The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

"Fume Event" expert witness Prof. DREXLER and the Nuremberg judiciary.

His most important evidence was withheld by his employer TUIfly, the BG Verkehr and the social court. Now he has filed criminal charges for attempted trial fraud and against his expert witness. The former captain Markus FENZEL (see the entry of June 14) is now testing the "constitutional state of Germany". Among other things, we describe the legal procedure at the public prosecutor's office and describe the unholy symbiosis between social courts judges and their "proven experts" at www.ansTageslicht.de/NuernbergerJustiz and in brief at www.ansTageslicht.de/Nuernberg.

The BG Verkehr's "doctrine" on "fume events": "odours"!

The asbestos industry and the tobacco companies had - from their point of view successfully - set an example: how to unsettle people and the media, but above all politicians, with their opinions derived from their own research: dangerous or not? The Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr is copying this successful principle in the matter of "Fume Events". Described in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Lehrmeinung , in brief on 1 page at www.ansTageslicht.de/Gerueche.

"Underreporting"

We are revisiting the subject of "no precise figures on how often such cabin air contamination events occur", which we presented at a virtual press conference for MEPs on 18/19 December last year. Nobody is interested in that. Because dramatic incidents have occurred so often, tacit acceptance poses a serious risk to air safety. We have described this in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Underreporting and in brief on 1 page here : www.ansTageslicht.de/fumeevent.

Action Bundestag Election: Letter No. 4 to the Members of the Bundestag (MdB): Urinary bladder cancer and Prof. DREXLER in court

It is a classic case: The BG (=Berufsgenossenschaft = Professional Insurance Association) immediately calls in a high-ranking expert who proceeds to reject the claim of the injured party for recognition of a "BK" (=Berufskrankheit = Occupational Disease). The social court adopts the opinion 1:1. It takes two full years to come to this conclusion.

You only have a chance if you manage to raise several thousand euros to hire your own independent expert who does not allow himself to get tied into the lucrative mainstream of statutory accident insurances. As a rule, the mainstream experts' reports are so thin that it is easy for a clever toxicologist to pick the mainstream arguments apart. In the mentioned case, it concerned the highest-ranking occupational physician in Germany: Prof. Dr Hans DREXLER:

The short version compressed onto 1 page can be found at www.ansTageslicht.de/ProfessorDREXLER

and in detail at www.ansTageslicht.de/Harnblasenkrebs (both in German).

Prof. DREXLER is also involved in expert opinions concerning fume events.

50,000 cases = approx. 100,000 votes, every year: second letter to the members of parliament.

"If you flew with TUIfly from time to time before 2011, perhaps on holiday, it could well be that Capt. Markus FENZEL got you up in the air and from there safely back on the ground. In his captain's final check you can read: "a very dedicated performance", and that he is " very thorough in his planning and execution."

Now, 10 years have passed since he's been unable to fly. Unfit to fly. Unfit for work: concentration problems, a "liver insufficiency due to poisoning". This is what is stated in a study by the (German) Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU), p. 34, ref: BFU 5X011-11. All under the heading (and completely contradictory): "Serious incident without casualties".

Lasting damage to one’s health, due to a so-called fume event, when toxic substances from burnt turbine oil enter the cabin air, is not considered an "injury" in this country. Not by this authority. Not at the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA). Not by the Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr (workers compensation board). Not at the Federal Association of the German Air Transport Industry. To the outside world, they all (only) talk about "odour incidents". That sounds harmless and no one gets the idea that this can be associated with a severe poisoning, which completely destroys the life of a pilot for his 'remaining time': health-wise and financially. Because the professional association (of course) does not pay. Just as they have enforced this for decades concerning asbestos.

Pilots have to follow up to 50 flight control instructions in a highly concentrated manner, e.g. on the route from London to Nuremberg, or in a totally congested airspace. For pilots who generally and above all blindly rely on the information provided by others (ground staff, air traffic controllers, technical maintenance), a whole world collapses when they become unfit to fly after a fume event, when they realise that nothing is correct any more: the promise that one is protected in the event of an incident, the belief that one can rely on the rule of law in case of doubt. None of this turns out to be true. A conspiracy? Behind the scenes?

"According to the airline, the technical examination of the aircraft did not provide any indication of the cause of the odour," the BFU  continues.

"During the subsequent investigation, oil deposits were found in the load compressor of the APU," it said - for about 2 weeks - on TUIfly's intranet. And: "As soon as the results are available, we will inform you".

