With the recent incident of a ramp agent taking a q400. This brings the question should Airlines do more to notice the signs of mental illness? Psychological evaluations every so often? I'm speaking purely of ramp agents customer service agents and line mechanics people who have direct access to the aircraft. I know that things are going to change after this and it's definitely going to make my job a little bit harder because of one ramp agent. But this does bring up that question should it be done.

No

While I dont have problems with psychological evaluations on an annual basis. The problem arises as to when to take action because the person can pass the test for years then all of a sudden snap resulting in disasters like the German Wings accident and this most recent one. The sad thing about this is that it makes it harder on everyone else.

There's no mental evaluation to get a drivers license, but you can still kill a lot of people with a motor vehicle.

I agree it is hard to diagnose mental illness. But if it's done regularly and management supervisors leads know the signs of it it can be dealt with. I know at least on our ramp somebody even jokes about something like that it's an immediate suspension and evaluation. But with Airlines paying very low wages to their employees you get what you pay for.

Honestly : no. Come on, in the majority of jobs you can do something which would do physical or psychological harm to a small or big number of people. Doctors and medical personnel...teachers....lawyers... if you're a truck mechanic you have access to a potentially dangerous machine. We mentally evaluate all truck mechanics ? Unfortunately people have sick minds sometimes. We could perhaps make people more aware on how to detect the signs of mental troubles in people working in the same environment and help them.

Do you evaluate bus, truck, van, car drivers ? Do you evaluate, boat, ferry, ship captains ? Do you evaluate train drivers ? Do you evaluate the worker at a food processing plant, just to make sure they don't drop some poison into the food mixture ?

It is unrealistic to suggest so. What is needed is friends and family to look for signs of a potential problem, to talk to the person, help them through what the problem maybe, ultimately, help them get the help they need. Very few people fighting depression, or some type of mental illness will willingly walk up to someone and say they need help. It is a tough thing to do and while most societies will go out of the way to help someone, the stigma attached to "mental illness" can be such a deterrent to individuals, that they simply don't ask, or try to get help till it's to late.

This incident is incredibly sad, hopefully Rich gets to rest in peace.

Nope.

How often do you do these checks? Before employment? Once a year? Once a month? Every time they show up for work?

If one of the former, what happens to the other 90+% of the time they work. If the latter, who is going to pay for it|? Mental health is a stigma and it is an issue for more people than you might fathom. Once tarnished by the "mental health" brush you will always be remembered as the "weird one", whereas you can break a leg and after a few months nobody will ever mention it again.

Until mental health issues are treated in the same way as any other health issue (which will probably never happen), don't expect people to seek help,

The problem is that psychological evaluations are highly prone to both Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives). The only way to reduce (but not eliminate) those is to make the evaluations very lengthy. At this point you are talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee in addition to the already very significant costs of hiring. You are also opening to a large degree of legal liability when it comes to disability rights and also there's the fact that some people with certain psychiatric diagnoses can still do their jobs just fine.

In addition, certain psychiatric conditions can be acquired or unmasked under extreme stress. Shall we put everyone going through a divorce or a serious illness of a loved one on leave?

I can't think of the last time something like this happened, but these events are very rare.

Nope.

The logistics and cost are simply too much.

Additionally for those folks with issues be it depression or what not, baring them from a job is against basic US employment law as they are likely a protected class and or even considered a valid disability.

Anyhow, I don't see airport or airline employees being special that would require screening over any other industry. There are tons of fields where employees can very well utilize their access or tools to do harm to others or themselves. (medical, construction, other transportation, etc)

DocLightning wrote:

The problem is that psychological evaluations are highly prone to both Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives). The only way to reduce (but not eliminate) those is to make the evaluations very lengthy. At this point you are talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee in addition to the already very significant costs of hiring. You are also opening to a large degree of legal liability when it comes to disability rights and also there's the fact that some people with certain psychiatric diagnoses can still do their jobs just fine.

In addition, certain psychiatric conditions can be acquired or unmasked under extreme stress. Shall we put everyone going through a divorce or a serious illness of a loved one on leave?

I can't think of the last time something like this happened, but these events are very rare.

There’s been a number of suicides or “stolen” airliners—FDX 705, Egypt 990, a PSA BAe 146, the CRJ in Utah, Craig Button in an A-10. The list isn’t that rare.

GF

I was just asked this question by a reporter. Why? Some people with mental illness are able to hide their disorder very well. Sometimes mental illness rapidly comes on. The cost associated with doing something like this would be expensive. Then, what is the protocol if someone is identified with a mental illness? Do they not get hired because they have a mental illness? Is that discrimination?

