Flying whilst pregnant
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Age: 53
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying whilst pregnant
Advice I've heard in the US for women early into a pregnancy (first trimester) is not to fly.
I was wondering if airline professionals in this forum can shed some light on their experience and what the risks might be.
Reason behind the question - a 4-week pregnant woman is debating whether or not to fly across the country.
I was wondering if airline professionals in this forum can shed some light on their experience and what the risks might be.
Reason behind the question - a 4-week pregnant woman is debating whether or not to fly across the country.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know about the US but here in Oz we were able to operate flights until 28 weeks pregnant. Did this with both my pregnancies and did not have a problem. Think it really depends on the pregnancy. Maybe some high risk women would be safer not too, not because of any risk from flying but that their pregnancy may be tenuous anyway. A normal healthy woman can do nearly anything pregnant. The baby is extremely resiliant. I actually went to Disneyland and took all the rides whilst in early pregancy. If the lady invovled doesnt feel right about it, dont do it. Hope this helps.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: U.K
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe female pilots are actually grounded for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and I know that quite a few Cabin Attendants have had miscarriages in the first 12 weeks. Although it is a very physical job so that might contribute to the problem. So I think the baby is probably more vulnerable in the early stages.
I would definitely seek medical advice
CFA
I would definitely seek medical advice
CFA
Last edited by corp.f/a; 6th Mar 2003 at 14:38.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: here
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would never work (fly) when pregnant.
Have a look here
excerpt:
Damage to the fetus when you are already pregnant
Once pregnant, the degree and nature of the damage to the fetus depends on the stage of development and the degree of exposure. According to a United Nations Scientific Committee and the National Radiological Protection Board, the risks can include severe mental retardation and childhood cancer.
For example, the risk of severe mental retardation is said to increase as much as 1 in 10,000 with every 1mSv of exposure during the fourth month. If you flew Athens-New York for 100 hours in that month under normal conditions, you would absorb almost 1mSv and there would be an increased risk of 1 in 10,000 that your baby would be born severely retarded. This risk would be higher if you flew during periods of high solar activity and lower if you flew less at lower altitudes and latitudes.
Given that there are about 96,000 female flight attendants in the US, if we were to assume that a generous 10% (or about 10,000) are pregnant, then one of those fetuses – assuming that their mothers are working full-time international flights with normal solar activity – will be born severely retarded. That statistic would probably horrify most mothers-to-be because the damage is preventable. But the devil's advocate might say that a small number of babies will be born with severe birth defects anyway and such a small addition doesn't justify the administrative and financial burden of giving pregnant flight attendants ground jobs or time off with pay. Other people are unsure of what to ask for. Would an enforced limit on work hours for pregnant flight attendants be popular? Clearly what is acceptable to some people is unacceptable to others.
excerpt:
Damage to the fetus when you are already pregnant
Once pregnant, the degree and nature of the damage to the fetus depends on the stage of development and the degree of exposure. According to a United Nations Scientific Committee and the National Radiological Protection Board, the risks can include severe mental retardation and childhood cancer.
For example, the risk of severe mental retardation is said to increase as much as 1 in 10,000 with every 1mSv of exposure during the fourth month. If you flew Athens-New York for 100 hours in that month under normal conditions, you would absorb almost 1mSv and there would be an increased risk of 1 in 10,000 that your baby would be born severely retarded. This risk would be higher if you flew during periods of high solar activity and lower if you flew less at lower altitudes and latitudes.
Given that there are about 96,000 female flight attendants in the US, if we were to assume that a generous 10% (or about 10,000) are pregnant, then one of those fetuses – assuming that their mothers are working full-time international flights with normal solar activity – will be born severely retarded. That statistic would probably horrify most mothers-to-be because the damage is preventable. But the devil's advocate might say that a small number of babies will be born with severe birth defects anyway and such a small addition doesn't justify the administrative and financial burden of giving pregnant flight attendants ground jobs or time off with pay. Other people are unsure of what to ask for. Would an enforced limit on work hours for pregnant flight attendants be popular? Clearly what is acceptable to some people is unacceptable to others.
Wicked Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: I-
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duplicated post
BayAreaLondoner,
Generally speaking it is not possible to duplicate a post in more than one forum. I noticed you posted this thread in Medical as well.
