How high do you fly?

[Pace]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uFlReovvnI

These guys fly this trip at FL190. Turbocharged with climb rates is it worth the time and oxygen going so high?
Consider also icing
How high do you normally fly? In what and is it ever worth the hassle :ok:

Pace

[mothminor]

At this time of year about 800ft agl. (yes, I fly around large settlements).
In the summer up to about 1500ft agl.
Type - Currie Wot.
John.

[foxmoth]

In almost any light aircraft I will look at the length of trip and the winds, on a longish flight if there is no wind advantage then I will generally fly as high as airspace and weather allows up to 10,000', less to worry about in the way of glider sites, ATZs, etc. Gives better range on radios and navaids and more time and space to deal with anything that goes wrong with the aircraft!:ok:

[Ampage]

I practice aerobatics at 6000 in Extra 300.
It gets there quickly & gives me plenty of room to sort out.. errm unsual attitudes.

Also. I've got no heater! So going any higher I'd be freezing my balls off. Nobody wants that.

For cruising, 4000-5000 seems to be a nice block of altitude for me. Not too cold and I can easily transition across most airspace. Descent doesnt take forever & I seem to be above most of the slower GA traffic just because they dont want to waste their whole trip climbing but I still tend to be underneath the turboprops and the likes of on longer trips.

It varies from place to place. - Also the extra glides like a brick, so I need the height if I lose an engine.

[Dont Hang Up]

For "short haul", that is flights of 50 miles or less, normally I fly 2000' to 3000'. For longer cross-country usually 4000' to 5000', only going higher if I want to avoid cloud surfing.

I have been up to 10000' a couple of times, just to say "Done that" and to enjoy the view. But to be honest, in anything I've flown, it's a bit of a struggle and not normally worth the time crawling up those last couple of thousand at 200ft per minute or less!

As far as engine-out glide is concerned, I suspect 10000' is a little bit too much time to overthink the situation!

[Pace]

I suspect 10000' is a little bit too much time to overthink the situation!

Most cases over land yes and its probably the last 1000 feet where it counts :E
There are exceptions over water where you may just glide to land or a distant passing ship and have more time to get your position fixed and communicate.

Maybe at night where you might just make within the boundaries of an airfield

Over a City or dense forested areas where you need to glide clear and of course over mountains.

Other than that I remember flying the Seneca at FL210 on one trip Spain UK and getting a groundspeed of just under 300 KTS most of the way
I could have made Malaga UK in just about one but dropped into Jersey being cautious

other than that normally FL100 to 120 to try and stay in airways in twins off oxygen and higher if weather dictates

Pace

[AN2 Driver]

As my airplane is non turbo, I usually fly at the optimum hights of 8000-10000 ft. Occasionally, I have been up to FL170, on oxygen of course.

To stay out of IMC, often enough FL140-170 are necessary.

[Dont Hang Up]

Non Turbocharged? FL170? At that level a normally aspirated engine will be down to half power. You must be in a twin I'm guessing?

Then again - being thick - just read your name again! Antonov? But then isn't that supercharged?

[Flyingmac]

I just hate it when I ask local traffic for a radio check, and nobody bothers to answer.:ugh:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The view is better low down. No point going higher except for two reasons:

1) Aerobatics, so there's space to sort it out if (when!) it goes wrong.

2) To take advantage of a tailwind.

[Dont Hang Up]

The view is better low down.

The view at higher level isn't better, it's just different. For me 10000' is where the land changes from 'countryside' to 'patchwork quilt', and it is occasionally nice to get that different perspective.

[9 lives]

I usually fly 1000-2000 AGL, depending upon the type of terrain below for a forced landing. If it's really poor, and the winds favour, I'll fly higher to give myself more choice. If I'm flying the flying boat over water, it's an area I know with no boaters, and it's suitably calm, I'll cruise along at 10-20 feet above the surface quite happily. You just have to keep a sharp lookout for sea gulls doing that!

[Pace]

The view is better low down. No point going higher except for two reasons:

Smoother air above the clouds rather than below
Better visibility above
Better TAS especially turbocharged
Better Radio and Nav
Less collision chance
Different scenery equally as beautiful especially some cloudscapes
Better weather avoidance even with CBs
Maybe above the icing levels or less likely to be flying in visible moisture
Etc
Faster speed, less fuel,more endurance
Better gliding range
CAS potential for IFR pilots
More favourable winds in direction or strength ( can work the other way around to less favourable )

All the above not guaranteed but more likely ;)


Pace

[John R81]

I try for 1000-1500 AGL for shorter trips. Lower and my noise print is more than I want, higher and it takes me more than 45 sec to get down on the ground in the event of an urgency. But crossing the English Channel, 5000 to give me more chance in the event of engine failure (never happened yet, touch wood).


Longer trips, and jet turbine gives an optimum altitude of 4,500-5,000 AMSL


But then, that's a helicopter for you

[Dont Hang Up]

A slight digression, but I remember clearly one of my early flying lessons, and the first time we had got above 5000'.

My instructor asked me: "Can you see the Winter Hill TV transmitter?"

I knew we were in the vicinity, but for the life of me I could not spot it. "No" I said.

"It's there right ahead" he assured me.

I looked hard. Still nothing. Then, suddenly I saw it. A landmark that had, for my entire lifetime, projected entirely above the horizon, was now suddenly entirely below the horizon, just 2 or 3 miles ahead, and as clear as anything once the perspective mental block had been removed.

I learned about flying from that.

[Pace]

I must admit to liking flying high with the cloudscapes or very low where legally possible! The most boring altitude is where most are! Around 2000 feet as that's the worst of both worlds

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Much above a few hundred feet and small hills look flat - the landscape looses its interest. As for collision avoidance, best to avoid 1,200 to 2,500 which seems to be where most light aeroplanes fly. The RAF are usually sub 500, so somewhere between 500 and 900 works for me over open country. Higher for built up areas of course, or if the fields suitable for forced landing are few, or if I need the tailwind.

4,000 for aeros.

This is for a relatively slow VFR SEP. If I was flying a Concorde I wouldn't do that. Or the aeros ('cept maybe a roll or two!).

[snapper1]

''Less collision chance.'' Maybe, but watch out for gliders.

[n5296s]

All depends. For a longish journey (say 100-200 miles) 8000-10000 unless winds dictate otherwise. For a local journey, 2500-4500 - remember we are surrounded by mountains here. In the helicopter, 1000 or 1500 AGL unless terrain dictates otherwise.

For REALLY long journeys, higher can be better, also when flying across the desert in the summer. I have done a couple of trips at FL200 to catch the winds up there. But it's a long time since I've been up that high.

[mary meagher]

Gliders in wave do climb to over 14,000 in Wales. In Scotland, I climbed to 20,300 agl.

