Germanwings A320 Crash

smurfjed · 02-04-2017 5:36pm

Does CROWBAR really mean crowbar or is it a translation issue. I would question WTF a crowbar came from.
In a way I would also see it in Lufthansas interest to apportion blame on the Captain as it might reduce their liability created by the continuation of the FO's training.

Foggy43 · 02-04-2017 6:15pm

Can't speak for Germanwings but the airline I work for, their aircraft carry a crowbar. They are in the flight deck. They used to be in the cabin but were moved to the flight deck after 9/11.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 12:28am

Simon, can you post the copy of the medical form he filled out on the 9th of April 2009? According to the BEA that is when he declared he had been treated for depression and had been hospitalised. He was refused the certificate at that time.

The BEA say that his responses on subsequent forms did not raise concerns, given that he was caught failing to provide details to the FAA of his treatment for depression it is possible the two forms you include a few years later were not fully completed? Seems to be a bit pedantic to tick hospitalisation then say it was for tonsils as a child. Perhaps he felt he couldn't leave the box unticked without arousing further suspicion. Why 2011 and 2014 specifically? Were these highlighted by the fathers team?

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 1:05am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Simon, can you post the copy of the medical form he filled out on the 9th of April 2009? According to the BEA that is when he declared he had been treated for depression and had been hospitalised. He was refused the certificate at that time.

The BEA say that his responses on subsequent forms did not raise concerns, given that he was caught failing to provide details to the FAA of his treatment for depression it is possible the two forms you include a few years later were not fully completed? Seems to be a bit pedantic to tick hospitalisation then say it was for tonsils as a child. Perhaps he felt he couldn't leave the box unticked without arousing further suspicion. Why 2011 and 2014 specifically? Were these highlighted by the fathers team?

The states attorney's folder contains this document under file number HA11222 and the one of Apr 9th 2008 under HA11224, both documents are identical except for the date, written by type writer and not signed by either the first officer or the doctor. Hospital box (item 126) is checked, comments contain the remark (126): TE

The BEA told me the same however I sent them the evidence to the contrary. No other document, in particular being signed by the first officer, is in the files for Apr 9th 2009 or Apr 9th 2008 (which the BEA claimed to me).

Between April 2008 (before the depressive episode) and Mar 2015 all such forms always have the hospital box checked, and the comments carry the comment TE or TE als Kind (TE as child), with no exception.

I used the last form (remark only TE) and used the 2011 where he wrote TE als Kind, both forms are signed properly by the FO and the doctor.

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 1:23am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The BEA say that his responses on subsequent forms did not raise concerns, given that he was caught failing to provide details to the FAA of his treatment for depression it is possible the two forms you include a few years later were not fully completed?

This is also an untrue statement. In the Feb 24th 2010 form he ticked the box 118 (psychic issues) and wrote "(118) endogene Depression 2009" and then every form contains this entry related to psychic issues. All these documents are signed properly by both FO and doctor.

Can you please point me to where the BEA has been saying all of this?

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 1:39am

Something still bothers me about that document. It isn't signed by either party yet the other two are. It also doesn't have the box for question 118 ticked which I think I can translate as 'depression' however this box is ticked in the 2011 and 2014 documents.
Surely this has to mean the unsigned 2009 document isn't even truthful or complete?

It would make more sense as a duplicate of the 2008 document with the year changed. After the fiasco with the States Attorney weather report from the wrong year I am a little sceptical.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 1:41am

Austrian Simon wrote: »

This is also an untrue statement. In the Feb 24th 2010 form he ticked the box 118 (psychic issues) and wrote "(118) endogene Depression 2009" and then every form contains this entry related to psychic issues. All these documents are signed properly by both FO and doctor.

Can you please point me to where the BEA has been saying all of this?

Pg. 84 of the final report.

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 1:55am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Something still bothers me about that document. It isn't signed by either party yet the other two are. It also doesn't have the box for question 118 ticked which I think I can translate as 'depression' however this box is ticked in the 2011 and 2014 documents.
Surely this has to mean the unsigned 2009 document isn't even truthful or complete?

It would make more sense as a duplicate of the 2008 document with the year changed. After the fiasco with the States Attorney weather report from the wrong year I am a little sceptical.

As far as the files make clear, the BEA has the same documents that are also in the states attorney's files. After all, they were delivered by Germany's BFU to the French.

Fact is that the only documents not signed are Apr 9th 2008 and Apr 9th 2009. Not being signed both are no valid sources for any facts or statements, as anyone could have filled them out, without knowledge or approval by the FO.

However, all other documents are properly signed and are therefore valid sources.

