Maybe a meeting with a psychologist every 2-3 years should be part of the class one medical. Also allowing full access to your medical records by the relevant CAA.

In the UK, one of the items the AME assesses is your mental state, not that they are specialists in that discipline.
And as part of the UK process, you agree that your GP can be contacted if necessary.

The process mainly relies upon the pilot being honest when filling out the medical form at the AME examination.

As reported, the BA recruitment process is far from perfect and that is over a number of days. So just how the AME is meant to spot a mental health problem,well hidden, in an hour would be difficult.

A significant period of time is necessary to penetrate the mask and reveal their true colours. Probably the period of full time flying training would be ideal as any other.

So ATOs are, as we speak, now developing another item to report on monthly for the under pressure instructors to battle through. And of course appropriate training will be given to identify the signs:ugh:

And 70% (100% less 30%) of 130,000 is? ... Less than 100,000!!!

"Strictly liable" means, I think, that you are sure to get about $150,000 US in any case, no lawyer needed. That would imply that you would only involve a no-win, no-fee lawyer when looking for a payout in excess of about $215,000, since 70% of that would be about $150,000, putting you back where you started.

For 130,000 SDR the number would be about 186,000.

(You need to divide X by seven and then multiply the result by ten to get the amount needed to yield X when thirty percent is deducted from it; it's more than the $195,000 or 169,000 SDR that you might first guess at.)

I can see where that will go. We will have a whole generation of pilots who choose to either suffer in silence or 'self medicate' for their condition because they don't want any record of it that could possibly cause them an issue in obtaining their medical certification.

Not the safest option IMHO.

That may be true, but neither is the current situation. As has been proved by the accident that caused this discussion.

The problem is, how do you find out about a problem that someone is trying to hide?

Answers on a post card please!

Jonty: The accident that caused this discussion doesn't really prove that the current situation is not the safest option.

Yes! That is the whole point.

It should be - EASA and the FAA view initial training as distinct and separate from the rest of an airline pilot's career - for an integrated CPL or MPL candidate it should not be. As an instructor, you spend more time with a prospective pilot than any AME, Psychologist or Psychiatrist and frankly, if you need training to identify unusual personality traits or judgement calls that 'may' be indicators of mental health problems, then you're probably coaching not teaching.

EASA are currently consulting with EU States on the issuance of new Operational Directives concerning a number of the 4U Taskforce recommendations including Psychological and psychiatric evaluation of applicants for Class 1 medical certificates and the Psychological evaluation of flight crew by CAT operators for implementation in the very near future, but when are they going to recognise the part the ATO plays - pre-training and pre-employment evaluation are all well and good but if a proper reporting, review process and mechanism exists where a student flagged as having 'non-technical' issues can be chopped from training instead of simply moved to another instructor as happens too frequently for commercial reasons, and if instructors, particularly at those ATO's operating outside of EU Member States were properly supervised and came under greater oversight through either EASA or the appropriate NAA in addition to their own national requirements (e.g. FAA) from a standardisation perspective (i.e. during annual approval inspections, instructors were selected randomly for sampling by the NAA rather than being provided by the school management based on known ability), I for one would be more satisfied that appropriate checks and measures were in place to help identify another potential Andreas Lubitz.

Lubitz didn't come straight out of flight school to crash, he was flying the line with Germanwings for about 18 months before the crash. This time factor in itself would distance the flight school's implied responsibility for psychological snafus, if ever noticed & addressed, during his training. Ultimate medical fitness for flight rests with the German licensing authorities and the employer. Suggesting that this flight school was responsible for the crash 18 months after graduation, is like blaming a bartender for last week's hangover.

What's bizarre is the assumption by plaintiffs that a U.S. court would somehow embrace jurisdiction of this deliberate crash in a foreign country, by a foreign crew, operating a foreign manufactured & registered jet, by a foreign airline.

Glue:

Exactly. This is nothing but a case of ambulance chasing.

What's somewhat plausible is the assumption by plaintiffs that a U.S. court might somehow embrace jurisdiction of this deliberate crash in a foreign country, by a foreign crewmember trained by an American flight school, operating a foreign manufactured & registered jet, by a foreign airline.

Hey, it never hurts to ask!

Especially if there's a large amount of $$$ involved....
Come on, now. They should be ashamed of this scheme.

It is my experience as a flight instructor that the medical certificate is a requirement in addition to the license. It was not my responsibility to question the medical certificate.
If a student showed weird characteristics, it became a discussion between the CFI and instructors to determine how to treat this student. In some cases we refused to train him/her any further. So, this leads me to question the legality of going after a flight training center.

We are all very sorry for the families, but this is just "money grabbing" & hitting out in whichever direction is possibly going to result in a financial reward, l think.

I cried all the way to the bank ....
 

That is what Liberace said about being picked on for his terrible style of performing. I am sure that the American lawyers working on this case will have to live with the shame of being called "ambulance-chasers" in somewhat the same way.

