The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

That's what we want to know: has the committee ever dealt with this? The problems have been known for around 70 years as is shown in our chronology:  A Health Problem becomes a Certainty: Chronology of the Aerotoxic Syndrome (actually in German, forthcoming in EN).

We have issued a press inquiry to this panel via the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety &Health, which conducts business for the "Medical Experts Council for Occupational Diseases" on which 'leading' (meaning: influential) occupational physicians sit and advise. Their task:

"The review and assessment of the state of scientific knowledge with a view to updating existing or new occupational diseases to the Occupational Diseases Ordinance.  The Advisory Council gives recommendations and issues opinions to the Ministry on the basis of existing information."

We are curious how "sighting and evaluation of scientific knowledge" will be determined in this case. And we will report.

It was closed once before: in mid December 2016 until May of this year. Now it is closed down again, and apparently this time its final. Not only new patients are no longer accepted, now even the 'regular customers' no longer receive a follow-up appointment. This has been indicated by the patient initiative p-coc.com. They give a whole series of recommendations:

• What should be investigated after a fume event  in addition to the biomonitoring and
• what one should pay attention to regarding what is proposed by BG Verkehr’s ‚D-doctors’ ( ed: first port of call for work place accident injury victims)
• who are located near the airports,
• and how to possibly enforce a necessary investigation; if need be with the help of a legal adviser. 
• Or which additional medical measures are necessary and much more.

The exact reasons of the closure  are not known.

However, it is known that BG Verkehr wants to carry out its own human biomonitoring investigation series, at the DGUV, or its IPA institute, and wants to concentrate everything there -  instructions to this effect have been given to all D- physicians to have such examinations carried out only within their own BG or DGUV network (IPA Institute in Bochum).

Since the beginning of the BG's own 'study' the payment of costs for examinations at the apparently unfavorable Fume Event Consultation Clinic in Göttingen have been refused. It is well known that the senior physician and occupational physician PD Dr. med. Astrid HEUTELBECK has come to other results and conclusions as to whether and how fume events can (or do) affect people's health.

Whether all this is in accordance with "free choice of doctor" in Germany, is - for the first time - undecided. Due to these restrictions, the P-COC patient initiative believes that "an independent quality assurance is not given." 

That's because, according to reports from sufferers, "the D-physicians only, if at all,  offer human biomonitoring;  further diagnostic testing is not carried out, referrals are denied, and furthermore the results of the IPA's proof-of-substance assessments – have never been to given the affected persons. The hitherto still valid medical standard procedure of the BG after fume events has not been used since the beginning of the study. "

The ATLB will endeavor to obtain a substantiated justification from the UMG. And will then report.

There were significantly more interested people present than expected.

Of course, management representatives were also attending in order to present their point of view.

In short the highlights from my point of view:

The lecture by Professor Dieter Scholz, an expert in aircraft systems technology from Hamburg University of Applied Sciences. He showed that small quantities of engine oils ALWAYS get into the air, even if the seals are working as intended.

• He further reminded that the engine oil can cause nervous system effects according to the warnings on the oil packaging (as they were in place up to 2004).
• There is even the possibility that chemicals from the oil mist get into the on-board water system because in most airplanes the water tank is pressurized with bleed air. This means in plain language that our coffee and tea on board could also be affected.

If you are interested in details, you can read the lecture here: http://CabinAir.ProfScholz.de 

Frequent questions coming from the audience:

About repeated fume incidents involving the same aircraft over and over  - again management officials said they did not know - to which the audience reacted with a great deal of displeasure - but they want to get information ...

When asked why not after such incidents’ the entire air conditioning is cleaned, or when that would be the case,  rather evasive answers were given. I.e.: one can not clean the air conditioning after every ‚smelly oven’ incident - after verified fume / smell incidents’ this would of course be done.

We know that this is definitely not the case - the complete cleaning of an a/c system can only be incorporated into a ‚D-check’, where all cabin side panels are removed and access is provided to the air ducts. However a ‚D-check’ which involves long ground times (several weeks). Have a look at www.lufthansa-technik.com/en/aircraft-maintenance 

But, as we can prove, most fume-aircraft go back into service after only a short ground-time without thorough cleaning of the air-conditioning system.

