Radiation at Flight Levels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Here and Now
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radiation at Flight Levels
Does anyone have any information or links to estimated radiation levels received while in the course of performing our duties at high level? Being that we are now the first generation of pilots flying longer haul and higher altitudes closer to the poles it would be nice if a study was done on the effects of that wonderful ball of heat and the cosmic rays soaked up by our group.
Most aviation Doctors I have asked downplay the dangers and long term health issues associated. I know that Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. Canada did a test with the cabin crew of the former Canada 3000 Airlines over a period of time but the results were never published. I should clarify that by saying, I personally never saw the results nor did any of my colleagues.
Any hard facts out there ?
Happy flying!
Most aviation Doctors I have asked downplay the dangers and long term health issues associated. I know that Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. Canada did a test with the cabin crew of the former Canada 3000 Airlines over a period of time but the results were never published. I should clarify that by saying, I personally never saw the results nor did any of my colleagues.
Any hard facts out there ?
Happy flying!
Moderator
Radiation
There are a multitude of threads, both in this forum, and others. A search of the site will reveal a wealth of information, but as with all things, be aware of the sources before making your own judgements.
Cheers,
BM
Cheers,
BM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've often wondered about this.
Maybe pilots should start wearing something similar to those radiation tags that nurses/doctors wear (Is it the same thing?). Then have it analyzed every few weeks to record the levels they're exposed to.
Maybe pilots should start wearing something similar to those radiation tags that nurses/doctors wear (Is it the same thing?). Then have it analyzed every few weeks to record the levels they're exposed to.
Correct me if wrong but didnt the concorde pilots base their shift patterns on the dossiemeters they wore during flight?
A long term survey on a scandanavian airline showed that there was a direct link between flying at height and certain cancers.
There have been threads on this in the past on Pprune try a search.
A long term survey on a scandanavian airline showed that there was a direct link between flying at height and certain cancers.
There have been threads on this in the past on Pprune try a search.
this is only one test result:
http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstr...856144!9001!-1
Smoke and fire comes to mind.
http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstr...856144!9001!-1
Smoke and fire comes to mind.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a program called Cari6 for calculating exposure. It's free to download(google search will show you where to get it) and is very good although it can be difficult to use if you're not so computer minded. You enter the City pair, flight levels and time en-route and it will give you an accurate result.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work in the nuclear industry (a civil engineer). The Ionising Radiations Regulations (1999) set individual radiation exposure limits of 20 mSv (millisieverts) per year for Classified Radiation Workers.
At the altitude that Concorde flew at, the dose rate is approximately 12-15 µSv (microsieverts) per hour.
Taking the upper bound figure of 15 µSv/hr, a Concorde crew would exceed the permitted dose if they were to fly at altitude for 1,333hrs/year, which I would guess is probably several times in excess of the maximum hours a crew flew per year?
However, it is stated very regularly within our industry that Concorde crew members were exposed to more radiation per year than workers in nuclear power stations and reprocessing facilities.
(Edited - I should have checked through my numbers before I posted)
At the altitude that Concorde flew at, the dose rate is approximately 12-15 µSv (microsieverts) per hour.
Taking the upper bound figure of 15 µSv/hr, a Concorde crew would exceed the permitted dose if they were to fly at altitude for 1,333hrs/year, which I would guess is probably several times in excess of the maximum hours a crew flew per year?
However, it is stated very regularly within our industry that Concorde crew members were exposed to more radiation per year than workers in nuclear power stations and reprocessing facilities.
(Edited - I should have checked through my numbers before I posted)
Last edited by Dollond; 28th Feb 2006 at 18:18.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answering the original post.
At lower, long haul a/c type altitudes, the dose rate is approximately 5 µSv (microsieverts) per hour.
So, according to UK ionising radiation legislation, a crew can fly at altitude for 4,000hrs/year before exceeding the permitted annual dose.
How many hours does an average long haul pilot spend in the air every year?
At lower, long haul a/c type altitudes, the dose rate is approximately 5 µSv (microsieverts) per hour.
So, according to UK ionising radiation legislation, a crew can fly at altitude for 4,000hrs/year before exceeding the permitted annual dose.
How many hours does an average long haul pilot spend in the air every year?
Last edited by Dollond; 28th Feb 2006 at 21:45.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XKV8
In the UK (and I think EU Airlines) we have to keep cosmic radiation records for our Pilots. As satan says cari6 is one method of recording the levels. This information gets downloaded into the scheduling software (aims) on a monthly basis and I am obliged to check it once a year.