However I decided to live this one here due to the interesting comments and articles that came out.
Ciao
Generally speaking it is not possible to duplicate a post in more than one forum. I noticed you posted this thread in Medical as well.
However I decided to live this one here due to the interesting comments and articles that came out.
Ciao
Last edited by Xenia; 8th Mar 2003 at 09:22.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: U.K
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the issue is purely a possible radiation problem I would worry about the effects of pressurisation on an unborn child too. Any aviation doctors out there who would like to give some advice on this subject?
CFA
CFA
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that in Australia a woman can now fly for an indefinite time. There are no more restrictions. I know of women that have flown to 7 months and everything with the baby was fine. However I also know women that have miscarried early on in their pregnancy. But its hard to say whether this is directly related to flying while pregnant.
ps. talking about FA's
ps. talking about FA's
Last edited by galleygirl; 16th Mar 2003 at 00:27.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In many countries in Europe Cabin Attendants are not allowed to fly whilst pregnant, because this can affect the health of mother and child. Miscarriage rates of CC continuing working are higher than the rest of population.
Examples
France:
Cabin Attendants cannot fly when pregnant. The Company must then transfer them to a ground employement and mantain their salary. If they are on a risk pregnancy, then they cannot work and still mantain their salary.
Italy:
The obligatory abstention begins, for the flight attendants, at the moment of the presentation to the employer of the medical certificate of interdiction to the flight for pregnancy. They mantain the 80% of their last paycheck.
In the US, as you will be able to see on the above link, the risk of flying whilst pregnant are stated, but the right of the mother to work (= not to be discriminated because of the pregnancy) is more important of the right of the foetus to be healty. It is left to the mother to decide if she prefers to work or avoid risks for the foetus.
here
Excerpt:
Flight Attendants and Spontaneous Abortions: a New Study
By Ronald Turner
Do working flight attendants experience increased rates of spontaneous abortions? This question is addressed in James E. Cone et al., "Reproductive Health Outcomes Among Female Flight Attendants," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 210 (March 1998).
The study begins by noting that flight attendants are exposed to circadian rhythm disruption, increased gravitational forces, ozone, noise and vibration, decompression, fatigue, chemicals (including hydraulic fluid, jet fuel, and pesticides), cigarette smoke, viral infections, and cosmic and other ionizing radiation exceeding the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements' recommended exposure limits for pregnant women flying at high altitudes.
Seeking to determine the frequency of adverse reproductive outcomes, the researchers conducted a random sample of 9,392 of the more than 30,000 persons listed as active members of the Association of Flight Attendants as of January 1, 1990, and surveyed flight attendants who were pregnant at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1990 and ending on December 31, 1991. More than 5,600 flight attendants surveyed (86% of whom were female) responded to a preliminary eligibility questionnaire, and 718 female flight attendants answering the questionnaire indicated that they had been pregnant during the January 1990-December 1991 study period.
The study found that the percentage of spontaneous abortions (defined as a fetal loss occurring at up to 28 weeks of gestation) for flight attendants not working outside the home during the first pregnancy of the study period was 8%. Fifteen percent of flight attendants working outside the home during the first pregnancy of the period under study experienced a spontaneous abortion, a figure comparable to the proportion of spontaneous abortions reported for the general population of the United States and for other working women (specifically female attorneys, veterinarians, and resident physicians). The study thus concluded that "flight attendants who worked outside the home during pregnancy experienced a nearly two times estimated increased relative risk of spontaneous abortion, compared with flight attendants who did not work outside the home during pregnancy . . ." (See page 213 of study). In addition, flight attendants "who experienced a spontaneous abortion during their first pregnancy during the study period reported working significantly more flight hours per month during their pregnancy (74 hours per month) than flight attendants who delivered a live birth (64 hours per month) . . ." (Study, page 212).
