How much Radiation do Pilots get from space?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Use skl.sh/mentour3 to gain 2 months of free Premium subscription of our sponsor Skillshare!
How much cosmic radiation are Pilots and Cabin-crew subjected to when they are flying? Can the radiation be dangerous and in that case, is it dangerous for passengers as well?
These are the questions I am tackling in this weeks episode. I hope you will enjoy this vacation special, sent to you from the beautiful northern town of Timrå in Sweden.
Continue to send in your aviation related questions and make sure to use my app: Mentour Aviation. I will answer your questions directly there if I am online.
To join my Patreon crew and get exclusive previews as well as having inputs on my content, use this link: / mentourpilot
A big thank you to the channels featured in this episode. Check out the full length versions of the videos below:
ScienceatNASA
• NASA ScienceCasts: Ear...
NATS
• North Atlantic Skies (...
Chavspotter
• Concorde In Flight
Sydney S
• Video
In order to read the articles I quoted in the video, use the following links:
UK CAA article:
www.caa.co.uk/...
Mail Online article:
www.dailymail.c...
Cancer connect article
news.cancerconn...
Study on 10000 Nordic male pilots
www.researchga...
As a nuclear professional, I do a lot of consideration of the effects of radiation. I think this was a pretty good, nuanced view. What may be interesting would be to separate the skin cancers from the rest. One very well may see that internal cancers actually were lower (this is actually a very common result in radiated populations). Given the window area in the cockpit, I would not be surprised to see skin cancer from UV (not entirely blocked by windows) vs. Ionizing radiation from the Cosmos. I believe the same is seen in truckers, even if they don't keep their arm out the window.
Interesting insight! Thank you!
"One very well may see that internal cancers actually were lower (this is actually a very common result in radiated populations)"
Can confirm that as a biologist. As I stated in my other post, the most popular hypothesis is that the increased DNA damage actually triggers DNA repair mechanisms and makes them work. The DNA damage is a signal for DNA repair mechanisms and more damage means those systems become more active and more transcribed (produced) by the cell and there will be more of them. Up to a certain point, when they get saturated and cannot keep up with the new damage. You can often see slight decrease of cancer in people exposed to slightly above normal radiation levels. (does not work much for Japanese). At a higher doses the cancer count suddenly jumps up.
good points!
Cory: Think the Concorde had Victoreens in it?
Cory Stansbury that's true about truckers, from what I've read. They tend to get cancer on the left arm, and left side of the face and neck from exposure to sunlight through the side window. UK truckers get more on the right side of the body.
I like how you described the study groups as "pilots" and "normal men!" 😂😂
So pilots aren't normal men then...I guess?
Vizz3x no we are more superior
Heh ^^
To me, your most informative video is the one about tail strike. Cosmic radiation is the second best. Can you please do a video on aircraft stall and what are the safeguard mechansims in place in commercial airliners to prevent stall. I have seen empty aircrafts go at near vertical trajectory right after take off. What is the mechansims to prevent stall if the pilot becomes too showy and aims too fast lift upon take off?
Sure!
I'm an editor of a chemistry journal and I'm quite impressed with how you explained this stuff to a general CZcams audience. Good job, Mentour!
The rules are different in the United States. Pregnant flight crew are not taken off line immediately. And they never modify our schedules for radiation risks.
Very nice overview of the subject, well done! Two remarks worth mentioning: A lot of the high energy cosmic radiation is protons, and this kind of radiation doesn't occur naturally, little is known about long term health effects. Protons tend to go deep into the body and decay in a number of secondary radioactive particles there. Second remark is Solar Flares (Coronal mass ejections from the Sun). The particle flow from these is astronomical and very dangerous.They can be predicted with a couple of days warming, and you should avoid to fly near them if at all possible. They can even knock out power lines on ground.
I worked in a lab and someone spilled a dose of plutonium. Did not tell us so my radiation badge showed high so i had to stay away for 1month. Finally I was out of the woods. Still no cancer 40 years latèr.
This channel gets better and better.
Great video! Occasionally I travel with a small Geiger counter inside the cabin. I always make sure the alarm is mute. Otherwise, it will startle my seatmate when the readings get above 300 counts per minute (and higher) of radioactive decay. Normal background radiation at my location is ~38 CPM at 250 meters above sea level.
