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: And you should also have a look at - an "ABC" under permanent construction.

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).

CW 19 - 4 May 2020

Occupational Diseases Reform Act: 2nd and 3rd Reading in 1 Go

This is what it will come down to next Thursday, May 7. Votes are scheduled to begin at 4.15 p.m.

Originally, a public hearing was planned. This was cancelled due to the Corona measures and the statements were submitted in writing by the requested associations, which were then put online. There was no longer any discussion in the Committee for Labour and Social Affairs.

The committee summarised the positions of the associations as follows: "Public Hearings". Also included there are the individual statements. With the exception of the employers' associations, all the others regard the abandonment of the so-called injunction as positive. The latter means that if a BK (Berufskrankheit = occupational disease) is suspected and reported to a BG (Berufsgenossenschaft = Federal Employers' Association), the person concerned must give up the work due to which he or she has (allegedly) became ill. For many, this is often not possible if there is no other job alternative. This provision will now be dropped. Instead, other workplace solutions will be sought.

This is of course a thorn in the side of the Employers' Association of the Metal Industry and in its statement complains about the additional costs incurred as a result; these costs are "unacceptable".

The only positive change we ourselves see is the now, finally, planned official institutionalisation of the "Medical Expert Council 'BK' at the BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales = Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs). There are now to be scientific experts appointed; The aim is to create 10 scientific staff positions in order to be able to advance the work and the discussions in this relevant body more quickly. It remains to be seen whether scientific staff will then be able to compensate for the structural imbalance of know-how and the preparation of meetings. We will keep an eye on this.

The draft of the DIE LINKE group will be polished off smoothly, the Greens have not even put forward a position of their own - the problem obviously does not play a special role in this party in the Bundestag.

If the bill is waved through on Thursday, it could only be stopped via the Bundesrat. There, the states of Hamburg (SPD/GREENS) and Schleswig-Holstein (CDU/GREENS/FDP) had already attempted to bring in other proposals; NRW (CDU/FDP) had likewise tried to do the same.

However, the corona seems to overshadow everything at present.

12 March 2020 - First Reading in Parliament

The extremely low number of parliamentarians present during the 30-minute first reading of the reform document shows the 'interest' of the elected representatives in this topic - although every year around 50,000 people fail to pass the 'social net' of the statutory accident insurance system. People thereby "lose faith in the rule of law", as all those affected tell us who contact us. If we apply the disappointment to the whole family, more than 100,000 people lose faith in the law every year, simply by the non recognition of the damage done to their health caused at their workplace.

The planned reform, which is mainly the result of the GUV system, will not change this situation. What would actually be necessary, in the opinion of experts who are independent of the SHI system, and what we have compiled at, will not take place - with the exception of the long overdue expansion of the "Medical Expert Council 'BK", which is now to be provided with useful equipment.

  • The speech by Kerstin GRIESE (SPD), Parliamentary State Secretary at the BMAS, confirms this. She sees the "reform work" mainly in the "discharge of 4 million hours" for the citizens and "139 million Euro for the employers". The reason: the "digital reform" of the "welfare state for the future" now makes the welfare state "easier and more accessible.
  • The real problems associated with occupational illnesses are obviously only perceived by the Left Party (Die Linke). That is why it has also submitted its own legislative proposal. The demands of DIE LINKE are succinctly summed up by their spokeswoman Jutta KRELLMANN in her speech: research independent of the system of the GUV, hardship regulations and shorter periods of time for the recognition of BK's. Jutta KRELLMANN summarized her party's ideas and her criticism of the GroKo reform in an article for the weekly newspaper Freitag: From Abestos to Pneumoconiosis.

The entire (short) reading can be seen and heard in the MediaThek of the German Bundestag.

Timetable for further procedure:

According to the current status (March 13th) of the "dynamic eruption":

  • On 25th March the reform work is to be discussed in the responsible committee "Labour and Social Affairs".
  • A hearing of some social organisations is scheduled for 20 April.
  • And the second and third or final reading will take place three days later on 23rd April.

This timetable gives an immediate indication of the purpose and function of the hearing three days before the final vote.

12th March 2020

Reform of the law on occupational diseases: 1st reading in the German Bundestag

The public debate is scheduled at 2:15 p.m., during which some of the members of parliament will have the opportunity to comment on the draft law introduced by the Federal Government. About half an hour of speaking time has been set aside for this subject. The debate will be broadcasted live by Phoenix.

The Left Party has its draft in which it demands the lowering of the hurdles to recognition. However, the Bundestag administration has not made it available online. The proposals can only be read on the Left Party's website.

The Green Party has not presented anything.

The Federal States had previously demanded a whole series of changes and improvements from the Federal Government (cf. entry 14th February). The latter has adopted almost nothing of their ideas. has now written to the members of the Committee for Labor & Social Affairs, who are responsible for the content of this bill: with

We are curious whether the "People's Representatives" will deal with hints and suggestions from the "People".

Beginning of May 2019

In March we had addressed the CSU's transport policy spokesman in the European Parliament, Markus FERBER, who in connection with the crash of two Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft had clearly criticised EASA because the authorities had known about the problems of this type of aircraft. But, they said nothing, published nothing and warned no one which is a typical behavior of regulators whose employees are exclusively concerned with their service regulations and have no empathy for potentially injured parties. Markus FERBER had said: "A flight safety authority that classifies a software error as a risk only after two planes have crashed is a risk for the citizen himself".

We brought Markus FERBER's attention to the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air and he replied:

  • That he agrees that "this issue deserves more public attention".
  • That the EP had on many occasions pointed out to the commission that "this problem should be examined"
  • who therefore commissioned an investigation by EASA
  • the results of which should be available in December of this year.
  • And this is because the Commission is demanding that "events containing unusual odours and smoke must be reported in accordance with Regulation EU No. 376/2014".

FERBER writes:

"I believe that EASA - like any authority - must be closely watched and that one should not hesitate to point out shortcomings and errors. The issue of potentially contaminated cabin air is of great interest to me, I will follow the publication of the study results critically at the end of the year".

We will support Markus FERBER.

18th March 2019

 EASA and Flight Safety Prevention

What is to be thought of the reliability and usefulness of EASA in this respect, EASA boss Patrick KY shared at the Transport Committee of the European Parliament (TRAN) on March 18th: After the fatal crash of a Boeing 737 Max 8 of the Indonesian airline Lion Air in October 2018, EASA knew already a short while afterward about the problems of the not really working MCAS software and the insufficient training of the pilots in handling it. KY now had to admit this in response to questions from MEPs.

No warning followed on the part of EASA. Also, this potential problem was obviously not communicated at all.

Instead, there was now a second crash of such an aircraft of Ethiopian Airlines on March 10th causing 157 deaths. And only now the EASA comes out with such information - after parliamentary inquiries and pressure.

Markus FERBER, the European CSU's Transport Spokesman in the EU Parliament, has a clear opinion on this issue:

"A flight safety authority that only considers a software error a risk only after two aircraft have crashed represents a risk for the citizen himself".

We now want to hear from Markus FERBER whether he also wants to ask EASA about the contaminated cabin air problem.