There is evidence that this co-pilot was assessed to be “unfit to fly”, for whatever reason, medical or psychological.
Here’s my question: Why was the Co-pilot seemingly the only one that knew about this assessment? Why wasn’t it sent to Airline officials in order to assure that this man was not to pilot the plane?
I used to work for the USAF, and the procedure was that if a pilot was found to have any reason at all to be less than 100%, it would go straight to his command, and this pilot would be grounded.
If I were one of the family members of the victims, I think there’s grounds here for negligence.
I’ve read that he had a medical issue that, on that day, could have meant he was excused flying and had a note to that effect from the doctor but I haven’t seen any evidence that his doctor said “you can’t fly”, just that he could be excused work through illness.
News reports say police found a piece of paper torn up in a waste basket in the co-pilot’s home that stated the co-pilot was “unfit to fly”.
My point is that, isn’t the person who made this assessment, that he is unfit to fly, duty bound to breach doctor patient confidence and inform the airlines?
The phrase “unfit to fly” has been floating around the news reports, but only as a statement made by investigators. As far as I can tell, no doctor actually made a finding that he was “unfit to fly” – only that he had some condition and could be excused from work.
Besides, I don’t know of any private doctor (at least in the US) that is obligated to inform employers of a patient’s condition.
“Prosecutors said Friday that among the items found at Mr. Lubitz’s home were several doctors’ notes stating that he was too ill to work, including on the day of the crash; one of the notes had been torn up. These documents “support the preliminary assessment that the deceased hid his illness from his employer and colleagues,” the prosecutors said in a statement.”
So I ask my question again:
If a doctor determines that a person is not fit to fly the plane, is he or she not duty bound to inform authorities to insure this person doesn’t fly the plane?
Why do you believe a doctor duty to bound to do this? Are doctors supposed to inform courts when a defense attorney is diagnosed with serious psychological problems? Are doctors supposed to inform the DMV office when a patient is diagnosed with serious visual problems?
I think that if one holds the lives of many people in their hands, then any illness that hampers their functioning should be reported. Drivers only have their own life or maybe 1 or 2 lives at stake if they are incapacitated, attorneys don’t have any lives at stake.
Airlines, especially the big ones, have dozens of lives in the balance if a pilot is incapacitated.
We have privacy issues here. As of now, the right of medical privacy seems to trump the right of the employer to know. Undoubtedly there will be some changes made.
The medical notes did not say unfit to fly a plane, how would a medical dr without specialisation in needs make such a decision?
It is common in european public medical systems for doctors to issue medical excuse notes because of certain labor code usages. I do not know the german system, but under the francophone systems it would be quite common.
it is unlikely these notes have the meaning you are giving them.
From the most recent CNN report, this co-pilot was diagnosed with several mental disorders, including severe depression. This report does also mention that he was deemed “unfit to work” by a doctor. Here are quotes from this report:
"Lubitz suffered from “generalized anxiety disorder,” and from severe depression in the past, Le Parisien newspaper reported Sunday, citing sources close to the investigation. In 2010, Lubitz received injections of antipsychotic medication, the paper reported.
Investigators found a handful of pills in his apartment in addition to two sick notes, which** forbade him from working from March 16 to March 29**, according to the paper."
Lubitz had been declared “unfit to work” by a doctor, German investigators said."
Why is a person with a severe mental disorder in charge of flying a plane with hundreds of people on board? I think definitely there was negligence by his medical providers the second they let him fly with these disorders diagnosed, and last week, the negligence finally caught up with them.
Did the doctor even know he was a copilot? Was there any law requiring reporting? Usually, when someone is told they’re unfit to work, they are glad to take the sick day. How would the doctor know the patient is going to work despite his ruling?
What if the doctor calls a patient unfit to work and he sues the doctor for defamation?
There are plenty of good reasons why this isn’t done.
In the US, unless the physician he saw was an actual certified flight surgeon who is responsible for certifying legal ‘fitness to fly’ and who answers to the FAA, there’s no obligation to report a commercial pilot to his employer unless the practitioner believes there is clear and present danger. In fact, that’s the only reason to report, otherwise, one is breaching confidentiality. And “clear and present danger” is a high bar to hit. I’ve done that sort of reporting a few times in my career, but that was with folks who were pretty far gone, and needed court orders because they were an obvious immediate danger to themselves or others.
His personal doctor could well have said “you should take some time off work, here’s a note excusing you”, with the patient nodding his head and saying “good idea, doc. I’ll do that”. Then tossing the note after leaving the office.
So we have an American news outlet, quoting the English translation of a French news outlet, in turn relying on a French translation of a German doctor’s note.
Sorry, that’s too long a chain for me to draw any conclusions about the doctor’s legal liability.
Did the doctors know he was a pilot? And were they trained in assessing whether someone is fit to fly? Those are two major issues that must be examined before any assessment can be made about negligence.
In summary, were these doctor’s notes for the purpose of excusing him from work, which appears to be quite common in German workplaces?
That would be the sensible thing to do …
A DMV could then search for any other similar license…aero, nautical, mining, train driving, public transport license, guns, security guard, medical license… (what if the surgeon was going blind ? )
Maybe employers should register there employees at a government department, like DMV … so that the doctors only have one place to notify… a Department of Licenses for dangerous occupations.
Electricians are the most at risk of dying, but more truck drivers die because there are more of them.
In California (and I’m guessing, in a lot of states) doctors are compelled to fink out on patients who are found to have medical conditions making them unfit to drive. I believe there is a specific list of conditions that require this. I don’t know specifically if bad vision is one of them. Epilepsy certainly is.
It was very controversial several years ago, when this law was being debated in the legislature. It was argued that the prospect of having one’s driver’s license yanked because you went to the doctor would discourage people from seeking medical treatment when they might really need it. IMHO, that in fact is happening.
The law is too heavy-handed. If a doctor submits such a report to the DMV, they instantly yank your license and notify you by mail. (I think it’s even possible that if you get stopped by a cop while that mail is “in the mail” you could be in deep shit.) They shoot first and leave it to you to ask questions later. If you want to appeal the decision, that can take months and hundreds of dollars for you to get your license back. And the law grants doctors legal immunity for any such reports they make.
It is reputed that institutional medical practices are the most likely to cover their asses by abusing these provisions.
In the UK a doctor is not expected to tell the authorities about any medical condition that affects a patient’s ability to drive or anything else. The individual is legally require to inform on themselves for a number of conditions like epilepsy and the penalties for failing to do so ar fairly severe. They would also make themselves liable in the event that, for example, they caused a collision.
Pilots are expected to report any mental health issues they experience themselves or observe in colleagues. If the annual check discovered a problem that would be different, but otherwise the patient/doctor relationship remains confidential.
Yes. Those notes are legally required after the third missed day at the latest, but employers can demand them from day one. They can be issued by any licensed doctor, are not specific to a job and do not contain a diagnosis. The doctor just certifies that the patient is unfit for work (in general) and lists a start and estimated end date. That is the exact same type of note that he would have gotten for a cold.
No. Once they have been handed in, many employers have a policy of treating them as binding either way, but that is not a legal requirement.
Of course as a pilot he was subject to additional regulations, but his regular doctors play no part in that.