The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

Perception trap "Fume Event": Risk for aviation safety and the crew

December 19 marks the tenth anniversary of a fume incident on approach to Cologne/Bonn Airport that nearly ended in disaster:

"It's hard to imagine if we had passed out! The plane would have followed the LOC and GS and hit the threshold in Cologne with 8 tons of residual fuel - because of snow - and 144 guests + 5 crew members. I don't want to imagine the catastrophe until today."

This is how the co-pilot summarized it in his Flight Report Cockpit at the end, which can be read in full at www.ansTageslicht.de/cockpit-flight-report. The entire incident is reconstructed at Lufthansa's subsidiary Germanwings on December 19, 2010

To date, the industry seems to have learned nothing - fume events are still happening and - in concrete terms - little or nothing is being done about them.

Because such incidents pose a risk to flight safety and the crew, the research project "Risk Perception" is looking into the question of why this is so: that nothing is being done. The first explanation: the existing information and figures are incomplete and cannot capture the problem either qualitatively or quantitatively: a classic case of a perception trap, when a problem can become a risk and everyone thinks/believes it is not a problem.

Prof. Dr. Johannes LUDWIG, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ (both Hamburg University of Applied Sciences - HAW), the patient association P-COC, the whistleblower network and a former pilot who is no longer able to fly due to fume events held a press briefing on this topic.

The problem of "underreporting" , why this is a perception trap and how underreporting of fume events affects air traffic safety and why it poses a health risk to the crew is described in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/perception-trap-underreporting.

It was probably unavoidable under the given circumstances: If an aviation supervisory  authority delegates its duties to those it is supposed to (actually) supervise, this is what happens: a faulty sensor controls faulty software and sends the aircraft into disaster. The pilots did not stand a chance.

Barely five months later the second crash. For the same reasons.

After the first disaster, the FAA had already calculated that up to 15 crashes were possible over the life cycles of 4,800 aircraft of this type. The authority only reacted after crash number 2.

The EASA was also aware of the problems. The EASA did not react either. Nor did they warn.

We have documented the disasters: the two crashes and above all, the conditions at Boeing and the (actually) responsible aviation supervisory authorities: www.ansTageslicht.de/boeing737max8 . 

IATA and "fake news"

The economic situation is bad in the aviation industry, that is common knowledge and why. In fact, the aviation business seems to be so desperate that the international umbrella organisation IATA resorts to false statements, for example by booming on its Facebook page:

www.facebook.com/iata.org/posts/3518937378172375

There you will find the slogans that:

•     the cabin air is as clean as in an operating theatre of a hospital
•     the HEPA filters (if any) are capable of keeping 99.99% of the coronavirus out or filtering it
•     the air exchange in the aircraft takes place every 2-3 minutes and
•     all the air would therefore be completely exchanged 20-30 times per hour.

The aviation expert Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ has already explained and communicated on several occasions that this is 'pure nonsense'.
But that obviously does not stop the aviation business from continuing to harp on about their platitudes. Prof. SCHOLZ now sees this as a test: to see if it is possible to stop this fake news campaign of the aviation industry.

Everybody can be involved in this action: Make a report to facebook that these statements are "fake news"!

Now online (as announced some days before): The Hunt for the TCP

How the knowledge of TCP came about, and the current state of affairs is described en detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Tricresylphosphate.

In addition, there is a chapter in which the 3 studies of the professional associations on this topic are critically examined: The assertion that there could not have been a fume event because no TCP could be measured is nothing else than a scientific bluff: www.ansTageslicht.de/SCHINDLER-Study.

Alexei NAVALNY and cabin air: Novichok and tricresyl phosphate (TCP)

We had no desire that our research would have such an unexpected twist. We have great respect for this courageous person who is now - poisoned by a substance from the Novichok poison range - fighting for his life in the Berlin Charité. Russian students had already drawn a portrait of this intrepid politician in 2013 - in connection with the project Human Media Democracy: www.ansTageslicht.de/Navalny.

We have now put together another documentation about the substance tricresyl phosphate (TCP), which is added to synthetic turbine oils and can enter the cockpit and/or cabin air during fume events and as such harms people: Novichok and TCP belong to the same chemical family of phosphoric acid esters.

