Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

More Evidence on Co-Pilot's Medical Condition Before Flight 9525 Crash; Examining Pilot Mental Health Issus; Germanwings Crash Investigation Continues; Latest on Amanda Knox Murder Case. Aired 10- 11p ET

Aired March 27, 2015 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[22:00:08] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: The fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is still one of the greatest mysteries of all time, but we're learning more and more about the Germanwings plane, the one that slammed into the alps this week.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

And what we're learning tonight is shocking. Germany's "Bild" newspaper says co-pilot Andreas Lubitz suffered a serious depressive episode in 2009. A torn letter found in the trash in his apartment said a medical doctor found him unfit to work. That's according to German authorities.

"The New York Times" and the "Wall Street Journal" both report that according to unnamed sources Lubitz suffered from mental illness and kept it secret from Germanwings. But we still can't answer the most important question of all -- why did he choose to crash the plane killing everyone on board?

We've got an expert team standing by to answer all of your questions. And make sure you tweet us using #germanwingsqs.

A lot to get to tonight and I want to begin with our CNN aviation correspondent, as we always do here, to give us the very latest information is Richard Quest.

So, Richard, good evening to you. Let's talk about this. Investigators previously said there was nothing out of the ordinary. They didn't think anything was wrong. Then in 2008 he suspended his training, in 2009 he, according to reports, suffered a depressive episode. If this is indeed true, should he have been in that cockpit?

RICHARD QUEST, HOST, CNN'S QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: Clearly not if that's true. The question, of course, becomes one of what the airline knew and what the airline should have known. Carsten Spohr, the chief executive, said he was 100 percent fit to fly. Well, the airline clearly thought he was 100 percent fit to fly.

Now how much credence and how much weight should we give to him suspending his training in Arizona for however many months it was? And what were the reasons for that? But the core of it, the real core of his medical ability comes down to who is responsibility was it to tell the airline? If he went to see a private doctor about any of his problems, the doctor is confidentially bound not to reveal it.

And that's the problem here. How could Lufthansa have known? Should Lufthansa have known?

LEMON: Should he have told that he's probably --

QUEST: He had a duty to. There's no question.

LEMON: He was afraid of losing his job.

QUEST: Yes. There's no question. He had a legal duty not to fly.

LEMON: All right.

QUEST: That's it.

LEMON: Let's continue on and we'll discuss this so much more.

QUEST: Sure.

LEMON: As we learn more about Andreas Lubitz, CNN's Will Ripley has our exclusive interview with the man who saw the co-pilot on a regular basis. And Will joins us now from Dusseldorf.

Hello to you, Will. Listen, I want to ask you about investigators. They're trying to find clues to a motive for this terrible act. What can you tell us about the direction that they're heading now?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know that at least for the time being this apartment, Andreas Lubitz's apartment behind me continues to be a focus of the investigation. Tonight, Don, we saw them carry out more evidence. This is after they were in the apartment for hours today. They collected, among other things, medical notes that were torn up and tossed in the trash can. Apparent evidence that Lubitz was trying to hide some sort of a -- some sort of a condition from his employer. And tonight even more evidence out of the apartment, although we don't know exactly what was seized. We could learn that in the coming hours -- Don.

LEMON: Will, he was hiding an illness from his employers but you've met people who knew him. So what are learning?

RIPLEY: Well, the people around the neighborhood saw this 27-year-old who at least on the surface appeared to be the picture of health, and until recently also the picture of happiness. We spoke with a man who owns one of Lubitz's regular date spots with his, at the time, girlfriend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RIPLEY: You saw Andreas Lubitz and who you believe was his girlfriend. You say they came in here a lot. What were they like?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Through Translator): I don't know his name, I don't his profession, but for two months ago, I saw him. He was a very nice man, very polite, very friendly, I saw them often. Would come once or twice a week. But of course, I can't say more than what I saw. I don't know what his background was. I don't know what happened in his head.

RIPLEY: When you heard about what happen and you saw his face, what was your reaction?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Through Translator): I thought, no, this wasn't him. Whenever he came here, he was smiley and friendly. But then others were speculating, he heard about speculation that he may have been sick and you can't say that, that, you know, when he saw him friendly and nice, he didn't see what else is going on in his head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIPLEY: Now what that man also told us, Don, is that Lubitz and -- what appear to be his girlfriend would go there very often but then all of that stopped about two months ago. Neighbors stopped seeing her in the area. He stopped frequenting this place as well. And this is also around the time that we know Lubitz started receiving treatment at a clinic here in Dusseldorf, the university medical clinic.

[22:05:08] He went there in February and then got a diagnosis for some sort of an illness in March, on March 10th, but what we don't know is what that diagnosis was due to medical confidentiality.

But as investigators scoured this apartment for clues and they looked at this different life events, Don, they try to put together pieces about what may have happened, what may have triggered this horrible event that ended as we know now with 150 people who lost their lives.

LEMON: Will Ripley in Dusseldorf, thank you very much for your reporting.

We want to bring in our experts now to talk about this. Angela Masson is the first female chief pilot for American Airlines, David Soucie, CNN safety analyst and author of "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370," aviation attorney Jim Kreindler.

Good evening to all of you. Thank you for joining me.

