Germanwings: Crash leaves many unanswered questions
We know that Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 was intentionally flown into a mountain by 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz, after he locked the plane’s pilot out of the cockpit. But several key questions remain unanswered.
Why did Lubitz do this?
We don’t know. Investigators ruled out terrorism early on, and their position did not change on Thursday when it was revealed that Andreas Lubitz deliberately flew the aircraft into a mountain.
No suicide note has been found at Lubitz’s home.
The co-pilot did not behave in a peculiar or extreme manner and people who knew him have expressed shock at this week’s events. “He’s not the type of guy who would try and kill other people – absolutely not,” a neighbour said yesterday. Another told Associated Press that Lubitz did not smoke and took care of himself.
“He was really just a very normal, not very remarkable nice young man,” said Klaus Radke, the president of the flying club, near Montabaur in Germany, where Lubitz had learned to fly.
Nevertheless, speculation has centred around Lubitz’s mental well-being.
Prosecutors in Dusseldorf have removed medical documents from Lubitz’s home that indicate “an existing illness and appropriate medical treatment”. They found torn-up sick notes, including for the day of the crash, that “support the current preliminary assessment that the deceased hid his illness from his employer and colleagues”.
However, the university clinic that treated him said his treatment was not for depression, but for “diagnostic investigations”.
The German tabloid paper Bild said [in German] it had seen documents that said he was suffering from a “personal life crisis”, having recently broken up with a girlfriend. A note on the Federal Aviation Authority’s medical records for Lubitz says that he had to go for special medical checks, the paper reports.
It is known that Lubitz took six months’ rest in 2008 while qualifying as a pilot. TheFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung paper quoted a friend [in German] who said that Lubitz had had a “burnout”. He reportedly went on to receive treatment for depression for a year-and-a-half.
But even when we have a fuller picture of Lubitz’s state of mind before the crash, some of his actions may remain a mystery forever. For example, if he really decided to kill himself and everyone else on board the plane, why did he set the plane on a controlled, rather than a sudden, descent?
Could depression really explain Lubitz’s actions?
Depression is a serious illness, and it affects everyone differently. People experiencing depression can reach such a state of alienation that they risk taking their lives – but the vast majority of people with depression would never harm anyone other than themselves.
Writing in the Times, Jennifer Wild, a psychologist at the University of Oxford, says that the irrational thinking evident from Lubitz’s actions in the cockpit may have been triggered by depression, possibly caused by a recent traumatic episode. “Perhaps in his state he did not consider the consequences of his actions, or perhaps he did not care because he was consumed with ending his life,” she writes, adding that drug-taking or a bout of extreme anger may also explain his actions.
The black box recording of Lubitz’s calm breathing as he pressed the controls to send the aeroplane hurtling to the ground may lead some to believe he was a psychopath, but Dr Wild notes that psychopaths generally avoid harming themselves.
“Until the facts are established, we should be careful not to rush judgements,” said Sir Simon Wessely, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, adding that millions of people in Britain suffered from depression, which is a treatable illness. He told the BBC that this included pilots who “resume flying, perfectly safely, for maybe tens of years afterwards.”
The fact that Lubitz appears to have been signed off as sick raises the question of whether there was – or should have been – contact between his doctors and the airline. Medical practitioners take an oath to maintain patient confidentiality, but some US states have expanded doctors’ duty of care to the community at large. This allows them to warn third parties if they think it is necessary.
Do aviation authorities need to improve psychological screening?
In Germany, trainee pilots are subjected to medical examinations, which include oral psychological assessments. There is some debate as to whether such assessments are thorough enough. One question an examiner might ask a pilot is “Do you have a butterfly collection at home?”, the Suddeitsche Zeitung reported [in German].
Lufthansa said that after they hire pilots they do not subject them to regular psychological examinations. This is obligatory in other countries, such as the US and UK.
Airline staff are encouraged to report strange behaviour on the part of their colleagues, but a former pilot told the BBC that peer pressure could act as a brake on this process. “All the safety nets we are all so proud of here have not worked in this case,” Carsten Spohr, Lufthansa’s chief, admitted on Thursday.
But Mr Spohr also said: “No matter your safety regulations, no matter how high you set the bar, and we have incredibly high standards, there is no way to rule out such an event. This is an awful one-off event.”
Pilot suicides are incredibly rare. A 2014 study by the Federal Aviation Authorityidentified eight such instances in the US between 2003 and 2012, accounting for 0.29% of all fatal aviation aircraft accidents. All the pilots involved had been medically screened and none had demonstrated mental disorder, depression or suicidal thoughts.
Is it true that the airline could have taken control of the plane from the ground?
Some people are asking why there is no system for wresting control of a plane from a control tower. In fact, such a system does exist, reports the Daily Mail, but it is not being used. In 2006, Boeing was awarded a patent for an “uninterrupted autopilot system” with its own power supply that could be activated by those on board a plane or on the ground. However, safety concerns – including the possibility that such a system could be hacked – have prevented its roll-out.
The crash also raises questions about the cockpit door mechanism which Lubitz used to keep the pilot out. The system, which allows a pilot to over-ride the coded entry mechanism on the outside of the door, was designed in the event of a terrorist emergency. Airlines are going to have to balance those concerns against the possibility that individuals like Andreas Lubitz might decide to do harm, says the BBC’s transport correspondent Richard Westcott.
Can airlines prevent this from happening again?
The airline industry is in the process of introducing a small change that may avert an exact repetition of Tuesday’s events. Lubitz was able to fly the plane into the ground without interruption since he seized the opportunity to lock the cockpit doors while the plane’s pilot was going to the toilet.
Some airlines enforce a so-called “rule of two” – that there should never be fewer than two people left in the cockpit. For these airlines, a member of the cabin crew enters the cockpit when appropriate to ensure this rule is followed.
Several airlines, including Lufthansa, have announced they are adopting this rule. The European Aviation Safety Agency is set to issue guidance on the issue on Friday. China’s aviation authority will introduce the rule, and the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority has contacted all UK airlines “to require them to review all relevant procedures”.
Where does all this all leave relatives of those on board Flight 4U 9525?
What relatives of plane crash victims need most are answers, experts say. But the more we learn about Andreas Lubitz, the more heartbreaking the Germanwings crash seems.
Evidence from research suggests that trauma inflicted by other humans on purpose is more difficult to come to terms with than natural disasters, clinical psychologist Roderick Orner told the BBC.
Acts of violence are also harder to process than accidents due to negligence or mechanical failure. “Violence is often experienced as an attack on human integrity,” says psychiatrist Lars Weiseth. “This aspect causes increasing anger, loss of trust in companies and people, and sharply increases the risk to mental health.”
The fact that Lubitz seemingly had no agenda for his actions does not necessarily make things easier, since the deaths seem meaningless. If he had been a terrorist, Prof Weiseth says, relatives may be able to see their family members as “involuntary participants in an important struggle for democratic values”.
By travelling together to the site of the crash, the relatives may at least be able to establish a strong network of mutual support which could help them on the journey to recovery.
https://inyenyerinews.info/justice-and-reconciliation/germanwings-crash-leaves-many-unanswered-questions/AFRICAHUMAN RIGHTSJUSTICE AND RECONCILIATIONLATEST NEWSAndreas Lubitz was accepted as a Lufthansa trainee in 2008 Alps plane crash What drives people to murder-suicide? Germanwings crash: Counting the cost Flight 4U 9525: The final 30 minutes Who was co-pilot Andreas Lubitz? We know that Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 was intentionally flown into a mountain by 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz, after he locked...Placide KayitareNoble Mararakayitare@gmail.comAdministratorINYENYERI NEWS
