Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(

[Driller]

eharding said:

Driller said:

eharding said:

Driller said:

Pretty simple I reckon. Any illness which could be considered a risk to others and the doctor sends a registered post communication to the employer.

Does your doctor know who your employer is?

Another very good question, although perhaps slightly better would be "how could your doctor find proof of your employer's identity?"

You haven't answered the question - does your GP know who your employer is? I'm damned sure mine doesn't.

I wasn't side stepping the question, I just thought you were implying that a doctor couldn't know for sure not that they don't ask.

Yes, my doctor knows what I do for a living and I always ask my patients what they do for a living when I take their medical history. That is what you are taught at medical school and is a very important and basic piece of information that should be in the patient file.

Edited by Driller on Sunday 29th March 21:13

[greygoose]

Mojocvh said:

theboss said:

rover 623gsi said:

hornetrider said:

Oh my god. Looks like Bild have the transcript of the CVR with timings. It seems the passengers were screaming for between 5 and 8 minutes before the impact. Horrific.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016466/Op...

just read that - absolutely awful and heartbreaking for the loved ones of those killed. It is the stuff of nightmares. Certainly makes it more difficult to feel any 'sympathy' towards the co-pilot's depression.

I must admit to feeling rather cynical when reading the initial claim that, on listening to the CVR, screams were heard only in the final few seconds before impact. The latest report does indeed suggest that the captain attempted to return to the cockpit very soon after leaving, a situation which turned frantic very quickly and thus for much of the duration of the descent there would have been panic throughout the cabin. This is truly awful for the relatives.

There was no need to exploit that information at all.

What a bunch of s!

Totally agree, once again journalists have no consideration for the relatives of victims, there was no need for this information to be printed.

[Sheepshanks]

sjabrown said:

Y

I would say that it is not a general practitioners role to assess if a pilot is fit to fly.

Yet they can decide if you can drive or not.

[eharding]

Driller said:

eharding said:

Driller said:

eharding said:

Driller said:

Pretty simple I reckon. Any illness which could be considered a risk to others and the doctor sends a registered post communication to the employer.

Does your doctor know who your employer is?

Another very good question, although perhaps slightly better would be "how could your doctor find proof of your employer's identity?"

You haven't answered the question - does your GP know who your employer is? I'm damned sure mine doesn't.

I wasn't side stepping the question, I just thought you were implying that a doctor couldn't know for sure not that they don't ask.

Yes, my doctor knows what I do for a living and I always ask my patients what they do for a living when I take their medical history. That is what you are taught at medical school and is a very important and basic piece of information that should be in the patient file.

Edited by Driller on Sunday 29th March 21:13

The question wasn't whether your doctor knows what you do for a living, it was whether he knows who your employer is. One might have hoped that someone would have taught you that very important and basic distinction somewhere along the line.

[Driller]

eharding said:

The question wasn't whether your doctor knows what you do for a living, it was whether he knows who your employer is. One might have hoped that someone would have taught you that very important and basic distinction somewhere along the line.

You're going to have to spell it out I'm afraid. I assure you I am not being intentionally obtuse.

I am self employed so maybe that's why I didn't pick up on what you're getting at.

For a medical history you are taught to ask trade not employer. Obviously for the purposes of what we're talking about with these sensitive examples you would need the employer information.

[-Pete-]

I think it's extremely naive to think you can regulate against such a rare occurrence. And if I had to trust someone with my life, I'd rather have Kapiteinlangzaam than NicD...

[NicD]

-Pete- said:

I think it's extremely naive to think you can regulate against such a rare occurrence. And if I had to trust someone with my life, I'd rather have Kapiteinlangzaam than NicD...

It is rare (8 since 1976 - http://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8294971/pilot-suicide...
But horrific when it occurs on a passenger jet.

Sorry for being naive that I think rather simple procedural changes could reduce the risk, I am sure you know better, and thanks for your nice little comparison.

Next time, why don't you give some reasoning instead of flip insults.

[eharding]

Driller said:

Obviously for the purposes of what we're talking about with these sensitive examples you would need the employer information.