How about measures be taken to avoid this in the future? Perhaps special lock systems on flight controls?

F9Animal wrote:

I was just asked this question by a reporter. Why? Some people with mental illness are able to hide their disorder very well. Sometimes mental illness rapidly comes on. The cost associated with doing something like this would be expensive. Then, what is the protocol if someone is identified with a mental illness? Do they not get hired because they have a mental illness? Is that discrimination?

How about measures be taken to avoid this in the future? Perhaps special lock systems on flight controls?

Or if they are diagnosed with mental illness and lets say they've been working for an airline for the past 10,15, 20 plus years do you fire them? Do you give them time off with pay? Time off without pay? If they are allowed to remain employed but are held out of service how long do you hold them out of service before they have to return to work? Who decides when their mental illness is under control to the point that they can return to work? Like you stated the cost associated with such a program would ground the entire airline industry.

Mental Health in general, is hardly addressed in the United States. The issues should be addressed as a whole for all people, not just one sector.

Definitely not! (Spoken from an airport employee with many issues...some mental)

Absolutely not! Why just airport employees?

90% of the time as an Aircraft mechanic working for United I worked alone on an airplane. There were others around but they were working on their own assigned airplanes. for 99.95% of us? It was a matter of pride when we finished our work and cleared the Log book or signed the Maintenance release.
Every so often you might need help with a Brake change or a tire change on a B747 or DC-10 (they were 49x19 and 50x20 tires and wheels) but not that often unless you were working the Gates and a tire change came in off a flight. Then it would be all "hands on deck". On the smaller airplanes? You could mostly do it by yourself until you had to torque the wheel nut because you had to spin the tire to do it. Most other routine servicing jobs you could do alone. Larger repairs? You took the airplane to the hangar.

Beyond the obvious logistical issues with large-scale mental health screenings, I'd also have to question the effectiveness given how broadly a term like "mental illness" can be thrown around. I could easily see kneejerk measures that end up lumping in things like phobias and anxiety disorders with paranoid schizophrenia and suicidality.

The big takeaway from this whole incident (and that AA plane theft from not too long ago) is that airlines and airports need to do a better job of securing planes on the ground so that they don't get stolen. That'll be more effective and easier to implement.

Victorville wrote:

There's no mental evaluation to get a drivers license, but you can still kill a lot of people with a motor vehicle.

I'm good with both.

Then again, I am evaluated and then allowed to go test stuff that can be... scary.

Lightsaber

For all we know this guy didn’t have a history of mental illness. Sometimes people just snap. Fortunately no one else died from this incident.

I know someone who maintains train engines for a major USA railroad. He's fully trained and cleared to operate the engines in the maintenance yard. Wouldn't take much for a similar situation to happen there.

Simply put NO

It shouldnt be a test, but aviation companies should be able to provide support to its employees in a way that they will know when problems arise. A "test" every year will only bring up more stress.

No

If start going Down that part there are just too many positions / work situtations where we would have to do the same evaluations. One can be a danger to the world around in any position / any job. We can't become that afraid of the world around us. We are fighting for freedom remember … Well we wont be free if we start thinking like that and being afraid of everything.

Never.

Considering 1 in 5 Americans has a mental illness, you'll soon be disqualifying huge portion of your labor force needlessly in search of the 1 in a million person that might actually snap and go postal on the job.

DocLightning wrote:

The problem is that psychological evaluations are highly prone to both Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives). The only way to reduce (but not eliminate) those is to make the evaluations very lengthy. At this point you are talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee in addition to the already very significant costs of hiring. You are also opening to a large degree of legal liability when it comes to disability rights and also there's the fact that some people with certain psychiatric diagnoses can still do their jobs just fine.

In addition, certain psychiatric conditions can be acquired or unmasked under extreme stress. Shall we put everyone going through a divorce or a serious illness of a loved one on leave?

I can't think of the last time something like this happened, but these events are very rare.

Thanks Doc for chiming in

It’s very frustrating (the main thread on this event) folks are quick to call any event as “bi polar/manic”. It’s seens to be the new thing now.

As you pointed out proper diagnostic procedures take time and results have a chance of being misleading. A psychiatric diagnosis as we know , even for severe issues, does not mean someone will become psychotic or dangerous or suicidal. These issues can be brought on by any number of things and it can be acute and not chronic.

I hope a lot of folks posting here will think first before becoming armchair MD’s too.

As always Doc, thanks for your insight... much appreciated you’re still here after we’ve lost so many experienced and talented members.

