FLYING Magazine
A congressionally mandated report published this month concludes that the FAA and airlines should do more to protect pilots, flight attendants, and other crewmembers from natural radiation exposure on the job.
The report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)—sponsored by the Transportation Department and required by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024—calls on the agency to classify in-flight cosmic radiation exposure as an “occupational hazard” and improve testing, monitoring, and education for aircrews.
“Radiation exposure is an unavoidable part of a flight crewmember’s job, and we need to do more to ensure that flight crew health and safety are sufficiently prioritized,” said Jonathan Samet, a professor of epidemiology and occupational and environmental health who chaired the committee behind the report.
NASEM concluded that existing approaches by the FAA and airlines to monitor exposure and communicate it to affected crewmembers are “inconsistent and insufficient.” The regulator since 1990 has deemed radiation exposure an occupational “consideration” rather than a hazard.
What We Know About In-Flight Radiation
According to the report, cosmic radiation exposure generally increases at higher altitudes and near the Earth’s magnetic poles. It is typically insignificant on individual flights.
But researchers cautioned that crewmembers over decades could face health issues due to cumulative exposure. Ionizing radiation is known to raise the risk of health issues such as cancer, per the report.
NASEM’s analysis of existing studies of flight crews found that there is no definitive link between occupational exposure and specific health concerns. Female flight crewmembers experience higher rates of breast cancer, but it is unclear whether that is linked to radiation.
The report suggested more research is needed to better understand the cumulative effects of exposure. Past radiation studies have used the number of years worked or hours flown by a pilot, rather than specific measurements of doses.
NASEM also determined that aircrews have fewer radiation protections than other workers who are frequently exposed, such as Department of Energy employees. That’s despite them having one of the highest occupational exposure rates among U.S. workers, researchers said. In commercial aviation, they said, radiation exposure monitoring and management systems exist, but they are “neither required nor formalized, in contrast to those used in other occupations.”
There is no central repository for employees who have worked for decades across multiple airlines to track their exposure.
“In practice, flight crew employed by U.S. airlines bear responsibility for independently estimating and tracking their own dose using tools that may be difficult to access or interpret,” reads a portion of the report’s highlights.
Recommendations for FAA and Airlines
The FAA, the report urged, should “begin exerting its regulatory authority” to change that.
It called for the agency to require the adoption of radiation safety programs by airlines, which it found lack consistent communication and education practices around exposure. Further, airlines and pilot unions should coordinate schedules that reduce exposure for crewmembers who may face higher risk. Pregnant crewmembers, the report found, may be more prone to the effects of “rare solar energetic particle events,” though more research is required.
Internally, the FAA could improve radiation monitoring and education by investing more into its CARI dose model, developed by the agency’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. The model estimates exposure based on flight route, altitude, duration, and timing. NASEM suggested the FAA create an easily accessible web portal for individual crewmembers to track their CARI data.
Longer term, aviation stakeholders will need a better way to track cumulative radiation exposure and understand its impact on health.
The report said the FAA should work with NASA to conduct “sustained, real-world radiation characterization measurement campaigns” that could gather more data under different flight conditions. The agency should also compare its exposure estimates with other organizations’ models and evaluate them under realistic conditions in order to improve accuracy, it said.
The goal, researchers said, should be to create a standardized dose-tracking system that monitors cumulative exposure for individual crewmembers, including those who have worked for decades across multiple airlines.
On June 29, NASEM will host a webinar to dive deeper into the report’s findings and share more about recommended actions for the FAA and airlines.