Category Archives: All posts

Why were the voice recordings of the cockpit voice recorder not clearly assigned?

The assignment of the captain’s and copilot’s voices was purely speculative

As in every Airbus A320, various microphones were installed in the cockpit of the crashed Germanwings plane and these recorded the audible activity on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). Each microphone is assigned to a separate track on the CVR with a recording time of 30 minutes.

The various microphones record the verbal communication of the pilots in addition to any kind of noise in the cockpit. These sounds include, for example, alarms in the cockpit, adjustments to the control knobs (as far as they are acoustically perceptible), repositioning of the pilots’ seats, the closing and opening of the cockpit door, etc.

Even with acoustic recording of the opening and closing the cockpit door, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone indeed exits or enters. This would only be possible with video recordings, which do not exist.

On page HA 05111 of the French Investigative File (German translation) the following assignment of the microphones and recorded tracks were documented during the playback of the CVR on March 26, 2015 by gendarmes of the Air Traffic Gendarmerie SRTA Paris-Charles-De-Gaulle: “Tracks 1 and 2 correspond to the headsets of the captain and the copilot.” From this it can be concluded that track 1 is assigned to the captain and track 2 to the copilot.

However, later on page HA 05129 of the same investigation file, transcriptions of the CVR two days later on 28 March 2015 by gendarmes, four BEA engineers and a person of German descent at the Air Traffic Gendarmerie SRTA Paris-Charles-De-Gaulle, indicate that the microphones and thus the track assignments were the other way around. This is documented as follows:

Track 1: Copilot’s headset

Track 2: Captain’s headset

To prove beyond doubt and to ensure that the copilot, Andreas Lubitz, and the captain, Patrick Sondenheimer, were actually present in the cockpit during the last 30 minutes, a voice identification should have been carried out. For this, one would have a close relative (for example the co-pilot’s parents and the captain’s wife) listen to the CVR playback.

The reality was different: According to HA 05127, at the CVR listening session on 28 March 2015 at the Air Traffic Police SRTA Paris-Charles-De-Gaulle the following conclusion was reached: “As some tracks are difficult to understand, the session is interrupted to clarify the relevant voice excerpts. Due to the facts collected in these listening sessions, we can assume that the powerful voice captured by the various tracks is that of the flight captain.”

This is confirmed in a further session by gendarmes of the Aviation Gendarmerie SRTA Paris-Charles-De-Gaulle on 28 May 2015. On page HA 05266 of the French investigation file the following is documented: “We determine that the strong voice emanating from the various tracks is that of the captain, Mr. Sondenheimer, and Mr. Lubitz is the weak voice.”

From the point of view of Andreas Lubitz’s parents the following is noted:

  1. Andreas Lubitz had a normal male voice. The statement that he had a weak voice is purely speculative and unproven.
  2. Andreas Lubitz’s parents have applied to various institutions to listen personally to the cockpit voice recorder and thus to contribute to a voice identification. Specifically, these institutions were:
  • German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation
  • the Dusseldorf public prosecutor
  • BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile) in France

All these requests were rejected with absurd and unreasonable explanations.

In response to a Lubitz family request, the Dusseldorf prosecutor informed them that neither he nor the BFU were ever in possession of the original cockpit voice records or a copy. The German investigation authorities were never provided with this important document of the accident investigation…

L.U.

 

further article:

Why were questionable, technically impossible operating parameters of the crashed Germanwings aircraft not examined?

Why were questionable, technically impossible operating parameters of the crashed Germanwings aircraft not examined?

Simultaneously set flight modes, which exclude each other; plus a newly implemented procedure to check the emergency code function of the cockpit door

Relevant data from an aircraft are stored on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR). The cockpit voice recorder documents pilot voice communications as well as all cockpit sounds. The flight data recorder stores physical data, such as speed, altitude, etc., and  also pilot settings on the autopilot control panel FCU (Flight Control Unit).

The recorders from the crashed Germanwings aircraft were found on separate days and the stored data retrieved. Graphical representations of the parameters taken from the flight data recorder are documented in the French investigation file. Aviation experts and pilots have examined these graphs and analysed them for plausibility. There are striking anomalies regarding different parameters. For example, see the following excerpt from the French investigation file:

Objektiver_Befund_franz_Orginal_Band_03_Blatt 803-1202 (HA 00924)

The graphs show the two automatic flight modes DES (Managed Descent) and OPDES (Open Descent). It can be seen that during the descent the two automatic flight modes DES (upper graph) and OPDES (lower graph) were simultaneously active.