Thanks for the pointer to p84, the analysis is worded so woolly that one can read anything out of it. The intended purpose is clear, the reader should perceive he told on the form that he was in hospital for treating the depression. However, the document is not signed and not any valid document therefore, and apart from that says he was in hospital for TE. Box 118 (psychic issue) is not checked on both forms and no remark is there as you can see on the previously attached scan. This may have been because the form was prepared from the previous form by somebody who didn't know about the developments of Aug 2008 and following (perhaps some secretary at AeMC preparing the form?)

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 7:12am

Can I ask where you got the files? If you don't want to say I think you need to go back to your sources. To be honest I am really not sure now the files you were given are the same as the files the BEA were.

I don't know the reason for this but the document you have cannot be right or the BEA would have said that his 9th April 2009 medical form was not truthful or complete. When they said what the document they saw said and the consequences of if it being him having to undergo further examination, it does not add up. There would have been no delay or restrictions placed on Lubitz if that was the original document, unless he was found to have filled out incorrectly.

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 8:19am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Can I ask where you got the files? If you don't want to say I think you need to go back to your sources. To be honest I am really not sure now the files you were given are the same as the files the BEA were.

I don't know the reason for this but the document you have cannot be right or the BEA would have said that his 9th April 2009 medical form was not truthful or complete. When they said what the document they saw said and the consequences of if it being him having to undergo further examination, it does not add up. There would have been no delay or restrictions placed on Lubitz if that was the original document, unless he was found to have filled out incorrectly.

I have sent the documents to the BEA for verification.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 8:38am

OK, it will be interesting to see if they will reply and if so will they produce the correct document.

To be honest I think it might be worth considering taking down the whole article until the reason for the incorrect weather document and highly suspicious medical form being in the file is discovered. I've only spent a couple of hours looking at this and these seem to be serious anomalies. I would find it very hard to believe I am the only one who has noticed the presence of these two incorrect documents.

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 8:43am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

OK, it will be interesting to see if they will reply and if so will they produce the correct document.

To be honest I think it might be worth considering taking down the whole article until the reason for the incorrect weather document and highly suspicious medical form being in the file is discovered. I've only spent a couple of hours looking at this and these seem to be serious anomalies. I would find it very hard to believe I am the only one who has noticed the presence of these two incorrect documents.

I am just about to cross check the latest finding regarding the weather chart in the folder. The immediately previous page registered under the same entry stamp is a low level significant weather chart of Mar 24th 2015, and there is an ammended comment in the files that the high level chart is dated erroneously.

At this time I am waiting for reply by Meteo France to cross check this. I requested the chart of Mar 24th 2015 09UTC and sent them the current chart we have got out of the files for verification. This should establish what the story is with this chart.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 12:15pm

Simon, I think the answer to the hospitalisation for psychological problems has been staring us in the face all along in your article and the BEA are in fact correct in their report. See the screenshot below.

The answer for question 118 is not legible to me and I can't translate it, but it is a reply to whether he has had psychological problems. The answer to question 128 directly below it is a response to whether he has been hospitalised. To answer the question on hospitalisation he uses the symbol -"- which means 'as above' (response to psychological problems). So by his own documents it seems he has admitted he was hospitalised for psychological problems.

I think at this stage the whole presentation by the father and the investigator really is starting to look like a hoax with the aim of clearing the name of the first officer.

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 12:59pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Simon, I think the answer to the hospitalisation for psychological problems has been staring us in the face all along in your article and the BEA are in fact correct in their report. See the screenshot below.

The answer for question 118 is not legible to me and I can't translate it, but it is a reply to whether he has had psychological problems. The answer to question 128 directly below it is a response to whether he has been hospitalised. To answer the question on hospitalisation he uses the symbol -"- which means 'as above' (response to psychological problems). So by his own documents it seems he has admitted he was hospitalised for psychological problems.

I think at this stage the whole presentation by the father and the investigator really is starting to look like a hoax with the aim of clearing the name of the first officer.

I am afraid, you are jumping to wrong conclusions.

All the comments:

118 (Psychic Events): bekannt (known)
128 (other illnesses): -"- (known)
129 (hospital): TE
128/130 (130=visit to doctor): ? von Steißbeinschmerzen, 9/2013 versorgt, manuelle Therapie wegen HWS Beschwerden, jetzt o.B.

First word 128/130 illegible to me, probably clarification of pain in the coccyx, treated 9/2013, manual therapy due to cervical vertebrae problems, now negative (in other words, problem solved)

With the "bekannt" he refers to the previous forms that were clear in that respect. In Oct 2012 he reported a fistula at the coccyx which was removed ... (visit to doctor).