This topic is very interesting! Great work Petter, see you on Sunday ;)
To be honest that's just a little concerning. :-) There's a CZcams channel called "The Flight Channel" and in several of his videos it's apparent the captain is under pressure to complete as soon as possible and this is where the serious mistakes start happening. In one the captain effectively overruled his first officer even though the situation had progressed to the point that a go-around was more than just an _extremely_ good idea...
I do wonder though if airlines do what my company does and have their pilots' performance (and attitude) anonymously reviewed by other pilots that have flown with them?
his name is mentour
Good one! Here's a topic I'd be interested in hearing about. The business side of airlines, specifically, I've heard that airlines don't buy engines for planes any more, instead they buy "thrusts". Not sure what that means. In addition, I'd be interested in hearing how airlines pay for those very expensive planes, is it a one time payment or is it a payment plan? Things along these lines. Thanks for your great channel!
RR lease engines to some airlines complete with maintenance. That's one of the reasons MH370 could be monitored a little after it went off radar - the engine telemetry was still being monitored by Rolls Royce in Derby England. Unfortunately the data can only tell you throttle setting, fuel flow, temperatures of various sections, vibration and noise levels and such like. I could be wrong but the thrust thing is for example buying 10 billion pound seconds. For a Trent 1000 that would be 200,000 seconds at cruise throttle (if I remember correctly 50,000 pounds thrust). On a four engine aircraft that would be only 50,000 seconds, or about 14 hours flight. Then you have all the malarkey of take-off thrust (which is on some engines rated as more than maximum thrust) and landing thrust (the engines can be almost at idle at points). It can be calculated but would be a pain in the neck without a computer monitoring second by second.
Great topic, I enjoyed being schooled on radiation when flying. Good fortunes in your travels.
I am also an experienced radiation person. The only way to know actual exposure is to wear a radiation detector. Levels that pilots are exposed to are barely detectable unless they fly regularly over the earths magnet poles. BTW I like that globe is that real or virtual?
Hi, John! Hey, this is CZcams, don't forget, so Petter's globe or 'sphere' (ha!) must be either virtual or completely fake because everybody knows the world is FLAT. [Please note: Of course I'm kidding. In his brief time on this so-called planet of ours, the late Terry Pratchett proved conclusively that the world is a Disc supported by four elephants balancing on the back of a gigantic turtle...]
Oh dear. Now the poop is REALLY going to hit the turbofan! ;-)
I am glad to see you in a T-shirt and blue-jeans instead of your pilot uniform while you are on vacation. Now you are a real person. Especially, since you are on vacation now!
Thanks, Mentour Pilot.
Very interesting, I was totally ignorant of this aspect of flight travel, thank you
Very informative. I was wondering about CT scans. Thanks for the chart.
It’s funny that I research the exact same topics the night before you upload every time and I love it!
Recent shifts in magnetic patterns on the Earth could potentially change the amount of cosmic radiation received from space in a given area significantly. The magnetic weather patterns have recently been shown to be more complex and active than previously observed. I am not confident that the safety modeling has adequately accounted for these deviations from historical norms. I think that all commercial airlines should detect the actual exposure in each aircraft.
Furthermore, given the known risks of long term exposure to sunlight for skin cancers in particular and the apparent higher than average incidence in flight crews, some mitigating measures could be warranted. Perhaps adjusting procedures, uniforms, window coatings, or shades might be worthwhile. Even just supplying UV protecting skin cream to crews might help.
Interesting video. I recently flew in an old 737 in Thailand and it was remarkably comfortable compared to the tiny economy seats in 777's. I don't think the 777's seats would even pass occupational health and safety rules for long haul travel without a lot of industry lobbying. I'm not to worried about radiation but those seats really worry me.
That's reassuring thank you. Next up: The risk of x-ray machines at security? 😊
You quote studies that were done, but also recognize that the studies don’t represent statistically significant differences. I really appreciate this in an age where studies are often quoted as being hard and fast. Thanks for the nice work in this and your other videos!
Excellent spot for a podcast. Another super interesting video!
Thank you! I’m happy you liked it!
Good information captain and being myself as an NDT professional we use to carry a pocket dosimeter to check the recorded dosage of radiation within the stipulated time
very interesting indeed. Thank you for this.
very interesting topic. Always wondered about this
Great! I’m happy you liked it!
Very interesting Video, especialy because my father has flown 35 years 727, DC10, A320, A340 and unfortunately was only one of several pilots out of his Flight Class who maybe (to make sure - MAYBE)) haven affected by this issue.
