Category Archives: All posts

Objective consideration of the results of the investigation

That Andreas Lubitz caused the crash of the Germanwings plane on 24 March 2015 in the French Alps on the flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf is found in many news reports and is based upon the following allegations by the investigating bodies:

  • He had locked the cockpit door after the captain left the cockpit.
  • He would have been depressed and on sick leave on 24 March 2015.
  • He had searched an iPad for ways to commit suicide and researched cockpit access codes.
  • He had deliberately initiated the final descent of the Germanwings plane.

The attempt to verify these allegations are based on the more than 21,000 pages of investigation files of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor and the Marseille public prosecutor’s office as well as the BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile) final report of the accident investigation.

 

The cockpit door that cannot be opened

In various reports on the Germanwings crash, it was said that the co-pilot had locked the cockpit door to lock out his colleague. In the BEA final report, German version, it is noted on page 38(1) that at the time of the pilot’s return the buzzer signal and another noise were recorded on the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder). However, the BEA final report clearly states that this other noise is not compatible with pilot manipulation of the cockpit door locking system. The BEA thus disproved that the pilot in the cockpit could have intentionally locked the door. The BEA goes on to make the statement in its final report that the pilot “did not open the cockpit door and thus prevented other persons from accessing the cockpit”(2).

The question arises, why did the pilot not open the cockpit door? In this context, page HA 04310 of the investigation file of the Germanwings crash documents demonstrates what the result of the CVR recording revealed with regard to the condition of the co-pilot present in the cockpit(3).

“Listening to the various recording channels revealed that breathing could be heard through the mouth microphones, which meant that he was alive, although it was not possible to prove whether he was also conscious.”

In his expert report on the Germanwings crash the author, journalist and aviation expert Tim van Beveren comes to the conclusion that the pilot was incapable of acting or was unconscious in the cockpit(4). In this case, however, the cockpit door can be opened by entering on the keypad a three-digit emergency code which every crew member knows. There were indications from Germanwings employees that the keypad of the aircraft involved in the accident had a defect that made it impossible to successfully enter the emergency code, and thus the cockpit door could not be opened despite any attempt to enter the code(5).

It should be noted that four microphones are recorded on the four tracks of the CVR. Each pilot has his own microphone attached to the headset. There is an area microphone, which picks up sounds and noises from the entire cockpit. And on the jumpseat (seat for an additional crew member) is another headset with microphone.
According to investigation file HA 05266, the allocation of tracks of the co-pilot and captain by officers of the Air Traffic Gendarmerie SRTA Paris Charles De Gaulle was as follows:

• “Track 1 corresponds to a high-quality recording of the last 30 minutes of the co-pilot’s headset.
• Track 2 corresponds to a high-quality recording of the last 30 minutes of the flight captain’s headset.”(6)

Accordingly, the investigation assigned track 1 to the co-pilot and track 2 to the captain. However, this clearly contradicts the Airbus manual, the Flight Crew Operating Manual and the Airbus wiring diagrams of the crashed Germanwings aircraft D-AIPX. This original Airbus wiring diagram clearly shows that

• the CVR track 1 is assigned to the captain and not to the co-pilot, and
• the CVR track 2 is assigned to the co-pilot and not to the captain.

This raises the question of who actually remained in the cockpit, the co-pilot or the captain? Voice identification with the captain’s wife and the co-pilot’s parents to clarify this discrepancy was never carried out.

The conclusion is that the co-pilot or captain did not manually activate the “lock function” for the cockpit door. He was incapacitated or unconscious in the cockpit. However, the captain or co-pilot was also unable to open the cockpit door by entering the emergency code because the keypad had a defect.

 

Was Andreas Lubitz depressed and on sick leave on March 24, 2015?

In December 2014, Andreas Lubitz noticed problems with his eyes and consulted various doctors. In keeping with his character, he not only sought the help of a doctor but always sought at least a second medical opinion.
His family doctor, who could not initially determine a cause, referred him to various eye specialists, but no eye disease could be found. The family doctor, therefore, developed the theory that it could be a psychosomatic illness and referred Andreas Lubitz to appropriate specialists, such as psychiatrists and psychologists. The psychiatrist who treated Andreas Lubitz for his depressive episode in 2008 and 2009 issued a specialist medical certificate on 29 January 2015, see page HA 10309(7) of the investigation file. It explicitly states:

“The patient named above appears to be completely healthy from a psychiatric point of view. There is no indication of a psychiatric disease. Regarding illness, Mr. Lubitz does not have a higher risk than the average population.”

However, the family doctor maintained her suspected diagnosis of a psychosomatic cause and wrote Andreas Lubitz off sick from 22.2.2015 to 24.2.2015 due to sleep and visual disturbances and finally initiated an appropriate examination and treatment in the direction of psychosis on 10.3.2015. For the periods of taking medication, Andreas Lubitz had a corresponding certificate of incapacity to work, which he also presented to his employer.