The levels are all under 2MSRV which i understand is "OK". Unfortunately I am not bright enough to understand it all
In the UK (and I think EU Airlines) we have to keep cosmic radiation records for our Pilots. As satan says cari6 is one method of recording the levels. This information gets downloaded into the scheduling software (aims) on a monthly basis and I am obliged to check it once a year.
The levels are all under 2MSRV which i understand is "OK". Unfortunately I am not bright enough to understand it all
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put these doses in perspective:
Chest x-ray: 0.02 mSv, which is equivalent to 4hrs flying at long haul cruising altitude.
CT scan on your abdomen: 10mSv, which is equivalent to 2,000hrs flying at long haul cruising altitude.
'Background' radiation dose at sea level = 0.34 µSv/hr (0.3 mSv/yr)
10,000 mSv (10 sieverts) as a short-term and whole-body dose would cause immediate illness, such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, and subsequent death within a few weeks.
Between 2 and 10 sieverts in a short-term dose would cause severe radiation sickness with increasing likelihood that this would be fatal.
Chest x-ray: 0.02 mSv, which is equivalent to 4hrs flying at long haul cruising altitude.
CT scan on your abdomen: 10mSv, which is equivalent to 2,000hrs flying at long haul cruising altitude.
'Background' radiation dose at sea level = 0.34 µSv/hr (0.3 mSv/yr)
10,000 mSv (10 sieverts) as a short-term and whole-body dose would cause immediate illness, such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, and subsequent death within a few weeks.
Between 2 and 10 sieverts in a short-term dose would cause severe radiation sickness with increasing likelihood that this would be fatal.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Angry from Purley
XKV8
In the UK (and I think EU Airlines) we have to keep cosmic radiation records for our Pilots. As satan says cari6 is one method of recording the levels. This information gets downloaded into the scheduling software (aims) on a monthly basis and I am obliged to check it once a year.
The levels are all under 2MSRV which i understand is "OK". Unfortunately I am not bright enough to understand it all
In the UK (and I think EU Airlines) we have to keep cosmic radiation records for our Pilots. As satan says cari6 is one method of recording the levels. This information gets downloaded into the scheduling software (aims) on a monthly basis and I am obliged to check it once a year.
The levels are all under 2MSRV which i understand is "OK". Unfortunately I am not bright enough to understand it all
I'm not quite clear on the dose rate you quote.
Are you saying that you check to see that the total annual exposure of a pilot is less than 2 millisieverts (mSv)?
If so your pilots have nothing to worry about - this is ten times less than the permitted annual dose for a UK radiation worker, and is equivalent to 100 chest x-rays.
Last edited by Dollond; 28th Feb 2006 at 22:53.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Here and Now
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Angry
I have seen levels that my present airline posts for us as well. What I question is the constant that they use to measure radiation levels over the course of a year. Does this formula take into account solar flare activity (increased).
I was led to believe by the AVMed Doc I spoke with that based on a period of test flights over a short period of time an extrapolation was made for the entire year for flight crew. Surely this can't be reliable for the various patterns we fly in a year's time?
To Dolland
Depending on the Airline and seniority the individual holds, a crewmember could fly anywhere between 700 to 900 hrs/yer. However not necessarily long haul and high Lats all the time for some. Thanks for your help, much appreciated.
To Satan
I did a Google on Cari6 but to no avail. SOunds like others are aware of it as well so will keep looking. Thanks
I have seen levels that my present airline posts for us as well. What I question is the constant that they use to measure radiation levels over the course of a year. Does this formula take into account solar flare activity (increased).
I was led to believe by the AVMed Doc I spoke with that based on a period of test flights over a short period of time an extrapolation was made for the entire year for flight crew. Surely this can't be reliable for the various patterns we fly in a year's time?
To Dolland
Depending on the Airline and seniority the individual holds, a crewmember could fly anywhere between 700 to 900 hrs/yer. However not necessarily long haul and high Lats all the time for some. Thanks for your help, much appreciated.
To Satan
I did a Google on Cari6 but to no avail. SOunds like others are aware of it as well so will keep looking. Thanks
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: auckland, new zealand
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The link attached should take you to CARI 6M. IIRC, it only accounts for cosmic background radiation and not for radiation from solar events.
http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...load/index.cfm
A service predicting short-term solar activity (does not predicted doses of ionising radiation, but does give a qualitative prediction) is available from NOAA (a start point for further research is http://www.sec.noaa.gov/).
http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...load/index.cfm
A service predicting short-term solar activity (does not predicted doses of ionising radiation, but does give a qualitative prediction) is available from NOAA (a start point for further research is http://www.sec.noaa.gov/).
