Since 2022, I have been considering and drafting my proposed EU Regulation which deals with the problem of contaminated cabin air, which may be found on some of the flights you may take.
Back then I considered that I would be able to quickly piece together a regulation following the disappointment many of us felt after the failure of the then proposed EU Standard on cabin air quality.
There were fundamental reasons why it failed, those being that despite a good representation in the room from 2015 up until 2022, where consensus was achieved, those outside the room on the aviation side, voted against the draft standard’s progress. Some claimed that they were either not in the room or that there was no consensus and some were troubled by the draft standard’s provisions. But whilst the draft standard did not survive, its provisions exist as a technical report which is all well and good, but the notion that an Industry will follow its direction is optimistic to say the least.
That left those of us on the aviation user side of the equation somewhat disappointed but determined to press ahead. Those of us who withdrew from the closing stages of the draft standard process sought to develop our work through other means. Some developed their academic contributions, others worked with their colleagues to expand scientific knowledge and thinking on the effects of exposures to toxic fumes and in my case; I began this journey towards drafting a regulation.
In the last four years I have met and spoken with colleagues and activists to think about and examine afresh, the whole issue of what is required for a regulation on cabin air quality on your flights. I am neither an academic nor a scientist, but armed with the knowledge I acquired through the European Standards process, I worked to understand some of the key issues that concerns various sections of the aviation user community. Those colleagues signposted me, taught me and guided me on what to achieve through a regulation. Equally, I have spoken with people on the aviation industry side of the equation to try to understand current thinking or trends and about what concerned them most.
Ultimately, as a retired solicitor/lawyer, who has been engaged in legal activism for the last 28 years, I worked to try and find a form or words and ideas that would encapsulate a way forward. As I saw it, a draft regulation is of no threat to any side of this industry equation, but it has all the potential to act as a provocateur or a catalyst to understand and debate how this very issue can be advanced.
Recently it was very interesting to hear that the technical report of the European standard was due to be reviewed. At least one national standards committee has already been working on the text of the technical report in advance of the more formal process. But when I asked what is the outcome they were seeking from that formal work, some indicated an improved technical report whereas others hoped that it would become a standard. And there the problem lies, because as we found out in 2015, the opposing parties were miles apart and it took another 3 years for us to create a committee that discovered how they could work together constructively and even socialise with each other: that was how trust and consensus was achieved.
About a week ago, I attended the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2026 at Imperial College in London. This conference is usually held each year and brings together all types of aviation industry and ancillary industries, national and transnational trade union bodies, pilots, cabin crew, victims, survivors and their surviving families and of course consumer representation which is what I represent.
For me the conference was an opportunity to step back and analyse the conversation and measure that against my four year journey and my draft regulation.
When attending such a conference, it’s important to listen to the concerns expressed, whatever about the proposed practical and technological solutions.
The concerns I noted included:
The observation that engine seals only minimise leakage of chemicals, but do not prevent that leakage;
That there was a need for better regulatory enforcement;
Workers needed to have a voice in helping to deal with this problem;
There was a need for a collaborative approach — that aircrew should be listened to;
The fact that if fume events occur, if reports are made by aircrew, they lack detail and produce further uncertainty and subjectivity;
That there needs to be a different report of fume events culture;
There was a need to have an integrated approach at EU level to deal with the problem of cabin air quality — it was not simply a national issue;
There needed to be a stronger commitment in delivering a ‘just culture’ in aviation across the EU when aircrew make reports on fume events;
Any fume event reports made, should not be used against any aircrew member;
A strong disagreement was made against the potential to produce odour free aviation oils — it was to be discouraged — there needed to be, in the absence of sensors, for the ability to have a human olfactory system present onboard, to detect smells which are a feature of fume events on aircraft;
Problems in seeking and obtaining the correct medical help and advice from GPs and hospital doctors;
An example of what happened to a long-serving cabin crew member who, following exposures to fumes onboard their flights, developed Interstitial Lung Disease, Persistent Cough, Oxygen Dependence, Cognitive Decline, Physical Suffering and eventual death;
The need for doctors to have protocols when dealing with exposed aircrew and passengers;
The surprising claim that pilots lacked education on the issue of fume events and for example the nature and operation of labyrinth seals used on aircraft;
The evolution of Aerotoxic Syndrome and its legal success in France through applications for worker’s compensation and disciplinary proceedings;
The need to examine and consider the nature of future genetic susceptibility following exposure to fumes on a flight;
There was a great deal of conversation about the benefit of AI to resolve the problem and in particular for large language models to be able to crunch data, create large data-sets with the object of creating a greater understanding of the problem — what that conversation did not deal with is the use of AI or an AI System to provide potential predictive modelling, maintenance or management of the cabin air quality issue.
The whole day was entirely thought-provoking, particularly when considered against the advances in technology, from oils that are claimed to hold less toxins, to sensors being able to measure the extent and presence of particulate matter and/or organophosphates in a defined or confined space, the encouraging news that some airline operators were taking robust steps to increase better reactions and data, through to the examination of legal requirements and of course, progress on achieving legal recognition of the condition known as Aerotoxic Syndrome (note an earlier academic article that highlighted the legal and medical problems associated with recognising this syndrome).
