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 www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinair (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: www.aircraftcabinair.com  

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 (www.ansTageslicht.de/Kabininenluft - German) and documents what is happening in this area.  Or, what is not happening. And why not. This German language blog (www.ansTageslicht.de/ATLB) is now also available in English and can be accessed directly via this permalink: www.ansTageslicht.de/ENATLB.

The information we collect in German is translated by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT who operates the network www.aerotoxicteam.com  and the blog www.aerotoxicsyndrombook.com/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).

September 1st, 2019

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.

End of August, 2019

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.

August 2019

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!

July 7th, 2019

"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".

July 2019

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:

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