The health consequences of such substances: often lifelong damage to the nerves and muscles, sometimes quickly, sometimes with a time delay. Worst case scenario: death.

As usual with Russian poison attacks: the Russian authorities always deny everything. As usual regarding the health damage caused by fume events or TCP: airlines and the employer’s liability insurers always deny everything. Similarly, the Federal Government: "The Federal Government has no knowledge of this.“

We have reconstructed the problem of TCP and have shown how absurd the claim by Lufthansa, the employer’s liability insurance assocations and their mainstream occupational physicians is: 'Because no TCP can be proven, there can be none, full stop.“

The explanation: TCP cannot be detected in blood or urine - the substance is one of the so-called hit-and-run substances: once it has entered the human body, TCP causes damage and dissolves - virtually undetectable, similar to white asbestos dust. Only very few experts can provide evidence in specialised laboratories: not directly, only indirectly on the basis of chemical indices.

Even though flying and the problem of contaminated cabin air are currently only of secondary importance to the public due to corona, we are continuing to work on this topic.

"We": These are the committed members of the Aerotoxic Global Network, the Patient Initiative P-COC, as well as individual experts who work with ansTageslicht.de, including the initiator of ansTageslicht.de.

Following TCP, the next complex subject will deal with filters: filters as in nose-mouth covering, HEPA filters in aircraft and the air in operating rooms. According to Lufthansa, the air in an aircraft is as clean as in an "operating room". We will continue our research into this.

Why TCP cannot be detected and what this means is compiled under "The Hunt for Tricresyl Phosphate", which can be accessed directly at www.ansTageslicht.de/TCP. The English version is fortcoming at www.ansTageslicht.de/tricresylphosphate.

Fly? Or not flying?

That's what William SHAKESPEARE would ask himself these days. But he is no longer alive, unfortunately. Therefore Prof. Dieter SCHOLZ answers this question. Now in English.

See the article below.

"All 3 arguments given by the Aviation Industry are wrong"

Prof. Dr. Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ explains in an interview with journalist Markus STEINHAUSEN for 3Sat „Kulturzeit“ (German TV). The airlines advertise with the harmlessness of flying and the cleanliness of the air "like in an operating theatre" – as they want to get their planes full again.

The following are the refutations by the aviation professor, who is not paid by the aviation industry, but teaches and researches at a state-financed university (see entry below):

The  much praised HEPA-filters do not filter the cabin air from all viruses or aerosols and therefore the cabin air is not as "clean as in a hospital operating room" (where completely different filter systems are used).

The air in the aircraft is not completely replaced every 3 minutes (which is not possible because 50% of the air is recirculated).

The air does not only circulate from top to bottom because this statement does not take into account the thermal turbulence caused by the body heat of the passengers.

The film also shows an example from 2003, when the SARS virus was raging: The University of Purdue/USA proved in a study that 1 (single) passenger infected a total of 20 other passengers sitting over a total of 12 rows of seats, within three hours.

 We highly recommend this film (only 7 min)! The video is available until July 3rd, 2025.

Summer(holiday) & COVID -19: To fly or not to fly?

Many rules apply in the meantime: mandatory wearing of masks in shops and other facilities, safety distances and lots more.

For the aviation business it’s only recommendations that exist with which the airlines can do what they want. Because of their economic and political power, they have been able to enforce this.

This is a problem for passengers who have to or want to fly because they can't really protect themselves very well even if they want to. The airlines set the tone: seat allocation on the plane, the ventilation, boarding and disembarking and everything else. The legal situation is unclear, as is the individual health risk.

This is the conclusion reached by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ from the University of Applied Sciences (HAW) in Hamburg, who is one of the very few people in the world to conduct research into the problem of contaminated cabin air in aircraft, from a technical point of view. Now he has published a small documentation with real recommendations: Sommer 2020 Covid-19, Fliegen: Ja oder Nein? (Summer 2020, COVID-19: Flying: yes or no? English version to follow soon).