The family doctor issued a certificate of incapacity for work from 12.3.2015 to 30.3.2015 on 12.3.2015. By 18.3.2015, however, the situation had not improved. The family doctor was on vacation and so Andreas Lubitz went to the practice of the substitute doctor. This substitute doctor ended the erroneous treatment in the direction of psychosomatic illness, phased out the medication and wrote Andreas Lubitz off sick for this phasing-out period from 18.3.2015 to 22.3.2015. The amended certificate of incapacity for work was dutifully handed over to the employer, Germanwings, on 18 March 2015, see HA 10594(8), certificate of incapacity for work for submission to the employer. The certificate of incapacity for work also bears the receipt stamp of Germanwings. A copy of the old certificate of incapacity to work until 30 March 2015, issued by the family doctor, was found torn up in Andreas Lubitz’s flat, see HA 09570(9), as it was now obsolete and was only intended to be presented to the health insurance company and not to the employer.

However, in the press conference of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office on 27 March 2015, public prosecutor Dr. Kumpa presented these investigation results as if Andreas Lubitz had not presented the certificate of incapacity for work to his employer but had destroyed it in order to conceal his illness. According to public prosecutor Dr. Kumpa, the torn certificate of incapacity for work found during the house search of the Düsseldorf flat was proof of this.

The bottom line, however, is that Andreas Lubitz did not hide his illness from his employer. This is clear from the documentation of the certificates of incapacity for work that had been duly submitted. Andreas Lubitz was last thoroughly examined by a general practitioner as late as 18.03.2015 and was given written sick leave up to and including 22.03.2015. Previously issued certificates for a longer period of time were thus obsolete. In addition, as a psychiatrist testified, Andreas Lubitz was neither suicidal nor suffering from any form of psychiatric illness.

 

The iPad search

In the press conferences held by the prosecutor of Düsseldorf, Dr. Kumpa, he mentioned that an iPad had been found with which Andreas Lubitz had searched for ways to commit suicide, medication information and also cockpit code access. However, the investigation file with its more than 21,000 pages refutes this statement by Dr. Kumpa.

According to the search and seizure protocol, see HA 09578(10), an iPad was seized during the search of Andreas Lubitz’s flat in Düsseldorf on 26 March 2015. In a file note, supplement to the police search on 26.03.2015, see HA 09581(11), it is stated that by mistake in the seizure report the number of iPads found and seized was listed as one (1). It is confirmed that the actual number of iPads was two (2). However, the criminal investigation department, which examined both iPads, found nothing “relevant to the proceedings” (HA 08916(12), HA 08910(13)), so both iPads were inconspicuous. One of the iPads belonged to Andreas Lubitz and the other to his partner.

According to HA 09803(14), Andreas Lubitz’s partner handed over another tablet or iPad to the Düsseldorf criminal investigation department after being questioned as a witness on 26 March 2015. Thus, there were now three iPads among the evidence at the Düsseldorf criminal investigation department. On this third iPad the Düsseldorf criminal investigation department found search terms such as “suicide”, “buy cyanide”, “chloroquine suicide” after reviewing the internet history on 18/19.03.2015, and that on 20.03.2015, among others, the keywords “code cockpit door” were searched for, see HA 08923(15).

According to the interrogation protocol, however, the criminal police did not question the partner about why the iPad was not found during the search of the joint flat; where it was at that time; where it was during the entire time in question when the search and seizures were carried out; and who had used it. The fact that the third iPad was not found during the search of the flat and was only handed over later by his partner makes it clear that the device was apparently not under the control of Andreas Lubitz nor had it been in his flat. Why was it not determined where the device was during the period in question? Who had the device from when to when? According to the investigation file, there is no evidence of an investigation.

Could it be that the search for the cockpit door access code was carried out by another person, inspired by a TV report on the current use of cockpit access codes (as also noted by the Criminal Investigation Department in the printout of the web searches on page HA 08930(16): “Report shows code for cockpit door on TV”)? Why should Andreas Lubitz look for cockpit door access code information on the internet, as he was certainly informed of it by his airline and therefore knew it anyway? Even if the two iPads directly seized during the home search did not have any contents relevant to the proceedings, the history of the use of these devices would be of crucial importance. If, for example, the iPad had been used by Andres Lubitz at the times when the third iPad, which was handed over later, was also used, then it would be ultimately clear that the third iPad was not used by Andreas Lubitz and that the online searches apparently incriminating him could not have been credited.