No. I think doing so is a knee jerk reaction.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

The problem is that psychological evaluations are highly prone to both Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives). The only way to reduce (but not eliminate) those is to make the evaluations very lengthy. At this point you are talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars per employee in addition to the already very significant costs of hiring. You are also opening to a large degree of legal liability when it comes to disability rights and also there's the fact that some people with certain psychiatric diagnoses can still do their jobs just fine.

In addition, certain psychiatric conditions can be acquired or unmasked under extreme stress. Shall we put everyone going through a divorce or a serious illness of a loved one on leave?

I can't think of the last time something like this happened, but these events are very rare.

There’s been a number of suicides or “stolen” airliners—FDX 705, Egypt 990, a PSA BAe 146, the CRJ in Utah, Craig Button in an A-10. The list isn’t that rare.

GF

The PSA was not a stolen airplane.

It is was a disgruntled former US employee.

So now you are going to subject every passenger to an exam too)

But. It was hijacked by an employee who was approved on the airside. Hijacked or stolen are pretty much the same thing. There are many stories similar to these—an RAF mechanic took a Lightning out for a ride once.

My point wasn’t that everyone should be examined before flight, just that similar events have occurred and will occur again. I don’t believe we can stop everyone.

GF

Always love how passengers have to get the short end of the stick, especially when it's the fault of the airlines, manufacturers, airport authorities, or security procedures.

Its funny how Americans will push mental evaluations on mechanics due to a once in a lifetime incident, but completely ignore Gun regulations.... its so interesting to me the way that works... cant make this up

santi319 wrote:

Its funny how Americans will push mental evaluations on mechanics due to a once in a lifetime incident, but completely ignore Gun regulations.... its so interesting to me the way that works... cant make this up

^^^THIS^^^

Maybe because guns don't kill people, but people do?Seriously Santi319, why would you attempt to change the topic to fit your agenda?

Back on track and ignoring that post, How many people are employed in the aviation industry world wide? Couple of million? So we have had 1 or 2 out of that group have an illness, and we are not sure if this latest one did, but we are going to test everyone of those aviation workers? Sounds like a typical response from one of the left side of the political equation. Regulate, regulate, regulate which only takes away more freedom and rights of people. But then common sense never seems to run on that side anyway.

727200 wrote:

Maybe because guns don't kill people, but people do?Seriously Santi319, why would you attempt to change the topic to fit your agenda.

Using this logic, North Korea, Iran, etc should be allowed Nuclear Weapons.

flyingturtle wrote:

The Germanwings pilot actively hid his diagnoses and feared for his job.

And that's exactly the problem. If he wouldn't have to fear for his job, this might never have happened.

F9Animal wrote:

Then, what is the protocol if someone is identified with a mental illness? Do they not get hired because they have a mental illness? Is that discrimination?

That is discrimination indeed. Mental illness is a disease just like being overstressed (the two of them are often related). I believe people with mental diseases should be legally protected from being fired. When they don't have to fear for their job this already takes away a lot of stress.

Samrnpage wrote:

A "test" every year will only bring up more stress.

Only if the test is something to fear for. Like I said before, if they're protected from being fired when they're diagnosed as mentally ill or overstressed, they're more likely to admit their issues. There's nothing to fear for, they can just throw it out on the table. However if there is something to fear for (their job), they don't dare throw it out. That way you get false results.

lavalampluva wrote:

For all we know this guy didn’t have a history of mental illness. Sometimes people just snap.

True, but still the question should be asked why they snapped. Mostly it's because they're under too much pressure, too much stress. They can't handle that. At a certain moment they break down, it becomes too much for them to handle. What people do when they break down is different for everybody.

Employers are responsible for the workload they put on their employees. Some employees take that workload better than others, some get more stressed because of it than others. Besides that, stress can also be caused during their private lives. If they're going through a hard time at home this adds stress. Combine that with stress at work and chances are big they'll snap.

To prevent such situations there should be a counseling point people can go to. Often they feel a breakdown coming up, but without a place to go to they keep silent about it. The counseling point can intervene and issue these people "sick". They need to disstress first. Of course going to a counseling point should never have any consequenses for anybody. They should be guaranteed to keep their job, keep their income, etc. Just the fact alone that this is guaranteed can take away a lot of stress. However if you put up a barrier for people to go to a counseling point, like the fear of losing their job, they might not go. This increases the chance they'll actually snap.

