Germanwings co-pilot disclosed earlier 'severe depression' to Lufthansa

The new revelation underlines questions about how thoroughly the aviation industry and government regulators screen pilots for psychological problems.

Martin Meissner/AP
Passengers watch candles and flowers for the victims of Flight 9525 at the airport in Dusseldorf on Tuesday.

Lufthansa knew that the co-pilot of the passenger plane that crashed in the French Alps last week had suffered from an episode of "severe depression" before he finished his flight training with the German airline.

The airline said Tuesday that it has found emails that Andreas Lubitz sent to the Lufthansa flight school in 2009 when he resumed his training in Bremen after an interruption of several months.

In them, he informed the school that he had suffered a "previous episode of severe depression," which had since subsided.

The airline said Mr. Lubitz subsequently passed all medical checks and that it has provided the documents to prosecutors. It declined to make any further comment.

French authorities say voice recordings indicate Lubitz, 27, locked the other pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the Airbus A320 in the French Alps on March 24. All 150 people aboard Flight 9525 from Barcelona to Duesseldorf died.

The disclosure that Lubitz had told the airline he had suffered from depression before he was hired in 2013 at Lufthansa's budget arm Germanwings is another blow to the company's reputation. Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr had said that Lubitz passed all tests and had been pronounced fit to fly.

The revelation adds to questions about how much Lufthansa and its insurers will pay in damages for the passengers who died.

It also underlines questions about how thoroughly the aviation industry and government regulators screen pilots for psychological problems.

German prosecutors say Lubitz received psychotherapy before obtaining his pilot's license and that medical records from that time referred to "suicidal tendencies." They have given no dates for his treatment, but said visits to doctors since then showed no record of any suicidal tendencies or aggression against others.

They also have found torn-up sick notes from doctors, including one that would have kept Lubitz off work on the day of the crash.

The latest disclosure "really does suggest a potential problem with the airline's oversight of this aviator," says Alan Diehl, a former air safety investigator with the NTSB and a former scientist for human performance at the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Diehl says the global shortage of pilots might be leading to lax hiring standards. Every week, there are nearly 30 new jets rolling off assembly lines. Each one requires airlines to hire and train at least 10 to 12 new pilots.

"Maybe some of these carriers, not just Germanwings, are taking people that they wouldn't normally take," Diehl says.

In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration in 2010 starting allowing some pilots who are taking medication for mild to moderate depression to continue flying on a case-by-case basis. Pilots taking drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, and Lexapro were allowed to fly if granted a special medical certificate. One prerequisite was the successful treatment on the medication for at least 12 months.

Dr. Warren Silberman, manager of medical certification for the FAA until the end of 2011, said pilots in the US can fly again even after having suicidal thoughts.

"It really would depend on what the psychiatrist or psychologist that he saw wrote, and what his symptoms were," Mr. Silberman said. "The minute he declares he is depressed, he is grounded. And if he goes on medication, he's definitely grounded."

After treatment, "If you were doing better after the depressive episode and the (doctor's) note was favorable, then the FAA would likely clear you," he said. Admitting suicidal thoughts would probably mean a longer period of being grounded, and the pilot's case would probably wind up in the hands of the FAA's chief psychiatrist in Washington, he said.

Silberman said that over time pilots become more willing to discuss their mental state with their doctors, and there are employee-assistance programs to help them. Still, pilots often hide their medical problems.

Then there's liability.

The fact Lufthansa knew of Lubitz's illness only worsens the airline's legal position, even if cases are settled and not brought to trial.

Airlines on international flights are required to compensate relatives of victims for proven damages of up to a limit of about $157,000 – regardless of what caused the crash. However, higher compensation is possible if a carrier is held liable.

"I think as a practical and legal matter Lufthansa is at this point liable for the accident," said Brian Alexander, an international aviation attorney with Kreindler & Kreindler in New York.

"This makes the case, which was already indefensible, even more so," said Jonathan Reiter, a US attorney who has represented family members of a person who died in a 1999 EgyptAir crash investigators say was caused by the co-pilot, as well as people aboard a 2012 JetBlue flight where the pilot had a mental breakdown and had to be restrained. That flight landed safely.

"They're responsible. That's the end of it," said Mr. Reiter. "They can't say, we couldn't possibly have known. They did know."

In Frankfurt, Lufthansa spokeswoman Kerstin Lau said insurers have already reserved $300 million to deal with "all costs arising in connection with the case."

Lufthansa offered immediate aid last week of up to 50,000 euros ($54,250) per passenger to relatives of the victims. Those payments are separate from eventual compensation payments.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.