Use the standstill in aviation to do something about the contaminated cabin air. And not just against CoVid 19

This is the fundamental demand that the Patienten-Initiative p-coc.com is directing not only at airlines, especially Deutsche Lufthansa, which is now to be kept alive with governmental money but also at politicians.

In total there are 6 specific demands. Some of them have - actually - been legally stipulated for a long time, e.g. that a) there must be no pollutants whatsoever in the cabin air and that therefore b) sensors must be installed.

But no authority is taking this seriously. Neither the BFU nor the LBA, not even the EASA. Politics certainly don't.

How the majority of the members of the CDU/CSU and SPD in the German Bundestag deal with the problem of preventive measures and, in the absence of such measures, the subsequent development of occupational illnesses, was just recently demonstrated by politicians (see the entry of 7th May). And how seriously it takes the problems of around 50,000 people every year.

The Open Letter to the German Chancellor, the responsible ministries, the EU Commission and Lufthansa can be read and/or downloaded here.

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.

„Fume Event ABC"

Officially launched right now: a new site by ansTageslicht.de which is intended to become a kind of ‚WIKI’ regarding the Fume Event problem.

A lot of important and particular information does not always find its way into a larger context text immediately. Some of the points are so relevant that you should be able to look them up alphabetically.

In order to kill 'two birds with one stone' we now have the "Fume Event ABC"  directly accessible and linkable here

• www.ansTageslicht.de/ABC-Fume-Event

The lexicon begins with the following four keywords with relevant contents:

• www.ansTageslicht.de/BMAS: Federal Ministry of Labour & Social Affairs
• www.ansTageslicht.de/Flight-Report-Cockpit : FRC by four pilots following a Fume Even
• www.ansTageslicht.de/Gutachter: a link that redirects to another detailed site at ansTageslicht.de
• www.ansTageslicht.de/Schindler2013: the summary of a critic of a study commissioned by BG Verkehr, which is methodologically and contentwise not very informative - nevertheless, it is highly rated in the industry-funded science and research community.

Further keywords and contents will follow. Suggestions are always welcome!

An English version is under construction.

1st International "Clean Cabin Air Day" 2020

There are  "International Days" for many things: freedom of the press, children, the forest, disabled people, etc. Now the Patient Initiative p-coc.com has decided to declare an "International Clean Cabin Air Day", which from now on will always take place on April 3rd.

We have known about the problems for decades (see www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinairchronology - in EN), as well as about the regularity of fume-event incidents (see www.ansTageslicht.de/incidents - also in EN), and there are more and more affected people who become terminally ill.

According to the Lufthansa Group, such incidents happen on every 2,000 flights = 1:2000. If one converts this to daily or weekly flight operations, this amounts to 10 fume events per week. Almost two every day.

P-coc now wants to tackle this problem and generate worldwide attention for this still unsolved problem. https://www.facebook.com/groups/865783380264164/More on their Facebook page.

The Cabin air is "as clean as in an operating room",

says Deutsche Lufthansa in all seriousness in response to an enquiry from ZDF, why on (currently still taing place) domestic LH flights, people would sit closely packed next to each other on each available seat and after disembarkation would are rounded up and again tightly packed in the pick-up buses? Is this the up-to-date practice?

In view of such pictures and the political motto "keep your distance", even the editorial staff of ZDF’s "Heute Journal" has doubts. And so it becomes a topic on the evening news. You can see the excerpt here: "Tightly packed for transport".

Regarding the keyword "Filters and Cabin Air", a compilation of what is known about it to this day, will be available soon. We ask for your patience. 

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 www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform, 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.

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.

AnsTageslicht.de has now written to the members of the Committee for Labor & Social Affairs, who are responsible for the content of this bill: with

•     a one-page explanatory letter
•     and six examples of affected persons and two expert occupational physicians.

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

Fume Events: now also in the ARD boulevard magazine 

The topic is gaining momentum. Now the tabloid magazine BRISANT, part of the "Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk" (MRD) has also picked up the subject. Briefly, but nevertheless. And they referenced the "Patient Initiative Contaminated Cabin Air e.V." (p-coc.com): What to do in case of toxic fumes in the aircraft cabin?

