Category Archives: Bogus press reports

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.


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.



(1) Excerpt from page 38, BEA Final Report, German version of 13 March 2016
(2) Excerpt from page 122, BEA Final Report, German version of 13 March 2016
(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
(5) Excerpt from page 98, expert report of the crash of Germanwings flight 4U9525, Tim van Beveren
(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
(18) Excerpt from page HA 05280 of the investigation file of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office


References_Objective consideration of the results of the investigation


further posts:

What conclusions do the investigation results allow so far?

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.”

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.

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.

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?


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.
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). “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). ” 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).

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.


further post:

Christmas peace 2019?

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?…



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

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.


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).

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.


further posts:

Comprehensive investigations of the crash cause?

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.



further posts:

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

Current developments – Renewed lawsuit by family’s lawyer

Giemulla provides the German Press Agency (dpa) with “news” about an expanded lawsuit in which he argues with false facts

So it starts again! The driving force is once again the family lawyer Giemulla. Under the pressure of the statute of limitations, this reworked lawsuit has recently been filed. This information submitted to dpa would ensure a wide distribution in the media landscape. Is this the way to put to rest this tragic story? Why would one do something like this, and what does one want to achieve?

Perhaps one wants to exert further pressure on Lufthansa in order to collect even greater compensation payments. One hopes for a bombshell story in the media which would increase this pressure on the airline, which may then be more willing to pay so that its name can again disappear from the negative headlines.

From the words of attorney Giemulla one can see that it is a lawsuit brought by 200 relatives of 49 victims and demands more than double what was originally paid by Lufthansa. 200 relatives of 49 victims is an average of four relatives per victim! He argues that the suit is not only about money, but is also about clarification about where the airline failed. But it is difficult to believe that. Incidentally, the fact that the general public shares this disbelief is confirmed by the articles’ comments sections. Furthermore, the articles and comments were published only by regional newspapers or broadcasters – not by the leading media.

So far, we have always been very reserved in our choice of words, but today we would like to make it clear: Attorney Giemulla sticks to his lies and changes his narrative at the expense of our son. It is simply not true that Andreas was able to finish his flight training only with a special permit. (About this we have already written in detail in our article of September 2017, which can be read in the archive.)

Why would a lawyer employ such methods? Or in other words, is it Giemulla’s intention to constantly renew and sustain the image of the mentally ill copilot and, if so, why, and on whose behalf and in whose interest? Of course, he is also under pressure, because another attorney obtained larger payments for his clients on the condition that the charges against the Lufthansa Group were dropped.–angehoerige-wollen-mehr-schmerzensgeld-8520070.html

According to the cited STERN article: “Giemulla demands an inspection of the flight school records. He also wants to personally interview witnesses in the US in order to prove negligence. The overall concern of the bereaved was in addition to the monetary compensation, and that this would come through clarification. “At what point in the global corporation did the mentally ill copilot slip through the control network?” the lawyer asked”.

With this statement Giemulla once again claims, as he did in 2017, that our son belongs to the permanently mentally ill. This is absolutely contrary to all the investigation results. The following is from the closing statement of the Düsseldorf prosecutor, Kumpa:

“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 is stated:

Later he added: “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.”

And then there is the question: In the course of his work as a lawyer, is Giemulla entitled to demand access to files from the flight school or to hear witnesses? Is not that the job of prosecutors or judges? And this is quite apart from the fact that witness hearings were already carried out by the US authorities and are part of the investigation file. Should he be entitled to do so? If so, then he will hear nothing negative or distressing from anybody in the US. Regarding this we are absolutely confident, as no abnormalities or omissions would be found. The time in Arizona is the highlight of the training for all Lufthansa pilots. That’s what it was for our son. And Andreas was the first to finish this part of his training and with good results, without any special permission.

Provided that Giemulla performed a thorough study of the files, he would have to be aware of these facts, but this is seriously doubtful in view of his false claims.

If the public finally understood that the story of “the mentally ill copilot” was never true, then we would be left without a plausible explanation.

And then victims, relatives, lawyers, the investigating authorities, the public, etc., would begin asking questions about the real cause of the crash and must then consider alternative scenarios.


Considerations on the 2017 press conference

After years of journalists’ questions, unexpected answers nobody wants to hear

The third anniversary and Easter have passed. We have taken a longer break than usual, which has allowed us to mourn in peace – for the first time together as a family. For the first time ever it was possible to give room to our grief. In recent weeks, we have had many conversations with people known to us as well as with those unknown, which have done us good and given us strength. We also talked a lot about the past, the current situation and the so far unexplained. So in this way we have found our way back to our website, especially because a few points have emerged which we would like to discuss in more detail. In the meantime, we have updated the expert report, which is now available in its entirety on this website.

With our contribution today, we would like offer our perceptions of the press conference last year, at which parts of the expert report were presented. From today’s point of view, it would not really have mattered if others topics – perhaps even more relevant – had been presented. We do not know what expectations the journalists who came to the conference had. At any rate, our intention was not to present an alternative crash scenario or to “whitewash” Andreas – given the amount of “dirt” thrown at him as well as the Lubitz family, it would have been impossible. After the many lies, falsehoods and false interpretations of the last two years we wanted to provide all media representatives with the same information at the same time, to correct these untruths and, further, to prevent future distortions.