here
Pregnancy/In-Flight Cosmic Radiation
In-flight cosmic radiation poses a small but definitive risk to frequent flyers, a risk that few crewmembers and passengers are aware of. (Aviat Space Environ Med 1998; 69:1061-4.) While most discussions of this issue focus on carcinogenic potential, the risk of adverse effects to fetuses of pregnant travelers may be a greater concern. This issue becomes more complicated by the social implications of limiting flight time of women, based on the possibility of their being pregnant. "While the known health effects associated with fetal irradiation from occasional flying are negligible, very frequent flyers, pregnant crewmembers, for example, could be subjecting their unborn children to risks they would not accept were they aware of them." Animal studies of low dose ionizing radiation exposures, and human studies following high dose exposures - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl, suggest that fetuses may inadvertently be at risk of decreased cognitive capacity, frank mental retardation, and childhood leukemia. The most crucial time for human fetuses is between 8 and 15 weeks, when the neural cells are proliferating and migrating. Presently, there is no way of monitoring slight decreases in IQ within the normal range, decreases that could have profound social and legal ramifications.
In-flight cosmic radiation exposure can be reduced, but doing so would increase the cost of air transportation and inconvenience passengers - costly monitoring equipment aboard aircraft and altering routes or canceling flights during peak cosmic activity, for example. As a result in-flight radiation exposure is not currently monitored on subsonic commercial airlines. Technical problems make such monitoring impractical: low-dose exposure from metal detectors; the cost of monitoring; and uncertainty about how the individual exposure information should be used, for example.
However, the risks of in-flight cosmic radiation are easily denied: radiation originates from extraterrestrial sources, including the sun; there are relatively few human studies documenting cosmic radiation effects; the studies use technical language that is difficult for non-radiation professionals to understand. Radiation is measured in five different units by different experts and not all radiation absorbed has the same biological effect. Only recently has the FAA recognized flight crews as workers occupationally exposed to radiation; they often exceeded exposure maximums for the general public.
As a result, the FAA created a computerized system for calculating exposures based on altitude, latitude and flight duration. An important caveat is that these estimates are based on average solar flare activity; periodic increases in solar flare activity can transiently increase radiation exposures aboard aircraft more than 100-fold for as much as several hours. During the solar flare event of 1956 (the greatest on record), exposures aboard aircraft at 42,000 ft could have for 1 hour exceeded the present maximum recommended fetal exposure for 1 month by 20-fold, and for the entire pregnancy by 5-fold. Solar flares generally follow an 11-year cycle, but they cannot be accurately predicted.
Typical pilots and flight engineers experience yearly radiation exposures well within recommended limits. However, flight attendants, who sometimes fly more hours than other crewmembers, may be expected to occasionally exceed annual limits. Pregnant crewmembers can easily exceed recommendations for total fetal exposure within a month or two, as may pregnant frequent flyer passengers. For example, flying the London to Chicago route for 100 hours - not an unusual event for flight attendants - even assuming normal solar flare activity, will exceed the level recommended for the fetus. (However, the added risk to the fetus from such exposures is not as clearly evident as the potential harm to the fetus stemming from economic hardship due to limiting the mother's ability to work as a flight attendant during her pregnancy.) Moreover, charter executive jets fly at higher altitudes than other subsonic commercial aircraft, and their crewmembers are not subject to the same limits on block hours as commercial airliner crews.
Pregnancy and in-flight cosmic radiation.
Geeze DS
Aviat Space Environ Med 1998; 69:1061__4.
Abstract
Cosmic radiation is an occupational hazard to commercial and military flight crews. Aside from the direct risk to aviators, this ionizing radiation is a hazard to the fetuses of pregnant crewmembers and passengers. Animal studies of low dose ionizing radiation exposures, and human studies following high dose exposures, suggest that pregnant aviators may inadvertently subject their fetuses to a risk of decreased cognitive capacity or frank mental retardation, as well as childhood leukemia. Flight attendants sometimes unknowingly exceed recommended maximum cosmic radiation doses to their fetuses, raising social, ethical, and legal issues.
Examples
France:
Cabin Attendants cannot fly when pregnant. The Company must then transfer them to a ground employement and mantain their salary. If they are on a risk pregnancy, then they cannot work and still mantain their salary.
Italy:
The obligatory abstention begins, for the flight attendants, at the moment of the presentation to the employer of the medical certificate of interdiction to the flight for pregnancy. They mantain the 80% of their last paycheck.
