Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1594030
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Legalities relating to who can share what with whom are very relevant.


I would willingly go to prison if I believed that the alternative was what happened there. Wouldn't you?

G


There is no information available which suggests that the doctor who signed Lübitz off sick was aware, had a suspicion or could have reasonably have one, that Lübitz was going to work despite having been signed off as not fit for work let alone that he would instigate a crash to kill 150 people.

In the absence of any of that, why would any doctor contact anyone else.

That is not the framework in which we work, and neither do engineers.

The review and subsequent recommendations from the investigations and the medical review group set up by EASA has made several recommendation, none of which was that a doctor signing a pilot off sick, should contact the pilot's employer or regulator.

Should a pilot indicate that they are going to continue to fly against a doctor's advice then it would be imperative to take further formal action and the jurisdictions in which I have experience allow for this, with the reporter not going to prison (of course)

Can I take it from your postings that you report everyone who's aeronautical jalopy, which doesn't pass muster at an inspection, or someone who does not complete their training flight to your satisfaction, with you as their CRI, gets reported to the relevant authorities in case they will continue to fly?

It is increasingly difficult to engage in meaningful discussions on the forums with people who willingly post incorrect and untrue information, especially when they present themselves with something of a professional/academic jus.

It is reasonable to expect a professional not just to be professional in their field of expertise, but also show their professionalism by ensuring that they try and grasp the essence of the matters on which they utter themselves.

It is not about having different points of view, that is of course fine, and I enjoy a good well argued discussion, QED many times on here - but don't come with some unfounded baloney.
#1594042
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote: I was furious with myself, because I had another consultant's report also saying I was fine which made no mention of migraines (which were unrelated to the eye problem) which I could have used instead.


Sorry, I misinterpreted that as you regretting not withholding relevant information from your AME. I was clearly mistaken.

G


I'm going to take offence at that. "withholding" implies a deliberate act, knowing that I needed to reveal something and choosing not to. As I said, I thought I had revealed all and that the matter had been properly discussed and closed. For you to suggest otherwise is an unacceptable slur.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1594081
Can I take it from your postings that you report everyone who's aeronautical jalopy, which doesn't pass muster at an inspection, or someone who does not complete their training flight to your satisfaction, with you as their CRI, gets reported to the relevant authorities in case they will continue to fly?


Of course not.

But if I have seen something on an aeroplane that concerns me, I've had reason to tell the owner.

And on occasion flying a permit aeroplane, I've seen something that concerns me from a design viewpoint, discussed it with the owner, and with their knowledge contacted BMAA or LAA and raised my concerns.

And if I have concerns about somebody's flying - I tell them. Mostly, people take that as intended - advice intended to help somebody fly better and safer.


None of this is acting as some kind of aeronautical Stasi, going behind anybody's backs and reporting them to the authorities. That is not helpful behaviour, I quite agree.

G
#1594082
matthew_w100 wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote: I was furious with myself, because I had another consultant's report also saying I was fine which made no mention of migraines (which were unrelated to the eye problem) which I could have used instead.


Sorry, I misinterpreted that as you regretting not withholding relevant information from your AME. I was clearly mistaken.

G


I'm going to take offence at that. "withholding" implies a deliberate act, knowing that I needed to reveal something and choosing not to. As I said, I thought I had revealed all and that the matter had been properly discussed and closed. For you to suggest otherwise is an unacceptable slur.


I'm sorry you feel that way - but that was how what you had typed read to me. Of course we all exist in an environment where we don't know everything and rely upon other people's skillsets to help us form the right judgements. If you'd discussed it fully with your AME, I accept that, and apologise for the presumption.

But, had you phrased this "Just as well I presented this report, had I presented the other consultants report, we might have missed this serious concern about my fitness to fly", it would have read somewhat differently, and I wouldn't have misinterpreted your post.

G
#1594128
From that article:

That is because privacy protections in Germany are among the most stringent in the world. Under their provisions, an airline has to rely on the truthfulness of its pilots in learning about their medical histories, and it has no legal means of checking the information the pilots provide.

“There is no general rule that obliges doctors of pilots to report medical conditions relevant to their ability to fly to the authorities,” says Ulrich Wuermeling, a Frankfurt-based lawyer who works on privacy law. On the contrary, a German doctor who reports such information could face criminal charges for violating his patients’ privacy.


