The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

"Fume Event" expert witness Prof. DREXLER and the Nuremberg judiciary.

His most important evidence was withheld by his employer TUIfly, the BG Verkehr and the social court. Now he has filed criminal charges for attempted trial fraud and against his expert witness. The former captain Markus FENZEL (see the entry of June 14) is now testing the "constitutional state of Germany". Among other things, we describe the legal procedure at the public prosecutor's office and describe the unholy symbiosis between social courts judges and their "proven experts" at www.ansTageslicht.de/NuernbergerJustiz and in brief at www.ansTageslicht.de/Nuernberg.

The BG Verkehr's "doctrine" on "fume events": "odours"!

The asbestos industry and the tobacco companies had - from their point of view successfully - set an example: how to unsettle people and the media, but above all politicians, with their opinions derived from their own research: dangerous or not? The Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr is copying this successful principle in the matter of "Fume Events". Described in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Lehrmeinung , in brief on 1 page at www.ansTageslicht.de/Gerueche.

"Underreporting"

We are revisiting the subject of "no precise figures on how often such cabin air contamination events occur", which we presented at a virtual press conference for MEPs on 18/19 December last year. Nobody is interested in that. Because dramatic incidents have occurred so often, tacit acceptance poses a serious risk to air safety. We have described this in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Underreporting and in brief on 1 page here : www.ansTageslicht.de/fumeevent.

Action Bundestag Election: Letter No. 4 to the Members of the Bundestag (MdB): Urinary bladder cancer and Prof. DREXLER in court

It is a classic case: The BG (=Berufsgenossenschaft = Professional Insurance Association) immediately calls in a high-ranking expert who proceeds to reject the claim of the injured party for recognition of a "BK" (=Berufskrankheit = Occupational Disease). The social court adopts the opinion 1:1. It takes two full years to come to this conclusion.

You only have a chance if you manage to raise several thousand euros to hire your own independent expert who does not allow himself to get tied into the lucrative mainstream of statutory accident insurances. As a rule, the mainstream experts' reports are so thin that it is easy for a clever toxicologist to pick the mainstream arguments apart. In the mentioned case, it concerned the highest-ranking occupational physician in Germany: Prof. Dr Hans DREXLER:

The short version compressed onto 1 page can be found at www.ansTageslicht.de/ProfessorDREXLER

and in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Harnblasenkrebs (both in German).

Prof. DREXLER is also involved in expert opinions concerning fume events.

50,000 cases = approx. 100,000 votes, every year: second letter to the members of parliament.

"If you flew with TUIfly from time to time before 2011, perhaps on holiday, it could well be that Capt. Markus FENZEL got you up in the air and from there safely back on the ground. In his captain's final check you can read: "a very dedicated performance", and that he is " very thorough in his planning and execution."

Now, 10 years have passed since he's been unable to fly. Unfit to fly. Unfit for work: concentration problems, a "liver insufficiency due to poisoning". This is what is stated in a study by the (German) Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU), p. 34, ref: BFU 5X011-11. All under the heading (and completely contradictory): "Serious incident without casualties".

Lasting damage to one’s health, due to a so-called fume event, when toxic substances from burnt turbine oil enter the cabin air, is not considered an "injury" in this country. Not by this authority. Not at the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA). Not by the Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr (workers compensation board). Not at the Federal Association of the German Air Transport Industry. To the outside world, they all (only) talk about "odour incidents". That sounds harmless and no one gets the idea that this can be associated with a severe poisoning, which completely destroys the life of a pilot for his 'remaining time': health-wise and financially. Because the professional association (of course) does not pay. Just as they have enforced this for decades concerning asbestos.

Pilots have to follow up to 50 flight control instructions in a highly concentrated manner, e.g. on the route from London to Nuremberg, or in a totally congested airspace. For pilots who generally and above all blindly rely on the information provided by others (ground staff, air traffic controllers, technical maintenance), a whole world collapses when they become unfit to fly after a fume event, when they realise that nothing is correct any more: the promise that one is protected in the event of an incident, the belief that one can rely on the rule of law in case of doubt. None of this turns out to be true. A conspiracy? Behind the scenes?

"According to the airline, the technical examination of the aircraft did not provide any indication of the cause of the odour," the BFU  continues.

"During the subsequent investigation, oil deposits were found in the load compressor of the APU," it said - for about 2 weeks - on TUIfly's intranet. And: "As soon as the results are available, we will inform you".

This is what the "results" looked like In the Employer's Liability Insurance Association (BG),  "accident investigation report": the oil deposits and the fume event disappeared. "No findings" it says. A total of 13 times. And that is also what it says in the rejection notice served by the BG. And that is also what the BFU (does not) say. And that's how it is (not) registered at the LBA. And that is also how the judge (does not) read it.

We have reconstructed the three flights and what happened on them in detail, among other things on the basis of the pilots’ and crews’ statements, as well as the cockpit flight report: at www.ansTageslicht.de/TUIfly.  What the ex-pilot could not provide us with: TechLog, FlightLog and the Cockpit Voice Recorder. These documents have been withheld from Capt. Markus FENZEL by TUIfly up until this day. These documents would reveal the manipulation. The judge at the Social Court of Nuremberg is not interested in this (of course) (Ref: S 15 U 254/17). Everyday life in this country?

Would you talk with Cpt. Markus FENZEL? And explain to him why things are the way they are? We will gladly connect you: via johannes.ludwig@haw-hamburg.de or call 0176-52 00 69 15"

Campaign Bundestag Election "50,000 cases = 100,000 votes", every year ...

which are most likely lost to democratic society, because people who become occupationally ill and are unable to work, lose almost everything: their health, their job, their financial security. In most cases, this is also accompanied by social decline.

In 2018, we tried to draw the attention of some members of the Bundestag (Members of Parliament) to these problems. Result: zero reaction. But, it was not an election year.

It's different this time. That's why we are repeating the action, starting today. We are communicating both: fates of affected people and important aspects of their problems, to about 300 MdB's of the Bundestag committees Labour&Social Affairs; Health; Legal Affairs&Consumer Protection and Transport every week, until election day.

It is 1) a test and 2) a so-called participant observation for the research project "Risk Perception". Everything will be covered and can be read about and followed over the entire time at www.ansTageslicht.de/MdB (German).

Federal Social Court adjourns proceedings: wants to commission its own expert witness

It is new that the highest social court in Germany wants to get its own picture of the scientific findings in a case. This one, on the question of whether paramedics are exposed to an increased risk of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to their daily work and dealing with 'hard-to-digest situations". The plaintiff was present at the amok rampages in Winnenden, which - among other events - affected him a lot. The two lower courts had refused to recognize his case as a "BK" (= Berufskrankheit = Occupational Illness), as such an illness could not not be found on the "BK" list, and PTSD could not be recognized as a "Wie-BK" ( "like", “similar to” BK) either: the data did not support this.

And, the "BK Medical Expert Advisory Board", on which the mainstream occupational physicians and the representatives of the GUV system set the tone, already rejected it: based on 1 (only one) study, the results of which the ÄSVBR BK members interpreted as follows: the data situation is too weak!

The same problem exists concerning the topic of fume events. In September 2018, this committee had this topic on the agenda and obtained (at least) 6 publications for it. The result: "the state of knowledge is still unclear", "there's a lack of "epidemiological evidence", and so on: topic adjourned (see the entry on 23rd October 2018).

The highest judges are now waiting for the independent result. As researched in the meantime by the plaintiff - there are, of course, a whole series of studies to be found abroad. It appears as if neither the professorial representatives in the ÄSVBR BK wanted to view them nor the judges of the lower courts.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Sven KOBBELT from Esslingen, was able to successfully assert his case at the BSG, claiming a violation of the right to be heard.

3,000 Lufthansa flight attendants have suffered cabin air damage since 2000?

This is the number circulating internally among Lufthansa flight attendants. And it certainly has a basis, because such numbers do not arise by chance.

So, we asked Lufthansa:

First of all, could they give us figures on how many people have been affected since 2000? Answer: "We do not have the requested number."

We then followed up and asked in real terms whether Lufthansa could confirm the figure of 3,000? We asked on 9 February, at 12:58p.m. to be exact

The answer was not long in coming. It came exactly 7 minutes later at 1:07p.m.:

"I would very much like to send you a more detailed reply. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the mentioned number, as we do not have it available."

What can one conclude just from the quick-as-lightning response?

Various things, of course. However, we assume that we hit the nail on the head, and that the number 3,000 cabin air injured flight attendants is accurate.

"Everything about cabin air - unfiltered"

is the subject of the programme will run in "PLANE TALK" on the YouTube channel "pilotsEYE.tv". Dieter SCHOLZ from the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW) and heads the Aircraft Design & Systems Group will be interviewed.

Subject matter will be about cabin air and Corona: starting at 6 p.m. onwards. The channel has 353,000 subscribers. Topic: No seat protects against infection (English subtitles)

Perception trap "Fume Event": Risk for aviation safety and the crew

December 19 marks the tenth anniversary of a fume incident on approach to Cologne/Bonn Airport that nearly ended in disaster:

"It's hard to imagine if we had passed out! The plane would have followed the LOC and GS and hit the threshold in Cologne with 8 tons of residual fuel - because of snow - and 144 guests + 5 crew members. I don't want to imagine the catastrophe until today."

This is how the co-pilot summarized it in his Flight Report Cockpit at the end, which can be read in full at www.ansTageslicht.de/cockpit-flight-report. The entire incident is reconstructed at Lufthansa's subsidiary Germanwings on December 19, 2010

To date, the industry seems to have learned nothing - fume events are still happening and - in concrete terms - little or nothing is being done about them.

Because such incidents pose a risk to flight safety and the crew, the research project "Risk Perception" is looking into the question of why this is so: that nothing is being done. The first explanation: the existing information and figures are incomplete and cannot capture the problem either qualitatively or quantitatively: a classic case of a perception trap, when a problem can become a risk and everyone thinks/believes it is not a problem.

Prof. Dr. Johannes LUDWIG, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ (both Hamburg University of Applied Sciences - HAW), the patient association P-COC, the whistleblower network and a former pilot who is no longer able to fly due to fume events held a press briefing on this topic.

The problem of "underreporting" , why this is a perception trap and how underreporting of fume events affects air traffic safety and why it poses a health risk to the crew is described in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/perception-trap-underreporting.

It was probably unavoidable under the given circumstances: If an aviation supervisory  authority delegates its duties to those it is supposed to (actually) supervise, this is what happens: a faulty sensor controls faulty software and sends the aircraft into disaster. The pilots did not stand a chance.

Barely five months later the second crash. For the same reasons.

After the first disaster, the FAA had already calculated that up to 15 crashes were possible over the life cycles of 4,800 aircraft of this type. The authority only reacted after crash number 2.

The EASA was also aware of the problems. The EASA did not react either. Nor did they warn.

We have documented the disasters: the two crashes and above all, the conditions at Boeing and the (actually) responsible aviation supervisory authorities: www.ansTageslicht.de/boeing737max8 . 

IATA and "fake news"

The economic situation is bad in the aviation industry, that is common knowledge and why. In fact, the aviation business seems to be so desperate that the international umbrella organisation IATA resorts to false statements, for example by booming on its Facebook page:

www.facebook.com/iata.org/posts/3518937378172375

There you will find the slogans that:

•     the cabin air is as clean as in an operating theatre of a hospital
•     the HEPA filters (if any) are capable of keeping 99.99% of the coronavirus out or filtering it
•     the air exchange in the aircraft takes place every 2-3 minutes and
•     all the air would therefore be completely exchanged 20-30 times per hour.

The aviation expert Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ has already explained and communicated on several occasions that this is 'pure nonsense'.
But that obviously does not stop the aviation business from continuing to harp on about their platitudes. Prof. SCHOLZ now sees this as a test: to see if it is possible to stop this fake news campaign of the aviation industry.

