Cosmic Radiation & Flight Crew (merged)
lunasynchronous orbiter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daysleeper, are you saying the aurora itself was located at an altitude of 25,000 feet, or that you were flying at that altitude at the time you observed it far above you? If the former, could you go to the other thread, in Questions, "Have you ever seen aurora below or 'around' your aircraft", and report and submit the questionnaire - trying to systematically gather reports of such low-altitude aurora because it's supposed to be impossible!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look out tomorrow - 
The X8.3 solar flare from Region 486 has been confirmed as a halo
coronal mass ejection (perhaps a borderline partial halo event). This means that mass ejected from the region contains an Earthward-directed component.
That component is expected to impact the Earth on 03 or 04 November, but with heaviest emphasis on the early UTC hours of 04 November. For North American observers, this translates to the evening (probably late evening) hours on MONDAY NIGHT, Eastern Standard Time.
A middle latitude auroral activity WATCH has been issued for the 03 to 06 November time-frame with heaviest empahsis on 04 November. It is appended below.
Although this event has the potential to be perhaps as strong as the Great Storm of 29 and 30 October, we do not believe it will. Nevertheless, the chance for periods of significant auroral activity exists for 03 through 06 November (again, with emphasis on 04 November).
The X8.3 solar flare from Region 486 has been confirmed as a halo
coronal mass ejection (perhaps a borderline partial halo event). This means that mass ejected from the region contains an Earthward-directed component.
That component is expected to impact the Earth on 03 or 04 November, but with heaviest emphasis on the early UTC hours of 04 November. For North American observers, this translates to the evening (probably late evening) hours on MONDAY NIGHT, Eastern Standard Time.
A middle latitude auroral activity WATCH has been issued for the 03 to 06 November time-frame with heaviest empahsis on 04 November. It is appended below.
Although this event has the potential to be perhaps as strong as the Great Storm of 29 and 30 October, we do not believe it will. Nevertheless, the chance for periods of significant auroral activity exists for 03 through 06 November (again, with emphasis on 04 November).
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
expialidocious
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Space Weather warning.
From http://www.sec.noaa.gov/advisories/bulletins.html
SPACE WEATHER ADVISORY BULLETIN #03- 5
2003 November 04 at 05:25 p.m. MST (2003 November 05 0025 UTC)
**** EXTREME SOLAR FLARE ****
Powerful Active Region 486 has produced one of the most intense solar flares ever measured. The event began at 12:29 P.M. MST (1929 UTC) on November 4th and rose quickly to exceed X17 on the GOES-12 X-ray sensor. By 12:44 P.M. MST (1944 UTC), the GOES sensor was saturated and remained that way until 12:56 P.M. (1956 UTC), suggesting this event extended well in to the very highest flare category, the X20 plus range. This massive flare produced a category R5 (extreme) radio blackout. All short-wave communications through the sunlit hemisphere of the Earth experienced complete blackout conditions.
An associated solar radiation storm is underway. The current storm is at category S1 (minor) levels, and rising. The radiation storm is expected to reach category S2 (moderate) levels, and there is a small chance for a category S3 (strong) radiation storm. High latitude aviation interests are advised to closely monitor radiation levels over the next 24 hours. High latitude short-wave communications will likely experience considerable degradation for the next 24 to 48 hours. All agencies with space interests should also carefully monitor radiation levels.
A powerful, and extremely fast (over 5 million miles per hour) mass ejection occurred from this flare site, but is mostly directed away from Earth. As a result, only category G1 (minor) to G2 (moderate) geomagnetic storm levels are likely on November 6th.
This solar flare was the largest in a series of very large flares that have occurred in Active Region 486 over the past two weeks. At its peak, this sunspot cluster was approximately 15 times larger than Earth. This active region will rotate to the backside of the sun over the next 24 hours. Another large flare is still possible from this region, but large flare activity will become much less likely after the next 24 to 48 hours.
