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 www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinair (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: www.aircraftcabinair.com
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 (www.ansTageslicht.de/Kabininenluft - German) and documents what is happening in this area. Or, what is not happening. And why not. This German language blog (www.ansTageslicht.de/ATLB) is now also available in English and can be accessed directly via this permalink: www.ansTageslicht.de/ENATLB. And you should also have a look at www.ansTageslicht.de/fume-event-files - an "ABC" under permanent construction.
The information we collect in German is translated by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT who operates the network www.aerotoxicteam.com and the blog www.aerotoxicsyndrombook.com/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).
This was published in connection with a petition running via change.org. Most of the aircraft types are Airbus A319, A320, A321s.
So far, about 125,000 people have signed the petition. 150,000 signatures are the next target. The question is which other industry is allowed to harm the health of its employees and/or customers on such a regular base?
We are looking for more petitioners!
Passengers themselves should measure the pollutants in the cabin air during a flight much more often. Then, the argument used by EASA and their contractor MHH Hannover (Medizinische Hochschule Hannover) that aircraft cabin air is better than that in kindergartens, can truly be exposed as a 'fairy tale'.
And this occurred on an LH flight LH 0887 on the Vilnius-Frankfurt route in an Airbus 320neo - we have deposited a larger screenshot from the short video as a picture here. By clicking on the image, the values measured are easier to see. The video can be viewed here.
Unmistakable: Both measuring instruments sound an alarm. And this although we are not talking about a fume-event. The yellow number in the left measuring device indicates the air quality in general, then is differentiated into individual substances: A value of almost 0.3 is measured for "HCHO" (in red), which is formaldehyde. Not only the German "Committee for Indoor Air Quality (AIR)" has set limit values at 0.1 mg/m3 for formaldehyde. The WHO classifies formaldehyde as "carcinogenic" (Cat: carc. 1B) and "mutagenic" (Cat: muta.2).
AIR writes: "This value should also not be exceeded over a short time (longer than half an hour)". The measured value is almost three times higher, and a flight from Vilnius to Frankfurt is longer than half an hour.
An assessment of the other measured values is linked here. By the way, the measuring device on the left shows the cosmic radiation at 2.06 microsieverts.
We can only ask and suggest that passengers carry out such private measurements themselves - and to make them known. Such persons who wish to send us their information we guarantee anonymity. With us such persons also remain anonymous (see How you can communicate with us safely).
The German GroKo coalition agreement states that politicians want reform, so something must be put on the table. The last legislative changes date back to 1997 - so some time ago. In these more than 20 years, a little more than 1 million people have probably been left empty-handed in the statutory accident insurance system, although they fell ill and with a (very) significant probability became unable to work on the job. Every year over 50,000 people fall from the social grid.
The DGB, German Head of all trade-unsions, and in particular also the, in the meantime active industrial union "Metal" had invited IG Metall to a conference: When the job makes you ill - the BK rights on the test stand.
Representatives of the parties CDU/CSU, SPD, LEFT and GREENS were invited to the panel-discussion - along with the leader responsible for social policy, Markus HOFMANN, DGB - CDU/CSU. They were able to present their ideas on reform in general and, in particular, on the Federal Government's draft bill (see entry October 17th).
Without repeating the discussion here, this insight emerged above all:
We had informed all on the podium beforehand, drawing their attention to our compact summary here www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform.
In connection with the research project Risk Perception, we will evaluate who expressed which needs for reform and how and who addressed which fundamental problems.
If we were to give school grades, the parties and their representatives performed like this: (= 1 equals best)
In summary: only the representatives of the parties the LINKE and the SPD are real contact persons for these unsolved occupational health problems.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ, himself a speaker at the conference in London, has summarized the results of all lectures and discussions in a condensed form: "Congress on poisoned cabin air in aircraft".
The problem is complicated because it affects many specialist areas: Medicine/Aeronautical Medicine, Toxicology, Occupational Medicine, Aircraft Systems and Cabin Air Technology as well as legal aspects such as labour law. Everything is regulated differently in different countries.
In focus, among others: the strategic behaviour of the aviation business. "A tactic of obfuscation and delay is generally observed," says Prof. SCHOLZ. "For proactive companies, however, new business fields are opening up, which is also the case in the industrial area of environmental technology, in which Germany has an excellent standing worldwide.
