Case One: A pilot flying a commercial airliner has a heart attack that prevents him from being able to fly the plane. His co-pilot takes charge and safely lands the aircraft. The pilot is rushed to a hospital and the passengers are grateful for the co-pilot’s skill.
Case Two: A pilot flying a commercial airliner has a mental breakdown and becomes disoriented. He announces that the flight is doomed, mutters comments about Jesus and flees the cockpit. His co-pilot takes control and passengers wrestle down the confused pilot. When the plane lands safely, the pilot is arrested, charged with one count for interfering with a flight crew, and taken to a locked facility. Angry passengers file civil lawsuits against the airline for employing someone who has a mental disorder.
A judge in Amarillo, Texas, ruled last week that the pilot in Case Two was not guilty of interfering with a flight crew because he suffered from a “severe mental disease” and “was not guilty by reason of insanity.” The pilot will now be sent to a federal mental health facility for further examination until another hearing on or before Aug. 6th. The judge will decide then whether he can be released from custody or should be committed indefinitely to a locked mental facility.
I am grateful for the judge’s ruling, but I also have a question: Why was the pilot arrested and prosecuted?
No one doubts that a heart attack is a medical emergency. No one suggested that the pilot in Case One be arrested even though he might have contributed to his heart’s weak condition by smoking, being overweight or not exercising.
The judge who reviewed the evidence in Case Two concluded that the pilot had a “severe mental disease” and was not responsible for his actions because his disorder made him legally insane.
Logic tells us that neither pilot wanted a medical emergency to ground their careers. So why were they treated so differently?
