Category Archives: False investigation results

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

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?


Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook:

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

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?