Precisely - which is information the average GP - and I suspect even the average AME - doesn't have.

Obviously, if the AME pulls your Class 1 at renewal, then you're going to have a problem with your employer (and I think most airlines retain their own AMEs anyway), but to expect the average GP to start sleuthing around because a patient has presented with symptoms that might preclude them operating an aircraft is patently ludicrous.

[-Pete-]

NicD said:

-Pete- said:

I think it's extremely naive to think you can regulate against such a rare occurrence. And if I had to trust someone with my life, I'd rather have Kapiteinlangzaam than NicD...

It is rare (8 since 1976 - http://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8294971/pilot-suicide...
But horrific when it occurs on a passenger jet.

Sorry for being naive that I think rather simple procedural changes could reduce the risk, I am sure you know better, and thanks for your nice little comparison.

Next time, why don't you give some reasoning instead of flip insults.

Error 404, nice link. But you're missing the point.

Simple question: Do you want people who are stressed, or doubt their competency, to go to their doctor? Or not?

[Driller]

eharding said:

Driller said:

Obviously for the purposes of what we're talking about with these sensitive examples you would need the employer information.

Precisely - which is information the average GP - and I suspect even the average AME - doesn't have.

Obviously, if the AME pulls your Class 1 at renewal, then you're going to have a problem with your employer (and I think most airlines retain their own AMEs anyway), but to expect the average GP to start sleuthing around because a patient has presented with symptoms that might preclude them operating an aircraft is patently ludicrous.

What about the very good example of epilepsy used above? And I don't think it would be ludicrous to expect soleone working with so pany members of the public to have to declare their doctor so that the doctor can have employer details.

I appreciate that from the workers POV thus could feel like a head hunt but for this kind of job it seems reasonable to me.

[oakdale]

I think that a requirement should made that as well as the normal pilot's medical they should be made to have a questionnaire filled in by their GP asking specific questions about medical conditions they may have.

With regard to cockpit security, the present system plus a fire axe that is in a locked cabinet in the main cabin which need two keys or codes to open it, both pilots have one of the key types and the senior cabin crew the other.

The axe box would be best to have an alarm that goes off when opened

Edited by oakdale on Sunday 29th March 23:10

[eharding]

Driller said:

eharding said:

Driller said:

Obviously for the purposes of what we're talking about with these sensitive examples you would need the employer information.

Precisely - which is information the average GP - and I suspect even the average AME - doesn't have.

Obviously, if the AME pulls your Class 1 at renewal, then you're going to have a problem with your employer (and I think most airlines retain their own AMEs anyway), but to expect the average GP to start sleuthing around because a patient has presented with symptoms that might preclude them operating an aircraft is patently ludicrous.

What about the very good example of epilepsy used above? And I don't think it would be ludicrous to expect soleone working with so pany members of the public to have to declare their doctor so that the doctor can have employer details.

I appreciate that from the workers POV thus could feel like a head hunt but for this kind of job it seems reasonable to me.

So, you would expect a GP to deny treatment to *any* individual who wasn't prepared to provide verified details of their current employer?

What if they are unemployed or retired?

You need to face the fact that there isn't really much more that *can* be done to prevent a member of a commercial flight crew from killing themselves and everyone else on board, if they really apply themselves.

That it has happened in this instance is deeply shocking, but all of this silly armchair pontification about how to prevent it happening again has more to do with the insecurities of the armchair pontificators than it does with anything based in reality.

[FarleyRusk]

eharding said:

So, you would expect a GP to deny treatment to *any* individual who wasn't prepared to provide verified details of their current employer?

What if they are unemployed or retired?

You need to face the fact that there isn't really much more that *can* be done to prevent a member of a commercial flight crew from killing themselves and everyone else on board, if they really apply themselves.

That it has happened in this instance is deeply shocking, but all of this silly armchair pontification about how to prevent it happening again has more to do with the insecurities of the armchair pontificators than it does with anything based in reality.

