Families of Germanwings victims sue US flight school
 

Source: Families of Germanwings crash victims sue US flight school | Fox News

The families of victims killed last year when a suicidal pilot flew an airliner into a mountainside in the French Alps filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the U.S. flight school where the pilot was trained, alleging the school failed to properly screen his medical background.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix against the Airline Training Center of Arizona. It's owned by Lufthansa, which is also the parent company of Germanwings, a regional Europe carrier that employed pilot Andreas Lubitz.

On March 24, 2015, Lubitz locked Germanwings Flight 9525's captain out of the cockpit and deliberately set the plane on a collision course with the mountainside. All 150 people aboard, including Lubitz, were killed.

While training in Europe with Lufthansa, Lubitz had been suspended from his academic course work for nearly 10 months while he sought treatment for depression. In 2010, after returning to Lufthansa with letters from his doctors that he was no longer depressed or taking medication, he was sent to the U.S. for flight training.

German authorities had twice turned down applications from Lubitz for a pilot medical certificate because of his history of depression before issuing him a medical certificate in July 2009 that included a restriction stating it would become invalid if he had a relapse, the suit said.

Had the Arizona school screened Lubitz, the restriction on his German medical certificate would have tipped officials that he'd been previously hospitalized for severe depression and treated with medications that would have prohibited him from flying, according to the suit, which was filed on behalf of more than 80 families.

Lubitz's behavior while at the flight school should also have caused officials to inquire further, the suit said, without providing details of that behavior.

The flight school's president, Matthias Kippenberg, and Lufthansa didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

"Lubitz's particular history of depression and mental instability made him a suicide time bomb, triggered to go off under the ordinary stresses of life, particularly the kind of stresses a commercial pilot routinely faces," said attorney Marc S. Moller of the New York law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, which represents the families. It's well known that cases of depression frequently recur, although when they will recur is unpredictable, he said.

headline misleading
 

"a German Flightschool based in the US being sued"...would be more precise.

Absolutely , ATCA is 100% owned by Lufthansa Flight training Gmbh , but what would be interesting to know is in which Pilot licencing system they operate , especially their solo flights since the aircraft they use are N registered. If the students are issued an FAA licence to do so, then the medical needs to be re-assessed , as German law does not allow transfer of medical files/ history to a third party. (one of the left over from consequences of WW II). Maybe it is what the lawyers are after .

Datenschutz
 

Hmmm... the germans are rather restrictive with other peoples data. Recently both UK and Denmark refused to accept german EASA medicals as Germany restricted the information available to the NAAs.

If they had tried, would ATCA have been able to get the relevant information?

But ATCA is also an Arizona corporation hence the suit in U.S. District Court in Phoenix.

Yes, because ATCA is an Arizona corporation the families' lawyers can bring a case in the US, where courts typically award higher damages than European courts. US lawyers cost more too ... so there'll be pressure on Lufthansa to settle (for big money) rather than pour money into lawyers' pockets.

I do not suppose there would be a way of putting mr. Moller and the other attorneys at Kreindler & Kreindler on a no-fly black list, is there?
Not that they would suffer very much from it, as vultures are perfectly capable of flight.

The lawyers pockets will be filled whatever happens, except if it goes to court and LH wins case and all appeals.

I'm sure they are very nice bottom feeding, blood sucking sharks.

This was an international flight and the Montreal Convention 1999 (and the European Regulation that implements it in all EU Member states) is applicable and air carriers are strictly liable for proven damages up to 100,000 special drawing rights (SDR).

'Strictly liable means that the airline accepts liability (no need to go to court and prove their liability).

So these guys think they can get more. Assuming the lawyers will get 30% that means they need to secure more than 130,000 SDR per passenger in order for the plaintiffs to improve on what the Convention gives them. Oh, and if they get less than 130K they still will claim 30%, the difference coming out of the plaintiffs pockets.

Ridiculous.
I sincerely hope they will be thrown out of court.

Would the FAA Aerospace Medical Certification Division agree to such radical point of view? Take a look at Lubitz's medical history, section 1.13.1 in the BEA report.