In the two years prior to the press conference, reporters, journalists, editors (however they called themselves) were constantly pursuing us for “information.” But what lay behind their promises? Immediately after sending the invitations to the media, when nothing had yet been published about the forthcoming press conference, we received an email from BILD reporter Mike Passmann in which he asked us to answer two questions before 5:15 pm that same day: namely, why we had chosen the date of the second anniversary and whether we had considered that this particular date might insult the sensibilities of the families of the 149 victims. To repeat, Passmann’s email was sent at 3:00 pm of the same day, requesting a reply by 5:15 pm. Even if one had read the message immediately after receiving it, there would be little time to formulate a thoughtful answer, particularly if we could not answer with a simple “Yes”, “No”, or “Maybe”. This limited timeframe makes clear that Passmann did not really expect an answer and could later write that the Lubitz family “refused” to reply. Moreover, because the impractical deadline passed, as it was expected to do, it was obvious that Passmann could then turn to the relatives and their lawyers, some of whom are always willing to talk. Prior to the press conference, when not a single word had yet been spoken, Passmann approached the victims’ lawyer, Giemulla, and asked him to speculate about the probable content of the upcoming conference. Giemulla cheerfully suggested that the expert, van Beveren, would speak of toxic fume events, his favorite topic and hobbyhorse, which would be irrelevant to the issue.

In the end, the date was secondary, but ideally suited to evoke a negative mood on an emotional level, with high media sales guaranteed. It may be that the press once again attempted to encourage conflict between victims’ relatives and the Lubitz family. We might ask why journalists didn’t simply boycott the press conference in protest against its insensitivity? Non-attendance at the conference would have been their ethical stance.

At the live press conference itself the mood was hostile, an impression felt not only by those present but by innumerable television viewers as well. Some suggested that the clicks of the cameras were something akin to a firing squad. Preregistration was required because there were many more interested people than the venue could accommodate. Not everything went smoothly and not everything was presented as professionally as had been planned, but not because of time limitations.
For Ms Herrnkind, a STERN reporter, the most important question was how much the expert (van Beveren) was paid. This clearly demonstrated her lack of interest in the critical content of the press conference, but rather how illdisposed to us she was, and is. Before the press conference, Ms Herrnkind had written to our lawyer requesting an exclusive interview with STERN.

She questioned why we had previously corresponded with “Welt am Sonntag”, a newspaper that would reach only conservative readers and suggested that we should grant STERN an interview as the victims’ relatives had done. Further, she wondered whether the Lubitzes were aware that the STERN is among the largest magazines in Europe. With them we would be in very good hands.

Hypocrisy! The question should not really be how  much we paid the expert, but rather how much she, or whoever, paid for a very personal computer file created in 2009 which Andreas had created as a booklet about experiencing and overcoming his depressive episode and which he dedicated to those close to him. This was something never intended for public dissemination. Furthermore, Ms Herrnkind selectively lifted lines and phrases in order to draw a connection from 2009 to 2015 and published this invention in the STERN – quite brazen and tasteless.

And, last but not least, a TV report from RTL that was broadcast on “EXTRA” on 27.03.2017 should not go unmentioned. On the program, aviation expert Ralf Benkö claimed that he had closely analysed Mr van Beveren’s 800-page expert report but could not arrive at any new theory as to why the plane had crashed. Firstly, the complete report covers far more than 800 pages (see expert report with the appendices). And secondly, at the time of the broadcast the report’s contents were known only to Mr van Beveren himself and to us. One sequence showed Benkö leafing not through the van Beveren report, but rather – clearly recognizable – through the German version of the BEA final report.

Long live investigative journalism and truth!

It is unfortunate that the echo of the Lubitz family’s passage to the public has died away so quickly. Some clue or piece of information from the press conference should have been worth a closer look or inquiry in appropriate places – by the authorities or the government. It is understandable that they were unable to comment immediately on the day of the press conference, but they instead immediately offered denial of the findings. Maybe the reactions and non-reactions surrounding the press conference should be set aside for a while.

And we can hope that at a later date unbiased people will reconsider…

L. U.

further bogus press reports:

Welt am Sonntag – how Springer’s news outlets deliberately misrepresent facts

Welt am Sonntag – how Springer’s news outlets deliberately misrepresent facts

Correction to report from 26.02.2017

It is now a year ago, almost to the day, that for the 2nd anniversary of the Germanwings crash the “Welt am Sonntag” revisited the topic again in order to “deal with it”, as they  wrote. A three-page article with the headline “Chronicle of an announced catastrophe” appeared on 26.02.17.

Before the appearance of the article, there were repeated attempts by the editors, Dirk Banse and Michael Behrendt, to contact us, attempts which did not cease even after our reply letter explaining that we had no statement to make.

Because their last of several letters, on 18.02.2017, did not provoke a reaction from us, both men appeared on our property on Sunday morning, 19.02.2017, and surprised Günter Lubitz, who coincidentally happened to be present in front of the house. Angered by this personal intrusion, the two were expelled from the property under threat of police intervention.

