Life expectancy among Pilots/cabin crew

[lelolo44]

I tried to find something about that subject here and elsewhere and somehow found different stories, opposite opinions and figures . I wonder if there is a recent survey concerning our « future » on this planet after all these years looking at the far horizon in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean or focused on the northern lights while cruising at FL360 and N64 09 7 W045 25 5 with a 500kts GS 😊.

[Less Hair]

There are still not too many studies about, it seems. There used to be the one big "very old" one by Aeroflot in the Soviet Union back then that seemed to show that pilots, while being selected for being exceptionally healthy and capable, are finally not living longer IIRC. They seem to end up with some higher share of heart problems, possibly high altitude radiation related or similar? I apologize for having forgotten most of it, no medical background myself, but hopefully this is enough to google more?

[Busdriver01]

I truly can't imagine that the almost constant exhaustion of being out of bed all night, 3am alarms, multiple sectors, max FDPs, high altitude, high noise environments is good for even the healthiest among us.

[blind pew]

I did some research in the mid 1980s and found something originating in the states then did some looking at BA death lists to try and stop my company from increasing retirement age from 55 to 58: it was purely for selfish reasons as it ended costing me another two years for command (20).
There are so many variables it’s virtually useless on an individual basis.
I had been given a week to live at 25 which was probably aerotoxic syndrome; had malaria twice; various infections from Africa; tinnitus since mid 1980s caused by a quack which supposedly should have left to Alzheimer’s by now; lost my license at 45 due to a combination of neurotoxins and a head injury so I took an enhancement pension from 55 to 65 as by then I would have out lived my two last male generations.
At 73 I’m still behaving in all senses as a 25 year old yob; whilst I’ve lost some mates, crash, brain tumour, stoke and heart attacks both associated with worrying about never having enough money most are enjoying life in their early 70s.
I did more than my fair share of North Atlantic and polar flights / one of our skippers had a radiation meter on short haul and a lot would fly several thousand feet below optimum cruise level.
My only suggestion is look at your company pension fund stats especially fleet stats if it’s for your retirement planning.

[lederhosen]

I remember a startling study some time ago about the large number of pilots who died within a couple of years after reaching retirement. The strong advice was to go part time and ease your way into it if I remember correctly.

[WHBM]

I remember a startling study some time ago about the large number of pilots who died within a couple of years after reaching retirement. The strong advice was to go part time and ease your way into it if I remember correctly.
My father (a coroner) said that was very common across the board. To make the point our school chemistry master died a week after retiring, and formed a case for him.

Current trends do have a notable impact on pension annuity rates. Some who instead of retiring at say 65, but carry on to 70, can be surprised that they get no retirement annuity benefit. That is because (simplifying) those who retire at 65 have an average expectancy of say 15 years, but those who hold on to 70 are typically the fitter lot and are also found to then have an average expectancy of 15 years from that later point.

[what next]

I remember a startling study some time ago about the large number of pilots who died within a couple of years after reaching retirement.

The studies have always been in disagreement over this topic. As an example two links to studies (from 1992 and 1994) that find opposite results:
https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jun92.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273604341_A_Study_of_Life_Expectancy_for_a_Sample_of_Retired _Airline_Pilots

[BRE]

As far as radiation goes, from researching the literature some 10 years ago, I got the impression that low dose radiation is probably a lot more harmless than the official LNT (linear no threshold) model says:
- The LNT model extrapolates from Hirosihma and Nagasaki data (sad as it may be, that is simply the largest body of data we have)
- The direct radiation dose overwhelmed cellular repair mechanisms.
- It was impossible to account for cancers stemming from ingestion and inhalation of alpha- and beta decaying particles (which are probably a lot worse than direct radiation).
- In regions with increased background radiation from rocks, there is no increase in cancer rates, and there may even be increased longetivity (look up radiation hormesis)
- Radon from rocks is a differnent story, cf. ingested or inhaled

As for aircrew, this means radiation expososure should not be a significant factor, it may even be beneficial. Healthy worker bias is surely a confounder. On the other hand, shift work, sleep depravation, stress will surely be harmful.

[lederhosen]

Excellent studies provided by what next, thank you for that. Both studies are of course more than 25 years old and many things have changed not least overall life expectancy and of course the pilot job itself.