And then, after submission of the requested paperwork:
Like Lufthansa Aero-Medical Centre, the FAA obviously were aware that depression can recur, but did not expect it to do so without timely signs of warning.

In hindsight they were wrong. Well, not about the signs of warning (section 1.13.1 in the BEA report has no less than eleven entries for the final four months), but about the expectation that these signs would stop Lubitz from flying.

I think it was so that Lubitz only got a Third Class medical from the FAA so that he could fly solo during his training in the States. (The FAA medical form has a little beige sub-section that forms your Student Pilot License when it's validated by your AME. That is what you need to fly solo in the States, along with an appropriate sign-off in your logbook from your Flight Instructor.)

Most people in Lubitz' situation routinely would go for an FAA First Class medical, since that is usually a prerequisite for entering training for a professional license, a license that requires a First Class medical in order to exercise its privileges. In other words, there would be no point to training someone for an FAA Commercial license if he were not able to obtain that necessary First Class medical. If all you could get was a Third Class medical then you would be expected to train for a PPL, nothing more.

What the FAA signed off on there was only allowing Lubitz to fly as PIC under Part 91 (non-commercial flying) and Part 141 (flying on an approved curriculum in a flight school), both as a student pilot, subject to approval from an FAA-licensed CFI. (It would have been a very brave examiner who would pass an applicant for a PPL with Lubitz' history of depression, for fear of another version of what he did, using an aircraft to kill himself.)

Lubitz would have been barred from flying even under FAA Part 135 (commercial operation of light aircraft) with only a Third Class medical. Too, he most probably did not give full and honest answers to that question about how many visits he had made in the last year to health professionals and for what reasons. If he had, then his history of depression would probably have caused the FAA never to issue his medical.

The FAA is in the clear on this for two reasons:

The FAA has "sovereign immunity," meaning that they can not be sued for any oversights they have made.

The FAA stopped short itself of certifying Lubitz for anything more than non-commercial, student flying, as far as I know. Here's what the database at faa(dot)gov shows for him:

ANDREAS GUENTER LUBITZ

Medical Class: Third, Medical Date: 6/2010

STUDENT PILOT

PRIVATE PILOT (Foreign Based)
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
GLIDER

Limits:
ENGLISH PROFICIENT.
ISSUED ON BASIS OF AND VALID ONLY WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY GERMANY PILOT LICENSE NUMBER(S) 27788 9460.
ALL LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE GERMANY PILOT LICENSE APPLY.

Lubitz' FAA Third Class medical lapsed on 6/2012, more than 2 1/2 years before he killed himself and everyone else aboard his aircraft. At the time of his act of murder-suicide he was not FAA-certified to act as a pilot, given that he did not then hold a valid FAA medical.

The Lufthansa flight school in Arizona, on the other hand ... they trained and passed a fellow who had already dropped out for ten months because of severe depression, and then unleashed him upon his fellow aviators and his passengers as someone who was safe to fly with.

Lufthansa has had a large surplus of highly-qualified applicants, so that it's very difficult to understand why they allowed this man with such an obvious, high-risk problem as severe depression to go through training and then get into the right seat of an airliner.

I wonder if there is some back-story to this, someone with "pull" who mistakenly befriended Lubitz by getting him back into the training program after he had already had to drop out.

I really hate to see people who tell about how "It's always been [their] dream to be a pilot," and so on. Yeah, well, dream on, Pal, but being a dreamer is not a sound basis for success in a demanding, highly technical field such as professional aviation, especially not when chasing that dream leads you to ignore some obvious personal short-coming such as wanting to kill yourself!

As to suing in the States, rather than just taking that hundred thousand euro per victim and buggering off .... If I had lost someone in that crash then I would want to see a team of the biggest, meanest, lowest, most bottom-feeding, ambulance-chasing lawyers who ever put on sharkskin suits and two-tone shoes turn that flight school upside down and shake it violently until every last bit of loose change fell out of their pockets.