Super interesting video, mentour.
Great! I’m really happy you like it!
I am not really sure why I really like these videos! I mean I fly relatively a lot, maybe around 20-30 times a year, and I was relatively smart at school with maths / physics / chem, but nothing too geeky or to much in love with airplanes. Still, I thoroughly enjoy most of your videos Mentour, keep it up!
Great information pilot 👨✈️💕
Another excellent video as always! ☘️
Very interesting video, Petter! could let us know more about JET A1 fuel. I in love how its smell :D
Really interesting! Thanks, mate! 😊
I’m happy you liked it!
Fascinating.
How about prolonged radiation effects to the aircraft integrity and systems?
Lovely video! I was wondering about that topic for a bit so thanks for clearing it up :D
I would also love to see you collaborate with Aviator Inspirations or Captain Joe some time in the future :)
We will see what happens.
So now I have an explanation on why I flow in the dark! Thanks for clearing this up for me!
Thanks, very interesting. The risks seem to be pretty minimal
Thanks for this. I've been curious since meeting a retired LH flight attendant who seemed a bit alarmist about this topic. This brings it back to reality.
Really interesting video. Keep up the great work Captain. 😁
A really nice topic .
Excellent pod cast Captain! WOW
Wow. That is very interesting. Loved this podcast.
I have been waiting for this video for so long as most pilots I spoke to never gave much details on the info. One interesting fact I dicovered though was that male pilots were more likely to have daughters as kids
"Normal" background radiation levels vary from less than 1mSv/a to over 200mSv/a ... European Alps have 8 to about 12mSv/a ... Much of that is Radon outgassing from granites, etc.
See also "radiation hormesis"... Low levels of radiation exposure can be protective against cancers.
Is that a FLIR Scout TK you took your profile pic with by any chance?
True enough and those levels can be even worse in subsurface structures like cellars since Radon is heavier than air it tends to collect in cellars and such. In some areas mostly those that have higher levels of Uranium in the ground planning policies recommend radon testing prior to cellar conversions if they are to used for living space for this reason. Thorium deposits are not as bad as Radon-220 has such a short half life (under a minute) but the several day half life of the Radon-222 from Uranium decay is enough for it to peculate up from shallow deposits in areas with permeable soils.
Fantastic video! I look forward to the next one!
Great video! Very detailed yet still easy to grasp :)
Good video, thanks for releasing it.
Very informative topic... If frequent flyer found to be at less risk even if he has clocked more hours than a pilot what could be the reason? Is it that the body was able to perfectly repair!
No, it’s the same risk.
Mentour Pilot Tx Captain.
Best decorated room in the Mentour Pilot series, so far!
Like your set.
Hey Petter, thanks for this, a very interesting subject for me! See you on Sunday's livestream.
Great video on interesting topic but lifestyle diseases are number one killer... ahem. That t shirt shows you’ve been indulging a little and maybe not getting enough exercise. Take care of yourself - you’re a great asset to aviation enthusiasts.
I love your tone and appreciate the level of sophistication in your presentations!
Nice Video, nice Topic, nice background
I am great fan of you. Can you make video about cleared concept while applying jobs. Please its my request
Good lecture, very informative.
What an itresting topic I love science and aviation but I've never thought about this
Is there a difference in cosmic radiation between carbon fiber and aluminum boded aircraft?
As VHF radio technics we are working under Non-Ionizing radiation (radiofrecuency) emissions. But anyway they check us every 6 months...
That makes sense after all remember that sunburn is a radiation burn which at least on the surface of the Earth is caused by non-ionising UVA and UVB (Only extreme UV and above is ionising UVA and UVB are not). Being lower energy though you would mostly be looking at thermal burns to the skin and the associated increased risk of skin cancer as a result of potential mutations caused by the thermal breakdown of DNA even contact burns can actually cause this not something most people think about but there is a small but statistically significant increase in the risk of skin cancer after receiving skin burns from any cause.
What about a video debunking those flat-earth theories that are based on strange flight-paths and times. I'm guessing it's about headwinds and the like but it would be nice to see an actual pilot debunking a bunch of them
Thanks for the good report. Please set your camera for manual exposure to prevent the changes as you move.
I would be interested in whether pilots are less likely to be getting their preventative health screenings like colonoscopies compared to the general population. While the aviation of course wants pilots to be healthy and rested I imagine with so much travel it would be difficult to schedule routine physicals, much less any more involved procedures like colonoscopies or surgeries.