That is no different from what happens in the UK.

No GP informs a pilot's employer about a pilot's medical history - UK employers too have to rely on their pilot's truthfulness, they have no legal means of checking the information provided.

In the UK too:

“There is no general rule that obliges doctors of pilots to report medical conditions relevant to their ability to fly to the authorities,”
#1594130
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:From that article:

That is because privacy protections in Germany are among the most stringent in the world. Under their provisions, an airline has to rely on the truthfulness of its pilots in learning about their medical histories, and it has no legal means of checking the information the pilots provide.

“There is no general rule that obliges doctors of pilots to report medical conditions relevant to their ability to fly to the authorities,” says Ulrich Wuermeling, a Frankfurt-based lawyer who works on privacy law. On the contrary, a German doctor who reports such information could face criminal charges for violating his patients’ privacy.


That is no different from what happens in the UK.

No GP informs a pilot's employer about a pilot's medical history - UK employers too have to rely on their pilot's truthfulness, they have no legal means of checking the information provided.

In the UK too:

“There is no general rule that obliges doctors of pilots to report medical conditions relevant to their ability to fly to the authorities,”


And it shouldn't be any other way otherwise the system is open to abuse, at the end of the day if a pilot is caught falsifying his/her fitness to fly they will be personally prosecuted by the relevant authorities and rightly so.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1594136
Lockhaven wrote:And it shouldn't be any other way otherwise the system is open to abuse, at the end of the day if a pilot is caught falsifying his/her fitness to fly they will be personally prosecuted by the relevant authorities and rightly so.


Indeed and although it is of course sensible to review systems and processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose it should not be so that the criminal behaviour of one person leads to the introduction of regulations and ,processes which would make live difficult for the rest of society and people having to give up fundamental protections.

Don't forget - if it would be a great idea to introduce such a system for pilots I guarantee that it will soon be a good idea for any job, teacher, police, bus driver, doctor, lawyer and even engineers.
#1594138
I believe that the mechanisms for reporting and investigating misconduct by physicians and engineers are very similar? And both get used - VW emissions would be an obvious and relatively recent example of gross misconduct by my profession, that has not gone unnoticed.

The "Guns and Nutters" thread on non-aviation has discussed this in the UK recently, specifically over-regulation in response to one-off events. I agree, bringing in new and overly complex regulations is seldom a useful response to one-off events - but equally I agree that reviewing where you are after such events is inevitable and healthy.

G
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1594143
The 'diesel gate' scandal is a good example of corporate criminal behaviour.

I am pleased that no single person has been has been singled out to carry the can but that they have gone to the top for criminal prosecutions too.
#1594153
I have wondered about that - the "named individuals" who were prosecuted, and those who were not in that instance. Not unreasonable that it was the most powerful people at the top who have been individually prosecuted, but equally there must have been a significant number of working level engineers who were well aware of what was going on and actively participated in it. Nobody at board level wrote the software!

There's no good answer there really - anybody "blowing the whistle" would have been doing the right thing, and probably ending their career. That is one hell of an incentive not to do the right thing (Roger Boisjoly springs to mind), so probably it is right that it's the people at the top who had the most to answer.

G
#1594198
I note the following advice given to doctors from the GMC

https://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical ... /30666.asp

Disclosures in the public interest
15. Disclosing personal information about a patient without consent may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. This could arise, for example, if a patient may pose a serious risk to others through being unfit for work or if conditions at work are unsafe.9 If you think that a disclosure may be justified in the public interest, you should follow the guidance at paragraphs 63–70 of Confidentiality.
#1594220
There has been a bit of (interesting) thread drift here, but to get back on track.
With the caveats, that "that was then, and this is now," and "past performance is no guarantee of future returns," I can tell the OP that during my time as an AME I have seen initial unrestricted Class 1 certificates issued to certain applicants with a history of migraine more than 10 years previously once they had provided appropriate reports as requested (usually as a minimum a report from the applicant's GP to confirm no consultations or prescriptions for migraine/headache/visual disturbance in the last 10 years) and complied with any further relevant medical inquiries which often included a consultation with a CAA specialist in Neurology.

Certification, if granted, was often accompanied with a warning that any further manifestation of migraine a) must be reported and b) would would jeopardise continued certification.
Flyin'Dutch', 4535jacks liked this