For reasons of space, we will not include the entire correspondence here, but it can be found under the following link for all to read:

Welt correspondence

In the article it was claimed that we had approached the Welt am Sonntag via correspondence. The reality is that we responded only after the newspaper’s first letter pressing us for information. Our written response was our refusal – namely, that for certain reasons we did not yet want to express our opinion. So, in fact, we did not “contact” the Welt am Sonntag, but rather the newspaper contacted us.

Incidentally, the Welt am Sonntag was not the only medium we responded to in a similar fashion, but in all other cases our refusals were always respected and no other news outlet misrepresented the facts in order to create a news story.

In one of the reporters’ letters to us, they claimed that they possessed a “number of documents” and that they were “investigative journalists” with the unbiased aim of reporting the whole story. However, the published article once again attempted to substantiate a negative image of Andreas. There was no “news”, nor any answers to speculations or lingering questions.

It remains doubtful if the Welt am Sonntag would have offered an objective report had we  indeed consented to share information.

We do not want to split hairs and attempt to weigh every word of every article. But it has certainly been done by others. For example, Franz Josef Wagner in his BILD column, and in the same online portals, wrote: “The Parents (Lubitzes) call it an accident …”, but, in fact, the BEA Final Report itself states: “Accident on 24 March 2015”!

A day later Mike Passmann of the BILD went even further: “Now the parents of Lubitz speak publicly for the first time and report doubts”. (Based on our letter of refusal)

In the same article lawyer Giemulla (victims’ lawyer) comments: “For the survivors of the fatalities, it is a shock to be confronted with alternative facts”. But no “alternative facts” were presented in the article.

Furthermore, at the time of publication our reply letter was almost a quarter of a year old.

Although we had offered nothing, written or spoken, we were again placed in the negative headline spotlight.

This is how Springer journalism works.

L. U.

further bogus press reports:

Maria W. – The ex-girlfriend who never existed

Recent event – the Warm-up for the 3rd Anniversary has begun

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?

Recent event – the Warm-up for the 3rd Anniversary has begun

A new lie from the tabloid press and an open letter from relatives to Lufthansa CEO

The first media harbinger was already to be seen shortly before Christmas, when a victim’s relative complained publicly. This complaint was subsequently legally initiated at the end of January, and since 02.02.2018 the entire mainstream media has meanwhile jumped on the topic. Although we cannot know who of the affected families have so far accepted Lufthansa payments, the latest development is that Lufthansa will allegedly only provide further payments, e.g. for psychotherapeutic treatments (which are normally covered by all health insurances), if, in return, relatives forego ongoing and future lawsuits against Lufthansa.

Just before midnight on 03.02.2018, the usual time that the BILD newspaper posts its latest online news, it suddenly woke up from its month’s-long slumber with a lengthy report.

Nothing new, just old, warmed-up stories: the same as their counterparts in other media outlets, with here and there a bit rewritten and spruced up, with some remarks from relatives.

And so we come to the main point: Almost a year ago, on 21.03.2017, the father of a teacher who died complained to the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) that Andreas’ parents (us) were stirring everything up again with a news conference and he would be glad if it was all finally over with. But now this same man claims that probably all of Andreas’ colleagues knew about his illness and wondered why he was even allowed into the cockpit. Or were these words put into his mouth? However, this is just as much a BILD lie as was the story of Maria W.

Regarding this assumption about Andreas’ colleagues, here are the facts:

  1. If Andreas had been continuously ill, he would not have been able to do the training nor be allowed to. Please refer to the article from December 2017.
  2. Had a colleague noticed something, he would not have flown with him and would have been obligated to immediately report it to Germanwings.
  3. On the accident flight the captain would certainly not have left the cockpit if he had known about an existing illness, and this must be true about all previous colleagues who left Andreas also alone in the cockpit. Incidentally, the captain leaving the cockpit for a long period of time on both the outbound and return flights is extremely unusual on short-haul flights, yet nobody has questioned this critically.
  4. Without exception, colleagues who flew with Andreas praised his professional skills and found him a very pleasant colleague. Within the company he was considered “one of the good ones”, as colleagues have commented. The questioning of colleagues and the professional evaluations in his personal file are part of the investigation file.
  5. In the official BEA final report of the Germanwings crash (German version) the following statement on the health status of our son was made on page 17:

“None of the pilots and instructors who flew with him in the months prior to the accident and were interviewed during the investigation expressed concerns about his attitude or behavior during flights.”

Here, therefore, it has again been tried to undermine the picture of Andreas with untruths, which has been going on for three years now. Perhaps only if this picture is maintained can one hope for further payments? It appears to us that this is what it’s all about, as we note that victims’ lawyer Giemulla has recently demanded higher payments from Lufthansa.

There is nothing more to say on this. We conclude by saying that we will not allow ourselves to be provoked by such untruths and will continue to confront them, now and in the future.

L. U.

other bogus press reports:

Maria W. – The ex-girlfriend who never existed

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?