Hi mentour, it was really an interesting video, I liked it as the all you release.
Just out of curiosity, I watched the movie Flight, and I am interested that can it happen in the real life to fly upside down or not. It would be good if you made a video in what you explained why it cant happen or like these. 😁
In the real life, if You ever get to fly upside down on a big plane
It basically means: It's seconds before You become
a corpus ...
.
Looks like you took quite a bit of solar radiation these last few days ;p
I'm surprised the cockpit does not have about 500 kg of lead shielding in the cockpit ceiling to lessen the radiation above the pilots. It would be worth the 7 passenger weight penalty to reduce the risk of cancer.
Classy drinks globe mentour ;)
I have taken a consumer grade geiger counter onto several flights at 39 to 41,000 feet, and even at night the radiation level is around 1.5 to 2 uSv/hr. That's about 7 to 10 times greater than at ground level. I turned the beeper off and kept the counter hidden, as I'm sure more than a few passengers would think I'm some sort of terrorist and freak out. Mention the word 'radiation' and some people lose their minds.
B.S.
Really love the video backdrop, suits the theme of the video excellently!!
I work in the nuclear industry. We have thermoluminescent dosimeters, TLDs. Not to offer any protection (as if!!) but to record the dose you are exposed to. 20mSv per annum is our limit and no one gets anywhere near it. To be honest a chronic exposure of maybe even 1Sv/yr is far less harmful than an acute exposure. Also, it depends on which flavour. Alpha is generally regarded as an internal hazard only, so you’d have to ingest the radioisotope, and then it’s damn dangerous if it has a long half-life. I guess cosmic radiation is gamma and maybe some beta?
ThNk you for this very important and health wise its of upmost need to know information. I love all your episodes but this one was very much needed.
Since 1988 know wait “knew” many old school commercial pilots and flight attendants that have died of all sorts of cancer. Ex Pan Am, Eastern, Northwest etc. and the common thing all had 20 years plus of flying.
I took my Soeks dosimeter on a flight. Normal reading on the ground is around 0.04-0.12 µSv/h. On the plane at 40000 ft it reached 3.12 µSv/h, which read as "dangerous."
Petter, I think you mean µSv (microSieverts), not millisieverts.
Thanks for making this video. I am the one who suggested it.
I wonder what Peter thinks of the so called Apollo space program in regards of the radiation belt on how we have gone backwards in technology if they did go to the moon and your thoughts why haven't we gone back to the moon since then
The Moon is magnetic construct flying 500K feet up Your
nose, reason why nobody goes there ...
.
Where did you get the globe from cause it locks verry old
Petter, excellent video on cosmic radiation. Thank you so much for addressing this topic. Question I have is - can aircrafts be designed to reduce the effects of cosmic radiation on flight crew and passengers?
Cosmic radiation is very hard to stop, you need typically several meters of material (water, ground, or an equivalent amount of air). To reduce the radiation on cruising altitude to the same level as on the ground you'd need more than half a metre of lead shielding.
agavai07 Anything can be done. Just a matter of cost basically. But in this case there is no motivation to take steps to reduce cosmic radiation that flight crew and passengers are exposed to. Please watch this video again where our friend mentour has spoken for more than 10 minutes I guess and his conclusion has been that everything is fine as it is except for pregnant women.
and it is much more cost effective if pregnant women avoid flying than everybody (including all non-pregnant people who should be a huge majority) flying in much heavier and especial machines that are designed for pregnant women. Makes sense?
And just to add to your comment, there is no need for pregnant women to avoid flying as passengers. An occasional flight won't cause harm. The restriction is for pilots or cabin crew, who fly every day. Pregnant women in those professions are assigned to ground duty or given leave for the duration of the pregnancy because of the cumulative levels of radiation they may be exposed to from very frequent periods in the air.
Yes, I knew that and I also agree with you. I was just trying to make a point about one class of people who can avoid flying if they want to be extra cautious. It is correct that flying will not cause any direct harm to the fetus. Thank you for pointing out. I agree that I had sounded like it is mandatory for pregnant women to avoid flying. At best avoiding flying is just a precaution that I would take if I was a woman.
