Better psychological & physiological testing for pilots?

[Captain Awesome]

If somebody is crazy and wants to kill himself along with passengers or innocent by-standers, there's no way to prevent it completely.

[Jonrox]

In the world of aviation, we most certainly do try and prevent accidents, which is why it has become and remained the safest form of mass transportation. As I said, there is no 100% guarantee and there always will be accidents and incidents, but it is important that we continue to learn from them to maintain a standard of safety. There are limits of course, financial, cultural, ethical. There are weight and cost restrictions to consider, as well as passenger comfort.

There's nothing to learn from this incident. Bad things happen everyday, and this is just one of them and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

There's nothing further that needs to be done. The odds of it happening are astronomical. There's already been too much coverage and fear perpetrated by the media's coverage of it. It was a terrible act committed by a terrible person. It doesn't deserve any more of our time and energy.

[Dizzy1]

There's nothing to learn from this incident. Bad things happen everyday, and this is just one of them and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

There's nothing further that needs to be done. The odds of it happening are astronomical. There's already been too much coverage and fear perpetrated by the media's coverage of it. It was a terrible act committed by a terrible person. It doesn't deserve any more of our time and energy.

This is not true at all ... but you need to look at the bigger picture. Getting into the psychology of someone who may be suicidal is one thing but the biggest factor that you're overlooking is that one of the persons who could have prevented this tragedy was unable to do anything because he was locked out of the one place he needed to be - the flight deck.

How are we going to solve this? There is talk about giving the crew members an override code or key ... which, in my opinion eliminates the purpose of having reinforced cockpit doors in the first place. There is the talk of more frequent and thorough pilot screening, which people can still "cheat" on while costing innocent pilots their careers. Then there is the policy of having another crew member, whether it be a cruise captain on a long haul flight or cabin crew when no cruise captain is onboard. While this is no 100% guarantee as is my opinion in the other thread, but it can reduce the chances of it happening, which in the end is what the goal is. The added bonus is that it wouldn't require any aircraft modifications and wouldn't cost the airline a single penny.

[Jonrox]

Reducing the chance of this happening to one in many, many millions from a level that is already one in many, many millions isn't worth the cost or worry to do so.

This was a tragic event, but it's nothing to worry about now. Nobody should be scared of it happening again.

I AM looking at the big picture... I'm concerning myself with the millions of flights that haven't been crashed intentionally. You're focusing on the few incidents in aviation history that concerned a handful of crazed lunatics. Crazy is gonna be crazy... you can't stop it, so stop worrying about it.

[Dizzy1]

Reducing the chance of this happening to one in many, many millions from a level that is already one in many, many millions isn't worth the cost or worry to do so.

Most accidents are a rare event, especially given the sheer number of flights everyday that fly around being non-eventful. This is no different, while it is a rare event it did happen and everything that can be looked into to prevent this from happening again needs to be considered, investigated and possibly rectified ... just like every other aviation incident.

This was a tragic event, but it's nothing to worry about now. Nobody should be scared of it happening again.

While we shouldn't be scared of it happening again, we can't just shrug our shoulders and say whatever. The investigators, respective transportation authorities, airlines, manufacturers need to and are looking at ideas to try and prevent this from happening again, that is what they do after every crash and it is the very reason why aviation has such a high safety standard and record.

I AM looking at the big picture... I'm concerning myself with the millions of flights that haven't been crashed intentionally. You're focusing on the few incidents in aviation history that concerned a handful of crazed lunatics. Crazy is gonna be crazy... you can't stop it, so stop worrying about it.

No you're not. You're focusing on the mental state of the FO when the real problem is being that the other vital half of the flight crew was unable to get back into the flight deck. The other crew member doesn't have to be suicidal, he/she could very well have been incapacitated by a medical condition or something else but the simple fact is that one half of the flight crew was unable to get back where he/she needs to be ... and that is what is being focused on, not so much by the media but by the investigators, transportation authorities, airlines and manufacturers.

[Jx3]

You're focusing on the mental state of the FO when the real problem is being that the other vital half of the flight crew was unable to get back into the flight deck. The other crew member doesn't have to be suicidal, he/she could very well have been incapacitated by a medical condition or something else but the simple fact is that one half of the flight crew was unable to get back where he/she needs to be ... and that is what is being focused on, not so much by the media but by the investigators, transportation authorities, airlines and manufacturers.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but not sure why you are making that statement Dizzy. I am pretty sure you are aware that incapacitation (for whatever reason) of the lone crew member in the cockpit (in itself) would not prevent the other crew member from using the remote keypad and being able to open the door from the other side. In order for the keypad to be disabled the person in the cockpit would have to intentionally make the selection to override the remote keypad, something an incapacitated person would not likely do.

