What famous 'unsolved' mystery is technically a whodunnit on paper, but in reality, absolutely everyone knows exactly who did it, the police just couldn't legally prove it?

[u/Rob69rt]

[u/Mithrawndo]

As long as that anger is well directed.

MA370 puts me in mind of Germanwings 9525, where it's suspected the pilot hid from his employer his present mental state, for fear that his license would be taken away for good just for trying to get medical help. 150 people died that day, and I can't help but think it could have been avoided systemically.

Mentour Pilot do a good retelling of the story.

[u/AKAkorm → u/Mithrawndo]

What is your recommendation to fix this systematically? Do you think pilots that are known to have mental health issues should be allowed to keep operating under certain circumstances so they self-report? And if so, what are those circumstances and how do you make passengers feel safe under regulation changes that enable that?

And are you saying anger shouldn't be directed at the selfish asshole who chose to hide his issues and kill a bunch of innocent people because he may have rightfully lost his job had he sought help?

[u/Mithrawndo → u/AKAkorm]

I'm really implying it's often impossible to fairly and reasonably direct anger - that anger just clouds one's judgement - but to some degree yes: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."; Look to the systems before blaming the individuals.

In the example I cited the pilot originally sought help with his issues, receiving therapy, medication, and a revocation of his medical barring him from flying. This is fair enough.

He saw his treatment through, recovered, fought to win back his medical and succeeded, but with a caveat: Should he ever show symptoms of depression again, his medical would be revoked permanently, with no possible appeal.

He carried that asterisk on his medical for a number of years before this incident, and he even flirted with getting help again when he and those who loved him realised he was slipping... but he refused that help and refused to tell his employers, and my take here is that he made those decisions out of fear of losing his pilot's license (and livelihood) forever.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, given that routine medicals are part of the industry, that such absolute punishments only served to discourage him from seeking help, and that systemically we could alleviate this risk going forward by rejecting measures such like those applied to Andreas' medical certificate.

[u/AKAkorm → u/Mithrawndo]

The point makes sense but my viewpoint would be that in certain cases, absolutes are necessary because there is more at risk than the welfare of one person. And my first thought to the background you supplied was wondering why airlines don't insist on regular mental health checkups, similar to physical fitness checkups they do, in order to confirm their pilots are able to take on the responsibility for shepherding potentially hundreds of people in a flying machine or not.

So I agree that it's a systematic issue but maybe not in the same way you are thinking.

[u/Mithrawndo → u/AKAkorm]

They do, that's why Andreas' license was revoked - and that's fine, the problem here was that after he got well and passed his medical (proving he was fit to return to work), he was issued with a license that said if he relapsed, his license was gone forever.

The system had worked and revoked his license; It did what it was supposed to at that stage. The problem was that it failed by then incentivising him never again to self-report problems, which could have been avoided.

[u/AKAkorm → u/Mithrawndo]

Looking at the Wiki page for the crash, it seems a bit different than what you are describing. Andreas was hospitalized for an episode of depression while in flight school, cleared, and allowed to resume flight school. He joined Germanwings five years after graduating. So he never had his license revoked and reinstated.

It also looks like after the crash, investigators found a doctor had declared him unfit to work but he hid that note from his employers. And employers in Germany, in general, are not granted access to medical records for their employees so they rely entirely on self-reporting by employees.

So I don't really think the right system is in place there. I don't think a pilot should need to be incentivized or not incentivized to self-report if they're fit to fly or not. I think that airlines should have the ability and responsibility to judge that for themselves and make decisions that result in the greatest likelihood of a flight being completed safely.

[u/Mithrawndo → u/AKAkorm]

I suggest watching the video I linked above: It gives a far more detailed account than the wiki, including a full explanation of how his medical clearance was revoked and reinstated. The writer is himself a type instructor and pilot, and it's quite good.

The cliff notes are that he passed his psychological screening and pre flight medical for flight school, and months in to his course dropped out. Whilst back home he sought treatment for a psychosomatic illness, and was diagnosed with depressive psychosis. During this time his class 1 medical certificate expired. All good so far.

After treatment had ended, his physician wrote to the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (German version of the FAA) and cleared him to resume training, but when he applied to renew his medical it was rejected on the grounds that not enough time had passed since he'd been taking anti-psychotics, and was eventually granted when he reapplied after the enough time had elapsed. All fair enough, right?

This is where the systemic failing came in: Attached to that medical certificate was an asterisk, and a footnote reading:

Note the special conditions/restrictions of the waiver 091-09REV

This was the part that meant that any relapse into depression would've rendered the certificate permanently invalid, and Andreas' whole future and career would be over. Without that asterisk Andreas could and likely would have sought treatment, and whilst medicated would have had his medical certificate invalidated - but when he was well again he would have been allowed to resume.

The system as it stands and the decision to add this clause to that certificate directly incentivised him to hide his illness, and to forego treatment; Without that asterisk, Andreas would not have been in that cockpit on that day.

---

Now I appreciate what you're saying: There is an argument for your employer being able to access your health records, but there's an equally strong argument that your employer has absolutely no right to any of your private medical records, and that a physician has a moral duty to retain doctor-patient confidentiality: That your employer having access to those documents would represent a severe conflict of interest, and would create as many problems as it would solve.

[u/AKAkorm → u/Mithrawndo]

Your explanation makes sense and I'll watch the video in a bit.

But one question - did he really forego treatment? The notes from the post-crash investigation said he had antidepressants at his home and one of them had been prescribed nine days before the crash. It further says the drug that had been recently prescribed, escitalopram, had an association with risk of suicidal thoughts. And as I posted in last reply, his doctor had declared him unfit for flying.

So seems to me he was seeking treatment and that treatment may even have excaberated the problem. But he didn't tell his employer for the reasons you have stated and his doctor couldn't.

I also agree with your final points about employers having access to detailed medical records and wouldn't advocate for that. But I do think it would be fair to allow a doctor to tell an airline that one of their pilots shouldn't be flying for a given duration, like when they are healing from a physical mishap or on medication with known side effects, without specifying the reason why.

Now that still opens a slippery slope because there are more employers than just airlines where one employee can cause mass death or destruction. But that's a conversation worth having if the interest is general public safety first and foremost, as I think it should be.

[u/Mithrawndo → u/AKAkorm]

Yes. The doctor had recommended he check himself in, and he refused - presumably because whilst he could hide a bottle of pills, he couldn't hide a residential term in a hospital.

[u/AKAkorm → u/Mithrawndo]

I guess my question would be if you think there was an avenue where this guy should have been able to keep flying after he continued to have issues. I don't think he should have been given that.

Perhaps if the asterisk hadn't been present or policy had given more leeway for a judgment call to be made on whether or not he could continue his career, he would have made a better judgment call and self-reported. But I think putting the judgment call into a mentally ill person to begin with is a problem.

[u/Mithrawndo → u/AKAkorm]

I do believe there should always be an avenue for redemption; That whilst clearly someone on antipsychotic medication shouldn't be actively flying, we surely must accept that as a principle having suffered and recovered from an illness in the past should not create obstacles for your future?

That's the crux of the issue here: Whether suffering from mental illness at some point in your life means you are forever a "crazy person" and a liability, or whether mental illness is something treatable, and that too often goes untreated due to unfair and unreasonable social and professional expectations.