Category Archives: All posts

Airworthiness Review Certificate – the ignored document

Why did this matter receive no attention?

A few days after the crash the public prosecutor assured us that the investigation would continue in all directions. Already during the preliminary investigation, the pro-government / pro-industry press published information found among Andreas Lubitz’s seized documents: a life-support document signed by him on 23.03.2015.

The press chose to interpret this document as indicative of a planned suicide and published this notion. But doesn’t this conclusion lack logic? One only creates an end-of-life-support document when expecting to continue living into the foreseeable future. And one would never expect to survive a planned airplane crash…

Another document that was signed the same day (23.03.2015) was given little or no attention by either the investigators or the media (understandably): Namely, the Airworthiness Review Certificate. For a commercial aircraft to operate safely and properly, it requires valid certification. The document that confirms it is in proper condition and performs safe flight operations is called an Airworthiness Review Certificate. According to the investigation file, the Airworthiness Review Certificate for the aircraft (D-AIPX) dated March 23, 2015, had expired – one day before the crash.
(See the following section of the original certificate from the investigation file)

However, it had been extended… According to Mr. van Beveren’s expert report, there are some important discrepancies. (See expert report, page 96 – 98). (Link to expert report)

Experts Report

• Under the current Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, an Airworthiness Review Certificate is valid for a maximum of one year.
• The previous certificate had been issued on 07.03.2014 and appears to be valid until 23.03.2015, i.e. until the day before the accident, so more than a year.
• There are certain special conditions for certification extension. However, such an extension is unusual – here, 16 days – and, strangely, at the time of the document’s issue in 2014.
• Apparently, the certification document with the LBA authorization number T512 was typed by the aircraft examiner, allegedly a Mr. or a Mrs. “Boussios”. However, the signature under this name does not match.
• According to the document, the certification took place on the day before the accident and was signed by Ferenc Dulai for Germanwings GmbH. The subsequent certification was to have been 11.03.2016 – 11 days before the allowable one-year expiration.
The curious 16-day extension beyond the one-year deadline was thus almost “compensated” for by the shortened time span before the next certification on 11.03.2016.

These discrepancies could have been checked through interrogations of the maintenance staff and those who were responsible through their signatures. Throughout the investigation file there is no evidence of the questioning of these people. From all this, it can be concluded that apparently the one document (the life-support statement) is given more importance because it supposedly implicates Andreas Lubitz as the culprit. The other document is “overlooked” in the file jungle, in order to shield…

Investigations in all directions? Clearly not.

L. U.

further article:

Considerations on the 2017 press conference

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

Words of Solace

When I am gone
Then set me free.
Let me go.
There are so many things for me to see.

Be grateful for the good times
We were allowed to spend together.
I have given you my love,
And you do not know
How much joy you have brought to me.
I thank you for the love
You have given me.
But it is time now
To go on alone.

If your grief helps you, so grieve.
And then grief gives way to faith.

We must only separate for a while.
Therefore, hold on to the memories in your heart.
I will never be far from you.
So if you need me, call for me –
And I will be there.
Even if you cannot touch or see me,
I am close to you –
And if you listen with your heart,
Then you will feel my love all around you,
Very close and clear.

And when it is time for you
To take this journey alone,
I will greet you with a smile
And welcome you to your new home.

(Prayer of an unknown dying person)

At our home on March 24, 2018, as in the years before, 150 candles will be burning.

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.

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

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.
    https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2017/12/17/the-reality-behind-andreass-health-problems/
  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.”

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/BEA2015-0125.de-LR_04.pdf

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?

The responsibility of the airlines: Here, Lufthansa-Germanwings-Eurowings

The recurrence of a fume event on a Eurowings flight and how it was handled

Each workplace is subject to certain requirements which are described in the relevant workplace regulations(1). These regulations are intended to ensure the safety and health of workers when setting up and operating in workplaces. In commercial aircraft the cockpit is the pilots’ workplace. Therefore, any airline commercial carriers are responsible for ensuring healthy working conditions. In this Eurowings (formerly Germanwings) case, the responsible carrier is the parent company, Lufthansa. The health of cabin crew personnel – whose workplace is, of course, the aircraft cabin – is also the responsibility of the operating carrier. And we must not forget the passengers in the aircraft.

