How high do you fly?
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.
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.
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.
I fly to look at the terrain.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Gender Faculty Specialist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:-
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.
Last edited by foxmoth; 20th Feb 2016 at 07:20.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Council Van; 14th Sep 2018 at 06:27.
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.
Gender Faculty Specialist
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.
Being a smoker can also delay the onset of AMS.
Last edited by Chesty Morgan; 20th Feb 2016 at 09:19.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: go west
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Really close to NANTI.
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
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 !
Chesty Morgan:
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewc...&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
Conclusions Smoking slightly decreases the risk of AMS but impairs long-term altitude acclimatisation and lung function during a prolonged stay at high altitude.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewc...&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
Conclusions Smoking slightly decreases the risk of AMS but impairs long-term altitude acclimatisation and lung function during a prolonged stay at high altitude.
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
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.
Comparisons of altitude tolerance and hypoxia symptoms between nonsmokers and habitual smokers. - PubMed - NCBI
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.
Last edited by abgd; 21st Feb 2016 at 01:29.
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
Had been up to 18,000 in mountain wave in my friends Duo Discus, and that was
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.
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
Had been up to 18,000 in mountain wave in my friends Duo Discus, and that was
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
Then again - being thick - just read your name again! Antonov? But then isn't that supercharged?