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).

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.


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: , , , , , ,

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

19th May 2019

International Criminal Court, The Hague on Fume Events

The NGO, London, with its chairman, former airline pilot trainer Capt John HOYTE, wrote together with run by former purser Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, Switzerland, to the International Criminal Court (October 2018) filing a complaint in the matter of "Fume Events", as a crime against humanity. Thousands of people, pilots and flight attendants and especially frequent flyers are affected. Both institutions estimate that at least 1 million people are affected.

They submitted numerous documents and evidence.

The prosecutor at the criminal court has replied now, stating that since the definition of their area of responsibility is very narrowly defined, she does not see herself in a position to do anything in this case. However: one would archive the considerable amount of information. If new findings and evidence were to lead to a change in the previous view, it would not be impossible to re-examine the problem as a triggering reason for an investigation.

You can read the official response of the International Criminal Court here.

still May 2019

Social Court Giessen (SG)

We have just learned that a ruling from the SG Giessen has rejected the complaint of a Lufthansa flight attendant who claimed the health consequences of a fume event. The court acknowledges the scientific background and speaks of "smells" which the judges regard as a "fume event" but on the other hand say that the toxic effect of the alleged „smell“ is not fully proven.

From the fact that the ruling has not yet been finalised and the reasons for the ruling have not yet been given, it can be assumed that the plaintiff intends to appeal.

We do not know more for the time being, but are investigating.

November 2018

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.

October 17th, 2018

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 (;; 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