The management emphasized that there are HEPA/carbon filters in the recirculation path of the air conditioning system. They acknowledged that these are installed only on a few models. E.g. all Lufthansa aircraft of the A320 family they said are equipped with such filters. On other aircraft there are HEPA filters that can only filter specific particles, i.e. virusses and bacteria. VOCs are not filtered out by HEPA filters.

A sustainable solution needed more research and time  (they said) ...

The problem has been known since the 1950s. How much more time do you want to take at our expense?

Then they tried to appease us, or shine their light, saying that Lufthansa is already doing more than required by law.

Is the responsibility being shifted to politics?

Just because legislature does not demand anything, the employers are not dismissed from their responsibility when it comes to the integrity of their customers and employees!

The unbelievable behaviour of some clinics in airport vicinity was addressed, as well as the lack of understanding how the employers’ liability insurance association (BG) deals with sick colleagues.

I have not heard of any recognized cases of long-term ill-health victims - only (acute) cases  from a few days to weeks are recognized, which are considered to be ‚completed’ after the crew member returns to flying.

Another issue was the inadequate amount of smoke hoods onboard and that it would be desirable for each crewmember to have one available.

Captain Raimund MÜLLER who spoke for the management tried to give us an explanation such as, that the smoke hoods are only to be used after specific instruction from the cockpit ... upon which loud and heated protests arose from the audience.

So you see – there was some ‚fire’ in it ...

I was really enthusiastic about the many colleagues who consistently asked critical questions on the topic and who refused to be intimidated by the presence of management.

The loud and approving applause of all colleagues at the end, will maybe get one or the other LH representative thinking ...

(Written by a flight attendant known to the staff of ENATLB)

The project www.ansTageslicht.de/Kabinenluft and the Aerotoxic Logbook www.ansTageslicht.de/ATLB in German, as well as the English version (www.ansTageslicht.de/ENATLB) are now using the new hashtag #aerotoxiclb.

The hashtag #atlb, which was communicated a few days ago, is already used, so that we now have a unique and new hashtag.

A link can be found on this page at the top left of the search menu.

The first part of a documentary "Poison in the cockpit: the silence contract" shown the day before yesterday (8.11.) triggers first reactions. The left-liberal party "Democraten 66 (D66)", which has been sitting in parliament since 1967 and has been involved in government coalitions several times, is now asking the government its first questions:

• "D66 would like to know from Cora Nieuwenhuizen, the Minister of Infrastructure and Water, what there is to do to make sure that there are no pilots in the Netherlands who suffer from symptoms of the aerotoxic syndrome, with symptoms such as headache, balance disorders and slow reaction speed.  D66 raises the question after ZEMBLA’S broadcas : "Poison in the cockpit: the silence contract".
• D66 wants to know from the Minister how this is possible. The party also wants to know if the inspection commitee already knows how many pilots are suffering from the disease.
• D66 Chamberlain Jan Paternotte doubts the independence of the advisory group following the broadcast of ZEMBLA. He asks whether the minister also believes that the advisory group should draft independently and provide it with independent scientific advice.

Now a Belgian team wants to interview the French pilot Eric B. (also fume-event injured), who has lodged a criminal complaint in France.

Here are some links from Holland and Belgium:

• https://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/stewardess-giftige-lucht-vliegtuigen
• https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/-dagelijks-mensen-ziek-door-giftige-stoffen-in-vliegtuig/~a9350010
• https://www.epages.dk/hetlaatstenieuws/4870/article/653350/5/1/render/?token=0eab31bb8e7e12af776e6cc621310cce 
• https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/cookiewet?html5 = true & referrer = https% 3A% 2F% 2Fwww.rtlnieuws.nl% 2Fgezondheid% 2Fex-stewardess-evelyn-lijdt-aan-aero-toxic syndroom-de-vermoeidheid-is-chronic 

KLM attempts to sanction or threaten its pilot, Willem FELDERHOF, with a € 300,000  fine and damages in the event that he voices : "his opinion, his views and the facts regarding the air quality in KLM airliners in connection with his health condition, employment conditions and ‘aerotoxic syndrome’”, in public.