David, the ripped-up doctor's note, we were told that there was nothing that gave any indication that anything was wrong, that he suffered now from mental illness, that there was a break in his training. All of these -- these are big discrepancies.

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Well, they build a picture, too. I mean, each one of those things, if you look at them individually by themselves, they don't -- they mean something, that they don't put it together. So this is about the investigation, putting those things together. It's clear now at this point that there was something severely wrong, that he did a great job of hiding, and continued to fly and keep himself in that position of a pilot. LEMON: Everyone is trying to figure out what happened, who knew him,

his state of mind when he was in Arizona, Jim. That co-pilot. If it turns out that Lufthansa or anyone connected with the airlines knew about his mental state, can a suit be brought here in the United States?

JIM KREINDLER, AVIATION ATTORNEY: Well, a suit can be brought in the United States on three bases. If a passenger lives here, if this is the ultimate destination or the ticket was issued here. Now, in terms of fault, the airline is responsible under the Montreal Convention of 1999. Obviously, if the airline had an indication that something was amiss with his mental state, they are even more at fault, but under the law, the airline is responsible and must pay compensation to the victims' families.

And the question is where the families can sue. In the United States where you get a meaningful recovery for a death or in Germany or Spain where you'll get less than the price of a car.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: But regardless, I'm sure it will be tried. Everything will be tried to bring the suit here in the United States because of a meaningful --

KREINDLER: Of course.

LEMON: They will get a more meaningful determination.

KREINDLER: Yes. That's possible. Sure.

LEMON: Angela, I want to go to you because you actually have a patent for technology I understand that will allow a plane to be controlled by someone on the ground. Could that have changed the outcome here, you think?

ANGELA MASSON, RETIRED AMERICAN AIRLINES CAPTAIN: Well, we could hope that a patent like this could do something in a -- in any event where a pilot might experience some type of incapacitation.

LEMON: Yes. Anyone? Do you have any concerns about that technology? It seems a little bit frightening because you don't know who is going to control it or if it's -- you know.

MASSON: Well, that's the other end of the spectrum. Who's in control of that technology. The ideal situation would be, for instance, say, that the two pilots have -- our experienced -- hypoxia for example, can't think straight and the airplane is perhaps in the South Sea incident, heading out to sea, somebody on the ground or in the back of the airplane or even in another airplane could take over control of the airplane. But with any kind of technology, we're subject to hacking, terrorist activity.

LEMON: Anyone have any concerns about the technology?

QUEST: Well, I'm just curious on the idea, Captain, what would you be in favor of? Would you be in -- the ultimate decision, let's just say it's not a hypoxia or an incapacity. Let's say it is nefarious as in this situation.

Captain, would you be in favor as a captain yourself, of somebody able to take control from you while you were flying the plane, somebody on the ground?

MASSON: That decision requires a lot of thought, and I was thinking about that myself because shortly after 9/11, a lot of the rules changed, and one of the things that happened was we were given an opportunity to become federal flight deck officers, and go to El Paso and learn how to shoot guns, and a whole new range of possibilities opened and the same idea, would I want to shoot somebody, would I want somebody to take control away of the airplane for me to save me in a situation if somebody else were shooting at me? I don't know. How do you -- who would make that decision? There is a whole range of ethical implications there.

SOUCIE: Captain, the other question I had about this is, I'm a little confused as to whether or not your technology is in line with the Boeing uninterruptible autopilot system. Is that -- am I thinking of the same thing here or is that two different things entirely, this remote control type approach?

[22:10:05] MASSON: Well, the particular patents that I hold are for a device called an electronic kickback and the way that it works is that somebody -- the device intercepts the signal between the transmission of the signal and the interception of the autopilot on the airplane, so -- the interface between that and Boeing's autopilot, it could be wired that way, I suppose.

SOUCIE: I see.

MASSON: How they're designing that, I'm really not familiar with.

LEMON: All right, everyone --

SOUCIE: Because that might keep it from being interrupted even though it is remote.

LEMON: All right. Stand by, everyone. We appreciate it. Stay with me here because we got a lot more to talk about.

When we come right back, I want to bring in our medical experts to talk about why the co-pilot was declared unfit to work. Why was he declared unfit to work and whether his problem might have been physical or was it psychological. And we're answering your questions tonight. Make sure you tweet us using the #germanwingsqs.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back. Investigators are slowly piecing together a profile of Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the doomed flight 9525. 27 years old, friends say he was nice and seemed well adjusted. Lubitz was physically active, running marathons and working out. He was reportedly -- he had been treated for depression and may have gone through a break-up recently. Well, today, a prosecutor said Lubitz hid his illness from the airline.

[22:15:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPH KUMPA, GERMAN PROSECUTOR: We have found a letter that indicated that he was declared by a medical doctor unfit to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: There is a whole lot to discuss with this. Let's bring in now psychologist Xavier Amador who is the director of the LEAP Institute. Dr. Devi Nampiaparampil, is the assistant professor at New York University School of Medicine. Also back with me is Angela Masson, Richard Quest, David Soucie and Jim Kreindler.

So this co-pilot hid the information from employees. He was declared -- and this is going to be for you, Dr. Devi. He was declared by a medical doctor unfit to work. And I want to get the language right here. It is unclear whether it was physical or psychological. Medically, could you suffer from something that would make you unfit for work? What could that be?