New filter technologies were presented; however, it remains the fact that only RAM-Air techniques can completely eliminate the central design fault with bleed air. The Boeing 787 already uses this principle and also saves fuel with it.
Aircraft must be able to fly without polluting emissions and must have sensors installed for this purpose, something that is stated by FAA and EASA regulations. Indes: Nobody follows them, and no supervisory authority nor politicians intervene.
How strongly the FAA supports these concealment tactics, for example, is described by SCHOLZ using the model of a study by Judith ANDERSON from the Association of Flight Attendants, who had evaluated FAA databases according to Fume Events: 3000 incidents. However, the agency had only reported 18 of these incidents to the US Congress.
Similarly here in Germany - as we have described several times here in the Aerotoxic Logbook using the keyword, e.g. Fume Event (Screen: see right navigation bar; Smartphone: right at the end below).
Immediately following the end of the International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference held in London on September 17th and 18th, the international Network Aerotoxic Team posted a selection of images. The images offer an overview of the speakers and their subjects.
The conference was the second on the topic of Aircraft Cabin Air Quality. Participants and speakers are mainly the critics and warners who have been pointing out these unsolved problems for a long time. The aviation business, in particular, the airlines and the manufacturers, refused attendance yet again. Only PALL Aerospace and BASF, who both produce filter technologies, presented their products.
Below are the most prominent speakers and their topics, to be viewed on Aerotoxic Team's website:
Updates to follow as they arrive.
Once again, the TLE discusses the problem concerning in particular the cocktail of chemical substances identified in the cabin air by EASA themselves, respectively in a study commissioned by EASA.
„What toxins are we being exposed to in air travel?“ is the headline of the article written by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, who is in charge of the aerotoxicteam.com network.
We inquired about the outcome a third time on June 17th. And again, we didn't get any answer although the literature evaluation was adequately carried out by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as the contractor and handed over to the BDLI.
Now we wanted to investigate by telephone, but we were unable to get through to the press office. A request we left on their a.m. for a call back has been ignored.
We now give up, with the conviction that the results of the entire literature (FuSe study - Fume and Smell Events) concerning the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air did not have the desired outcome for the aviation business. There is no other explanation for BDLI’s behaviour.
The result of a study published ten years ago carried out on behalf of the FAA: "Aerospace Toxicology: An Overview" states that "individual substances may not be particularly toxic" - but:
"It is well established that the toxicity of individual substances differs from their mixture(s). Such a difference would be because of the interactive effects of chemicals present in the mixture(s). Thus, the overall toxicity would be the result of additive, potentiation, synergistic, and/or antagonistic type of interaction(s) among chemicals present in the mixtures in relation to the toxic effects exerted by the individual components of the chemical mixtures."
Precisely this is either denied or minimized in this country. Moreover, not investigated in any of the cases.
The researcher also evaluated a British study in which the ducts of the bleed air to the air-conditioning system were examined. The substances inside easily crumbled off, containing: aluminium, silicon, carbon, sulphur, phosphorus. Substances that (can) impregnate the cabin air via the air conditioning system.
More information on the page of the Aerotoxic Team!
Someone who knows: André FERNITZ, who has been working on the ground at Tegel Airport for thirty years. He describes the daily chaos that reigns there. Not only because the airport is much too small, but also because everything has to become cheaper and cheaper. At some point the capacity is overstretched but everything still has to function reasonably well with detrimental effects on the staff.
André FERNITZ also attended the "Fume Event Consultation Clinic" in Göttingen when it still existed. He too had residues of the engine oils in his blood and urine.
His report was published in the Berliner Tagesspiegel - "Report from The Runway".
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.
Background:
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:
www.ansTageslicht.de/Rocker , www.ansTageslicht.de/Mollath www.ansTageslicht.de/HaraldFriedrich , www.ansTageslicht.de/KW , www.ansTageslicht.de/RG , www.ansTageslicht.de/Theisen , www.ansTageslicht.de/DZBank , www.ansTageslicht.de/Zahnschmerz
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
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:
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 ansTageslicht.de" will 'stay tuned' for further progress, and will report about any possibly necessary consequences.
On April 15th of this year - two years after the BDLI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtindustrie = German Aerospace Industries Association) had pompously announced it - we asked when the results of the so-called „FuSe“ study (Fume and Smell Events) which had been carried out by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) would be published. They had announced the publication for the end of 2017.
We did not receive an answer to our first inquiry on April 15th, 2019. Neither did we receive an answer to our second query one month later. We now have made a third attempt.
