About the power of statutory accident insurance and its system of trivialization.
Those who suffer long-term ill health and injury acquired while doing what they love, in our case, flying as professional pilots and cabin crew, often fail miserably in court. Why?
On May 26th 2018, Professor Johannes Ludwig and his “DokZentrum“ team (English: www.anstageslicht.de) published a large amount of material after wading through the swamp of occupational medicine and statuatory accident insurances, in Germany.
Last year around 920 Fume events were reported to the liability insurer “Berufsgenossenschaft Verkehr”. However, only 203 cases were reported to the Federal Office for Aircraft Accident Investigation. Why? Because it is informed about incidents by the airlines and not by those affected or their doctors.
Research is similarly contradictory and characterised by clashes of interests: little health damage has been systematically investigated as a result of fume events to date. This makes it easy for doubters – the industry especially – to deny connections between bleed-air and ill health.
And doubters are mainly the employers. In Germany, the health consequences of fume events may still be controversial, but last year British and Australian researchers proved a “direct connection” between the “aerotoxic syndrome” and work in a cabin contaminated by turbine fumes. The conclusion of their study published by the World Health Organization in June 2017 and ‘The BMJ’: Aerotoxic syndrome must be recognised as an occupational disease. Germany is still far from accepting this. Pilots and flight attendants regularly fail in occupational law court cases when they sue for compensation, or a pension for their inability to fly (admin = inability to work).
One of the things said by DokZentrum, which easily applies worldwide, is:
“When a (toxic) substance is being discussed, the decision-makers prefer to avoid a general ban than to actually deal with it, so first limit levels are introduced. This applies to upper limits, which – in every current case – are gradually being reduced due to ever more damning data – until they are down to zero; for example, following a political ban (good example: asbestos). It is striking that, in these cases until the end, mainstream occupational medicine insists on talking about (quote) “Insufficient scientifically based causalities”.
Which is also why (quote)„No right to compensation can be derived from it.”
Does this ring any bells? For years airlines, together with their directly interlinked employers’ liability insurance associations, have claimed that there are not enough indications to prove that employees get sick from fume events. EASA also speaks of limit values that „have not been exceeded.“. Clearly there is a system behind it. And not to the benefit of Aerotoxic Syndrome sufferers! (to be continued)
Source ©AnsTageslicht.de DokZentrum:
English AEROTOXIC LOGBOOK
Aerotoxic Association by sending your evidence for presentation at the International Public Inquiry at The Hague/NL ( by 31. August 2018) to office©aerotoxic.org
All partners and organisations here: Global Aerotoxic Team