The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

Judgement of the Labour Court Cologne

It is now known that two flight attendants who claim to have suffered injury to their health because they were exposed to cabin air contamination for 45 minutes, lost their case before the Labour Court in Cologne: They claimed damages because their airline acted "intentionally". In concrete terms, such an incident had even occurred the day before.

The airline and the judges argued that the aircraft operator subsequently undertook a technical review and therefore no longer could expect that a new incident would occur the next day. Therefore, intent could be excluded and only in such cases the employer could be held liable according to § 104 SGB VII.

Therefore, the court did not have to examine whether there was a scientifically justified connection at all.

We are currently trying to find out what exactly the technical examination consisted off, e.g. whether the manufacturer’s instructions in the operating manual were followed, or whether - as is usually the case - it was just a small mini-check.

If there are clear recommendations or instructions in the operating manual but no action has been taken, the argument "no intent" would be untenable.

Contaminated cabin air now brought before the International Criminal Court

In an Open Letter the Aerotoxic Association called upon the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, to take action, stating that the existence of potentially poisoned cabin air violates several international regulations. Among other things, it violates ‚The Right to Healthy Indoor Air’, as demanded by the WHO;  also against the „Air Quality Guidelines“, Global update 2005: „Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide“.

Even EASA demands in its regulation CS 25.831 the same as does the Code of Federal Regulations of the USA regarding air traffic:

"Crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours" (p. 1 D 38f)

And this in fact, is not the case. Especially not when fume events occur that are more than just "smells".

The original Open Letter is accompanied by 2 full folders of documents, scientific evidence, previous court documents, supporting documents and testimonials from more than 100 affected persons, documenting this disastreous calamity that has persisted for decades.

Occupational Diseases in Court: Only 10% of all cases are successful

Last year the Federal Government had „no idea“ when they answered the LEFT Party (printed matter 18/13543) "due to lack of statistic data by the DGUV", regarding the question how many cases exist that have actually received occupational ill health acknowledgment before the Federal Social Court, thus were successful,  or failed.

Now, all of a sudden, the Federal Government, in the person of Parliamentary State Secretary (BMAS), Ms Kerstin GRIESE (SPD) announced in an answer to the Greens (printed matter 19/4093 - see entry v. 18.9.):

"For decades the decisions of the accident insurance institutions have been confirmed in about 90% of the Federal Social Court proceedings. From this "the quality of the experts employed and the administrative procedures" can be seen.

We have a somewhat different view of things, as we have documented in many examples (www.ansTageslicht.de/Letzel; www.ansTageslicht.de/Lehnert; www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317 etc.).

We have therefore added  thefollowing section to the chapter "What can one do?" (WKMT): "In Court". There you will find information on how to proceed when you wish to reject an expert, or his expert opinion because of "bad expertise“,  and if the judge refuses this, how to reject the judge. In the latter case, it is not the "bias" that is important, but the potential "concern of bias".

That this does not work in most cases is due to the fact that neither the judges nor most lawyers are familiar with the right of bias.

We can help and give tips & hints: at www.ansTageslicht.de/WKMT