In the US, as you will be able to see on the above link, the risk of flying whilst pregnant are stated, but the right of the mother to work (= not to be discriminated because of the pregnancy) is more important of the right of the foetus to be healty. It is left to the mother to decide if she prefers to work or avoid risks for the foetus.
here
Excerpt:
Flight Attendants and Spontaneous Abortions: a New Study
By Ronald Turner
Do working flight attendants experience increased rates of spontaneous abortions? This question is addressed in James E. Cone et al., "Reproductive Health Outcomes Among Female Flight Attendants," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 210 (March 1998).
The study begins by noting that flight attendants are exposed to circadian rhythm disruption, increased gravitational forces, ozone, noise and vibration, decompression, fatigue, chemicals (including hydraulic fluid, jet fuel, and pesticides), cigarette smoke, viral infections, and cosmic and other ionizing radiation exceeding the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements' recommended exposure limits for pregnant women flying at high altitudes.
Seeking to determine the frequency of adverse reproductive outcomes, the researchers conducted a random sample of 9,392 of the more than 30,000 persons listed as active members of the Association of Flight Attendants as of January 1, 1990, and surveyed flight attendants who were pregnant at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1990 and ending on December 31, 1991. More than 5,600 flight attendants surveyed (86% of whom were female) responded to a preliminary eligibility questionnaire, and 718 female flight attendants answering the questionnaire indicated that they had been pregnant during the January 1990-December 1991 study period.
The study found that the percentage of spontaneous abortions (defined as a fetal loss occurring at up to 28 weeks of gestation) for flight attendants not working outside the home during the first pregnancy of the study period was 8%. Fifteen percent of flight attendants working outside the home during the first pregnancy of the period under study experienced a spontaneous abortion, a figure comparable to the proportion of spontaneous abortions reported for the general population of the United States and for other working women (specifically female attorneys, veterinarians, and resident physicians). The study thus concluded that "flight attendants who worked outside the home during pregnancy experienced a nearly two times estimated increased relative risk of spontaneous abortion, compared with flight attendants who did not work outside the home during pregnancy . . ." (See page 213 of study). In addition, flight attendants "who experienced a spontaneous abortion during their first pregnancy during the study period reported working significantly more flight hours per month during their pregnancy (74 hours per month) than flight attendants who delivered a live birth (64 hours per month) . . ." (Study, page 212).
here
Pregnancy/In-Flight Cosmic Radiation
In-flight cosmic radiation poses a small but definitive risk to frequent flyers, a risk that few crewmembers and passengers are aware of. (Aviat Space Environ Med 1998; 69:1061-4.) While most discussions of this issue focus on carcinogenic potential, the risk of adverse effects to fetuses of pregnant travelers may be a greater concern. This issue becomes more complicated by the social implications of limiting flight time of women, based on the possibility of their being pregnant. "While the known health effects associated with fetal irradiation from occasional flying are negligible, very frequent flyers, pregnant crewmembers, for example, could be subjecting their unborn children to risks they would not accept were they aware of them." Animal studies of low dose ionizing radiation exposures, and human studies following high dose exposures - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl, suggest that fetuses may inadvertently be at risk of decreased cognitive capacity, frank mental retardation, and childhood leukemia. The most crucial time for human fetuses is between 8 and 15 weeks, when the neural cells are proliferating and migrating. Presently, there is no way of monitoring slight decreases in IQ within the normal range, decreases that could have profound social and legal ramifications.
In-flight cosmic radiation exposure can be reduced, but doing so would increase the cost of air transportation and inconvenience passengers - costly monitoring equipment aboard aircraft and altering routes or canceling flights during peak cosmic activity, for example. As a result in-flight radiation exposure is not currently monitored on subsonic commercial airlines. Technical problems make such monitoring impractical: low-dose exposure from metal detectors; the cost of monitoring; and uncertainty about how the individual exposure information should be used, for example.
However, the risks of in-flight cosmic radiation are easily denied: radiation originates from extraterrestrial sources, including the sun; there are relatively few human studies documenting cosmic radiation effects; the studies use technical language that is difficult for non-radiation professionals to understand. Radiation is measured in five different units by different experts and not all radiation absorbed has the same biological effect. Only recently has the FAA recognized flight crews as workers occupationally exposed to radiation; they often exceeded exposure maximums for the general public.