Everybody can be involved in this action: Make a report to facebook that these statements are "fake news"!

Now online (as announced some days before): The Hunt for the TCP

How the knowledge of TCP came about, and the current state of affairs is described en detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Tricresylphosphate.

In addition, there is a chapter in which the 3 studies of the professional associations on this topic are critically examined: The assertion that there could not have been a fume event because no TCP could be measured is nothing else than a scientific bluff: www.ansTageslicht.de/SCHINDLER-Study.

Alexei NAVALNY and cabin air: Novichok and tricresyl phosphate (TCP)

We had no desire that our research would have such an unexpected twist. We have great respect for this courageous person who is now - poisoned by a substance from the Novichok poison range - fighting for his life in the Berlin Charité. Russian students had already drawn a portrait of this intrepid politician in 2013 - in connection with the project Human Media Democracy: www.ansTageslicht.de/Navalny.

We have now put together another documentation about the substance tricresyl phosphate (TCP), which is added to synthetic turbine oils and can enter the cockpit and/or cabin air during fume events and as such harms people: Novichok and TCP belong to the same chemical family of phosphoric acid esters.

The health consequences of such substances: often lifelong damage to the nerves and muscles, sometimes quickly, sometimes with a time delay. Worst case scenario: death.

As usual with Russian poison attacks: the Russian authorities always deny everything. As usual regarding the health damage caused by fume events or TCP: airlines and the employer’s liability insurers always deny everything. Similarly, the Federal Government: "The Federal Government has no knowledge of this.“

We have reconstructed the problem of TCP and have shown how absurd the claim by Lufthansa, the employer’s liability insurance assocations and their mainstream occupational physicians is: 'Because no TCP can be proven, there can be none, full stop.“

The explanation: TCP cannot be detected in blood or urine - the substance is one of the so-called hit-and-run substances: once it has entered the human body, TCP causes damage and dissolves - virtually undetectable, similar to white asbestos dust. Only very few experts can provide evidence in specialised laboratories: not directly, only indirectly on the basis of chemical indices.

Even though flying and the problem of contaminated cabin air are currently only of secondary importance to the public due to corona, we are continuing to work on this topic.

"We": These are the committed members of the Aerotoxic Global Network, the Patient Initiative P-COC, as well as individual experts who work with ansTageslicht.de, including the initiator of ansTageslicht.de.

Following TCP, the next complex subject will deal with filters: filters as in nose-mouth covering, HEPA filters in aircraft and the air in operating rooms. According to Lufthansa, the air in an aircraft is as clean as in an "operating room". We will continue our research into this.

Why TCP cannot be detected and what this means is compiled under "The Hunt for Tricresyl Phosphate", which can be accessed directly at www.ansTageslicht.de/TCP. The English version is fortcoming at www.ansTageslicht.de/tricresylphosphate.

Fly? Or not flying?

That's what William SHAKESPEARE would ask himself these days. But he is no longer alive, unfortunately. Therefore Prof. Dieter SCHOLZ answers this question. Now in English.

See the article below.

"All 3 arguments given by the Aviation Industry are wrong"

Prof. Dr. Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ explains in an interview with journalist Markus STEINHAUSEN for 3Sat „Kulturzeit“ (German TV). The airlines advertise with the harmlessness of flying and the cleanliness of the air "like in an operating theatre" – as they want to get their planes full again.

The following are the refutations by the aviation professor, who is not paid by the aviation industry, but teaches and researches at a state-financed university (see entry below):

The  much praised HEPA-filters do not filter the cabin air from all viruses or aerosols and therefore the cabin air is not as "clean as in a hospital operating room" (where completely different filter systems are used).

The air in the aircraft is not completely replaced every 3 minutes (which is not possible because 50% of the air is recirculated).

The air does not only circulate from top to bottom because this statement does not take into account the thermal turbulence caused by the body heat of the passengers.

The film also shows an example from 2003, when the SARS virus was raging: The University of Purdue/USA proved in a study that 1 (single) passenger infected a total of 20 other passengers sitting over a total of 12 rows of seats, within three hours.

 We highly recommend this film (only 7 min)! The video is available until July 3rd, 2025.

Summer(holiday) & COVID -19: To fly or not to fly?

Many rules apply in the meantime: mandatory wearing of masks in shops and other facilities, safety distances and lots more.

For the aviation business it’s only recommendations that exist with which the airlines can do what they want. Because of their economic and political power, they have been able to enforce this.

This is a problem for passengers who have to or want to fly because they can't really protect themselves very well even if they want to. The airlines set the tone: seat allocation on the plane, the ventilation, boarding and disembarking and everything else. The legal situation is unclear, as is the individual health risk.

This is the conclusion reached by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ from the University of Applied Sciences (HAW) in Hamburg, who is one of the very few people in the world to conduct research into the problem of contaminated cabin air in aircraft, from a technical point of view. Now he has published a small documentation with real recommendations: Sommer 2020 Covid-19, Fliegen: Ja oder Nein? (Summer 2020, COVID-19: Flying: yes or no? English version to follow soon).

Use the standstill in aviation to do something about the contaminated cabin air. And not just against CoVid 19

This is the fundamental demand that the Patienten-Initiative p-coc.com is directing not only at airlines, especially Deutsche Lufthansa, which is now to be kept alive with governmental money but also at politicians.

In total there are 6 specific demands. Some of them have - actually - been legally stipulated for a long time, e.g. that a) there must be no pollutants whatsoever in the cabin air and that therefore b) sensors must be installed.

But no authority is taking this seriously. Neither the BFU nor the LBA, not even the EASA. Politics certainly don't.

How the majority of the members of the CDU/CSU and SPD in the German Bundestag deal with the problem of preventive measures and, in the absence of such measures, the subsequent development of occupational illnesses, was just recently demonstrated by politicians (see the entry of 7th May). And how seriously it takes the problems of around 50,000 people every year.

The Open Letter to the German Chancellor, the responsible ministries, the EU Commission and Lufthansa can be read and/or downloaded here.

Occupational Diseases Reform Act: 2nd and 3rd Reading in 1 Go

This is what it will come down to next Thursday, May 7. Votes are scheduled to begin at 4.15 p.m.

Originally, a public hearing was planned. This was cancelled due to the Corona measures and the statements were submitted in writing by the requested associations, which were then put online. There was no longer any discussion in the Committee for Labour and Social Affairs.

The committee summarised the positions of the associations as follows: "Public Hearings". Also included there are the individual statements. With the exception of the employers' associations, all the others regard the abandonment of the so-called injunction as positive. The latter means that if a BK (Berufskrankheit = occupational disease) is suspected and reported to a BG (Berufsgenossenschaft = Federal Employers' Association), the person concerned must give up the work due to which he or she has (allegedly) became ill. For many, this is often not possible if there is no other job alternative. This provision will now be dropped. Instead, other workplace solutions will be sought.

This is of course a thorn in the side of the Employers' Association of the Metal Industry and in its statement complains about the additional costs incurred as a result; these costs are "unacceptable".

The only positive change we ourselves see is the now, finally, planned official institutionalisation of the "Medical Expert Council 'BK' at the BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales = Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs). There are now to be scientific experts appointed; The aim is to create 10 scientific staff positions in order to be able to advance the work and the discussions in this relevant body more quickly. It remains to be seen whether scientific staff will then be able to compensate for the structural imbalance of know-how and the preparation of meetings. We will keep an eye on this.

The draft of the DIE LINKE group will be polished off smoothly, the Greens have not even put forward a position of their own - the problem obviously does not play a special role in this party in the Bundestag.

If the bill is waved through on Thursday, it could only be stopped via the Bundesrat. There, the states of Hamburg (SPD/GREENS) and Schleswig-Holstein (CDU/GREENS/FDP) had already attempted to bring in other proposals; NRW (CDU/FDP) had likewise tried to do the same.

However, the corona seems to overshadow everything at present.

„Fume Event ABC"

Officially launched right now: a new site by ansTageslicht.de which is intended to become a kind of ‚WIKI’ regarding the Fume Event problem.

A lot of important and particular information does not always find its way into a larger context text immediately. Some of the points are so relevant that you should be able to look them up alphabetically.

In order to kill 'two birds with one stone' we now have the "Fume Event ABC"  directly accessible and linkable here

• www.ansTageslicht.de/ABC-Fume-Event

The lexicon begins with the following four keywords with relevant contents:

• www.ansTageslicht.de/BMAS: Federal Ministry of Labour & Social Affairs
• www.ansTageslicht.de/Flight-Report-Cockpit : FRC by four pilots following a Fume Even
• www.ansTageslicht.de/Gutachter: a link that redirects to another detailed site at ansTageslicht.de
• www.ansTageslicht.de/Schindler2013: the summary of a critic of a study commissioned by BG Verkehr, which is methodologically and contentwise not very informative - nevertheless, it is highly rated in the industry-funded science and research community.

Further keywords and contents will follow. Suggestions are always welcome!

An English version is under construction.

1st International "Clean Cabin Air Day" 2020

There are  "International Days" for many things: freedom of the press, children, the forest, disabled people, etc. Now the Patient Initiative p-coc.com has decided to declare an "International Clean Cabin Air Day", which from now on will always take place on April 3rd.

We have known about the problems for decades (see www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinairchronology - in EN), as well as about the regularity of fume-event incidents (see www.ansTageslicht.de/incidents - also in EN), and there are more and more affected people who become terminally ill.

According to the Lufthansa Group, such incidents happen on every 2,000 flights = 1:2000. If one converts this to daily or weekly flight operations, this amounts to 10 fume events per week. Almost two every day.

P-coc now wants to tackle this problem and generate worldwide attention for this still unsolved problem. https://www.facebook.com/groups/865783380264164/More on their Facebook page.

The Cabin air is "as clean as in an operating room",

says Deutsche Lufthansa in all seriousness in response to an enquiry from ZDF, why on (currently still taing place) domestic LH flights, people would sit closely packed next to each other on each available seat and after disembarkation would are rounded up and again tightly packed in the pick-up buses? Is this the up-to-date practice?

In view of such pictures and the political motto "keep your distance", even the editorial staff of ZDF’s "Heute Journal" has doubts. And so it becomes a topic on the evening news. You can see the excerpt here: "Tightly packed for transport".

Regarding the keyword "Filters and Cabin Air", a compilation of what is known about it to this day, will be available soon. We ask for your patience. 

The extremely low number of parliamentarians present during the 30-minute first reading of the reform document shows the 'interest' of the elected representatives in this topic - although every year around 50,000 people fail to pass the 'social net' of the statutory accident insurance system. People thereby "lose faith in the rule of law", as all those affected tell us who contact us. If we apply the disappointment to the whole family, more than 100,000 people lose faith in the law every year, simply by the non recognition of the damage done to their health caused at their workplace.

The planned reform, which is mainly the result of the GUV system, will not change this situation. What would actually be necessary, in the opinion of experts who are independent of the SHI system, and what we have compiled at www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform, will not take place - with the exception of the long overdue expansion of the "Medical Expert Council 'BK", which is now to be provided with useful equipment.

• The speech by Kerstin GRIESE (SPD), Parliamentary State Secretary at the BMAS, confirms this. She sees the "reform work" mainly in the "discharge of 4 million hours" for the citizens and "139 million Euro for the employers". The reason: the "digital reform" of the "welfare state for the future" now makes the welfare state "easier and more accessible.
• The real problems associated with occupational illnesses are obviously only perceived by the Left Party (Die Linke). That is why it has also submitted its own legislative proposal. The demands of DIE LINKE are succinctly summed up by their spokeswoman Jutta KRELLMANN in her speech: research independent of the system of the GUV, hardship regulations and shorter periods of time for the recognition of BK's. Jutta KRELLMANN summarized her party's ideas and her criticism of the GroKo reform in an article for the weekly newspaper Freitag: From Abestos to Pneumoconiosis.

