Pilots and skin cancer

Well between the systems manual, instructors, check airmen, etc., no one has said definitively that the windscreen protects you from UV. Even the training up in Montreal.

If it does, I'd like to see it written in a paragraph somewhere...

I wouldn't expect to see it referenced in any manual or anything else. Why? Because it's not relevant to the operation of the aircraft or its systems. That a windshield has UV coating or UV protection would be the equivalent of those bits of useless trivia a Memphis Mafia instructor would try to bust you on on a PC.
 
Statistically speaking, heart disease is more likely to kill you. Not saying you shouldn't worry about skin cancer, but if you want to be serious about protection, you probably need to be using the expensive broad-spectrum sunscreen.

I've been trying to pay attention to my sun exposure in the cockpit and it seems like direct sunlight on the skin is fairly minimal. A $10 sun shade from Autozone was a fantastic investment because it actually prevents sunlight from contacting my skin and it also makes the office exponentially more comfortable in a variety of situations.

All of that prevention aside, there is supposedly a lot of other radiation you'll be exposed to at altitude that even the best sunscreen won't save you from. I'm of the opinion that life expectancy is reasonably high in the developed world for a variety of reasons, so odds are that we all be victims of some form of cancer or disease that people think eating organic foods and taking vitamin supplements will prevent.

Try to take care of yourself, but don't overthink it.
 
Statistically speaking, heart disease is more likely to kill you. Not saying you shouldn't worry about skin cancer, but if you want to be serious about protection, you probably need to be using the expensive broad-spectrum sunscreen.

I've been trying to pay attention to my sun exposure in the cockpit and it seems like direct sunlight on the skin is fairly minimal. A $10 sun shade from Autozone was a fantastic investment because it actually prevents sunlight from contacting my skin and it also makes the office exponentially more comfortable in a variety of situations.

I'm rarely axe-grindy but skin cancer is one of those things.

There is a genetic component with skin cancer that can drastically increase your risks...just as it is with other cancer forms.

If you (not you personally, but the general 'you") aren't sure about cancers, then I would really strongly encourage you to watch your freckles and moles and birthmarks for changes. That's usually the first sign. Like prostate cancer, skin cancer is very treatable caught early enough. Let it go a while and - God forbid - have metastasis happen - and you could be in for a world of hurt. Melanoma does not screw around. It will kill you and quickly if you let it.
 
I'm rarely axe-grindy but skin cancer is one of those things.

There is a genetic component with skin cancer that can drastically increase your risks...just as it is with other cancer forms.

If you (not you personally, but the general 'you") aren't sure about cancers, then I would really strongly encourage you to watch your freckles and moles and birthmarks for changes. That's usually the first sign. Like prostate cancer, skin cancer is very treatable caught early enough. Let it go a while and - God forbid - have metastasis happen - and you could be in for a world of hurt. Melanoma does not screw around. It will kill you and quickly if you let it.

No argument here. That's why I ended with "try to take care of yourself" and I heavily endorse the sun shade in lieu of sunscreen.
 
Wow. Lots of opinions here. I've had melanoma. Had about 2600 hours and was out of the jet for 2.5 yrs when I was diagnosed. I've seen a dermatologist regularly since 2009 because of it.

Something to key in on here, with respect to the OPs linked article; of the data in the 26 studies, most of it related to data from subjects that were in Scandinavian areas. Much as UV exposure increase with altitude, there are other factors to consider such as location, skin type/coloration, previous sunburns as a child or teen, and genetic predisposition.

Each of the factors can lead to orders of magnitude increases in your risk. Melanoma is very personal; if sunscreen doesn't float your boat, long sleeve shirts are just as effective.
 
What makes you think that?

Contact PPG

http://www.ppg.com/coatings/aerospace/transparencies/generalaviation/Pages/GlassChallenger.aspx

Or, the more obvious, look for signs of UV damage in the cockpits. There are none. The carpets, seatbelts, seats, dash, etc. aren't faded.

I can't say for sure why there isn't a "lot" of sun damage in the cockpit, but I'm pretty sure I've seen some...

https://login.medscape.com/login/ss...0vdmlld2FydGljbGUvODMxMTA5P3NyYz1zdGZi&ac=401
Icarus-Like: Pilots, Crew Have Double the Rate of Melanoma
Nick Mulcahy

September 03, 2014

As in the mythical story of Icarus, human beings in the modern world who fly too close to the sun have a price to pay, new research suggests.

Airline pilots and cabin crews have twice the incidence of melanoma as the general population, according to the largest meta-analysis to date on the subject, which waspublished online September 3 in JAMA Dermatology.

