HIGHLIGHTS
REPORT A SAFETY INCIDENT/ISSUE
Report a Passenger or Safety incident/issue you have experienced or encountered
In the April issue of the Aviation Watchdog Report we offer additional information about the air quality problem on commercial aircraft. Flight attendants and pilots deserve clean air to breathe in their workplace, and airlines are obliged to provide it. There is some optimism that public pressure on industry and governmental agencies can make a difference and force the FAA to do the right thing and provide the oversight they are tasked with.
We also update readers on the latest from the LaGuardia collision and compare it to the worst aviation accident in history and their shared failures that led to tragedy. The Air India 171 crash investigation continues as we examine a new analysis that reveals compelling information about the RAT deployment on the doomed 787. Lastly, the criminal case against the Boeing Company has likely reached an unsatisfactory end as we detail the latest appeal decision.
As always, thank you for reading and for your support of The Foundation for Aviation Safety. Aviation is a dynamic industry that is very unforgiving of any neglect or complacency. We strive to inform the public of the current issues and recent developments that pose a threat to the hard-earned safety margin obtained over decades.
In the May 2025 Aviation Watchdog cover story, we covered the topic of “Aerotoxic Syndrome.” It was an extensive look at how this malady can result from exposure to air contamination on commercial aircraft. If you missed it you can find it here.
This article covers some updates and additional information. The Foundation for Aviation Safety continues to monitor the frequency of “fume events” and is calling on the FAA begin taking definitive action. The FAA and the airlines continue to ignore the potential health effects of exposure to aircraft air contamination and the problem certainly isn’t going away. If anything, it is getting worse.
A recent analysis of the FAA’s Service Difficulty Reports indicated there were a total of 501 fume events reported in the first three months of 2026. This included 247 involving Boeing aircraft and 254 from Airbus. Clearly this problem is not limited to one aircraft type or a single manufacturer. Additionally, these reports cover only a three-month period, only U.S. carriers, and only the events the airlines were aware of and were willing to report. The actual number of events is likely much higher.
A fume event is usually characterized by an odor reported by flight crew. It is often described as a “dirty sock smell.” Even though dirty socks may smell pretty foul, these odors are far more serious. Fume events vary in intensity and duration; however, they result from air contamination of some variety. They can originate from several sources including burning food in a galley or overheated electrical wiring. But the most serious chronic health concerns surround fume events related to engine or APU bleed air that is contaminated with hydrocarbons. Since bleed air is used to provide pressurized air to the air conditioning packs, any contamination from a leaking seal or bearing within the engine can be sent directly to the packs. It is sterile air (no viruses or bacteria) at this point as it is at an extremely high temperature. However, if it contains any traces of engine lubricant this contamination will end up in the cabin and/or the flight deck. Because of the extreme compression and high bleed air temperature the contaminants will not be drops of oil but pyrolyzed organophosphate-containing aerosols. If that sounds like something you should not inhale you are correct. The mixture can also contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, and metallic nanoparticles.
This unfiltered bleed air, contaminated or otherwise, is used by the packs. Once this mixture is introduced to the cabin it will be mixed with new flow from the packs and then recirculated through HEPA filters. These filters do a fine job of removing particulate matter, but do not remove the chemicals mentioned above. Simply stated, if the bleed air contains any chemical contaminants they will end up in the breathing air within the cabin and/or flight deck. This is the source of the smell coming from air vents. The air may be extremely irritating to occupants or so minor as not to be noticed. This is one reason why not all fume events are reported; they may not even be recognized. This can be especially harmful if one of the contaminants is carbon monoxide as it is colorless and odorless.
Exposures to these chemicals can cause acute symptoms requiring immediate medical attention. These are severe cases involving significant contamination with visible smoke, vapor, and strong odors. More often these events are more subtle with less serious symptoms. However, these events pose a chronic health hazard, especially to flight attendants and pilots. These workers are exposed for long periods of time as the airplane is their workplace. With long term exposure comes chronic symptoms. This also makes the causal relationship more difficult for employees to substantiate. As airlines downplay the significance of these events, they also make any compensation or medical treatment difficult to receive. Workers’ compensation insurance is required by U.S. state law; however, the onus falls to the worker to prove the illness, or injury is directly related to their employment.