The entire (short) reading can be seen and heard in the MediaThek of the German Bundestag.

Timetable for further procedure:

According to the current status (March 13th) of the "dynamic eruption":

• On 25th March the reform work is to be discussed in the responsible committee "Labour and Social Affairs".
• A hearing of some social organisations is scheduled for 20 April.
• And the second and third or final reading will take place three days later on 23rd April.

This timetable gives an immediate indication of the purpose and function of the hearing three days before the final vote.

Reform of the law on occupational diseases: 1st reading in the German Bundestag

The public debate is scheduled at 2:15 p.m., during which some of the members of parliament will have the opportunity to comment on the draft law introduced by the Federal Government. About half an hour of speaking time has been set aside for this subject. The debate will be broadcasted live by Phoenix.

The Left Party has its draft in which it demands the lowering of the hurdles to recognition. However, the Bundestag administration has not made it available online. The proposals can only be read on the Left Party's website.

The Green Party has not presented anything.

The Federal States had previously demanded a whole series of changes and improvements from the Federal Government (cf. entry 14th February). The latter has adopted almost nothing of their ideas.

AnsTageslicht.de has now written to the members of the Committee for Labor & Social Affairs, who are responsible for the content of this bill: with

•     a one-page explanatory letter
•     and six examples of affected persons and two expert occupational physicians.

We are curious whether the "People's Representatives" will deal with hints and suggestions from the "People".

Fume Events: now also in the ARD boulevard magazine 

The topic is gaining momentum. Now the tabloid magazine BRISANT, part of the "Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk" (MRD) has also picked up the subject. Briefly, but nevertheless. And they referenced the "Patient Initiative Contaminated Cabin Air e.V." (p-coc.com): What to do in case of toxic fumes in the aircraft cabin?

Corrections to our report from January 30!

Please note: 

In the meantime, we have received other and additional information concerning the EASA workshop. Therefore we have changed our entry on January 30. The updated version is now valid.

Thanks!

Since autumn 2019, the Federal Government, or more specifically the BMAS, has been working on a "reform" of the Federal Occupational Deseases Law. For almost 20 years once again. We have already dealt with it a) in detail and b) critically at www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform. 

The federal government and the BMAS, led by the Social Democrats (SPD), apparently (once again) wants to serve the interests of employers above all else, and above all take into account the proposals of the DGUV. 

Meanwhile, some federal states dissatisfied with a) the course of events planned by the government, and b) with the intended changes, are trying to resist this. They have therefore drawn up a statement on the Bundesrat. In this statement,

• they want to enforce a hardship clause in cases involving rare diseases for which very little or no research results or on cause-effect relationships and/or epidemiological studies are available. Such a requirement is then to be applied "restrictively" (relates to previous § 9 SGB VII).
• And in cases in which the continuation of an insured activity would lead to a further worsening of the clinical picture, this should no longer be exclusively at the expense of the employee or how else he should earn his income; instead, the BGen should "work with the employer and the insured to ensure that the insured are no longer exposed to the hazardous activity".

The reasoning behind the latter is rather 'witty': 

"The employer is obliged to provide working conditions where occupational diseases do not arise." 

The fact that this must be pointed out - in the context of a single proposed regulation - seems to confirm the fact that the "reformers" have still not recognised this fundamental problem. And therefore are not prepared to introduce a reversal of the burden of proof. This would probably increase the economic pressure to such an extent that it would be cheaper for companies to take adequate precautionary measures than to pay for long-term and often irreparable damage to health afterwards. In the USA, for example, product liability law works on this principle: successfully.

Fume Event - Report now also on RTL

After the TV magazine Report Mainz (ARD) reported on the subject at the end of January, the private broadcaster RTL is now also joining in the news: "Ex-Condor pilot accuses: Sick from toxic cockpit air". 

Willy JAHNKE, now 65 years with 40 years of cockpit experience, is now suing his former employer. He has been dependent on 24-hour care for five years, and attributes his massive impairment to the toxic substances in the cockpit air.

EASA focuses on "cabin air "

Over two days, lectures and discussions were held at EASA’s in Cologne; you can read about them here in the official program booklet. On the podium: the "usual suspects" in the form of the airlines, manufacturers and some representatives from the scientific scene, who have often pointed out that there is no danger whatsoever from the whole problem. 

However, there is now no longer any dispute about whether such fume events occur at all. Lufthansa concedes that - as they have done for some years now - such occurrences happen at a frequency of 0.05%, in other words: 1.85 fume events daily calculated over all LH flights. So far, nothing new. 

What is new, however, is the fact that the "Patienten Initiative" – (www.p-coc.com) was also present. Although their submission, a presentation “from the point of view of those affected” was not accepted, questions were allowed. 

Apparently, P-CoC.com made use of this opportunity and startled the industry by asking very specific questions. There now seems to be some concern that the various diverse (aerotoxic) initiatives will unite and thus will have a more significant public impact. 

The fact that the crew is always newly assembled for each flight, i.e. meaning that there are no well-rehearsed teams, has so far proven to be a sure barrier to the development of solidarity amongst pilots and flight crews.

Lufthansa e.g. employs around 20,000 flight attendants; however, this could now experience changes due to P-CoC.com and their planned activities. 

The British Capt. John HOYTE, the founder of aerotoxic.org and himself once a pilot, has issued a press release on the event.

Survey of Dutch Frequent Flyers

As we have learned, the Institution Aviation Medical Consult (AMC) conducted a survey in 2017 among 100,000 people, including frequent flyers of which 500 had flown at least six times in the last 12 months.

The survey results reveal the suspected phenomenon that not only flight personnel are at risk, but also all those who regularly use the aircraft for professional reasons as a means of transport: Study on the perception and prevention of health complaints in Frequent Flyers.

Cabin Air as a topic at "Report Mainz" (Public Broadcast TV)

Prof. Dr-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ from the HAW/Hamburg has long emphasized that the bleed air technology is a "faulty design". He previously worked for Airbus and has represented the subjects of aircraft construction, aircraft systems and flight mechanics for many years. He knows what he is talking about, and is now one of the very few people who are involved in this field.

He shows the difference by comparing two air pipes ("ducts"): Bleed air leaves a black and greasy film which is deposited in the pipes and flows through the air for the cabin. And this already is due to the normal low-level contamination with pyrolyzed turbine oil residues. The air pipes on the "Ram Air" and "Fan Air", on the other hand, are flawless.

Prof. SCHOLZ, who appears in this film contribution, has provided the film with English and German subtitles and uploaded it on YouTube.

TV contributions intended for public discussion and opinion-making are usually deleted within a specific time limit.  The links to the broadcast script and the video can be viewed here: We have archived both so that it can't be lost: "Do toxic gases in aeroplanes harm personnel and passengers?"

The news magazine Focus took up this topic the next day.

Measurements in Airplanes

Four short videos went online on the Aerotoxic Team website:

Measurements by passengers in four different aircraft: a Lufthansa Airbus 320, an Iberia Airbus 320neo, a Qatar B777-300 and an aircraft of unknown type.

Furthermore:

Two short clips with smoke in the cabin: on Ryanair  in January 2020 and on a British Airways flight in August last year

All six clips at www.aerotoxicteam.com/passenger-videos.html

IKAROS-Foundation

Doctors, i.e. neuropathologists from the University of Amsterdam, have now proven, based on the autopsy of 15 deceased persons, that there is quite obviously a connection between long-term and weak exposure to cabin air and damage to the brain, heart and peripheral nervous system. The same symptoms were observed in all autopsies: https://ikaros.amsterdam/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/aerotoxisch-syndrome-post-mortem.pdf

Permanent contamination of the cabin air is the rule, especially when so-called labyrinth seals (which leak) are used, and was proven by Prof. Dieter SCHOLZ some time ago: Aircraft Cabinair and Engine Oil - A Systems Engineering View (27 April 2017).

There are currently agreements with 50 (living) flight crews and frequent flyers who (can) supplement the previous findings and results by agreeing to have a particular "post-mortem protocol" done after their death. The comparison group has equal numbers.

The foundation has been in existence since 2018 and has now decided to go public. A website has gone online for this purpose: https://ikaros.amsterdam

The board of directors of IKAROS is formed by

• Prof. Dick SWAAB, a neurobiologist at the University of Amsterdam and long-standing director of the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research.
• Michel MULDER MD, a former KLM pilot and (FAA) aero-medical doctor, who stopped flying when he felt changes in his body.
• Frank CANNON, an attorney, specialized in aviation law and a former pilot, still volunteering as a rescue pilot for the Order of St. John.

All persons who know about deceased aircraft crews can get advice here: info[at]ikaros.amsterdam.

Co-pilot unconscious after Fume Event during the landing approach

This is the horror scenario: one pilot suddenly smells the "old socks" smell, the other, who is currently piloting the plane, does not. But precisely that one is knocked out on the spot. The second helmsman, in this case, the captain, sends out a "Mayday" call and takes over command four miles before touching down, after he has donned his oxygen mask. Aviation Herald reported this on January 4th.

B.A. has - as we have reported here in the past - had such problems a lot lately. But, as usual these incidents are regularly - as has always been the case - played down. In any case, the Airbus A320-200 in question was maintenanced and had to spend about 85 hours on the ground to do so. That’s 3 1/2 days. That's how long it takes to clean the ducts and air conditioning of such an aircraft. And with such a number of work-hours, it also becomes clear why the airlines have little interest and even less desire to do what is necessary after a fume-event incident. Unless the 'customers', the passengers, put pressure on them.

As always, they did not notice and were not informed about the problem at any time. Not even later on.

A summary of the process  is available in German language at aero.de.

Over 50 Fume Event incidents at BA within one month

This was published in connection with a petition running via change.org. Most of the aircraft types are Airbus A319, A320, A321s.

So far, about 125,000 people have signed the petition. 150,000 signatures are the next target. The question is which other industry is allowed to harm the health of its employees and/or customers on such a regular base?

We are looking for more petitioners!

Once again 22 years on the DGB puts the subject of occupational disease on its agenda

The German GroKo coalition agreement states that politicians want reform, so something must be put on the table. The last legislative changes date back to 1997 - so some time ago. In these more than 20 years, a little more than 1 million people have probably been left empty-handed in the statutory accident insurance system, although they fell ill and with a (very) significant probability became unable to work on the job. Every year over 50,000 people fall from the social grid.

The DGB, German Head of all trade-unsions, and in particular also the, in the meantime active industrial union "Metal" had invited IG Metall to a conference: When the job makes you ill - the BK rights on the test stand.

Representatives of the parties CDU/CSU, SPD, LEFT and GREENS were invited to the panel-discussion - along with the leader responsible for social policy, Markus HOFMANN, DGB - CDU/CSU. They were able to present their ideas on reform in general and, in particular, on the Federal Government's draft bill (see entry October 17th).

Without repeating the discussion here, this insight emerged above all:

• Not all politicians know about the problems of the GUV system and of the difficulties of those affected
• Not all politicians take the trouble to take note of them.

We had informed all on the podium beforehand, drawing their attention to our compact summary here www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform.

In connection with the research project Risk Perception, we will evaluate who expressed which needs for reform and how and who addressed which fundamental problems.

If we were to give school grades, the parties and their representatives  performed like this: (= 1 equals best) 

•     LEFT-WING Party (MdB Jutta KRELLMANN): 1.3
•     SPD (MdB Bernd RÜTZEL): 2.3
•     GREENS (MdB Beate MÜLLER-GEMMEKE): 3.7
•     CSU/CDU (MdB Max STRAUBINGER): 4.3

In summary: only the representatives of the parties the LINKE and the SPD are real contact persons for these unsolved occupational health problems.

