Duty of Notification and Aviation Safety—A Study of Fatal Aviation Accidents in the United States in 2015

Alpo Vuorio, Bruce Budowle, Antti Sajantila, Tanja Laukkala, Ilkka Junttila, Stein E. Kravik and Robin Griffiths
Additional contact information
Alpo Vuorio: Mehiläinen Airport Health Centre, 01530 Vantaa, Finland
Bruce Budowle: Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA
Antti Sajantila: Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Tanja Laukkala: Mehiläinen Kielotie Health Centre, 01730 Vantaa, Finland
Ilkka Junttila: Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, 33100 Tampere, Finland
Stein E. Kravik: NASA’s Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA 94035, USA
Robin Griffiths: Occupational and Aviation Medicine, University of Otago, 6242 Wellington, New Zealand

IJERPH, 2018, vol. 15, issue 6, 1-9

Abstract: After the Germanwings accident, the French Safety Investigation Authority (BEA) recommended that the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Community (EC) develop clear rules for the duty of notification process. Aeromedical practitioners (AMEs) face a dilemma when considering the duty of notification and conflicts between pilot privacy and public and third-party safety. When balancing accountability, knowledge of the duty of notification process, legislation and the clarification of a doctor’s own set of values should be assessed a priori. Relatively little is known of the magnitude of this problem in aviation safety. To address this, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) database was searched to identify fatal accidents during 2015 in the United States in which a deceased pilot used a prescribed medication or had a disease that potentially reduced pilot performance and was not reported to the AME. Altogether, 202 finalized accident reports with toxicology were available from (the year) 2015. In 5% (10/202) of these reports, the pilot had either a medication or a disease not reported to an AME which according to the accident investigation was causal to the fatal accident. In addition, the various approaches to duty of notification in aviation in New Zealand, Finland and Norway are discussed. The process of notification of authorities without a pilot’s express permission needs to be carried out by using a guidance protocol that works within legislation and professional responsibilities to address the pilot and the public, as well as the healthcare provider. Professional guidance defining this duty of notification is urgently needed.

Keywords: accountability; duty of notification; aeromedical practitioners; fatal accident; aviation; safety (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1258/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1258/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1258-:d:152376

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().