But once in the US, flying an Arrow, with a teenage smoker as passenger, the Naval Air Station asked if I could accept 12,000 feet to avoid some fighter exercises. I told them I was fine with that, then told the teenager to let me know if his fingernails were turning blue; as a smoker he would be less able to tolerate altitude. He spent the rest of the flight furtively examining his nails.

[Dont Hang Up]

For the most part, once up into the realms of commercial cruising altitudes, the terrain loses all interest. It becomes merely a map reader's curiosity - seeking out all those features you know are there, but which sometimes skulk in low contrast obscurity.

However I do envy those commercial pilots who get to cross the Himalayas and the Andes. Looking down on Everest and the like, maybe spying climbers on the ascent in much the same way as I might spot climbers on Snowdon. I find a strange fascination in the idea that those brave mountaineers, often cold, isolated and maybe fearing for their lives, will look up and see just a few thousand feet away, ordinary folk sitting in gin and tonic luxury, probably looking back at them, but just that bit too far away for eyes, or souls, to make contact.

[Maoraigh1]

On mogas, I occasionally fly to the altitude limit of 6,000'. With no AH, I stay below the clouds. In the Scottish Highlands, I often have little choice of how high to fly. The highest I've flown would be about 12,000'+, in West Colorado - but well below 2,000' AGL.
I fly to look at the terrain.

[airwave45]

Prefered cruise alt in a glider in Scotland, 8 - 12 k feet.
Will take it up to fl195 for long water crossings but Scottish won't let me higher without transponder running.
Below 5k I'm actively looking for landing options.
(Of which, there are not many up here)

And we do long flights up here (weather permitting)

[Chesty Morgan]

...as a smoker he would be less able to tolerate altitude...

It's the other way around actually.

If you're talking about long term (as in living there) acclimatisation at altitude you'd be right.

[foxmoth]

My understanding is the same as Mary, IIRC a heavy smoker is effectively starting at a few thousand feet when at sea level!

From an Avmed article:-
Smoking. Smoking makes an individual more liable to suffer from hypoxia due to binding of haemoglobin with Carbon monoxide present in the smoke. A smoker who smokes prior to sortie has already compromised him-/herself to hypoxic insult, where s-/he is at an apparent altitude of 7,000, 14000, 22000 ft as compared to a non-smoker pilot at sea level, 10000 and 20000 ft, respectively. Be informed that if one smokes three cigarettes before a sortie, it is as if s-/he is already at an equivalent altitude of 8000 feet, with its implications due to compromised vision.

[Council Van]

Don't Hang Up.

The airlines fly around the Everest range, not over the tops of the highest peaks.

It sounds to me as if you need to take a flight with this company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoR_-sZEiZ4

[abgd]

It's the other way around actually.

???

Foxmoth has explained the short-term effects. The longer-term issue is that by the time your teenager has reached 50 and has their lungs half-destroyed, then they won't work as well either.

[Chesty Morgan]

Original research conducted by Yoneda and Watanabe, (1997) measured the response rates of pilots who were habitual smokers' at an altitude of 7,620 meters (25,000 ft). Their conclusions showed that smokers' were slightly resistant to altitude hypoxia because of their affinity toward anemic (hypemic) hypoxia brought about by increased carboxyhemoglobin levels due to habitual smoking.

Both studies concluded that the smokers' performed better in the early portion of'the studies while both cognitive and motor response rates deteriorated with pro- longed exposure to high altitudes.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=jhpee

Being a smoker can also delay the onset of AMS.

[A and C]

The altitude that safely gives me the best ground speed.

[Fitter2]

I concur with A&C. At one time my flying involved a significant amount of positioning a Slingsby T61, cruise sped 65kts. Into wind cruise at as low as kept me clear of low-flying rules (and with options if the engine stopped, although it never did inadvertently); downwind whatever height gave the best useful component.

Gliding in Scotland, anything up to 26,000ft until they started wanting transponders above FL195, gliding in South Africa, normally between 8,000 and 17,000 (on Mountain High EDS oxygen 100% of the time). 8,000 may seem a conservative lower limit if you don't know the ground is mostly around 5,500.

[Martin_123]

as a low hour ppl'er I confess I'm one of the crowd dwelling at just about 2000-3000 area. Somehow I'm still a bit shy to get above clouds. In my defense I'm also limited by a class C airspace above us so cruising high only comes into question when I'm actually going someplace

[squidie]

Depending on the route we take, normally between 3,000 and 4,000 ASL but if I can much higher if time and airspace allows then sure I’ll fly higher since it’s much safer.

[742-xx]

I generally tend to end up at between SFC and 2500 feet.
However, a couple of years back I ventured out on a beautiful clear blue sky day over North Wales, in the vicinity of Snowdon. Anyway, Snowdon looked huge so I decided to get a bit higher. I ended up at 6000 feet and suddenly I was overcome by the feeling that something was very wrong. It felt like I was stationary. I checked the ASI, 100 knots was showing. The rev counter was registering revs (as it would!) and a scan of the other instruments and my GPS appeared to suggest that all was well. But the feeling was still there.
Obviously it was because I wasn't used to being so high, but it did rattle me for a while !

[abgd]

Chesty Morgan:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=jhpee

Are you sure you meant to link to an article showing that altitude impairs the performance of smokers more than non-smokers? It did include the excerpt you quoted, with the criticism that the measures used in that (different) experiment were subjective.

(The smokers took 10.6 seconds to regain control of an aircraft at sea level and 17.3 seconds at 10000 feet - a 4.7 second increase; the non-smokers took 12.7 seconds at sea level and 15 seconds at 10,000 feet - a 2.3 second increase at altitude).

I can see that smoking could protect you from acute mountain sickness, but climbing a mountain (long exposure, physical effort) is rather different from being a pilot (short exposure to altitude; little physical exertion).

The conclusions of this study:

Smoking, acute mountain sickness and altitude acclimatisation: a cohort study (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2012/06/13/thoraxjnl-2011-200623.full.pdf+html)

Conclusions Smoking slightly decreases the risk of AMS but impairs long-term altitude acclimatisation and lung function during a prolonged stay at high altitude.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes but that is a meausure of ability once hypoxic and not a measure of ability to resist the onset of hypoxia.

[Fishtailed]

22 minutes to 12,000 and there's a lot to see on a good day:ok:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fishtailed/P1010235edit2_zpsgqrsuasf.jpg (http://s49.photobucket.com/user/fishtailed/media/P1010235edit2_zpsgqrsuasf.jpg.html)

[abgd]

Ok, so let's go back to your 1997 paper by Yoneda and Watanabe:

Comparisons of altitude tolerance and hypoxia symptoms between nonsmokers and habitual smokers. - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293349)

I don't have access to the full paper, but their summary is:

"RESULTS: Smokers revealed significantly fewer subjective symptoms in 5 out of 12 symptoms. There were no significant differences in TUC and the rate of handwriting deterioration between the groups.