Summary of the London International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference 2019

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ, himself a speaker at the conference in London, has summarized the results of all lectures and discussions in a condensed form: "Congress on poisoned cabin air in aircraft". 

The problem is complicated because it affects many specialist areas: Medicine/Aeronautical Medicine, Toxicology, Occupational Medicine, Aircraft Systems and Cabin Air Technology as well as legal aspects such as labour law. Everything is regulated differently in different countries.

In focus, among others: the strategic behaviour of the aviation business. "A tactic of obfuscation and delay is generally observed," says Prof. SCHOLZ. "For proactive companies, however, new business fields are opening up, which is also the case in the industrial area of environmental technology, in which Germany has an excellent standing worldwide.

New filter technologies were presented; however, it remains the fact that only RAM-Air techniques can completely eliminate the central design fault with bleed air. The Boeing 787 already uses this principle and also saves fuel with it.

Aircraft must be able to fly without polluting emissions and must have sensors installed for this purpose, something that is stated by FAA and EASA regulations. Indes: Nobody follows them, and no supervisory authority nor politicians intervene.

How strongly the FAA supports these concealment tactics, for example, is described by SCHOLZ using the model of a study by Judith ANDERSON from the Association of Flight Attendants, who had evaluated FAA databases according to Fume Events: 3000 incidents. However, the agency had only reported 18 of these incidents to the US Congress.

Similarly here in Germany - as we have described several times here in the Aerotoxic Logbook using the keyword, e.g. Fume Event (Screen: see right navigation bar; Smartphone: right at the end below).

Immediately following the end of the International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference held in London on September 17th and 18th, the international Network Aerotoxic Team posted a selection of images. The images offer an overview of the speakers and their subjects.

The conference was the second on the topic of Aircraft Cabin Air Quality. Participants and speakers are mainly the critics and warners who have been pointing out these unsolved problems for a long time. The aviation business, in particular, the airlines and the manufacturers, refused attendance yet again. Only PALL Aerospace and BASF, who both produce filter technologies, presented their products.

Below are the most prominent speakers and their topics, to be viewed on Aerotoxic Team's website:

• Prof. David MICHAELS, author of the book "Doubt is their Product" (and other publications) with the subject "Chemicals are not innocent until proven guilty".
• Dr. Daniel DUMALIN / Prof. VYVYAN on nerve damage
• Susan MICHAELIS PhD: Is this a safety issue? The EASA way
• Prof. Byron W. JONES on particles and ultrafine particles in cabin air from burnt oil residues
• Prof. Dieter SCHOLZ from Hamburg on "Flight Mechanics Aircraft Systems". His original presentation among other topics can be found on his website.

Updates to follow as they arrive.

The London Economic (TLE): New Article On Toxic Substances In Flying

Once again, the TLE discusses the problem concerning in particular  the cocktail of chemical substances identified in the cabin air by EASA themselves, respectively in a study commissioned by EASA.

„What toxins are we being exposed to in air travel?“ is the headline of the article written by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, who is in charge of the aerotoxicteam.com network.

Literature Study on Cabin Air by the BDLI In 2017 and 2015: Today, two respectively four years later.

We inquired about the outcome a third time on June 17th. And again, we didn't get any answer although the literature evaluation was adequately carried out by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as the contractor and handed over to the BDLI.

Now we wanted to investigate by telephone, but we were unable to get through to the press office. A request we left on their a.m. for a call back has been ignored.

We now give up,  with the conviction that the results of the entire literature (FuSe study - Fume and Smell Events) concerning the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air did not have the desired outcome for the aviation business. There is no other explanation for BDLI’s behaviour.

Toxicological Cocktail Effects in Cabin Air

The result of a study published ten years ago carried out on behalf of the FAA: "Aerospace Toxicology: An Overview" states that "individual substances may not be particularly toxic" - but:

 "It is well established that the toxicity of individual substances differs from their mixture(s). Such a difference would be because of the interactive effects of chemicals present in the mixture(s). Thus, the overall toxicity would be the result of additive, potentiation, synergistic, and/or antagonistic type of interaction(s) among chemicals present in the mixtures in relation to the toxic effects exerted by the individual components of the chemical mixtures."

Precisely this is either denied or minimized in this country. Moreover, not investigated in any of the cases.

The researcher also evaluated a British study in which the ducts of the bleed air to the air-conditioning system were examined. The substances inside easily crumbled off, containing: aluminium, silicon, carbon, sulphur, phosphorus. Substances that  (can) impregnate the cabin air via the air conditioning system.

More information on the page of the Aerotoxic Team!

"This has nothing to do with flight operations."

Someone who knows: André FERNITZ, who has been working on the ground at Tegel Airport for thirty years. He describes the daily chaos that reigns there. Not only because the airport is much too small, but also because everything has to become cheaper and cheaper. At some point the capacity is overstretched but everything still has to function reasonably well with detrimental effects on the staff.

André FERNITZ also attended the "Fume Event Consultation Clinic" in Göttingen when it still existed. He too had residues of the engine oils in his blood and urine.

His report was published in the Berliner Tagesspiegel - "Report from The Runway".

Is the German Judiciary independent?

Many doubt it. Mostly for a good reason.

Such doubts have overcome a judge from the administrative court in Wiesbaden that he has submitted this question to the European Court of Justice in Brussels (EuGH) for decision. The judge does not seem to believe in the constitutionally codified independence of the judges and the courts in Germany.

Background:

As early as April 2019, the European Court of Justice - unnoticed by most - made a statement on the independence of German public prosecutors - they denied their "independence." Because: German public prosecutors are dependent - e.g., on instructions of the executive branch, i.e., their highest boss, the respective minister of justice - laid down in the court constitution law. Moreover, that has nothing more to do with the independence of a public prosecutor, according to Europe's highest judges. That is why German public prosecutors can no longer enforce European arrest warrants in other EU countries. Because for lack of independence, they do not comply with European law (Az: C 508/18, C 82/19, C 509/18).

Many examples, which were documented by us, always made that clear:

www.ansTageslicht.de/Rocker , www.ansTageslicht.de/Mollath www.ansTageslicht.de/HaraldFriedrich , www.ansTageslicht.de/KW , www.ansTageslicht.de/RG , www.ansTageslicht.de/Theisen , www.ansTageslicht.de/DZBank , www.ansTageslicht.de/Zahnschmerz

However, now it is official, i.e., EU official.

The file question:

Now it concerns the European application of the law, which must decide on the following question:

"Is the referring court an independent and impartial court? so the reference resolution of the Wiesbadener of the administrative judge (Az: 6 K 1016/15).

According to European requirements, a "court" must

• be autonomous and hierarchically independent in order to
• to be able to decide impartially.

Something the referring judge does not regard as a given because, in this country, there would be "only functional judicial independence, but not institutional independence of the courts."

He argues:

• Judges are not appointed by an independent institution (e.g., Federal President), but by the respective justice ministers
• They also decide on promotion.
• The ministry is also responsible for "judging" a judge.

In other words, the executive 'controls' the judiciary. And not vice versa, since there are things such as instructions and indirect influencing, which can steer the decisions of judges. "The mere danger of political influence on the courts (by equipment, personnel allocation by the Ministry of Justice) can cause a danger of the influence on the decisions of the courts and their independent perception of their tasks to impair.

For example, this could generate "anticipatory obedience," e.g., through alleged pressure to get things done, which is exercised, for example, through "stress statistics (Pebbsy) operated by the ministry."

In summary:

The executive decides on a judicial career and its control. Whoever adapts to the currently desired mainstream has good chances — also, vice versa.

Should the ECJ retain its previous criteria for "independence," as it did with the question of the independence of public prosecutors, then its vote is - actually - predictable. The case number at the ECJ is C 272/19.

Further information can be found here:

• https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/vg-wiesbaden-6k101615-vorabentscheidung-eugh-vorlage-unabhaengigkeit-gerichte-justiz/

• https://verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit.hessen.de/pressemitteilungen/verwaltungsgericht-wiesbaden-legt-eugh-fragen-zu-datenschutz-und-richterlicher

The "DokZentrum ansTageslicht.de" will 'stay tuned' for further progress,  and will report about any possibly necessary consequences.

Cabin Air Literature Study by the BDLI in 2017: Third Attempt

On April 15th of this year - two years after the BDLI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtindustrie = German Aerospace Industries Association) had pompously announced it - we asked when the results of the so-called „FuSe“ study (Fume and Smell Events) which had been carried out by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) would be published. They had announced the publication for the end of 2017.

We did not receive an answer to our first inquiry on April 15th, 2019. Neither did we receive an answer to our second query one month later. We now have made a third attempt.

It appears as if the BDLI is trying to let its original announcement disappear into oblivion. Just in the same way as VW did at the time when the diesel fraud scandal became known worldwide: the announcement to have everything checked by an external law firm and then to make it transparent, resp. to publish it has still not been fulfilled.

Fume Events

As already emphasized several times, we do not document fume events (any more). We had done this as a test for some years until the end of 2016 at www.ansTageslicht.de/incidents and had to find out that there are no valid numbers for it. The reporting channels are a) neither uniformly organized nor b) mandatory and c) the airlines are 'not amused' about such reports. As a result, on-board personnel are reluctant to pass on such information, or only if it cannot be avoided. The responsible supervisory authorities in Germany, such as the BFU and the LBA, are only occasionally notified of such incidents, and EASA only in very rare cases anyway, and - as it regularly turns out - it is also not in their interest to take up such incidents or communicate them to the public. We have already reported on this problem several times.

Several dramatic incidents have now become known to the Aviation Herald and have been researched by them. Their blog is the most important source of information for this kind of incident:

Case 1

concerns a Lufthansa flight from the year 2016, the details of which are only now being made public: a LH Airbus A340-600, which was on its way from Hong Kong to Munich on 10th January 2016. Several flight attendants complained about the well-known symptoms such as dizziness, severe headaches, impaired vision and concentration. Three of them became so ill that they have been unable to work ever since, i.e. are unfit to fly.

After landing, the plane had to stay grounded for sixteen hours to replace all the textile equipment in the cabin. The Aviation Herald only now became aware, that this was the second of a total of three consecutive fume event incidents. There had already been a fume event on the outbound flight. The next day, on 12th January 2016, such an event took place again, this time on the way to Dubai.

The BFU, which apparently became aware of these incidents because of their frequency, was not prepared to initiate an investigation. For them, such incidents are not worrying and are only classified as "incident". The fact that flight personnel become chronically ill and unable to work does not bother the supervisory authority.

Lufthansa and the responsible employers' liability insurance association have classified the incident of the three sick crew members as an "accident at work". With the additional note: "At the same time, compensation payments  ... beyond 12.1. 2016 are denied, as the complaints filed by the crew are no longer causally attributable to the alleged event."

To this end, the Aviation Herald has posted a letter online, from Lufthansa to one of the cabin crew members, listing the complaints.

Case 2

is no less dramatic. Even the daily "Die Welt" reported on this incident on 10th June 2019: "Biting Odor" in the cabin of a Lufthansa jumbo jet.

It happened on 7th June 2019 and concerned a Lufthansa Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet on its way from Mexico. It was already on the runway, but had to return to the gate because of the "biting smell". Four or five of the crew members were taken to hospital.

Lufthansa apparently did not respond to the newspaper's inquiries and only spoke of an "indefinable smell" - supplemented by the usual standard sentence: "The safety of the passengers and crew members has top priority for us at all times".

Case 3

is probably the most dramatic, because it also affected the two pilots, who - as the only ones in an airplane - can fall back on oxygen masks (if they are still able to do so).