Corrections to our report from January 30!

Please note: 

In the meantime, we have received other and additional information concerning the EASA workshop. Therefore we have changed our entry on January 30. The updated version is now valid.

Thanks!

Since autumn 2019, the Federal Government, or more specifically the BMAS, has been working on a "reform" of the Federal Occupational Deseases Law. For almost 20 years once again. We have already dealt with it a) in detail and b) critically at www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform. 

The federal government and the BMAS, led by the Social Democrats (SPD), apparently (once again) wants to serve the interests of employers above all else, and above all take into account the proposals of the DGUV. 

Meanwhile, some federal states dissatisfied with a) the course of events planned by the government, and b) with the intended changes, are trying to resist this. They have therefore drawn up a statement on the Bundesrat. In this statement,

• they want to enforce a hardship clause in cases involving rare diseases for which very little or no research results or on cause-effect relationships and/or epidemiological studies are available. Such a requirement is then to be applied "restrictively" (relates to previous § 9 SGB VII).
• And in cases in which the continuation of an insured activity would lead to a further worsening of the clinical picture, this should no longer be exclusively at the expense of the employee or how else he should earn his income; instead, the BGen should "work with the employer and the insured to ensure that the insured are no longer exposed to the hazardous activity".

The reasoning behind the latter is rather 'witty': 

"The employer is obliged to provide working conditions where occupational diseases do not arise." 

The fact that this must be pointed out - in the context of a single proposed regulation - seems to confirm the fact that the "reformers" have still not recognised this fundamental problem. And therefore are not prepared to introduce a reversal of the burden of proof. This would probably increase the economic pressure to such an extent that it would be cheaper for companies to take adequate precautionary measures than to pay for long-term and often irreparable damage to health afterwards. In the USA, for example, product liability law works on this principle: successfully.

Fume Event - Report now also on RTL

After the TV magazine Report Mainz (ARD) reported on the subject at the end of January, the private broadcaster RTL is now also joining in the news: "Ex-Condor pilot accuses: Sick from toxic cockpit air". 

Willy JAHNKE, now 65 years with 40 years of cockpit experience, is now suing his former employer. He has been dependent on 24-hour care for five years, and attributes his massive impairment to the toxic substances in the cockpit air.

EASA focuses on "cabin air "

Over two days, lectures and discussions were held at EASA’s in Cologne; you can read about them here in the official program booklet. On the podium: the "usual suspects" in the form of the airlines, manufacturers and some representatives from the scientific scene, who have often pointed out that there is no danger whatsoever from the whole problem. 

However, there is now no longer any dispute about whether such fume events occur at all. Lufthansa concedes that - as they have done for some years now - such occurrences happen at a frequency of 0.05%, in other words: 1.85 fume events daily calculated over all LH flights. So far, nothing new. 

What is new, however, is the fact that the "Patienten Initiative" – (www.p-coc.com) was also present. Although their submission, a presentation “from the point of view of those affected” was not accepted, questions were allowed. 

Apparently, P-CoC.com made use of this opportunity and startled the industry by asking very specific questions. There now seems to be some concern that the various diverse (aerotoxic) initiatives will unite and thus will have a more significant public impact. 

The fact that the crew is always newly assembled for each flight, i.e. meaning that there are no well-rehearsed teams, has so far proven to be a sure barrier to the development of solidarity amongst pilots and flight crews.

Lufthansa e.g. employs around 20,000 flight attendants; however, this could now experience changes due to P-CoC.com and their planned activities. 

The British Capt. John HOYTE, the founder of aerotoxic.org and himself once a pilot, has issued a press release on the event.

Survey of Dutch Frequent Flyers

As we have learned, the Institution Aviation Medical Consult (AMC) conducted a survey in 2017 among 100,000 people, including frequent flyers of which 500 had flown at least six times in the last 12 months.

The survey results reveal the suspected phenomenon that not only flight personnel are at risk, but also all those who regularly use the aircraft for professional reasons as a means of transport: Study on the perception and prevention of health complaints in Frequent Flyers.