SPACE WEATHER ADVISORY BULLETIN #03- 5
2003 November 04 at 05:25 p.m. MST (2003 November 05 0025 UTC)
**** EXTREME SOLAR FLARE ****
Powerful Active Region 486 has produced one of the most intense solar flares ever measured. The event began at 12:29 P.M. MST (1929 UTC) on November 4th and rose quickly to exceed X17 on the GOES-12 X-ray sensor. By 12:44 P.M. MST (1944 UTC), the GOES sensor was saturated and remained that way until 12:56 P.M. (1956 UTC), suggesting this event extended well in to the very highest flare category, the X20 plus range. This massive flare produced a category R5 (extreme) radio blackout. All short-wave communications through the sunlit hemisphere of the Earth experienced complete blackout conditions.
An associated solar radiation storm is underway. The current storm is at category S1 (minor) levels, and rising. The radiation storm is expected to reach category S2 (moderate) levels, and there is a small chance for a category S3 (strong) radiation storm. High latitude aviation interests are advised to closely monitor radiation levels over the next 24 hours. High latitude short-wave communications will likely experience considerable degradation for the next 24 to 48 hours. All agencies with space interests should also carefully monitor radiation levels.
A powerful, and extremely fast (over 5 million miles per hour) mass ejection occurred from this flare site, but is mostly directed away from Earth. As a result, only category G1 (minor) to G2 (moderate) geomagnetic storm levels are likely on November 6th.
This solar flare was the largest in a series of very large flares that have occurred in Active Region 486 over the past two weeks. At its peak, this sunspot cluster was approximately 15 times larger than Earth. This active region will rotate to the backside of the sun over the next 24 hours. Another large flare is still possible from this region, but large flare activity will become much less likely after the next 24 to 48 hours.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Sunday Times, 9th November.
Pilots fly low to curb radiation
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent, Sunday Times
BRITISH AIRWAYS pilots are rejecting the airline’s flight plans and flying at lower altitudes amid concerns over health risks to passengers and crew from cosmic radiation.
The pilots believe airlines are understating the potential dangers to the public of exposure to cosmic rays to save money on fuel. Planes flying at higher altitudes travel faster and burn less kerosene, but they also encounter higher radiation levels.
The fears come in the wake of scientific research which suggests that aircrew and frequent flyers are more likely to get cancer than others. It also follows claims that airlines failed to warn passengers about the risks of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT).
The issue has been brought to a head by the recent solar storm, which has led to unusually high levels of radioactive particles bombarding the Earth. In America, the Federal Aviation Administration, the industry’s regulatory body, initially went as far as advising pilots to reduce flying their height on certain routes.
The British authorities felt it unnecessary to issue similar guidance since the onset of the solar storm almost two weeks ago, but The Sunday Times has learnt that some pilots at BA and other airlines have taken matters into their own hands.
“I refused a flight plan from North America (to London) because it would have taken me to 35,000ft to take advantage of a strong jet stream,” said the captain of a Boeing 747. “I stayed below 30,000ft all the way. The flight took half an hour longer, but I didn’t get my hair singed. And I know from speaking to other pilots at other airlines that some are adopting the same approach.”
The pilot added: “This isn’t just a problem during times of excessive solar activity and this is a good time to ensure people know what they’re getting into when they fly. Airlines knew about DVT for years, but were belatedly forced to confront it because of the publicity.”
Flight plans, often based on weather forecasts, are drawn up by airline ground staff and passed on to pilots and air traffic controllers in advance. However, pilots carry sole legal responsibility for flights and are within their rights to refuse the plans or amend them.
Another Boeing 747 captain pointed out that some frequent flyers might be at even greater risk from exposure to radiation than pilots because the pilots are legally barred from flying more than 900 hours a year.
Cosmic radiation is the collective name for radiation from the sun and the wider universe. It is characterised by energetic particles which can disrupt molecules in living cells. The atmosphere acts as a natural shield, but the higher one flies the thinner the atmosphere becomes, affording less protection.
The effects of cosmic radiation are also more prevalent at the northern and southern poles, where the Earth’s magnetic field is less effective in deflecting particles. This makes long-haul flights across the Arctic to Japan, for example, far more hazardous.
Passengers flying at 35,000ft are exposed to between 50 and 100 times more radiation than a person on the ground, according to the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). A transatlantic flight is equivalent to receiving at least one chest x-ray.
“There is no proven link between cancer in flight crews and cosmic radiation,” said Dr Michael Clark of the NRPB. “But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take sensible precautions to minimise its impact.”
