Galery

1

The accident involving Airbus 320 that crashed last Tuesday in the southern French Alps with 150 people on board has again placed the issues of civil aviation safety at the centre of public attention worldwide. The causes of the accident are still under investigation but prosecutor of Marseille Brice Robben has already raised charges against co-pilot Andreas Lubica of deliberately crashing the plane. GRReporter turned for comment to Bulgarian pilot Yanko Stoimenov, who has extensive experience as chief pilot of various foreign airlines and who is currently working in Switzerland. Yanko Stoimenov talks with Maria S. Topalova.

How is it possible for such a prestigious airline as Lufthansa to make that huge personnel omission, namely to allow a person with a serious mental illness to fly a plane of its fleet?

I would immediately oppose this, because it is not known whether he had suffered from a disease. So far, it is not clear whether the person was ill. Furthermore, the health condition of pilots is not assessed by the airline. It is assessed by authorized medical structures that are independent from the airline and it has no control over the health of pilots. The medical regulation in the pilot profession is separate from the airline and if we are to talk about some responsibility, it should be assumed personally by the pilots and by the medical system, which is external to the airlines. I.e. the airline cannot be held liable in this regard.

Being aware of the training that Andreas Lubica had completed and of the selection process at Lufthansa in terms of the qualities of a pilot and his technical knowledge and skills to fly a plane I am certain that he had all the qualities and skills to fly aircraft.

All media are now speaking of the mental disorder or illness of the co-pilot of the crashed plane. It is claimed that he had interrupted his training because of severe depression, had a medical certificate for such a disease and that he had even torn up his patient’s chart for the day of the crash.

Basically, in the case of a plane crash, the investigation should use facts. What bothers me is that a few days after the crash there already are conclusions that are so precipitous that they are in favour of nothing. Nor of civil aviation safety, nor of those who use its services. Fantasies, emotions are escalating about what happened, how it happened and why it happened. It could happen to anyone to interrupt his or her training for two or three months. Pilots are people like everyone else. Things happen to us in life too, such as the loss of a loved one, and we are not devoid of emotions. Therefore, rational thinking is required. We are not supermen, nor are we with ‘amputated’ emotions, nor do we not suffer from diseases. If one looks at the career of any pilot, one would see that he had to leave work temporarily; he suffered from a disease, etc. Being aware of the training that Andreas Lubica had completed and of the selection process at Lufthansa in terms of the qualities of a pilot and his technical knowledge and skills to fly a plane I am certain that he had all the qualities and skills to fly aircraft. Apparently, he had a German licence and certified aviation doctors in Germany had decided on his medical fitness to fly aircraft, and I suppose that their decision was correct. But as I say pilots are people too. And was this actually the cause of the crash?

If the cause of the crash is not the co-pilot committing suicide, what else could happen so that aircraft falls down from the height at which the plane in question was and in view of how it crashed in the end?

We do not know the reason why one of the pilots had left the cockpit nor do we know the reason why he had not been able to re-enter it.

Firstly, we do not know the reason why one of the pilots had left the cockpit nor do we know the reason why he had not been able to re-enter it. Everything that is said at this moment is speculation. We do not know whether an electrical signal with the corresponding code had been sent or if someone had been knocking on the door, because the information is controversial. It is not common for the commander to knock on the door because he can use other signalling mechanisms to indicate that he wants to come in. In addition, there is not yet a conclusion as to what had happened to the technical condition of the aircraft. It is only known that the autopilot was turned off and that the pilot who was in the cockpit did not say anything, he was just breathing until the aircraft collided with the ground. I would say that the investigation should examine all possible options and consider all possible parameters, both the human factor and what happened to the plane from a technical point of view. Nothing has been said so far and there has been no information about it. All the facts relating to the human factor must be analyzed only when all the facts about the behaviour of the aeroplane are clear. Currently, the human factor is considered in a way that should not be excluded, but other options for this behaviour, not only the psychological, mental and health aspects, should be considered as well. These early findings, a few days after the crash, are a bit hasty in my opinion. There is no final conclusion as to what had happened to the technical condition of the aircraft. It is only known that the autopilot was turned off. These possibilities are not excluded, history remembers crashes caused by human motives similar to those that are now suggested. Personally, I have read about a number of accidents caused by suicide due to emotional reasons, a relationship that had ended or due to bad relations with the employer. In one of the cases, the pilot had even crashed at the airport and destroyed two more aircraft.

Do you think the measure that requires the presence of a second person in the cockpit, i.e. a flight attendant to enter the cockpit if one of the pilots goes out, is a solution for situations like this? How could a stewardess help in the cockpit?