This time it concerned a British Airways Airbus A 321 from London to Copenhagen. And it concerned the two pilots who were able to 'save' themselves with oxygen masks during the landing approach. But they had to go to hospital afterwards. The return flight had to be postponed by 29 hours.

Note

As usual, the agencies are silent. And the hospitals. The airlines anyway. Because of these reasons there is little to learn on a regular basis. But it would be important to be able to convey this matter and kind of drama to the (sleeping) politicians.

We therefore call on the flight crews but also the passengers (who usually do not know at all what is going on) to at least report it to the Aviation Herald which is (so far) the only valid information platform. However, they themselves know that they can only convey the tip of the iceberg.

According to official data from Lufthansa itself, which is based on figures from the British Committee on Toxicity from 2007, there is an average of 2,000 flights to one fume event. Converted to the amount of only LH flights, this would correspond to 10 incidents per week.

International Criminal Court, The Hague on Fume Events

The NGO aerotoxic.org, London, with its chairman, former airline pilot trainer Capt John HOYTE, wrote together with aerotoxicteam.com run by former purser Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, Switzerland, to the International Criminal Court (October 2018) filing a complaint in the matter of "Fume Events", as a crime against humanity. Thousands of people, pilots and flight attendants and especially frequent flyers are affected. Both institutions estimate that at least 1 million people are affected.

They submitted numerous documents and evidence.

The prosecutor at the criminal court has replied now, stating that since the definition of their area of responsibility is very narrowly defined, she does not see herself in a position to do anything in this case. However: one would archive the considerable amount of information. If new findings and evidence were to lead to a change in the previous view, it would not be impossible to re-examine the problem as a triggering reason for an investigation.

You can read the official response of the International Criminal Court here.

Social Court Giessen (SG)

We have just learned that a ruling from the SG Giessen has rejected the complaint of a Lufthansa flight attendant who claimed the health consequences of a fume event. The court acknowledges the scientific background and speaks of "smells" which the judges regard as a "fume event" but on the other hand say that the toxic effect of the alleged „smell“ is not fully proven.

From the fact that the ruling has not yet been finalised and the reasons for the ruling have not yet been given, it can be assumed that the plaintiff intends to appeal.

We do not know more for the time being, but are investigating.

Literature study on cabin air by the German Aerospace Industries Association (BDLI) from 2017

Exactly one month ago we wrote to the BDLI asking for the results of a study that they had announced at the time: a comprehensive literature evaluation about the problem of cabin air. Publication was scheduled for December 2017, which is now 16 months ago. Allegedly a total of around 800 publications found worldwide were evaluated.

We have not yet received an answer. Now, exactly four weeks later - we are following up. We will report when we have feedback.

In March we had addressed the CSU's transport policy spokesman in the European Parliament, Markus FERBER, who in connection with the crash of two Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft had clearly criticised EASA because the authorities had known about the problems of this type of aircraft. But, they said nothing, published nothing and warned no one which is a typical behavior of regulators whose employees are exclusively concerned with their service regulations and have no empathy for potentially injured parties. Markus FERBER had said: "A flight safety authority that classifies a software error as a risk only after two planes have crashed is a risk for the citizen himself".

We brought Markus FERBER's attention to the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air and he replied:

• That he agrees that "this issue deserves more public attention".
• That the EP had on many occasions pointed out to the commission that "this problem should be examined"
• who therefore commissioned an investigation by EASA
• the results of which should be available in December of this year.
• And this is because the Commission is demanding that "events containing unusual odours and smoke must be reported in accordance with Regulation EU No. 376/2014".

FERBER writes:

"I believe that EASA - like any authority - must be closely watched and that one should not hesitate to point out shortcomings and errors. The issue of potentially contaminated cabin air is of great interest to me, I will follow the publication of the study results critically at the end of the year".

We will support Markus FERBER.

The London Economic - TLE

Is now also addressing the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air and the consequences of aerotoxic syndrome.

Bearnairdine BEAUMONT former chief stewardess at Lufthansa now founder and editor in chief of the platform www.aerotoxicteam.com gave a compressed summary about the problem and the current state of affairs.

Bearnairdine BEAUMONT herself is affected. She has not been able to fly following several fume events and is therefore unable to work - she knows what she is talking and writing about.

Aerotoxic Syndrome in Belgium

Two years ago, the Belgian trade union and the pilots' union BECA started to sensitise and educate employees, in particular pilots and cabin crew, about the unsolved and still unresolved problem of the consequences of potentially contaminated cabin air.

The first known results have now been presented. The Belgian neuropsychologist Dr. Daniel DUMALIN, who treats and examines 40 patients all in airline-business, found so-called lesions, i.e. polytraumas of affected persons in those areas that control cognitive processes in humans in his initial evaluations of clinical pictures. "This causes concentration and memory problems or hypersensitivity to stimuli. The after-effects are permanent," says DUMALIN.

DUMALIN compares the current situation with that of asbestos and tobacco: "It was only when the scientific evidence became alarming that things started to move."

But in the case of asbestos it still took a (very) long time for the politicians to get their act together. We recently reconstructed it at www.ansTageslicht.de/Asbestkrimi.

Only political institutions could do anything about it. But in Germany they are strongly influenced by the powerful aviation industry (Airbus, Lufthansa etc.). The industry itself tries to sit out the problem or in individual cases to solve it with a financial settlement including a confidentiality clause. There is no pressure from passengers because no one thinks of associating symptoms after a flight with their flight. So the problem is a communication trap: 'It just doesn't come up' - as one says.

Regardless of this the Belgian researchers continue their work. If you would like to participate in the studies please contact aerotoxbrain[at]proximus.be.

FuSE-Study

Approximately 4 years ago, the BDLI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtindustrie) commissioned a "FuSE" (Fume and Smell Event) study at the German Aerospace Center (DLR). According to the BDL (see p. 8), around 800 "scientific and official publications of the past 30 years on the subject of cabin air were commissioned in an extensive literature study".

The results of this study were to be published in 2017. So far this has not happened.

For this reason, we have now submitted these 4 questions to both the BDL and the BDLI:

1) Has this study been completed?

2) Has it already been published, and if so where?

3) Is it accessible to the public?

4) If they have not yet been published, what are the reasons for keeping the results under wraps?

We will inform you of the answers as soon as they have been received.

Whistleblower protection accepted in the German Bundestag

 A controversial issue so far has been whether whistleblowers and journalists who work with information from whistleblowers should be protected by law if they point out problems, grievances, risks and dangers and - possibly - disclose so-called trade secrets.

 Now the Bundestag agreed on Friday night around 11 pm to a proposal which will guarantee exactly this protection. That was not to foreseeable, but the educational work of many organizations and institutions paid off: Even CDU delegates had voted for it. So far this topic has been a 'non-topic,' i.e., frowned upon, in this party.

The guaranteed protection for whistleblowers and journalists was written into law in connection with the EU's so-called trade secret directive: When companies declare abuses or illegal practices to be "trade secrets," as the directive is supposed to do, they can no longer intimidate potential whistleblowers, whistleblowers or whistleblowers. Some even spoke of a "defining moment' for the parliament."

The AfD and the FDP had voted against protection and freedom of the press.

We are hopeful that information declared as "secret" will now see the light of day more often. For example, it could be done via this BLOG (see safe communication). 

 EASA and Flight Safety Prevention

What is to be thought of the reliability and usefulness of EASA in this respect, EASA boss Patrick KY shared at the Transport Committee of the European Parliament (TRAN) on March 18th: After the fatal crash of a Boeing 737 Max 8 of the Indonesian airline Lion Air in October 2018, EASA knew already a short while afterward about the problems of the not really working MCAS software and the insufficient training of the pilots in handling it. KY now had to admit this in response to questions from MEPs.

No warning followed on the part of EASA. Also, this potential problem was obviously not communicated at all.

Instead, there was now a second crash of such an aircraft of Ethiopian Airlines on March 10th causing 157 deaths. And only now the EASA comes out with such information - after parliamentary inquiries and pressure.

Markus FERBER, the European CSU's Transport Spokesman in the EU Parliament, has a clear opinion on this issue:

"A flight safety authority that only considers a software error a risk only after two aircraft have crashed represents a risk for the citizen himself".

We now want to hear from Markus FERBER whether he also wants to ask EASA about the contaminated cabin air problem. 

After a long silence we are back on the air again: The preparations for the new topic were very elaborate:

Asbestos: A deadly Thriller. Until Today.

The dangers of this mineral are known for over 120 years. According to WHO estimates, around 10 million people have since paid with their lives. In Germany, official statistics show more than 1,600 deaths from asbestos. De facto the numbers might be far higher than 4,000, as extrapolated by the Federal Environment Agency almost 40 years ago.

Moreover, every time someone who has become (occupationally) ill as a result wants to assert their claim, the ‘BG’ ( Berufsgenossenschaft = employer’s liability insurance) calculate the problems as small. The same as with the ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome.’

Difference: everyone knows about asbestos and how dangerous it is. Not so (yet) regarding the contaminated cabin air, this is why we have comprehensively reconstructed the asbestos problem. Now we can draw parallels,  which will be the next step.

The asbestos thriller to this day: can be read at www.ansTageslicht.de/Asbestkrimi (German). And in today's Süddeutsche Zeitung

Now we've reconstructed everything: How a WDR documentary "Nervengift im Flugzeug"(Nerve Toxins in Aircraft)  turned into 2 (different) films – all directed by Tim van BEVEREN. The WDR film disappeared in to their archive. TvB's cinema production is available on DVD or via streaming: unfiltered breathed in.

WDR did not answer our questions, although they had a week to do so. Due to that we can't finally clarify what the public broadcaster’s understanding by "fact check" is - maybe just 'alternative facts'?

The whole story can be found here www.ansTageslicht.de/WDR  (translation in progress)

Once again we received a not very enlightning answer from the BFU. But that is obviously not what this authority is about.

On August 13th of this year, we wanted to find out why the co-pilot of the Germanwings aircraft, which had apparently been involved in a severe fume event on December 19th, 2010 while in the landing phase to Cologne-Bonn Airport (view www.ansTageslicht.de/Germanwings), was not allowed to see a medical report  about his state of health, which was made a whole year later. After this incident, the co-pilot was unfit to fly for over six months,  the captain was able to return to flying just four days later. A typical situation, showing how people’s bodies with their genetic pre-/dispositions metabolize or detox foreign substances differently.

The first answer referred to data protection reason:  because of the need to guarantee the protection of sensitive security information in accordance with Art. 14 of Regulation (EU) 996/2010. Not necessarily comprehensible when someone wants to know the medical results of his own state of health.

Furthermore, we received the answer (which we could not really understand, which is why we repeated the question - in the mean time twice -): That the expert opinion evaluated and compared the facts which are interwoven due to the captain and the co-pilot having experienced the same event. The listing of the clinical data of two people in one medical report does not make sense to us. For data protection reasons, one could black out all the information that the other should not see, which is a common procedure.

For this reason we asked again why this did not happen. And also, if we were to understand the BFU's statement, that the expert opinion considers both the captain and the co-pilot in terms of content at the same time and ‚interwoven’, due to experiencing the same event in such a way,  that the clinical data of both were continuously compared and intertwined? And if that was the case, why was that done? We documented these questions on November 7th.

We have received an answer to that, which we summarize here. We would like to spare our readers’ the trouble of trying to figure out the somewhat cumbersome answers.

The BFU press office answered our question no. 1, whether we were to understand the first answer (that the report considers both pilots together), in such a way that all clinical data are continuously interwoven with each other, with:

Instead of answering yes or no (for clarity), they convolute a series of 143 words and numbers to - 853. „Yes“ would have meant 2, „No“  would have been 4 characters. And the original explanatory phrase also reappears in the bundle, to which we had requested an answer for reasons of clarity (see above).