Last month researchers in Iceland claimed female flight attendants who worked for five or more years before 1971 were five times more likely to develop breast cancer than those with less experience.
Dr Bob Bentley of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College, London, which is leading a three-year study into the impact of cosmic radiation, said: “There are concerns, particularly in the higher latitudes and especially during particle events such as the one we have seen recently.”
A spokesman for BA denied claims that pilots were encouraged to fly at higher altitudes to save fuel: “We take our duty of care to both passengers and flight crew very seriously and we would never fly our aircraft if there was a potential health risk. We measure exposure to cosmic radiation in all our flight and cabin crew to ensure that they do not exceed safe levels, and, at this point, all the evidence suggests that passengers are not at risk from its effects.”
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent, Sunday Times
BRITISH AIRWAYS pilots are rejecting the airline’s flight plans and flying at lower altitudes amid concerns over health risks to passengers and crew from cosmic radiation.
The pilots believe airlines are understating the potential dangers to the public of exposure to cosmic rays to save money on fuel. Planes flying at higher altitudes travel faster and burn less kerosene, but they also encounter higher radiation levels.
The fears come in the wake of scientific research which suggests that aircrew and frequent flyers are more likely to get cancer than others. It also follows claims that airlines failed to warn passengers about the risks of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT).
The issue has been brought to a head by the recent solar storm, which has led to unusually high levels of radioactive particles bombarding the Earth. In America, the Federal Aviation Administration, the industry’s regulatory body, initially went as far as advising pilots to reduce flying their height on certain routes.
The British authorities felt it unnecessary to issue similar guidance since the onset of the solar storm almost two weeks ago, but The Sunday Times has learnt that some pilots at BA and other airlines have taken matters into their own hands.
“I refused a flight plan from North America (to London) because it would have taken me to 35,000ft to take advantage of a strong jet stream,” said the captain of a Boeing 747. “I stayed below 30,000ft all the way. The flight took half an hour longer, but I didn’t get my hair singed. And I know from speaking to other pilots at other airlines that some are adopting the same approach.”
The pilot added: “This isn’t just a problem during times of excessive solar activity and this is a good time to ensure people know what they’re getting into when they fly. Airlines knew about DVT for years, but were belatedly forced to confront it because of the publicity.”
Flight plans, often based on weather forecasts, are drawn up by airline ground staff and passed on to pilots and air traffic controllers in advance. However, pilots carry sole legal responsibility for flights and are within their rights to refuse the plans or amend them.
Another Boeing 747 captain pointed out that some frequent flyers might be at even greater risk from exposure to radiation than pilots because the pilots are legally barred from flying more than 900 hours a year.
Cosmic radiation is the collective name for radiation from the sun and the wider universe. It is characterised by energetic particles which can disrupt molecules in living cells. The atmosphere acts as a natural shield, but the higher one flies the thinner the atmosphere becomes, affording less protection.
The effects of cosmic radiation are also more prevalent at the northern and southern poles, where the Earth’s magnetic field is less effective in deflecting particles. This makes long-haul flights across the Arctic to Japan, for example, far more hazardous.
Passengers flying at 35,000ft are exposed to between 50 and 100 times more radiation than a person on the ground, according to the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). A transatlantic flight is equivalent to receiving at least one chest x-ray.
“There is no proven link between cancer in flight crews and cosmic radiation,” said Dr Michael Clark of the NRPB. “But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take sensible precautions to minimise its impact.”
Last month researchers in Iceland claimed female flight attendants who worked for five or more years before 1971 were five times more likely to develop breast cancer than those with less experience.
Dr Bob Bentley of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College, London, which is leading a three-year study into the impact of cosmic radiation, said: “There are concerns, particularly in the higher latitudes and especially during particle events such as the one we have seen recently.”
A spokesman for BA denied claims that pilots were encouraged to fly at higher altitudes to save fuel: “We take our duty of care to both passengers and flight crew very seriously and we would never fly our aircraft if there was a potential health risk. We measure exposure to cosmic radiation in all our flight and cabin crew to ensure that they do not exceed safe levels, and, at this point, all the evidence suggests that passengers are not at risk from its effects.”