So nothing in there that refers to a hospital except point 129, stating TE.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 1:08pm

OK thanks for the clarification, the document is barely readable to me and I don't speak German! I do stand by my opinion that the piece should be taken down until the two problematic documents are explained and the comments section re-opened so people can have their say.

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 1:17pm

Austrian Simon wrote: »

Fact is that the only documents not signed are Apr 9th 2008 and Apr 9th 2009. Not being signed both are no valid sources for any facts or statements, as anyone could have filled them out, without knowledge or approval by the FO.

I was wrong here, we just went through the 16,000 pages files to check whether there are any scans with respect to these two documents and we found another scan under a very different file number. This is the difficulty working in the files of somebody else whose logic you haven't looked through (yet) and thus are basically not searching by system but raw search criteria, which is highly difficult on scans (perhaps we should run all that stuff through OCR software blocking the AVH redaction for weeks).

The documents have been signed on the back page, there are no further comments on its. Hence both documents are valid, and once again, there is nothing there, that suggests hospital visit for any other reason than TE as child.

At this time I pull out of this discussion. I'd wish you would show equal zeal in verifying the documents by the investigation and not just try to prove me wrong.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 1:36pm

I'm sorry to hear you don't want to discuss this further, there are several more unanswered questions with the claims and hypothesis of the investigator and father, I didn't want to put a long list of problems in one post.

Would it be possible even to clarify, in the new 2009 medical form you found, is there no reference to depression or tick beside question 118? Since the depression treatment started in 2008 and continued into 2009 according to the BEA, the second document you found for 2009 is still a false document if this is not disclosed?

Austrian Simon · 03-04-2017 3:53pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear you don't want to discuss this further, there are several more unanswered questions with the claims and hypothesis of the investigator and father, I didn't want to put a long list of problems in one post.

Would it be possible even to clarify, in the new 2009 medical form you found, is there no reference to depression or tick beside question 118? Since the depression treatment started in 2008 and continued into 2009 according to the BEA, the second document you found for 2009 is still a false document if this is not disclosed?

Okay, final information on this Apr 9th 2009 after studying the files further and clearing up another misunderstanding that I suffered from due to the extremely complicated structure of the files spread over multiple folders, which is highlighting the whole situation:

First officer went to the AeMC to explore the options of whether he could get his medical, secretary of AeMC had filled out and prepared the papers, only the previously known stuff, hence box hospital because of TE was prepared by the secretary.

First Officer did not sign the document, went to see the doctor and told the doctor about the depressive episode. Doctor told the first officer, he can't get a medical, if he signed the form and submitted it, a refusal would follow and the refusal would be in his records. First Officer decided not to sign and submit the document.

As result, there is no application whatsoever and no document of Apr 9th 2009. This is another evidence of the BEA final report being plain wrong on this.

Confusion arose, because the documents of 2008 and 2009 look absolutely identical, only the date is different. 2008 second page has been signed and submitted indeed (but was misread as 2009 in error).

This just to illustrate how difficult it is to work with these files. And this is my final word.

Cianmcliam · 03-04-2017 9:02pm

Thanks for the further explanation, and I do appreciate working with these files must be difficult and at times frustrating.

However, after reading the explanation above, some obvious questions come to mind.
If there are no documents related to the 9th of April medical form, how is all the above information about that medical consultation available in the States Attorney files? If it is not in the files, who is supplying the information?

Is it standard practice for a secretary to fill out a medical questionnaire before an employee even sees it? That seems extremely bizarre and I can't think of any employer I know of even considering this. The potential liability must be enormous.

If the document had false information on it and the first officer revealed it was incorrect, why was it filed and not destroyed? Why was it so close to hand when you were looking through the referenced documents for all the other medical forms? What is the explanation for the existence of this form?

If the BEA had the same files as the States Attorney, why was this form with false information not discussed in their report?

I think the BEA account looks a lot more definitive and accurate than the suspicious circumstance surrounding this form with false information.

I know you said you won't reply any more, but I do hope you get an answer from the BEA on what document they have and add it to your article.

Coil Kilcrea · 04-04-2017 2:49pm

Austrian Simon wrote: »

.
And this is my final word.

That's a great pity, Simon, since much of the benefit of such discussion is the willingness to debate.

The counter arguments are equally compelling.

billie1b · 04-04-2017 3:09pm

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

That's a great pity, Simon, since much of the benefit of such discussion is the willingness to debate.

The counter arguments are equally compelling.

I think he just got bored of answering the same question, just phrased differently, all the time. I don't blame him leaving the discussion.

Cianmcliam · 04-04-2017 3:31pm

billie1b wrote: »

I think he just got bored of answering the same question, just phrased differently, all the time. I don't blame him leaving the discussion.