According to the BFU, our question as to whether this was intentionally done and/or whether it was customary for the BFU to do so, was unnecessary, as it was answered in the set of explanatory 143 words.

However (answer to our questions 5 and 6), in such cases the persons concerned can view a draft of the final report, which they could comment on.

‚Report’ however does not mean that it includes the medical opinion, only the final report of the investigation of the "event" in question. So, that what is not (or should not be) included in the final report must not be revealed to those affected. At any rate, the BFU's wording on this point is crystal clear.

The Bundestag Transport Committee has no "capacities" for the problems of statutory accident insurance and Fume Events

We had written to the four relevant committees of the Bundestag following the Federal Government's response to the Greens' question on these two aspects (entry dated 18th September), in order to find out whether they could identify contradictions in the Federal Government's responses which we have seen, and 2) whether they were of the opinion that the "own research" of the German Statutory Accident Insurance (DGUV) could be regarded as independent. Here you can read the cover letter and the 4 questions.

The first commitee has replied: "A further answer" is "not possible due to lack of capacity". Instead, the office refers to a Bundestag page where one can look up all previous  minutes from many legislative periods from this commitee.

This says a lot about the perception of the subject we are discussing in the committee’s office. We will now put our questions directly to the representatives of the political groups.

Judgement of the Labour Court Cologne

It is now known that two flight attendants who claim to have suffered injury to their health because they were exposed to cabin air contamination for 45 minutes, lost their case before the Labour Court in Cologne: They claimed damages because their airline acted "intentionally". In concrete terms, such an incident had even occurred the day before.

The airline and the judges argued that the aircraft operator subsequently undertook a technical review and therefore no longer could expect that a new incident would occur the next day. Therefore, intent could be excluded and only in such cases the employer could be held liable according to § 104 SGB VII.

Therefore, the court did not have to examine whether there was a scientifically justified connection at all.

We are currently trying to find out what exactly the technical examination consisted off, e.g. whether the manufacturer’s instructions in the operating manual were followed, or whether - as is usually the case - it was just a small mini-check.

If there are clear recommendations or instructions in the operating manual but no action has been taken, the argument "no intent" would be untenable.

Answer from the Federal Government to a ‚small inquiry’

In the mean time the Federal Government has answered a ‚small inquiry’ submitted by the parliamentary group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, asking about the numbers of fume event occurrences: Printed matter 19/4443.

 As always, the Federal Government's answer is: They have little information and apparently want to know even less.

As it is,  also known from USA,  incidents are under-reported.  There are no mandatory reporting channels. Airlines are also 'not amused' about reports, because a reasonably effective cleaning of the air conditioning system and/or an exchange of the so-called ducts between engine and air conditioning system means considerable delays in further deployment of the aircraft. This means on one hand costs, on the other hand loss of revenue. Also for this reason experience has shown, that only some of such incidents are reported. Also considering that in most cases they are probably  (only?) less dramatic "odour events".

The considerable differences between reported incidents and actual incidents have been pointed out as examples under "Incidents“, which usually do not appear in official statistics.

Parliamentary State Secretary Steffen BILGER (CDU) answered on behalf of the Federal Government this question: "What is the Federal Government planning to do to ensure that as many fume events as possible are reported?

"The Federal Government has no evidence that Fume Events that have to be reported are not reported. Therefore, no additional measures are planned."

And the answer to the question: "To what extent is the Federal Government considering the nationwide mandatory introduction of breathing air filters that remove organophosphates and volatile organic compounds?“

"The specific substances that may contaminate cabin air have not yet been sufficiently identified or known. Only when these have been fully identified it is possible and effective to develop an appropriate filter."

The passenger association „Vereinigung Passagiere“ (VP) comments on this as follows:

"Parts of the aviation industry are more aware of the problem than the German government, because airlines such as EasyJet and Lufthansa are already testing such filter systems," (quote VP).

In fact, EasyJet in particular wants to equip all its planes with filters from Pall in the New Year (see entry from 20.9.2017 which can be found quickly when entering "EasyJet" in the search-bar). The airline announced this last year at the conference about contaminated cabin air/ aerotoxic syndrome in London.

The Federal Government and the Ministry of Transport have no idea about this and apparently also not about the two EASA studies. And, obviously they don't want to know anything.  

As has now become known, the Bundestag’s Scientific Service has made a compilation of the question:

"Which legal requirements in Germany or at the level of the European Union would have to be specifically changed in order to oblige operators and/or manufacturers of civil passenger aircraft to install appropriate filter systems?“

Two institutions have commented on this.

1) The Federal Ministry of Transport refers to the competence of EASA and notes that the BFU has knowledge "that Fume events with the usual appearance characteristics also occur at airlines which already use filters". However, the BMVI does not give an exact source.

2) The most detailed statement comes from the Vereinigung Cockpit Association (VC)  (pages 5&6): VC points out that there are already sufficient EU regulations, namely the EU Directives 98/24/EC and 89/391/EEC "on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work".

These would be implemented in all sectors (chemical industry, hazardous goods, noise protection) because fines would also be imposed. But not in aviation.

Therefore, no legal regulations would have to be changed or newly drawn up. Only existing regulations would have to be observed. But: "Neither the licensing authorities check compliance, nor the supervisory authorities see themselves obliged to do so." quote VC.

Here are the documents:

• Scientific Service: Measures against so-called Fume Events
• previous Bundestag document Precautions for the prevention of Fume Events. On p. 6  the reference can be found, that the EASA denies a connection between Fume Events and health consequences, because a study done by the Cranford University in 2011 on 100 flights (in words: one hundred) with five „large aircraft types "could not prove any so-called fume events with health-damaging concentrations".

• EU Directive 98/24
• EU Directive 89/391

The BFU has answered - instead of answers: 2 complaints

We had sent several queries to the BFU with entry date 13th August. We quoted from the first answer the BFU gave us, which we wanted to have clarified. These were our questions, but instead of clear answers to our questions, the BFU Press Office complains.

Allegation no.1:

That we had published their answers, which could only be seen as factual information, as quotations.

You have to know that press offices are usually dissatisfied with the media and journalists, if they either don't write what the Press Office would like them to write, or if there is a critical follow-up. In this respect, the BFU's complaint is nothing unusual.

However, there is no legal entitlement for an authority not to publish its answers as quotes. Nevertheless, they are obliged to provide information.

It is common practice that the media like to quote such answers, or parts of them. And has its reasons to remain as close as possible to what an authority answers. And also not to have to expose oneself to the accusation that one has not correctly reproduced the information. The fact that one or the other authority tries to enforce its own modalities of reproduction is explained by the fact that authorities are basically monopolies. And they forget that they are - actually - service providers: for people, including the media. But this obviously does not go well with the BFU's official culture.

Allegation no.2:

That we published only a part of their last answer, omitting the decisive part.

Presumably, (but we don't yet know exactly why we have to ask again to gain clarity), we didn't clearly understand one of their phrases and therefore verified it beforehand because, from our point of view, it was rather "nebulous",  at least not to be understood clearly, namely: That the medical opinion in question, which the pilot in question is not allowed to see, is obviously constantly mixed with the clinical information of both pilots, i.e. that of the captain and the co-pilot. And that is why the co-pilot - for data protection reasons so to speak - cannot find out what concerns him alone.

That's why we asked again today:

1.       Does your reference to the fact that the medical report considers both the pilot and the co-pilot in terms of content and inseparably with the view to the shared event perhaps mean, that the medical report is written linguistically in such a way that the clinical data of both pilots are continuously compared and interwoven with each other?

2.        Would it have been possible for the co-pilot to have (or be allowed to) learn about his own data by anonymizing the data of his colleague.

3.       If the latter would not have been possible: Was this deliberately arranged in such a way that neither pilot could (or was allowed to) learn anything about the clinical results?

4.       If option no.3 does not apply: Is it customary for the BFU, when commissioning medical reports in such cases, to ensure that patients are not allowed to know anything about their state of health?

5.       If it is not customary at BFU for patients not to have access to their personal medical findings: Why, then, was it not ensured in this specific case that those affected were allowed to know what the Air Force's Aeromedical Institute had determined about their physical condition?

6.       Can the BFU imagine that in such cases, those affected might have a legitimate interest in finding out exactly what the medical results are and how they came about methodically - irrespective of the information mentioned in the final report starting on page 30?

And we concluded, that we did not consider the Press Office's announcement that its complaints no.1 and no.2 were no basis for further cooperation or exchange with us, as a threat.

Perhaps the press office of the BFU meant it as such. But authorities are basically obliged to provide information. And if they think that as a monopoly they can decide for themselves who they want to give information to and  who they don't want to give it to, then information can quite easily be forced through an administrative court. But it will probably not (have to) come to that.

We will continue to report.

"Film without author"? The "public" TV station WDR puts a journalist under financial pressure. Does it want to silence him?

We reported about this case on 22nd October. The Public Broadcasting Station "WDR", Cologne, has now replied:"Due to the ongoing proceedings, we are currently unable to provide you with any information."

That is why we are now asking them again:

"1) Do I understand you correctly that you are (want to, should, must) stating that you cannot (want to, should, may not) say - with reference to the fact that there is a procedure - whether such procedures are customary at WDR? Regardless of this individual case?

2) Can one conclude from this, that this - quite obviously - represents normal case scenario at WDR, regarding:

a) the procedure in question?

b) the fact that you cannot (want to, should not, may not) say anything about it?

3) And can (want, should, may) you - if necessary - answer our questions at all after the proceedings have been concluded?"

We will stay on the ball. Also regarding the planned reconstruction of the entire process.

Medical Advisory Board of Experts 'Occupational Diseases' at BMAS

In the meantime, the committee met on 11th September 2018. On their agenda the item "Fume Events".

Prof. Dr. Astrid HEUTELBECK, former lecturer at the University of Göttingen, now Professor of Occupational and Social Medicine at the University of Jena, was heard as an "external expert" who held the so-called „Fume Event Consultation Hour“ at the UMG in Göttingen until the end of 2017. Which however had to close because the BG Verkehr refused to pay the costs for fume-event patients, which would actually be it's duty.

Prof. HEUTELBECK reported mainly on her findings, i.e. experiences and clinical pictures of her more than 350 fume event patients.

However, the committee in which several representatives of the so-called „VALENTIN School“ sit, is not satisfied with this information:

"After examining the findings presented and the documents submitted, the Advisory Board concludes that there are currently no sufficient indications to enter into an in-depth scientific examination. At present the general situation of knowledge is still unclear, it lacks epidemiological evidence and further peer reviewed literature on the topic of Fume Events' , states the responsible BMAS official, Harald GOEKE (Dept. IV a 4) in a letter to the ‚patient initiative’ p-coc.com.

Now it depends on further studies to confirm these (mostly denied) connections, which requires appropriate funds.

Film without Author? The "public" TV station WDR puts a journalist under financial pressure. Do they want to silence him?

For 30 years, filmmaker and journalist Tim van BEVEREN worked, amongst for others, also for the WDR, and produced from 2009 to 2011 several films about fume events and their consequences for the "public broadcaster", thus becoming the first in Germany to bring this problem into public focus.

A large project with the title "Nervengift im Flugzeug" (Nerve Poison in Airplanes), which was broadcast by WDR in „Format“ – „Die Story" (The Story), led to content-related disputes. Tim van BEVEREN's co-author, then Dr. Roman STUMPF, today: Roman RUSCH, who, while being a full-time employed WDR editor , studied at the private Quadriga University in Berlin, whose sponsors include companies such as Airbus and Lufthansa (which obviously posed no problem for WDR), continued working on the film by himself and Tim van BEVEREN was excluded. Lufthansa for example, did not want to take part as an interview partner in a film made by van BEVEREN . (view entry from 7th July 2014 at www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinairchronology).