However, all these open questions were not comprehensively investigated and must therefore be considered unresolved. How can it be that the criminal investigation department as well as the public prosecutor’s office did not question the partner either on 26.3.2015 or later on the use and the user of the third iPad? Why was it not precisely clarified whether this iPad had been accessible to Andreas Lubitz at all? Why doesn’t the investigation file explicitly state where it was actually located between 3/16/2015 and 3/26/2015 and who was using it? Why does the investigation file not explicitly state when the other two iPads were used?

So how could the investigation simply arbitrarily assign this web history to Andreas Lubitz without having explored and verified the context of these searches? The criminal police and the public prosecutor’s office seem to have jumped to the conclusion, without any factual basis, that Andreas Lubitz would have operated the iPad during that time and carried out these searches without even remotely considering, checking and ruling out other possibilities.

The bottom line is that the conclusions of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office are devoid of any factual basis, i.e. they are pure conjecture and therefore completely worthless for evidentiary proceedings.

 

Who initiated the last descent of the D-AIPX?

In the BEA final report, German version of 13 March 2016, it is documented on page 13: “At 09:30:53 (point 4), the set altitude on the FCU (Flight Control Unit) changed from 38,000 ft to 100 ft within one second. This is the minimum value that can be set on the A320.”(17) It is assumed that the co-pilot caused the change in altitude by interfering with the FCU. To verify this, the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder protocol will be used. On the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder log, page HA 05280(18), at 09:30:53, there is no documented noise indicating an adjustment of the flight level at the aircraft controls. Thus, it is not documented that the co-pilot set the altitude at 100 feet. The reduction in altitude within one second from 38,000 ft to 100 ft at 09:30:53 must therefore have been implemented by the Flight Management System without manual intervention by a pilot. This phenomenon has already occurred several times before and after the Germanwings crash.

Extensively documented is an incident at the Australian airline Quantas, flight 72, on 7 October 2008. An Airbus A330, whose control interfaces are identical to the crashed Germanwings Airbus, was on a flight over the Indian Ocean to Perth, Western Australia. Suddenly and without warning it descended twice. In this incident 119 of the 315 passengers and crew on board were injured, 12 of them seriously, see Australian Transport Safety Bureau report “In-flight upset 154 km west of Learmonth, WA 7 October 2008 VH-QPAAirbus A330-303″(19)

As the Australian Transport Safety Bureau stated in its investigation, it is highly likely that defective data packets were sent via the data bus to the fly-by-wire electronic aircraft control system. This triggered the stall protection and the Airbus was sent without warning into descent by the Flight Management System. The three pilots on board were able to intervene and the aircraft continued the flight.

Another documented incident occurred on 19 March 2017. “On Mar 19th 2017 a Germanwings A319 enroute began an uncommanded descent two times.”(20)

The Germanwings Airbus A319-100 D-AGWG, equipped with the same flight control systems as the crashed Germanwings Airbus, twice went into a descent after several unexplained mode changes not initiated by the pilots. The intervention of the crew prevented the aircraft from descending further. These incidents demonstrate that Airbus aircraft can descend uncontrollably without warning and without human intervention in the aircraft controls. Disasters could only be prevented by the skilled intervention of pilots.

The conclusion is that it is highly probable that this phenomenon of uncontrolled descent also occurred on Germanwings flight 9525. Tragically, the pilot remaining in the cockpit was unable to act and the other pilot was unable to open the cockpit door to intervene. As a result, the Germanwings Airbus crashed in the French Alps.

Conclusion

If one analyses the four so-called facts, they do not stand up to factual scrutiny. This shows how superficially and inaccurately the investigations were conducted and how clear indications in another direction were overlooked or ignored with preconceived opinion.

L. G.

 

References

(1) Excerpt from page 38, BEA Final Report, German version of 13 March 2016
https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/BEA2015-0125.de-LR_04.pdf
(2) Excerpt from page 122, BEA Final Report, German version of 13 March 2016
https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/BEA2015-0125.de-LR_04.pdf
(3) Excerpt from page HA 04310 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(4) Excerpt from page 109, expert report of the crash of Germanwings flight 4U9525, Tim van Beveren
https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gutachten-zum-Germanwings-Absturz-4U9525-S-61-120.pdf
(5) Excerpt from page 98, expert report of the crash of Germanwings flight 4U9525, Tim van Beveren
https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gutachten-zum-Germanwings-Absturz-4U9525-S-61-120.pdf
(6) Excerpt from page HA 05266 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(7) Excerpt from page HA 10309 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(8) Excerpt from page HA 10594 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(9) Excerpt from page HA 09570 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(10) Excerpt from page HA 09578 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(11) Excerpt from page HA 09581 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(12) Excerpt from page HA 08916 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(13) Excerpt from page HA 08910 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(14) Excerpt from page HA 09803 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(15) Excerpt from page HA 08923 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(16) Excerpt from page HA 08930 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(17) Excerpt from page 13, BEA Final Report, German version of 13 March 2016
https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/BEA2015-0125.de-LR_04.pdf
(18) Excerpt from page HA 05280 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office
(19) http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3532398/ao2008070.pdf
(20) https://avherald.com/h?article=4aad6354&opt=0

 

References_Objective consideration of the results of the investigation

 

further posts:

What conclusions do the investigation results allow so far?

