Life expectancy among Pilots/cabin crew
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 !
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 !
It's not a trip only reserved for the senior folk either... plenty of junior people have a nightly trip too!
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Redhill, Surrey, or another planet
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 and This one on cancer rates.
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.
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 and This one on cancer rates.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: FRANCE
Age: 56
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
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!!
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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 .
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by nnc0; 13th Mar 2023 at 12:34.
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.
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.