It is self evident that things that reduce life expectancy such as shift work and circadian rhythm disruption can be expected to negatively effect almost all airline pilots. Those that make it to retirement at 65 are obviously in the healthy cohort category as they started in better health than the average and did not fall by the wayside.

The question for me is whether the job reduces your natural life expectancy or put another way how long you would have lived if you had not become a pilot. Continuing sleep disruption post retirement, reduced status and of course income could be negative factors. Good pension and lots of other interests might be positive ones. I hope to update you on my personal experience in thirty years!

[Herod]

The two-year figure is one I heard some years ago, but I can't remember the source. It also suggested the same two years for RAF officers retiring at 55

[tubby linton]

I remember a lot of colleagues dieing within a year or two of retirement at age of sixty but they were all people who were born around the second war period. A lot of their older contemporaries born in the 1930s are still with us. When I look at my own family those born in the two war periods of the twentieth century all die in their sixties but those either side of these periods all last into their nineties. I had a conversation with some of my fathers contemporaries and they all thought that flying commercially should stop at fifty five and one of their AME advised not flying after the age of fifty. These were pilots who has predominately not flown at very high altitude but had hand flown piston, turboprop, and early generation jet aircraft but never to the flying limits expected now.
A separate group are those born in the late fifties or early sixties who have completed military service. A number of them all have had premature deaths. Were they victims of Gulf War syndrome or something similar?

[Prober]

I had military flying for 4 years, mostly active service, with a fairly high attrition rate – by which I mean being killed – followed by 40 years of mostly fairly high pressure short haul flying. When my licence expired, I continued in the sim (75/767) for a further 10 years. When I eventually found myself tending to nod off after 3 hours in the box, I hung up my headset. The best thing that happened to me was having to take a Dutch medical one year, nearly 30 years ago now. They picked up glaucoma. My eye surgeon, a very jolly fellow, said that I was lucky: not because it was caught in time but that the medication required had a certain side-effect. It stopped you worrying! That has seen me through for nearly nine decades now, with no further plans just yet! (Fingers crossed.)
Prober

[Bill Macgillivray]

I would hazard a guess that flying and old age are not connected (unless you are unlucky to have a fatal!). Coming to 85 and have been flying since 18 until about 12 years ago (Majority military). Count myself lucky and still appear to be fairly fit! Who knows?

Bill

[tdracer]

The two-year figure is one I heard some years ago, but I can't remember the source. It also suggested the same two years for RAF officers retiring at 55
There was a similar statistic floating around Boeing for a while - that many people who took early retirement quickly kicked the bucket. But when someone dug into the numbers (we're engineers, we do that sort of thing :E) it seems that the culprit was people who took early retirement due to ill health. Not surprisingly people who leave early because of poor health often don't live much longer.
As I approached retirement, people retiring early because they'd saved and could financially afford to leave early became more common, plus Boeing started providing incentives to retire early to get highly paid senior engineers off the payroll.
As a result, most people I know and worked with retired early (including me). And those that stayed on to 65 or beyond generally could afford to retire but didn't have much of a life outside Boeing. So far I know of no early deaths among friends who retired before 65.

[Wally777]

Not often I recommend a book but I picked this up a few years ago. It was the second book I read by Daniel Levitin. This oneThe Changing Mind: A Neuroscientist's Guide to Ageing WellI bought thinking of my mum then 88 years old, who lives with my wife and I. It really has some well researched interesting information, some of which I had wish I had known when I was younger.
When I had my last medical pre retirement my doctor stated that not many 64 year olds still have both their parents. My dad now 91+ managed a 49 years career in aviation from apprentice engineer, retiring as a B707 training Captain aged 54 and finally retiring as director of Air Accident Investigation at the age of 67. (Dad had health issues for his pilots medical and had a replacement valve in his heart (aged 59) believed possibly damage caused by rheumatic fever as a kid, hence his career change at 54. The operation worked well for him).
I'm 66 now and achieved 48 years of flying , the last 33 years in long haul. My entire hospital time in those 66 years is less than 24 hours and 2 visits were for broken bones. Hopefully here a few years longer as keeping well and active with home life and some volunteer work.
It doesn't stop one looking back as I settle into my new life of retirement of the colleagues I have lost over the years. One wonderful pilot who helped me when I started out being only being 42, but like others he had underlying health issues he was being treated for.
So does our lifestyle in aviation make a difference to life expectancy? I would like to hope not as some of the older guys I flew with are still very much active, a few also in their 90's now.
Possibly just life's lottery of genetics and lifestyle. Just last night I watched a program called Ambulance following 12 hour shifts, dealing with emergencies in London. These people do this day in and out, day shifts, night shifts working who knows 21-25 days a month. Total respect as I look back at a career comparison and how much I enjoyed my flying.