DR. DEVI NAMPIAPARAMPIL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, NYU SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Sure. So there's a variety of things. So it's hard to really draw a conclusion. I mean, we look at the job that the person is doing and the timeframe, whether this is temporary or permanent. So for me as a physician, you know, if I were to break my right hand I'd be unfit for work in terms of operating, but that doesn't mean I couldn't do another job.

So for him we don't know exactly what it means. Maybe it was something with his vision, hearing, could be his psychological status, but something that would prevent him from doing that job. And again we don't know if it's temporary or if it's permanent.

LEMON: OK. But when you look at this as a doctor --

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: No.

LEMON: Go ahead. What do you -- what do you make of it?

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Well, now I think, you know, given his age, it's very unlikely for a doctor to say someone is unfit for work permanently, especially in their 20s. So I think that we have to look at that a little bit further.

LEMON: OK. And the multiple doctor's note found in his -- might we find out if it was something chronic from those notes, one of them at least we know, the one that said he was unfit, that was torn up. But --

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Sure. I mean, he might have thrown that -- I mean, torn that up just out of anger, though, so we don't know that all these medical notes were for the same condition. So that's something to just keep in mind. I mean, by itself, you know, it doesn't mean anything, but looking at the whole pattern, and of course it's more concerning.

LEMON: All right. I want to go to Dr. Amador now.

So what could -- psychologically, what could he suffer from that can make him unfit to work, Doctor?

XAVIER AMADOR, LEAP INSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, there is a host of disorders when left untreated and I want to emphasize that from the start. When left untreated could impair a pilot's ability to the function as a pilot safely. Clinical depression certainly is on the table, along with that suicidal thoughts, bipolar disorder, certain anxiety disorders, panic disorder, et cetera.

But again the common theme here is when there's an impairment in the person's ability to control their emotions, if there's suicidal thoughts, if there's impairment in cognition, attention, ability to, you know, conform their judgment accurately, all of these things are parts of the disorders I've described, but when left untreated.

LEMON: But, Doctor, speaking to people today, a lot of people, millions of people in this country are -- suffer from depression, whether it's mild or extreme or what have you, but they go about their business every day, they deal with it and they don't kill people.

AMADOR: That's absolutely right. And let's be clear about something, this is looking like a suicide and mass murder obviously. We just don't know yet. We don't have the crystal ball. And you are quite right about that. Millions of people do suffer from clinical depression. Some don't ever get treated. It resolves on its own after eight weeks -- after 12 weeks, others get treatment, return to work.

LEMON: Yes.

AMADOR: I have treated -- in fact I've treated many New York City police officers and military officers who are clinically depressed, in treatment, and working. They, in fact, though, just to comment on the earlier point, don't report up to the chain of command that they are being treated for a psychiatric disorder.

LEMON: Go ahead, David.

SOUCIE: There is a couple of accident investigations that I've done a post-examination on. The pilot was diagnosed shopping. He had -- he had something that he couldn't get over. He knew it wouldn't passed in the medical -- with his medical examiner, so he would go to all these other doctors until he got the proper diagnosis. Once he got that, then he could take that and know that, and use that, to take to his medical examiner --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: So you think that could have happened here and that's why he had so many notes?

SOUCIE: It seems as though it's falling down the same path as these other ones that I've investigated so it's just something to put on the table, again, we're totally speculating at this point. But it seems to fit that -- the multiple different doctor's notes, the one that was torn up could have been just this last straw, you know, like you've mentioned. Maybe he was just mad about it because he had tried it so many times.

LEMON: My question just -- depression, does that disqualify someone from flying, a pilot?

QUEST: Well, in a general sense yes, there are rules that are about how long it will disqualify you. It's not so much a depression but that's a particular reason, it's the medication that you might be taking. It used to be a year's --

LEMON: Half the people I know would not be able to work.

(LAUGHTER)

[22:20:04] QUEST: It used to be a year's disqualification, now that's come down maybe to, say, six months. But we're focusing on the depression aspect. There are many, many ailments, for want of a better word. illnesses, the doctor -- because I'm talk about kidney stones to a variety of things, if you've got them, you can't fly. The issue here is when you report that you've got something that's chronic, debilitating, and might take your career away. If you've got a nasty case of flu with blocked sinuses in some cases, you would be unfit to fly, but you'll be flying in a week or two.

LEMON: But -- and you know, the reason we're going down this road is because of the reports from the "Wall Street Journal" and also the report from "The New York Times" saying that --

QUEST: Absolutely.

SOUCIE: And the prosecutor.

LEMON: Right. And from the prosecutor saying that there was a break in his training, that he suffered from, that he had this mental problem. My question is, if he had all this -- the training in 2009, he's in his early 20s, Dr. Amador, does that -- and when we hear about these issues of people who sadly do these sorts of things, maybe school shootings or what have you, many of them, they're in their 20s when they have these breaks. Is that significant?