The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA) has long recognized that air quality is a significant health concern for flight crew. Their Air Safety, Health, and Security Department maintains an exhaustive resource page that includes historical examples of acute fume events, a fume event information card, reporting guidelines, and whistleblower information. AFA represents nearly 55,000 flight attendants working with 20 airlines. They are concerned about the health and safety of their members and are taking on the air contamination issue head on.
Similarly, the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest airline pilots union representing 80,000 pilots at 42 airlines, is also taking on the air quality issue. Their website includes a page devoted to cabin air quality with this list of recommendations:
Stronger Cabin Air Protections Needed
To address the risks associated with contaminated cabin air, the following actions must be taken:
A recent court decision in France has given more attention to the problem and set a significant precedent. A press release from AVSA (Association des Victimes du Syndrome Aerotoxique) detailing this court order can be found here.
The Toulon Judicial Court delivered a judgment on December 19, 2025, that ordered the recognition and coverage under occupational risk legislation of a pathology attributable to chronic exposure to aircraft engine oil fumes. This means the court recognized the existence of a direct and essential link between the professional activity of an airline pilot and “central and peripheral autoimmune neuropathy with demyelinating syndrome.” Broken down, this indicates that Aerotoxic Syndrome was recognized as an occupational disease, thus requiring compensation for occupational injuries or illness related to employment. This decision is the first of its kind in the world.
Even with this encouraging court decision and the campaigns from major labor unions the issue continues to be largely ignored by the airlines and the FAA. It’s time to stop this disregard for passenger and crew safety and take definitive action. Completing the steps recommended by ALPA would be a good start. The extent of the problem can be summed up using the words of one flight attendant who became a victim of the neglect:
“The airlines and the manufacturers want you to believe ‘fume events’ are no big deal, but toxic air in my workplace made me dangerously sick. Instead of addressing a real hazard, the industry gaslights passengers and aviation workers.”
Cher Taylor,
AFA Frontier MEC Government Affairs Chair
(source: https://afacwa.org/air-quality)
United States v. The Boeing Company:
Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal
On March 31, 2026, the criminal case against Boeing took another decisive turn– and not in the direction that was hoped for. The case, United States v. The Boeing Company, has repeatedly disappointed victims’ families and observers across the globe, and unfortunately, this latest decision was no exception.
Recap of the Criminal Case
Following the two Boeing MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated Boeing and, in 2021, charged the company with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors at the DOJ had determined that Boeing employees intentionally misled the Federal Aviation Administration during the certification process of the then-new 737 MAX 8 aircraft.
Simultaneously, Boeing and the DOJ entered a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), giving Boeing the opportunity to avoid prosecution as long as it complied with certain conditions. When Boeing later failed to meet those conditions, the possibility of prosecution was revived.
However, instead of moving forward with criminal accountability, the DOJ shifted course. In 2025, it entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Boeing. Unlike the earlier DPA, this type of deal allows Boeing to avoid even the possibility of prosecution and legal accountability, often including dropping any existing charges altogether. In accordance with that agreement, the DOJ asked the court to drop the criminal charge against Boeing. In November 2025, the court granted this request, effectively dismissing the criminal case.
The February Newsletter covers this case in greater detail.
The Appeal
Victims’ families appealed the District Court’s decision, asking a higher court to review it. Oral arguments were held on February 5, 2026, before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Since then, a decision has been anxiously awaited. At the end of March, the court issued its ruling– and unfortunately it upheld the District Court’s decision to dismiss the charge.
To understand the weight of that decision, it helps to clarify what an appeal is and what it is not. An appeal is not a new trial. Instead, it is a review of a lower court’s decision in which the Court of Appeals examines the record for any legal error. Its role is to identify and correct mistakes in how the law was applied, serving as more of a quality check than a do-over. In most cases, appellate decisions are final.