Cabin Air as a topic at "Report Mainz" (Public Broadcast TV)

Prof. Dr-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ from the HAW/Hamburg has long emphasized that the bleed air technology is a "faulty design". He previously worked for Airbus and has represented the subjects of aircraft construction, aircraft systems and flight mechanics for many years. He knows what he is talking about, and is now one of the very few people who are involved in this field.

He shows the difference by comparing two air pipes ("ducts"): Bleed air leaves a black and greasy film which is deposited in the pipes and flows through the air for the cabin. And this already is due to the normal low-level contamination with pyrolyzed turbine oil residues. The air pipes on the "Ram Air" and "Fan Air", on the other hand, are flawless.

Prof. SCHOLZ, who appears in this film contribution, has provided the film with English and German subtitles and uploaded it on YouTube.

TV contributions intended for public discussion and opinion-making are usually deleted within a specific time limit.  The links to the broadcast script and the video can be viewed here: We have archived both so that it can't be lost: "Do toxic gases in aeroplanes harm personnel and passengers?"

The news magazine Focus took up this topic the next day.

Measurements in Airplanes

Four short videos went online on the Aerotoxic Team website:

Measurements by passengers in four different aircraft: a Lufthansa Airbus 320, an Iberia Airbus 320neo, a Qatar B777-300 and an aircraft of unknown type.

Furthermore:

Two short clips with smoke in the cabin: on Ryanair  in January 2020 and on a British Airways flight in August last year

All six clips at www.aerotoxicteam.com/passenger-videos.html

IKAROS-Foundation

Doctors, i.e. neuropathologists from the University of Amsterdam, have now proven, based on the autopsy of 15 deceased persons, that there is quite obviously a connection between long-term and weak exposure to cabin air and damage to the brain, heart and peripheral nervous system. The same symptoms were observed in all autopsies: https://ikaros.amsterdam/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/aerotoxisch-syndrome-post-mortem.pdf

Permanent contamination of the cabin air is the rule, especially when so-called labyrinth seals (which leak) are used, and was proven by Prof. Dieter SCHOLZ some time ago: Aircraft Cabinair and Engine Oil - A Systems Engineering View (27 April 2017).

There are currently agreements with 50 (living) flight crews and frequent flyers who (can) supplement the previous findings and results by agreeing to have a particular "post-mortem protocol" done after their death. The comparison group has equal numbers.

The foundation has been in existence since 2018 and has now decided to go public. A website has gone online for this purpose: https://ikaros.amsterdam

The board of directors of IKAROS is formed by

• Prof. Dick SWAAB, a neurobiologist at the University of Amsterdam and long-standing director of the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research.
• Michel MULDER MD, a former KLM pilot and (FAA) aero-medical doctor, who stopped flying when he felt changes in his body.
• Frank CANNON, an attorney, specialized in aviation law and a former pilot, still volunteering as a rescue pilot for the Order of St. John.

All persons who know about deceased aircraft crews can get advice here: info[at]ikaros.amsterdam.

Co-pilot unconscious after Fume Event during the landing approach

This is the horror scenario: one pilot suddenly smells the "old socks" smell, the other, who is currently piloting the plane, does not. But precisely that one is knocked out on the spot. The second helmsman, in this case, the captain, sends out a "Mayday" call and takes over command four miles before touching down, after he has donned his oxygen mask. Aviation Herald reported this on January 4th.

B.A. has - as we have reported here in the past - had such problems a lot lately. But, as usual these incidents are regularly - as has always been the case - played down. In any case, the Airbus A320-200 in question was maintenanced and had to spend about 85 hours on the ground to do so. That’s 3 1/2 days. That's how long it takes to clean the ducts and air conditioning of such an aircraft. And with such a number of work-hours, it also becomes clear why the airlines have little interest and even less desire to do what is necessary after a fume-event incident. Unless the 'customers', the passengers, put pressure on them.

As always, they did not notice and were not informed about the problem at any time. Not even later on.

A summary of the process  is available in German language at aero.de.

International Criminal Court, The Hague on Fume Events

The NGO aerotoxic.org, London, with its chairman, former airline pilot trainer Capt John HOYTE, wrote together with aerotoxicteam.com 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.