New Part 91 and oxygen requirements
Thread Starter
Most importantly how does the US with 12 times as many pilots get away without having mandatory oxygen systems installed for aircraft that fly to 12,500’?
Do Americans need less oxygen? A bit like the Sherpa nation!
Do Americans need less oxygen? A bit like the Sherpa nation!
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have no idea how impaired you were.
So .05 is stupid because most drunks get home 90% of the time?
And you were Chairman of CASA……….
You are bringing back lots of bad memories.
Retire gracefully Dick.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
Thread Starter
It shows that a healthy human can operate at 12,500 without additional oxygen.
If this what not so the FAA would follow the more restrictive Australian rules.
If this what not so the FAA would follow the more restrictive Australian rules.
I know, if they can do that, why bother at all in aeroplanes? We don’t need it!
oh yeah. ‘Murcia!
will you advocate for their gun rules here too please Dick? I want to go hunting with semi auto ARs!
I don't know Dick, I don't have the Stats, do we fly further, longer and higher than the average US flight? What's the average age of an Aircraft in Australia compared to the US? Do they have better Radar and ATC coverage than we do? Are there any other relevant stats that might mean we're more likely to need this? Without these stats I can't really answer your question and I doubt anyone here has them or could really answer it except with some anecdotal waffle. What I do see is a requirement that doesn't seem to add a huge imposition and would have a positive impact.
Recently, during an FAA FAAST team webinar, FAA personnel and the CEO of AEROX did a great presentation explaining the history and the science behind when you should use it. For most people, even fit and healthy folks, there is a significant cognitive benefit above 8000' and they were recommending despite what the regs say, if you are flying above 8000' for an hour or more you really should be using supplemental O2. For flight at night, vision is greatly enhanced as well as cognitive ability and the recommendation was 5000' and above at night.
So, for all those craving a rule:
Why, in the 21st century, isn't the rule a prescribed blood oxygen level (or prescribed blood oxygen level for night ops and a prescribed blood oxygen level for day ops, if the science supports the difference)?
A pilot's blood oxygen level is easily and cheaply measured, continuously, in the 21st century. If a pilot can't be trusted to maintain those levels, why can pilots be trusted to use mandatorily-fitted or carried oxygen supplies?
Why, in the 21st century, isn't the rule a prescribed blood oxygen level (or prescribed blood oxygen level for night ops and a prescribed blood oxygen level for day ops, if the science supports the difference)?
A pilot's blood oxygen level is easily and cheaply measured, continuously, in the 21st century. If a pilot can't be trusted to maintain those levels, why can pilots be trusted to use mandatorily-fitted or carried oxygen supplies?
Why, in the 21st century, isn't the rule a prescribed blood oxygen level (or prescribed blood oxygen level for night ops and a prescribed blood oxygen level for day ops, if the science supports the difference)?
The reason for difference ‘base’ level for O2 between Oz and the USA is pretty simple and its a concept Mr Smith should understand, “Affordable Safety”.
You can fly around in Oz at 8,000’ and not hit a damn thing. There’s an awful lot of terrain above 10,000’ in the USA. Flying above 10,000’ but below 12,5000’ allows people in many areas of the USA to go flying without the expense of installing an O2 system.
The next fact is that you will have better O2 blood saturation at 10,000’ than 12,500’ feet. That’s incontrovertible. The level of impairment an individual may suffer, well that’s individual, but again, its a cost/benefit analysis isn’t it?
In Australia, there’s no pressing need to be above 10,000’ in your average piston engined single.
What’s the real benefit of cruising at 12,000’ compared to 10,000’ versus a possible hull loss from a hypoxic episode? Risk management 101.
You can fly around in Oz at 8,000’ and not hit a damn thing. There’s an awful lot of terrain above 10,000’ in the USA. Flying above 10,000’ but below 12,5000’ allows people in many areas of the USA to go flying without the expense of installing an O2 system.
The next fact is that you will have better O2 blood saturation at 10,000’ than 12,500’ feet. That’s incontrovertible. The level of impairment an individual may suffer, well that’s individual, but again, its a cost/benefit analysis isn’t it?
In Australia, there’s no pressing need to be above 10,000’ in your average piston engined single.
What’s the real benefit of cruising at 12,000’ compared to 10,000’ versus a possible hull loss from a hypoxic episode? Risk management 101.
Thread Starter
Quite often the inversion layer sits at about 10,000’ so it is far smoother to fly above it - even if it’s only for 30 minutes to give the pax a rest!
Less fuel usage meaning saving money and less carbon in the atmosphere!
Greater gliding range if an engine failure over tiger country.
The pilot should be in a position to make a decision on this.
Less fuel usage meaning saving money and less carbon in the atmosphere!
Greater gliding range if an engine failure over tiger country.
The pilot should be in a position to make a decision on this.
People who smoke may have an inaccurately high pulse ox reading. Smoking causes carbon monoxide to build up in your blood. A pulse ox can’t tell the difference between this other type of gas and oxygen may be one reason, that carbon monoxide could very well be coming from your exhaust system. Cold extremities and dark nail polish can also cause false low readings.
So, for all those craving a rule:
Why, in the 21st century, isn't the rule a prescribed blood oxygen level (or prescribed blood oxygen level for night ops and a prescribed blood oxygen level for day ops, if the science supports the difference)?
A pilot's blood oxygen level is easily and cheaply measured, continuously, in the 21st century. If a pilot can't be trusted to maintain those levels, why can pilots be trusted to use mandatorily-fitted or carried oxygen supplies?
Why, in the 21st century, isn't the rule a prescribed blood oxygen level (or prescribed blood oxygen level for night ops and a prescribed blood oxygen level for day ops, if the science supports the difference)?
A pilot's blood oxygen level is easily and cheaply measured, continuously, in the 21st century. If a pilot can't be trusted to maintain those levels, why can pilots be trusted to use mandatorily-fitted or carried oxygen supplies?
Also no one is "Craving" a rule as you seem to think. A lot of us are pointing out that this particular rule isn't that onerous and has valid justification. If you're not prepared to compromise and accept some level of new rules to come about then to be perfectly honest you shouldn't be involved in any discussion involving Aviation Safety as times change, tech changes, and therefore the rules must change with them. We've got Aircraft now that are far more capable of getting above 10k and being there for a long time thanks to companies like Cirrus for example and as such the rules need to acknowledge this.
Dick, you yourself have just proven the point by using your own C208 as an example and the ability to get into a place like La Paz. You also talk about the Pilot being in a position to make this decision, not really a decision if you're wanting to go above 10k but didn't bring any oxygen with you and don't really spend any time up there and have never completed and high altitude courses is it?
Does CASA bring in mindless, stupid rules that we should rally against? Absolutely, but this is not one of them and if we don't choose our battles we end up looking stubborn and belligerent which only makes our lives more difficult in the end trying to fight against the ridiculous rules that do come about.
If you're not prepared to compromise and accept some level of new rules to come about then to be perfectly honest you shouldn't be involved in any discussion involving Aviation Safety as times change, tech changes, and therefore the rules must change with them.
What changes in times and tech does mandatory carriage above 10,000' reflect, justifying a change in rules? It's the same air we're flying in and the same supplemental oxy we are and are not breathing as we were 50 years ago. There have been for many decades, many, many GA aircraft that were and remain capable of going waaaay over 10,000' and cruise there for a long, long time.
The experiment has been run in the USA and the results are in.
Maybe some of us understand the risk, are perfectly able to and responsibly do mitigate the risk effectively, without a new rule.
Once we all give ourselves a collective pat on the back when the new rule is made, how are we going to confirm that people are using the oxygen?