AMADOR: Well, what's significance is that the prevalence rate is about 15 percent, 16 percent for major depressions since we're talking about, since that's the only report that we have at the moment. And that's a very, very high rate. A high incidence rate, 15 percent to 16 percent. And the idea of, you know, doctors shopping, there's another interpretation I make from that which is that he's suffering from depression, he's not getting better. And he's looking for other answers, other medications, other treatments.

LEMON: OK.

AMADOR: If that's what was going on. Bipolar depression is also on the table as well.

LEMON: Real quickly if you want to --

SOUCIE: I agree 100 percent with what he's saying, too. I mean, I think that this doctor shopping, I hadn't thought of that, that he could have just been, you know, trying to try different medications and different treatments.

LEMON: All right. Everyone, stay with me.

Up next, we're going to go into a simulator with a commercial pilot to recreate the final moments of Flight 9525. Wait until you see how that pilot reacts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:25:52] LEMON: Prosecutors say Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz hid an illness and that a doctor declared him unfit to work. They say he deliberately flew the jetliner into a mountain killing everyone on board.

We asked CNN's Kyung Lah to meet up with a commercial pilot in a simulator and recreate what apparently happened. What she witnessed is eye-opening.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUCK ROGER, PILOT: Lock the physical lock on the door. Take this to lock, it's going to totally lock out that door.

KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): And so begins what is likely descent of the Germanwings flight. We're in a A-320 simulator with pilot Buck Roger who currently flies with a commercial airliner.

ROGER: We just dialed in an altitude here, and got there from going down.

LAH (on camera): That motion of hitting 100 in this situation is unthinkable for you?

ROGER: Absolutely. Why would I do that? It goes against every grain in my body. There's no reason why I would do that.

LAH: You know the consequences of that action?

ROGER: Absolutely.

LAH: If you had to step in this young man's mind, do you think he understood?

ROGER: I mean, it's a very difficult subject for a pilot because we are again, here, to keep our passengers safe, to keep the airplane safe, to keep our crew safe, so to go where this young man went, it's hard for me to go there. And by saying I'm fit to fly, that means I'm good to go, I'm ready to take on this airplane and make the flight --

LAH: And all the lives that are in the back.

ROGER: That's right.

LAH (voice-over): Approximately nine minutes later --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pull up.

ROGER: So now we would --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Terrain, terrain. Terrain.

ROGER: Pull up and react.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pull up, pull up, pull up.

ROGER: Yes. This is not a situation I have ever been in.

LAH (on camera): What's happening to your hands after that crash?

ROGER: They're sweaty. And you can see it. In all the years I've been flying in a simulator, I've never seen an airplane hit the ground. We recover the airplane before that happens.

LAH: So that was unthinkable for you?

ROGER: Yes. Hard to see.

LAH (voice-over): Roger takes us through a manual scenario, explaining the Germanwings pilot likely did not do this based on the control descent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pull up.

LAH (on camera): That's uncomfortable?

ROGER: It is. In fact, let's just -- can we come out of this? Get out of this. No need to take it through that.

LAH (voice-over): Even in a simulator, in a scenario we've asked him to do for the purposes of the story, this pilot cannot stand it.

(On camera): Does it exceed pilot instinct? Is it human instinct to pull up the stick?

ROGER: Yes. I'm thinking about the safety of my passengers and my crew and that airplane. And that's what I do as a pilot.

LAH: Is that why this incident has so disturbed the people in your profession?

ROGER: It's unthinkable that a pilot would take an airplane and drive it into the ground. It's not something that we would ever think about.

LAH (voice-over): Kyung Lah, Las Vegas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Very interesting. My entire panel is back with me.

Richard.

QUEST: Yes.

LEMON: We are told that from the voice recordings, what they had is that he was breathing normally. That guy, he couldn't even do it. His hands were sweating, I mean, and how could --

QUEST: I'm going to go slightly different on this. The man who told us that he was breathing normally was the prosecutor. He'd only heard the tape for a matter of a few hours within the previous 12 hours. I think when he said he's breathing normally, he's not hearing any signs of labored breathing from a stroke or he's not hearing any gasps or he's not hearing any croaking, but this idea -- I don't know, but all I'm just putting one and two together, and when -- the prosecutor yesterday had literally -- he admitted, he'd only heard it overnight.

LEMON: But he also said that he didn't hear any signs of incapacitation as well.

QUEST: Correct. He didn't hear --

(CROSSTALK)

QUEST: He said he didn't hear any signs of stroke, he didn't hear any signs of, you know, labored breathing. But the idea that Lubitz was just sitting there calmly breathing, I'm not so sure.

SOUCIE: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: I think that we have to differentiate two things. I mean, if a person is a sociopath, you know, they might be totally calm in this type of situation as opposed to someone who has a medical problem.

QUEST: Yes.

[22:30:03] NAMPIAPARAMPIL: And then they become psychotic and then they're suicidal and homicidal for that reason.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: And Dr. Amador --

SOUCIE: Disassociation.

LEMON: Yes.

SOUCIE: Like a total disassociation with their -- with the way they are.

LEMON: And there's some medication, as you said, to -- for a socio --

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: That can treat a sociopath, yes.

LEMON: That can treat a sociopath.

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Yes.

LEMON: Apparently, he had just broken up -- recently broken up, Doctor Amador, with his girlfriend with -- can that cause -- I guess it could, something this serious to make him want to kill everybody, 150 people?

