Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Advances in aviation radiation mitigation were demonstrated during the Gannon storm

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Two airline flights show that flying lower and farther south cut storm-time radiation dose by 14 percent.

desk verdict Useful storm-time flight measurements, but the two-flight comparison cannot carry the 'validated ALARA' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00887 v4 pith:OLV7NE5F submitted 2025-07-01 physics.space-ph

W. K. Tobiska , B. Hogan , L. Didkovsky , K. Judge , J. Bailey , K. Drumm , K. Wahl , A. Sosnov This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords aviationradiationALARAshieldingGannonstormgeomagneticeffectivedoseARMASdosimetrycutoffrigidityForbushdecrease
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first measured validation of the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) strategy for reducing radiation dose on commercial flights, using two San Francisco-Paris flights that carried the same ARMAS FM7 dosimeter. One flight flew during the extreme G5 Gannon storm of May 10-11, 2024, on a route deviated to lower magnetic latitudes and lower altitudes; the other flew the normal great-circle route during quiet conditions in June 2025. The storm flight accumulated a total effective dose of 79 microsieverts, about 14 percent less than the quiet flight's 90 microsieverts, despite the storm's added solar particles. The authors conclude that lower-latitude magnetic shielding and lower-altitude atmospheric shielding, both controllable by airline operations, work as predicted, with a Forbush decrease providing an additional natural reduction of the galactic cosmic ray background.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-flight controlled comparison: the same ARMAS FM7 unit, a compact real-time dosimeter that measures absorbed dose in silicon and derives dose equivalent and effective dose, flown on the same aircraft type between the same city pair, once during an extreme storm and once during quiet conditions. The shielding mechanisms under test are altitude, through the roughly 2 km e-folding depth of the atmosphere for radiation doubling, and magnetic latitude, through the geomagnetic cutoff rigidity $R_c$, which was 5.2 GV at 60 degrees west on the deviated storm route versus 1.4 GV on the quiet great-circle route. A third, natural mechanism, the Forbush decrease, reduced the incoming galactic cosmic ray background during the storm flight. The comparison itself, plus the NAIRAS model calculations shown against the ARMAS measurements, is what converts two flight recordings into a validation of the ALARA strategy.

What would settle it

Fly two identically instrumented aircraft on the same city pair at the same time during a future major geomagnetic storm, one on the great-circle route and one on the lower-latitude, lower-altitude route; if the great-circle aircraft does not record a higher total effective dose, the ALARA validation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the long-proposed ALARA shielding strategy for aviation radiation has now been demonstrated with total dose measurements, not just models. On May 10-11, 2024, during the G5 Gannon storm, a San Francisco-Paris flight was rerouted before departure from the usual great-circle track to a path that stayed at lower magnetic latitudes (maximum 51 degrees north instead of 63 degrees north) and lower cruise altitudes (mean 9.88 km instead of 10.42 km); the same ARMAS FM7 instrument on the same aircraft type measured 79 microsieverts of total effective dose. On the baseline quiet flight of June 8-9, 2025, flown on the great-circle route at higher latitude and altitude, the same instrument measured 90 microsieverts. The paper attributes the 14 percent lower dose during the storm to three shielding effects acting together: the greater atmospheric depth at lower altitude, the higher geomagnetic cutoff rigidity at lower latitude, and the storm's Forbush decrease, which lowered the galactic cosmic ray floor for the whole planet. It therefore claims that the stakeholder strategy of deviating flights to lower latitudes and altitudes during major storms is validated, and that this same deviation also mitigates HF communication outages and GNSS navigation errors.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on treating the quiet June 2025 flight as the baseline for the storm May 2024 flight, so that the 14 percent dose difference is credited to the route and altitude changes rather than to the Forbush decrease and other uncontrolled differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • During major geomagnetic storms, rerouting commercial flights to lower magnetic latitudes and lower altitudes can reduce crew and passenger effective radiation dose, and this effect is now backed by in-flight total dose measurements rather than only by radiation transport models.
  • The same operational deviation that protects HF communications and reduces GNSS navigation errors also provides radiation shielding, so one storm-response action can address three aviation hazards at once.
  • A Forbush decrease at the start of a strong storm lowers the galactic cosmic ray background across the planet, meaning storm-time flight dose can end up below a quiet-day dose if route and altitude corrections are applied.
  • Routine airborne dosimetry of the kind ARMAS performs can supply the measurements needed to validate and improve the radiation models that air traffic management would use for future deviations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the validation holds, the economic argument for storm-time route deviations strengthens, because the radiation benefit rides along with deviations already justified by communication and navigation risks, making the marginal cost of radiation mitigation small.
  • Because no control flight flew the great-circle route during the storm, the exact split among Forbush decrease, altitude shielding, and latitude shielding remains unresolved; a twin-aircraft experiment during a future G5 storm would settle the attribution.
  • The 14 percent figure mixes several effects including a longer flight duration; a model that removes the Forbush decrease would give a cleaner estimate of the operational shielding contribution alone.
  • As more commercial aircraft carry dosimeters, the accumulated measurements could be assimilated into cutoff-rigidity forecasts so that routing advisories are issued from real-time data rather than climatology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports two ARMAS FM7 dosimetry measurements on UAL 990 flights between San Francisco and Paris: one during the May 10–11, 2024 Gannon G5 geomagnetic storm on a route deviated to lower latitudes and lower altitudes, and one during quiet conditions on June 8–9, 2025 on the higher-latitude great-circle route. The authors find a ~14% lower total effective dose on the storm flight (79 vs 90 µSv) and claim that this validates the ALARA mitigation strategy of using lower magnetic latitude and lower altitude as operational shielding during extreme space weather. The paper also provides a historical review of aviation radiation policy, describes the ARMAS and NAIRAS systems, and discusses the interplay of the Forbush decrease, SEP events, altitude, and cutoff rigidity during the two flights.