The standardized incidence ratio of melanoma for any flight-based occupation was 2.21 (P < .001).

Furthermore, melanoma was more deadly in these professionals, who had a disease-related mortality rate 42% greater than that of more regularly earthbound beings.

Specifically, the standardized mortality ratio for any flight-based occupation was 1.42 (P = .02).

"Further research on the mechanisms [of harm] and optimal occupational protection is needed," conclude the researchers, led by Martina Sanlorenzo, MD, a research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

They suspect that the increase in melanoma risk seen in airline pilots and cabin crews comes from exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, which becomes more intense the higher a plane flies. "At 9000 meters [30,000 feet], where most commercial aircraft fly, the UV level is approximately twice that of the ground," the researchers report.

Remarkably, UV light exposure is "not a well-recognized occupational risk factor" for flight crews, they note. In contrast, ionizing radiation is a well-known risk, and levels in airline crews are regularly monitored.

This study provides no details on the clinical aspects of the melanomas.

"It would be interesting to see the anatomic distribution of skin cancers in the crew, because only hands and face should be exposed to UV passing through the windows," said Steven Wang, MD, director of dermatologic surgery and dermatology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Frequent flier passengers are probably not at an increased risk, he said in an email toMedscape Medical News. But for the worried, pulling down the window shade and sitting in an aisle seat are protective strategies, added Dr. Wang, who is the author of Beating Melanoma: A 5-Step Survival Guide.

The meta-analysis examined 19 studies (15 with data on pilots; 4 with data on cabin crews). Data from the studies, which involved more than 266,000 participants, were collected from 1943 to 2008 in more than 11 countries.

The researchers conducted separate analyses for pilots and for cabin crews (which include flight attendants).

They found that pilots were at greater risk for melanoma than the cabin crew. The standardized incidence ratio for pilots was 2.22 (P = .001) but for the cabin crew was 2.09 (P = .45).

In fact, pilots and crews would have more than double the annual number of new melanomas per year, which is 21.3 per 100,000 individuals in the general population.

Pilots as a group were also at greater risk for mortality, and had a higher mortality ratio than cabin crews (1.83 vs 0.90).

UVA Radiation and Glass Might Be the Problems

The researchers discuss the technicalities of the types of UV radiation and windshields.

They cite measurements of UV radiation that passes through the windshields of a variety of aircraft — large (e.g., Boeing737 and Airbus A320) and small (e.g., Cessna 182) — from a 2007 report by the US Federal Aviation Administration.

The transmission of UVB is less than 1% for both plastic and glass windshields.

However, UVA is a different story, especially in airplanes with glass windows. "While plastic materials blocked almost all UVA radiation, 54% of it came through glass," Dr. Sanlorenzo and colleagues report.

This study was supported National Cancer Institute, the Melanoma Research Alliance, the Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

So do these windows have UV protection or not, guys?
 
Certified two windshields, GNK if I remember the company name right, and both times we joked about the UV dangers. It's not in the regs so we wouldn't expect anyone to advertise or test for UV.

I think everyone has hit the high points so far, glass blocks uv pretty well although there's a split between A and B. The thick glass on cockpit windows are doubled up so you're blocking a lot. The bugs guts help I'd wager.

The concord had some sort of radiation sensor on it that never went off, does anyone remember the sensor and if it was UV?

This is a silly conversation to have until we have more data. The science overwelmingly negates any chances of skin cancer because they wouldn't expect much to get through those thick windshields. I fly a 30 year old jetliner around that doesn't have any sun damage on it I can find. Someone throw some sensors up there and conclude this stupid argument with data, not supposition.

If I were trying to do some good science I'd look at the following: crews get on long overnights and can't stand the hotel so they go walking all over town. What don't they bring with them? Sunscreen. Middle of the day, tons of time to eat drink and be merry while regular joes are in the office. That would also account for FA getting whacked with skin cancer too. Unless there is a secretcabal of FAS spending all their time in cockpits.

It seems like theres a lot of facts to fit theories instead of theories to fit facts. In Murica, the FDA finally got a kick in the ass by congress to approve the same sun screen everyone else on the planet has had for a decade. I suggest everyone use it (out of the cockpit).

There is a l-pcl Endeavor captain who used to be dtw based whod try to convince every FO he flew with the dangers of GMOs and UV to the point where it became gospel. It's not. There is no evidence to conclude windshields let vast amounts of cancer causing UV in and I think the article points to exactly that. Wear sunscreen on your days off and long layovers while walking the town.
 
Back
Top