XAVIER AMADOR, LEAP INSTITUTE, PSYCHOLOGISTL: Well, look, we've certainly have seen breakups lead to horrific -- you know acts of violence. But there is usually a story, and if I draw my forensic experience right now, the story usually does lead to a history of untreated mental illness, and, you know, people break up with girlfriends every day, obviously that's not, and I know that's not what you are really asking.

LEMON: OK.

AMADOR: But that in conjunction with an untreated mental illness that he is not reporting, because it is not safe for him to report it to his supervisors.

LEMON: He sure hid it well.

AMADOR: Very well be part of this...

LEMON: And --

AMADOR: It sounds like an impulsive act. It does not sound like a planned act.

LEMON: Yeah, he seems like he hid it well, don't you think, Jim?

JIM KREINDLER, AVIATION ATTORNEY: Well, so far, but I don't think the whole story is out. You know, when he left his training as a young man, excited to be a pilot -- that is unusual, something is up. My guess is, that in the next the few days and weeks, you will going to see a lot more of the story coming out, and probably more indications that something was amidst.

LEMON: I think you're, you are absolutely right about that. Angela, when you became a pilot, you underwent psychological exams. Does that continue throughout your tenure or it was just a one-time thing?

ANGELA MASSON, RETIRED AMERICAN AIRLINES CAPTAIN: Well, I think it's a testament airline, the airline industry in particular that the psychological testing is so good, that this incident is very peculiar. We are tested, not only with the psychologist, but we take a written psychological test, and we evaluate each other every day in the cockpit. And we are given the opportunity to self-report and to report each other.

AMADOR: And Angela's -- but Angela's kind of --

LEMON: Go ahead, Dr. Amador.

AMADOR: The FAA requirement, you are quite right is very, it's very, true and vigorous when you are starting the job, but you are not qualified to evaluate each other, not for mental disorders. And I mean that with the outmost respect...

LEMON: Or yourself.

AMADOR: What's really interesting to me is that pilots every six months get a physical, but they don't get a mental health evaluation.

LEMON: Yeah, and you said or yourself...

AMADOR: Co-pilots once a year...

LEMON: Because there are sometime you just required...

AMADOR: Physical and mental --

LEMON: To fill out a form that says -- to sign and say I have no mental problems.

SOUCIE: Well -- and in fact every flight you are and somewhere curiously (ph) in the United States, because every flight you have to -- you have to check the box and sign a little thing that says, I am fit for duty.

QUEST: I -- I just --

LEMON: Does this bother you?

QUEST: It doesn't bother me per se, because I -- just thinking and -- to the doctor's point, the -- if you start doing the psychological examinations every six months, the -- is it worth it is what I'm basically asking it. Yes you have this particular incident, horrific and dreadful. But, the reliability of the psychological examination, coupled with the sheer amount of effort, extent, bureaucracy that is going to go through --

LEMON: Going to get a question for Dr. Devi.

QUEST: I'm the interpretation of that.

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Yes.

LEMON: Because you said there's -- there's not a drug or pill for a sociopath and --

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Exactly.

LEMON: You can see, because most people who have these issues, they hide it very well. Most people have no idea. NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Yes, if you wanted to be treated, then you might come

forward with this, but you wouldn't see your employer. You might go to your own doctor and talk about this different things. But then you also wonder, just to say, I mean, people usually don't go from just having a straight mental illness or condition like depression to killing people, right? If you are psychotic in between, that could be for medications. That could be even low blood sugar and that is diabetic, or you have to something in between that would probably make you look bizarre...

LEMON: Yeah.

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: And make other people notice.

LEMON: So what would you say about the precursor to this horrific action?

(CROSSTALK) SOUCIE: No, no, Don. It would be -- what I'm thinking about is, we're

talking about the stuff from the inside. The chemical imbalances, the previous experiences that they bringing along with them. I'm no psychologist but, the outside stuff is what bugs me, the divorces and why don't we measure that stuff and we can monitor that.

LEMON: If you'll bring them on as soon as you get a divorce, you have something that traumatic to your mom --

(CROSSTALK) LEMON: Has been sick to you.

SOUCIE: Yeah.

LEMON: Should you be -- its s have mandatory to take some time off, is that what you are saying?

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: Well, I don't know, I mean, a lot of people go through all kind of stressful events, right?

LEMON: Yeah.

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: But they are not necessarily dangerous the other people, so we rely on people to tell us the truth. If we ask them --

SOUCIE: But we don't fly airplane with 150 people.

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: That's true.

(CROSSTALK)

NAMPIAPARAMPIL: But even - even at the call for a doctor.

LEMON: Up next, our aviation experts, they were going to continue to talk. We're going to answer your questions. Use it -- make sure you use the hashtag #GermanwingsQs.

[20:34:49] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: And now to answer your questions about 9525, live experts are

here, make sure you use the hashtag #GermanwingsQs. So I'm back with everyone here. The first one is going to go to you, Richard Quest. It's about the co-pilot's experience, and it's from (inaudible). "Isn't 600 hours small for pilot to be ready to fly commercial flight? An eight-hour a day, that's like only 75 days flying."

QUEST: Well, of course it's not an eight-hour (inaudible)...