Conclusions: Paradoxically, smokers are slightly resistant to hypoxia with respect to emerging subjective symptoms. However, bluntness to hypoxia could postpone the detection of the possible hypoxic occurrence in pilots."

In other words, they didn't find that smokers were any more or less impaired, but they were less skilled at detecting hypoxia i.e. recognising there was a problem. I have to say I don't find handwriting analysis an immediately convincing method of assessing performance.

[LlamaFarmer]

In my post-PPL and pre-CPL days I used to go as high as was practical and possible. More efficient, and with a single engine it gives you a lot more thinking time if things go bad.

Usually I was limited by not carrying O2, or by the climb rate of the aircraft depending on said a/c (on one flight with a friend next to me we'd departed at MTOM and at 11,500ft we only had 50fpm climb).

If cloud permitted I'd usually go up to 8000ft, took around 10 minutes from takeoff to get there, and it meant I could lean the mixture out enough to get a fair increase in endurance and range... all about the fuel economy :hmm:


Had been up to 18,000 in mountain wave in my friends Duo Discus, and that was :mad: cold with no heater, I knew it would be so I'd layered up a lot, but still, wouldn't like to spend long up there.

[fatmanmedia]

in a sep I've been anything from 500ft to 12,000ft, in a twin with o2 I've been up to 18,000ft, tonnes of fun that.

in a pressured twin turboprop (a P180II) I've been up to 40,000ft.

I fly the optimum flight profile for the trip based on a number of factors.

but I've also been as low as 20ft over water as well.

Fats

[AN2 Driver]

Non Turbocharged? FL170? At that level a normally aspirated engine will be down to half power. You must be in a twin I'm guessing?

Then again - being thick - just read your name again! Antonov? But then isn't that supercharged?

No, not the Antonov. Mooney M20C.

[Chesty Morgan]

In other words, they didn't find that smokers were any more or less impaired, but they were less skilled at detecting hypoxia i.e. recognising there was a problem. I have to say I don't find handwriting analysis an immediately convincing method of assessing performance.

Wrong, they have a longer PEPT once hypoxic.

They could be less aware of emerging hypoxia because they are more familiar with the symptoms ie. it has become normalised.

[Pace]

I am no expert but know that people who live at 10 k will get used to living on less oxygen and the body compensates by increasing the red corpuscles in the blood
Surely the same would apply to smokers although they have self induced at sea level

On the question of what appears high I think it's what you are used to ? In my 150 days 2000 feet was norm the day I went to 5000 feet I felt very high
Now in a jet 10k feels very low )

Pace

[foxmoth]

Reading through the various articles my understanding is that this compensation is true if the smoker keeps off the ciggies before flying, if he has a quick one before flying though that is when he will suffer more.

Personally i find that speed comes into the sense of height, 5-10,000ft seems very high in a Moth or Piper Cub at 70Kts but does not seem so high in an A330 at 250kts or even in the RV at 150!

[DeltaV]

On the question of what appears high I think it's what you are used to ?
Not long after getting my PPL I was flying with a fellow newbie when I suggested we climb to 10,000ft as we'd never previously been above about 3,000 during training.

Passing 5,000 my companion felt uncomfortable, nothing physical, just not what he was used to so we stopped the climb for a bit until he adjusted then went on up to 10,000, but he really couldn't wait to get down to the lower thousands he was used to.

I quite liked it and will go up there when the mood or the conditions take me. In the Highlands of Scotland it's often the most comfortable place to be provided the cloud base and cover allows.

[Pace]

Delta V

That is strange as I had a similar experience flying with a PPL who was IMC rated and a heavy smoker to Ireland.
The cloud base was 800 feet and I suggested we filed IFR and flew at FL100 in his SEP.
In Solid cloud passing 5000 feet he became uncomfortable and his breathing rate fast.
At FL100 we were in the clear blue above a solid deck of cloud. He kept asking if we could descend to 5000 feet even though that would put us in cloud and lower over the sea.
I told him it was crazy to do so and reaching the IOM the cloud broke up revealing the sea below. seeing the sea he was happy again.
On the return he flew VFR below the then 3000 foot base and was happy as Larry

Pace

[Niner Lima Charlie]

Years ago I lived in Quito, Ecuador (SEQM field elevation 9228 MSL) and my third floor (no elevator) apartment was on a hillside around 10,200'. Played tennis at this elevation too. Was flying unpressurized airplanes and helicopters in this area, as well as our base in La Paz, Bolivia (SLLP at 13,323 MSL). One does get acclimated to the low oxygen levels.

[S-Works]

Here in Spain in a light aircraft we leave the CTR at 2000 and go up from there with the norm being 7-10,000ft.

Normal transit for me in the Dornier is 15k but higher to 25k if weather requires it.

[abgd]

Chesty Morgan wrote: Wrong, they have a longer PEPT once hypoxic.

The paper mentioning PEPT didn't give any evidence to support a beneficial effect of smoking, and the paper you referred to originally (Yoneda and Watanabe) and I was referring to didn't mention PEPT... or in the abstract mention any protective effect of smoking in terms of reducing the impairment due to hypoxia.

You haven't yet posted any links to papers suggesting a protective effect of smoking (though I follow the logic as to why chronic smoking-induced hypoxia could improve performance).

The other thing worth mentioning is that carbon monoxide poisoning largely isn't about hypoxia but about carbon monoxide binding to Cytochrome C Oxidase in the mitochondria (theoretically equivalent levels of hypoxia and Carbon Monoxide levels in terms of reduced oxygen availability have very different prognoses in terms of long-term neurological impairment). How this relates to smoking and flying at altitude I don't know, but it would take a lot to persuade me that smoking is beneficial, and you haven't posted one pertinent article yet.

[Chesty Morgan]

The paper mentioning PEPT didn't give any evidence to support a beneficial effect of smoking,
No, the other one did.

and the paper you referred to originally (Yoneda and Watanabe) and I was referring to didn't mention PEPT... or in the abstract mention any protective effect of smoking in terms of reducing the impairment due to hypoxia.
No, the other one did.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Is it beyond the wit of man to collate information from two separate articles?

[abgd]

@ Chesty Morgan:

Your post #42 seemed to be in response to my post #38 which only referenced Yoneda/Watanabe (who don't measure PEPT) so your objection that "Wrong, they have a longer PEPT once hypoxic." confused me.

No, the other one did [provide evidence for the beneficial effects of smoking]
So the two papers we've discussed so far are:

Comparisons of altitude tolerance and hypoxia symptoms between nonsmokers and habitual smokers. - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293349)

Aviat Space Environ Med. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293349#) 1997 Sep;68(9):807-11.
Comparisons of altitude tolerance and hypoxia symptoms between nonsmokers and habitual smokers.

