#dnaEdit: Cockpit trouble

The altercation and alleged fist-fight between a pilot and co-pilot on a Delhi-bound Air India flight and — across the seas — the recent deliberate crashing of a Germanwings airplane by a mentally unstable co-pilot killing 150 passengers, have brought into focus a hitherto ignored aspect of airline safety: the mental fitness of pilots. In a report last year, the US Federal Aviation Authority reported eight such incidents of pilots committing aircraft-assisted suicide in the US between 2003 and 2012. Investigators have discovered that Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz suffered from depression and doctors had even recorded “suicidal tendencies” before he received his pilot licence. Lubitz was regularly consulting doctors for his problems but had concealed that fact from Lufthansa. The Air India co-pilot allegedly had a history of run-ins with pilots. Under high public scrutiny, the airline appears to have decided to crack the whip, de-rostering both pilots for the public spat that has been widely covered in media. What remains unclear is whether such fights are commonplace, and irrespective of that — the question that needs to be answered is: why did the co-pilot not face strict disciplinary action for the earlier brawls?

For weeks now, the media has been debating whether or not a man like Lubitz could have been stopped from committing what many be called “mass murder”. If a person goes to great lengths to conceal his or her problems, can any system uncover the workings of their brain? In response to the tragedy, Germany, Australia and other countries have instituted a “two-person rule” which mandates the presence of an additional cabin crew member in the cockpit whenever the pilot or co-pilot take a toilet break. Some countries which have unique identification numbers are also considering the feasibility of summoning comprehensive medical records of pilots. But this would mandate relaxation of patient privacy rules, which has serious implications like patients losing confidence in their doctors, and perhaps not seeking medical help to deal with their medical/psychological problems. What then is required is a system that encourages voluntary disclosure of information, and an institutionalised mechanism that routinely monitors the mental health of pilots. Indian airlines already conduct psychometric tests at the time of induction of pilots, and subsequently only physical tests. However, this approach is flawed because psychological conditions like depression can surface at any point of time. But it appears that the realisation has finally dawned upon the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and a regimen involving both continuous and random assessment of mental fitness could now be on the cards.

However, not all is fine within the DGCA either. On April 2, a group of Air India co-pilots wrote to the DGCA complaining about the poor working conditions. They complained how the work pressure of steering the snag-prone ageing fleet of A-320s is stressing them out. The co-pilots seemed to be taking advantage of the public debate that followed the Germanwings crash, to highlight their own grievances. Questions about what the erratic sleep cycles do to the pilots and the judgment calls they are forced to make in the cockpit are also being raised. In the case of Air India Express Flight 812, which crashed at Mangalore in 2010, the pilot was asleep for over 90 minutes after the flight left Dubai. Another Air India flight had a close shave after the pilot dozed off, over Mumbai, last August. With most airlines running into losses, hiring has taken a backseat, forcing pilots on the rolls to work longer hours. Rather than leave it to the airlines, the DGCA must now embark on a detailed probe and examine flying and medical records of pilots and improve work conditions. Such an exercise might throw up surprising revelations. Recall the 2011 fake pilots scam in which over a dozen licensed pilots were arrested on the discovery of forged marksheets, to secure commercial flying licences.