DokZentrum ansTageslicht is in the process of reconstructing the origins and oddities of this strange history which ultimately led to a programme complaint by a Scottish lawyer, which mentions amongst other things, "deception of the audience“ . However,  this was smoothed out by the WDR Broadcasting Council.

As a result, WDR tried to refute reproaches and critical inquiries in "Fact Check", by disseminating partly untrue factual allegations about Van BEVEREN. For a freelance journalist this can leed quickly to a journalistic 'death sentence'. 

Tim van BEVEREN tried to defend himself against these claims in court. Unsuccessfully. The Landgericht Mainz was of the opinion that he had to accept (this is inaccurate) "factual allegations" which "cannot have a significant effect on the personality of the person concerned". 

Now the WDR wants to recover its lawyer's fees. At court. Tim van BEVEREN should the 'oath of disclosure'.

It was in this context that we asked WDR these questions today:

1.      Is it normal for the WDR that you want to financially gag journalists with whom you have a content-related dispute?

2.      If this is not the normal case, why are you doing it in this case?

3.      Have you ever thought about another solution?

4.      And what exactly are the reasons why you are putting such financial pressure on a former employee?

We will stay on the ball. In every respect.

(Additional information:

The film in question was never broadcast again, although the topic has come more and more in to the public focus.

In order to make sure that WDR will not sue us as well - for example for any copyright infringement of its logo - we made this one ourselves. It is not the original logo).

Contaminated cabin air now brought before the International Criminal Court

In an Open Letter the Aerotoxic Association called upon the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, to take action, stating that the existence of potentially poisoned cabin air violates several international regulations. Among other things, it violates ‚The Right to Healthy Indoor Air’, as demanded by the WHO;  also against the „Air Quality Guidelines“, Global update 2005: „Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide“.

Even EASA demands in its regulation CS 25.831 the same as does the Code of Federal Regulations of the USA regarding air traffic:

"Crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours" (p. 1 D 38f)

And this in fact, is not the case. Especially not when fume events occur that are more than just "smells".

The original Open Letter is accompanied by 2 full folders of documents, scientific evidence, previous court documents, supporting documents and testimonials from more than 100 affected persons, documenting this disastreous calamity that has persisted for decades.

British coroners to look out for toxic cabin air effects in their investigations

In connection with the investigation of a deceased former flight attendant, the responsible coroner (official investigator into deaths) has asked the chief coroner to look into such cases in the future to verify whether the contaminated cabin air might have played a roll.

The British trade union UNITE, which is currently involved in more than 100 court cases concerning injuries to the health of flight crew, wants to take this opportunity to publicly discuss this fundamental problem, which airlines and manufacturers are still largely ignoring.

More under ‚Call for Public Inquiry’ following coroner’s warning of toxic cabin air

Occupational Diseases in Court: Only 10% of all cases are successful

Last year the Federal Government had „no idea“ when they answered the LEFT Party (printed matter 18/13543) "due to lack of statistic data by the DGUV", regarding the question how many cases exist that have actually received occupational ill health acknowledgment before the Federal Social Court, thus were successful,  or failed.

Now, all of a sudden, the Federal Government, in the person of Parliamentary State Secretary (BMAS), Ms Kerstin GRIESE (SPD) announced in an answer to the Greens (printed matter 19/4093 - see entry v. 18.9.):

"For decades the decisions of the accident insurance institutions have been confirmed in about 90% of the Federal Social Court proceedings. From this "the quality of the experts employed and the administrative procedures" can be seen.

We have a somewhat different view of things, as we have documented in many examples (www.ansTageslicht.de/Letzel; www.ansTageslicht.de/Lehnert; www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317 etc.).

We have therefore added  thefollowing section to the chapter "What can one do?" (WKMT): "In Court". There you will find information on how to proceed when you wish to reject an expert, or his expert opinion because of "bad expertise“,  and if the judge refuses this, how to reject the judge. In the latter case, it is not the "bias" that is important, but the potential "concern of bias".

That this does not work in most cases is due to the fact that neither the judges nor most lawyers are familiar with the right of bias.

We can help and give tips & hints: at www.ansTageslicht.de/WKMT

We are waiting for several answers:

1) We had asked BG Verkehr (employer’s liability insurance association) and Dr. HEDTMANN, which experts’ (names) represent the "doctrine" that there is no connection between fume events, which are now recognized as "occupational accidents", and long-term health consequences.

So far, only evasive responses have been made, aimed at ensuring that all limit values are complied with in commercial aircraft. And that this is probably the reason why there could be no causal connection.

The answer to the question as to which limit values were meant was: all the "air limit values" listed in the TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances).

However, they do not include all of those identified by EASA, for example. And there is also no information on the (additive and/or multiplicative) effects of such substances with changing air pressure values, oxygen saturations and temperatures.

We are now waiting for further explanations.

2) The BFU (entry from 13 August) is apparently of the firm opinion that the two pilots of the 19th December 2010 (Cologne-Bonn airport) accident, are not allowed to view their own medical reports because "data protection" prohibits it.

Now we want to know exactly what the BFU understands by "data protection". And why, according to Article 14 of EU Regulation 996/2010, the interest of those affected in finding out something about their state of health is not a "legally permissible purpose" , that allows such information to be "passed on".

3) The Medical Advisory Board for Occupational Diseases at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) met on 4th October. Allegedly on the agenda: Fume Events.

We asked whether the topic had been discussed, and if so, what would happen next.

4) After the Federal Government has answered the „small inquiry“ of the Bundestag faction Alliance 90/The Greens (see 18th September), we now asked the members of 4 relevant Bundestag committees, whether they intend to be satisfied with the partially distracting from the problem and partically misleading answers by the Federal Government. Or what else they intend to do.

"Those who work make mistakes. Those who work a lot sometimes make more mistakes.

The Federal Government responds to the „small inquiry“ from „BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN“ (Green Party):

Following our publications at the end of May, THE GREEN PARTY wanted to know from the Federal Government whether they saw a need for action in the statutory accident insurance system, in particular regarding the DGUV, and if so, what?

The answer given by the Federal Government, represented by Kerstin GRIESE (SPD), Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS): "No need for reform of accident insurance".

We take a critical look at the most important answers at www.ansTageslicht.de/wieweiter.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung (September 18th) is highlightening "Teilsieg für Menschen, die der Job krank machte"

Occupational physician and expert "Prof. Dr. Gerhard TRIEBIG" removed from circulation?

Since about 3 weeks a third edition of the BK-Report exists, concerning the classification "BK 1317  - the health consequences of solvents and their mixtures” published by the DGUV.

In 2004, the manipulation of the scientific leaflet originating from the "Ärztl. Sachverständigenrat Berufskrankheiten" (Medical Advisory Council for Occupational Diseases) was uncovered at the Federal Ministry of Labour, which is why a new one had to be drawn up. The second edition of the BK 1317 report, three years later, was different: the occupational physician and author TRIEBIG continued insisting on long outdated medical findings. Now, in the 3rd edition, the name TRIEBIG no longer appears as author. A (partial) success, about which Peter RÖDER, who got the ball rolling following the comment by Labor-Minister Norbert BLÜM, who stated at the time that it was an:  "organized wrong representation". He will now request a readmission of this case at the Social&Labour Court.

That what has been 'sold' as expert wisdom and latest scientific knowledge by several evaluating occupational physicians at court is now, latest since the 3rd edition, officially no more.

More can be found in the detailed chronology to the BK 1317 at www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317 .

The Süddeutsche Zeitung (September 18th) is highlightening "Teilsieg für Menschen, die der Job krank machte".

Dr. Jörg HEDTMANN from „BG-Verkehr“ (Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr = Employer’s Liability Insurance AssociationTraffic)  explains his understanding of the general  "doctrine" concerning fume events.

He had his big appearance at the 10th meeting of  „Commercial Airline Pilots“ to show how the responsible „BG-Verkehr“ views and interprets the problem of fume events. So far nothing new: Fume events are generally recognized as occupational accidents, if smells could be detected. BUT:

"But we don't recognize long-term consequences ... because we can't adequatley recognize the connection at the moment. It has not been proven by sufficient scientific evidence and the doctrine still leans in a different direction : To not give any recognition to occupational diseases anyway".

HEDTMANN's statement -  see and hear  it at minute 34’ in the video recording on YouTube.

So now we wanted to know which (scientific) names Dr. HEDTMANN associates with the "doctrine", and received an answer from him via their media spokeswoman:

"With the term 'general doctrine' I by no means referred to published findings on the causal connection between fume events and chronic ill-health consequences, but ... to the current state of science. This means that we use the classic model of dose-response relationships as a basis for assessing known or assumed effects. In connection with the undercutting of all limit values, chronic ill-health damage of the type described is therefore not plausible as a result of the so far known effects ... So far I am not aware of any published, citable and generally accepted research results that would cast doubt on this."

Now we want to know from him exactly which limit values (or their undercutting) he means by that. EASA, for example, has found around 200 potential hazardous substances in one of its studies, but has only investigated or measured around 20 in more detail. We are again eagerly awaiting the answer from BG Verkehr.

It is a first that now a (German) „Passenger Association“ has taken a position in terms of fume events and cabin air.

In a detailed (open) position paper concerning Aerotoxic Syndrome, the „Verbraucherschutzverein www.VPassagier.com“, which is also committed to a "sustainable transport policy", is crystal clear:  beginning with the publication of fume event incidents’, to demands of putting an end to the inaction of the supervisory authorities, and finally to install sensors and filters in all commercial aircraft.

The position paper can be read under „Position on Aerotoxic Syndrome in Airliners and the Risks for Passengers“. (DE) 

BFU responds: again foggy

Within the context of our presentation of Lufthansa subsidiary Germanwings’ incident on 19th December 2010, we asked the BFU in April 2018: What was the result from the medical examination of the pilot who was unable to fly for six months after the fume event? Answer:

"A viewing of the ... expert opinion cannot be granted due to the „protection of sensitive security information act“ having to be guaranteed according to Article 14 Regulation (EU) 996/2010.“

In other words: In order to "protect sensitive security interests", the affected pilot must not know what medical findings the experts have established in his own case.

We have taken this as an opportunity to ask again:

a) Exacly which passage of the Regulation (EU) 996/2010 that you are citing  opposes the request of the pilot concerned, to inspect the expert opinion concerning himself?

b) What are the exact grounds for the necessity in "protection of sensitive safety information" that the pilot is not allowed to see? (…)“

We have received another reply:

• Paragraphs 1 and 2 clarify this in principle: "The (...) documents may not be made available for purposes other than those of the safety investigation (...)". According to paragraph 1 lit.c, this also applies to medical documents
• Paragraph 3 codifies the exception: "The benefit of the disclosure of the documents protected by paragraphs 1 and 2 must, in individual cases,
  • o   (1) be for a legally permissible purpose and outweigh
  • o   (2) the adverse domestic and foreign effects that disclosure may have for this or future safety investigations".

In summary: The BFU have examined all this and decided that the pilot concerned  apparently should not know about it, in order to "protect sensitive safety information" with "detrimental domestic and foreign effects".

We will again ask and have them explain the potentially "detrimental domestic and foreign effects".

We look forward to what the next answer will turn out to be.

Commission's response to BfR's poisoning assessment

At the end of June we reported, that six years ago this panel of experts had dealt with the topic of fume events (view entry 27th June) but that they had shelved the topic - after "intensive discussions".

This was a reason for us to ask whether the commissions' members would be interested in more detailed information about the close crash in question at Cologne-Bonn airport, in particular regarding  the two pilots' flight reports (see Lufthansa subsidiary Germanwings: 19 December 2010). We had just sent these notes to everyone.