It appears as if the BDLI is trying to let its original announcement disappear into oblivion. Just in the same way as VW did at the time when the diesel fraud scandal became known worldwide: the announcement to have everything checked by an external law firm and then to make it transparent, resp. to publish it has still not been fulfilled.
As already emphasized several times, we do not document fume events (any more). We had done this as a test for some years until the end of 2016 at www.ansTageslicht.de/incidents and had to find out that there are no valid numbers for it. The reporting channels are a) neither uniformly organized nor b) mandatory and c) the airlines are 'not amused' about such reports. As a result, on-board personnel are reluctant to pass on such information, or only if it cannot be avoided. The responsible supervisory authorities in Germany, such as the BFU and the LBA, are only occasionally notified of such incidents, and EASA only in very rare cases anyway, and - as it regularly turns out - it is also not in their interest to take up such incidents or communicate them to the public. We have already reported on this problem several times.
Several dramatic incidents have now become known to the Aviation Herald and have been researched by them. Their blog is the most important source of information for this kind of incident:
Case 1
concerns a Lufthansa flight from the year 2016, the details of which are only now being made public: a LH Airbus A340-600, which was on its way from Hong Kong to Munich on 10th January 2016. Several flight attendants complained about the well-known symptoms such as dizziness, severe headaches, impaired vision and concentration. Three of them became so ill that they have been unable to work ever since, i.e. are unfit to fly.
After landing, the plane had to stay grounded for sixteen hours to replace all the textile equipment in the cabin. The Aviation Herald only now became aware, that this was the second of a total of three consecutive fume event incidents. There had already been a fume event on the outbound flight. The next day, on 12th January 2016, such an event took place again, this time on the way to Dubai.
The BFU, which apparently became aware of these incidents because of their frequency, was not prepared to initiate an investigation. For them, such incidents are not worrying and are only classified as "incident". The fact that flight personnel become chronically ill and unable to work does not bother the supervisory authority.
Lufthansa and the responsible employers' liability insurance association have classified the incident of the three sick crew members as an "accident at work". With the additional note: "At the same time, compensation payments ... beyond 12.1. 2016 are denied, as the complaints filed by the crew are no longer causally attributable to the alleged event."
To this end, the Aviation Herald has posted a letter online, from Lufthansa to one of the cabin crew members, listing the complaints.
Case 2
is no less dramatic. Even the daily "Die Welt" reported on this incident on 10th June 2019: "Biting Odor" in the cabin of a Lufthansa jumbo jet.
It happened on 7th June 2019 and concerned a Lufthansa Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet on its way from Mexico. It was already on the runway, but had to return to the gate because of the "biting smell". Four or five of the crew members were taken to hospital.
Lufthansa apparently did not respond to the newspaper's inquiries and only spoke of an "indefinable smell" - supplemented by the usual standard sentence: "The safety of the passengers and crew members has top priority for us at all times".
Case 3
is probably the most dramatic, because it also affected the two pilots, who - as the only ones in an airplane - can fall back on oxygen masks (if they are still able to do so).
This time it concerned a British Airways Airbus A 321 from London to Copenhagen. And it concerned the two pilots who were able to 'save' themselves with oxygen masks during the landing approach. But they had to go to hospital afterwards. The return flight had to be postponed by 29 hours.
Note
As usual, the agencies are silent. And the hospitals. The airlines anyway. Because of these reasons there is little to learn on a regular basis. But it would be important to be able to convey this matter and kind of drama to the (sleeping) politicians.
We therefore call on the flight crews but also the passengers (who usually do not know at all what is going on) to at least report it to the Aviation Herald which is (so far) the only valid information platform. However, they themselves know that they can only convey the tip of the iceberg.
According to official data from Lufthansa itself, which is based on figures from the British Committee on Toxicity from 2007, there is an average of 2,000 flights to one fume event. Converted to the amount of only LH flights, this would correspond to 10 incidents per week.
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.
Exactly one month ago we wrote to the BDLI asking for the results of a study that they had announced at the time: a comprehensive literature evaluation about the problem of cabin air. Publication was scheduled for December 2017, which is now 16 months ago. Allegedly a total of around 800 publications found worldwide were evaluated.
We have not yet received an answer. Now, exactly four weeks later - we are following up. We will report when we have feedback.
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:
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.
Is now also addressing the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air and the consequences of aerotoxic syndrome.
