The >Germanwings Airbus A320 crash in the French Alps that killed 150 people including the co-pilot who was responsible for it, raises a difficult question for the aviation industry: can it determine with finality that a pilot is fit in all respects before a flight? Despite the rigorous physical and psychological testing processes in place, that may not be possible. Civil aviation is among the most regulated sectors because of the risks that flying entails for everyone — the passengers, crew and people on the ground. The revelation that Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the Germanwings aircraft, had mental health issues that he concealed from his employer raises disturbing questions. It underscores the fragility of the human factor which is truly the critical element in the rigorous processes required for aviation. The Lubitz issue showed that the annual medical examination of pilots done under strict European Union regulations can fail to identify psychological problems such as depression. Significantly, last year’s mysterious >Malaysia Airlines MH 370 disappearance also involved a captain who may have been disturbed. Had the EU a ‘two-person’ cockpit rule such as in the U.S., which requires two crew members to be present in the cockpit always, this act of mass murder could have been stopped. The EU and the European Aviation Safety Agency are now considering the introduction of a similar rule.
Flight safety has so far focussed on threats from the passenger side, and the 9/11 terror episode led to fortification of the cockpit. In exceptional circumstances, such as an emergency affecting the pilot and the cockpit area, the crew can use a code that opens the cockpit door briefly, or it even opens automatically if the pilots are immobilised due to depressurisation. But if they are in a position to act, pilots can override this mechanism. The crash in the Alps has launched the search for a solution to this problem, of accessing the cockpit from outside, if the plane has been commandeered from within. The quest now includes a technological solution — one that enhances ground control of aircraft features, including the cabin door, remotely. On the human factor aspect that cannot be overemphasised, the solution lies partly in destigmatising mental health issues. This is particularly relevant to the present-day workplace, where the emphasis is on productivity. Stress and aviation do not go together, and pilot recruitment tests are designed to exclude those who crack under pressure. Preliminary evidence shows that Andreas Lubitz was indeed stressed, and that in spite of medical advice pursued his deadly course. It is tragic that a failure to factor in the possibility of human errors has led to tragedies of this proportion in the skies.
