Monthly Archives: August 2017

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?

“War Lubitz hoch verschuldet?” – Bait for the reader – a new headline of the biggest German boulevard newspaper on 10 July 2015

Evidence: see boulevard newspaper article on “Links” page, Link 1 to topic

In this article the public was presented another “missing piece of the puzzle” regarding the possible motive for the crash, but this purely speculative question of debt is yet another personal attack with the aim of denigrating Andreas Lubitz: an attempt to reveal a “dark side” of the pilot and further promote a negative image already established in the public consciousness. With no background knowledge, the author of the article speculates about the repayment of training costs and other possible creditors.

Yes, it is true that “estate insolvency proceedings” were initiated and carried out. However, this is common procedure when there are special circumstances, as was the case here, and these proceedings have been concluded. After deductions of various expenses, a five-digit amount remained from Lubitz’s estate. This was distributed among the creditors according to priority and paid accordingly.

This clearly shows that Andreas was not heavily indebted prior to the crash, otherwise the creditors would have received nothing. So debts would not have been a motivating factor.

In connection with this topic, a relevant report appeared on 10 September 2015, exactly two months after the publication of the above-mentioned article and six months after the crash:

Allianz demands 7.5 million euros from Lubitz insolvency administrators

Evidence: see boulevard newspaper article on “Links” page, Link 2 to topic

Quote: “According to BILD information, Allianz’s industrial insurance division reported a claim of up to 7.5 million euros from pilot Andreas Lubitz († 27).”

In fact, the sum demanded was lower, showing that the author’s report was purely speculative.

But what is the public more likely to remember: “up to”? or “7.5 million”?

Useful links

A very recent case

According to a report on the “Aviation Herald” website, a Germanwings A319, flight 4U-493, on 19 March 2017 on a flight from Sarajevo to Cologne/Bonn, twice entered an uncontrolled descent. Only by the intervention of the pilots could disaster be prevented and the flight continued to its destination. What would have happened if through particular circumstances the two pilots had become incapacitated and were unable to react? A new catastrophe?
Germanwings A319 enroute on Mar 19th 2017, aircraft started descent uncommandedly two times

Latest publications related to the March 2015 Germanwings crash
Headline: Bei diesem Interview ist die BILD-Zeitung offenbar auf eine Hochstaplerin reingefallen
Headline: Germanwings-Pilot Andreas Lubitz war nicht depressiv – laut diesem Gutachten
Headline: Die Familie des Germanwings-Copiloten Andreas Lubitz will gegen Gutachtenfehler klagen
Headline: Skandalöse Details zum Germanwings-Absturz – War alles ganz anders?

24 March 2015 – The day of the crash

In the investigation file, the following description can be found on page HA 09803: (Topic: Examination of the witness (Andreas Lubitz’s girlfriend) on 26.03.2015, here as “supplemental” to the initial interrogation).

Non-facts from the investigation file

“In response to whether she had taken things from her boyfriend’s parents’ house in Montabaur, she makes the following statements: On the day of the crash she had waited for his return in Düsseldorf with her boyfriend’s parents. When the delay of the machine became longer, she told the parents that it would not be worthwhile waiting (it is not possible to discover if she had knowledge of the crash at that point in time). For this reason they drove together to Montabaur. There, she gathered random things of her boyfriend’s and packed them in a bag.”

The facts are

The girlfriend never made these statements! It appears in the file as a supplement to her interrogation and is not signed by her. This raises the question of why detective chief superintendent G. wrote it and placed it in the file.

The true events

On 24 March 2015 Andreas Lubitz’s father was at a business meeting in Eindhoven, Netherlands, as evidenced by the minutes of that meeting. His wife telephoned him there about the Germanwings crash. At that time nobody knew for certain whether Andreas Lubitz was on that flight. Andreas Lubitz’s mother and brother drove together from Montabaur to Düsseldorf airport to determine whether he was on board. At Düsseldorf airport they were greeted by Germanwings / Lufthansa employees and a pastor, who are witnesses to their arrival. Mrs. Lubitz received the news that her son was co-pilot of the crashed machine and immediately telephoned her husband. He ended his business meeting and drove to Düsseldorf airport to meet his family. The girlfriend was at work at the relevant time, as colleagues can testify, and came later with her stepfather to Düsseldorf airport where she was also received by employees of the crisis team (also witnesses) and was taken to join the Lubitz family. After completing the formalities, the Lubitzes and the girlfriend with her step-father departed in their own cars, just as they had come. There was no shared ride to Montabaur! Nor did the girlfriend remove any items from Andreas Lubitz’s room in the family home in Montabaur. This fact alone is absurd, as she had lived with Andreas in their shared apartment in Düsseldorf for almost a year and it would be illogical for her to remove any items. Furthermore, she never entered the Lubitz home on the night in question.

Consequences of misrepresentations

These absolutely untrue “facts” placed in the investigation file prompted relatives and their legal advisors to alert the press, who sensationalized false interpretations and conclusions and widely disseminated them to the public.
For examples of this sensationalism, see the following links:–vater-im-interview—-wie-lange-ich-das- durchhalte–weiss-ich-nicht–7372608.html

All of the untruths were never corrected by the Düsseldorf Public Prosecutor, although we drew his attention to it. Why not?

General remarks

The contributions to be read in this section are not intended to be taken as justification for
the Lubitz family or, as the press so often claims, as a “whitewashing” of Andreas Lubitz.
Here we present and comment upon facts and topics with the intention of clarifying the
false interpretations of investigation results as well as bogus media reports.
Certain facts were “leaked” to the media by the investigative authorities, and one should not
disregard the deliberate planting of information. Furthermore, various media have
themselves generated and published bogus stories about Andreas Lubitz. The motivation
behind this is easy to recognize.

“The truth is whatever the people will buy.”