What would you guess, five million per victim, including the Captain on that flight, when you factor in getting to watch your Captain hammering on the cockpit door while the view out the windows shows the Alps first slowly and then quickly getting bigger and bigger? What sort of "pain and suffering" that must have been, and pretty directly caused by passing on a guy who never should have been put through that school. Lubitz himself, had he survived, would probably have walked on an insanity defense, given that he would be unlikely to ever be allowed to do that again, but who allows an insane person to become an airline FO?

RED BULL

In 1949, before starting my CPL course at A.S.T., Hamble, it was suggested (or was it insisted?) that I ought to have a full Medical at the Central Medical Board in London. This seemed sensible. SO I DID... And passed. ( I was younger, then, too !)

MY medical records are available in the UK, and these may help Medical Research, for the benefit of others.

He wasn't training for a FAA license, he was training for an european one. Therefore there was no need for a higher class of medical and i doubt his peers did get anything higher than class 3 as well.

Even in the ATPL training system lufthansa used before EU regulations came around the students would only aquire a FAA class 3 medical, issued by the lufthansa medical center, which was enough to get their US PPL, a part of the training that was required to approve the "team flights" where two students would take a bonanza or baron out for a day of (usually cross country) flying without a flight instructor on board.

Correct chucks - he already possessed a JAA Class 1 Medical issued in Germany - the FAA 3rd Class was for student pilot purposes to complete the solo element of the JAA Integrated CPL course in AZ. This has nothing to do with the FAA; it is the fact that a problem had been identified and the school allowed him to continue training following evaluation - the fact that a proportion of the training was conducted in the US and that if successful, a law suit would likely yield a greater award (as stated by the lawyers), this really should come as no surprise.

Oxford at the time, and now CTC operate from the same facility as ATCA - I wonder if other schools are concerned about potential liability issues in light of the possible outcome?

Say what?
 

" ... two students would take a [B]onanza or [B]aron out for a day of (usually cross country) flying without a flight instructor on board."

That is not possible under FAA rules for student pilots who hold only student licenses. Have a look at this:

"A review of the NTSB cases involving students who carry passengers indicate that there are really four categories of violations:

Students who, even though they did not possess a private pilot certificate, believed they had sufficient experience and qualifications to carry passengers and were observed either picking up or dropping off passengers at other airports.

Students who violated an FAR during a cross-country flight, such as improperly entering Class B or Class D airspace, and it was determined during an FAA investigation of this violation that a passenger was on board.

Students who mistakenly believed that they could fly with another student pilot who was approved for solo in that aircraft. The FAA determined that the passenger was the other student pilot.

Students who flew with a private pilot and assumed that the private pilot was automatically PIC. In this situation, the burden of proof is on the student to show the FAA that the other pilot (private or higher) is PIC." (my emphasis)

(- Flight Training)

If Lubitz already held that FAA-issued PPL (issued on the basis of his German license) at the time that he was training in Arizona then he could have flown a Bonanza along with another student, using his FAA PPL/ASEL. That time would not have counted as "solo" however.

Lubitz would have needed to have a CFI who was sat in the right front seat if there was anyone else with him in that Baron, because he did not have a PPL/AMEL

Lubitz would only have been legal on a Baron (a multi-engine aircraft) for flying under instruction, and for solo flight with a sign-off from a CFI for that. There is no legal way to operate under FAA rules as the holder of only a student pilot license with anyone else aboard your aircraft unless you have a CFI in the right-hand seat who has access to the flight controls. He is then P1 and you are P3 (pilot under instruction). If you are on an approved solo flight, alone in the aircraft, then, and only then, are you legal as P1.

Lubitz might have been signed off for solo in the Baron, but that would have precluded having a fellow student along on that flight, because "solo" means exactly that.

In fact, even as a licensed pilot, having someone else along on a flight, even a non-pilot, means that it does not count as a solo flight. If you need X hours of "solo cross-country" then those hours must have been flown with you as the sole occupant of the aircraft, not just with you as the sole manipulator of the controls.

