Germanwings flight 4U9525 disaster.

Shocking and senseless! A few general facts are necessary, however, to stop the various notions about why the unfortunate, and relatively inexperienced pilot, Andreas Lubitz committed  such a horrendous and apparently entirely selfish, mass murder/suicide – as is so far alleged to be the theory - before the actual facts (and suppostions) are presented in a sober and reasoned manner.

First up, no test (or tests) is (are) available which will confirm any “mental illness” (Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s diseases excepted). Mental issues are not (repeat not) similar to any physical illness such as the much quoted phrase “diabetes or heart disease”. Any person presenting with a mental issue is “diagnosed” by observed behaviour and by the presenting person’s self-reported mental state – and then subjectively judged, by a Mental Health professional, using an “approved” check list of “depression indicators”.

The operative word is “presenting”. Anyone with any intelligence and who has been psychologically tested many times before will “know the ropes” and be able to circumvent questions which may be “compromising” or which may impact unfavourably on that person’s future.

It was therefore not possible for any mental health professional to have determined, with any degree of absolute certainty, that Lubitz was “mentally ill”- whether he was depressed or a closet sociopath or had psychopathic tendencies. Possibly he was just someone who was trying to fulfil a dream and was found wanting – something he may have had difficulty in accepting.

We will never know.

My second point is that, as I understand it, anyone working for an airline must attend that particular airline’s approved doctor or doctors. It is that doctor who has the responsibility to inform the airline of any misgivings he (or she) may have about a particular employee’s health – mental or physical. I am sure that an airline with Lufthansa’s standing would have had such a medical regime in place.

It would appear, therefore, that either the doctor involved did not pass on the medical details (regarding prescriptions or any other concerns) to Lufthansa. Or, and I would find this very difficult to comprehend or believe, Lufthansa ignored the doctor’s concerns and/or advice regarding Lubitz.

Either way – if there is blame to be apportioned (and believe me there will be) it should lie somewhere in the orbit of the medical doctor and/or the pilot administration of Lufthansa.

Lubitz’s life, family, friends and career will be eviscerated by the investigators and the media trying to find any possible reason or reasons for such a horrendous and callous act. This is to be expected because the airline industry survives on trust and its fiercely protected safety record. Anything which impacts on this will be examined as never before.

And so it should be.

However research into suicide is notoriously difficult. It is always referring to an historic act – something that has already happened. Police, coronial, autopsy, psychiatric and psychological and counselling reports are analysed and carefully combed to try and establish some reason or motive for the suicide. This is fraught as it is impossible to know what was actually going through the person’s mind at the precise moment in time when they took their own life and (particularly, as in this case) when this includes the lives of so many other innocent people. At some moment – sometime earlier that fateful day - Lubitz made a choice.

Why? We will never know.

Governments withholding information from the public

I have a rooted objection to being patronised or being considered as a “lesser” being.  What follows is a slightly modified version of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Tony Abbott PM. I believe that the sentiments expressed could easily be considered valid by the citizens of any nation:

“I write to you as a concerned citizen regarding your Government’s decision to withhold information provided to the public (the voters) of Australia relating to the plight of refugees trying to make their way to this country. The excuse offered is that this is an “operational” matter that cannot be made public. This as you will be well aware is a diversionary tactic and could be considered as a “weasel word”.

Your determination, your fixation on the “stop the boats” mantra is doing Australia immeasurable harm and by default to you, as Prime Minister and your Government. This greatly concerns me. By withholding information how are we the citizens, and voters, of Australia supposed to judge whether your actions are trustworthy or in our interests? For instance if another “Tampa affair” should eventuate how would we know (in 2001 the Australian Government refused to allow the Norwegian MV Tampa with over 400 refugees it had rescued from a fishing boat in distress to enter Australian waters) ? If another “they threw children overboard” accusation was made how would we know (refugees falsely accused by the Australian Government of throwing children overboard to force a rescue)? How will we ever judge your actions in a true and fair manner if we are only fed what you decide we are (apparently) “worthy” enough to know?

Take a hypothetical – if a massive earthquake or volcanic eruption demolished most of New Zealand’s North Island and thousands of “boat people” used whatever means at their disposal to make the dangerous trip across the Tasman Sea to the “safety” of Australia would they be stopped and sent to Nauru or Manus Island? Not at all! They would be welcomed because they are from our culture, speak English, are well educated and in desperate need. There would be no accusations of “queue jumping”; no accusations of “illegal immigrants” would there? 

So why attach derogatory and misleading terms to describe the unfortunate people fleeing dangerous countries – Afghanistan, Iraq (remember Australia helped create the problems in both these countries) Sri Lanka, South Sudan and similar places of great unrest and human misery? All peoples, whoever they are, and as a requirement of our common humanity, need to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion – particularly children. To do otherwise is to diminish yourselves and thereby the Nation.

Animal welfare organizations have the force of legislation to ensure that animals on farms; animals in zoos; and at home, even in abattoirs – are all considered with care for their welfare and wellbeing. But humans who we consider as “inferior”; humans we consider as “criminals”, or are treated as if they were criminals, are incarcerated on remote islands! This is no way to treat anyone – certainly not children. This manner of treatment has echoes of the 18^th and 19^th century policy of transportation - remember the Colony of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land? Remember “Devil’s Island” off the coast of French Guiana?

Please! This is the Twenty First Century and (hopefully) we have moved on from taking punitive action against those who we (or the representative Government of this country) deem unworthy of the shelter offered by this country. Such action leads to a dangerous path resulting in unknown and unforeseen consequences.

All close knit groups, collectives, with people in positions of authority, such as the Australian Government Cabinet, have a natural tendency to abuse their power. They all need oversight to prevent the situations so graphically exposed by the Abu Ghraib abuses, in Guantanamo Bay and those examined by Professor Philip Zimbardo (Stanford University) in his famous book “The Lucifer Effect – how good people turn evil”. And we, the voters of Australia, are your Government’s oversight and we need to know what it is that you are doing in our name.

Tell us what we MUST know to fulfill our duty as voters – not what you think we should know (which is propaganda)!!”