Bearnairdine BEAUMONT former chief stewardess at Lufthansa now founder and editor in chief of the platform www.aerotoxicteam.com gave a compressed summary about the problem and the current state of affairs.
Bearnairdine BEAUMONT herself is affected. She has not been able to fly following several fume events and is therefore unable to work - she knows what she is talking and writing about.
Two years ago, the Belgian trade union and the pilots' union BECA started to sensitise and educate employees, in particular pilots and cabin crew, about the unsolved and still unresolved problem of the consequences of potentially contaminated cabin air.
The first known results have now been presented. The Belgian neuropsychologist Dr. Daniel DUMALIN, who treats and examines 40 patients all in airline-business, found so-called lesions, i.e. polytraumas of affected persons in those areas that control cognitive processes in humans in his initial evaluations of clinical pictures. "This causes concentration and memory problems or hypersensitivity to stimuli. The after-effects are permanent," says DUMALIN.
DUMALIN compares the current situation with that of asbestos and tobacco: "It was only when the scientific evidence became alarming that things started to move."
But in the case of asbestos it still took a (very) long time for the politicians to get their act together. We recently reconstructed it at www.ansTageslicht.de/Asbestkrimi.
Only political institutions could do anything about it. But in Germany they are strongly influenced by the powerful aviation industry (Airbus, Lufthansa etc.). The industry itself tries to sit out the problem or in individual cases to solve it with a financial settlement including a confidentiality clause. There is no pressure from passengers because no one thinks of associating symptoms after a flight with their flight. So the problem is a communication trap: 'It just doesn't come up' - as one says.
Regardless of this the Belgian researchers continue their work. If you would like to participate in the studies please contact aerotoxbrain[at]proximus.be.
Approximately 4 years ago, the BDLI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtindustrie) commissioned a "FuSE" (Fume and Smell Event) study at the German Aerospace Center (DLR). According to the BDL (see p. 8), around 800 "scientific and official publications of the past 30 years on the subject of cabin air were commissioned in an extensive literature study".
The results of this study were to be published in 2017. So far this has not happened.
For this reason, we have now submitted these 4 questions to both the BDL and the BDLI:
1) Has this study been completed?
2) Has it already been published, and if so where?
3) Is it accessible to the public?
4) If they have not yet been published, what are the reasons for keeping the results under wraps?
We will inform you of the answers as soon as they have been received.
A controversial issue so far has been whether whistleblowers and journalists who work with information from whistleblowers should be protected by law if they point out problems, grievances, risks and dangers and - possibly - disclose so-called trade secrets.
Now the Bundestag agreed on Friday night around 11 pm to a proposal which will guarantee exactly this protection. That was not to foreseeable, but the educational work of many organizations and institutions paid off: Even CDU delegates had voted for it. So far this topic has been a 'non-topic,' i.e., frowned upon, in this party.
The guaranteed protection for whistleblowers and journalists was written into law in connection with the EU's so-called trade secret directive: When companies declare abuses or illegal practices to be "trade secrets," as the directive is supposed to do, they can no longer intimidate potential whistleblowers, whistleblowers or whistleblowers. Some even spoke of a "defining moment' for the parliament."
The AfD and the FDP had voted against protection and freedom of the press.
We are hopeful that information declared as "secret" will now see the light of day more often. For example, it could be done via this BLOG (see safe communication).
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:
We now want to hear from Markus FERBER whether he also wants to ask EASA about the contaminated cabin air problem.
After a long silence we are back on the air again: The preparations for the new topic were very elaborate:
The dangers of this mineral are known for over 120 years. According to WHO estimates, around 10 million people have since paid with their lives. In Germany, official statistics show more than 1,600 deaths from asbestos. De facto the numbers might be far higher than 4,000, as extrapolated by the Federal Environment Agency almost 40 years ago.
Moreover, every time someone who has become (occupationally) ill as a result wants to assert their claim, the ‘BG’ ( Berufsgenossenschaft = employer’s liability insurance) calculate the problems as small. The same as with the ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome.’
Difference: everyone knows about asbestos and how dangerous it is. Not so (yet) regarding the contaminated cabin air, this is why we have comprehensively reconstructed the asbestos problem. Now we can draw parallels, which will be the next step.
The asbestos thriller to this day: can be read at www.ansTageslicht.de/Asbestkrimi (German). And in today's Süddeutsche Zeitung