Regardless of this, information with the hush-money clause  has reached the Dutch TV broadcaster  ZEMBLA, who took up the subject and published it on November 8th in the third program. Part two is scheduled for November 15 at  9:15pm on NPO2.

More information can be found in ZEMBLA’S press release. And: the film is available - with English subtitles - on YouTube.

The English Times reports about a leaked document, from which this fact emerges. However, the journalist's report has been severely cut – due to the very detailed coverage of sexual harassment cases in the British Cabinet: British Airways warns pilots of 'fume events'

"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.

We had given up on it: to document when and how often so-called fume events happen. After three months (1.1 - 31.3.2017) of regular reporting of (only) known incidents we realized that there is systematic underreporting. A continuation of such documentation would be inefficient since there are other’s who do that. For example Aviation Herald’s Simon HRADECKI. 

Today we are making an exception and are picking up Aviation Herald’s report of the day : 2 incidents’ that are closely related: Lufthansa flight LH-447 with Boeing 747-400, registration D-ABVW, on the 20th. / 21st October.  On the way from Denver to Frankfurt a fume event happened even before the aircraft  took off: when the engines were started. "Technical problems", they said, plus an hour waiting time, resp. delay. Passengers noticed, that all doors remained open during this time - apparently to 'air' the plane. 

Straight after take-off the typical smell appeared again - the flight was continued. As one knows by now: upon beginning of descent the unmistakable smell appeared again. Members of the crew, but also passengers complained about typical symptoms: neausea, headaches, irritation of the eyes or vision issues.  

Upon Aviation Herald’s inquiry, the BFU had to admit that – as so often -  they knew nothing of this incident. Nobody had reported it.  It became known, that on the same aircraft, on October18./19. , two days before  this incident, a fume event had already occurred. With the same consequences for passengers and crew. This fume event however, had become known to the BFU.  But as usual in these cases: because the passengers had not been informed about the actual reason, apparently no one had gone to see a doctor - not even the crew. 

So the airline can be 'satisfied': there is no medical documentation for either incident which the Aviation Herald classifies as "accident" (rather than incident). So no medical proof of any consequences. 

More about that at Aviation Herald.

visited ansTageslicht.de, as part of the research about cabin air and the role of occupational health medicine.

The pilot, journalist and film maker told us about  how his documentary Unfiltered Breathed In, which has since been aired at many film festivals, was made.  And why it can only be seen in cinemas. Respectively why it was not broadcast by WDR. Which was originally planned.

But many strange things had happened.

We wrote them down. And, for editorial security reasons, we will research them again. And then publish it. As a contribution to the topic: the truth about independent "public service broadcasting".

We ask for your patience.

This is the heading of an article on the DocCheck news site, which now is also dealing with the problem. It seems that the topic has now also arrived at this medical network.

After the airing in "Markt" by German TV NDR at the beginning of the week, in which contaminated cabin air was a topic (see entry of October 16) and DIE ZEIT who reported today, FOCUS ONLINE is now also present and has an anonymised affected flight attendant report about several such incidences: Toxic fumes on board: a flight attendant who already experienced this.

Apparently the subject is picking up momentum ( a little). 

Freelance journalist Petra SORGE published a detailed report on fume events and the consequences for those affected, in particular flight attendants and pilots, in issue No. 43/2017 (pages 30 and 31): "Poison in the cabin?" (Gift in der Kabine?)

SORGE was able to interview several pilots and flight attendants, all of whom reported similar symptoms summarized by the term "aerotoxic". This term was coined in 1999 by three independently working research scientists and physicians from France, the USA and Australia, who got together to find a fitting terminology for the symptoms.  (more about this in 'Health problem becomes certainty: Chronology of 'Aerotoxic Syndrome' - actually in German).

