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"
