Families of Germanwings victims sue US flight school
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am lost. Lubitz had a German Class 1 medicate certificate, which means that, as far as LBA is concerned and in spite of all the caveats, he was considered to be medically fit to fly a commercial airliner. Do I have that right? Yet because he might not be medically fit at some indefinite time in the future, he should not be allowed to learn to fly now?
Yesterday the complaint was available online at the Kreindler website, but now they seem to have pulled it.
Yesterday the complaint was available online at the Kreindler website, but now they seem to have pulled it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two different jurisdictions, FAA and LBA, with very different standards. (I have dealt with both, as it happens.) Why not subject the student to the highest local standard rather than the lowest one, just in case?
It was a no-brainer to me that London Met wanted to see a JAR First Class medical before they let me do the course and sit the ATPL writtens. Did I need that to fly a desk? Of course not, but I would definitely need it for the end goal, so that there was no good reason for someone unable to hold a First Class medical to do the course and sit the writtens. I am simply applying the same logic to a student in the States there to train for an airline job.
That the LBA was happy to allow a fellow with a history of severe depression to obtain a First Class medical does not show that the FAA would have also been so understanding. It does not take a wild imagination to think that the LBA might have been doing Lubitz some sort of favor there, one that the FAA would not also have done. A second look at his history in terms of "Should this fellow be passed for an FAA First Class medical or not?" might have been a very good idea.
Never mind. Let's see how this attempt to sue the school goes.
It was a no-brainer to me that London Met wanted to see a JAR First Class medical before they let me do the course and sit the ATPL writtens. Did I need that to fly a desk? Of course not, but I would definitely need it for the end goal, so that there was no good reason for someone unable to hold a First Class medical to do the course and sit the writtens. I am simply applying the same logic to a student in the States there to train for an airline job.
That the LBA was happy to allow a fellow with a history of severe depression to obtain a First Class medical does not show that the FAA would have also been so understanding. It does not take a wild imagination to think that the LBA might have been doing Lubitz some sort of favor there, one that the FAA would not also have done. A second look at his history in terms of "Should this fellow be passed for an FAA First Class medical or not?" might have been a very good idea.
Never mind. Let's see how this attempt to sue the school goes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yesterday the complaint was available online at the Kreindler website, but now they seem to have pulled it.
Here's some of the legal boilerplate from the complaint. Many CFI's, including radio personality Harley Carnes, seem to be sure that this case will be thrown out. Still, if it goes the wrong way, like the $480 million Cessna 185 seat latch lawsuit (see: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...l-lawsuit.html), this case could stifle civilian U.S. flight training for years to come.
Lubitz committed suicide during the subject flight and killed all persons on board by flying the subject aircraft into mountainous terrain near Alpes-de-Haute Provence, France. At approximately 9:30 a.m. CET, Lubitz locked the other pilot out of the cockpit and programmed the subject aircraft to descend. Over the next approximately 11 minutes the subject aircraft continued to change airspeed and descend toward the ground as the pilot repeatedly shouted for Lubitz to let him into the cockpit and pounded on the door in an effort to gain entry to the cockpit. During this sequence of events until the moment of impact, the passengers experienced extreme fear of impending death, panic, pain, suffering and unimaginable mental anguish. At approximately 9:41 a.m. CET the subject aircraft impacted terrain, killing all on board.
ATCA knew, should have known, or could have determined that Lubitz, at the time he presented himself for admission to ATCA, had an extensively documented history of dangerous and debilitating psychotic and depressive conditions, including reactive depression, that his treatment for those disorders included doctor-prescribed medication that prevented Lubitz from pilot training, and that the disorders were “resurgent” and “recurrent.”
Upon information and belief, at no time did anyone in the employ of ATCA nor any designee or agent of ATCA ever make any inquiry of Lubitz or anyone else to determine the status of Lubitz’ mental health, his history of depression, his depression medication history and/or whether he was taking physician-prescribed or over-the counter medication for depression, anxiety or any other purpose.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An answer and some comments. Strict liability under the MC means that you don't have to prove negligence on the part of the airline to win an award. All that matters is that the loss of life occurred.
But before we claim this is unjustified ambulance-chasing, we need to know a few facts. First, is Lufthansa trying to get by strictly via the MC liability of less than USD 150,000? Given the ease of showing that the monetary damages from the loss of a family bread-winner in a wealthy western country are often easily in the millions, 150,000 is a pittance. I would guess that any reader who had lost a loved one on that plane would not think that this is close to enough compensation.
But another unknown is whether Lufthansa is offering full compensation for loss of earnings, etc., and this argument is strictly over an additional award for pain and suffering. Until all of these facts are known, we should not be quick to pre-judge who is right and who is wrong in this matter.
But before we claim this is unjustified ambulance-chasing, we need to know a few facts. First, is Lufthansa trying to get by strictly via the MC liability of less than USD 150,000? Given the ease of showing that the monetary damages from the loss of a family bread-winner in a wealthy western country are often easily in the millions, 150,000 is a pittance. I would guess that any reader who had lost a loved one on that plane would not think that this is close to enough compensation.