It's not the same question over again. Simon said he decided to publish the article because it was proven the BEA lied or were badly mistaken. Two of the main items he identified were about the first officer being hospitalised for depression and the BEA saying the weather was not a factor.

To support these claims the journalist and father presented a weather chart that was for the same date on the wrong year.
On the claim about the hospitalisation the medical forms for 2011 and 2014 were published.

I asked for the specific document they identified in the report, from the 9th of April 2009. The document that was produced appeared to me to be a photocopy of the 2008 document with the date changed. The only other explanation is that Lubitz knowingly filed a false medical form which is far worse than any original dispute over whether he was hospitalised or not. The explanation given seems incredible.

The presence of these documents in the States Attorney file could potentially be a bigger story than the fathers emotional press conference.

Coil Kilcrea · 04-04-2017 3:54pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

It's not the same question over again. Simon said he decided to publish the article because it was proven the BEA lied or were badly mistaken. Two of the main items he identified were about the first officer being hospitalised for depression and the BEA saying the weather was not a factor.

To support these claims the journalist and father presented a weather chart that was for the same date on the wrong year.
On the claim about the hospitalisation the medical forms for 2011 and 2014 were published.

I asked for the specific document they identified in the report, from the 9th of April 2009. The document that was produced appeared to me to be a photocopy of the 2008 document with the date changed. The only other explanation is that Lubitz knowingly filed a false medical form which is far worse than any original dispute over whether he was hospitalised or not. The explanation given seems incredible.

The presence of these documents in the States Attorney file could potentially be a bigger story than the fathers emotional press conference.

I agree fully. Moreover, inaccurate documents merely fuel the speculation and arm the conspiracy theorists.

smurfjed · 04-04-2017 5:23pm

It's a pity that Simon stopped debating the subject as this was one of the most interesting discussions that I have ever read in A&A.
Just goes to prove that educated speculation is actually good.

iguot · 04-04-2017 6:04pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Just goes to prove that educated speculation is actually good.

You're hanging around this forum to much.

Coil Kilcrea · 04-04-2017 6:59pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Just goes to prove that educated speculation is actually good.

And made for fascinating insight on a very difficult subject. Massive respect for those who piece the facts together such that the lessons can be learned for the future. Better still, debate can highlight errors, omissions or misunderstandings.

Gaoth Laidir · 04-04-2017 7:52pm

smurfjed wrote: »

It's a pity that Simon stopped debating the subject as this was one of the most interesting discussions that I have ever read in A&A.
Just goes to prove that educated speculation is actually good.

I think Simon must be the busiest guy on the planet and must get the least sleep. He seems to be awake all hours. Despite all of the work updating the site (though I know he has a team) he also has this extra work and also had time to post lengthy content in this thread.

Coil Kilcrea · 04-04-2017 9:24pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think Simon must be the busiest guy on the planet and must get the least sleep. He seems to be awake all hours. Despite all of the work updating the site (though I know he has a team) he also has this extra work and also had time to post lengthy content in this thread.

And while we're at it, how about the work and knowledge by Cianmcliam who mastered a great level of detail and raised some very pertinent questions. That's what made the discussion so good imho. And that's why we need it to continue ..... that's just me being selfish .....I can only read and admire.

More to the point, the tragedy deserves careful consideration of all the facts.

Cianmcliam · 05-04-2017 1:39pm

Are there any A320 pilots on the thread? I'm having a hard time understanding one of the arguments made during the press conference and described by the AVHerald article regarding the speed selection.

The FDR indicates that the Open Descent mode was selected and then auto-thrust went to idle. From this we must assume any speed changes will be made using pitch commands. The BEA report then says the speed management mode was changed within seconds of the Open Descent mode being activated, to 'selected speed' instead of 'managed'.

Now, the AVHerald article says that the 'selected speed' can vary not just by turning the dial but by automated sources.

Surely though, if a selected speed is changed, it must be done by the pilots? Otherwise it can also be 'managed' even though managed was disabled?

The implications of this not being true would surely be a hazard, especially during descent. If ATC specify a change of speed to ensure separation with traffic ahead, it would be dangerous for an automated source changing that speed during descent?

The changes in speed are curious, I wonder did he only realise after increasing the speed after selecting the Open Descent mode that the resulting downward pitch of the aircraft might alert the captain that something was going wrong before Lubitz could work out on the map that his descent profile would lead to a collision on the mountain slopes rather than over or under-shooting the mountain range?

Gaoth Laidir · 05-04-2017 4:23pm

Wasn't the change in speed due to the switchover from Mach to IAS mode on passing through FL270?

Germanwings A320 Crash

Comments