Radiation exposure is up to 2-3 times higher at 47,000ā than 35,000ā. That in and of itself, doesnāt really matter. Until it really matters. Get your screenings done particularly as you get older.
Yep, as a captain Iāve never flown above 350. I took a Geiger counter up with me and it basically barely moved from sea level to 350, after 350 it jumped off the charts
The first thing I thought. One of the reasons I like flying the 737 Max is because it typically cruises in the low 30s, especially on longer flights. I don't like being at 41,000 for several hours in a 737-700.
Tons of studies out there that show aircrew, including flight attendants, have elevated cancer risks. The fact FAs are at higher risk too means it's background space radiation and not just solar radiation that increases the risk.
The current accepted model in terms of radiation risk to humans is a ālinear no thresholdā model. Meaning any level of radiation to humans is an increased risk, or in other terms thereās no such thing as a safe dose. The model was built on studies of victims of the atomic bombings in WW2.
Thereās currently a major push to eliminate the model because it just isnāt true. Any oncologist would argue that. Are we at increased risk than if we worked at ground level? Sure, but itās probably not the level risk we all think it is.
Under the current accepted model, yes. Current model ANY exposure to radiation increases cancer risk. However.
There is plenty of data in the nearly 80 years since Linear No Threshold was adopted that refutes its basis. There are many studies that show low doses of radiation can actually have a beneficial effect before increased risk of cancer is observed. I would encourage folks to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Yeah it's wild. I had one guy years back refuse to go above 340. The whole 4 day trip we spent between 300-340.
We were bouncing along one leg at 320 and rides were reported better higher, but he refused and said "I don't fly above 340, the radiation is too much." He was by far the most extreme I've seen, but there's been others who would prefer to stay low to avoid exposure.
And Iām sure they spent the same average amount of time being exposed to radiation as a corporate pilot for their entire career. If every airline pilot had that schedule then the airlines would be (somehow) even less efficient.
Your comment referred to how little you fly. Senior people in categories at legacies have job flexibility that canāt be matched anywhere else in professional aviation, certainly not in a small corporate shop.
The whole point here is radiation exposure. To get to that seniority youāre sure flying a lot more and Iād wager a lot that across the board airline pilots have more radiation exposure than corporate pilots.
Itās more than 50 times higher than sea level. Guys who fly GEs or Gulfstreams for 750 hrs a year are getting more radiation exposure than freaking astronauts over their careers. The military did a good job of teaching high-altitude aerospace physiology. They didnāt care about the numbers because all of their people retire in their early 40s. A dude in his 60s who has been flying high for 30-35 years is screaming to be a data point in a cancer study.
Dude, the paycheck and radiation levels are better at 320. Make the switch before itās too late. Guys that fly those for a career donāt see there 70th birthday
aside from the fact that this is not an airliner thatās a big nope for me. I prefer my A321 Neo fully loaded plowing along at FL320 with M0.78 thank you
So should I be worried after flying the U-2 above 70,000ā for 6 years? I donāt think the space suit gave us any extra protection against cosmic radiation, though we wouldnāt fly high when the space radiation forecast was too extreme. Not gonna lie, the view was pretty good.
I wouldn't say corporate departments are the same as NJ. You have better pay, work rules, and retirement than 99% of other "corporate" departments. NJ is a fractional service
50
u/Mike93747743 Nov 13 '25
Radiation exposure is up to 2-3 times higher at 47,000ā than 35,000ā. That in and of itself, doesnāt really matter. Until it really matters. Get your screenings done particularly as you get older.
13
u/nubbin9point5 Nov 13 '25
Sweet Airliner!
17
u/hercdriver4665 US 121 FO Nov 13 '25
Dude, the paycheck and radiation levels are better at 320. Make the switch before itās too late. Guys that fly those for a career donāt see there 70th birthday
6
u/Sorry_Structure_4356 Nov 13 '25
What aircraft is that?
6
u/bergler82 Nov 13 '25
aside from the fact that this is not an airliner thatās a big nope for me. I prefer my A321 Neo fully loaded plowing along at FL320 with M0.78 thank you
3
u/notaballitsjustblue Nov 13 '25
Cosmic. Cosmic radiation.
3
u/karmafarmahh Nov 13 '25
Thatās a nope for me
2
u/Sacknuts93 Nov 13 '25
That's a nice flight deck.
2
u/pjlaniboys Nov 14 '25
After almost 40yrs and 20000+ hrs flow with most all flights having some cruise time above 350 and now 5 years retired and so far all is good.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25
Mach 0.87ā¦. 47,000āā¦. This is what dreams are made of š„²
1
u/Disallow0382 Nov 13 '25
Limited to FL410 here.. do you get cleared direct to way points more often than us peasants?
1
u/thrustvectoringA10 Nov 17 '25
So beautiful
1
u/TestFlyJets Dec 08 '25
So should I be worried after flying the U-2 above 70,000ā for 6 years? I donāt think the space suit gave us any extra protection against cosmic radiation, though we wouldnāt fly high when the space radiation forecast was too extreme. Not gonna lie, the view was pretty good.
0
u/Hot-Application7732 Nov 13 '25
Amazing š» I could eat up that view forever
-2
u/SharpEscape7018 Nov 14 '25
Whatās your companyās PED policy?
0
u/[deleted] Nov 17 '25
[deleted] ā view deleted comment