization.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141050533

And, no, I DO NOT make a false equivalency between mental illness and violence, as you would know if you'd read of my own struggles with mental issues.

[kcr]

42. It seems to me you are taking comments from one thread

and twisting their context in another.

[calimary]

30. My husband and I had an argument about this, earlier this morning.

He pointed out, correctly, that the civil libertarians would object. Privacy and all that. I think that's exactly what we'd see - and I'm so torn. Not sure I'm comfortable with that, much as I expect and support privacy protections for myself and everyone else.

I wanted to know why that fellow's doctor could NOT have reported this to the airline. What should be done when it's the "honor system" and he's supposed to alert his employer that his doctor says he's not fit to fly - and he doesn't? What to do when the individual decides on his/her own, to rip up the doctor's note anyway and go to work despite the warnings? I know - freedom-freedom and all that. But at some point, don't we have to take into account the safety of the HUNDRED-PLUS others whose lives are in the hands of the pilot and copilot on EVERY commercial jet?

I don't know what the answer is here, as far as protecting EVERYBODY across the board in a case like this. Yes, privacy. YES, being able to trust your doctor or therapist that your confidences during your treatment can remain confidential. YES I get that.

But when you have 100-200-300 or more people's lives IN YOUR HANDS as part of your job, should you still be entitled to that kind of confidentiality and privacy protection? What about the public's right to know? What about the FLYING public's right to know, and to be protected? What about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," as the "Star Trek" saying goes (and I think that, too, is a valid statement)?

What about this anyway? Just in general? We see this conflict ALL THE TIME anymore. Rights. Yes. We have them. We need if not all then certainly most of them. They're both necessary and a necessary evil. But do they have rankings? Are we ranking them in order of importance when we refer to "The fill-in-the-number-here Amendment"? Or is that more in order of appearance? We see all kinds of tugs-of-war especially as applied to the 2nd Amendment, for example - the most aggressive, active voice pushes from the "2nd Amendment Is Really the FIRST Amendment" side. There are 1st Amendment struggles of all kinds, because there are several different rights under that one primary umbrella. ARE THERE some rights that supersede others? Is there a first-among-equals? And if that one's true, then can we all agree on which one is the "most first"? (Yeah, SUUUUUUUUUURE we're gonna get there!)

Sometimes I have my doubts as to whether we'll ever be able to arrive at answers that all sides somehow find acceptable.

I used to work with a guy who, before he hired me, had produced an award-winning radio documentary called "When Rights Collide." MAN does that fit here.

[Surya Gayatri]

34. Thanks, calimary, for this reasoned and balanced reply...

You said it all here:

"But when you have 100-200-300 or more people's lives IN YOUR HANDS as part of your job, should you still be entitled to that kind of confidentiality and privacy protection? What about the public's right to know? What about the FLYING public's right to know, and to be protected?"

This is a vexed question with no easy answers, but as you said:
'What about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.'

And, good luck with an "honors system" when the subject's pilot's licence and livelihood are in the balance.

[calimary]

36. Thanks back atcha. It's SO damn vexing! "Vexed" is an excellent word for it.

Last edited Fri Mar 27, 2015, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Whose rights trump who else's? What tips the scale, ORGANICALLY - and I'm NOT talking manipulating it or putting your thumb on it? I appreciate very much the argument about civil rights and government intervention - or in this case, no government at all but company intervention (alerting his airline or supervisor). Do we want corporations in charge of that? YEEEEEEESH now there's a hornet's nest!

What should be done? What really weighs on me, besides the frailty of human nature, is how - okay, it's one in a fill-in-the-blank-with-an-ungodly-large-number here tragedy. BUT even just a single one in such a large and lopsided ratio just inconveniently happens to involve several HUNDRED people. Innocent lives each of whose number was not necessarily up, in and of itself, just because the one co-pilot decided his own number was up. The "honor system" was an EPIC fail here.

I sure as hell don't know what the answer is. I see it from several different directions, and find sense in most if not all of them, while being frustrated and befuddled with most if not all of them at the same time.

(edited to correct the auto spell check - that made "ratio" into "ration". I didn't catch it originally.)

[Surya Gayatri]

37. Yes, that's the crux of the dilemma...

"BUT even just a single one in such a large and lopsided ration just inconveniently happens to involve several HUNDRED people."

Just imagine if Lubitz had pulled the same thing in an Airbus A380, the world's largest passenger airliner which provides seating for 525 people in a typical three-class configuration or up to 853 people in an all-economy class configuration.



A small village wiped out, not to mention potential casualties on the ground.

As they keep saying in the professional blogs, aviation is a "safety sensitive" industry and must be regulated as such.

[7wo7rees]

40. 2nd the thank you, Calimary. n/t

[cwydro]

48. I completely agree

with you.

[malaise]

14. How do you know either doctor knew he was a pilot or worked on an airline? N/T

[Egnever]

7. This thing is going to have all kinds of repercussions

Many new laws and rules will be written after this one.

