F-15 flight line personnel at Kadena Air Base logged a time-weighted average of 103.0 dBA over a 9.7-hour sample, 13 dB above OSHA’s 90 dBA permissible limit, even though every flight line participant in the study reported wearing hearing protection (Mattie et al., Toxics 2025). Civil ramps are quieter on average but not safe by default: NIOSH measured 116 to 120 dB(A) under the tail of a regional jet with its auxiliary power unit (APU) running (NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999). Prevalence studies report noise-induced hearing loss in 21.79% of airside workers at Muscat International Airport and 24.6% of workers at an Ethiopian air base. This roundup covers the people who work beside the aircraft; for the residents living under the flight paths, see our aircraft noise and airport communities statistics. We aggregated data from NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations, OSHA, the National Health Interview Survey, US Navy and US Air Force researchers, and peer-reviewed audiometry studies in Noise & Health, Scientific Reports, Toxics, Military Medicine and the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.
TL;DR
- Regional jet APUs measured 116 to 120 dB(A) at the tail section, at least 18 dB(A) louder than larger jets (NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999).
- Newly enlisted Korean Air Force recruits in high-noise units showed a 5.00 dB threshold shift at 4 kHz within eight months (Park et al., Noise & Health 2026).
- F-15 flight line crews averaged 103.0 dBA over a 9.7-hour sample (Mattie et al., Toxics 2025).
- Carrier flight deck personnel averaged a 109 dBA time-weighted exposure across 11.5-hour days (Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004).
- 93% of 59 carrier volunteers exceeded the 80 dBA 24-hour limit (Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019).
- 21.79% of 312 airside workers at Muscat International Airport had noise-induced hearing loss (Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022).
- Only 15.9% of hearing protector users at an Ethiopian air base wore them always (Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024).
- 59.49% of noise-exposed US Transportation and Warehousing workers did not use hearing protection in 2014 (Green et al., AJIM 2021).
- Hearing protection use carried an adjusted odds ratio of 0.066 for hearing loss at an Indian airport (Bandyopadhyay et al., IJOEM 2024).
- 97% of 67 US Air Force hearing conservation materials were written above a 6th-grade reading level (Dominguez et al., JOEH 2025).
1. Noise at the Source: APUs, Engine Run-Ups and Peak Levels
The loudest thing on a civil ramp is often not the main engines but the small turbine in the tail. In the NIOSH evaluation at Continental Express in Newark, the Embraer RJ145 auxiliary power unit measured 116 to 120 dB(A) at the tail section, at least 18 dB(A) louder than any other aircraft measured (NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999). A tail-mounted APU sits at head height for the people loading bags, which is why fleet mix matters as much as traffic volume.
Engine run-ups add a second, more intermittent hazard, and they are what separates a maintenance shift from a loading shift. The Swedish airline maintenance study recorded a maximum of 119 dB(A), against an equivalent daily exposure that topped out at 91 dB(A) (see section 5). These are peak values, not doses, but they show how quickly a single task can consume a day’s allowance.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| APU on, tail section: Embraer RJ145 (5 aircraft) vs larger jets | RJ145: 116 to 120 dB(A); Boeing 737: 93 dB(A); MD-80: 97 dB(A); DC-10: 102 dB(A) | NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999 |
| Transport airplane, idle and maximum engine run-up | 123 dBA idle, 128 dBA run-up (Su-27 jet run-up also 128 dBA) | Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024 |
| Maximum noise level, airline aircraft maintenance | 119 dB(A) | Smedje et al., Noise & Health 2011 |
| Lmax, cabin appearance night shift (8-hour) | 117.05 dB | Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022 |
| Convair 580 peak area levels on the ramp | 93 to 110 dBA | NIOSH HETA 81-340-1020, 1981 |
| Noise drop when distance to the source doubles (open space) | 6 dBA | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
Context note: the APU figures are most recent available data (NIOSH, 1999), and no newer public NIOSH evaluation of a civil ramp turned up during research. The OSHA 6 dBA rule is why marshalling distance and stand layout are engineering controls, not courtesy (OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure).
2. Daily Doses: Ramp Agents, Cabin Crews and Airport Staff
Peaks are dramatic, but hearing damage tracks the full-shift dose, and here the choice of standard decides the verdict. At Continental Express, none of six ramp workers exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit, yet all six exceeded the NIOSH recommended limit, accumulating at least 200% of the allowable daily NIOSH dose. The same shift is compliant under one rulebook and double the safe dose under the other, because OSHA uses a 5 dB exchange rate and NIOSH uses 3 dB.