This is what the "results" looked like In the Employer's Liability Insurance Association (BG),  "accident investigation report": the oil deposits and the fume event disappeared. "No findings" it says. A total of 13 times. And that is also what it says in the rejection notice served by the BG. And that is also what the BFU (does not) say. And that's how it is (not) registered at the LBA. And that is also how the judge (does not) read it.

We have reconstructed the three flights and what happened on them in detail, among other things on the basis of the pilots’ and crews’ statements, as well as the cockpit flight report: at www.ansTageslicht.de/TUIfly.  What the ex-pilot could not provide us with: TechLog, FlightLog and the Cockpit Voice Recorder. These documents have been withheld from Capt. Markus FENZEL by TUIfly up until this day. These documents would reveal the manipulation. The judge at the Social Court of Nuremberg is not interested in this (of course) (Ref: S 15 U 254/17). Everyday life in this country?

Would you talk with Cpt. Markus FENZEL? And explain to him why things are the way they are? We will gladly connect you: via johannes.ludwig@haw-hamburg.de or call 0176-52 00 69 15"

Campaign Bundestag Election "50,000 cases = 100,000 votes", every year ...

which are most likely lost to democratic society, because people who become occupationally ill and are unable to work, lose almost everything: their health, their job, their financial security. In most cases, this is also accompanied by social decline.

In 2018, we tried to draw the attention of some members of the Bundestag (Members of Parliament) to these problems. Result: zero reaction. But, it was not an election year.

It's different this time. That's why we are repeating the action, starting today. We are communicating both: fates of affected people and important aspects of their problems, to about 300 MdB's of the Bundestag committees Labour&Social Affairs; Health; Legal Affairs&Consumer Protection and Transport every week, until election day.

It is 1) a test and 2) a so-called participant observation for the research project "Risk Perception". Everything will be covered and can be read about and followed over the entire time at www.ansTageslicht.de/MdB (German).

Federal Social Court adjourns proceedings: wants to commission its own expert witness

It is new that the highest social court in Germany wants to get its own picture of the scientific findings in a case. This one, on the question of whether paramedics are exposed to an increased risk of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to their daily work and dealing with 'hard-to-digest situations". The plaintiff was present at the amok rampages in Winnenden, which - among other events - affected him a lot. The two lower courts had refused to recognize his case as a "BK" (= Berufskrankheit = Occupational Illness), as such an illness could not not be found on the "BK" list, and PTSD could not be recognized as a "Wie-BK" ( "like", “similar to” BK) either: the data did not support this.

And, the "BK Medical Expert Advisory Board", on which the mainstream occupational physicians and the representatives of the GUV system set the tone, already rejected it: based on 1 (only one) study, the results of which the ÄSVBR BK members interpreted as follows: the data situation is too weak!

The same problem exists concerning the topic of fume events. In September 2018, this committee had this topic on the agenda and obtained (at least) 6 publications for it. The result: "the state of knowledge is still unclear", "there's a lack of "epidemiological evidence", and so on: topic adjourned (see the entry on 23rd October 2018).

The highest judges are now waiting for the independent result. As researched in the meantime by the plaintiff - there are, of course, a whole series of studies to be found abroad. It appears as if neither the professorial representatives in the ÄSVBR BK wanted to view them nor the judges of the lower courts.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Sven KOBBELT from Esslingen, was able to successfully assert his case at the BSG, claiming a violation of the right to be heard.

3,000 Lufthansa flight attendants have suffered cabin air damage since 2000?

This is the number circulating internally among Lufthansa flight attendants. And it certainly has a basis, because such numbers do not arise by chance.

So, we asked Lufthansa:

First of all, could they give us figures on how many people have been affected since 2000? Answer: "We do not have the requested number."

We then followed up and asked in real terms whether Lufthansa could confirm the figure of 3,000? We asked on 9 February, at 12:58p.m. to be exact

The answer was not long in coming. It came exactly 7 minutes later at 1:07p.m.:

"I would very much like to send you a more detailed reply. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the mentioned number, as we do not have it available."

What can one conclude just from the quick-as-lightning response?

Various things, of course. However, we assume that we hit the nail on the head, and that the number 3,000 cabin air injured flight attendants is accurate.

"Everything about cabin air - unfiltered"

is the subject of the programme will run in "PLANE TALK" on the YouTube channel "pilotsEYE.tv". Dieter SCHOLZ from the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW) and heads the Aircraft Design & Systems Group will be interviewed.

Subject matter will be about cabin air and Corona: starting at 6 p.m. onwards. The channel has 353,000 subscribers. Topic: No seat protects against infection (English subtitles)