Could be an issue for pregnant women or people with bad DNA repair systems. Otherwise slightly increased radiation is "healthy" as it makes DNA repair mechanisms work more than they usually do. There is a point when they cannot keep up with the new damage and that is different for different people but usually it is higher doses than you face in aviation. This effect is magnified for people who live in places with higher natural background radiation as they have more robust DNA repair systems usually. Does not work well for people from areas with low natural background radiation, I think that especially Japanese are very susceptible to low doses of radiation.
PS: I would be more worried about cancer caused by all those flame retardants used all over the planes, those are nasty chemicals.
Interesting! Thank you!
You can get in contact with them from the wear and tear of the material. Now I am not saying that the probability of getting cancer from them is high, especially not when there is no fire/destruction when they release into air in mass. Anyway some of them unlike radiation are effective on the cellular level from any exposure. Most mutations are harmless as they happen in the non-coding DNA and then most cells commit suicide when seriously damaged so the risk of cancer is still pretty low, they are just more dangerous than cosmic radiation for pilots when it comes to cancer.
With the increase in transpolar flights in recent years, did you come across anything about increased radiation when flying over the poles?
Also thought it was humorous that you compared pilots vs “normal men”.
I wonder if any studies have been to done on the long term medical effects of airline pilot consideration your're working in an artificial environment i.e. pressurization, artificial air/oxygen, radiation, sedentary long periods, noise levels
Interesting video. However, some points. The CAA site cites the Directive Euratom 96/29 Euratom which has been repealed by Directive 2013/59 Euratom. As those are directives they have to be incorporated into local state law in each of the european member states (and probably those in the EEA/EFTA), there is no european legislation about the specifics of how to work with those rather general rules. The incorporation should have been done by 6th February this year, but the UK probably had other things concerning the EU which are more important right now for them to worry about.
Air crew expected to exceed 6mS a year, which does happen in long haul flying, especially flying polar routes, does not have to carry dosimeters or other measurement devices. They have to be monitored individually, however, that can be done, and indeed is routinely done, by the normal computer programs that actually do take into account the actual space weather situation, for example Epcard, which allows normal aviation users to do a free calculation of their exposure on their website. (search for Epcard Neu) for single flight, but of course there are others out there as well, for example CARI, SIEVERT and PCAIRE. Those usually calculate an individual dose for each air crew member based on their roster, depending on program taking into account planned or actual cruising levels, routing and actual space weather. There are some projects on the way for live update and traffic warning about sudden space weather phenomena so that flightcrew can adjust their exposure levels by flying lower. Which is quite important over the north atlantic for example, even more so flying polar routes.
As you noted in the subtitle it is actually 49.000ft, not 39.000ft which would include pretty much all more modern commercial aircraft types that fly higher, for example the whole 737 NG series and pretty much much every longhaul aircraft (not the Airbus A320 family, that is limited to FL390). However, some business jets are now effectively limited to 49.000ft under european rules as there is simply no effective and lightweight measurement equipment available, even less so with aviation approval. And some of them are able to fly higher. Which is actually a slight commercial disadvantage for european operators.
The flight deck windows of commercial airliners are glass laminated windows, which do not block the whole UV spectrum and therefore aircrew on the flight deck is constantly exposed to high levels of UV. wearing long sleeved shirts and high grade sunblockers is advised, at the least crew should wear wrap around UV blocking glasses in cruise. And yes, i usually turn up for work in short sleeved shirts for work in summer as well, in that case, yearly skin cancer screenings are a must.
Hello Captain. Hope you are fine and that you are enjoying your vacation with your family. Great work again Captain. By the way Captain, are those your Four Stripes near the globe?
What would happen to aircraft during a solar ejection?
The Sun is an electro-magnetic body, solar ejections are B.S ...
.
Sorry, off-topic for this vid but I saw an interesting documentary-video from another channel a couple of weeks ago and it made me wonder. If you're a first officer, you're at or approaching a sensitive part of the flight e.g. takeoff or landing and you believe that for whatever reason the captain is endangering the aircraft is there anthing you can do other than warn him or object to his actions?
LoC I would give my Captain a good last stare and say You too Brutus.
CRM (Crew Resource Management) procedures specify a series of steps, progressively more insistent, that must be followed in such a situation. Since airlines adopted CRM in the 1980s, a first officer who believes a captain is making an error that endangers the flight is not only permitted to challenge that decision, he/she is REQUIRED to do so. The captain is required to address the objection and either change his/her actions or explain why not. Both pilots know that all this will be on the cockpit voice recorder tape, which will be studied if the flight does not end safely.