As a result, the FAA created a computerized system for calculating exposures based on altitude, latitude and flight duration. An important caveat is that these estimates are based on average solar flare activity; periodic increases in solar flare activity can transiently increase radiation exposures aboard aircraft more than 100-fold for as much as several hours. During the solar flare event of 1956 (the greatest on record), exposures aboard aircraft at 42,000 ft could have for 1 hour exceeded the present maximum recommended fetal exposure for 1 month by 20-fold, and for the entire pregnancy by 5-fold. Solar flares generally follow an 11-year cycle, but they cannot be accurately predicted.
Typical pilots and flight engineers experience yearly radiation exposures well within recommended limits. However, flight attendants, who sometimes fly more hours than other crewmembers, may be expected to occasionally exceed annual limits. Pregnant crewmembers can easily exceed recommendations for total fetal exposure within a month or two, as may pregnant frequent flyer passengers. For example, flying the London to Chicago route for 100 hours - not an unusual event for flight attendants - even assuming normal solar flare activity, will exceed the level recommended for the fetus. (However, the added risk to the fetus from such exposures is not as clearly evident as the potential harm to the fetus stemming from economic hardship due to limiting the mother's ability to work as a flight attendant during her pregnancy.) Moreover, charter executive jets fly at higher altitudes than other subsonic commercial aircraft, and their crewmembers are not subject to the same limits on block hours as commercial airliner crews.
Pregnancy and in-flight cosmic radiation.
Geeze DS
Aviat Space Environ Med 1998; 69:1061__4.
Abstract
Cosmic radiation is an occupational hazard to commercial and military flight crews. Aside from the direct risk to aviators, this ionizing radiation is a hazard to the fetuses of pregnant crewmembers and passengers. Animal studies of low dose ionizing radiation exposures, and human studies following high dose exposures, suggest that pregnant aviators may inadvertently subject their fetuses to a risk of decreased cognitive capacity or frank mental retardation, as well as childhood leukemia. Flight attendants sometimes unknowingly exceed recommended maximum cosmic radiation doses to their fetuses, raising social, ethical, and legal issues.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the part of the above study results that should have been highlighted is:
Fifteen percent of flight attendants working outside the home during the first pregnancy of the period under study experienced a spontaneous abortion, a figure comparable to the proportion of spontaneous abortions reported for the general population of the United States and for other working women (specifically female attorneys, veterinarians, and resident physicians).
Fifteen percent of flight attendants working outside the home during the first pregnancy of the period under study experienced a spontaneous abortion, a figure comparable to the proportion of spontaneous abortions reported for the general population of the United States and for other working women (specifically female attorneys, veterinarians, and resident physicians).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is of any help to the discussion, I have had four pregnancies and with each I flew full time up to , between 15 and 27 weeks.
Maybe it is my personal health or constitution or maybe I am just considerded " a good breeder" but besides feeling tired in the first 12 weeks, I had very good pregnancies.
I now have four children aged between 5 and 11 and their health is excellent.
My advice, listen to the statistics and take heed but dont get spooked.Like Anyfly girl advises, assess the situation for yourself. If you decide to fly then take it one week at a time and see how you are feeling.
Information and statistics are great. We now all have much more information at our fingertips and are wiser for it. When I decided to have children I was told " it was perfectly safe".That was a best to their knowledge statement in the early 90's. In hindsight I am glad that the stats weren't around when I was considering pregnancy or I may never have had my 4 children.
Maybe it is my personal health or constitution or maybe I am just considerded " a good breeder" but besides feeling tired in the first 12 weeks, I had very good pregnancies.
I now have four children aged between 5 and 11 and their health is excellent.
My advice, listen to the statistics and take heed but dont get spooked.Like Anyfly girl advises, assess the situation for yourself. If you decide to fly then take it one week at a time and see how you are feeling.
Information and statistics are great. We now all have much more information at our fingertips and are wiser for it. When I decided to have children I was told " it was perfectly safe".That was a best to their knowledge statement in the early 90's. In hindsight I am glad that the stats weren't around when I was considering pregnancy or I may never have had my 4 children.
