Germanwings Flight 9525
D-AIPX, the aircraft involved, in May 2014
|24 March 2015
| • Airbus
• Tim van Beveren
• German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation
• Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety
|Air crash blamed on lone nut pilot. The investigation covered up several important aspects.
Germanwings Flight 9525  was an international passenger flight from Barcelona–El Prat Airport in Spain to Düsseldorf Airport in Germany. The flight was operated by Germanwings, a low-cost carrier owned by the German airline Lufthansa. On 24 March 2015, the aircraft, an Airbus A320-211, crashed 100 km north-west of Nice in the French Alps. All 144 passengers and six crew members were killed  in a crash that was blamed on a lone nut pilot just 48 hours later, by French prosecutor Brice Robin. The aviation industry expert Tim van Beveren commented on how quick that statement was made: "I have never experienced anything comparable in the past 25 years".
The crash was deliberately caused by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, who had previously been treated for suicidal tendencies and declared "unfit to work" by his doctor. Lubitz kept this information from his employer and instead reported for duty. Shortly after reaching cruise altitude and while the captain was out of the cockpit, he locked the cockpit door and initiated a controlled descent that continued until the aircraft impacted a mountainside.
Problems with the Official Narrative
The state attorney of Marseille, France, announced this 2 days after the crash, well before the flight data recorder (FDR) and most of other crucial evidence had been discovered and based only on a first listening to the cockpit voice recorder.
The state attorney reported that breathing until impact could be heard on the cockpit voice recording, meaning the first officer was alive. After the aircraft was called by Air traffic control (ATC) several times without reply, ATC asked other aircraft to contact the A320, however also without reply. The recording taped alarms activated on board of the aircraft due to proximity to the ground, strong violent knocks were heard almost as if to open the cockpit door violently, but there was no Mayday call. However, it could not be determined whether the person present in the cockpit was conscious or not. Also this important detail was never communicated to the public. 
In a number of following press conferences the states attorney of Marseille reported without a doubt that this was a suicidal mission in full intention and reasoned, that the speed of the aircraft changed frequently so the first officer must have adjusted the speeds.
A problem with this narrative is that the "selected speed" entry can be updated by multiple sources, including automated sources e.g. during mode changes when present aircraft parameters are mirrored into the autopilot settings. The source of this parameter on the flight data recorder therefore is one of the many computers, which combines automatic and manual input sources, pre-processes such sources and then puts out the selected speed. The exact sources and the exact logic of the parameters recorded on the flight data recorder have yet to be explained by Airbus, the investigation however did not request such an explanation. This is a very important detail, which may impact several other issues.
The flight data recorder shows, that exactly at the time when the final descent started at 09:30:53z, two modes in the autopilot's pitch channel became active, that were conflicting and technically impossible to be active at the same time. These conflicting modes remained active until impact with terrain at 09:41:06z. French Gendarmerie recognized this very fact and left according notes with the flight data recording (FDR) printout, they even contacted Airbus and asked the corporation, who confirmed these two modes were impossible to be active at the same time. However, no further investigation into this detail was conducted.
This detail either means the FDR was receiving invalid data and therefore not only these particular data but a lot more data were in doubt and an in depth investigation was needed to determine which parameters were correct and which weren't, or if the autopilot indeed suffered a malfunction. It is even possible that the whole descent as well as the various modes and "selected speeds" were the result of the autopilot malfunction as well as the conflicting modes "fighting" with each other and no human intervention at all was needed to initiate that descent and outcome.
It remains unclear what autopilot response the activation of these conflicting modes would produce, this would be needed to be explained by Airbus, but such explanation was not requested. Hence it is inexplicable, why this very crucial conflict was never being looked into.
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.
Lubitz was breathing during the descent, but he might not have been awake, knocked out from an air turbulence that happened shortly before.
The states attorneys of Marseille and Düsseldorf as well as the German and French aircraft accident investigation bureaus all claimed from the beginning that the Lubitz was suffering from a depression, changing to mental disorder and psychotic symptoms as the investigation progressed, and even stated that he had been in hospital care to have the depression treated.
When Düsseldorf terminated all their investigations in December 2016, the closing decision stated that evidence has proven that the first officer did not suffer from a depression and was not under the influence of medication, drugs or other substances like alcohol. He had recently had a problem with his eyesight, but none of the medical experts including neurologists and psychiatrists the first officer had consulted in response to this problem, diagnosed any suicidal tendencies. This was never communicated to the public.
Signs of evidence tampering
In Tim van Beveren's investigation, the airplane flight certificate was put under scrutiny. It was unusual in several ways: it was issued the day before the crash, it was altered with handwritten changes, it had been due to expire in 11 days, it was extended for less than 1 year (contrary to rules), and the signature did not match the printed name. The irregularities with the certificate were never followed up in the investigation.
Van Beveren also pointed out strange things in the evidence collection. When the German Criminal Police investigated the co-pilot’s dwelling, his partner was not present. Statements she supposedly made are not correct. They found one Ipad the first day they searched. They found a second one the next day. A third Ipad was turned over to the police by a third party AFTER the French police had announced that the plane was flown into the side of the mountain by a chronic depressive as a suicide act. The third Ipad is the one that had his Internet history of browsing for cockpit door info. These messages also came without the check numbers to tie them to the actual Ipad.
Tim van Beveren, in his documentary film "Unfiltered" points to a phenomenon known as “Aerotoxic Syndrome", called the air industry’s “dirty little secret.” The air breathed aboard most flight comes straight and unfiltered out of the jet engines and this air contains low levels of toxic compounds, similar to nerve agents such as Sarin. Internal documents and industry studies, obtained by insiders and whistleblowers, reveal that the problem of contaminated cabin air has become a growing concern for almost all airlines and all makes and models of aircraft.
Other possible causes
The EU had a program called SOFIA (safe automatic flight back and landing of aircraft), a "response to the challenge of developing concepts and techniques enabling the safe and automatic return to ground in the event of hostile actions". SOFIA will take the control of the aircraft and will manage to safely return it to ground under a security emergency (e.g. hijacking), disabling the control and command of the aircraft from the cockpit. This means to create and execute a new flight plan towards a secure airport and landing the aircraft at it. The flight plan can be generated in ground (ATC), or in a military airplane and transmitted to the aircraft, or created autonomously at the flight reconfiguration function.
- Crash: Germanwings A320 near Barcelonnette on Mar 24th 2015, first officer alone in cockpit, initiated rapid descent, aircraft impacted terrain
- Press-conference: Günter Lubitz and Tim van Beveren (2h, 25 March 2017, in German)
The Official Culprit
|27 year old pilot who was blamed for the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525
- https://bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/BEA2015-0125.en-LR_04.pdf saved at Archive.org
- https://globalnews.ca/news/1904974/full-transcript-french-prosecutor-brice-robin-explains-black-box-recording/ saved at Archive.org saved at Archive.is
- Pressekonferenz Familie Lubitz 24.03.2017, Berlin, tvbmedia productions Vimeo channel, ca 26:30
- https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/recent-news/ saved at Archive.org saved at Archive.is
- the change also occured within one second, too fast to do this with manual controls, as Tim van Beveren notes in the press-confernce from 24 March 2017, Berlin, https://vimeo.com/216307700
- as noted by Tim van Beveren in the press-confernce from 24 March 2017, Berlin, https://vimeo.com/216307700