Do I know what I am talking about? I hope so:

FAA:

FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR (Gold Seal)
AIRPLANE SINGLE AND MULTIENGINE
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

GROUND INSTRUCTOR
ADVANCED
INSTRUMENT

The families are understandably devastated for the loss of their relatives, oh but hang on, lets see if we can screw a few quid out of an innocent company and we may not feel quite as devastated. Damn this compensation generation.

Err, how do you see the school that trained Lubitz and then unleashed him upon aviation, overlooking his mental state, as an "innocent company?"

I am with you to some extent when it comes to our American compensation culture, along with all these predatory "no win-no fee" lawyers, but in this particular case I think that a lot more than just one hundred thousand euro compensation is called for, and if the school that trained Lubitz is the way to get money out of Lufthansa, then so be it.

There's another culture that comes into question here, the German one that puts following procedures above higher interests. It dictated that everyone who knew about Lubitz' problems, something like 40 (!) different medical professionals, all found it a good idea to keep quiet about that, so that none of them contacted Lufthansa or the LBA about having this pilot on the loose who was really unhinged, perhaps a risk to himself and others. That goes back to the school, who knew, or should have known, what they had on their hands there.

The FAA comes into this to some degree, but just for respecting the opinion of the German authorities when Lubitz did not pose such a great risk to America as such. Most of the remaining responsibility, past the fact that Lubitz did the deed, lies with Lufthansa, and that is a Lufthansa school there in Arizona that is subject to American law.

If Lufthansa had wanted a more benign environment then they should have picked some other place than the USA for their school, but I suppose that nobody foresaw passing on a candidate who had been mentally ill, and in fact still was mentally ill!

Looked at in a slightly different way, say you were a driving instructor who had some "emo" teen on your hands, one of those with the black fingernail polish and the self-harm scars, when you might guess that his strongest secret wish was to get his license and then drive his car into a crowd of people, just going by his demeanor and all. Should you respect his right to privacy, say nothing, and help him get his license as a matter of routine, and then not expect to be sued for that when mayhem ensues?

chuks No better no worse than your judge jury and executioner comments. We've only got the plaintiffs side for now.

jvr If there was you'd have to put attorneys in Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom on the list. According to Kreindler's website their working together.
The compensation culture started here but it spread to Europe a long time ago. I know for a fact some law firms in London have agents around the world working on commission trying to get folk to make claims. Whenever there's a crash the vultures gather and try and get a slice of the action. The agents get paid a commission if they sign folk up.
Another thing ambulance chaser type of lawyers here do is get free publicity by making statements to the media when there's an accident and get their name mentioned. They usually say they are already "helping" clients from the accident to try to attract more trade. Helping!! They make it sound like they are just trying to help folk but it's a mega bucks business. The more clients they get the more money they make. The lawyers get 40% off every plaintiff + all their expenses back. Easy money in airplane crashes. I know some British law firms do the same thing because I've seen it mentioned in threads on this site. For example the helo crash in London a few years ago and the Shoreham crash. I bet there are lawyers doing the same thing in the rest of Europe.

Chuks,
you said : Yes, but from your profile you say you live in Germany, then you might know about the regulatory changes passed today regarding Pilots mental health supervision , as a direct aftermath of this accident that are making headiness news this evening.

But that does not alter the medical secrecy and transfer of medical data to third parties, which is unlawful in Germany and an MD who does that will be prosecuted and will most probably end up in court.
These laws dates back from 1946-47 , mostly because MDs under the 3rd Reich were forced to hand over medical data of their patients to the police , and those proved to have disabilities (genetic or mental ) were send to the concentrations camps to be eliminated. Changing old rules like this one today is still a big issue in Germany. Maybe this case will unlock the situation, but it will take some more years I fear.

On another forum ( The Rostov B738 crash ) fierce airline bashing and blood letting is taking place. On this one similar medicine seems to be meted out to lawyers.
So the question is, who is to sort out all these pilot exploiting, slave driving, unscrupulous airlines, who is to make sure that never, ever again an airline permit another nut case to sit in the sharp end of an aircraft.
Can you think of any one else but lawyers. Ask any victim of any tragedy and by that I don`t mean those who have perished, but those who are left behind as to what can be done for them. Most would ask for justice and that others should be spared from the suffering they will have to endure for the remainder of their lives.
In the Grand Scheme of things, just as dolphins and doves are needed, so are vultures and sharks.

