The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

The problem has been known since the 1950s - roughly 70 years and nothing has ever been done about it.  The air in the cabin is still ‚bled off’ (the engines) in airplanes - with the well-known possible consequences for flight safety and health, in particular that of  flight crew. We have the cultural history on 'Flying is safe' and the ongoing problems investigated at (EN).

Although the cabin air is 50% re-circulated in modern aircraft types, the basic problem remains unsolved. With one exception: the Boeing B787.  This is/was also the state of knowledge at the first big conference on this topic in London in September 2017. The presentations can now be viewed here:  

There are many reasons why no solutions are found: the targeted influencing of scientific discussions, the airlines’ economic interests, the links between politics and air transport industry and other reasons.

The ‚Aerotoxic Logbook’, launched in January 2017, is a first comprehensive documentation addressing the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air ( - German) and documents what is happening in this area.  Or, what is not happening. And why not. This German language blog ( is now also available in English and can be accessed directly via this permalink:

The information we collect in German is translated by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT who operates the network  and the blog

With the ‚Aerotoxic Logbook’ we want to achieve international networking,  bringing together all initiatives and activities to communicate about this unsolved problem and to initiate solutions. At the same time it is a scientific experiment: What must happen before a problem is addressed?

Other initiatives providing information on the contaminated air issue you can get here (right side).

November 5th, 2017

BFU’s resounding silence, yet again - unlike Switzerland

"The task of the BFU is to investigate accidents and serious disruptions during the operation of aircraft in Germany, and to determine their causes."

Says the German BFU about the German BFU as far as their tasks are concerned. However, the BFU has their own opinion and their own defined standards  in how they see a "serious disruption", as Austria's aviation magazine "Austrian Wings" found out.

The editors had taken the opportunity to find out about a fume event on a German Wings aircraft (September 30) to make inquiries at the BFU. Four of the flight attendants were "injured", two of them even had to be hospitalized. They also had to be supplied on board with (pure) oxygen and were then on sick leave for several weeks.

For the German BFU:  no "serious incident".

Austrian Wings wanted to know more from BFU, but received the usual standard answer:

"As you are probably aware, the legal basis of the work of the Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU) is the Regulation of the European Union, EU VO 996/2010 and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Act, FLUUG from 1998, as well as the ICAO Annex 13. According to the BFU it is not a serious incident or an aircraft accident, so there will be no investigation by the BFU of these reported events. "

The Austrian Wings’ editorial staff confronted the BFU regarding their contradictions, because according to the definition of the BFU,  a "serious incident" can be defined as such when crew members have to resort to oxygen or are off sick afterwards following incidences.

BFU reply this time: none.

Different apparently in Switzerland. The Swiss Accident Investigation Board (SUST) recently defined a similar case as a "serious incident" although nobody was "injured" or hospitalized.

The complete original Austrian Wing report can be read here : Von "Unfällen" und "schweren Störungen", die keine sein dürfen.