LEMON: Right.

QUEST: The point is well taken. And yes, in the U.S. he wouldn't bring enough position. In Europe, the rules are slightly different. There is no escaping the fact that -- I'll be brief, he is most definitely at the lower end of the experience, 600 hours flying, a 100 on type that will put him. I don't think anybody is going to disagree as relatively novice.

LEMON: All right. David Soucie, are there any -- this is from Tony. "Are there any other instances in the last week or so where Lubitz was alone on the flight deck, how long was he waiting for this?"

SOUCIE: That be a good thing to find out, of course we don't know that. But, the investigators do, I can guarantee that. They are looking into every single aspect of this, including everything he has done is recorded and able to be retrieved.

LEMON: OK. This is one is for Angela. I asked the pilots who joined us last night, this was -- I did ask -- probably he joins us last night about this, about the privacy of a pilot, right? Because we were talking about the cameras in the cockpit and all of that. What privacy does a pilot need - -this is form Smile Foundation. "What privacy does a pilot need that they avoid to have cameras in the cockpit?" Angela?

[20:39:59] MASSON: The role, the role of a pilot is almost a public figure role, and there is almost, always someone looking over your shoulder at some point if it is not the Federal Aviation Administration, it's the chief pilot or somebody else --

LEMON: So why are the pilots are resistant to this idea?

MASSON: Why are they resistant to it?

LEMON: Yeah.

MASSON: I'm not sure that they are resistant to it. I don't think they necessarily are. I mean, we checked constantly, and it's, it's par for course. I'd like to, to speak for minute about of doctor hopping. Now, I think that was an interesting idea that, during my entire 31 year career, I think I only had two FAA medical examiners and they both knew me well. So, if we are looking for some kind of the regulation way, I don't think you can regulate risk...

LEMON: Yeah.

MASSON: Necessarily, but sticking to one doctor might, might be part of the solution and another --

LEMON: OK.

MASSON: Idea that you will bringing up before is the technology of the door. And you have a perfect venue here to inspire young engineers to think about better ways to handle the cockpit door problem. I mean, I don't know if it's a fingerprint or an eye print, or something, but other ways...

LEMON: Yeah, I did the thing of the fingerprint will be Outfront --

MASSON: That, that part of the problem.

LEMON: Last night, I thought that was a very good and that did not bring it up what I meant to, because even you know, when you get into the certain medical facilities now or certain -- you know, high security facilities now. You have to have the eye print or fingerprint.

SOUCIE: Even data bases --

LEMON: Yeah.

SOUCIE: Not data bases.

LEMON: OK.

SOUCIE: Data centers.

LEMON: OK. So, but every pilot we have spoken to on this program says, oh, no cameras in the cockpit. All right, David, this question from Linda, says, "Does the data recorder send out pings and if so, why hasn't it been located?" Got to be in water, correct.

SOUCIE: It's an underwater locator beacon. We got into the habit of calling it a pinger before, but that's because it puts of a ping, and the pin we can't hear of course. So it would have to be in the water, and then, the sensor to get it what have to be in the water as well. So, since there is no water here, but that's not going to help.

LEMON: Well, Dr. Amador, this one is from P MAS said, "This is an isolated incident. You can't just change existing rules and regulations because one lunatic." Do you agree with that?

AMADOR: I -- well first of all, I would not agree that he is a lunatic, we don't know anything yet about his mental status. And -- I think we can look at the system and see if something can be learn and what do we already know. We know that mental illnesses are common, far more common than many medical disorders that will incapacitate pilots. We know that there is a culture of stigma, and -- I just commenting earlier on, it would be onerous to have mental health evaluation as part of the bi-annual health and fitness to fly evaluation -- it would be honor. It doesn't cost that much more. The big problem is that the airlines and the FAA have to create a culture of normalcy...

LEMON: Right. SOUCIE: That mental disorder happens to all of us. Your comments earlier Don, about half my friends could not be pilots if they couldn't be an antidepressant. If I'm paraphrasing it correctly, forgive me.

LEMON: And you're right.

SOUCIE: But that - when that exist -- but when that exist, people report. All these illnesses are -- are reliant in large part on the subjective report. The willingness of the person with the illness to say, you k know what?

LEMON: OK.

SOUCIE: I'm thinking about dying...

LEMON: I need to --

SOUCIE: I'm thinking about taking people with me.

LEMON: I need to get the other ones in, that was a great answer. Jim, this is for you. This is from Ms. Gabby Sunshine (ph) who says, "Is there not a law that after something like this happens that the doctor/hospitals should say why he was there?" The privacy rules they are not moot (ph) after someone dies?

KREINDLER: No, as I understand it, in Germany, they are not moot at all. The last question brought up an interesting point though, because this event happened 15 years ago with EgtyptAir 990, where you had aberrant pilot with a history of strange behavior.

LEMON: Before you say that though, I want to say that the official record for that shows, legally, that it was a rudder problem like mechanical problem that 990. That that was -- I'm sorry, I'm getting SilkAir, that's SilkAir...

KREINDLER: Yeah.

LEMON: Sorry about that, go on.