A news headline dated 09.01.2018 has shocked us again:

“Several injured crew members after fume event on A320 of Eurowings” (successor company of Germanwings).

Although no solutions have yet been implemented to prevent such fume events, the airline’s handling of it is much worse, as the report(2) makes clear. The fume event occurred enroute to London Heathrow , but after landing Eurowings concluded that a simple “airing” of the aircraft by opening the doors was sufficient to make conditions safe, and intended to board passengers for the return to Düsseldorf. However, the collapse of a flight attendant and his hospitalization convinced Eurowings to cancel the flight. Subsequently, pilots flew the aircraft back to Düsseldorf – wearing oxygen masks. A good airing clearly is not enough.

After such an incident, all ventilation ducts must – from the compressor in the engine to the aircraft interior – be disassembled and cleaned, and any engine leaks corrected. For this, an aircraft must be in maintenance for at least two days, as such a problem cannot be remedied on the ground within the standard turnaround time.

Furthermore, the manner in which the BFU (German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation) prefers to ignore such “accidents” leaves much scope for speculation…

In this context, we would like to refer again to the flight log(3) of Andreas, who completed 88% of his flights on machines that have fume events in their histories.

 “These are not all hypochondriacs”

On the other hand, it is gratifying that the aero toxic syndrome is finally being discussed in the medical trade press(4). It would be desirable if all doctors were informed and trained in this subject in order to  understand and treat affected flight crew and passengers in the future.

Always remember: it can happen to anyone.


L.U.

  (1) http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/A225-arbeitsstaettenverordnung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

(2) https://www.austrianwings.info/2018/01/mehrere-verletzte-besatzungsmitglieder-nach-fume-event-auf-a320-von-eurowings/

(3) https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FLUGBUCH-_ANDREAS-LUBITZ.pdf

(4) https://www.aerztezeitung.de/medizin/fachbereiche/sonstige_fachbereiche/umweltmedizin/article/955837/fume-events-nicht-alles-simulanten.html?sh=1&h=1282090040

 

 

 

Traces of Christmas

Should anyone ask me about Christmas in this world of ours, I would speak about those things that began with the beginning of Christmas.

When one begins at first to trust another, and together build a bridge to overcome hate and enmity, then will you find those traces of Christmas.

When one in the darkness will not remain silent, but rather intones a song of hope to overcome the fear and the silence, then will you find those traces of Christmas.

When one swims against the current and takes up a hard burden to overcome adversity and strife, so you will find the traces of Christmas.

Where one does not quail in the face of hardship, and ventures a new beginning to overcome sorrow and suffering, there can you find the traces of Christmas.

Wherever one dares the difficult, and openly states his opinion to overcome falsity and lies, there also will you find traces of Christmas.

Whenever one wakes from indolence and discovers with you a path to overcome the high walls, then will you find traces of Christmas.

********************************************************************************

With these profound Christmas verses, we wish you a reflective and tranquil Christmastime. Enjoy a bit of peace during these holidays, and find health and happiness in the New Year.

L.U.

The reality behind Andreas’s health problems

Correction of false conclusions – the vision disturbances in 2015 were not recurrence of depression symptoms

