New Part 91 and oxygen requirements
Dick Smith can you stop being a smart arse when somebody says something different to you.
Actually, if what has been presented above is correct, it does seem logical. There are definite effects of lack of oxygen on some people above 10,000ft (some figure has to be chosen and 10,000 is as good as any). Rather than dictating you MUST wear the gear, it is sensible to have it there under 12,500ft (again another figure has to be chosen) in case its needed.
If I were a legislator I'd probably view that as a sensible concept. Like having a first aid kit available. Hope not to use it but it's there if you need.
Having a portable oxygen bottle on board in no way affects the viability of a business, particularly if the oxygen isn't even needed.
So maybe quit being a snide smartypants and accept others may actually have valid opinions.
Actually, if what has been presented above is correct, it does seem logical. There are definite effects of lack of oxygen on some people above 10,000ft (some figure has to be chosen and 10,000 is as good as any). Rather than dictating you MUST wear the gear, it is sensible to have it there under 12,500ft (again another figure has to be chosen) in case its needed.
If I were a legislator I'd probably view that as a sensible concept. Like having a first aid kit available. Hope not to use it but it's there if you need.
Having a portable oxygen bottle on board in no way affects the viability of a business, particularly if the oxygen isn't even needed.
So maybe quit being a snide smartypants and accept others may actually have valid opinions.
If this is based on science and if regulation is required, the regulation would be a requirement that deals with the risk: There would be a mandated minimum SPOs2 level.
Old Akro noted the solution earlier, which solution private pilots in the USA chose to take years ago.
Sadly, Australian pilots are apparently too stupid to do the same and the regulator wouldn’t know how to write an outcome-based regulation even if it bit the regulator on the pitot probe.
Old Akro noted the solution earlier, which solution private pilots in the USA chose to take years ago.
Sadly, Australian pilots are apparently too stupid to do the same and the regulator wouldn’t know how to write an outcome-based regulation even if it bit the regulator on the pitot probe.
Ixixly said "Once again, I don't see this as that much of an imposition.".
I also wonder if you have flown at 10,000 ft. Previously, you could cruise at (say) 10,000ft, then pop up to 10,500 or 11,000 ft (subject to the transition layer) for a short period without oxygen to get over a buildup. Now you cant.
I agree its prudent to use oxygen early if you are going high. I'll often use it above 8,000 ft. But, prudence and mandatory regulation are 2 different things. When I did my hypoxia training (have you done that Ixixly?), I did an added segment where I operated at a simulated 14,000 ft for 30 minutes. At that density altitude your judgement is slightly impaired, but there are many circumstances where its a whole lot safer than punching into weather. Why can I not use judgement without running the gambit of CASA's strict liability regulations.
A favourite quote at the moment is from Les Abend from Flying magazine (quoted by Chesney Sullenburger in his book) which is along the lines that pilots are selected for their knowlege and experience, but assessed for their compliance. Its time CASA allowed us to excercise knowledge & expereience again.
Also, (unlike the USA), we cannot simply go and buy a portable system. The removeable / portable system in Australia requires an STC and flight manual supplement for the specific aircraft - hence another round of engineering order & flight manual revision costs on top of the oxygen system. We need the USA style expemtion from engineering orders for minor modifications.
.
I also wonder if you have flown at 10,000 ft. Previously, you could cruise at (say) 10,000ft, then pop up to 10,500 or 11,000 ft (subject to the transition layer) for a short period without oxygen to get over a buildup. Now you cant.
I agree its prudent to use oxygen early if you are going high. I'll often use it above 8,000 ft. But, prudence and mandatory regulation are 2 different things. When I did my hypoxia training (have you done that Ixixly?), I did an added segment where I operated at a simulated 14,000 ft for 30 minutes. At that density altitude your judgement is slightly impaired, but there are many circumstances where its a whole lot safer than punching into weather. Why can I not use judgement without running the gambit of CASA's strict liability regulations.
A favourite quote at the moment is from Les Abend from Flying magazine (quoted by Chesney Sullenburger in his book) which is along the lines that pilots are selected for their knowlege and experience, but assessed for their compliance. Its time CASA allowed us to excercise knowledge & expereience again.
Also, (unlike the USA), we cannot simply go and buy a portable system. The removeable / portable system in Australia requires an STC and flight manual supplement for the specific aircraft - hence another round of engineering order & flight manual revision costs on top of the oxygen system. We need the USA style expemtion from engineering orders for minor modifications.
.
From CASAs perspective they know there are plenty of Pilots punching higher to get better weather/winds which is great but they also know there are likely to be plenty thinking "I'll just go to 10k and she'll be right, don't need no oxygen" then find themselves at 12k as they needed that little extra and then find themselves stuck above that without oxygen and no hypoxia training or real understanding of the effects it's having on them.
I don't remember requiring any STC or Flight Sup for portable oxygen either, if it matters we used the Mountain High Portable Kits, maybe some other type needs it?
Not expensive? The cost of maintaining a simple plumbed in system in something like a Cessna turbo single is unbelievable. The bottle and regulator have to be overhauled every 3 years and costs circa $4K and there’s only about one place in the country that can do it…. (And don’t they know it!) The green bottle has a life of 14? years and about $8k to replace. Whilst your local welder might be happy to fill up your portable bottle for a beer or two, a plumbed in system done in the aircraft can be $200 a shot from your authorised aviation oxy supplier. Dead simple? Maybe, but oxygen can be quite dangerous and some knowledge and precautions are necessary. It would be nice to hop over a bit of occasional fluff and ice at 10K for a few minutes without all of that paraphernalia and expense.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the USA this look nuts - why mandate O2 to be there to look at but not use?