As several Airbus A320 pilots have independently confirmed, having both settings concurrently active is technically impossible. For the Open Decent (OPDES) the altitude adjustment knob must be pulled out. For the Managed Decent setting, the same altitude knob must be pressed in. And when it is pushed in, the other mode is automatically disabled. Thus, it is completely impossible that both setting modes could have been active at the same time.

Another example of an anomaly can be found in the recording of the modes CLB (Managed Climb) and OPCLB (Open Climbs). See the following excerpt from the French investigation file:

Objektiver_Befund_franz_Orginal_Band_03_Blatt 803-1202 (HA 00924)

According to the graph, these two were also simultaneously active in the period from approx. 09:19 to 09:24. This is, again, techinically impossible.

Open Climb means that the engines are running at maximum thrust for the climb and the piot has selected the speed. In the Managed Climb mode the aircraft follows a speed and altitude profile which was previously stored in the Flight Management System. Open Climb is instigated by pulling out the altitude knob and Managed Climb by pressing in the altitude knob.

To repeat, when the altitude knob is pressed in the other mode is automatically disabled. And again, it is technically impossible that both mode settings could have been active at the same time. It should be noted that shortly after takeoff (see graph) at approximately 09:02 only the Managed Climb function was recorded as activated, and not both modes simultaneously.

But there is also an example where Airbus and Lufthansa became active only after the Germanwings crash and its consequences: The verification of the keypad function for accessing the cockpit.

Since the Germanwings crash, the keypad of the cockpit door and the proper function of the cockpit door locking system must be checked by the pilot once daily by entering the emergency code. Shortly after the aircraft accident there were indications from Germanwings insiders that the keypad of the Germanwings crashed aircraft had already malfunctioned previously in an attempt to open the unintentionally closed cockpit door on the ground by entering the emergency code. The door would not open after entering the code and entering the cockpit was only possible with the aid of Lufthansa technicians.

Mr van Beveren already personally reported this incident to the BEA on 28.03.2015, and also  mentioned it in a telephone conversation with BEA spokeswoman Martine Del Bono. At the time he was acting as an independent aviation journalist to the BEA investigation authority. However, there followed no reaction or initiation of an investigation (see link, page 61).

https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Expert-Report-on-the-Crash-of-Germanwings-Flight-4U9525.pdf

Previously, the proper functioning of the emergency code was checked procedurally by Lufthansa technicians only every 12,000 flight hours.

From the Germanwings cockpit voice and sound recordings it is not apparent that the captain entered the emergency code. This prompts the legitimate question of, why not?

Furthermore, it has not been recorded or documented that the cockpit door was locked since the take-off in Barcelona until the collision in the mountains. See also article:

The deliberate lockout of the captain from the cockpit – The investigation file itself shows that this was not the case

Finally, the question persists as to why the questionable operating conditions of the crashed Germanwings aircraft have not been sufficiently investigated and clarified to definitively rule out that these circumstances could have contributed to the accident.

L.U.

 

further article:

The deliberate lockout of the captain from the cockpit

The deliberate lockout of the captain from the cockpit

The investigation file itself shows that this was not the case

Various press reports have claimed that there was an intentional lockout. This has led to the assumption that immediately after the captain left the cockpit Andreas locked the door. Over and over again pictures of the cockpit door locking system switch were commented on together with pictures of the UNLOCK-NORM-LOCK cockpit panel. Media websites displayed A320 locking system animations, always with the claim that Andreas had set the switch to «LOCK».

According to the BEA final report (see page 12) on the accident of the Germanwings plane, the cockpit door was opened at 09:30:24 and closed again three seconds later. These three seconds are when the captain supposedly exited the cockpit. This agrees with the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder protocol. See this following excerpt from the investigation file:

Objective findings German translation volume_03_page HA 05221:

Approximately four minutes later, at 09:34:31, a ringtone was recorded for one second. This sound indicates that someone outside the cockpit is requesting access. This is also evident from the BEA final report on page 13 and is consistent with the cockpit voice recorder transcript recordings (see excerpt below from the investigation file).