Posters are certainly right about the compensation culture spreading to UK. In fact its probbably worse here than in the US because US judges have decades of expereince at spotting legal scams wheras the ambulance chasers area relatively new phenomenum here in Britain.

The problem is lawyers cost more than they are really worth and therefore joe publ;ic finds it prohibitivley expensive and a risk to use a 'reputable' firm because if he loses he can lose his house and go bankrupt , the no win no fee route avoids this but ribs clients blind on fees .

the other fix is to up the fixed compensation level to say 250K per pax becaus e 100k isnt really enough these days . If 250K isnt enough for you then you probably have the resources to hire layers yourself but at the moment the low compensation level puts victims between the deep blue sea of the risk of losing and the devil in the form of the sharks

The MC liability limits are subject to inflation. In my previous post I mentioned 100,000 SDR. Actually that is now 113,100.

In Euros; 141,000
In dollars 158,794

And that's without spending a penny, or cent, on lawyers.

The lawyers will take 30% of any settlement. Even if they fail to get anything over the MC limits they will get their pound of flesh.

Well, guys, let's wait and see what happens next. It looks to me as if Lufthansa is exposed to serious liability under US law with this one, but what do I know? I am sure that a plaintiff could do a deal with even the greediest lawyer that guaranteed a minimum payout after the lawyer's cut that exceeded $160,000, freeing the lawyer to take a swing at one very large piñata.

Yes, ATC Watcher, I know about those secrecy laws. No way to do an end-run around them, none at all? There you have a guy who was very obviously hiding an extremely dangerous condition and thereby posing an unacceptable risk to innocent people. There was nobody sending him to a gas chamber or even a camp then.

He had multiple prescriptions for medications that were illegal to use while flying, didn't he? Some guy comes into your practice to get that kind of stuff and you don't bother to ask about his background, perhaps to check if Lubitz, Andreas Günter shows up on the LBA database as an airline pilot? There you get into a different sort of German mindset, that "This was not my job," that "I build the rockets to go up in the air; where they come down is not my affair."

You know about the German government itself buying stolen bank account data from Switzerland, data that violated strict Swiss banking secrecy laws, I assume. How odd that there was no "But, but, that's illegal!" in that case. Catching German tax evaders is different from keeping 149 people away from dying screaming, so that it's okay to bend some Swiss rules chasing German tax cheats.

Chuks : Oh yes , your point about the State breaking its own laws when it suit itself is very valid, the argument of course is it was for " the good cause "( here catching tax evasion to get some money back into the treasury.)

But the lone MD will receive a different treatment. If I read the French Judiciary report correctly, Mr Lubitz went to 41 different MDs , most did not know his real employment but some did . One wrote " Pilot with G. " on its records , and one in particular knew him very well : his Psychiatrist in his home town, following him since years and with whom he corresponded by e-mail until hours prior his act.
But whether any of those MD knew he would be still flying after their consultations is another mater.
Most of theses MD had issued work stoppage prescriptions ( yellow papers) most of them were found back unused in his apartment apparently. So those MDs will argue they did " their job"

The huge issue is that following an MD advice is still a voluntary issue, and an MD informing one's employer behind the back of the patient is (still) an illegal act in Germany. That I think need to be changed for some professions , not only pilots, but defining that list will also be a challenge.

The last issue is that some illnesses , especially mental ones are immediately disqualifying you from flying duties and imply a loss of licence. In addition almost all , if not all, Pilots Loss of licence insurance still excludes mental illnesses , so hiding it as long as you can is not going to go away, and if now MDs are forced to mention it to your employer , affected people are likely not to go to see or talk to MDs anymore, making perhaps the problem worse..

That said if it had been your kids ( lot of those in that aircraft) in that A320 you would probably try anything in your power to do something about this . If a US lawyer promised you a way , who can say you would not have done the same ?

