BFU responds: again foggy
Within the context of our presentation of Lufthansa subsidiary Germanwings’ incident on 19th December 2010, we asked the BFU in April 2018: What was the result from the medical examination of the pilot who was unable to fly for six months after the fume event? Answer:
"A viewing of the ... expert opinion cannot be granted due to the „protection of sensitive security information act“ having to be guaranteed according to Article 14 Regulation (EU) 996/2010.“
In other words: In order to "protect sensitive security interests", the affected pilot must not know what medical findings the experts have established in his own case.
We have taken this as an opportunity to ask again:
a) Exacly which passage of the Regulation (EU) 996/2010 that you are citing opposes the request of the pilot concerned, to inspect the expert opinion concerning himself?
b) What are the exact grounds for the necessity in "protection of sensitive safety information" that the pilot is not allowed to see? (…)“
We have received another reply:
- Paragraphs 1 and 2 clarify this in principle: "The (...) documents may not be made available for purposes other than those of the safety investigation (...)". According to paragraph 1 lit.c, this also applies to medical documents
- Paragraph 3 codifies the exception: "The benefit of the disclosure of the documents protected by paragraphs 1 and 2 must, in individual cases,
- o (1) be for a legally permissible purpose and outweigh
- o (2) the adverse domestic and foreign effects that disclosure may have for this or future safety investigations".
In summary: The BFU have examined all this and decided that the pilot concerned apparently should not know about it, in order to "protect sensitive safety information" with "detrimental domestic and foreign effects".
We will again ask and have them explain the potentially "detrimental domestic and foreign effects".
We look forward to what the next answer will turn out to be.