Most commonly, appellate courts reach one of three outcomes:
1) Affirm: agree with the lower decision and uphold the judgment
2) Reverse: disagree with the decision and overturn the judgment
3) Remand: send the case back down to the lower court for further proceedings
In this appeal, families raised many arguments centered on the claim that the Department of Justice had violated their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The CVRA, as discussed in an earlier newsletter, is designed to ensure that crime victims are afforded specific rights in criminal proceedings. It guarantees rights like the right to confer with prosecutors, the right to be heard, the right to be treated with fairness and respect, and the right to be informed of proceedings.
The court addressed three of the issues raised.
First, the 2021 Deferred Prosecution Agreement
The families argued they were not properly consulted (as required by the CVRA) before the DOJ entered into the original Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Boeing.
The court, however, found this issue to be “moot”, meaning it was no longer legally relevant, because Boeing’s 2024 breach of the DPA effectively rendered that agreement inactive. As a result, the court held that challenges to the original DPA were not found to be applicable.
The court also rejected the families’ concerns about the similarities between the original DPA and the later NPA. The families argued that because the DPA was created without honoring their right to confer, its shaping of the NPA is unjust. The court disagreed, holding that provisions in the newer agreement are “not suspect merely because they appeared in a prior DPA”.
Second, the 2025 Non-Prosecution Agreement
In challenging the 2025 Non-Prosecution Agreement, the families again argued that the DOJ violated their rights under the CVRA.
They claimed the agreement should be set aside because prosecutors failed to properly confer with them before deciding how to proceed after Boeing breached the DPA. On top of this, families contend they were given misleading information.
In response, the DOJ pointed to a May 2025 meeting they held with families, asserting that this meeting satisfied its obligations under the CVRA. The court agreed, finding no CVRA violation had occurred.
Third, the dismissal of the criminal charge
The families contended that dismissing the case entirely is contrary to the public interest.
However, the court declined to address the substance of that argument, concluding that the CVRA does not give the Court of Appeals the authority to substantively review a lower court’s decision on a motion to dismiss. In other words, the court found it simply lacked the jurisdiction to evaluate whether dismissing the case itself was the right decision.
What This Means Going Forward
Taken together, the court’s reasoning avoided directly confronting the broader question of accountability. Instead, it danced around the central issue. One claim was dismissed as moot, another was rejected on shaky grounds, and a third was deemed outside the court’s authority to review.
While disappointing, the result is clear: the dismissal of the criminal charge remains in place. Boeing will not face criminal prosecution. The company has, at least for now, escaped criminal accountability for its role in the death of 346 innocent people.
Still, families continue to fight for what may be their last chance to remedy this disappointing decision.
Litigants are guaranteed one appeal. After that, any further review is discretionary, meaning a court must first agree to hear any additional appeal. At this stage, there are two primary options: petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States or requesting an “en banc ” review from the Fifth Circuit. An en banc review means the case is reheard by all active judges on the circuit, rather than the original three-judge panel.
The likelihood of either court agreeing to review the case, let alone ruling in favor of the families, is slim. Nevertheless, there’s a chance. Families and their counsel have chosen to keep fighting. On April 14, 2026, families petitioned the Fifth Circuit for en banc review. If the court grants review, the broader circuit court will reconsider the case. If it declines, this may mark the end of the road.
Your trust in The Foundation for Aviation Safety is vital to our work – Thank you for standing with us in advocating for accountability, transparency, and safety in aviation. If you’ve set up a donor advised fund (DAF), we’re pleased to let you know that the Foundation is eligible to receive grants via that vehicle.
Here’s how you can direct your DAF to support us:
Thank you for reading the Aviation Watchdog Report. Your continued support for the Foundation and interest in aviation safety is vital to making the industry safer for everyone.
The Foundation for Aviation Safety Team
info@foundationforaviationsafety.org
Media Inquiries: media@foundationforaviationsafety.org
1802 Vernon St NW #2213,
Washington, DC 20009
Copyright © 2026 The Foundation for Aviation Safety. All Rights Reserved.