Worse comes to worse, Lufty can simply fold the tent of their US training facility and the plaintiffs can divvy up whatever assets are available. If the aircraft are subject to collateral mortgages as recommended by any competent aviation lawyer, there will be very little.

Their insurers will be defending with very capable lawyers, but likely the face amount of the liability coverage is $2 million.

Best case for the plaintiffs sees $3 million less 30% / 100+ ~= $20K per Pax.

That all depends on plaintiffs' lawyers establishing that every flight training establishment must have a psychiatrist on retainer:}

Moneygrubbibg bottomfeeders. Have they no shame?
There is no one alive to sue over this. What a sick way to try to get rich.

........................

WageslaveI am not in any way defending the behaviour of the sort of lawyers who tout for business as soon as there's an accident (getting their names in the press in an attempt to attract potential clients, using agents on commission to track down more business etc) - far from it - but I wonder if you are overlooking the fact that many people killed in accidents have families who have lost their primary or only source of income?

eg If a parent's death is proved to have been caused by someone else's negligence, is it unreasonable that their children should be compensated? Or should they just lose the lifestyle they would have had, and perhaps their home, as well as their parent?

Assume that Lufthansa bought a widget from a small German supplier, a widget that was made in the USA, when the damned thing exploded and damaged one of their aircraft.

Would Lufthansa then sue the small German supplier, under German law that might strictly limit liability for widget suppliers, or would they sue the big American manufacturer of the exploding widget under American law? Answers on a postcard ....

One for the lawyers to answers
 

I suspect that the LIMIT OF LIABILITY amount was decided as reasonable for ACCIDENTS to give modest compensation, and protect the airline so that it continued to exist and keep on flying. An accident as simply defined.....

BUT this was no accident. It was a deliberate act of mass murder.

Perhaps the lawyers can say when the LIMIT OF LIABILITY is not valid, and if vicarious liability comes into play.

Enough to put the spin doctors into a flat spin as clearly his medical was now invalid (degrade in health since its issue) and therefore his licence was null and void. It follows therefore the aircraft insurance etc is seriously in jeopardy as well?

What seems hidden in the statements of these plaintiffs is the difference in "Schmerzensgeld" and "Schadenersatz".

"Schadenersatz" is paid for loss of income, and is oriented on what you have actually lost in income from your husband, father, etc. as a dependant person from the victim.

What is being sought in this process is however "Schmerzensgeld" which is a compensation for indured psychological pain. Such compensation is usually much higher in the US than in Europe. Europe has a tradition that such psychological pain is part of life, while in the US it can be your financial jackpot.

That is why the lawyers are desperately trying to construct a link to US soil in the crash. It will be interesting to see if Lufthansa will give in to the attempt to avoid bad publicity, or if they will fight it out as the case seems ridiculous.

In Europe, the case hasn't made such a big headline, guess this is actually based on the tradition that "Schmerzensgeld" should not be your financial jackpot.

This , what precedes this post of mine, makes it for very interesting reading. I got deeply involved with the Germanwings air-crash. I could not believe it was a suicide mission. I strenuously tried to demonstrate the opposite, with all I had. I still find hard to digest the bold truth. On my end, off topic, I lost all of my licenses because I had an alcohol problem. There was a spy and I was caught. I spent time. I deserved it, I admit. But I always brought them all safe at home , passengers and crew. This would *really* be a matter of suicide if I had not. Others can, but my conscience does not forgive me (feel free to trash this thought of mine). Best, Aurora

The link is there. It's the Lufthansa-owned and -operated flight school in Arizona, USA that produced Andreas Lubitz. There it seems pretty clear to me that Lufthansa is exposed to possible action under American tort law.

Consider the plight of VW in the USA now.

Tellingly, in the States the opening ploy was "Here, have a thousand bucks walking-around money, just for starters, while we figure out what to do next." Here in Germany there was no question of handing out that sort of money to VW customers; many are simply stuck waiting to find out how VW should fix their cars.