What conclusions do the investigation results allow so far?

Experience has shown that aircraft accident investigations take several years. In case of the Germanwings airplane crash in the French Alps the investigating prosecutor Brice Robin announced after only two days: The copilot deliberately crashed the aircraft. When the captain left the cockpit, the copilot initiated a descent. The copilot did not allow the captain to reenter the cockpit. Prior to these announcements there had been a first listening of the cockpit voice recorder by the French gendarmerie. However, to prove beyond doubt who, in fact, was in the cockpit a voice identification should have been carried out. In order to confirm the identity of the speakers the cockpit voice recorder data should have been played to the copilot’s parents and the captain’s wife. However, this was not done. Instead, it was assumed that the “strong” voice belonged to the captain and the “weak” voice was that of the copilot.

Therefore, it was presumed that it was the copilot who had locked out the captain.
Thus, intentional actions by the copilot were assumed. In reference to the pilot remaining in the cockpit, on page HA 04310 of the investigation report it is documented:

“Listening to the various recording channels revealed that breathing could be detected from a headset microphone, which means that he was alive, although there was no evidence that he was conscious.”

This means that there is no evidence of conscious or even deliberate actions, only that the recorded breathing showed that he was alive.

It was also assumed that the pilot remaining in the cockpit consciously and intentionally initiated the descent. However, the recordings do not reveal any sounds up to the moment of impact that would indicate a pilot’s active manipulations of the aircraft controls.

Various press articles reported that the copilot suffered from depression in 2015.
On page HA 10309 of the investigation file there is a medical certificate from January 29, 2015 – less than two months before the crash – in which the following is certified by a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy (see screenshot):

“The patient named above appears to be completely healthy from a psychiatric point of view. There is no indication of a psychiatric disease.
Regarding illness, Mr. Lubitz does not have a higher risk than the average population.”

By the constant repetitions of unsubstantiated allegations, large parts of the public have been convinced of the copilot’s guilt and his responsibility for the crash of the Germanwings aircraft. However, this is not reflected in the facts of the accessible investigation reports.

L.G.

further posts:

The cockpit door that cannot be opened

The cockpit door that cannot be opened

Missing evidence of the cockpit door not opening

It has been described not only in various reports on the Germanwings crash that a pilot had locked the cockpit door in order to lock out a colleague, but also in the official final report of the French investigation authority BEA. But has this ever been proven?

What was the cause of BEA’s final report on the cockpit door that cannot be opened? The following findings were documented there. On page 108/110, Appendix 3, letter from the BFU (German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation), the following statement is made regarding the actions of the pilot in the cockpit:

“did not unlock the cockpit door and therefore prevented access by other persons.”

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/BEA2015-0125.en-LR.pdf

In this context, the question arises as to why the cockpit door was not opened. Because the pilot who remained in the cockpit didn’t want to let his colleague in? In the investigation file of the Germanwings crash, comprising more than 10,000 pages, the result of listening to the cockpit voice recorder related to the pilot is documented on page HA 04310:

“Listening to the different recording channels revealed that breathing was heard through the mouth microphones, which means that he was alive, but there was no evidence that he was conscious.”

That is, there was no evidence of conscious or deliberate action, just the assumption that he was alive because he was breathing.

The journalist and flight expert Mr. van Beveren investigated this issue in an expert report and addresses it on page 109.

https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gutachten-zum-Germanwings-Absturz-4U9525-S-61-120.pdf

He used the cockpit voice recorder transcript to examine the pilot’s breathing after the cockpit door was locked. His finding: Within the next 20 seconds, the pilot’s breathing suddenly accelerates to hyperventilation. As musicians and air passengers, as well as cabin crew, know from experience, this can lead to unconsciousness in a very short time. The breathing then remains stable in this state of tachypnea. Tachypnea – rapid breathing – is the body’s desire for more oxygen and therefore causes an increased breathing rate. Experts speak of “acute” tachypnea if a person takes more than 20 breaths per minute.

The pilot’s breathing rate was 26 breaths per minute and remained constant over the entire period, even at times when, according to BEA’s theory, the pilot activated the autopilot with extremely brisk movements and with appropriate physical exertion. Physicians argue that even in a state of psychosis the unconscious reactions of the autonomic nervous system are preserved and do not cease. They conclude from this that the person was not in a state of psychosis, but in a state of incapacity or loss of consciousness.