[Surya Gayatri]

8. ^^^This!^^^

Many airlines have immediately switched to a 'two-in-the-cockpit' rule.

And, you can bet they are reviewing and potentially revising their vetting and assessment procedures.

[kcr]

44. Yes, all these laws because overreaction

People can never asses risk and are so overly fearful and the world suffers as a result. This makes the world suck way more than the actions of the mentally ill. You are way more likely to die in a plane crash because of simple pilot error. But the laws won't make us measurably safer. What they will do is make life a whole hell of a lot harder for the vast majority of mentally ill people who were never going to hurt anyone to begin with, and make it less likely that people will seek help. The small percentage of mentally ill people who do harm people will be even MORE likely to harm others. And all because of irrational fear.

[LuvLoogie]

56. You don't know what laws will come out of this.

It may just be more screening and reporting. For instance I think you should have a psych evaluation before you get a concealed or open carry fire arm permit. You might even expand upon that.

The fact, that a commercial airline pilot is largely responsible for the safety of thousands of people in a given year, warrants due diligence and increased scrutiny. This clearly isn't the first such incident of an intentional act by someone who isn't a terrorist. And I highly doubt that it is the second.

Your position assumes self-preservation as being the check on such incidents, however that clearly is not much of a check when the making of a dramatic statement now includes crashing an airplane containing many passengers.

Part of dealing with one's mental illness is to realize your limitations and rationally accepting them. This man did not deal with his illness rationally. It is not irrational to take increased safety measures to include contingencies where an employee pilot, who is not a political militant, wants to crash a plane.

It is not irrational to protect the liability of your airline company and the safety of your passengers. This guy wasn't flipping burgers.

[kcr]

57. I do know what laws people are proposing because of the fear

I don't believe I claimed I could see into the future. And laws do indeed get passed due to political pressure so there's no reason not to engage in discussion about why such ideas are harmful.

[KMOD]

12. This is starting to sound just like the Egypt Air crash.

He was angry about the potential of losing his job, and in his anger he didn't care if he took 149 people with him.

[Surya Gayatri]

16. That very flight is frequently being mentioned in discussions

about this one.

Damn, how sick do you have to be to ignore completely the reality of 149 other people?

How twisted in your obsession with your own suffering?

[KMOD]

18. Sadly, there are some truly awful people

in this world.

[cwydro]

20. Plus if he broke up with his gf,

he may have wanted to "show her" what she did.

[Sienna86]

13. In the U.S., depending on the facts, duty to warn would apply.

We still don't know all the details regarding the pilot's diagnosis and whether he presented a threat to himself or others.

[Surya Gayatri]

17. TWO sicknotes signing him off work and deeming him

unfit would argue that he presented some kind of threat at least to others.

[HereSince1628]

21. Not saying you are wrong, but the jump to danger to others needs to be substantiated

I think there is reason to be cautious about entering into post hoc proctor hoc sorts of reasoning

[uppityperson]

23. Thank you. eoom

[Surya Gayatri]

24. If the subject is found to be sick, for whatever reason and with

whatever illness, he/she should not be at the controls of a commercial aircraft. Period.

[HereSince1628]

25. The implication of a threat to others is pretty severe, suggesting a person isn't fit

because they have...say a sinus infection or a bad case of hemorrhoids that would preclude comfortable sitting is entirely different.

I think the jump to dangerous to others really MUST be substantiated or considered ill conceived supposition.

[Surya Gayatri]

28. If a doctor judges a pilot unfit to work, he/she

by definition is categorically unfit to fly, and the employer should automatically be informed of that 'unfit' status.

In this case, the subject purposely withheld his medical status from his employer and his doctors were not legally bound to disclose the facts.

Being judged unfit to work/fly means that the subject is a potential danger to the passengers and public.

[phil89]

27. So any mental illness

Should disqualify a pilot? Sheer ignorance. Keep painting with the broad brush and ignoring research.

[Surya Gayatri]

32. Have you read what I've said?

"If a doctor judges a pilot unfit to work, he/she by definition is categorically unfit to fly, and the employer should automatically be informed of that 'unfit' status.

In this case, the subject purposely withheld his medical status from his employer and his doctors were not legally bound to disclose the facts.

Being judged unfit to work/fly means that the subject is a potential danger to the passengers and public."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026424398#post28

Where is the 'broad brush'?

[LuvLoogie]

33. Who said any mental Illness

The doctors said that this man was unfit to pilot an airplane. They were correct. That's fucking obvious.

[LuvLoogie]

31. Here. Fill in the blank...

Not fit to work as a __________

Librarian
Line Cook
Doctor
Teacher
Commercial Airline Pilot

Think job description, responsibilities, etc.

Not fit to work as an Airline Pilot, therefore a danger to Airline Passengers.