For this report we have invested a bit longer time and have studied and evaluated the relevant pages from the investigation files. In the end we came to the conclusion not to judge single medical aspects, because if taken out of context they would justify the opinions of those who believe they know better. In nearly the last three years certain medical specialists have responded to requests for their views and have volunteered their opinions and analyses regarding Andreas Lubitz’s personality, without ever having met him or come to know him. Any good psychiatrist or psychologist knows that “remote diagnosis”, as in this case, followed by evaluation and judgement, requires care, as this can only lead to a subjective conclusion. The BFU, also, has as yet not found it necessary to correct the demonstrably false conclusions which they had previously reported to the French authorities. It is true that in 2008/2009 Andreas experienced an episode of depression. However, it is also true that by the middle of 2009 he had overcome this episode and was perfectly healthy, which was certified several times. What is untrue is that he was ever hospitalized for depression treatment. What is also untrue is that from 2008 to 2015 Andreas was in the continuous care of a psychiatrist and received medication. In July of 2009, after ending medication and thorough examinations by an aviation doctor and a psychiatrist, he was cleared to resume his flight education in September. Furthermore, the medical history form was correctly filled out by Andreas for his medical flight certificate. One just has to read these pages accurately and not intentionally misinterpret their content, which was unscrupulously done by victims’ lawyers who were looking, on behalf of their clients, for the needle in a haystack in order to attach blame to anything or anyone. We were surprised by the number of doctors who Andreas consulted within a seven-year period. It should also be pointed out that during this period Andreas lived in three different locations. Up to 2015, none of the doctors were psychiatrists or psychologists, but were all general practitioners and dentists, orthopedists, ears-nose- throat specialists and ophthalmologists. These last made up the majority of doctor consultations and mainly took place in 2015. We do not know exactly what caused Andreas‘s eye problems, insomnia, etc., and have only our guesses. But we exclude (as we always have) a recurrence of the depression in 2015 because of our experiences in 2008/2009. It is obvious to associate the symptoms Andreas spoke about with his earlier depressive episode, if one has no other explanation. Unfortunately, most doctors (psychiatrists and psychologists included) have no knowledge of the existing problem of “aerotoxic syndrome”, so they are unable to diagnose it after excluding any organic disorder. For most affected people things go badly, also without a medical history. Knowing what we know today – that a certain number of predisposed persons are not able to reduce the toxins, or require a long time for reduction, then consequentially suffer lifelong nerve damage – we would have discouraged Andreas from becoming a pilot, dream job or not. Specific medical examinations of our family members have provided unexpected, but unmistakable, results.

Everyone who flies (including passengers), can become an affected person. In this connection we would like to refer to the following link so that you can make up your own mind. Help for those affected should be different, shouldn‘t it?

https://www.change.org/p/9899447/u/22070243utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_campaign=197729&sfmc_tk=EQofcVA4Ss%2f2Le2JY11OoMElClnho%2b4Ybng9Nv4G%2fWW4Dy13wO6K8v0iM82twciK&j=197729&sfmc_sub=195850815&l=32_HTML&u=36535400&mid=7259882&jb=78

L.U.

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook:

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

Recent fume event in Eurowings aircraft D-AGWV

Five crew members and one passenger injured

According to a report in Austrian Wings aviation magazine, Eurowings flight 7764 departed Hamburg shortly after 18:00 on 07 November 2017 with Zurich as its destination. The aircraft was an Airbus 319, registration D-AGWV.

Soon after takeoff there occurred an obvious fume event on board, prompting the pilots to immediately return to Hamburg. According to a report in Hamburger Morgenpost, one passenger complained of nausea and respiratory irritation. Together with five crew members the passenger went to a local hospital for medical examination.

Reference links:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b0badd4&opt=257#

https://www.austrianwings.info/2017/11/verletzte-nach-fume-event-auf-eurowings-flug/

On several occasions in July of 2014 our son flew as copilot in this specific aircraft (Airbus 319, reg. D-AGWV). On 08 July 2016 this aircraft had an official report of a fume event which is documented in the BFU database.

See link below to Andreas’s logbook:

https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FLUGBUCH-_ANDREAS-LUBITZ.pdf

Aside from the two mentioned above, it is not known whether any other previous fume events in this aircraft might have occurred or whether Andreas was affected. The noticeable evidence of toxic fumes in an aircraft cabin is a result of a gradual process, rather like the beginning of an oil leak in one’s automobile that does not reveal itself from one day to the next. As already stated in recent news, there was a very high risk for Andreas to belong to the group of people who catabolize the toxins only with difficulty and over time, or not at all. The consequences of which can often be irreversible neurological damage.
Even if there is only one passenger injured, our hope is that this article will encourage people to consider that there are daily incidents involving toxic cabin air and anyone who flies can be affected.