It should also be noted that there are no further noise recordings up to the aircraft impact, which indicates that there was no active intervention by the pilot in controlling the aircraft control.

It is not evident from the investigation file that this fact of increased respiratory rate has been officially investigated by medical and psychological experts. So the question remains: Was the person remaining in the cockpit indeed conscious during the final 10 minutes of the flight? If not, this would be another possible explanation for why he didn’t open the cockpit door. This should have been investigated as part of a full inquiry!

In an emergency, the cockpit door can be opened using a special three-digit code. This emergency code, exclusive to the respective airline, is known to all crew members and is entered into a keypad. The question arises: Why could the other pilot not open the cockpit door with the emergency code? Mr. van Beveren examined this question in his report.

https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gutachten-zum-Germanwings-Absturz-4U9525-S-61-120.pdf

He writes on page 98: “It was not discussed whether an investigation as to whether the keypad of the cockpit door on the day of the accident flight (or at any time in the past) had a defect. However, in the opinion of van Beveren, this is of fundamental importance, because shortly after the accident there were indications from Germanwings circles that this keypad had previously malfunctioned when trying to open the accidentally closed cockpit door while the aircraft was on the ground by entering the emergency code.”

Hence, the final question: Has the true state of consciousness of the pilot in the cockpit and the perfect functioning of the keypad really been determined?

L.G.

further posts:

What can we expect on the fifth anniversary?

What can we expect on the fifth anniversary?

Will new insights find their way into media coverage?

The fifth anniversary of the tragic and life-altering event of 24 March 2015 is coming up soon. It can be assumed that the media will publish reports regarding the catastrophe and the circumstances around it. The numerous reports of the past five years have nearly always included the following two key messages:

1. The co-pilot intentionally locked the cockpit door.
2. The co-pilot was depressed at the time of the crash.

However, over these intervening five years these statements have become untenable. As our readers know, we have indicated this in various articles on this website and provided the corresponding evidence.

Regarding point 1 above, it has not been proven that the co-pilot deliberately locked the cockpit door. For unknown reasons, the door was not opened (see link below).

https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2018/08/ “The deliberate lockout of the captain from the cockpit”

Regarding point 2, according to the investigative findings of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor the co-pilot did not suffer from depression at the time of the crash (see link below).

https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2019/01/ ” Current developments – Renewed lawsuit by families’ lawyer”

The statement by the renowned journalist and author Ulrich Wickert is absolutely remarkable:
“80 percent of the reports on the 27-year-old have been proven to be false” (see link below).

https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2019/02/

Nonetheless, the press representatives have repeated these unsubstantiated claims in their reports like a prayer wheel, without incorporating new and contradictory information. We can infer that behind these repeated falsehoods there lies the clear intention to sustain the publicized image of “The Depressed Co-pilot Who Locked the Cockpit Door.” If journalists were to investigate the cumulative findings and incorporate them into their reports, they then would necessarily have to address the question: Could the cause of the crash have been different?

Doubts about the official version were raised in December 2019, when reports were released that the victims’ cell phones were returned to the families but with audio and video data deleted.

Further questions immediately arise: “Is there something to hide? And if so, what?”

Let us hope that on the fifth anniversary journalists will educate themselves with the current available information and move from the established storyline to a degree of enlightenment, which will lead to the objective reporting we expect from responsible media. A “No Comment” response from authorities does not entitle them to maintain the established storyline unrestrictedly and uncritically.

L.U.

further post:

Christmas peace 2019?

Christmas peace 2019?

In an interview, a victim’s relatives comment on the deleted cell phone data

A few days before Christmas, the largest German tabloid did not shy away from reporting again on the Germanwings crash on March 24, 2015. A victim’s family from the former East Germany, who had lost their adult son in the crash, was ready to comment on the subject of “deleted cell phone data,” and offered the son’s cell phone, found at the crash site, available for examination. The NAND memory – on which all the data of a mobile phone, such as SMS histories, photos, videos, and phone records are located – was removed from the device and deleted, as confirmed by an IT expert. The tabloid report raised the question of who had manipulated the cell phone (as well as those of the other crash victims) – and why.

The British crisis agency Kenyon was commissioned by Lufthansa to hand over the cell phones to the relatives after they had previously received the devices from the French investigation authorities. In other words, the phones first went to French authorities, then to Kenyon, and only then to victims’ relatives. To be thorough, the tabloid requested an explanation from the French investigative authorities regarding the deletion of the phone memories, but the request remains unanswered.

In an attempt at an explanation, victim lawyer Elmar Giemulla speculated that the recorded events of the final moments on board might have been too disturbing for the bereaved families. He must therefore be assuming that photo or video recordings by passengers indeed existed.