Now the real legal troubles, the big ones, start for VW in the States, when it's not going to be "Oh, but that was Volkswagen Group of America, not VW AG of Wolfsburg, Germany!" The problem, as it also is for Lufthansa, is not a link to US soil, but a link between a US entity, VW Group of America in one case, the Lufthansa Arizona flight school in the other, and their respective parent companies in Germany, the big companies with the deep pockets.

parkfellNo.

--

There are no limits upon the amount of compensation that can be obtained for passenger injury or death.

The Montreal Convention (international air carriage) - very brief summary:

Claims for damages up to 113,100 SDRs (currently £112,000/EUR141,000 approx)
A carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability for proved loss.
This is known as “strict liability”.

Claims for damages above 113,100 SDRs
Where the loss suffered by an injured party/the family of the deceased is greater than the 'strict liability' limit, a carrier is only able to avoid paying the greater amount if it can prove that it was not negligent or otherwise at fault. ie The carrier has to prove that it is not liable.

That is the opposite of the usual legal position where, in order to obtain damages (compensation), claimants/plaintiffs have to prove that individuals/corporations they sue are liable.


I make no comment about the Germanwings accident, not least because we don't yet know the defendants' response to the claimants' allegations.
I leave jumping to conclusions upon limited information to others who wish to do so.

I think German law specifically limits the liability of Lufthansa. So the only way the families of the victims can get at Lufthansa is through the flying school based in the USA.

I don't think the families are after the flying school as such, they want to hold Lufthansa to account, but the only way they can do this is via this "back door" method.

Everyone s talking about this being an issue for the average AME's. IMHO it is a more complicated psychological issue. In the short time an AME examines the physical side of a pilot I wonder how likely it is they 'might' spot anything untoward about the 'between the ears' area.
In early 80's pilot airline pilot selection was via a chat with the Flt Ops guys and a check on licences etc. In mid-80's the psychiatrists had been busy empire building and the HR brigade hung onto their coat tails. The interview and selection process was now out of the hands of pilots and into the hands of the theorists. If the paperwork was all in order it became common to spend many hours filling in psycho-babble mumbo jumbo questionnaires. At BA, during a DEP selection process, there was a near riot by the classroom of candidates at the perceived idiocy of many of the questions. They seemed more trying to trick/trap you than discover anything pertinent.
If I understand LH has severe psycho analytical tests for candidates; or perhaps it is a general German system. Either way, if Lubitz was passed as suitable it doesn't say much for accuracy the system. Or am I missing something?

Having said that, in UK I know many guys who tripped up at BA's HR selection hurdle and met some who passed through. It was very difficult to fathom sometimes. The good guys failed and some muppets snuck under the radar. Scary. Not dangerous, just weird.

FL, could this be characterized as forum shopping?

I think that the UK has seen a lot of libel suits, even over publications originating elsewhere, supposedly because of the relative ease of winning a libel case in the UK compared to many other jurisdictions, what has been called forum shopping.

Is it so that it might seem to be both easier to win and easier to obtain higher compensation by bringing a case in the USA compared to doing that in Germany, hence this somewhat indirect approach? American juries are notorious for sometimes awarding amazing sums on somewhat tenuous grounds, which is why I ask.

Yes. The system is designed to find an applicant with the right set of soft and hard skills as well as the right personality profile. And there are specially trained pilots in the process, it is not only the psychologists. However, the whole thing is not designed to test for mental illness.

Wouldn't part of "the right personality profile" have to include "not being mentally ill"?

We had this one company shrink back at base in Europe who put all applicants for West Africa through a full battery of tests. They finally stopped using him after a series of weirdos showed up on the job, all having been checked and approved by him!

Now that I think of it, he did find that I was perfectly sane ....

I wonder: we are tested for competence every 6 months. Can we do our job accurately and achieved the required standards. We are tested with non-normals in the sim and normals in line checks. Who checks these HR psycho people? If they let through some whacko are they competent? Has this type of selection process ever been reviewed? Have these empire building people taken over the farm?
Dent mentioned pilots are involved in the German process. Are they direct interviewers? Sense & gut feeling can be a small but relevant part of the process.