I am against hasty decisions in general. And what is currently happening is a hasty decision, namely to impose in the industry measures that are not sufficiently considered and do not guarantee that such a thing could not happen. For me, the introduction of this measure is very controversial. It is often uncomfortable from a practical point of view and can be difficult to implement, and it can hamper the work of pilots in another way. Similar was the situation after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, when armoured doors were introduced. Both positive and negative sides were debated and discussed for almost one year before the measure was enforced. The negative impacts of such a measure on flight safety were suggested even at that time. The armoured door breaks the connection between the passenger unit and the cockpit and we warned even then that this barrier would inevitably lead to a problem that would jeopardize safety. The armoured door breaks the connection between the passenger unit and the cockpit and we warned even then that this barrier would inevitably lead to a problem that would jeopardize safety. Well, if in the case of the Germanwings crash we accept the theory of the second pilot committing suicide we see that the armoured door was an obstacle to flight safety. The new measure for the presence of a second person in the cockpit may have another impact. There is no guarantee that the one who enters the cabin will not be intending to commit suicide. A desperate flight attendant or a desperate stewardess may also engage in something similar to a terrorist act. Therefore, there is no guarantee. If a pilot intends to crash an aircraft, a stewardess in the cockpit will hardly thwart his intention. It is hard to imagine how this will happen. For me this measure aims to reduce the tension in the public space.
 
One of the facts that has become known after the crash is the age of the aircraft. That Airbus 320 was 24 years old. Isn’t this too critical an age for such a complex machine like aircraft?

Certainly, this aeroplane is ‘past its prime’. However, things are different in aircraft. Due to their price, they are made so that they have a very long life. There are multiple parameters to measure the fatigue of the aircraft’s construction - in addition to years, they include numbers, landings and types of landings, hours in the air, the servicing of the aircraft also ensures a longer life. Although the structure of the aircraft may be old and although it was produced 25 years ago, many of the aircraft computers that give life to the systems can be updated to comply with technological changes. Therefore, this is not a problem. However, what we must consider is that the Airbus 320 is a fly-by-wire generation aircraft, i.e. all commands of the pilot go to the computer first and then subsequently, they are submitted to the aeroplane systems. Therefore, in the case of the Germanwings crash, before making any conclusions, we must be convinced that the behaviour of the aircraft was 100% what it should have been. I have not yet heard that the data from the so-called black box have been read and I have not read a conclusion to ensure that all aeroplane systems were properly working and that everything related to the aircraft operation was properly functioning. What is happening now is hype on the human factor and it is embarrassing. The human and technical factors are one thing, the findings should be made in parallel. Prior to blaming the crash on the human factor, we must be sure that the aircraft was 100% flawless, its systems were flawlessly operating and that what happened to it was a consequence of the commands submitted by the pilot. In the case of the Airbus 320, reading these parameters can absolutely specify that. So far, we have not seen anything like that. It should be examined if the plane properly had responded to the actions of the pilot and hence to build a logical scheme to show if what happened was due to the actions of the pilot or if there was something between the pilot and the aircraft. What is happening now lacks logic. I am worried, because when such an accident happens the investigation must be conducted according to the international standards set out in Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO. So far, I have not heard the conclusion of the chief investigating body, which is the French investigation board. The disseminated information comes out from politicians, journalists or directors of the company who are concerned with the situation in one way or another and this is a little worrying.

Strong reactions and interest are understandable when the case is about a crash in Europe of the aircraft of a subsidiary of perhaps the most prestigious airline in the world. What is the biggest problem in civil aviation safety today?

The problems are different but I would focus on the interaction between man and technologically developing air systems. Technology does a very good job while it works properly. The human factor uses technology very well while it works properly. The problem that exists in aviation and that will continue to intensify is similar to the problem faced by every single person who has a reason to be dependent and rely on technology to the point at which it stops working. We have no choice and we are accustomed to living our life by relying on modern technology. Nevertheless, it is created by man and it is not perfect. Modern technology allows us to live more dynamically. The greater dynamism in aviation is expressed in the continuous reduction of safety areas. The number of aircraft increases whereas the distances between them are reduced thanks to technology that we use. The greater dynamism in aviation is expressed in the continuous reduction of safety areas. If 2,000 aircraft flew yesterday, 20,000 or 200,000 aircraft are flying in the same airspace today. If 10 km separated one aircraft from the other some time ago, yesterday that distance was 5 km and today we pass each other at a distance of 1 km and even of 1/2 a kilometre sometimes. The number of aircraft is increasing and the distances between them are decreasing thanks to technology we use. If technology fails, it is becoming more difficult for the human factor, and it may soon be impossible for it, to replace it and fit into the same framework of safety that technology is able to maintain. This problem will persist and deepen if technological development does not focus on the human factor. Because progress is made by technocrats who underestimate the fact that over-reliance on technology eventually leads to system failures.
  
What does a greater emphasis on the human factor mean? Is it new regulations and new requirements for the pilot profession?

Technology is introduced at a fast pace and it develops mainly because of a purely financial interest. In aviation, technology cannot be introduced only because it prompts cost reduction and improved efficiency. It must be thoroughly tested and for a long period in terms of how it works in harmony with the human factor. Otherwise, it can be really dangerous. There are ways and methods to thoroughly test technologies and for a long time at that with a good feedback from the pilots before introducing them. This will take account of any imperfections in the synergy between man and the machine. A system may seem great on paper but it may prove to be quite cumbersome in practice, to hamper the pilot, thus turning out to be ultimately ineffective.