Significance. If correct, the central claim would constitute the first in-situ, total-dose validation of operational ALARA shielding during a G5 storm at commercial aviation altitudes, which would be significant for aviation radiation protection and space-weather policy. The paper draws on an extensive ARMAS database (1317 flights, 633,910 minute records), uses a consistent instrument and analysis version on both flights, and includes a candid admission in §5.1 that the two-flight comparison cannot separate competing effects. These strengths are real, but the validation claim itself is not supported by the presented evidence, and the NAIRAS model comparison in Table 1 contradicts the measured ordering.

major comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §6.1; §5.1] The central claim that the two flights 'validated' the ALARA shielding strategy is not supported by the experimental design. The June 2025 quiet flight is not a storm-time control on the same route; the paper states in §5.1 that 'No instrument was flown on that great circle route' and that 'The flight comparisons in this paper could not sort out these competing effects to obtain better than a qualitative assessment of a noticeable decrease in the expected effective dose.' A qualitative, uncontrolled comparison cannot validate a mitigation strategy, so the wording in the Abstract and §6.1 overstates what the data establish.
  2. [Table 1; §5.1; §6.2] The paper's own model results contradict the attribution of the measured dose difference to the route deviation. Table 1 lists NAIRAS v3 modeled flight-mean total effective doses of 91.92 µSv for the 2024 storm route and 80.83 µSv for the 2025 quiet route, whereas the ARMAS-derived measured values are 78.75 µSv and 89.61 µSv, respectively. The model therefore predicts the opposite ordering from the measurements, meaning the model does not reproduce the claimed mitigation effect. This undermines the statement in §6.2 that the lower-altitude and lower-latitude controls were the 'dominant ALARA application successes' and requires an alternative explanation for the measured ordering.
  3. [§4.8; §5.1] The Forbush decrease alone may account for most or all of the 14% measured dose reduction, yet its contribution was not quantified. The paper states that the Lomnicky neutron monitor saw an 11% decrease in GCRs starting about 21 UT on May 10, that the GCR reduction 'could not be uniquely separated from other radiation sources,' and that 'the full extent of the dose reduction was not calculated.' Since the headline comparison is only 79 vs 90 µSv (~14% lower), an unquantified ~11% flux reduction that persisted for the entire flight makes it impossible to attribute the residual difference to altitude or latitude controls.
  4. [§4.2; Figs. 6–9; §4.8] The reported total effective dose is not directly measured but derived from D(Si) through the ARMAS v11.39 algorithm, and the paper does not propagate an uncertainty for the flight-total effective dose. The per-sample effective-dose-rate uncertainties shown in Figs. 7 and 9 are 27%, which is comparable to or larger than the 14% difference that forms the basis of the validation claim. Without a propagated uncertainty estimate for the totals (79 and 90 µSv), the statistical significance of the difference is not established.