The commission's management now replied: "We will take these into account in our case evaluation and if new toxicological findings are available, we will discuss the facts again at the BfR Commission 'Assessment of Poisoning' meeting."

We will now ask how the commission how they intend to find the "existence of new toxicological findings". Whether they just want to wait for them, or whether they will ask specific questions,  or do research and if so, how exactly. Or whether they would like to commission expertises themselves.

No matter how:  We are staying on the ball.

Fume Events + "Commission for the Evaluation of Poisonings" at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)

This commission, consisting of 15-plus experts who all deal with poisoning and toxicological issues, ‚intensively discussed’ such a fume event from November 2012 – as mentioned in the protocol position ‚Top 13’ > ’News’. Background: a doctor felt obliged to report an incident to this commission, during which, in his opinion,  a ‚poisoning’ could not be ruled out. In cases of poisonings doctors are actually obliged to do so.

The incident in question was one of the most dangerous incidents happening regarding fume events: On December 19th 2010, the two pilots of a Germanwings Airbus were surprised by a fume event during their landing approach to Cologne/Bonn airport and were barely able to bring the 142-passenger aircraft to the ground. The co-pilot had to be suspended from flying for more than half a year, the captain was fit to fly again after just a few days. The pilots’ flight reports are a dramatic read; they can be found with further information here www.ansTageslicht.de/flightreport.

The experts had apparently little concrete information but, according to the protocol were nevertheless able to assess a "causality as questionable due to the lack of toxicological analyses".

This prompted us to ask the commissioners whether they would be interested in more detailed information, specifically the flight reports of the two pilots. None of the commissioners replied to our first circular mail sent to everyone on April 11th. We sent a second mail on May 15th. Again: no feedback. Only one of the members let us know that we would receive an answer from the CEO.

Now we have yet again, sent another email on June 27th – to both the Managing Director Dr. Herbert DESEL and all commissioners with the two flight reports - to make sure this issue doesn't fall in between the cracks. We have also let everyone else know about it.

Now we will keep an eye on what happens in this commission. And we will document the progress .

The www.ansTageslicht.de/Kabinenluft translations into English are making progress

Bearnairdine BEAUMONT has translated two more chapters into English at www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinair:

• An uncovering of Tricks, Methods and Strategies, how to downplay fume events
• What Can You Do in Case of Fume Events

The latter can also be downloaded as a PDF file intended for the worst case scenario, that you know what to do. But, there are also general tips and advice about what you can do if you want to help change a couple of things. 

The „Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung“ (DGUV), which represents the'heart' of the'system' and is the control centre of the 'Cartel of Secrecy', reacted to our publication of May 26th in BOOK TWO ( the article 'The Cartel' can be downloaded as a PDF here) with a statement on its website.

However, they only commented on the publication in the printed edition of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, in which, despite the fact that a full three pages dealt with the subject- in which not everything could be presented in detail.

The DGUV's communication strategy - as is to be expected - is to focus on aspects that we only mentioned in passing or not at all.

 The DGUV does not deal with the extensive, detailed and with many 'hot docs' evidenced representations found in www.ansTageslicht.de/krankdurcharbeit at all - obviously aware that they could not really "criticize" by using their platitudinous 'counterstatements' . As expected, it is part of what we described in ansTageslicht.de in the chapter  „Tricks, Methods and Strategies“ in which we gave examples: it is a strategy of creating confusion. In a German journalism manner of speaking, one speaks in such cases of "fog candles".

Example:

The DGUV states (see paragraph 10):

 "It remains unclear on what the authors' judgement is based on,  when they describe a "recognition rate" as "absurdly low" without stating standards or reasons. What is the significance of the relationship between recognition and notifications of a suspicious nature and the quality of expert decisions? The "reputable journals" which  made serious accusations about"unclean research“ having been carried out (in which cases?), are not mentioned.“

The spokesman of the DGUV, Stefan BOLTZ, has either not read properly or does not want to do so. We did quote figures; by "absurdly low" we meant that only 7% of those who have applied for recognition of occupational ill health receive financial compensation from the "system". This figure does not even take those into account, who abandoned the lengthy recognition procedure after their first attempt.

We reconstructed several examples of "unclean" research in detail. And named the  horse and rider: names of so-called renowned professors, who are constantly commissioned for their expertise, by the DGUV, respectively by the occupational associations.

DGUV’s summary:

 "However, a dialogue can only be useful for the public if the parties involved can agree on a common basis for the discussion. "

A "dialogue" could be difficult: those who scatter“ fog candles“ show little interest in an objective discussion. How would it be possible?

The British non-governmental organisation (NGO) Aerotoxic Association Ltd has announced, that it is initiating a public inquiry and investigation by the European Criminal Court in The Hague,  to clarify the evidence of the cabin air problem and to investigate whether airlines knowingly expose their employees and passengers to the health hazards of fume events and contaminated cabin air.

According to the NGO’s statements, the organisation has identified around 2,500 affected people.

The London Economic goes in to detail : Airlines face call for international criminal inquiry into toxic exposure of crew & passengers

In cooperation with the Süddeutsche Zeitung:
Occupational Medicine + Fume Events. A Shadow Empire as a Cartel of Silence

One year ago, DokZentrum dealt with the topic „fume events“: the contaminated air in aircraft. We reconstructed how this health problem developed, and that most incidents do not appear in official statistics. This fact alone has a minimizing effect on the problem. However, the truth is: more and more pilots and crew members become unfit to fly due to exposure to toxic fumes, and are unable to work: www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinair 

These investigations left questions unanswered: Why isn’t  anyone taking this problem seriously? And why is nothing changing?

Now we have found the answers: it is the sector of  "occupational medicine" which, with its expert opinions, denies practically all connections between incidents, pollutants and subsequent health problems. In practically all cases.  It was the same scenario with asbestos, mercury, dioxin and other dangerous substances. And now it is contaminated cabin air.

The science of occupational medicine has been integrated into the system of "statutory accident insurance". This in turn is financed by the industry, the companies. Result: only 7% of all cases of occupational disability benefits are paid. Occupational medicine provides reliable help: for companies that are not prepared to take better precautionary measures since this is more expensive than compensation for a few cases.

Why isn’t anybody changing this? Because. it is a completely non-transparent system, it is a "realm of shadows". Nobody outside of the system knows about this. Not until 7pm this evening, when this documentation goes online: www.ansTageslicht.de/krankdurcharbeit or alternatively: www.ansTageslicht.de/Arbeitsmedizin 

DokZentrum shares its research results with the „Süddeutsche Zeitung“. Tomorrow, Saturday, 26th May, a compact article will be available in the printed weekend edition as a full centre fold: Cartel of Secrecy.

In the future, silence will no longer be possible.  Although the Aerotoxic Logbook has had to take a short break over the last few weeks as a result of extensive research, we will continue to report continuously.

The topic "Contaminated Cabin Air" and "Fume Events" is now also available in English

Bearnairdine BAUMANN, former chief stewardess at Lufthansa and flight disabled because of contaminated cabin air health issues, translated the first large texts of our documentation into English. Gradually, more chapters will go online in English.

Everything can be  viewed at www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinair

"Fume Events" + Contaminated Cabin Air in Aircraft?

Meanwhile, even the industry and aircraft manufacturers are no longer arguing that fume events happen. Unlike before. Now the only question remains how harmful to health they are and the consequences.

At the „German Society of Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine (DGP)“ conference in Dresden this month,  there was also a presentation about Fume Events (FE):

Prof. Dr. Dieter SCHOLZ of the „HAW“/ Hamburg explained (again), why regular occurrences contaminating the air in aircraft happen: its the „labyrinth“ seals which are supposed to prevent fugitive emissions from engine oil to escape from the "fans" by counter air flow. But that does not always work and when a problem occurs, the smallest contamination can be an emergency. His presentation can be viewed here: http://cabinair.profscholz.de

Dr. Astrid HEUTELBECK from Göttingen University, who deals with around 400 FE victims and evaluates biomonitoring data made it very clear that the procedure implemented by the Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr  (BG) for the subsequent diagnosis of those affected in FE "does not correspond to what one should do." Since in the mean time one knows a lot more about what is to be done.

But BG is obviously not interested and this is probably why they try to outsmart the Göttingen "Fume Event" consultations; by not paying the costs for patients there anymore.

Pathologist Dr. Frank van de GOOT of the „Center for Forensic Pathology“ (CFP) in GK-Baarn (The Netherlands) found out three things after his autopsy of four deceased people who had all been affected by fume events:

1. all had a damaged peripheral nervous system (see picture), 
2. pathologists do not regularly examine damage to the nervous system, which is why this problem has not been considered and 3) that's why we urgently need "more evidence".

His suggestion, because one can hardly conduct such investigations on the living, is: in case of a death, please call  him at: +31 6 55720774. Frank van de GOOT also speaks German.

Fume Event and Consequences: topic at the "Medical Experts Council for Occupational Diseases"?

"Fume Event Consultation" in Göttingen (DE) apparently finally shut down

A summary from the Lufthansa staff meeting November 20th 2017, topic: FUMES 

New twitter hashtag: #aerotoxiclb

ZEMBLA documentation in NL poses questions in parliament

Dutch TV channel ZEMBLA picks up Fume Event Incidents and Gagging Order Clause

50 fume events in 1 month at BA

BFU’s resounding silence, yet again - unlike Switzerland

Lufthansa and the topic 'Underreporting'  

Tim van BEVEREN, dismissed by many as a "conspiracy theorist"

"Fume Events: Airlines in state of alert"

fuProblem now also on FOCUS ONLINE

The weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT is dealing with the topic

Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) now available in English: ENATLB

Fume Event - smell event: Airbus A319 needs to make an emergency landing.

International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference:

In the meantime, the first presentations given and speeches made at the first major conference held in London in September 2017 on this topic, have now gone on-line: www.aircraftcabinair.com/films.

More will follow...

12 students and the topic "contaminated cabin air":

Expert condenses the cabin air problem in a scientific summary  

One who would know and  who’s knowledge cannot be denied has compressed the topic of potentially contaminated cabin air from 3 sides: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ teaches aircraft design, aircraft systems and flight mechanics at the University of Applied Sciences Hamburg (HAW). He worked formerly at Airbus, so he also knows the practice (not just the theory) and has been dealing with exactly this problem for some time.  

The title of his summary: The air in the cabin of passenger aircraft is not as good as often assumed - background, solutions and implementation thereof (in German)

The so far largest conference on cabin air has come to an end  

easyeasyJet will install filters for bleed air

Of all airlines the low-cost airline has decided to work with PALL Aerospace, which also manufactures the HEPA filters for re-circulated air in aircraft, to install such filters which are intended to keep out contaminants and are supposed to clean the bleed-air tapped from the engines,  in their fleet of aircraft within about one year.  As a result, the potential contamination of cabin air could be further alleviated or even prevented.

This was announced by the airline and the manufacturer at the London conference.

The air in most modern aircraft is first sucked in, then compressed, cooled and warmed again.  During the flight it is then mixed to about 50% with the already existing air (re-circulated air). The air which has been reused to 50% can be purified from hazardeous substances by these ‚HEPA’ filters. The weak point so far: the constant new air stream fed from the turbines. A good graphic is printed in the Sunday Times.

EasyJet’s and PALL Aerospace’s goals are ambitious. However, innovations are not possible without high goals and commitment. During the period in question, they not only have to undertake test flights,  but also have to submit the many applications seeking approval by the various aviation authorities.

The reason is not really clear why a low-cost airline should be first to go down this route. On the other hand, easyJet is currently facing 2 law suits from flight attendants: one in France (criminal charges) and a recent one in the UK.

Strictly speaking, easyJet is not really the first airline to have filters for the bleed-air from their engines. DHL's cargo planes are all equipped with these features: in the cockpit.