Yoneda I (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Yoneda%20I%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=9293349)1, Watanabe Y (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Watanabe%20Y%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=9293349).

You didn't link directly to this paper, but it's the one cited in the following paper as the source for the statement you cut and pasted.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=jhpee
Fletcher, James F. "Comparison of Simulated High Altitude Pilot Effective Performance Time Between Habitual Smokers and Non-Smokers." Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments 7.2 (2003): 5.

Neither of the above articles mention any beneficial effect of smoking (reduced awareness of the onset of impairment is not a beneficial effect - quite the opposite). Neither show that smokers perform any better in an acute scenario (at least judging by the abstract, which is all I can access). So which is the 'other' article to which you refer?

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. No, but given that you've posted evidence that smoking harms high altitude performance, and this is the accepted wisdom, then it's reasonable to ask you to put up or shut up before arguing in favour of something potentially very harmful.

Fletcher's paper measures performance after 40 minutes of exposure to a simulated pressure of 10000 feet. Whilst this is different from a sudden decompression/O2 supply failure scenario, if anything it's likely to be more relevant to the majority of pilots on this 'private flying' forum.

One comment I would make about Fletcher's paper is that it used student pilots as subjects who are likely to lie somewhere to the left of this curve showing how lung function changes with age/smoking:

http://static.www.bmj.com/content/bmj/336/7644/598/F1.medium.gif

I can see why they did this - though it would have been nice to see the breakdown of their subjects ages. But if they'd used 50 or 60 year old subjects, you might expect things to have looked even worse for the smokers.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes, it does appear to be beyond the wit of man.

[BEagle]

Back in about 1970, I decided to see how high I could climb in a University of London Air Squadron Chipmunk....

Off from White Waltham, 'Twyford Outbound', turn at Mapledurham and route to the west of Reading, then start the climb when clear of Green One.

Eventually I reached something over 13500 ft, but was getting very cold and rather bored.

But getting down again without the engine getting too cold was far more difficult. A loop with the engine at idle lost some height, but my oxygen depleted condition meant I saw stars over the top....the youthful hangover from the previous night's bar session probably didn't help either :=

So then I went into a descending spiral at around 75º with about 1800 rpm set until I eventually got down to a suitable height to re-enter the free lane at Woodley.

The engineers couldn't understand why the fuel tank fillers were so cold though....

[Pace]

So then I went into a descending spiral at around 75º with about 1800 rpm set until I eventually got down to a suitable height to re-enter the free lane at Woodley.


Beagle the spiral is high speed closed throttle not great for cooling )) a spin is better and I believe was a technique used to stay over a relatively fixed point for a cloud break used in the days of poor nav! The spin being slow speed and stable way to descend through cloud!

Pace

[BEagle]

Solo spinning was banned at the time, so wasn't an option.

I just set a little below cruise rpm and spiralled down to a lower level at around 90KIAS, then a couple of aeros before RTB'ing.

[foxmoth]

I would have thought looping at idle would not be that good for cooling either! When I used to drop parachutists i would use a part power spiral to get down without shock cooling the engine.:ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Back in my yoof I too once took our Chippy to about 13,000 feet. The last bit took ages, and at that height the aeroplane felt as though it was balanced on a pin - way out of its comfort zone (as was I!). For some reason I felt quite vulnerable looking down from such a height - something I've never experienced before or since in an aeroplane.

I think I slipped off most of the descent. It was a long time ago and memory fades.

[BoeingBoy]

Back in 1973 I managed to climb a C150 Aerobat (130hp) to 15500'. The view was fantastic. I was 18 years old and fit.

Of course it was long before the PPL had human factors included so I stupidly chose to spin down to 10,000 and promptly greyed out in the recovery!

I sheepishly landed back at Ipswich very much wiser than when I'd taken off.

Now I will happily operate the Archer up to FL100 if needed but would not want to be up there for the full endurance of the aircraft.

[Pilot DAR]

During flight testing of a carburetted Cessna 185 decades ago, I had to clear it for high altitude vapour lock (fuel pumps removed). I took the oxygen, and climbed. I was able to sustain 20,800 feet, with the stall horn screaming at 72MPH indicated, and 12" manifold pressure at full power. I had made it to 21,000, but it would not stay up there.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

There was an article in Pilot years ago by someone who took a Turbulent to 20,000' just to see if it could be done. I'd like to re-read that if possible.

Highest in a helicopter for me was in a AS355 at 14,000' in formation with another, the handling and performance were not the best, normally we cruise the jet at FL410-FL420 but that can be quite weight dependant and an auto-pilot walking out could make handling a touch awkward..We practise that in the sim and once a month have a go at doing it manually, the workload is surprisingly high.

I managed 20 500 over Aboyne in a Standard Cirrus glider, took hours for my fingers and toes to thaw out, but the view was stunning.

My favourite was in a Cessna 182 into Leadville Colorado 9927' AMSL, you get a certificate and I've still got the t shirt.

SND

[Pace]

SND

Where the IAS and stall get close together yes you would have to be precise hand flying
With an auto failure at FL 380 it wasn't that hard hand flying a PA28 ( not allowed from other thread to mention Jet so PA 28 ))) if an FO was doing the rest! Maybe a swept wing would be harder

Pace

[foxmoth]

You got a PA28 to FL380:eek:

WOW:}

[BEagle]

In a swept wing airliner, one would normally choose a cruise level which provides sufficient margin between high and low speed buffet boundaries. I'm not sure what the current rule is, but 1.35+10 was the normal minimum IAS for the type I flew, although earlier operation allowed 1.2+10 if no turbulence was forecast.

The difficulties of precise hand flying at high level in aircraft with considerable inertia should not be underestimated; one of the early training sorties on the type on which I instructed included a simple 180° level turn at 30° AoB at FL350, so that students (particularly ex-fighter pilots who thought that autopilots were unnecessary) appreciated the problems.

I once had to fly a Vulcan back across the pond at M0.84/FL410 without a serviceable autopilot and it wasn't much fun - we did 20 minutes each at the helm for about 5 hours!

Flying spamcans in Southern UK, my preferred VFR cruising level was 1500' on the nearest aerodrome QNH - I liked the view. Engine failure in an IFR-approved, properly maintained SEP aeroplane was about as likely as being hit by an asteroid, but the risk could generally be mitigated by avoiding flight over hostile terrain or congested areas.

[Pace]

You got a PA28 to FL380

WOW

Yes a PA28 at FL380 believe it or not :ok: amazing what you can do with a big ego and a lot of imagination :E It was even a pressurised PA28 quite rare and a pretty secret model released by Piper not known by many! The 4 bars worn give you the extra performance needed over standard :ok:

Pace

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I took a mate in the sim who with the benefit of 500 hours constantly told me how easy my job is. He came very unstuck at FL410 M.86 just doing straight and level. A turn had me in hysterical laughter. He was very surprised at a demo of the difference between high speed stall and mach buffet, and how close they can be and how alike they feel.