The thing is that in the case of Lubitz he had to take a ten-month break because of severe depression, so that his illness was well known to Lufthansa's school. Too, there was that problem getting him his FAA Student Pilot License, the one off the front of his FAA Form 8500, the medical form. I assume that the school passing him along as a fit candidate for work as an FO despite his illness will be the main issue, since the FAA can not be sued for having passed Lubitz as fit to train as a Student Pilot.

It's an impossible question to answer, but how would the FAA have reacted to the renewal of Lubitz' Third Class, and would they ever have agreed to him getting a First Class, given his medical history? As it was, he went through the American flight medical certification process just once, and at the lowest level possible.

Somethine ATCA didn't do, and couldn't do. The final part of the training, including the practical ME flying, is done in Germany with Lufthansa Flight Training, not ATCA in Arizona. ATCA is just a contractor (although wholly owned by lufthansa flight training), that is contracted to do some parts of the initial flight training.

It will be interesting to see if ATCA had any information about the medical status of Lubitz beyond him having an unrestricted FAA class 3 medical, or if it didn't. There should be a papertrail if they did, but it is not a sure thing at all.

And it is completely irrelevant in this case. He never applied for a higher medical class, he never needed to do that and why would he? Getting the FAA class 3 medical is the normal case for this type of flight training, and there is no reason to get more (and pay more) if one plans to work in europe as a pilot.

"[Lubitz] never applied for a higher medical class; he never needed to do that and why would he? Getting the FAA class 3 medical is the normal case for this type of flight training, and there is no reason to get more (and pay more) if one plans to work in Europe as a pilot."

It might be normal for that particular school, but I can assure you that anyone who is at all serious about a professional career in the States will start with an FAA Class One medical just to get that Student Pilot's license, as I did. Getting a Class One, not a Class Three " ... is the normal case for this type of flight training .... "

You only get a Student Pilot license out of the exercise, true, but you know then that you do not have some condition that will bar you from later exercising the privileges of a professional license requiring a Class One. The small difference in price is not a factor for someone who is going to be taking up a course of training that will take years, since it gives assurance that all that hard work and time spent should pay off in the end with a job as a pilot.

Looked at in a certain way, for the FAA to say "Okay, here's your Class Three to fly as a student pilot," and to leave it at that is "passing the buck," leaving it up to the LBA to have approved Lubitz for a Class One despite his history of severe depression. There the FAA was ignoring the obvious end goal, Lubitz holding a Class One to act as a professional pilot, to merely look at the presumably lower FAA requirements for a Class Three to act as a student pilot.

One prerequisite for doing the course for the ATPL writtens at London Met about ten years ago was holding a valid Class One medical, including a medical examination from the British CAA itself, not just from a normal medical examiner, if I remember that correctly. Why did they require me to hold a Class One medical, just to sit in a classroom to study for some writtens?

We might not be having this discussion if Lubitz had been required to get an FAA Class One before going solo in the States. Who knows?

You miss the point. He wasn't doing flight training to work in the US, he had no chance to work there to begin with (no citizenship, no greencard), and he was, as many europeans do, just doing some flight training in the US to lateron work in europe, not the US.

What you say is most probably true for someone training in the US to work there. It is not for europeans doing some of their training in the US to work in Europe. The FAA didn't pass the buck, it was not FAA training to begin with, the FAA does not know MPL training for starters (which by the way, is only completed at the end of the LIFUS phase, in this case on A320). And he held a european class 1 medical after all.

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.

My point is, why not require that your European student also get a Class One medical from the FAA? By that sort of logic, Lubitz, needing only a Class Three from the European authorities as a student ... why require him to have a Class One instead?

Come to that, why should the FAA require another medical of someone who holds a valid LBA medical? They accept the foreign license, so why not accept the foreign medical?

Requiring a student to have a Class One medical instead of the bare minimum Class Three would be taking a "belt and braces" approach, adding one more check for a candidate for a professional career as a pilot.

If this suit goes ahead in the States, I would expect this issue to come up. It will be interesting to see if it does.

If you have obtained a foreign license, then you may have noticed how you end up duplicating a lot of the checks and tests that you have already been put through by your home authority, when that higher class of medical would simply be one more of those.

It would be interesting to know if the school now requires an FAA Class One for its student pilots, as one more way of trying to catch the next Lubitz before he gets too far in the system.

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.

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.

An amended 54 page complaint has been recently posted on the Court's website.

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.

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.

SeenItAll

Fact:

The Montreal Convention does not limit the amount of damages that can be obtained for passenger injury or death.

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.

And the weather - it's why the major flight schools are in sunny AZ or FL, same as the baseball pre-season camps.

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.

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.

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:E

Fly4,

This lawsuit has nothing to do about making things better. It is forum shopping at its finest. It's all about the $$$.

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.

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.

"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!

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?

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.

chuks - DLH corrected - I know at least one use was correct originally, but got messed up in rewriting. Sorry!

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.

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.

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.

.

Which side do you tend to represent?

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.