  5. [§4.3–§4.6; §6.2] The two flights differ in multiple dose-relevant variables simultaneously, so the design cannot isolate the effects of the operational controls. The 2024 flight had a lower median altitude (10.97 vs 11.58 km), a lower cruise altitude (9.88 vs 10.42 km), a lower maximum latitude (51°N vs 63°N), a longer duration (11.25 vs 10.83 h), different solar-cycle phase and season, presence of SEP #2, a Forbush decrease, and different cutoff rigidities (median 0.56 vs 0.013 GV; 5.2 vs 1.4 GV at 60°W). The paper acknowledges these are different in §6.2, but its claim in §4.8 that the 2025 flight is a 'similar flight' under quiet conditions is misleading because these confounders are exactly the quantities that need to be controlled.
  6. [§5.1] The speculative statement that 'the total effective dose if UAL 990 in May 2024 had flown a great circle route could have been up to double the quiet period measured total dose' is not grounded in any measurement made on that route and appears to conflict with the PANDOCA-based estimate of 14%–24% cited in the same paragraph. Presenting both numbers without a quantitative reconciliation weakens the paper's credibility and does not rescue the missing control.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.8] In the first paragraph of §4.8, 'on May 10, 2025' should read 'on May 10, 2024' when referring to the Forbush decrease start time.
  2. [§1.4 and throughout] The standard is referred to inconsistently as 'ISO 20785' and 'IS 20785'; the correct designation is ISO 20785.
  3. [§4.5] The city name 'San Franscisco' is a typo for 'San Francisco'.
  4. [References] The reference to Lugaz et al. (2024) lists 'Memoriam of editor Jennifer L. Ganon'; the correct name is 'Gannon', matching the storm's eponym.
  5. [§4.4] The subsection heading '4.4' is duplicated at the start of §4.4, which is a formatting error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central comparison uses measured doses, not fitted predictions; minor reliance on the authors' own ARMAS calibration algorithm is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's headline result—79 µSv on the May 2024 Gannon-storm deviation versus 90 µSv on the June 2025 quiet great-circle flight—is a comparison of ARMAS v11.39 total effective dose values derived from directly measured absorbed dose in silicon (Table 1: D(Si) = 13.16 vs 14.28 µGy), not a prediction generated by the paper's own equations. The ALARA hypothesis (lower magnetic latitude and lower altitude reduce dose) is not defined in terms of the measured outcome; it is an external physical expectation supported by the 2 km e-folding heuristic and by the independent PANDOCA model calculations cited in §5.1. The paper explicitly concedes the comparison is confounded: §5.1 states 'The flight comparisons in this paper could not sort out these competing effects to obtain better than a qualitative assessment,' and Table 1 shows NAIRAS v3 modeled effective dose inverting the measured ordering (91.92 µSv for 2024 vs 80.83 µSv for 2025). These are validity and attribution threats, not circular reductions; no equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the conclusion. The main self-citation is the ARMAS v11.39 dosimetric algorithm and ARMAS statistical model (Tobiska et al., 2016, 2018), used to convert silicon dose to effective dose and to provide interpretive estimates. That reliance is a measurement-calibration dependence rather than a load-bearing circular step, because the validation claim does not fit a parameter to the 2024/2025 dose difference and then call the fit a prediction. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited; the score reflects only minor self-citation, not structural circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the ARMAS measurement pipeline (conversion parameters, quality factors), the validity of the quiet-flight baseline, and two empirical shielding heuristics. No new particles or physical entities are introduced; the ARMAS system and D-index are pre-existing.