Which brings me back to my draft EU Regulation.
One thing I realised these past few years is that, even if we had progressed with the European standard, once published, it was already out of date. And this is the danger of creating a draft Regulation, which is why I have spent some considerable time not only looking at the landscape of where we are with cabin air quality but what are the likely future issues. So for example, key areas that required future proofing are found in the areas of sustainable development, particularly on health, creating a better dialogue on how to bring about the use of sensors with either current or future technology and of course the big unknown, Artificial Intelligence and how to bring aircrew in particular, into that arena, so that they have a strong hold and investment as stakeholders.
As I saw it, if I am creating a draft Regulation for Consumers, not only do I have to present a strong argument for consumers or passengers based in current EU law, but I need to make the argument that to enhance the position of aircrew in this whole debate, was a necessary requirement that was clearly in the interests of consumers.
I also recognised the deficit in consultation in both the construction of aviation regulation and its enforcement. As opposed to a Standard which is trying to improve the conditions or operations already created by law, a draft law that is starting with a blank sheet, can look beyond the current structures and reinvent the dialogue. I concluded that my draft regulation had the opportunity to re-create that dialogue and simply say that allowing this distinct issue to bump along for the last 70 years, without clear direction and results and importantly an important stakeholder involvement, would simply maintain the status quo; this was to be a new opportunity.
Therefore my draft regulation brings the issue of cabin air quality into a clear area of its own, requiring a different hard law and soft law set of solutions. This is not about tearing the house down, on the contrary, it provides the opportunity for the current system to be maintained until regulations and collaborative working creates a new landscape for this problem.
For example, as technology advances at an astounding pace, aircrew and their representatives should feature strongly within AI Systems development on cabin air quality. Equally, I have created a strong provision to create a consultative committee, attracting a wide diverse membership, under the management of the Regulator and the EU Commission. The Committee is charged to not only agree to the regulations made, but to suggest amendments and to create a unified or harmonised cabin air quality standard.
Many years ago, a Dutch scientist advised me that if we wanted to see important progress on cabin air quality, recognising that it imports scientific and engineering principles, then any standard or regulation needed to have the Precautionary Principle sitting at the heart of its provisions, and indeed it does within my draft.
I have not shied away from controversial areas, for example the use of probability risk models and the highly controversial attempt to utilise ground-based thresholds to help determine what is a safe level of exposure to toxins onboard aircraft.
In the former issue, broader consultation, stakeholder engagement and data-specific information is required, to determine whether the practices and assumptions are correct and whether they are the correct model to use within a unique environment. On chemical thresholds I considered we need to move away from the ground-based indoor environment argument and formally recognise the uniqueness of the aircraft environment and with it, a better understanding of the nature of exposure to toxic fumes. The argument I am making in my draft regulation is that it is not for my regulation to resolve or present certainty on these issues, but to recognise those uncertainties and through the creation of a consultative committee, develop a clear pathway to collaborative and consensual working and solutions. Now it may be that thresholds will be used or recommended by a consultative committee, but as I saw it, you have to challenge the status quo and recognise the nature of the aircraft environment and its uniqueness and create a new way of thinking.
As is customary within any EU regulation, I have created a comprehensive ‘recital’ narrative but with explanations to try and simplify or demystify the complexity of the issues, challenging as I do, the status quo of where we are now. Throughout my draft regulation I have sought to weave obligations with flexibility, passenger and workers rights and management of existing and future issues.
It has been a grand project which has greatly expanded my own knowledge and understanding and has caused me to travel beyond the work I was committed to, through the European standard.
But it is important to state that I do not consider my draft regulation to be perfect, that would be an arrogant position to take.
My primary object was to create a document, a draft EU Regulation, that could help consumers or passengers to understand the sometimes frightening experience of an aircraft fume event. Obviously, for their benefit, I would hope that European politicians, and indeed UK politicians will become more involved in this debate and to remain in this debate, for the benefit of their constituents.
I am often asked the question about why consumers are not more vocal on this very issue. I respond by saying that the majority of the travelling public have probably never recognised the nature of smells, fumes or smoke on their flight — they are only primarily concerned with getting from A to B and the price of the ticket! But that isn’t true for all consumers. Many of those I have spoken with, often following on from a highly traumatic incident, know only too well what a fume event entails and how it has affected them. It is like many other consumer product issues. Consumer awareness often grows slowly until it reaches a tipping point. We haven’t reached that tipping point, after all these years, but that is not an excuse to not consider and make draft regulations or policy to deal with that potential consumer detriment.
In the end, as I see it, governments and transnational bodies have a choice, do they accept my challenge to reinvent how we approach the issue of toxic air in aircraft cabins and create a leading edge in this important area, or will they be content to allow the current debate and inaction to continue for another 70 years?
Only time will tell.
(All rights reserved © 2026. This is the Article for ‘‘Time for a new way of thinking on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality”. No reproduction, reuse or manipulation or training, in any form, either by human endeavour or by any form of software, algorithm or Artificial Intelligence system(s), in any jurisdiction, without the express written permission of Frank Brehany).