OTOH - I just flew a 3,000 mile delivery with a lot of time at 9500 and 11500. I would have used O2 if I had it, my pulse-ox was in the mid to high 80s and it was fatiguing. I think I was better at high altitude flying when I was in my 20s, but maybe not so much anymore.
OTOH - I just flew a 3,000 mile delivery with a lot of time at 9500 and 11500. I would have used O2 if I had it, my pulse-ox was in the mid to high 80s and it was fatiguing. I think I was better at high altitude flying when I was in my 20s, but maybe not so much anymore.
From the USA this look nuts - why mandate O2 to be there to look at but not use?
OTOH - I just flew a 3,000 mile delivery with a lot of time at 9500 and 11500. I would have used O2 if I had it, my pulse-ox was in the mid to high 80s and it was fatiguing. I think I was better at high altitude flying when I was in my 20s, but maybe not so much anymore.
OTOH - I just flew a 3,000 mile delivery with a lot of time at 9500 and 11500. I would have used O2 if I had it, my pulse-ox was in the mid to high 80s and it was fatiguing. I think I was better at high altitude flying when I was in my 20s, but maybe not so much anymore.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you're asking us why mandate it when you yourself just did a rather large delivery flight with a lot of time over 10k feeling fatigued with your pulse-ox going into the mid 80s and didn't take any O2 to use? Perhaps to force people just like yourself to have it there and use it to reduce a fatigue factor that was easily within your control?
But you are NOT mandating USING it, just carrying it around. We actually tried really hard to get O2 for the delivery and it proved impossible, no one seemed to have it and the one place that finally did got the tanks to the FBO in California about the time we ended up in Maryland 3,000 miles away.
"All three come from thesame tank of liquid oxygen"
Always have been. Its the way the container (cylinder or tank) is handled and filled that differs so the specifications of the contets which vary between industrial, scientific, medical etc are met.
Always have been. Its the way the container (cylinder or tank) is handled and filled that differs so the specifications of the contets which vary between industrial, scientific, medical etc are met.
The need for supplemental O2 is an interesting one. How and why did they choose 10,000 or 12,500 PA as the cutoff? Why not 8,000? Which is the cabin altitude limitation of pressurised aircraft. Or why not say 19,000? which about the height of Mt Kilimanjaro which hundreds of trekkers ascend every day.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Or why not say 19,000? which about the height of Mt Kilimanjaro which hundreds of trekkers ascend every day.
Were you planning to operator this hire vehicle at around 150kts without the opportunity to pull over to the side if you were feeling unwell? If not then this is a pretty poor example and I honestly expect better of you Dick.
Hardly fair. That hire vehicle could have just as well been a minivan full of people. The other issue is that you don’t necessarily know that you’re feeling the effects of a lack of oxygen until you drive off the side of the cliff due to your poor judgement.
It's that air gap between the rubber and the ground that creates all the risk.
I realise it makes us feel good, Ix, to believe that aviation is extraordinarily complex and pilots need to be mini superpeople to be able to cope, thus justifying so much regulation. But, seriously, this is the 21st century and we're not talking about 747s or 380s or Space Shuttles.
I realise it makes us feel good, Ix, to believe that aviation is extraordinarily complex and pilots need to be mini superpeople to be able to cope, thus justifying so much regulation. But, seriously, this is the 21st century and we're not talking about 747s or 380s or Space Shuttles.
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reputable trekking companies in Nepal warn trekkers of symptoms above 10,000 ft and most will organise acclimatisation days of rest at around 12,000 ft. It is common for trekkers to fall over if the try to climb too high too fast.
I haven’t climbed Everest but I have been to high altitude in Nepal and I wouldn’t like to try to pass any serious psychometric test at 13,200 ft without acclimatisation.
You weren’t being clever Dick.
Just stupid.
.
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messner and Habeler both report hallucinations, out-of-body sensations and “phantom companion” experiences.
Close friends say that neither was the same afterwards.
Anybody who has attempted high peaks will tell you its mostly about enduring misery.
Close friends say that neither was the same afterwards.
Anybody who has attempted high peaks will tell you its mostly about enduring misery.
It's that air gap between the rubber and the ground that creates all the risk.
I realise it makes us feel good, Ix, to believe that aviation is extraordinarily complex and pilots need to be mini superpeople to be able to cope, thus justifying so much regulation. But, seriously, this is the 21st century and we're not talking about 747s or 380s or Space Shuttles.
I realise it makes us feel good, Ix, to believe that aviation is extraordinarily complex and pilots need to be mini superpeople to be able to cope, thus justifying so much regulation. But, seriously, this is the 21st century and we're not talking about 747s or 380s or Space Shuttles.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Messner and Habeler both report hallucinations, out-of-body sensations and “phantom companion” experiences.
Close friends say that neither was the same afterwards.
Anybody who has attempted high peaks will tell you its mostly about enduring misery.
Close friends say that neither was the same afterwards.
Anybody who has attempted high peaks will tell you its mostly about enduring misery.
You still around, Kenya?