Outside the US, the noisiest airside jobs sit near the same 85 dB line, while the wider airport workforce spreads far below it: at an Indian airport, 8-hour averages ran from the 50s into the 80s, and four in ten employees still logged 80 dBA or more (Bandyopadhyay et al., IJOEM 2024). A helmet-microphone study of 33 airport ground staff found moderate averages but C-weighted peaks near 130 dB, a reminder that a low average can hide impulsive spikes (Lecca et al., IJERPH 2021).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Ramp workers above OSHA PEL / OSHA action level / NIOSH REL, and NIOSH-criteria TWAs | 0 of 6 / 5 of 6 / 6 of 6; 88 to 94 dB(A), at least 200% of the NIOSH daily dose | NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999 |
| Airside shift averages, Muscat International Airport | Ramp afternoon 86.1 dB; cabin appearance night (8-hour) 89.10 dB | Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022 |
| Airport employees with 8-hour TWA at or above 80 dBA (n = 212) | 40.6% (range 56.6 to 86.5 dBA) | Bandyopadhyay et al., IJOEM 2024 |
| Airport ground staff, mean LAeq and mean C-weighted peak | 79.6 dB LAeq; 129.8 dB peak | Lecca et al., IJERPH 2021 |
| Airport checked-baggage screeners above NIOSH criterion (56 full-shift samples) | 12 of 56, none above the OSHA PEL | NIOSH, Noise Exposure Assessment of Airport Screeners, 2005 |
| Ramp job TWAs, Frontier Airlines (1981) | Baggage handler 84 dBA; ramp operations agent 80 dBA | NIOSH HETA 81-340-1020, 1981 |
| Allowed time at 100 dBA | OSHA: 2 hours; NIOSH: less than 15 minutes | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
Context note: a 2001 NIOSH evaluation of FAA aviation safety inspectors found most inspectors within limits, but one inspector working on an airport ramp exceeded the NIOSH recommended 8-hour limit (NIOSH HETA 2000-0408-2825, 2001). The screener figures come from a conference abstract (NIOSH, 2005); tugs, carts and conveyors were among the named sources. Ramp agents work the same exposure logic as other loud trades, and the dose patterns resemble those in our manufacturing noise exposure statistics.
3. Military Flight Line and Carrier Deck Exposures
Military flight lines run louder and longer than civil ramps, and the shift length is what turns a loud environment into an extreme dose. US Navy carrier flight deck personnel averaged a 109 dBA time-weighted exposure across 11.5-hour workdays, a group mean rather than a peak (Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004). The 2025 study at Japanese and US bases shows the same gradient on land: TWAs exceeded the OSHA limit whenever the sampling time reached 7 hours or more (Mattie et al., Toxics 2025).
The carrier studies add a variable civil ramps do not have: the crew lives at work. In 24-hour monitoring, off-duty noise ran from 38 to 102 dBA, and 61% of volunteers stayed above the 70 dBA effective-quiet level that allows recovery from a temporary threshold shift (Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| F-15 flight line TWA, Kadena Air Base | 103.0 dBA over a 9.7-hour sample | Mattie et al., Toxics 2025 |
| F-4 (Hyakuri) and F-16 (Misawa) flight line TWAs | 98.8 dBA over 8.2 hours; 90.6 dBA over 7.8 hours | Mattie et al., Toxics 2025 |
| Carrier flight deck mean TWA | 109 dBA, average workday 11.5 hours | Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004 |
| Carrier volunteers above 80 dBA 24-hour TLV / 85 dBA 8-hour limit (n = 59) | 93% / 68% | Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019 |
| Flight deck launch and recovery group vs other groups | Median on-duty TWA and 24-hour Leq 16 to 21 dB higher | Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019 |
| Off-duty Leq range, and share above 70 dBA effective quiet | 38 to 102 dBA; 61% above | Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019 |
| Carrier support personnel above 70 dBA effective quiet off duty / above 83 dBA 12-hour TLV on duty (n = 47) | 95% / 17% | Schaal et al., JOEH 2019 |
| Republic of Korea Air Force fighter wing, 8-hour TWA monitoring 2019-2023 | Median 85.70 dB (IQR 78.40 to 89.90 dB) | Park et al., Noise & Health 2026 |
Context note: the carrier flight deck TWA is most recent available data (Rovig et al., 2004) for that metric; the 24-hour carrier monitoring dates from January 2014. For support personnel, the extended-shift findings showed that crews rated low risk on an 8-hour basis could still face substantial exposure over 12 and 24 hours (Schaal et al., JOEH 2019).