But a Vulcan at m.84 and FL410, that earns large respect!


SND

[mary meagher]

Anybody here ever flown an Auster? I have heard people say compared to a Supercub it is like flying a shed.

But a glider pilot a number of years ago - who flew under the Firth bridge and nearly had his wings clipped only the cops got his reg muddled up -- was one of the first British pilots to understand and explore the wave. He usually took his dog with him...

The pair of them were flying back home down South from a week of wave soaring. Scottish ATC asked him to confirm his flight level report....they found it hard to believe anyone could fly an Auster at FL 180.....

He told them he had to stay that low because the dog wouldn't tolerate wearing an oxygen mask....

[Pace]

Mary

I posted this before and I think you replied back then but Flying the PA28 to Nice There were warnings of severe turbulence between FL 200 AND 300. I warned the PAX and reduced the speed in the decent to Nice.
When we landed a felt a complete fool as the air all the way down was a smooth as silk.
We dropped the PAX and positioned the PA28 back to the UK! On the more northerly SID out of Nice with just myself and the FO passing FL200 in the climb all hell let loose with cupboards flying open and the contents hurled from one end to the other ( yes this PA28 had a special interior fit with cupboards and catering facilities)
we had 45 degree wing drops and asked for an immediate climb to over FL300 as the PA28 was almost uncontrollable
Normally between FL200 and 300 the climb rate was around 1000 fpm but in this air we had a solid 2 to 3000 fpm all the way up to over FL300 where the air became smooth again
Mountain wave can be amazing

Pace

[crispey]

Lets go up to 10,000 feet said the instructor trying to find a decent horizon to teach me something. So we did eventually.This PA28 was one you are all familiar with by the way.It was a struggle but Winter Hill was well below us.


Mistake.I had gone for the lesson from work and was wearing a suit.I used a fountain pen a lot in those days.


Fortunately the stain only affected the lining.

[tmmorris]

I got bored on the way up to FL90 in a Warrior in the US and gave up. Nearly collected a surprised looking Citation on the way down though.

[Hawker 800]

There is no FL090 in America. Maybe it was Pace in the slowtation? ;)

[Pace]

Hawker800

Its a PA28 Slowtation as we don't mention jets in the private pilots forum or flying them especially with 4 bars :E

Pace

[DeltaV]

There was an article in Pilot years ago by someone who took a Turbulent to 20,000' just to see if it could be done. I'd like to re-read that if possible.

Bob Grimstead, to 21,500ft. Read about it here: Fournier Forums | Thread - Taking a 1600VW Turbulent to 21,500 feet (http://sbeaver.com/cgi-bin/fournier/cutecast.pl?session=pGZkxPvpwmNqNs6TtnvuJ0Re6S&forum=18&thread=944)

[mary meagher]

Thank you,Delta V, for introducing us to Bob Grimstead's writeup of his amazing flight. He surely was pushing his boundaries, and was lucky to survive the apoxia. It is the most pleasant way of all to commit suicide, they say, because without pain, very quickly the mind relaxes, no worries, and you are gone!

Bob's flight took a lot of preparation, and luck, amazing that an engine could take him so high. Respect to those who made that excellent machine!

My own flying in wave at Deeside Gliding Club was routine, really. The hairy bit is following the tow plane through the lee rotor, that sure would rattle the dishes in the kitchen. Takes two hands tightly on the stick to maintain control. Once through the rotor and established beside a nice fat lenticular cloud, you stay in the same spot over the ground steadily rising higher and higher. To my surprise I noticed the altimeter actually has three hands! never saw that before! Aiming for diamond height, I flew to 20,300 feet, and could see three sides of Scotland. A perfect day.
Although it was cold, beating back and forth the sun shone in one side and warmed up the glider. I had a baby blanket with me that I could easily pull over my body to keep warm.

Every now and then the instructor on the ground would call on the radio to make sure I wasn't going doolally, which was reassuring. But so much easier and safer to climb to great heights in a glider in mountain wave. And quieter. It's not something I need to do again, however. It is much more comfortable flying at sensible levels. Say between 3,000 and 7,000 feet along a nice cloud street. Today the cumulus looked amazing.

[tmmorris]

There is no FL090 in America. Maybe it was Pace in the slowtation? ;)

Sorry, you're right, it was a long time ago!

[thing]

Highest I've ever been is 8,000 and that was only to get over some weather. I've been higher in a glider. My default height is 3,000 and a bit. The bit is because everyone else tends to fly with the big hand at 12 o clock or 6 o clock so I reckon, probably wrongly, that I'm giving myself a bit of risk reduction.

In the summer I don't like getting chucked around in the mid afternoon boomers so I tend to head off to six or seven thousand for some quiet air and good vis.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

DeltaV;

Thanks for that, I didn't realise it was Bob, I suppose I should have known, there can't be many people daft enough to try that, except possibly Bob.

SND

[Pace]

What a brilliant pilot and have to say writer too.

I used to fly a businessman in a Seneca Five ( The easy one to fly which any pilot with half a brain can fly)) regularly to western Ireland from the UK.

Normally we cruised at 10 to 12 K and on occasion, usually weather climbed higher.
The Seneca five had built in oxygen for pilots and PAX with the pickup points for the oxygen masks in the ceiling. So all very easy.

The owner sometimes came in the front with me and sometimes sat alone in the back.

He was a heavy smoker and on this occasion was in the back. The sun was fast disappearing below the horizon as I elected to climb on top of some frontal weather which I suspected held ice.

I turned around and asked him to Don his oxygen mask and put my own on.
We were now level at FL170 and I was met by the smell of cigarette smoke.
Turning around he was happily sitting there with NO oxygen mask smoking a cigarette. He was perfectly lucid and cheerful and refused to Don the mask

One thing that always puzzles me is that climbers can climb and exert themselves without oxygen at 20,000 feet while us pilots sitting still and non smokers are on the verge of passing out at 20,000 feet without oxygen

Pace

[abgd]

Well, the main difference is that they typically acclimatise over a longer period of time. It's not all about increasing Haemoglobin levels, as even a few days help considerably. And Sherpas/Andean populations have genetically adapted to live at altitude so even though there are people who can climb to 20,000 feet this probably isn't something just anyone can do.

A climbing friend of mine got altitude sickness at just 3000 metres - short holiday; drove most of the way up the mountain and walked the rest on day 1.

[Pace]

That still doesn't explain the owner of the aircraft smoking in the back with no apparent effects )
Ok roughly 17 K not 20K
It also brings up a disparity between FAA and EASA
FAA it is up to 12500 feet unlimited 12500 to 14000 for 30 minutes 14000 and above all the time on oxygen for pilots! But wait for it PAX don't have to use oxygen till 15000 feet ASL

Pace

[abgd]

A good job your passenger didn't try to smoke with Oxygen!

