shortrange or longrange ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 600ft MSL
Age: 60
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shortrange or longrange ?
Hi Folks,
I'm presently flying 767-300ER, longrange only since 4 years. No weekly stops. Just 24hrs at the destination.
Now I'm seriously thinking about going back to short/medium range flying for health reasons.
I have absolutely no idea what is worse for your health. My doctor says despite the timezone problems, zeitgeber, melatonin etc... long range is better for the health than the high number of pressurisation cycles when flying shortrange. But that's a single opinion.
Any info on that would be highly appreciated!!!
I'm presently flying 767-300ER, longrange only since 4 years. No weekly stops. Just 24hrs at the destination.
Now I'm seriously thinking about going back to short/medium range flying for health reasons.
I have absolutely no idea what is worse for your health. My doctor says despite the timezone problems, zeitgeber, melatonin etc... long range is better for the health than the high number of pressurisation cycles when flying shortrange. But that's a single opinion.
Any info on that would be highly appreciated!!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Above the Equator but below the Tropopause
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Meteor FL54,
I have never heard of anything as daft as presurisation cycles. After all, we're only experiencing the equivalent of going from ground level to about 8000ft amsl on every setor which, if you think about it, is a depressurisation. It's only pressurised with respect to the outside environment which, thankfully at OATs of less than -50, we don't experience!
But with respect to which is healthier, I can't answer that. But what I can say is after doing 13 years of what you've been doing and now having spent a year doing four sector days with a low cost carrier, I feel much more relaxed and healthier than before. But then maybe that's because I'm no longer married as well...
Seriously, long haul suits some people, short haul others. It's up to you to decide which is best for you I guess.
I have never heard of anything as daft as presurisation cycles. After all, we're only experiencing the equivalent of going from ground level to about 8000ft amsl on every setor which, if you think about it, is a depressurisation. It's only pressurised with respect to the outside environment which, thankfully at OATs of less than -50, we don't experience!
But with respect to which is healthier, I can't answer that. But what I can say is after doing 13 years of what you've been doing and now having spent a year doing four sector days with a low cost carrier, I feel much more relaxed and healthier than before. But then maybe that's because I'm no longer married as well...
Seriously, long haul suits some people, short haul others. It's up to you to decide which is best for you I guess.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 600ft MSL
Age: 60
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's exactly the point. No problems so far. But I definitly don't want to wait until the first problems appear.
One thing that starts to worry me a bit is, that every year I fly longrange, the sleep deficit get higher and my body seems to get accustomed to sleep 2 hours per night. In the long run this can't be healthy.
One thing that starts to worry me a bit is, that every year I fly longrange, the sleep deficit get higher and my body seems to get accustomed to sleep 2 hours per night. In the long run this can't be healthy.
It's difficult to be specific, the concept of "health" is broad, but you could try a search, as I think this has been covered many times.
I doubt any specific studies have looked at pressurisation cycles, but you could have a peep at the journals via google scholar, or a medical database such as medline. Medical opinion alone, is probably will not give you the credibility on which to base your career choices.
From memory, I seem to remember pilots on the whole live longer than Joe Average, & tend to suffer more malignant melanoma's, but an insurance actuary would probably give more detail about mortality and morbidity.
Cheers ginge
I doubt any specific studies have looked at pressurisation cycles, but you could have a peep at the journals via google scholar, or a medical database such as medline. Medical opinion alone, is probably will not give you the credibility on which to base your career choices.
From memory, I seem to remember pilots on the whole live longer than Joe Average, & tend to suffer more malignant melanoma's, but an insurance actuary would probably give more detail about mortality and morbidity.
Cheers ginge
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is true. The Scandinavians have always taken a particular interest in these matters and their studies, and others, show that pilots live longer than average, malignant melanoma is the only significant additional health risk factor and there is no significant difference in life expectancy between long-haul and short-haul pilots. I have never seen pressurisation cycles mentioned as a factor in any study.
However, it should be pointed out that these studies were done at a time when pilots retired at 55 or before, long-haul meant eight hours, not eighteen hours, and flight time limitations were a limit not a target.
It has always been the case that a flying career is all about looking after yourself and finding the type of work which suits you best and hurts the least. Sleep deficit is a problem in both long-haul and short-haul, although for different reasons. Ultimately it depends on being able to get sufficient quality sleep in the limited time available. That occurs best when you're relaxed and enjoying life but it becomes more difficult as you get older even though you may be relaxed and enjoying life. You are approaching that age. There is a chance that you could return to short-haul remembering how good it once felt, only to find now you are older the short-haul early starts are more difficult to cope with and your sleep deficit is actually worse.
It is still the case that older pilots tend to migrate to long-haul if they have a choice. To me that indicates that long-haul still has some merits. But whatever you decide to do, it is most likely that you will get the best quality sleep when you're doing the kind of work you like best. Apart from protecting yourself from the sun and preventing dehydration, there don't seem to be too many other health issues to worry about.
However, it should be pointed out that these studies were done at a time when pilots retired at 55 or before, long-haul meant eight hours, not eighteen hours, and flight time limitations were a limit not a target.
It has always been the case that a flying career is all about looking after yourself and finding the type of work which suits you best and hurts the least. Sleep deficit is a problem in both long-haul and short-haul, although for different reasons. Ultimately it depends on being able to get sufficient quality sleep in the limited time available. That occurs best when you're relaxed and enjoying life but it becomes more difficult as you get older even though you may be relaxed and enjoying life. You are approaching that age. There is a chance that you could return to short-haul remembering how good it once felt, only to find now you are older the short-haul early starts are more difficult to cope with and your sleep deficit is actually worse.
It is still the case that older pilots tend to migrate to long-haul if they have a choice. To me that indicates that long-haul still has some merits. But whatever you decide to do, it is most likely that you will get the best quality sleep when you're doing the kind of work you like best. Apart from protecting yourself from the sun and preventing dehydration, there don't seem to be too many other health issues to worry about.