But another unknown is whether Lufthansa is offering full compensation for loss of earnings, etc., and this argument is strictly over an additional award for pain and suffering. Until all of these facts are known, we should not be quick to pre-judge who is right and who is wrong in this matter.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the aftermath of this terrible tragedy now enters another stage, it would be appropriate reminder that it is not unique. Fortunately on that occasion the events on board the 767 Toronto - London on 28 January 2008 were no more than an incident.
The full report is at :http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...al/11139-0.PDF
The report did not sustain any safety recommendations. Should it have done I wonder.
The full report is at :http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...al/11139-0.PDF
The report did not sustain any safety recommendations. Should it have done I wonder.
The europeans just take advantage of the low costs in the US compared to europe, same as a lot of their other companies do as well.
Realistically, THIS flight school has been sued in THIS case because it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lufthansa, as is GW. Ultimately, it is all the same big bag of money.
And it happens to be in a more - generous - jurisdiction. (Maybe - it's of note that none of the U.S. flight schools that trained 9/11 terrorists was ever sued, although at least one failed, later, due to shunning by banks and customers.)
No flight school, in general, is responsible for anything other than making sure the applicant meets the minimum requirements (money and a Class 3 medical). It's not their job to do the FAA's (or LBA's or FBI's) job. Sorry, chuks, those are our rules.
But - this was a branch of DLH, and therein lies the difference. If DLH had been smart, and contracted with a U.S.-owned school, or simply told Lubitz "go find some Joe CFI with a Seminole in the U.S. - we'll pay for it." - no lawsuit. It would be tossed out after a 15-minute hearing, and the lawyers would know it was a money-losing proposition, and not bothered.
Instead, DLH tried to be "cute" and run their own school (because it saved them even more money) - and it has returned to bite them.
Last edited by pattern_is_full; 17th Apr 2016 at 08:30.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I welcome they took it to an US court. There a doubts on the procedures followed during training, if they even followed them, and now they have to look at in detail, explain judge and jury as an independent.
I suspect they also had doubts whether this would lead to an appropriate discussion on improvements, if taken to an European court. A biased jurisdiction does no good for intelligence transparency.
So, I strongly belief this US lawsuit is aimed to make things better and not an ambulance chaser raid, not only for the fact that the German AOPA president is one of the lawyers filing.
I suspect they also had doubts whether this would lead to an appropriate discussion on improvements, if taken to an European court. A biased jurisdiction does no good for intelligence transparency.
So, I strongly belief this US lawsuit is aimed to make things better and not an ambulance chaser raid, not only for the fact that the German AOPA president is one of the lawyers filing.
It seems ATCA owns real estate, purchased for $12 million in 1992. If they also own outright the 26 Bonanzas and some Grobs, there's $25 million in assets; so about $140K per victim after the lawyers' 30%.
However that magnitude of assets makes it worthwhile paying several top civil liability lawyers
However that magnitude of assets makes it worthwhile paying several top civil liability lawyers
Drain Bamaged
We have government agencies which increasingly passes oversight to the aviation industry. An aviation industry who depends more and more on self-regulation.
Lawsuits seems to be the last barrier of enforcement.
They screw up big time by keeping lubitz flying. All the dots where there just nobody to be proactif enough to connect them.
He murder cold blood 149 people. Do not forget that.
Lawsuits seems to be the last barrier of enforcement.
They screw up big time by keeping lubitz flying. All the dots where there just nobody to be proactif enough to connect them.
He murder cold blood 149 people. Do not forget that.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Kreindler website:
"Lubitz's particular history of depression and mental instability made him a SUICIDE TIME BOMB ..."
Very emotive words. Are these words used in the Complaint?
Nope.
Purely for public consumption. Cowards.
"Lubitz's particular history of depression and mental instability made him a SUICIDE TIME BOMB ..."
Very emotive words. Are these words used in the Complaint?
Nope.
Purely for public consumption. Cowards.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No flight school, in general, is responsible for anything other than making sure the applicant meets the minimum requirements (money and a Class 3 medical). It's not their job to do the [FAA]'s (or LBA's or FBI's) job. Sorry, chuks, those are our rules."
The last time I renewed my FAA CFI, using the AOPA/Jeppesen online course, there was one entire module about detecting people who posed a risk, teaching about the actions to be taken by the CFI and by his school.
Some guy with a history of severe depression might be just as big a risk as some clown named Abdul bin Talebani who shows up wearing a keffiyeh and who wants to pay for his flying lessons with crisp $100 bills. To take such people on regardless of whatever risk they might pose might mean that the CFI and his school are breaking the rules to some extent.
That module made it quite clear that "our rules" dictate that more be done than just looking for "money and a Class 3 medical." I assume that is part of what the complaint alleges.
By the way, it's DLH, not DHL: people, not packages!
The last time I renewed my FAA CFI, using the AOPA/Jeppesen online course, there was one entire module about detecting people who posed a risk, teaching about the actions to be taken by the CFI and by his school.