Well, the fact is that the relatives have not been spared in any way. The Marseille public prosecutor’s office invited victims and their lawyers to Paris on June 11, 2015. There they were shown a simulation from the pilot’s cockpit perspective to the point of impact. This simulation is said to have been accompanied by the original audio recordings from the cockpit voice recorder. According to media reports, the demonstration was so shocking for the relatives that about one in four of the around 200 people left the room.

It is interesting to contrast the simulation scenario with the aforementioned explanation about shielding the families from shocking cell phone images.

In this context, it must be mentioned that the French authorities have never provided the original data or copies from the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder to either the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU) or the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office. Several inquiries from the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office to the French investigative authorities regarding the release of the cockpit voice recorder have remained unanswered each time.

We must twice ask the question: “Why?”

First: Why was the cell phone data irretrievably deleted?

Second: Why have the German investigation authorities never received the original recordings from the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder?

Deleted cell phone data and missing original recordings – Why?

L.U.

 

further post:

How aware were the passengers on Germanwings flight 4U9525 of the impending crash?

How aware were the passengers on Germanwings flight 4U9525 of the impending crash?

Our reaction to the most recent press reports about the Essen lawsuit for higher pain and suffering compensation

Whether the letters from Lufthansa were a statement to the Essen district court or to the plaintiff survivors eludes our knowledge. The fact is that on 12 and 13 August 2019 there were extensive press releases by the leading media on this topic. The letter from Lufthansa suggests that the passengers were not aware of the eventual crash and thus would not have experienced any fear of dying. Instead, they claim that the passengers would have experienced the event as a normal descent.

Would Lufthansa have us believe that during the captain’s alleged absence from the cockpit he would have interpreted such a descent in same way? After all, this absence took five minutes until the first six knocking sounds recorded by the cockpit voice recorder (from 09.30 to 09.35, according to the BEA report).

It is not proven and so is only assumed that the captain had gone the toilet, and it is also not proven that it was he who knocked on the cockpit door (it might well have been a flight attendant), since there are no video recordings from in front of the cockpit door.

Or maybe?

Another scenario: The Germanwings aircraft had no visual barrier (i.e., a curtain) blocking the view of the area immediately in front of the cockpit door. Thus, passengers would have easily witnessed what was occurring at the cockpit door. Then one would suspect that at least some passengers would have made pictures or videos of the events with mobile phones or cameras. In this case, there would be documented evidence of what was happening in the aircraft and, combined with the descent, passengers would likely have guessed and feared an impending crash and their deaths.

According to the information provided by victims’ lawyers, these devices were returned to the relatives with all images deleted, thus removing possibly critical evidence …

Now, in the autumn of 2019, a hearing will be held before the district court of Essen concerning the claims for compensation of the survivors. The payment amount should be based on the suffering of the passengers in the last few minutes before the fatal crash of the Germanwings aircraft.

In order to reach a fair judgment, the judges of the district court of Essen would actually have to demand and review the cockpit voice recorder as necessary evidence, but even more vital would be the images and video recordings from the mobile devices and cameras, provided they are available from the investigating authorities.

Pain and suffering compensation – an elastic term. Does money cure pain at all?

What role does the amount play?…

L.U.

 

further posts:

With regard to the Frontal 21 television report on 18 June 2019

With regard to the Frontal 21 television report on 18 June 2019

Between claims and reality

A Frontal 21 television report on 18 June reported on the Germanwings crash. According to its own statement, Frontal 21 claims to uncover grievances, stimulate discussions and “get to the bottom of” certain topics. But the broadcast on Germanwings demonstrated precisely the opposite: The themes were poorly researched and many statements wrong, as the examples below show.

Cockpit door locked from the inside https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2018/08/

In the broadcast the following statement is made: “Andreas Lubitz sat alone for several minutes in the cockpit, had locked the door from the inside, locking out the flight captain”.

As we have already shown in our August 2018 article (see above link), it is verifiably established that the cockpit door was not locked from inside. It is noteworthy, however, that despite having the emergency access code crew members could not open the cockpit door. If for some reason the door is not manually unlocked from the inside, the cockpit can be opened by entering the correct code on the keypad. Mr van Beveren, who prepared an expert report on the Germanwings crash (on our behalf), had learned that shortly after the accident, hints from Germanwings insiders indicated that this keypad had already malfunctioned in an earlier incident: On the ground, the cockpit door was accidentally shut and automatically locked but could not be opened using the keypad. This is an important clue that you, Frontal 21, should have investigated.

Depression https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2019/01/

Also, the programme says: “At first glance, Andreas Lubitz appears sporty and fit, but suffered from depression and sleep and anxiety disorders”. At the time of the crash Andreas did not suffer from depression, as prosecutor Kumpa concluded (see above link).