Boof02671 wrote:

So now you are going to subject every passenger to an exam too

In a sense they do. At airport security points they are looking for leftovers of shampoo or toothpaste (just one dosage) and they throw it away. They think we are Alchemists. And speaking of hijacking, do you think that those hijackers of the sixties and seventies were mentally ill? They were zealots in a sense but ill? The whole planet is an asylum for lunatics and you want to make the world a safer place to live in? Why worry?

santi319 wrote:

727200 wrote:

Maybe because guns don't kill people, but people do?Seriously Santi319, why would you attempt to change the topic to fit your agenda.

Using this logic, North Korea, Iran, etc should be allowed Nuclear Weapons.

Could we please keep this nonsense out of the thread, the topic is about mental evaluations for airport employees in wake of the tragedy than has happened over past couple of days, not about guns or nuclear weapons

Psychological evaluations can cost a lot of money. Do people really think that airlines are going to do this for $12/hour hires?

Personally, I think it is a great idea. In fact, there should be a screening session before every airline employee goes to work. That would include all GSAs, Pilots, Cabin Crew, Engineers and HQ Staff. Also, every passenger should be screened at the boarding gate to ensure they are "all there".

Now that that rant is over..... A screening when hired would solve nothing. It would only validate, assuming the diagnosis is correct, the person was not suffering at the time of the evaluation. Sadly, there is no "foolproof" to ensure someone is not suffering from mental health issues. We are dealing with fallible human beings.

I'll be a cynic.

How about tougher licensing laws, skills-based recurrent proficiency tests, and mental health evaluations.... for taxi drivers. I guarantee you'd save ten times more lives for the money.

Not saying the current system for people with access to aircraft is perfect, but it's hardly carnage compared to your average day on the roads.

Victorville wrote:

There's no mental evaluation to get a drivers license, but you can still kill a lot of people with a motor vehicle.

Amen! Test restaurant workers,could poison food,test hospital workers,could do a number of deadly things,etc. We live in a very sick and evil world,starting from the top down to the so called average person. Think back 30,40,50 years ago and see how gradually peoples actions and morals have declined and its going to get worse.

If anything... I think bus drivers are on average much safer than regular drivers because they are not driving drunk - drunk bus driver would be caught when checking in or by passengers.
Similarly, best thing for mental health is not formal medical evaluation, but a bit more attention from people around. A bit less of "everyone has a right to be a little different" and a bit more of "are you OK? can I help you?" approach. But that can easily turn into amateurish policing, only making things worse.

And that's exactly the problem. If he wouldn't have to fear for his job, this might never have happened.

At some point, fearing for one’s job IS rational—there are disqualifing illnesses, injuries and performance deficiencies. If we say people won’t fear for their employment, we’ll have to keep unqualified people on the payroll—who pays for that? Many of these people have their ego so tied to their job, when the job falls, so dies their entire reason for living.

GF

Who evaluates the evaluators?

I'm quite serious about this. Any person who is the subject of a "mental health screening" only passes if the evaluator says they pass. That puts a huge amount of power in the hands of the evaluator, and leaves the screenee exceedingly vulnerable.

(This is an emotional point for me, as my son was sexually abused, and subsequently convinced to suicide, by his court-appointed therapist.)

The amount of damage that could be done by an un-ethical mental health practitioner is almost beyond imagining. Giving access to all of your key personnel to someone who may be a manipulator could be the most dangerous thing you could possibly do. Since the whole point of therapy is to get people to view problems and take actions in a different way than is their habit, a person who is not a manipulator is useless as a therapist.

I'd like to see good help easily available to people who need it, but not if it places them at risk.

Super80Fan wrote:

Always love how passengers have to get the short end of the stick, especially when it's the fault of the airlines, manufacturers, airport authorities, or security procedures.

Manufactures fault? Puleze give us a break with that non sense.

Can you even begin to comprehend the logistics of an operation like this? At my local airport AMS there are already thousands of people with airside access, and we're hardly the biggest airport in the world!

Martijn

CrimsonNL wrote:

Can you even begin to comprehend the logistics of an operation like this? At my local airport AMS there are already thousands of people with airside access, and we're hardly the biggest airport in the world!

Martijn

Yup. We are talking about a truly vast program here.

There are other, simpler ways to prevent this. How about asking manufacturers to require that new-build aircraft use ignition keys like cars? It need not be a sophisticated system. Just enough to offer a significant hurdle to someone who has had a psychotic break and wants to pull off a stunt like this.

In the end, the world cannot be made completely safe. Death is a known risk of life. There is a risk/benefit analysis that has to be taken very seriously before we do this. We've already seen what happens when those analyses are not done thoughtfully and now we all have to wait in line for TSA screenings sometimes for longer than the flight itself before boarding a plane, yet the TSA has never stopped a terrorist attack.