[lederhosen]

It would be interesting to know if anyone has done more recent research on the health impact of the airline pilot lifestyle. It is a bit early to assess the impact of the middle east carriers‘ long haul schedules or the questionable terms and conditions of some low cost airlines.

I am reminded of one particular group of ex military fast jet pilots in my company. They all flew till 65 and were dead well within ten years. Probably not a big enough group to be statistically relevant as there were only four or five. But these guys obviously started fit and died younger than you would expect (prior to covid incidentally).

[Superpilot]

The industry isn't going to do this for us. We need to find another way of gathering interest from the scientific/medical community. But certainly yes, I personally know 3 guys who flew till 65 and who were dead before their 70s. All 3 were average to skinny build, 1 was a smoker. I know a couple more. They seem to be doing OK. I have a suspicion the analysis will show something like a 25-50% increased chance of death before 75 after a 30-40 year flying career. As a comparison, all 4 of my (non-flying) grampies survived passed 85. 2 of my great grampies hit 90. So anecdotally at least, my suspicions are confirmed :suspect:

[Gordomac]

The correct answer is;- 96- .Well, that is according to my Financial Services Adviser. His investment advice for my Self Invest Private Pension was based on that ( well, ok, a few other silly things).76 now and poorly performing SIPP. Rest of me performing like I was 40. Mental attitude of a 12 year old. Gorra find a way of enhancing the SIPP. Lid;s said they would take me on.

[brakedwell]

Gordon, I have just watched the BBC TV series about the QE 2 aircraft carrier's first long haul journey to Japan. They stopped in Cyprus outbound and picked up a massive dosage of Covid whilst enjoying a break in Limassol. The ship has now reached Japan and the crew are not allowed to go ashore, so be careful if you go to Limassol my friend!

[blind pew]

Of my mates who didn’t retire normally ..first at 22 accident, second 40s cancer, third obese heavy drinker cancer late 40s, 4th brain tumour 40s, 5th loss of license neurological condition died of cancer late 50s turned out non diagnosed lymes disease, two died just before and after retirement..both tight arses who worried about not having a fortune..stroke and heart attack.
To note two had leukaemia..one who had retired on what is now 200 grand was fortunate to have holiday insurance and was in Canada who used an experimental treatment which cost 250 grand and is still trying to spend his pension ten years later, the other has had three lots of chemo over the last decade which is working. Another had heart problem around 50 which ended up with him working on the sim.
Myself I was forced into invalidity pension although I didn’t want it..not helped by two two faced fleet pilots one of those a Brit..we happened to have 200 pilots too many but there was a whole group of both FOs and Captains ex DC10 who had neurological problems which probably stemmed from Larium which had been banned in Germany a few years before. There is an irish class action by the peace keepers from similar symptoms. When the problem first hit I looked at various other opportunities but settled for as much unpaid leave as possible but 4 years later my career was finished. It took 7 years before I was confident enough to fly passengers in gliders. My problem was that I wasn’t one of the ego guys who had to fly the 747 and opted for the routes..VC10 and DC10 including the long Air Afrique wet lease. (The 747 did east coast). I’ve had the typical affects of neurotoxins now for nearly 40 years.gut, eyesight and memory but I’m still up for flying a couple of times a week, weather permitting, don’t need blue pills and except for 20 years of skin cancer (on my RHS..my normal window seat) I’m still enjoying and able.
I chatted to a FR pilot at MRS a decade ago who was a jumper…what a brilliant roster and good money..whilst not the life I had it would have been better health wise (I asked about room parties Naha not for me but those down the back **** like bunnies).
Have fun and don’t worry about life expectancy..as Billy Connolly said more or less..by living a careful abstemious life you might get another ten years but those years are those where you are p#sing and sh#ting yourself.​​​​​.

