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.