Monitoring the Risk of the Electric Component Imposed on a Pilot During Light Aircraft Operations in a High- Frequency Electromagnetic Field

2019 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 1628

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Monitoring the Risk of the Electric Component Imposed on a Pilot During Light Aircraft Operations in a High- Frequency Electromagnetic Field Michałowska J, Tofil A, Józwik J, Pytka J, Legutko S, Siemiątkowski Z, Łukaszewicz A. Monitoring the Risk of the Electric Component Imposed on a Pilot During Light Aircraft Operations in a High-Frequency Electromagnetic Field. Sensors (Basel). 2019 Dec 14;19(24). pii: E5537. doi: 10.3390/s19245537. Abstract High-frequency electromagnetic fields can have a negative effect on both the human body and electronic devices. The devices and systems utilized in radio communications constitute the most numerous sources of electromagnetic fields. The following research investigates values of the electric component of electromagnetic field intensification determined with the ESM 140 dosimeter during the flights of four aircrafts-Cessna C152, Cessna C172, Aero AT3 R100, and Robinson R44 Raven helicopter-from the airport in Depultycze Krolewskie near Chelm, Poland. The point of reference for the obtained results were the normative limits of the electromagnetic field that can affect a pilot in the course of a flight. The maximum value registered by the dosimeter was E = 3.307 V/m for GSM 1800 frequencies. Excerpt Although the results obtained confirm that the measured values of the electromagnetic fields in the tested aircraft did not exceed the permissible values, there is a risk related to the high load on the pilot's body, especially the instructor, who performed a significant number of flights per day. As such, the radiation doses add up and this may cause premature fatigue and other negative effects on the instructor's mental condition. Bearing in mind the need to increase the level of flight operations safety, it is reasonable to undertake research and development activities to develop a system for monitoring electromagnetic radiation and its impact on pilots during a flight. The authors' idea is an onboard electromagnetic field monitoring system, shown schematically in Figure 23. Open access paper: mdpi.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionmixed

PopulationPilots during light aircraft operations (incl. instructor)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 1800 MHz · during flights (multiple flights per day mentioned for instructor)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Electric-field intensification was measured with an ESM 140 dosimeter during flights of four aircraft (Cessna C152, Cessna C172, Aero AT3 R100, Robinson R44 Raven) near Chełm, Poland. The maximum recorded value was 3.307 V/m at GSM 1800 frequencies, and measured values did not exceed permissible/normative limits; the authors note potential risk from cumulative exposure for instructors performing many flights per day.

Outcomes measured

Electric field strength (V/m) measured during flight
Comparison to normative/permissible exposure limits
Qualitative discussion of potential fatigue/mental condition effects from cumulative dose

Limitations

Sample size not reported in the provided abstract/metadata
Health effects (fatigue/mental condition) are discussed qualitatively without reported measurements or clinical endpoints
Exposure characterization focuses on electric-field component; other metrics (e.g., magnetic field, SAR) not reported

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "radio communications (incl. GSM 1800)",
    "frequency_mhz": 1800,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "during flights (multiple flights per day mentioned for instructor)"
  },
  "population": "Pilots during light aircraft operations (incl. instructor)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electric field strength (V/m) measured during flight",
    "Comparison to normative/permissible exposure limits",
    "Qualitative discussion of potential fatigue/mental condition effects from cumulative dose"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Electric-field intensification was measured with an ESM 140 dosimeter during flights of four aircraft (Cessna C152, Cessna C172, Aero AT3 R100, Robinson R44 Raven) near Chełm, Poland. The maximum recorded value was 3.307 V/m at GSM 1800 frequencies, and measured values did not exceed permissible/normative limits; the authors note potential risk from cumulative exposure for instructors performing many flights per day.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in the provided abstract/metadata",
    "Health effects (fatigue/mental condition) are discussed qualitatively without reported measurements or clinical endpoints",
    "Exposure characterization focuses on electric-field component; other metrics (e.g., magnetic field, SAR) not reported"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "high-frequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF exposure",
    "electric field strength",
    "dosimetry",
    "ESM 140",
    "aviation",
    "pilot",
    "light aircraft",
    "GSM 1800",
    "occupational exposure"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Measures RF electric-field exposure affecting pilots/instructors during flight operations."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/s19245537
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library