It is perfectly logical to assume that a person not fit to fly an airplane is a danger to the passengers of said airplane if he pilots said airplane.

[Surya Gayatri]

35. Thanks for bringing a note of 'sanity' to the discussion, LuvLoogie...(no pun intended)

Feel like I've been beating my forehead against the bulkhead trying to make it clear.

IF A PILOT IS DEEMED UNFIT TO WORK, HE/SHE BY DEFINITION IS UNFIT TO FLY.

Roger, over, out.

[HereSince1628]

39. Or the person might not be able to SIT. Know? vs assume? those are the questions.

It could turn out to be that there is some current mental health issue, but at the time of this thread, that was not known. All the presumptions are just presumptions

[LuvLoogie]

43. Let me make it simple for you.

If you are not fit to drive, for whatever fucking reason, and you drive, you pose a danger, an increased risk--whether you are drunk, nuts or have a boil on your ass.

The assumption being that you are a danger if you drive while you are unfit to drive. That is entirely logical.

There is no assumption on the nature of the illness, none whatsoever; the type of illness is irrelevant to the logic.

The facts are that two doctors deemed him unfit to fly, he hid that fact from his employer, he flew, and he crashed the plane.

If a boil on his ass was so severe that two doctors deemed him unfit to fly , and he flew, then he posed a danger to the passengers.

He had a history. He hid it. And he went out in a blaze of morbidly narcissistic glory.

[HereSince1628]

45. It's certainly simple for people who like simple answers.

Many people want an answer that is simply congruent with the beliefs they held before the plane went down.

[Surya Gayatri]

47. And most simple passengers, especially those who are

already wary of flying, want simple reassurance that the guy in the cockpit is not a wackjob on the edge of self-annihilation.

What "beliefs held before" would you be referring to? Who in their wildest nightmares could have foreseen this?

Even on the professional pilot blogs, all of the early discussion was about catastrophic decompression or creeping hypoxia.

[LuvLoogie]

50. Your statement doesn't make any sense.

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Kind of a non sequitur.

That man flying while unfit to fly posed a danger to those passengers. You don't have to attach any kind of malice.

A DEAD man is unfit to fly. It doesn't matter why he's dead. Death is the thing that makes him unfit.

He poses no danger to the passengers because he's dead, but because he is flying while dead. He is not supposed to fly while dead. That would be dangerous to the passengers. A doctor says, "Hey, you're dead. You can't fly today."

Dead guy goes, "OH yeah? Just watch me."

Whoops.

[lpbk2713]

38. The ultimate disgruntled employee.

Evidently he took getting even to the max.

[Surya Gayatri]

41. V for Vengence? "Going postal" has been devalued

as a form of mass murder.

Maybe "flying co-pilot" will become the new catch phrase. (Just bringing a bit of levity...no disrespect intended.)

[HereSince1628]

46. Interesting that Post Traumatic Embitterment, a mental disorder defined by a German psychologist

was dismissed by the American Psychological Association mostly because the committee felt it complicated the notion of post traumatic disorders.

Nothing is simple, especially not what constitutes mental disorders with vengeance as a symptom

[GliderGuider]

49. When I applied for my student glider pilot license in 1990

I was taking a prescription asthma medication with theophylline in it. My medical was refused and my student license was denied until could prove I had successfully switched to a different med.

I jumped through those hoops as a student glider pilot but this guy slid by the German authorities and kept flying A319s full of passengers as a first officer? WTF??????

[Surya Gayatri]

53. Lufthansa is in hyper-damage control mode right now...

Before the investigation began to bear fruit and the sad reality became clear, the CEOs of both LH and Germanwings went on record saying: "The airworthiness of our pilots cannot be questioned. Our pilot-assessment procedures are the most rigorous in the world. They were rated 100% fit to fly."

Since then, they have held at least two more press conferences, where they openly admit that "the guy seems to have slipped through our safety net".

Oh yeah, ya think? Their lawyers are working 24-hour days.

[customerserviceguy]

51. No more medical privacy for pilots

and possibly other occupations, or those 149 innocent people are just 'acceptable losses'.

[Surya Gayatri]

54. ^^^AMEN to that^^^

And I agree 100% about other "safety sensitive" professions as well.

High-speed train drivers,

Heavy equipment operators (multi-storey cranes, oversized machines, etc.),

Public transportation operators,

Etc, etc.

When you have the lives of hundreds in your hands, your right to privacy takes second place.

[LiberalFighter]

52. Why wouldn't there be a requirement for the employee to be cleared by the company?

At my past employment all employees out on medical had to go through the plant doctor and be cleared before returning to work. Granted it would take something serious for the plant doctor not to clear them.

[Surya Gayatri]

55. Under German regulations, health-issue reporting

by airline flight crews to their bosses is supposed to work on a so-called "honor system".

You are honor-bound to report any medical issues that might affect your fitness to fly.

Good luck with that when somebody's licence and livelihood are on the line.