I suppose you could make the argument that this could happen with an incapacitated lone crew member in the cockpit together with a failure of some sort of the door lock system but I can't honestly think of any other scenario where the door could not be opened from the other side other than a deliberate attempt to keep someone out of the cockpit (exactly what they were designed to do).

Personally I am not in favour of the knee-jerk reaction some are calling for in having the doors removed. While I don't spend much time worrying about any flight I am on being hijacked by someone in the cabin or intentionally crashed by a suicidal crew member I think I'd prefer to keep the cockpit door locked.

While it's not 100% fool proof I think the best solution to mitigate the chances of the suicidal crew member scenario happening again is to simply ensure that no one is ever alone in the cockpit. Yes, sure, a determined person could overpower an FA that is sitting up front while the other pilot is "stretching his legs" but I would imagine that the simple fact that there is someone else in there with them would be enough of a deterrent for all but the most determined whackjobs.

[Dizzy1]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but not sure why you are making that statement Dizzy. I am pretty sure you are aware that incapacitation (for whatever reason) of the lone crew member in the cockpit (in itself) would not prevent the other crew member from using the remote keypad and being able to open the door from the other side. In order for the keypad to be disabled the person in the cockpit would have to intentionally make the selection to override the remote keypad, something an incapacitated person would not likely do.

I suppose you could make the argument that this could happen with an incapacitated lone crew member in the cockpit together with a failure of some sort of the door lock system but I can't honestly think of any other scenario where the door could not be opened from the other side other than a deliberate attempt to keep someone out of the cockpit (exactly what they were designed to do).

All I am trying to say is that the questions that have been coming out with this incident and investigation is that there are flaws with the system and other scenarios and they are being looked into. As you mentioned below, nothing is 100% other than my agreement with that, nothing is 100% but options and scenarios still need to be looked into. Maybe there is a better way of keeping the guys you want and need up front with unrestricted access while keeping the other guys out.

Personally I am not in favour of the knee-jerk reaction some are calling for in having the doors removed. While I don't spend much time worrying about any flight I am on being hijacked by someone in the cabin or intentionally crashed by a suicidal crew member I think I'd prefer to keep the cockpit door locked.

I don't like knee-jerk reactions either, a lot of the more bizarre policies we have today are knee-jerk reactions which have made flying a bit more unpleasant from both a passenger and pilots perspectives. As much time as I spend flying around, I don't worry about it either. I know there are some people out there who literally get nervous if they have an Arab looking passenger on their flight and I've actually been on aircraft where some passengers have made a scene over that. And following this event, I know the same passengers will be doing the same if they don't like the looks of the pilot or if one of them comes out during flight to use the lav.

While it's not 100% fool proof I think the best solution to mitigate the chances of the suicidal crew member scenario happening again is to simply ensure that no one is ever alone in the cockpit. Yes, sure, a determined person could overpower an FA that is sitting up front while the other pilot is "stretching his legs" but I would imagine that the simple fact that there is someone else in there with them would be enough of a deterrent for all but the most determined whackjobs.

Absolutely, as I mentioned in the other thread, its not 100% preventable, but it would reduce the chance of it happening again ... which really is the ultimate goal of investigations. Chances are, its really the only solution available to us.

[jimmy4321]

Do these pilots get random drug tested ?

[Dizzy1]

Do these pilots get random drug tested ?

That I'm not sure of, I would think it varies from country to country. I do know though that random alcohol tests are made if another crew member has suspicion that the pilot wasn't following the 8 hours bottle to throttle rule.

[jimmy4321]

Well if there was ever an industry that should have random drug/alcohol testing, airlines should be one of them.

Testing after the fact is often too late

[Dizzy1]

Well if there was ever an industry that should have random drug/alcohol testing, airlines should be one of them.

Why?

[jimmy4321]

A lot of lives in the hands of pilots. Some drug abuse can contribute to psychological issues .

[Dizzy1]

Testing after the fact is often too late

In regards to alcohol testing, its usually done before the aircraft leaves the gate.

[Dizzy1]

A lot of lives in the hands of pilots. Some drug abuse can contribute to psychological issues .

Would those behaviors not be apparent to other crew members or ground staff? Typically, a person who seems high strung or acting "differently" is usually pretty apparent when on drugs, is it not?

The alcohol testing I get, easy to figure out if they've been seen in a pub just before the flight or if they're visibly intoxicated or have whisky breath. I would think that drug behavioural patterns would be similar ... but I could be mistaken.

[jimmy4321]

I don't know how apparent it would be, people can be good at hiding such problems.
I think most of the time I can detect someone who's been drinking, drugs I don't know.