+ dizzyology
Thanks. Good to know there is a mechanism for such situations.
For comparison, the natural radiation level in Ramsar (Iran) is 400 mSv / year and people do adapt for it there.
Great work as always petter! Very well presented.
Absolutely stunning and interesting
Interesting location. Looks like the Reform Club of Phileas Fogg from the motion picture "Around the World in Eighty Days."
It’s my parents study, 😊
I love this topic!
mentor why are pilots epulets come in silver or gold ? what do the colors mean ? and i wonder how they used to mesure radiation in the old days ?
leah Knight One way to measure ionizing radiation is by wearing a film badge. Radiation sensitive film is worn for a period of time. After a certain period of time, the film is checked to see how much it has been exposed by the radiation. IDK if this method was ever used in air travel.
Is there an increase in cataracts in pilots? I thought I had heard that there was.
There was back in the days before widespread understanding of the harm from UV radiation, but as far as I can find not since sunglasses and window tinting.. and even then the decrease in smoking has been a more substantial effect.
Great video with good information.
Fantastic information from our Mentour Pilot. I guess, this calculation of radiation doesn't include any heavy bursts of cosmic radiation that is occuring in space at different intervals of time not necessarily due to sun. We don't know whether we are there at the point of time in space or not. It is a matter of fact that some radiation does penetrate our atmosphere in sky at different points.
I am afraid there is no radiation map of the sky like weather map or turbulence map. There is no historic information/data pertaining this subject. I have no idea about the satellites of different countries tracking this radiation in sky, telecasting this data to the public. This calculation doesn't include any country testing nuclear weapons in space secretly.
I am really happy that Mentour Pilot is realistic channel.
Now I got actually a little worried to become a pilot...
Is there anything that can be modified within aircraft design to mitigate or lower this risk?
Probably but at the moment the radiation is not a big concern. There might be other factors that are worse
plate it with lead
Denser and/or thicker (a whole lot denser) plane walls. Which, wouldn't be cost effective, because of the weight, obviously.
"Don't fix it if it ain't broken" is a very important engineering principle. If you actually watched this video, mentour argued that it is safe to fly (generally). Examples where there is a risk are flying all the time (not practical even though the incremental risk is not of any significance) and pregnant women (should avoid flying). I have every reason to believe the content of the video in question. I would think someone not following SOPs is potentially a much more likely cause of death from flying than cosmic radiation. I mean pilot error of judgment or maintenance crew in a hurry to watch some game are more of risk factors than cosmic radiation. Let me know when everything else is ruled out and I will design an aircraft that would keep the crew and passengers safe from cosmic radiation exposure related to flying. Don't complain about costs then.
That globe is amazing!
I highly recommend taking 15 Mgs of zinc along with 1,000 Mgs of Vitamin C and 800-1,200 Mgs of Vitamin D3 everyday to help prevent cancer, since these antioxidants do preventand reduce the risk of developing cancer. You guys aren't appreciated enough for what you do, and I miss flying.
Megagrams? Like tonnes? :D Antioxidants are helping reduce cancer but not that caused by radiation but rather from free radials and not perfect handling of oxygen by mitochondria. I would say especially colourful vegetables is good cure for that.
As far as I know, antioxidants will not prevent from skin cancer coming from cosmic radiation. Don't fly if you are obsessive, compulsive about a non-issue.
This is shameful! There are hundreds, maybe thousands of monitored parameters in a modern plane, measuring stress and relative movement, acceleration, temperature, pressure, they even monitor what the pilots say to each other! So, why not monitor the radiation levels as well? Because you might have to send an expensive pilot home when he gets too much dose? What about solar storms? In my opinion there is so much variation in cosmic radiation that it really can’t be simulated accurately. Are they still going to rely on their simulation during the next solar maximum? What a joke! They ground the planes during a volcanic eruption because they might get damaged, but let the pilots continue flying during solar storms? I’m speechless.
Hi Petter. What would happen to planes if a CME of the 1859 Carrington Event intensity occurred? Auroras were seen at the equater. Telegraph lines sparked and caught fire. What effect would this have on plane instrumentation?
Fine report. And I like the norwegian/irish accent.
very interesting! thanks!
Thanks Petter, nice video this one! And great location (even tho, in such amazing room you maybe should have had a captain uniform or a suit and not just a white t shirt and jeans :p)
Cosmos is actually all of nature. Not just space. I still think the video is very good.