[beamer]

I am six years into retirement and whilst in decent health I still find it difficult to sleep the way I might like. Going to sleep is never a problem but staying that way through the night is just something I have learned to live with notwithstanding the three am trip to the bathroom which comes with one's senior years !

[beardy]

I am six years into retirement and whilst in decent health I still find it difficult to sleep the way I might like. Going to sleep is never a problem but staying that way through the night is just something I have learned to live with notwithstanding the three am trip to the bathroom which comes with one's senior years !
As a survivor of prostate cancer I can tell you that the 3am trip to the bathroom is not inevitable with advancing age. Get yourself checked, the earlier the diagnosis the better the prognosis.

[Busdriver01]

As a survivor of prostate cancer I can tell you that the 3am trip to the bathroom is not inevitable with advancing age. Get yourself checked, the earlier the diagnosis the better the prognosis.

It's not a trip only reserved for the senior folk either... plenty of junior people have a nightly trip too!

[VintageEngineer]

My second career is as a qualified actuary in life assurance so I can claim some expertise in this field.

I could write reams and reams but will keep this short.

Mortality varies significantly with race and country of origin. Within that, mortality is heavily correlated with many factors, notably sex, class/wealth of parents (a proxy for food, healthcare etc in childhood) and education. The data from western nations suggests lower mortality/longer life expectancy in cockpit crew and, to a lesser degree, in engineering personnel and cabin crew, which is not unexpected given the education and health standards inherent in those jobs.

Deaths in accidents at working ages are higher than the general population. However, reduced deaths from other causes more than compensate for this so that at all working ages aircrew mortality is lower than that for the general population.

I have seen several studies of cancer rates from concerns over increased radiation. There seems to be an increased risk of some cancers but a reduced risk of others. None of those I have seen suggest that aircrew are at any higher risk of cancer than the general population, quite the opposite, although it’s possible to argue that the rates of cancer are slightly higher than that projected from reduced mortality from other causes.

Most of my reading material is restricted so I dug out a couple of publicly available information such as this one on general rates (https://www.crystallise.com/blog/flying-high-comparing-relative-mortality-in-pilots-astronauts-and-cabin-crew/) and This one on cancer rates. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00411-009-0248-6)

The data on early retirement and on in the first years after retirement reflects the same trend as other professional groups. Once ill-health retirement is filtered out, early retirement seems to have little effect on mortality/longevity but later than age 65 retirement is associated with lower mortality/higher longevity, probably due to a selection effect. As for deaths immediately after retirement, there is clear higher mortality for all groups; however, in aircrew as for other professional groups, the increase is less than that for lower socio-economic groups.

In summary, being aircrew means that, on average, accidents are a greater risk than cancer, you will live longer and have more years in good health than the general population, and when you retire, unless on grounds of ill-health, has little effect on how long you’ll live.

[Gordomac]

Bakedwell ; Ha ! just pm'd you.
I do stay clear of Lim. Place is full of oldies!

[brakedwell]

Gordomac, it was a great place in the mid sixties to mid seventies!

[lelolo44]

hey, I asked my union if they have the figures available concerning French pilots and this issue . The reply is that in fact our Pension organisation is keeping these figures secret for few decades now, no doubt it is because it would show great figures concerning our life expectancy !
the worst thing being that among that organisation system some French pilots from the main union are there to protect the pilots …(euh that is why they should be there but who knows what happens after few lunch with more clever people than them…)
so apparently our country, our main union and our pension system are trying hard to keep all that secret.

[Lookleft]

In the 80's when the demographers were suggesting that there would be too many people for the available jobs, early retirement was touted as the solution. some workers, usually professionals, were offered golden handshakes to leave and live happily ever after. Apparently studies showed that the earlier one retired the earlier one lived. Fast forward to the new millennium and the new breed of demographers have suggested that there won't be enough workers or the available jobs! The answer? Release studies that show that the later one retires the longer one's life will be. I suppose the answer is whatever works for you, but I have seen pilots who have hung on for too long and have cocked something up such that they were asked to leave of their own free will or the Company would do it for them.