Objective findings German translation volume_03_page HA 05222:

However, the recording of the ringtone access request proves that Andreas had not deliberately locked the cockpit door. This is because if he had deliberately set the toggle switch to the LOCK position the entire cockpit door electronics, including the keypad and audible ringtones, would automatically have been deactivated for a period of 5 to 20 minutes, depending on the airline. Thus, no ringtone would have sounded and no ringtone could have been recorded. However, the fact that the ringtone was recorded is clear from the BEA final report. This clearly refutes the claim that by deliberately locking the cockpit door Andreas prevented the captain from entering!

Finally, reference should be made to finding no. 5 in the report on the crash of Germanwings Flight 4U9525 by Mr van Beveren:

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

The assumption stated in the report and also by the public prosecutor, Brice Robin, on 26.03.2015 that Andreas Lubitz did »deliberately prevent the opening of the door« in order to deny access to the captain cannot be proven and is therefore purely speculative and was, in regards to the public statement, hastily stated by the prosecutor, Brice Robin.

Therefore, this assumption mentioned by Brice Robin is not based on any facts or evidence in the report.

L.U.

further article:

The deletion of potentially important evidence

The deletion of potentially important evidence

Questions about the existence of photos / videos that do not fit the official crash scenario and changed crash time

According to the Germanwings investigation file, many mobile phones, of various makes, were found at the crash site. Some of them were undamaged. We all use mobile phones not only to make phone calls and send text messages, but also to take photos or create videos.

One can assume that on the salvaged mobile phones crash victims’ photos and videos of various kinds were stored. It is quite likely that passengers captured in photos or videos the last few minutes aboard the Germanwings plane. Especially in the first rows of seats, e.g. in the immediate vicinity of the cockpit door, the activities of the captain and the cabin crew would have been noticed by passengers, assuming they were conscious. Such photos and videos would provide critical proof in support of the official crash theory and would certainly have been presented in the investigation file. But these photos / videos are not available.

Personal items from the crash site which could be clearly identified immediately were soon handed over to the relatives. Included were several mobile phones. However, a representative for victims’ families from Spain, Paraguay and the United Kingdom, Narcis Motjé, publicly complained that SIM cards, possibly containing information on the course of events leading up to the crash, had been removed before the mobile phones were returned to the families.

See news article:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/germanwings-absturzopfer-verklagen-fluggesellschaft-a-1140692.html
(first read on 30.03.2017)

Victims’ lawyers representing other families also objected in a similar way, namely that photos and videos on the returned mobile phones had been deleted. Under these circumstances one must ask oneself, why had this been done? Did the Mirage fighter play a very different role? What could images or videos of a fighter aircraft, taken by Germanwings passengers, ultimately reveal? According to the investigation file (see page HA 04758) a Mirage fighter plane was indeed on the way. See the following excerpt from the file:

After the Centre National des Operations Aerienne de Lyon (CNOA) had been activated by Aix Air Traffic Control and the operational alert was triggered, a Mirage 2000, based in Orange, launched a search and rescue mission. When it arrived in the area a police helicopter was already present.

The Mirage reached the area, but only after the plane had already crashed…  According to the official BEA Final Report, the Germanwings plane crashed at 09:41:06 (UTC) in the French Alps. (In March, Central European Time is one hour later than UTC.) The impact of the Germanwings plane was thus given as 10:41:06 local time. However, in the early media reports the crash time was reported as 10:53 am – 12 minutes later than what was recorded in the BEA Final Report. At 10:53 (!) on March 26, 2015, a minute of silence was held in North Rhine-Westphalia during which people remembered the victims of the catastrophe. At the same time, bells tolled in our town; at Cologne-Bonn Airport hundreds of Germanwings employees gathered at headquarters; and in Berlin the Federal Cabinet participated in this minute of silence. 10:53 was the moment when the radio transmission from the Germanwings’s plane was silenced by the impact.

See news article:

https://www.derwesten.de/thema/germanwings-absturz/nrw-haelt-inne-so-lief-die-schweigeminute-um-10-53-uhr-id10501602.html
(first read on 16.04.2015)

It is incomprehensible why, in retrospect, the crash time was brought forward from 10:53 to 10:41, and no one has asked why nor has anyone publically explained. Clearly, these facts raise serious questions: It is officially claimed that by 10:41 the Mirage fighter jet was unable to intercept the Germanwings plane, but it could have – 12 minutes later…

L. U.

further article:

Airworthiness Review Certificate – the ignored document

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