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?

September 2018

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.

BG Verkehr at the 10th Commercial Pilots' Day

As we now know, BG Verkehr offered a new presentation about  "Fume events in aircraft, the problems as seen from BG's standpoint",  to be viewed on YouTube, but suddenly offline.

The head of the Department for Prevention, Dr. Jörg HEDTMANN reports little news, but confirms that BG Verkehr now recognises such incidents as "occupational accidents". However, they do not consider from their point of view,  the possible long-term health consequences. Reason: One sticks to the "commonly known school of thought"  (34th minute into the video recording).

Since we - so far - do not know any "common school of thought" regarding this problem (at least none that should be taken seriously), we asked Mr. HEDTMANN which experts' names he associates with the "common school of thought". We made this request on 29th July.

We will report when we receive the answer.