free parameters (3)
  • ARMAS v11.39 conversion factors from D(Si) to effective dose E = Not stated; from Tobiska et al. (2018) and proprietary ARMAS algorithm
    Table 1 reports D(Ti), H, H*(10), and E derived from measured absorbed dose in silicon (D(Si)); the conversion uses quality factors and tissue weighting factors not provided in this paper, so the reported total effective dose depends on externally fitted parameters.
  • 2 km dose-halving scale height = 2 km
    Sections 1.6 and 5.1 use 'every 2 km lower reduces dose by half' and exp(-0.54/2)=0.76 to estimate a 24% atmospheric shielding reduction; this is an empirical heuristic, not derived in the paper.
  • Flight-estimated quality factor Q = 2.14 to 2.17
    Table 1 reports a flight-estimated median quality factor for a range of cutoff rigidities; this is an inferred parameter from the ARMAS algorithm and cutoff rigidity, not independently measured in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ARMAS FM7 measurements provide an accurate representation of ambient dose equivalent and effective dose in the aircraft cabin.
    The entire comparison rests on the instrument's dosimetric accuracy; the paper does not provide calibration validation for this specific flight pair.
  • domain assumption The June 2025 quiet flight is a valid baseline for the May 2024 storm flight.
    The two flights differ in solar cycle phase, geomagnetic conditions, route, altitude, and duration; the paper assumes the difference in total dose is primarily due to the storm-time route choices and Forbush decrease.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2-km dose-doubling scale height applies to the flight altitudes and latitudes in this study.
    Used in Section 5.1 to estimate a 24% atmospheric shielding reduction; it is a heuristic stated without rigorous radiation field modeling.
  • domain assumption Forbush decrease reduces the GCR dose component linearly and globally by about 11%.
    Section 5.1 states the reduced flux was 'linearly effective' and reduces the floor by the measured neutron monitor decrease; the linearity is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advances in aviation radiation mitigation were demonstrated during the Gannon storm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLV7NE5F

@misc{pith2026250700887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advances in aviation radiation mitigation were demonstrated during the Gannon storm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLV7NE5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00887}
}
read the original abstract

A validation strategy for aviation radiation hazard mitigation has been completed using two commercial airline flights in 2024 and 2025. We review the strategy primary elements, including the emergence of aviation radiation awareness and collaborative efforts by global aviation and radiological bodies that established mitigation standards. The article highlights biological effects of radiation exposure influenced by altitude, latitude, and geomagnetic conditions, upon aircrew, frequent flyers, and commercial space travelers. It recognizes the SWAG user needs survey report that identifies the need for continuous monitoring and predictive models to ensure long-term occupational and public health safety. The ALARA strategy validation was completed using two UAL 990 flights on B777 200 aircraft between San Francisco and Paris. Each carried the same ARMAS FM7 radiation monitoring unit. One flight occurred during the Gannon storm May 10 and 11, 2024 and one flight occurred during quiet geomagnetic conditions June 8 and 9, 2025. The flight results validated the strategy during extreme space weather, i.e., apply operational controls for shielding to reduce dose. One approach is fly lower magnetic latitudes to gain more Earth magnetic field shielding and the other is fly lower altitudes to use atmosphere depth shielding. Both ALARA shielding methods are controllable in airline operations and air traffic management. This study shows the effectiveness to deviate flight paths to lower magnetic latitude routes and lower altitudes during major geomagnetic storms. Not only does this approach mitigate HF communication outages but it also reduces risks from increased GNSS errors for takeoff and landing navigation. Magnetic field shielding is a major risk reduction factor for radiation, communication, and navigation while altitude shielding reduces radiation hazard risks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00887 by the authors.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Absorbed dose rate in silicon for the UAL 990 flight SFO to CDG on May 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Absorbed dose rate in silicon for the UAL 990 flight SFO to CDG on June 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1 Advances in aviation radiation mitigation were demonstrated during the Gannon storm W. K. Tobiska, B. Hogan, L. Didkovsky, K. Judge, J. Bailey, K. Drumm, K. Wahl, and A. Sosnov Space Environment Technologies, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 USA Submitted to Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences Abstract The validation of a strategy for aviation radiatio...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    8 [Mertens et al., 2013]

    ARMAS FM7 used in commercial aircraft and suborbital spaceships. 8 [Mertens et al., 2013]. It predicts dosimetric and radiative flux quantities for evaluating radiation exposure levels for humans and electronic systems on flights. There are several features that make NAIRAS stand out. First, it covers the entire domain of interest from the surface of the ...