Some guy with a history of severe depression might be just as big a risk as some clown named Abdul bin Talebani who shows up wearing a keffiyeh and who wants to pay for his flying lessons with crisp $100 bills. To take such people on regardless of whatever risk they might pose might mean that the CFI and his school are breaking the rules to some extent.
That module made it quite clear that "our rules" dictate that more be done than just looking for "money and a Class 3 medical." I assume that is part of what the complaint alleges.
By the way, it's DLH, not DHL: people, not packages!
de minimus non curat lex
One for US lawyers mainly
So a law suit is filed against the US training provider.
Their insurance company will provide cover up to a maximum amount?
Once that pot of gold is used up, then the company's assets are targeted?
There will be a finite and probably comparatively small amount (in US legal terms) available for any compensation.
CH 11 court protection?
And that will be it so far as the US is concerned.
Might there be richer pickings in Europe, and are the limited liability companies likely to provide the operator with protection?
Their insurance company will provide cover up to a maximum amount?
Once that pot of gold is used up, then the company's assets are targeted?
There will be a finite and probably comparatively small amount (in US legal terms) available for any compensation.
CH 11 court protection?
And that will be it so far as the US is concerned.
Might there be richer pickings in Europe, and are the limited liability companies likely to provide the operator with protection?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a Capt Hindsight discussion .
For those who knew Andreas Lubitz , he was a very very clever , motivated kid with above average abilities as a pilot. He managed to hide his disease, and convinced a lot of people that stress was the reason he discontinued his training. He then managed to convince someone to be given a second chance, as as we understood, his " above average pilot abilities " were the decisive factor. I do not think the person(s) that gave him that second chance had the possibility to have a look at his medical file. That was, again as we understood it, until the accident a medical secret.
A lot of people sleep badly today because of this, but with hindsight, only with hindsight.
For those who knew Andreas Lubitz , he was a very very clever , motivated kid with above average abilities as a pilot. He managed to hide his disease, and convinced a lot of people that stress was the reason he discontinued his training. He then managed to convince someone to be given a second chance, as as we understood, his " above average pilot abilities " were the decisive factor. I do not think the person(s) that gave him that second chance had the possibility to have a look at his medical file. That was, again as we understood it, until the accident a medical secret.
A lot of people sleep badly today because of this, but with hindsight, only with hindsight.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is so much misinformation here. No surprise that pprune seems more and more avoided by real professional pilots.
I wonder who actually read the report the bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses published about a month ago.
It is all in there: when did the copilot take a break in his flight training, what kind of psychological problems did he seem to have at the time, what happened when he applied for an FAA medical, etc.I wonder who actually read the report the bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses published about a month ago.
Everyone who has the slightest understanding about the case will see that the lawsuit is ridiculous. Which doesn't mean is could not succeed, law sometimes creates weird outcomes.
And yes, as mentioned earlier, my understanding is that the lawsuit is not about "Schadenersatz" (=compensation about loss of income) but about "Schmerzensgeld" (=compensation for endured physical or in this case psychological pain). In Europe "Schmerzensgeld" is traditionally rather low, as such happenings are considered a risk of being alive, while in the US it can mean a financial jackpot.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly4Business
I specialised in aviation accident cases for some decades. Given the international nature of aviation it was essential to be aware of the law and decisions in cases in other jurisdictions around the world. I also worked alongside lawyers in other jurisdictions from time to time.
I never experienced/read/heard anything that would support your uninformed suggestion of bias or lack of transparency.
The position might be different in jurisdictions with totalitarian regimes. I am not in a position to make an informed comment.
There are some differences in law between jurisdictions but by far the most significant difference is that awards of damages are typically considerably higher (sometimes astronomical) in some jurisdictions when compared with the rest of the world.
If you believe that 'making things better'/making aviation safer is a consideration for lawyers when engaged in litigation, you are very naive - whatever some lawyers may claim in their PR spiel and statements to the media.
.
I suspect they also had doubts whether this would lead to an appropriate discussion on improvements, if taken to an European court. A biased jurisdiction does no good for intelligence transparency.
I never experienced/read/heard anything that would support your uninformed suggestion of bias or lack of transparency.
The position might be different in jurisdictions with totalitarian regimes. I am not in a position to make an informed comment.
There are some differences in law between jurisdictions but by far the most significant difference is that awards of damages are typically considerably higher (sometimes astronomical) in some jurisdictions when compared with the rest of the world.
So, I strongly belief this US lawsuit is aimed to make things better
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 17th Apr 2016 at 12:52. Reason: Typos
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
I advised/represented both.
I never had reason to count the cases but my aviation work was balanced between claimants (plaintiffs) and defendants. If not precisely the same number of cases, then I have no idea in which direction any slight imbalance lay.
Which side do you tend to represent?
I never had reason to count the cases but my aviation work was balanced between claimants (plaintiffs) and defendants. If not precisely the same number of cases, then I have no idea in which direction any slight imbalance lay.