4. Hearing Protection Use and Compliance
Hearing protectors work on the ramp when they are worn. NIOSH’s attenuation estimates for the Embraer APU spectrum showed ear muffs bringing the effective level down to 78 dB(A) and foam plugs to 78 to 82 dB(A) (NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999). The gap is behavioural: at Bishoftu Central Air Base, only 33.2% of workers used hearing protection, and only 15.9% of those users wore it always (Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024).
Compliance appears to follow enforcement and training more than noise level: the military flight line in Japan reported universal use, while the base with the weakest wear rates also reported almost no training on the health effects of noise. In the US, the Transportation and Warehousing sector had a higher non-use rate than the all-industry average, with a statistically significant adjusted prevalence ratio in 2014 (Green et al., AJIM 2021). The construction sector shows a similar non-use pattern in our construction worker hearing loss statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Flight line participants reporting hearing protection use (Japanese and US bases in Japan, 97 exposed) | 100% | Mattie et al., Toxics 2025 |
| Airside workers wearing hearing protectors, Muscat (all / high exposure) | 72.12% / 81.97% | Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022 |
| Air base workers using protectors; users who wear them always; workers with no training on noise health effects | 33.2%; 15.9%; 96.2% | Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024 |
| Airport employees using no hearing protection, and adjusted OR for NIHL with use | 50.0%; AOR 0.066 (95% CI 0.018 to 0.249) | Bandyopadhyay et al., IJOEM 2024 |
| US Transportation and Warehousing noise-exposed workers not using protection (2014) | 59.49%, adjusted PR 2.09 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.35) | Green et al., AJIM 2021 |
| All noise-exposed US workers not using protection (2007 / 2014) | 55.5% / 52.65% | Green et al., AJIM 2021 |
| US Air Force hearing conservation materials above 6th-grade reading level | 97% (65 of 67) | Dominguez et al., JOEH 2025 |
Context note: self-reported use is not the same as effective use. The Mattie study found audiometric differences between flight line and control personnel despite 100% reported protection, and a 2006 Air Force Research Laboratory article flagged that foam plugs worn under communication headsets also muffle the radio traffic crews depend on. The US non-use figures are most recent available data (NHIS 2014, published 2021). The Air Force materials study also found mean compliance of 84% with USAF rules (Dominguez et al., JOEH 2025).
5. Hearing Loss Among Civil Airport and Airline Workers
Prevalence at the civil airports studied here ranges from 7.6% to 21.79%, and age does much of the work. At Muscat International Airport, 21.79% of 312 airside workers had noise-induced hearing loss, and workers aged 40 or older carried an adjusted odds ratio of 7.07 (Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022). The age curve is steeper among maintenance technicians: in a 2025 study of 124 male airline maintenance professionals, hearing loss incidence rose from 15.14% under 30 to 80% at 40 and above (Liu et al., Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2025).
National surveys blur the airport signal. In the 2023 National Health Interview Survey, the Transportation industry overall showed hearing difficulty close to the all-worker rate, likely because most transportation jobs are not airside (Masterson et al., JOEM 2025). The site-level studies are where the ramp risk becomes visible.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| NIHL prevalence, Muscat International Airport airside workers | 21.79% (68 of 312) | Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022 |
| Adjusted OR for NIHL, age 40+ vs under 30 (Muscat) | 7.07 (95% CI 2.53 to 19.78) | Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022 |
| NIHL prevalence, international airport in Eastern India | 7.6% (16 of 212) | Bandyopadhyay et al., IJOEM 2024 |
| Hearing loss incidence, airline maintenance professionals by age | 15.14% under 30; 42.10% at 30 to 39; 80% at 40+ | Liu et al., Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2025 |
| Tinnitus, airline maintenance professionals by age | 12.34% under 30; 34.21% at 30 to 39 | Liu et al., Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2025 |
| Airline maintenance personnel, equivalent daily exposure, and thresholds vs reference (under 40) | 70 to 91 dB(A); 1 to 3 dB higher thresholds | Smedje et al., Noise & Health 2011 |
| US Transportation industry (NAICS 48): past-year noise exposure / hearing difficulty | 21.57% / 10.18% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Hearing difficulty among all noise-exposed US workers | 18.25%, PR 1.76 (95% CI 1.58 to 1.96) | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
Context note: the Swedish maintenance figures are most recent available data for that population (Smedje et al., 2011, 327 workers); see the Smedje et al. study. The Indian airport’s lower prevalence came with a mean workforce age of 34.1 and 8-hour TWAs that topped out at 86.5 dBA. The Liu study reports 0% tinnitus at 40+, which the abstract does not explain.