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    One approach is flying lower magnetic latitudes to gain more Earth magnetic field shielding and the other is flying lower altitudes to use atmosphere depth shielding

    The flights’ results validated the strategy during extreme space weather, i.e., by applying operational controls for shielding to re-duce dose. One approach is flying lower magnetic latitudes to gain more Earth magnetic field shielding and the other is flying lower altitudes to use atmosphere depth shielding. Both ALARA shielding methods are controllable ...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    • The flights’ results validated the ALARA strategy that multiple stakeholders in aviation radi-ation hazard mitigation have been pursuing for decades, i.e., use operational decisions during extreme space weather to apply shielding by flying lower magnetic latitudes to gain more Earth magnetic field shielding and flying lower altitudes to use atmosphere d...

    work page 1912

  5. [5]

    An AR-MAS FM7 was flown on board

    departed San Francisco (SFO) on May 10, 2024, at 21:40 UT, bound for Paris (CDG) on a 11.25-hour duration flight. An AR-MAS FM7 was flown on board. Excellent data were recorded for the entire flight. Of the 676 1-minute data records, science quality data comprised 98.52% of records. Prior to the departure, starting on May 9, 2024, NOAA’s Space Weather Pre...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2013–2020: The U.S. agencies’ Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation Subcom-mittee (SWORM) organized and proactively engaged the national space weather enterprise and Congress on the hazards of space weather to various sectors, including aviation; 18

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Each dot represents one of 633910 1-minute science quality data rec-ords viewed by latitude, longitude and altitude

    All ARMAS global measurements are presented from 2013–2025 from the atmosphere above 8 km out to the ISS near 500 km. Each dot represents one of 633910 1-minute science quality data rec-ords viewed by latitude, longitude and altitude. The dot color is iden-tified on the Y-axis colorbar. This database contains 1317 flights from all vehicle types (aircraft,...

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    2020: PROSWIFT ACT became law with a mandate to the national space weather enterprise for developing mitigation activities for space weather risks to sectors including aviation

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Using Figure 9 as an example, several features are seen: i) the flight takeoff and landing are similar to the May 2024 flight; ii) ARMAS derived effective dose rates (Figure

    Figure 8 is the measured dose rate in silicon and Figure 9 is the derived effective dose rate. Using Figure 9 as an example, several features are seen: i) the flight takeoff and landing are similar to the May 2024 flight; ii) ARMAS derived effective dose rates (Figure

    2024

  2. [10]

    She passed away on May 2, 2024, just as the largest geomagnetic storm of solar cy-cle 25 began

    was a leading international space weather phys-icist [Pulkkinen et al., 2024; Lugaz et al., 2024]. She passed away on May 2, 2024, just as the largest geomagnetic storm of solar cy-cle 25 began. Dr. Gannon was a key member of the SWAG and a significant contributor to its end u...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Figure 4 provides a graphical timeline of the storm’s evolution as it developed and receded between May 5 at 00 UT and May 17 at 24 UT

    was marked by significant solar activity, including powerful solar flares, coronal mass ejections, solar energetic particle events, and a Forbush decrease. Figure 4 provides a graphical timeline of the storm’s evolution as it developed and receded between May 5 at 00 UT and Ma...

    2024

  4. [12]

    May 9–15, 2024: NOAA SWPC proactively advised the aviation sector of possible large geo-magnetic storms in the coming days

    2024

  5. [13]

    The second panel shows the GOES proton flux for >10, >50, and >100 MeV

    The top panel identifies the GOES-16 0.1–0.8 nm X-rays during the time frame with class of flare labeled and the active region (AR) association also identified at the top of the panel. The second panel shows the GOES proton flux for >10, >50, and >100 MeV . SEP events are mark...

    2024

  6. [14]

    ARMAS v11.39 dosimetric data collected during the UAL 990 2024 & 2025 flights Quantity 2024 Value 2025 Value Units Flight total measured absorbed dose, D(Si) 13.16 14.28 μGy Flight total derived absorbed dose, D(Ti) 19.45 21.41 μGy Maximum flight derived absorbed dose rate in ...

    2024

  7. [15]

    May 10–11, 2024: UAL 990 from SFO–CDG is preemptively deviated to a trans-CONUS and trans-Atlantic flight route for 11.2 hours; 15 UT on May 10 UAL operations advised crew that a deviation in waypoints to lower latitude and lower altitude was required to mitigate possible comm...

    2024

  8. [16]

    12 65 degrees north

    UAL 990 B777 in foreground at SFO Gate G1 on May 10, 2024, before flight to CDG. 12 65 degrees north. The pre-flight deviated path was selected due to communication loss risks for high-latitude transatlantic routes between western Europe and eastern coast of North America. In ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    The Y-axis shows the effective dose rate in microSv/hour. The legend identifies the NAIRAS v3 climatology data (red diamond), NAIRAS v3 flight modeled data with 10% uncertainty (black triangle), ARMAS v11.39 statistical model estimates (green asterisk), and ARMAS v11.39 measur...