Smoking, like altitude sickness, is one of those things where people differ a lot in how they cope with it. Occasionally you'll get a 30 year old smoker whose lungs have already started to fall apart, and a 90-something year old who seems impervious.

But no mystery regarding passenger v. pilots - surely. It doesn't matter if passengers are none-too-sharp provided they don't suffer lasting harm. If you're a pilot, you need to stay alert. And given that they need to set the limits such that almost all pilots will stay alert at 12,500 feet there should be no surprise if quite a lot of people can cope with going considerably higher.

[DeltaV]

...I didn't realise it was Bob, I suppose I should have known, there can't be many people daft enough to try that, except possibly Bob.

SND
My machine isn't a Turbulent but I'd quite like to have ago at that sort of high flight so maybe I'm daft too, but aside from oxygen I think I'd need a transponder these days, and that's a problem. Oh, and a pair of duvet boots.

[turbopropulsion]

I took a mate in the sim who with the benefit of 500 hours constantly told me how easy my job is. He came very unstuck at FL410 M.86 just doing straight and level. A turn had me in hysterical laughter. He was very surprised at a demo of the difference between high speed stall and mach buffet, and how close they can be and how alike they feel.

But a Vulcan at m.84 and FL410, that earns large respect!


SND


As I'm a mere PPL holder and this is the private flying forum I feel free to ask such a basic question!

Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I assume the tricky part you're referring to is juggling banking and holding attitude?

[Sir Niall Dementia]

"Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I assume the tricky part you're referring to is juggling banking and holding attitude?"

Especially with a super critical wing. Aerodynamically you're not in a good place, but the engines and fuel flows love it. The aircraft becomes extremely twitchy. A high speed stall may not be far way if you mis-handle the pitch attitude. As BEagle pointed out earlier the sums actually leave you with quite a small gap between cruise mach no. and the stall. Have the thing at the max weight for the altitude and the margin is at its' thinnest. There was in an incident report some years ago about a Challenger 605 crew who climbed too early on a transatlantic flight and nearly lost the aircraft because they were overweight for the flight level they wanted.

Because auto-pilots are digital they are far better at controlling the aircraft at altitude than pilots. It is really interesting to watch a crew descend from FL420 to land without use of the automatics. The handling pilot will be mentally calculating at a hell of a rate while concentrating on flying as smoothly as possible, the monitoring pilot will be doing everything else, including the same mental calculations which the crew share between themselves, and doing everything else is quite a lot.

As an exercise it is one that makes for a sweaty shirt, there was a Greek airliner that decompressed a few years ago, a steward on a portable oxygen bottle got into the cockpit and took one of the seats (both pilots were unconscious) the steward held a ppl, if he had yelled for help on the radio the outcome may have been different, it is believed he disconnected the auto-pilot and lost control of the aircraft; The expectation of how a swept wing jet will fly compared to the reality catches people out. Down low, in the circuit they are great, you need to concentrate on inertia and the outside picture. At altitude they are utterly different, challenging and require different handling, and after nearly thirty years I'm still learning.

SND

[thing]

Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I assume the tricky part you're referring to is juggling banking and holding attitude? When I was in the mob I knew a 'high level' Canberra pilot. He said the problem was not getting up there but getting down. Mmo and stall were very close.

[LlamaFarmer]

As an exercise it is one that makes for a sweaty shirt, there was a Greek airliner that decompressed a few years ago, a steward on a portable oxygen bottle got into the cockpit and took one of the seats (both pilots were unconscious) the steward held a ppl, if he had yelled for help on the radio the outcome may have been different, it is believed he disconnected the auto-pilot and lost control of the aircraft;

If you are talking about Helios (which I believe you are as I'm not aware of any other remotely similar occurrences) the cabin crew member was actually a CPL holder.
I believe he was former Greek special forces, which was how he had managed to endure the hypoxia much better than others, once pax oxygen ran out he went on to the O2 cylinders.

From what I remember the aircraft went out of control due to flameout of one engine as a result of fuel exhaustion, not because AP was disconnected. He was unable to recover (due to the handling characteristics at altitude, exacerbated by thrust asymmetry and lack of B737 knowledge), but the second engine flamed out due to fuel exhaustion before the aircraft eventually crashed.

[turbopropulsion]

Especially with a super critical wing. Aerodynamically you're not in a good place, but the engines and fuel flows love it. The aircraft becomes extremely twitchy. A high speed stall may not be far way if you mis-handle the pitch attitude. As BEagle pointed out earlier the sums actually leave you with quite a small gap between cruise mach no. and the stall. Have the thing at the max weight for the altitude and the margin is at its' thinnest. There was in an incident report some years ago about a Challenger 605 crew who climbed too early on a transatlantic flight and nearly lost the aircraft because they were overweight for the flight level they wanted.

Because auto-pilots are digital they are far better at controlling the aircraft at altitude than pilots. It is really interesting to watch a crew descend from FL420 to land without use of the automatics. The handling pilot will be mentally calculating at a hell of a rate while concentrating on flying as smoothly as possible, the monitoring pilot will be doing everything else, including the same mental calculations which the crew share between themselves, and doing everything else is quite a lot.

As an exercise it is one that makes for a sweaty shirt, there was a Greek airliner that decompressed a few years ago, a steward on a portable oxygen bottle got into the cockpit and took one of the seats (both pilots were unconscious) the steward held a ppl, if he had yelled for help on the radio the outcome may have been different, it is believed he disconnected the auto-pilot and lost control of the aircraft; The expectation of how a swept wing jet will fly compared to the reality catches people out. Down low, in the circuit they are great, you need to concentrate on inertia and the outside picture. At altitude they are utterly different, challenging and require different handling, and after nearly thirty years I'm still learning.

SND

Well, you've just killed every single 'mental reenactment' of me saving the day on a commercial airliner. I watched an air crash investigation episode vis-a-via the greek hypoxia tragedy. I've always wondered whether I (a humble PPL holder) could, with the help of ATC, manage to bring the thing down safely. I guess you've answered that, ha!

Not as simple as pulling the power, keeping the nose down, ensuring you stay in a speed range and adjusting your descent profile with gentle power changes? That's all my PPL has given me!

[Pace]

I've always wondered whether I (a humble PPL holder) could, with the help of ATC, manage to bring the thing down safely. I guess you've answered that, ha!

There is no way you would be asked by ATC to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly :ok:
The chances of both pilots becoming incapacitated and the autopilot also failing at the same time must be almost zero :ok:

Pace

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Lllama Farmer;

I bow to that; while I was typing I was trying to find the report, but couldn't. Found it now, it makes chilling reading.