KREINDLER: 990 was a pilot suicide and when the chief pilot was going to report that pilot for his misconduct in New York, and that pilot was going to be fired, he was so distraught he crashed the airplane. So we have that awful lesson that reminds us that in the industry. That when you observe something aberrant in one of your colleagues, the pilot. You've got to play it safe and act promptly. Now, we don't know what happened here, but, but I'll bet in the next few weeks, more information will come out...

LEMON: OK.

KREINDLER: And here you know, if FAA procedures were in effect, this might have been avoided, if there were a second person.

LEMON: All right. I know you guys want to weigh in Dr. Devi and Richard, but hold on, I'll get you in after this break. You've got to take it here as we learn more about the disaster and the hands (ph) of fate of another plane remains a mystery. Up next, we will going to talk to the husband of a woman who was on board Malaysia Airlines flight 370, when it disappeared without a trace more than a year ago.

[20:45:04] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The families of flight 9525 are just beginning to deal with their grief and shock. Joining me now is a man who knows something about what they are going through. K.S. Narendran's wife, Chandrika Sharma, was a passenger on Malaysian Airlines flight 370 and he joins us now via Skype. Just over year now, Narendran, since you lost your wife in flight 370, it's good to see you again. How are you doing?

K.S. NARENDRAN, HUSBAND OF CHANDRIKA SHARMA WHO WAS A PASSANGER OF MALAYSIA AIRLINES FLIGHT 370: Well, I am doing as well as I can, and it has been a more than a year now and it just seems like yesterday. So, some part of what has happened over the year just seems like a blur right now.

LEMON: Yeah. Yeah. You know, we know that the pilot of the Germanwings flight intentionally brought down the flight. Does it make you feel any differently about what might have happened to, to MH-370?

NARENDRAN: Well, I admit as similar to the offer giving this flight MH-370. So, in some ways, it just seems that it -- it adds some weight to that possibility for the MH-370 as well. So I must say, I think - I just for a little surprise by the level up (ph) disclosure with respect to the latest incident a little too soon on that part.

LEMON: You thought the information was came a little too fast?

NARENDRAN: A little too much, a little too fast, yes.

LEMON: Why so?

NARENDRAN: Well, it is early days yet, and I think that everybody loves to have villain to nail, but I think it's just, you know a little too early. I think the investigations barely begun, and I'm just wondering whether conclusions all have been drawn before it has even gotten started in great earnest. (ph)

[20:50:05] LEMON: So you don't think the pilot may have brought down the plane, are you suspicious of that theory?

NARENDRAN: I just think it's -- it's a possibility amongst many other possibilities which I think any investigation should consider.

LEMON: Yeah. Let's talk more about the MH-370 now, because in the interim report, found nothing wrong in the backgrounds of either the pilot or the co-pilot. Is that good enough for you?

NARENDRAN: Well, Don, I think we have spoken about this earlier. I think it seems very hard to -- actually believe anything that has been put out by -- that government. And so -- (inaudible) remains about the quality of the investigation, the extent of disclosure, and so -- while it is possible that the pilots were in the clear, doubts still linger, and one can never be sure.

LEMON: You know, none of us can imagine like you, but you can, how the families and the passengers, how they are managing to deal with this, with such a terrible disaster. What is your message to them?

NARENDRAN: I - I can only say to them that it is a very, very difficult time, and it is going to take a while before something so unfathomable, incomprehensible that they have experienced can even begin to make sense. I suppose we just have to let (ph) for dying and for the other dear ones to just be available, to be around and to offer comfort just by their company or with the thoughts and the prayers. And to just be receptive and to allow for this to enter their space in a way that is just comforting. I can't see what else one can say to them. It is a very dark and difficult time.

LEMON: But does it get better?

NARENDRAN: I hope it does get better. I can't say that it does get better too soon, but I think -- I think all human beings are very resilient. So you actually be (inaudible) get a past their experiences as well, but it is going to be take a lot of time and part of doing (ph).

LEMON: Naren, thank you.

NARENDRAN: Thank you. Thank you, Don. I -- bye bye.

LEMON: He has always been very graceful through this, and I want to bring back the panel now, because he says that everyone, Richard, loves to have a villain to nail. He thinks the information is coming out too quickly in this case.

QUEST: Yeah. They call it stop it (ph), but first of all, the leak. The prosecutor has no other alternative, other than follow one with it. The French airline pilots union is suing because of (inaudible). But on this villain --

LEMON: Standby, everyone. What do you think get to this, speaking in Seattle, Washington, Amanda Knox.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANDA KNOX, CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER: I -- I'm grateful to have my life back. Thank you. And, that's all I can say. I - right now, I'm still absorbing what all of this means, and what comes to mind is my gratitude for the life that has been given to me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the future holding for you now?

KNOX: I don't know. I'm still the absorbing the present moment which is full of joy. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much.

(CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know other than again, we are so grateful, I

mean, I know that you are all here, but we really just need time as a family to kind to digest and again, so thankful that everything is finally right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you (inaudible).