L.U.

matching article:

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

Conclusion: Germanwings planes old and harmful to health

First of all, many thanks to all who continue to follow Andreas’s website with great interest. Several requests have been made regarding Andreas’s flight logbook in particular, so we would like to explain it in more detail.

At the end of 2013, after successful completion of his pilot training at Lufthansa, Andreas joined Germanwings, a subsidiary of Lufthansa, as a co-pilot. In the meantime, Eurowings (also a Lufthansa subsidiary) has assumed responsibility for Germanwings, whose flight operations continue to be carried out under the Eurowings aegis. However, Germanwings will soon disappear as a brand.

In 2015-2016, the average age of the Germanwings fleet was around 14 years. Of note is that the crashed D-AIPX was almost 25 years old – clearly one of the oldest. In the comparable period, the average age of the Ryanair fleet was 5.4 years.(1)

Aircraft experts are of the opinion that old does not necessarily mean unsafe, and that 24 years is not unusual for an aircraft. However, it is acknowledged that these machines become more vulnerable and more maintenance-intensive with increasing age. But then the tightrope walk begins: more intensive maintenance results in longer downtime; on the other hand, carriers are continuously under pressure to remain profitable, and an aircraft on the ground earns no money.

As part of our expert’s (van Beveren) activities, our son’s flight logbook was reconstructed.(2)

The complete flight logbook can be found at:
https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Andreas_Lubitz_pilot_logbook.pdf
A flight logbook indicates the date on which a pilot traveled, on which routes (RTE), and with which aircraft (CALLSIGN and REGISTRY). Also, unusual incidents are recorded in additional columns (REMARKS / RESEARCH RESULTS / EVENT MENTIONED IN MEDIA) and (OFFICIALLY DISPLAYED EVENTS IN AUTHORITY DATABASE).

In the following some explanations:

The analysis of Andreas flight logbook shows that he was mainly deployed on planes that had a high frequency of fume event incidents (3) (88% of his flights). Kerosene (fuel), hydraulic fluid or de-icing fluid become toxic fumes, which result from a defect in the engine, and are passed into the air-conditioning via the bleed air system, and thus into the cockpit and passenger cabin. There are fume events in which there is clearly smoke or a noxious smell, but this is not always the case. If this contaminated air is inhaled by individuals who do not quickly degrade these toxins there can be a profound health impact, including insomnia, vision disorders and damage to the nervous system.

Almost all these symptoms were diagnosed in our son, as well as confirmed by pilots (2016) who remain unfit to fly due to irreversible, neurological damage related to such fume events (of course, passengers are also affected). Not all of them recall experiencing a real fume incident, and it could be that some have become ill as a result of the chronic stress in the execution of their profession.

In order to make a clearer determination, we had our family DNA profiles tested, with the result that there was a very high risk for Andreas to belong to the group of people who catabolize the toxins only with difficulty and over time, or not at all. We were surprised and shocked by these results and their relevance to Andreas, as well as in regards to our own health risks. Several family members have been advised to avoid air travel due to this information. Unfortunately, we did not know until 2016 about the possible occurrence of such toxins in the cockpit and cabin. Most of the doctors we have since talked to have never heard of such fume-related health risks. Therefore, it is not surprising that patients suffering from fume event symptoms often go undiagnosed and sometimes improperly treated. The doctors are not to blame for this lack of knowledge, but that the problem exists is confirmed in the following articles in the trade press (mainstream media unfortunately avoid this topic):

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/easyjet-bekaempft-giftige-daempfe

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/auch-lufthansa-und-co-testen-spezialfilter

It seems that now, slowly and quietly, steps are being taken in the right direction. But this reality clearly affects all who fly and they should give serious thought to this topic.

L.U.

another article:

Moving beyond the truth with twisted facts

 

(1) http://www.focus.de/reisen/flug/airline-sicherheit/airline-datenbank/ryanair_aid_23885.html
(2) https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Seiten_252-266-aus-GUTACHTEN-4U9525.pdf
(3) http://www.taz.de/!5409435/