Turbopropulsion;

Your PPL has given you a skill set designed to fit the type of aircraft you fly. Move onto other classes and your skill set is expanded for those areas. I did my PPL on a Tiger Moth at the end of the 1970's, getting out of a Tiger into a Commanche required a different approach to flying to achieve much the same aim. I find my current GA fixed wing flying helpful with my helicopter work (and vice versa) due to the routes and areas flown. The jet is totally different in terms of the flying, the approach to the flying is actually much the same.

SND

[foxmoth]

Well, you've just killed every single 'mental reenactment' of me saving the day on a commercial airliner. I watched an air crash investigation episode vis-a-via the greek hypoxia tragedy. I've always wondered whether I (a humble PPL holder) could, with the help of ATC, manage to bring the thing down safely. I guess you've answered that, ha!

If you left the autopilot in you would probably be fine being talked to an autoland. You would at least have the advantage of being able to understand what they were talking about when they refer to speed/altitude/heading/flaps and numerous other items a non pilot would have no idea about.:ok:

[Pace]

Foxmoth

Unless he was flying one Citation 550 I flew when auto failure was very likely :{ I am sure the autopilot was playing mental games with me and would decide to fail at the most awkward times,

It would go crazy and whether it decided to capture an altitude was hit and miss.

The times you were ready for it the Auto called George would do a perfect capture.

The time you were busy else where it was determined to stick you in it.

George had a nasty trick up his sleeve. He would make a perfect altitude capture and level off and then with a grin on his face wait for you to relax and do something else then he would start creeping up tiny bit by tiny bit so you wouldn't notice.

Try to pass George over to the FO side and the crazy thing went haywire.

Took it to maintenance and rigged up on the ground George behaved perfectly.
So much so I was sure they thought I was exaggerating :E and it was only when I stuck the engineer in the aircraft on a test flight that George displayed his true colours.

Funnily they never really fixed George after repeated visits to the doctor and you had to live with his funny ways and not trust him one bit :E There was suspicion that at some time the wiring had been fiddled with in the depths of the old Citation.

But all good for the soul

Pace

[foxmoth]

He did say "commercial airliner", not sure how many Citations are used for that! Apart from a few third world countries most modern airliners have pretty good autopilots!

[turbopropulsion]

Quote:
Well, you've just killed every single 'mental reenactment' of me saving the day on a commercial airliner. I watched an air crash investigation episode vis-a-via the greek hypoxia tragedy. I've always wondered whether I (a humble PPL holder) could, with the help of ATC, manage to bring the thing down safely. I guess you've answered that, ha!
If you left the autopilot in you would probably be fine being talked to an autoland. You would at least have the advantage of being able to understand what they were talking about when they refer to speed/altitude/heading/flaps and numerous other items a non pilot would have no idea about.
fox moth is offline Report Post

:cool::cool: I am Maverick once again then!

There is no way you would be asked by ATC to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly

Ok, I hadn't even thought of this. What if, for whatever reason, it wasn't working? Would I not have even the remotest of chance with just a PPL?

[Pace]

If you were unlucky enough to have a failed autopilot I think its very unlikely there would be a successful outcome with a basic PPL of hand flying a commercial airline from say FL380 to a successful landing.

it Is not just about the skills required which are very different to flying a single engine piston but also about not becoming overloaded and loosing control from the situation itself and complexity and differences in the aircraft.

If you had the autopilot and someone was guiding you through what buttons to push then the PPL would give you a basic understanding which a non Pilot would not have.

thats my opinion but would be interested in what the heavy iron pilots here think :ok:

Even with my bottom of the pile business jet i do not think there would be a successful outcome to a landing from FL380 hand flown by a basic PPL and that is even presuming the weather condition were good

The biggest problems would be speed control, altitude control and profile control which would lead to overload and loss of control and we haven't even got to landing

Pace

[pulse1]

I think that the viability of one of us PPLs "saving the day" has been done to death over the years. The most memorable factors for me have been:

A serious Flight Simmer probably has more chance of getting it down than a PPL, and,

There is no way you would be asked by ATC to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly

How does a bog standard PPL tell the difference between a PTT switch and the A/P disconnect button on the yoke?

[Future Rodney King]

Pace said-

With an auto failure at FL 380 it wasn't that hard hand flying a PA28

Please tell me that you descended out of RVSM if you were there?

we had 45 degree wing drops and asked for an immediate climb to over FL300 as the PA28 was almost uncontrollable

I don't want you to think that I'm picking on you but are we not meant to increase the buffet margin rather than decrease it in such situations?

[Sillert,V.I.]

If you were unlucky enough to have a failed autopilot I think its very unlikely there would be a successful outcome with a basic PPL of hand flying a commercial airline from say FL380 to a successful landing.


Hardly heavy iron, but it's been done in a B200, fortunately with a successful outcome.

Many of you will be familiar with the story, but I've included a link to the ATC comms (http://www.maxtrescott.com/kingairsave.mp3) for those who haven't heard it yet.

[foxmoth]

How does a bog standard PPL tell the difference between a PTT switch and the A/P disconnect button on the yoke?

Ask the cabin crew! Certainly in our company they are encouraged to come into the flight deck and learn where the PTT is (there is one on the pedestal as well, using that there is no chance of inadvertant autopilot disconnect!), normally we also show them how to set 7000 on the transponder.:ok:

In a modern airliner the route will be in the computer right up to joining the ILS so mainly a case of reseting the altitude and speed then engaging approach mode, you could be unlucky and not have the arrival programmed in but I would say you could be talked through that easily enough!

[Pace]

Hardly heavy iron, but it's been done in a B200, fortunately with a successful outcome.

Silert

As far as I know all these can a passenger land a Heavy jet experiments if the crew become incapacitated have all revolved around simulator experiments and the autopilot
I would be very interested to see how a basic PPL or passenger got on if the simulator was set up with a failed autopilot at FL380 on a dark night above cloud and the PPL/passenger was told to get on with it from working out how to communicate with ATC to landing the jet at destination.

I don't know the real not media situation with the B200 but know that such a claim was made with a supposed Grandmother flying a twin when her husband died at the controls. It described her as a non pilot but reality is she had flown extensively with her husband right seat for decades and had on numerous occasions acted as an FO to him. She still did an amazing job with the shock of loosing her husband but maybe not quite as the media portrayed it.

With my experience with even CPL /IR who have no jet or heavy turbine time control would have been lost without further training. That doesn't mean I am right and it can't be done just I would be very surprised

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

I would be very interested to see how a basic PPL or passenger got on ... ... with a failed autopilot at FL380 on a dark night above cloud and the PPL/passenger was told to get on with it from working out how to communicate with ATC to landing the jet at destination.

I'd be interested to see how a newly hired P2F copilot got on with this scenario.