KNOX: I'm -- Meredith was my friend, and -- it's -- she deserved so much in this life. I am the lucky one, so thank you. Thank you. I thought to go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We really can't do that now. Thank you so much. Let's go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Amanda Knox and Amanda Knox's family holding a press conference there in Seattle, Washington. Of course, the news today is that, a supreme court in Italy overturned the Florence appeal court verdict of Meredith Kercher murder trial. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free now. Both are accused in that murder. The court said no ruling in Rome late Friday, so the case is now closed. You cover this on CNN International --

QUEST: I did. With CNN International, I've covered every twist and turn of this case. She was originally convicted, then it was a major investigation into the DNA which is that was contaminated on appeal, that convicted was overturned --

LEMON: Try it again.

[20:54:58] QUEST: No, before then, remember before then the Supreme Court of Italy which is the same court.

LEMON: Right.

QUEST: Always has to confirm every verdict, and they took the quashing of the conviction, sent it said nope. They said give it back, try with another trial. She went to a second trial, this time in absentia, because she is in the United States. She is convicted in that second trial, and the Supreme Court now had to decide where they going to confirm that conviction or overturn it.

LEMON: And they --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: The case is now closed.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: She is -- she's free. QUEST: It is over. She has now being acquitted. She was convicted by

the court, but the top court in Italy did not confirm that conviction. It's, it ruled against it and therefore, she is now over.

LEMON: All right. Standby, CNN -- he also covered this as well. CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin joins us now on the phone. Jeffrey, did you get a chance to listen to the press conference, she says finally. You know, and she talked about Meredith Kercher said, she deserved everything. She deserved better.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I mean, look, this is a very sad story. And it's such a long saga that -- I hope people have not sure forgotten that this four young British woman lost her life, and that was caused of all of this. And, it is of course worth remembering that there is someone in prison today convicted of killing her...

LEMON: Where you go in? (ph)

TOOBIN: Today. And the only issue has been whether Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were involved with Rudy Guede, and now the courts have concluded -- the courts has concluded that neither one of them were and their legal ordeal is over.

LEMON: She thought that it was over before. What makes this time the one that sticks? Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: Because this is highest court in Italy, there are, there are no further avenues for appeal. I mean, there is a different system in Italy where the appeals process involved essentially new trials. That is why each appeal in Italy is so different, because each court was considering new evidence. But this court is the end of the line. There is no possibility that this case will be brought back to the life. The legal proceedings in Italy against her and Raffaele are now over once and for all.

LEMON: Is it -- is it similar to -- a very good question for someone here in the panel. David Soucie is asking as you were speaking. Is it similar at all to American system where this is the criminal proceedings? Can the family now bring a several proceedings? Civil suit? And can the family now bring a civil suit?

TOOBIN: You know Don, I'm going to say three words you are never allowed to say on cable news, I don't know. I mean, I just don't know what the civil lawsuit options are in Italy.

LEMON: In Italy, right. Because it is not the same --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: That is a very honest answer...

TOOBIN: Yeah.

LEMON: You don't practice in Italy, so why would you. And Paul Callan is on the phone as well, CNN legal analyst. Paul, the press conference, the news conference is wrapping up, just a short time to go in Seattle. We carried here live and I am not sure if you got to see it. But, she is glad that this all over with.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: As I'm sure she must be, this thing has been, of course haunting her life for so many years and she was sent in a lot of time in prison. So it must, it must be one more wonderful night for Amanda Knox.

LEMON: This has been going on how long? Richard?

QUEST: Or there not 2009, there five, six, seven - six year...

LEMON: Yeah.

QUEST: And that she have this and it was various legal since the -- when she first in Italy, and really it all came down to the DNA evidence. That the investigation absolutely bungled the way they took it, the way they contaminated it, the small amount of evidence that the walls, and the knife, remember it was on the knife that they were talking about. So the entire case hinged effectively on this DNA evidence, which was the -- it was people like former FBI agents here in the United States that came in, and basically said, this has been a bad job. And it was that, that got her back into court for the original overturn of the conviction.

LEMON: It is very surprising to Jeffrey and Paul, either one of you can answer this with, we have lots a number of interviews with her, and we have seen a young woman really carry herself very well throughout this entire process. I'm not sure if somebody who is older and more mature could handle themselves that elegantly.

[20:59:29] CALLAN: Well, you know, it is interesting because with you say that Don, because, I think that it was Amanda Knox's immaturity that probably got her into this situation in the first place. If you will remember that, one of the things I think that really hurt her at her initial trial was, the evidence concerning the way she reacted to the death of her roommate. And, it seemed by many to be entirely inappropriate and suggestive of the conscious of guilt. She also of course, confessed, sort of confessed in accusing this individual Lumumba as it having been the actual killer, which suggested that she was there and have the knowledge of the crime and the -- once again, that may have been a factor relating to her immaturity. So she has grown tremendously, being in prison for four years, and I think, experiencing the horror of wondering whether she'd be going to prison eventually. And I think she has matured and this is what has helped her with the court, the Italian court, in the end.

LEMON: Thank you, Paul, thank you everyone for helping out with this. It started out in 2007 in an apartment in Italy. There was a 21-year- old British student, Meredith Kercher, her throat was slashed. They found her dead, and they accused Amanda Knox and her boyfriend of it. Now the highest court in Italy saying that she is out of the water now -- they overturned her murder conviction.

We will continue to follow that, as well as the details of Flight 9525. Make sure you stay with CNN. "AC360" starts right now.