Many airline employees,  especially those who are affected by it know about the problem. Passengers not. The pilots are instructed not to inform the customers in case of an incident. Whoever does it anyway must probably expect "personnel measures", Petra SORGE quotes Jörg Handwerg,  the spokesman for the Association Cockpit (VC).

This is also due to the fact that the airlines would not only shy away from the conversion costs, but also possible litigation, which for example in USA, where high claims for damages are standard could be expensive. "That is why airlines, but also manufacturers, professional cooperatives and politics will continue to express their doubts, deny facts and produce studies." the journalist quotes the speaker of VC.

In order to enable an international network to effectively exchange information, the 'Aerotoxic Logbook' is now also available in English: www.ansTageslicht.de/ENATLB.

The posts are translated by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, who manages the network www.aerotoxicteam.com and writes the blog www.aerotoxicsyndrombook.com/blog.

It has only now been made public that a fume event took place on an easyJet plane (registration: G-EZNC) on October 3rd, which was on the way from Palma / Mallorca to Luton and had to land in Paris: several passengers and flight attendants, but also the co-pilot had become ‘unwell’. After the unintended landing, 6 paramedics were in attendance to provide the passengers and co-pilot with first aid. The latter received pure oxygen. This is reported by the ‘Aviation Herald’.  

Nothing unusual, because, as is known, fume events happen regularly, which then are usually belittled or completely denied. The British journalist Andrew GILLIGAN asked the airline whether this was a so-called aerotoxic incident. The answer was ‘no’, that this had only been a simple‘smell event’ and easyJet would not classify such events as ‘aerotoxic’.

However, easyJet had to admit that there was a leak of hydraulic fluid that could have developed a "very small amount" of smell. A ‘technical cleaning’ took place in Paris in which all of the return flow filters were also replaced. The plane had to stay on the ground for more than 60 hours before flying back to London.  Andrew GILLIGAN (@mragilligan) also has a passenger speaking in his article "EasyJet in forced landing as 'smell event' overcomes co-pilot", which appeared in the Times, providing details on the event. 

Some blog comment entries following this report are interesting;  a specialist with the alias of ‘VH-EAH’ posts and indicates that he was one of those people who had been involved in the EASA study (published 2017). He corrected firstly that the landing was not an ‘emergency landing’ and that secondly, the EASA study had shown that such ‘cabin air events’ had no adverse effects on health.  

This shows once again how this  problem is repeatedly downplayed . The fact that this is also done by easyJet is astonishing, since this airline has decided to work with PALL Aerospace  to install new filters which are designed to directly filter the bleed air (see entry of 20 September).

This will be the focus of 12 students at the Faculty of Design, Media and Information at University HAW /Hamburg for the current winter term ‘17/’18. They will concentrate on:

• The systematic underreporting of Fume event incidences
• The problem of the recognition of occupational diseases
• The "occupational medicine" sector in Germany
• The Authority "EASA"
• and more ...

If you wish to help others and us: Here's the regular link (actually in German, forthcoming in EN), you can find how to contact us and send information. Also anonymous: How to contact us invisible to all.

The International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference took place at the Imperial College in Kensington/ London over two days (19th and 20th September) and was by far the largest gathering of experts, scientists, affected people and interested parties to date. About 300 people attended, among them about 30 speakers.  

Representatives of the aviation industry were only very sparsly represented - at least officially, but included 2 representatives from PALL Aerospace who, together  with easyJet, want to test a new bleed-air filter system (see entry below). 

Representatives of other manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing) or airlines (Lufthansa, Condor etc.) from Germany for example, were not present, but presumably attended undercover.  The BDL (Bundesverband der Deutschen Lufverkehrswirtschaft)  had also refused to participate in this first ever conference which presented and discussed the latest findings on the technical state of affairs, the problem acceptance and their possible solutions. 

The responisble authorities (BFU - Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchungen, LBA - Luftfahrtbundesamt, EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency) have in the past and present completely denied the new findings and discussions.  The German aviation industry, the supervisory and regulatory authorities and the political government of the‘Grand Coalition’ still deny – at least to all outward appearances -  the looming problem