Of course its not realistic to have a GP track your employment history. As a consequence if a pilot only has a company doctor and knows he is being monitored, then he might just not seek treatment, as a low cost carrier is unlikely to have decent sickness coverage if you can't work. Are there zero hours contracts in the air?

At the same time the public doesn't accept the status quo (well I don't)and so this is going to need some careful thought and not a knee-jerk reaction. TO be honest I wouldn't employ someone who had a burn-out in a high-performance team and so why was this acceptable in the air? But in any case, the eventual solution needs to come from the pilot side and certainly not from the regulators.

[Driller]

eharding said:

So, you would expect a GP to deny treatment to *any* individual who wasn't prepared to provide verified details of their current employer?

What if they are unemployed or retired?

You need to face the fact that there isn't really much more that *can* be done to prevent a member of a commercial flight crew from killing themselves and everyone else on board, if they really apply themselves.

That it has happened in this instance is deeply shocking, but all of this silly armchair pontification about how to prevent it happening again has more to do with the insecurities of the armchair pontificators than it does with anything based in reality.

Your dramatic "you need to face facts" is entirely inappropriate. You appear to think that this preoccupies me much more than it actually does.

I entirely agree that this is not something which could be easy to do. On moral grounds though and on principle, as brought to light by this tragedy, I think they should at least try.

Hindsight is always 20-20 of course.

[eharding]

Driller said:

Your dramatic "you need to face facts" is entirely inappropriate. You appear to think that this preoccupies me much more than it actually does.

I entirely agree that this is not something which could be easy to do. On moral grounds though and on principle, as brought to light by this tragedy, I think they should at least try.

Hindsight is always 20-20 of course.

So, essentially...you propose a load of completely unfeasible cobblers, eventually grudgingly concede that the cobblers is..cobblers, and assert that *I'm* the one guilty of inappropriate dramatisation?

[Driller]

eharding said:

Driller said:

Your dramatic "you need to face facts" is entirely inappropriate. You appear to think that this preoccupies me much more than it actually does.

I entirely agree that this is not something which could be easy to do. On moral grounds though and on principle, as brought to light by this tragedy, I think they should at least try.

Hindsight is always 20-20 of course.

So, essentially...you propose a load of completely unfeasible cobblers, eventually grudgingly concede that the cobblers is..cobblers, and assert that *I'm* the one guilty of inappropriate dramatisation?

Your analysis.

You seem very passionate about this, apparently to the point of misquoting me!

I don't believe I said it was a "load of cobblers". What is true is that it's simpler for a doctor to send a registered letter to an employer than perhaps it is to get the identity of that employer in the first place. Then again putting a man on the moon was never an easy thing.

At any rate I'll let you get all worked up over someone elses posts now

[KTF]

oakdale said:

I think that a requirement should made that as well as the normal pilot's medical they should be made to have a questionnaire filled in by their GP asking specific questions about medical conditions they may have.

With regard to cockpit security, the present system plus a fire axe that is in a locked cabinet in the main cabin which need two keys or codes to open it, both pilots have one of the key types and the senior cabin crew the other.

The axe box would be best to have an alarm that goes off when opened

Edited by oakdale on Sunday 29th March 23:10

Aside from having an axe in the cabin being a bad idea, an axe in the cabin would have made no difference getting through the door. It's primarily designed for getting through the plastic panels if there is a fire behind them, not getting through the closed cockpit door.

[anonymous-user]

Well said. "Are you up to your job?" is just plain rude and insulting and the sign of a stroppy little girl who's lost the argument.

[2013BRM]

Yup, very poor

[trashbat]

KTF said:

Aside from having an axe in the cabin being a bad idea, an axe in the cabin would have made no difference getting through the door. It's primarily designed for getting through the plastic panels if there is a fire behind them, not getting through the closed cockpit door.

I never knew this, but JAR-OPS mandates: "If the maximum approved passenger seating configuration is more than 200 an additional crash axe or crowbar must be carried and located in or near the most rearward galley area" - and also that it must be hidden from view, as you might expect. So there is one in many cabins, although the A320 doesn't have 200 seats.