    2024

  10. [18]

    The Y-axis shows the ef-fective dose rate in microSv/hour. The legend identifies the NAIRAS v3 climatology data (red diamond), NAIRAS v3 flight modeled data with 10% uncertainty (black triangle), ARMAS v11.39 statistical model estimates (green asterisk), and ARMAS v11.39 measu...

  11. [19]

    The total flight effective dose was 90 µSv, i.e., more than during the G5 event at lower latitudes

    The flight took the great circular route from San Francisco over North Hudson Bay and into Paris (9117 km) at an altitude of 10.7 km (35,000 ft.) to 11.6 km (38,000 ft.), reaching a maximum of 63 degrees north latitude. The total flight effective dose was 90 µSv, i.e., more th...

  12. [20]

    4.7 UAL 990 June 2025 flight radiation measurements The flight profile during radiation data collection is shown in Figures 8 and

    2025

  13. [22]

    The total effective dose for the entire flight was 90 µSv

    During the quiet geomagnetic conditions, while the flight was at higher latitudes than during the Gannon storm, the GCR background, as measured with the ARMAS, was between 5–10 µSv h-1. The total effective dose for the entire flight was 90 µSv. This is a typical value at this ...

    2024

  14. [23]

    This phenomenon played a dual role: i) it demonstrated the strength of the magnetic cloud arriving at Earth and ii) it reduced the number of lower energy protons enter-ing the Earth’s atmosphere, which then linearly de-creased the “floor” of GCR radiation exposure from fewer i...

    2024

  15. [25]

    In addition, a Forbush decrease also removed a population of lower energy GCR particles that, had they been present, would have increased the overall total dose. 5 Discussion 5.1 Radiation reduction The deviated UAL 990 route on May 10–11, 2024 during the extreme Gannon storm ...

    2024

  16. [26]

    ARMAS did not measure pre-event Forbush decrease so that relative decline was not quantifiable in that flight

    paper also explored the relative contributions of the Forbush decrease of dose and the SEP increase of dose, these combined effects leading to a 14%–24% total dose increase along the great circle route were not possible to separate out in the ARMAS dataset, especially when com...

    2024

  17. [27]

    Government agencies and the national space weather enterprise (agencies, academia, industry) formulated and matured the National Space Weather Program and Imple-mentation Plan

    1998–2025: U.S. Government agencies and the national space weather enterprise (agencies, academia, industry) formulated and matured the National Space Weather Program and Imple-mentation Plan

    1998

  18. [28]

    1999–2025: NOAA SEL/SWPC hosted the annual Space Weather Workshop (SWW) with active participation from other agencies, academia, industry, and international stakeholders; in the Spring of 2005 UAL operations representatives introduced cross polar flights that were affected by ...

    1999

  19. [29]

    2000–2025: FAA funded the development of the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s (CAMI) climatological radiation model (up to CARI-7)

    2000

  20. [30]

    2008–2025: NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) and Heliophysics Division (HPD) funded the development of the NASA LaRC NAIRAS climatological radiation model

    2008

  21. [31]

    2011–2025: NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), HPD, and Flight Opportuni-ties (FO) funded Space Environment Technologies’ (SET) commercial development and ex-pansion of the ARMAS radiation detection real-time system

    2011

  22. [33]

    2013–2025: U.S. advocated to ICAO for including space weather in its standards and recom-mended practices (SARPs); in 2018 ICAO published SARPs for space weather hazards to avi-ation in three areas: i) communications from high-frequency (HF) outages due to ionospheric disturba...

    2013

  23. [35]

    September 20–22, 2022: NOAA SWPC held the first aviation testbed with stakeholders to refine responses to major space weather events

    2022

  24. [36]

    May 2–17, 2024: a series of flare, coronal mass ejection (CME), and solar energetic particle (SEP) events in two separate active regions (ARs) began and lasted for a half solar rotation; one AR in each of northern and southern solar hemispheres; 25 flares of M5 class or larger...

