There is no inherent right to fly a plane, any more than to drive on public roads.

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I agree that mental health evaluations for pilots is a good idea, and maybe they could catch potentially dangerous signs thereby triggering a suspension of the pilot's license.

We've had this same discussion relating to firearm ownership in the USA, where so-called "red flag" statutes could be used to take away someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger.

I just question the reliability and accuracy of these mental evaluations.  Are they good enough to be used as grounds for revoking someone's pilot's license? 

Dave

Your first and last paragraph seem to contradict themselves. 
 

you want psych evals for pilots but don’t trust their validity? 

8 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@jon b, as a professional pilot I was wondering if you could give us an insight into how airlines check the mental state of both applicants and those employed.

Checks for competence in the simulator are well known but I was wondering if they’re allowed access to medical records through official channels of course.

 

Other than the rudimentary and generic psychological tests that new applicants go through ( one question I remember from almost 30 years ago when I last did one was , would you rather work as a pilot or a librarian?, a bit odd considering) I don’t think airlines run routine checks.

It’s down the the aviation medical examiner as part of your annual or 6 monthly medical.

The pilot workforce in general used to be happy and content, now almost every pilot I speak to hates the industry  its management and the overwhelming BS and wants out.  I have friends in  different airlines all over the world all saying the same.

@jon b, thanks for giving an insight into into your profession. It’s quite an eye-opener. It sounds like people are being pushed far harder now than ever before.

I can’t help but think being locked away from your passengers is part of the problem. On all but the shortest flights boredom must be a significant factor.

You’re probably too young to remember pre 9/11 but I hope to meet a retired pilot tomorrow who knows the difference it made. I’ll report back with his views.

40 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You’re probably too young to remember pre 9/11 but I hope to meet a retired pilot tomorrow who knows the difference it made. I’ll report back with his views.

Very kind of you , but no , I’ve been flying since well before 9/11 !

Occasionally you’d meet some interesting people who’d come up front, we used to get a lot of celeb types on the LA flights.

My favourite was probably landing into San Francisco with Antonio Fargas , who played Hugh Bear in Starsky and Hutch, who was identical in real life to the character, sat on the jump seat.

During the flare he was saying “ land it on man, land it ohhn”

Nowadays I’m grateful for the locked door and wouldn’t fancy un vetted visitors, especially now the entire world knows how to turn the engines off.

 

@jon b, you really don’t look old enough 😁. I remember Huggy Bear. I am surprised you prefer a sterile cockpit. How do you keep the boredom at bay? I spy with my little eye is somewhat limited. 🤣

21 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Your first and last paragraph seem to contradict themselves. 
 

you want psych evals for pilots but don’t trust their validity? 

Well, I didn't say I don't "trust their validity".  I said that I "question" their accuracy and reliability.  I question everything, BTW.

I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable regarding mental health evaluations would answer this question.

This whole issue of using a mental health assessment/evaluation to take away someone's rights, license, or other privileges is an important one.  If the conclusions of these evaluations are not nearly 100% reliable and accurate, then the resulting punitive actions against the person who fails the evaluation would be a travesty, almost akin to convicting an innocent person and sending them to prison.

Psychology/psychiatry is not a perfect science, and we have seen professionals make mistakes many times in the past with their evaluation of someone's mental health.

We should be careful with this issue.

Dave

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

This whole issue of using a mental health assessment/evaluation to take away someone's rights, license, or other privileges is an important one.  If the conclusions of these evaluations are not nearly 100% reliable and accurate, then the resulting punitive actions against the person who fails the evaluation would be a travesty, almost akin to convicting an innocent person and sending them to prison.

We do this all the time, in cases of contested guardianships or conservatorships. The principle is settled and accepted law, we're just discussing where else to apply it to.

Not only does one have no inherent right to fly a plane, one has even less of a right to be a commercial pilot. We take away that livelihood for a lot less important reasons.

Cheers

21 minutes ago, Luke said:

We do this all the time, in cases of contested guardianships or conservatorships. The principle is settled and accepted law, we're just discussing where else to apply it to.

Not only does one have no inherent right to fly a plane, one has even less of a right to be a commercial pilot. We take away that livelihood for a lot less important reasons.

Cheers

What on earth are you talking about?

No one is arguing whether or not an individual has the right to be a pilot. 
 

 

I’ve just hidden one very inappropriate post featuring a pig being interviewed for a pilot’s job.

Let us not forget over 200 innocent people have died in this crash. Keep posts respectful.

4 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

What on earth are you talking about?

I'll be more explicit so you can follow along.

Given that there's no inherent right to be a commercial pilot, Dave's standard of 100% accuracy doesn't need to apply. We already have a process where people can lose legal rights on the basis of mental incapacity, with a civil standard of proof. There's no reason we cannot do the same for commercial pilots.

5 hours ago, Luke said:

We do this all the time, in cases of contested guardianships or conservatorships. The principle is settled and accepted law, we're just discussing where else to apply it to.

Not only does one have no inherent right to fly a plane, one has even less of a right to be a commercial pilot. We take away that livelihood for a lot less important reasons.

Cheers

Yes, it has been done for years, but the mental health professionals don't always get it right.  Psychopaths have been released from insane asylums and then gone on to murder someone because one or more psychiatrists deemed them "cured".

I'm not against performing these evaluations and giving them great consideration, but there must be safeguards in place, something like requiring that at least 3 different mental health professionals reach the same conclusion, and providing a robust appeals process.  Mistaken diagnoses are made all the time, and I'd prefer not to ruin someone's life because of a mistake.

Dave

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by dave2013

On 7/14/2025 at 9:08 AM, jon b said:

@fluffyflops

yes, and one obvious thing that has only just struck me with the Air India flight , is it was 2 crew, that’s a heck of a long way for a 2 crew operation.

meh I remember Miamis VS5's on the 744 with 2 crew. same duty lengh/fdp

Edited July 23, 2025Jul 23 by fluffyflops

Interesting discussion.

Claim is that timestamps dont add up.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2025Jul 25 by martin-w

Very interesting comment about "switch mimic". Something happens (presumably electrical/software related) that makes it appear like certain switches have been moved. That is something that I have thought about recently, because I cannot get my mind away from all of those electrical problems that were filmed by a passenger on the previous flight.