The closing note of the Düsseldorf prosecutor states: “On the one hand, according to the results of the investigation, there are no indications that Andreas Lubitz was mentally ill when he was hired as a flight attendant and later as a pilot at Germanwings.” And further, it was determined: “None of the treating physicians in 2014/2015 — be they psychiatric specialists or other doctors – diagnosed depression with Andreas Lubitz at that time. In addition, no physician or therapist detected suicidal thoughts or were any reported by the patient. There was also no evidence of atypical aggressive behavior.”

Andreas Lubitz did not suffer from depression at the time of the crash.

Indeed, Andreas was treated from November 2008 to April 2009 for depression, seven years before the crash, and had reported this to his employer (i.e., Lufthansa). After recovering in 2009, he was invited by the flight school to continue his training, and completed it successfully. In all broadcasts so far the question is always raised about how someone with such an illness could be allowed into the cockpit. Unsurprisingly, it is brought up again by a family member in the Frontal 21 programme.

It should be said once again that Andreas had completely recovered in 2009, otherwise he would not have been able to start his training again. And let us add that as parents we would not have allowed our child to continue flying and perhaps sacrifice him as a consequence.

We have tried to explain the possible cause of his eye problem 2014/2015 in an article from October 2017 (see link above). https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2017/10/

As it can directly affect every passenger, should not the civil aviation topic described there be given more public attention?

Final remarks

The Frontal 21 broadcast talks about so-called “inevitable consequences”.

It is stated that the four-eyes principle (i.e., always at least two people in the cockpit) was introduced in 2015, but as the policy went almost completely unnoticed by the flying public it was abolished two years later. Furthermore, in their final report the French investigators demand clear rules for doctors as to whether and when it is necessary to overrule “physician/patient confidentiality” without them having to fear legal consequences. Lawyer Ulrich von Jeinsen, who represents relatives, criticizes the fact that this has not happened so far. Obviously, the responsible authorities do not see any need for action and consider such new measures (also demanded by the relatives) to be unproductive. Well, perhaps a suitable measure would be to search again elsewhere for the real reasons for the crash.

All in all, this contribution by Frontal 21 was poorly researched, just a renewed rewarming of previously communicated content, and thus completely superfluous.

L.U.

further posts:

Comprehensive investigations of the crash cause?

Comprehensive investigations of the crash cause?

How quickly could the cause of the crash truly be determined?

On March 24 2015 a 24-year-old Germanwings Airbus A320-200, registration D-AIPX, crashed in the French Alps during the scheduled flight from Barcelona to Duesseldorf with 150 people on board. The “official” time data places the crash at 10:41. All 150 people were killed and the plane was completely destroyed.

Action forces from various French authorities and organisations were brought to the crash site the same day and began recovering human remains and searching for the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR). In the early evening of March 24 2015 the cockpit voice recorder was found and recovered. The following day, March 25, the cockpit voice recorder was transported to Paris for evaluation and was downloaded and replayed for the first time. In contrast, the flight data recorder was only found nine days after the crash, on April 2, and was evaluated over the subsequent weeks. Up to this point these were the officially communicated facts.

Aircraft accident investigations are an extremely complex process and meticulously investigated for all possible causes of crashes. For this purpose, expert teams extensively and intensively examine the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, among many other factors. Through a process of elimination the probable cause is eventually identified, but then verified with further focussed investigations. Only then will the cause of the crash be communicated by the investigating authority. Experience with all previous civil aviation crashes tells us that this process requires several months, if not years.

Two days after the crash, on March 26, after only a necessarily superficial evaluation of the cockpit voice recorder and no flight data recorder, the French prosecutor, Brice Robin, announced that he assumed that Andreas Lubitz had started a controlled descent about two minutes after reaching the cruising altitude and had caused the plane to crash.The captain, according to investigators’ claims, had previously left the cockpit. Therefore, Robin concluded, it is most likely that Lubitz intentionally flown the plane into the mountain to destroy it. This statement was made after a first superficial evaluation of the voice recorder and withoutthe flight data recorder, which should have precluded such a conclusion.

Question: Why would Robin do this?

In the following months, further investigations were carried out in France and Germany. In retrospect, however, the conclusions arrived at by these investigations appear to be biased in favour of the initial pronouncement and were supported by added assertions.

The question remains unanswered: Were all possible crash scenarios exhaustively examined and could alternative causes really be 100% excluded?

L. U.

 

further posts:

The commercial exploitation of human suffering

The commercial exploitation of human suffering

Tanja May’s emotional marketing of suffering

The crash of the Germanwings plane on March 24, 2015 in the French Alps has brought unspeakable suffering to many families. This stroke of fate was and remains hard to bear for all involved. This often pushes people to their psychological limits, and for many people it raises the question of the meaning of life.