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday Times "Atlantic crossing is like receiving a chest X-ray"
According to the Sunday Times a transatlantic flight is the equivalent of receiving a chest X-ray AND BA captains are rejecting flight plan levels and flying lower to the avoid cosmic radiation.
They have quoted a 747 skipper as saying "I stayed below 30000 ft all the way, the flight took half an hour longer but I didn't get my hair singed."
I find this hard to believe. Is this journo rubbish or what?
Ghost
They have quoted a 747 skipper as saying "I stayed below 30000 ft all the way, the flight took half an hour longer but I didn't get my hair singed."
I find this hard to believe. Is this journo rubbish or what?
Ghost
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/janinflight.htm
"At the present stage of the solar cycle, the galactic dose ranges from 0.023 to 0.80 millisievert per 100 block hours. For example, based on 0.60 mSv per 100 block hours (the mean for a flight between New York City and Athens, Greece), a pilot flying 700 block hours per year would receive an annual occupational exposure of 4.2 mSv. In contrast, a pilot flying 700 block hours on a Chicago-to-San Francisco route (0.41 mSv/100 block hours) would receive an annual dose of approximately 2.8 mSv.
Typically, cosmic radiation exposure for airline pilots in North America ranges from 3 to 5 millisieverts annually. These values are considerably lower than the occupational limit of 20 millisieverts per year (5-year average) that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends for a nonpregnant adult."
So, sounds like trash to me...
"At the present stage of the solar cycle, the galactic dose ranges from 0.023 to 0.80 millisievert per 100 block hours. For example, based on 0.60 mSv per 100 block hours (the mean for a flight between New York City and Athens, Greece), a pilot flying 700 block hours per year would receive an annual occupational exposure of 4.2 mSv. In contrast, a pilot flying 700 block hours on a Chicago-to-San Francisco route (0.41 mSv/100 block hours) would receive an annual dose of approximately 2.8 mSv.
Typically, cosmic radiation exposure for airline pilots in North America ranges from 3 to 5 millisieverts annually. These values are considerably lower than the occupational limit of 20 millisieverts per year (5-year average) that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends for a nonpregnant adult."
So, sounds like trash to me...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends BigDH....If you are in the wrong aircraft at the wrong time at the peak of the solar cycle, in the vicinity of a coronal mass ejection (such as that has just reached the earth) you could get around 100 times your annual dose in one flight. Sounds nasty to me. What concerns me is that Big Airways flight planning department had no idea of this event, and yet under European law , it is a requirement for them to monitor each crew members annual radiation exposure AND act on such warnings. Sounds like Big company syndrome to me.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the advice from the boffins is that it appears that the current coronal mass ejections do not have a large high-energy component and they are therefore unlikely to be a particular hazard aircraft crew. In addition they may also be contributing to reduction in galactic cosmic radiation through the magnetic field associated with the enhanced solar wind which may lead to decreased average doses for some flights.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bris Vegas
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks p1fel
Most interesting.
I strongly suspect that airlines do NOT want us to know about solar storm activity because it would cost them more fuel.....
I have on a number of occasions asked our flight planners about such activity and they plead complete ignorance of both flare activity and it's effect on us... yet when it suits them they do seem to know about HF disturbances from flares....????
Most interesting.
I strongly suspect that airlines do NOT want us to know about solar storm activity because it would cost them more fuel.....
I have on a number of occasions asked our flight planners about such activity and they plead complete ignorance of both flare activity and it's effect on us... yet when it suits them they do seem to know about HF disturbances from flares....????
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sai Kungah
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, my question is this: What altitude are all these measurments and exposures based on?
Jed_thrust, what a silly question! Aircraft altitude, of course!
Measured how? I know my altimeter (on 1013) can read significantly lower than my GPS-derived altitude: I have seen it as much as 7000' different when trudging across the Pacific.
Seeing how 4000' can (roughly) double your radiation exposure, it might make a big difference to the annual total.
Does any bright spark have any sensible offers?
Jed_thrust, what a silly question! Aircraft altitude, of course!
Measured how? I know my altimeter (on 1013) can read significantly lower than my GPS-derived altitude: I have seen it as much as 7000' different when trudging across the Pacific.
Seeing how 4000' can (roughly) double your radiation exposure, it might make a big difference to the annual total.
Does any bright spark have any sensible offers?