6. Hearing Loss on the Military Flight Line and Program Gaps
Military aviation data confirm that ground crews, not just pilots, carry the hearing burden. On a US Navy carrier, 17% of flight deck personnel and 27% of engineers had hearing impairment, against 4% of administrative personnel (Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004). At Bishoftu Central Air Base, 24.6% of workers had noise-induced hearing loss, and exposure at or above 90 dBA raised the adjusted odds about fivefold.
The newest studies show the damage starting early and travelling beyond the ear. Newly enlisted Korean Air Force soldiers in high-noise maintenance and ground equipment units showed a 5.00 dB shift at 4 kHz in the right ear within eight months (Park et al., Noise & Health 2026). Among Taiwanese Air Force ground staff, the group with the poorest 4 kHz hearing was linked to hypertension (Tsai et al., Noise & Health 2026). Where those service members end up in the disability system is covered in our veterans hearing loss and tinnitus statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| NIHL prevalence, Bishoftu Central Air Base (bilateral / unilateral) | 24.6% (16.9% / 7.7%) | Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024 |
| Adjusted OR for NIHL, noise at or above 90 dBA | 5.2 (95% CI 2.68 to 10.18) | Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024 |
| Hearing impairment: carrier flight deck / engineers / administrative | 17% / 27% / 4% | Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004 |
| 4 kHz audiometric notch in either ear, Air Force ground staff (high vs low hearing-loss group) | 54.8% vs 18.8% | Tsai et al., Safety and Health at Work 2026 |
| Hypertension, highest vs lowest 4 kHz hearing-loss group, fully adjusted OR | 4.81 (95% CI 2.51 to 9.02) | Tsai et al., Noise & Health 2026 |
| Threshold shift at 4 kHz in 8 months, high-noise ROKAF recruits (right ear) | 5.00 dB (P FDR 0.020) | Park et al., Noise & Health 2026 |
| Abnormal audiograms, military aircrew and ground-based aviation personnel (1,817 audiograms, 2022) | 4.6% | Seah et al., Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance 2025 |
| Relative risk of standard threshold shift at 2 kHz, metal + solvent + continuous noise (USAF depot, 2,372 personnel) | 2.44 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.83) | Blair et al., JOEH 2021 |
Context note: the carrier impairment figures are most recent available data (Rovig et al., 2004); the higher rate among engineers runs against the exposure ranking, since flight deck personnel were the high-exposure group and engineers the moderate one, and the abstract does not explain it (see section 3 for the exposure side). The Tsai cohorts were examined in 2015 and 2018, and neither study measured noise or hearing protection directly. The Blair depot finding shows that solvents and metals widen the damage to lower frequencies (Blair et al., JOEH 2021), and the 4.6% figure comes from 2022 certification examination audiograms (Seah et al., 2025).
Summary: Aviation Ramp and Ground Crew Noise by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Embraer RJ145 APU, tail section | 116 to 120 dB(A) | NIOSH HETA 99-0060-2766, 1999 |
| Maximum noise level, airline maintenance | 119 dB(A) | Smedje et al., Noise & Health 2011 |
| Airport employees at or above 80 dBA TWA | 40.6% | Bandyopadhyay et al., IJOEM 2024 |
| Allowed time at 100 dBA, OSHA vs NIOSH | 2 hours vs less than 15 minutes | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
| F-15 flight line TWA | 103.0 dBA over 9.7 hours | Mattie et al., Toxics 2025 |
| Carrier flight deck mean TWA | 109 dBA, 11.5-hour days | Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004 |
| Carrier volunteers above 80 dBA 24-hour TLV | 93% | Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019 |
| Carrier support personnel above effective quiet off duty | 95% | Schaal et al., JOEH 2019 |
| Air base protector users who always wear them | 15.9% | Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024 |
| US Transportation and Warehousing protector non-use (2014) | 59.49% | Green et al., AJIM 2021 |
| USAF hearing materials above 6th-grade reading level | 97% | Dominguez et al., JOEH 2025 |
| Muscat airside NIHL prevalence | 21.79% | Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022 |
| Airline maintenance hearing loss incidence, age 40+ | 80% | Liu et al., Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2025 |
| Carrier flight deck vs administrative hearing impairment | 17% vs 4% | Rovig et al., Military Medicine 2004 |
| 4 kHz notch, high vs low hearing-loss Air Force ground staff | 54.8% vs 18.8% | Tsai et al., Safety and Health at Work 2026 |
| 4 kHz threshold shift in 8 months, high-noise ROKAF recruits | 5.00 dB | Park et al., Noise & Health 2026 |
| Hearing difficulty among noise-exposed US workers (2023) | 18.25% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Standard threshold shift risk at 2 kHz, noise plus metals and solvents | RR 2.44 | Blair et al., JOEH 2021 |
Methodology and Sources
- NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HETA 99-0060-2766, Continental Express Airlines, Newark (1999): ramp dosimetry, APU spectra and protector attenuation.
- NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HETA 81-340-1020, Frontier Airlines, Colorado Springs (1981): historical ramp TWAs and aircraft peaks.
- NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HETA 2000-0408-2825, Federal Aviation Administration (2001): FAA aviation safety inspectors.
- NIOSH, Noise Exposure Assessment of Airport Screeners During Checked Baggage Screening (2005): 56 full-shift samples.
- OSHA, Occupational Noise Exposure (safety and health topic page): PEL, action level, exchange rates and NIOSH REL.
- Mattie et al., Toxics 2025, flight line personnel at Japanese and US air bases.
- Rovig, Bohnker and Page, Military Medicine 2004, carrier flight deck hearing health risk.
- Schaal et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2019, 24-hour noise aboard US Navy aircraft carriers.
- Schaal, Lange and Majar, JOEH 2019, extended-shift noise among carrier support personnel.
- Park et al., Noise & Health 2026, newly enlisted Republic of Korea Air Force soldiers.
- Tsai et al., Noise & Health 2026, high-frequency hearing loss and hypertension in Air Force ground staff.
- Tsai, Chien and Chang, Safety and Health at Work 2026, NIHL and fasting blood glucose in an Air Force population.
- Al-Harthy et al., IJERPH 2022, noise mapping and NIHL at Muscat International Airport.
- Hailu et al., Scientific Reports 2024, NIHL at Bishoftu Central Air Base, Ethiopia.
- Bandyopadhyay et al., Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2024, NIHL at an international airport in Eastern India.
- Lecca et al., IJERPH 2021, airport ground staff noise and cardiac autonomic control.
- Smedje et al., Noise & Health 2011, hearing status of airline aircraft maintenance personnel.
- Liu et al., Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2025, aircraft noise and maintenance personnel hearing.
- Green, Masterson and Themann, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2021, hearing protection non-use in 2007 and 2014.
- Masterson, Morata and Themann, JOEM 2025, noise exposure and hearing difficulty among US workers, 2023 NHIS.
- Dominguez et al., JOEH 2025, US Air Force hearing conservation educational materials.
- Blair, Slagley and Schaal, JOEH 2021, noise and ototoxicants at a US Air Force depot maintenance facility.
- Seah et al., Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance 2025, abnormal audiograms in military aircrew and ground-based aviation personnel.
- Air Force Research Laboratory, Technology Horizons 2006, preventing hearing loss in military environments: qualitative point on foam plugs worn under communication headsets.
- Data watch: public data on civil ramp exposure is old; the most detailed US ramp dosimetry is the 1999 NIOSH evaluation, and no airline-wide or IATA dataset on ramp noise doses or protector compliance is published. The Muscat paper is internally inconsistent: its abstract says 53.65% (n = 125) did not wear protectors regularly while its Table 3 reports 27.88% (n = 87), and its stated exposure-group prevalences (5.13% and 16.67%) do not reconcile with the 68 total cases; we cite the table values. The Bishoftu paper’s group counts in the text and Table 4 do not match, and its abstract gives slightly different adjusted odds ratios (5.0 and 4.98) than Table 4 (4.7 and 5.2). The Lecca peak level appears as 129.8 dB in the table and 129.3 dB in the text. The Park 2026 abstract and results give different FDR-corrected P values at 4 kHz. On the size of the exposed workforce, OSHA cites a CDC estimate of 22 million US workers exposed to potentially damaging noise each year, while the 2023 NHIS analysis estimates about 27 million exposed in the past 12 months; the difference reflects survey year and definitions. Prevalence studies use different hearing loss definitions (notch criteria, quartile thresholds, 20 or 25 dB HL cut-offs), so cross-site comparisons are indicative only. Studies from Kenya, Iran and Indonesia surfaced in research but could not be retrieved in full and were left out.
- Last updated: October 18, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when NIOSH publishes its next NHIS-based occupational hearing analysis or a new Health Hazard Evaluation covering airline ramp or ground handling operations.