Unfortunately, two professions manipulate this grief for financial gain: journalists and victims’ lawyers. Among them there are special representatives who, even years after the tragic event, attempt to continue profiting from it. In previous articles we have already reported on the “usefulness” of the legal actions of a certain victims’ lawyer.

For the fourth anniversary of the Germanwings crash, Tanja May recently published an article in BUNTE magazine, which, of course, followed a proven formula.

To be clear, this article was never about reporting any latest developments or news, but rather it was only for the purpose of selling emotions, and magazines, to people. Of course, this is Tanja May’s job, and it is typical of what we have come to expect from BUNTE. Truthfulness plays only a minor role, and it does not matter whether anyone’s feelings are offended or if some are exposed to personal risk.

Tanja May has ignored existing legislation by publishing a voyeuristic photo because it helps make her story more graphic, thus encouraging an emotional response. Within her text she repeatedly employs several keywords meant to trigger an emotional reaction in the reader: grief, tears, anger, horror, heart, soul, unimaginable event, conspiracy theories, etc. And a photo of a suffering relative gives a face to the story. The reader learns nothing new from the article. But for one exception: that there is a website for Andreas. It is interesting that Ms May makes note of this in her article, but dismisses the website as nothing more than “dubious expert reports and conspiracy theories”.

In fact, our website’s many articles offer quite interesting facts with supporting evidence and documentation, about which she could have reported. Instead, she perpetuates the established image “carved in stone” and maintains without question the “official crash scenario”, cynically disregarding the burden on our family. Yes, the article has hurt us again, but the wounds do not bleed so much as in previous years.

L.U.

 

further posts:

„80 percent of the reports on the 27-year-old have been proven to be false“ (1)

“80 percent of the reports on the 27-year-old have been proven to be false” (1)

A striking statement by Ulrich Wickert on the press coverage of Andreas Lubitz

That 80 percent of the reporting concerning the 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz has been proven to be wrong is not a statement by the Lubitz family, but by Ulrich Wickert, one of the most renowned and most competent journalists in Germany. At a speech in Dillingen he warned that the publishing of rumors for the purpose of entertainment has nothing to do with the proper obligations of the press. He also said: “Given the fast pace and tough competition, many media often do not take the time to verify the truth of the information”.(1)

The following reports, which were continuously repeated by the press, are clear examples of false stories about Andreas Lubitz. It has been said countless times that he had locked the captain out of the cockpit. This is demonstrably wrong. Based on the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder protocol this was proven to be false. See the contribution under:

https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2018/08/17/the-deliberate-lockout-of-the-captain-from-the-cockpit/

Furthermore, countless press reports have claimed that Andreas Lubitz suffered from depression in 2014/2015. In a press conference in March 2017 Günter Lubitz(2) explicitly pointed out what the Düsseldorf prosecutor Kumpa confirmed in his final statement of December 2016:

“None of the treating physicians in 2014/2015 — be they psychiatric specialists or other doctors – diagnosed depression with Andreas Lubitz at that time. In addition, no physician or therapist detected suicidal thoughts or were any reported by the patient. There was also no evidence of atypical aggressive behavior.”

Nevertheless, the press did not acknowledge this statement from the Lubitz press conference and continued to report falsely about the depressive copilot. We acknowledge how, given the fast pace of our times, many media often do not take the time to review and then update the truth of their content, which would introduce fresh insights that could lead to alternative  viewpoints and, consequently, raise new questions.

A prime example of cumulative journalistic incompetence, coupled with a culture of dilettantism, is the case of BILD editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt and BILD editor John Puthenpurackal who published stories of an alleged affair between ex-girlfriend Maria W. and Andreas Lubitz. See also the contribution under:

https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2017/09/04/maria-w-the-ex-girlfriend-who-never-existed/

The FOCUS then asked: “Quarrel over alleged Lubitz lover: Was the “BILD” eagerly duped by an imposter?”(3) This example illustrates even more strikingly how sensational information goes unverified and is readily disseminated in order to increase circulation. One can begin to comprehend Ulrich Wickert’s statement that 80 percent of the reports about Andreas Lubitz were proven to be wrong!

L.U.

 

(1)https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/dillingen/Angenehmer-Abend-mit-Ulrich-Wickert-id44337116.html

(2)https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017.03.24_Introductory-comments-Lubitz.pdf

(3)https://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/bericht-naehrt-neue-zweifel-an-glaubwuerdigkeit-streit-um-angebliche-lubitz-geliebte-sass-die-bild-einer-hochstaplerin-auf_id_7261914.html

further posts:

Current developments – Renewed lawsuit by family’s lawyer