[Pace]

One of the biggest problems is brain overload where the person literally freezes at the controls! The more experienced the less likely that is to happen
That can happen with any pilot where the loading becomes too extreme and the mind and actions go blank
Someone with no or little flight experience is starting from a very low level and overloading is very likely very quickly

Pace

[fatmanmedia]

back when I first got my PPL, my friends got me a red letter day flight sim experience. There I went full of cockiness and bravado saying that I could fly anything now with my PPl behind me, within 5 mins that all changed when I flew the 737 into the ground 4 miles short of final with all systems working, what got me was not the speed control but the being overloaded with systems, which took my concentration away from keeping the aircraft on the glideslope, after that and a good kick up the bum by myself I sheep went back in and took myself back to the mental state that I used when I was under instruction and landed the aircraft perfectly with and without the autopilot, but god did I sweat during that. The experience shook me to my very core and made me realise that I was not a perfect pilot but it has made me a better pilot since.

Fats

[Pace]

Fats

What I would be really interested to see is a simulated scenario with a basic PPL where the autopilot was failed at FL380 and that PPL not prompted or assisted in anyway by the sim instructor / operator but left to it completely?
He could get assistance and instruction only through the radio as in real life
In your sim session were you instructed as would be the case from someone miles away in a control room or someone looking over your shoulder at your every action and rectify visually your moves ?
If you controlled the thrust speed glide slope drag application yourself without visual prompting rather than blind prompting you did amazingly well )))

Pace

[mary meagher]

Pace, and Pulse 1 with his question how does a bog standard PPL tell the difference between the PTT and disconnect button on the yoke?

With only 30 hours on my personal PPL book (plus some gliding) a friend of mine arranged for me to "fly" a BA 111 at Cranebank. The real thing that the real pilots did their check rides and training on. My hour and a half was after midnight...

So the scenario I asked for was the one in the storybooks; "Can anybody fly the plane? (aircrew struck down by ptomaine poisoned fish and chips, whatever). So I stepped into the cockpit, strapped into the LH seat.

And pressed the wrong button, right off the bat. Intending to radio for assistance, of course.

Not until I noticed the altimeter unwinding steadily did I get really concerned, increased the power, etc etc. But alas, the ground approached all too soon, and they opened the door in the rear of the sim and said "guess what, you're dead!" Unlike real life, of course, I got another chance, and this time pressed the correct button. Got someone on the "radio" who talked me through a safe landing at LHR. Did that 3 times, what a lark!

But my general rule is in flying, if you think you have a problem, but you are still right side up, do nothing. Think first, ask for assistance if you have radio. Doing nothing is still a very good plan. Once towing a glider back abeam Upper Heyford, we were distracted by a couple of US fighter jets performing maneuvers nearby, and the glider got way out of position, alongside instead of behind me. I couldn't think what to do, so I did nothing, and the glider sorted itself out.

[Monocock]

300-500 feet.

[turbopropulsion]

Pace, and Pulse 1 with his question how does a bog standard PPL tell the difference between the PTT and disconnect button on the yoke?

With only 30 hours on my personal PPL book (plus some gliding) a friend of mine arranged for me to "fly" a BA 111 at Cranebank. The real thing that the real pilots did their check rides and training on. My hour and a half was after midnight...

So the scenario I asked for was the one in the storybooks; "Can anybody fly the plane? (aircrew struck down by ptomaine poisoned fish and chips, whatever). So I stepped into the cockpit, strapped into the LH seat.

And pressed the wrong button, right off the bat. Intending to radio for assistance, of course.

Not until I noticed the altimeter unwinding steadily did I get really concerned, increased the power, etc etc. But alas, the ground approached all too soon, and they opened the door in the rear of the sim and said "guess what, you're dead!" Unlike real life, of course, I got another chance, and this time pressed the correct button. Got someone on the "radio" who talked me through a safe landing at LHR. Did that 3 times, what a lark!

But my general rule is in flying, if you think you have a problem, but you are still right side up, do nothing. Think first, ask for assistance if you have radio. Doing nothing is still a very good plan. Once towing a glider back abeam Upper Heyford, we were distracted by a couple of US fighter jets performing maneuvers nearby, and the glider got way out of position, alongside instead of behind me. I couldn't think what to do, so I did nothing, and the glider sorted itself out.

How much was your experience on the sim?

[tmmorris]

I did land a B777 sim successfully by hand the first time (well, survivably) BUT I had a 777 first officer (a friend who had arranged the sim slot, similarly in the small hours) in the right hand seat. Without him the systems would have overwhelmed me, and I'd probably have lost control chasing them. As it was I was able to concentrate solely on the hand flying. He also gave me speeds &c.

I wish I'd tried it with him only on the intercom to simulate ATC trying to talk me down. I don't think I'd have made it.

Best part was flying the 777 under the Verrazano Narrows bridge...

[Above The Clouds]

Returning to topic 'how high do you fly'

Private flying generally between 500'-1000'
Day job up to 51000'
Highest, greater than 51000' ;)

[Meldrew]

Interesting comment about flying professional sim aircraft under bridges.
I Have been fortunate enough to have a go in two military sims. On both occassions, despite the sim instructor knowing that I was a reasonably experienced PPL, they seemed to think that flying under bridges at very low level was the main thing that a person like me would want to do!
I managed to persuade them that I wanted to try to fly the thing for real without silly tricks. Proud to say that I made a decent job of it!

[Pace]

I think and stand to be corrected but someone flew an aircraft for real under all the London Bridges :ok:
Try that today and you would be locked up :{

On the PPL landing a heavy jet from 38000 feet with no assistance other than distant assistance from an ATC unit I would still be amazed if that was possible
i can only go from real world experience even with CPL IR pilots
It is very different with someone sitting alongside or behind you telling you to reduce the decent rate or bring back the thrust to XYZ or telling you to look at the speed which is rocketing or to hold the heading or to touch that lever and bring the flaps to XYZ or set up the ILS and displays or when to put the gear down etc etc etc
You are an autopilot for someone behind you! and remember in this situation there is NO autopilot no flight director

Cold ??? Now heres a challenge for pprune lets set up a sim session with a basic PPL at 38000 feet and only distant ATC assistance and see if its possible ?
any TAKERS :E

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

I think and stand to be corrected but someone flew an aircraft for real under all the London Bridges :ok:


Alan Pollock flew a Hunter under the top span of Tower Bridge on 5th April 1968. IIRC he was retired on medical grounds to avoid embarrassment to the authorities.


Cold ??? Now heres a challenge for pprune lets set up a sim session with a basic PPL at 38000 feet and only distant ATC assistance and see if its possible ?
any TAKERS :E
Pace

I'd have a go, though without any great hope of a successful outcome. I've never flown a jet (and I've never flown under a bridge, either :E).

I'd say the greatest chance of losing it would be during either the first few minutes, or the last few.

A good ending would be largely down to the skill of the folks on the ground.