[flash8]

Be interested to know for those who long term operated the 146!

[Less Hair]

Apart from the stink the high flyers might (my speculation) be the most endangered. Say GV, Global, F8 or similar. Long range cruise at very high altitudes for a living with more cosmic radiation left above lower level protective atmosphere layers.

[snooky]

Aerotoxic certainly takes its toll for those flying certain types.

[Herod]

Aerotoxicity certainly was a factor in the deaths of a few colleagues. However, a lot of us flew the 146 with no ill effects. Maybe there is/was a genetic factor. Regarding longevity, I retired medically just before my 58th birthday. I'm now 76, spending a lot of time volunteering in various capacities, and feeling good. The only drawback is that my brain thinks I'm 26, and wants to do things the 76 year-old body objects to!!

[blind pew]

Aerotoxicity certainly was a factor in the deaths of a few colleagues. However, a lot of us flew the 146 with no ill effects. Maybe there is/was a genetic factor. Regarding longevity, I retired medically just before my 58th birthday. I'm now 76, spending a lot of time volunteering in various capacities, and feeling good. The only drawback is that my brain thinks I'm 26, and wants to do things the 76 year-old body objects to!!
According to the ex KLM pilot/ MD who is the guru with aerotoxic and treated Richard Westgate there is definitely a genetic link.
I lost my license at 45 which was a massive shock especially considering the circumstances but like you I think I’m 26 even going to my first french heavy metal beach rave at 70..got a lot of what’s an old fool like you doing flouncing about to Steve Aoki but not accepting my age keeps me going although I find it hard when 50 year olds offer me their seats on the tube.

[Right20deg]

A Doc once told me to.... " choose my parents wisely". Perhaps the nature or nurture issue ? Seems to be the case with dogs !
Modern medical scanning and imaging is just wonderful and would surely have changed a few careers had it been available in the 1970's etc.

[condor17]

Re , the radiation ideas .
When Concorde started , radiation studies were carried out for aircrew .
Conc. , being high up , but not for long and not in extreme N latitudes was not a problem .
The worst risk around was for our Tokyo based CC. Forever running higher N. latitudes on a regular basis for long flight times .
UK based crew went all over the network and thus minimum exposure to long N. latitudes .

rgds condor .

[Haraka]

My first wife was Concorde Cabin crew for 6 years continious
She died of "a peculiar lung cancer"
Aged 38.

[Council Van]

I developed a very rare form of Leukemia at 48. A lad I was at school with who also became a professional pilot at 20 developed a brain tumor in his early 40's and my sim partner on my first heavy jet type rating also developed cancer in his mid 40's.

I can only think of one other person I know who wasn't a pilot who had cancer whilst still of working age. Poor chap didn't even see his 30 birthday.
​

[nnc0]

Working as a non pilot in Flight Ops I can simply offer that I've seen a heck of a lot more office staff die before retirement than pilots. There numbers are not even close and pilots outnumber engineers and technicians in Flight ops by at least 50 to 1. The daily toll of commuting and the long hours of sedentary work in front of a screen with a good deal of job stress heaped on takes a terrible toll on people's health. I haven't even got 25 yrs in and the 4 other engineers that stared with me have all passed away.

[Right20deg]

Working as a non pilot in Flight Ops I can simply offer that I've seen a heck of a lot more office staff die before retirement than pilots. There numbers are not even close and pilots outnumber engineers and technicians in Flight ops by 10 to 1. The daily toll of commuting and the long hours of sedentary work in front of a screen with a good deal of job stress heaped on takes a terrible toll on people's health. I haven't even got 25 yrs in and the 4 other engineers that stared with me have all passed away.

That is very sad news and good that you mentioned this issue. Also, I had heard that long service commission Navy personnel , on retirement back on shore have a very bad time of it. The stress of living in civi street after a lifetime of order and discipline at sea is too much.
On visiting the London Air Traffic Control Centre, Swanwick, Southampton, I had a wander around the lake and a memorial garden and seating for the young ATC Officers who died way before their time. High stress jobs take their toll for certain. Family in the big accountancy firms notice that high end burn out is the norm. HK never sleeps. Retirement in your fifties helps they said.