    2024

  25. [37]

    May 7–15, 2024: The Weather Company advised aviation customers of heightened space weather event awareness and preparedness for the next several days

    2024

  26. [39]

    May 10, 2024: air traffic control (ATC) issued a NOTAM advisory to all carriers on the de-veloping storm conditions; they advised of potential communication outages at higher latitudes in the North Atlantic (NAT) corridor; they advised of potential WAAS outages in CONUS

    2024

  27. [40]

    May 09–13, 2024: multiple solar CMEs and SEPs combined to arrive at Earth within a small window of 5 days; 09 UT on May 9 the first SEP arrived; 15 UT on May 10 a G4 storm started; 21 UT on May 10 the first of two G5 events started, continuing into May 11; 21 UT on May 10 the ...

    2024

  28. [42]

    That strategy is to use the ALARA shielding principle to reduce dose for activity that is under operational control during extreme space weather

    The flights’ results validated the strategy that multiple stakehold-ers in aviation radiation hazard mitigation have been pursuing for decades. That strategy is to use the ALARA shielding principle to reduce dose for activity that is under operational control during extreme sp...

    2023

  29. [53]

    Schennetten K, D

    doi:10.1007/s11214-013-9958-9. Schennetten K, D. Matthia, MM Meier, T Berger, and M Wirtz, (2024) .The impact of the Gan-non Storm of May 2024 on the radiation fields at aviation altitudes and in low earth orbits. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 11:1498910. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1...

    2024

  30. [103]

    ICRP 37 (2-4)

    Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4). ICRP, (2016). Radiological Protection from Cosmic Radiation in Aviation. ICRP Publication

    2016

  31. [132]

    ICRP 45(1), 1–48

    Ann. ICRP 45(1), 1–48. ISO 20785-1:2020: Conceptual basis for measurements, International Standards Organization, Ge-neva. ISO 20785-2:2020: Characterization of instrument response, International Standards Organiza-tion, Geneva ISO 20785-3:2023 Measurements at aviation altitud...

    2024 doi

  32. [201]

    On observations of penetrating radiation during seven free balloon flights

    Hess, V .F., (1912). On observations of penetrating radiation during seven free balloon flights. Physikalische Zeitschrift (in German). 13: 1084–1091.arXiv:1808.02927. ICRP, (2007). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication

    1912 arXiv

  33. [990]

    At 60° W longitude the cutoff rigidity, Rc, in 2024 was 5.2 GV and was 1.4 GV in 2025, showing the added magnetic field shield-ing in 2024 along the lower latitude flight path. 16 cutoff rigidity, Rc, was 0.6 GV for this flight indicating that airspace in this route would have...

    2024

  34. [2007]

    Do-simetry for exposures to cosmic radiation in civilian aircraft

    recommends an occupational dose limit of 20 mSv/year, averaged over 5 years (100 mSv in 5 years), with no single year exceeding 50 mSv. In this document, it recommends pregnant aircrew should have fetal dose limited to 1 mSv during pregnancy. These documents also outline guide...

    2020

  35. [2009]

    7 mid- to high-latitude routes, where susceptibility to space weather effects is heightened due to reduced shielding from Earth’s magnetic field

    in values of GV shown by the X-axis colorbar. 7 mid- to high-latitude routes, where susceptibility to space weather effects is heightened due to reduced shielding from Earth’s magnetic field. From a database of 1317 flights as of June 2025 (Figure 1), the ARMAS program has use...

    2025

  36. [2024]

    This flight carried an ARMAS FM7 radiation measuring unit and it captured the dose during the flight through all the major events, as discussed below. 4 Two UAL 990 flights 4.1 ARMAS dosimetric definitions The following dosimetric quantity definitions are used by ARMAS and are...

    2018

  37. [2025]

    The primary radiation sources, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs), and their mechanisms of impact on Earth’s atmosphere are summarized

    This article provides a historical review of the primary elements leading to that strategy, including the emergence of aviation radiation awareness and collaborative efforts by global aviation and radiological bodies that established mitigation standards. The primary radiation...

    2024

  38. [4444]

    There is a lack of measurements, report-ing, limits, education, and hazard mitigation pathways for radiation exposure across the aviation industry

    to transmit information by air traffic services (ATS) to aircraft concern-ing space weather activity and, in particular, request descents by aircraft due to radiation exposure from space weather events. 1.5. SWAG User Needs Survey findings and recommendations for aviation radi...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.