How high do you fly?
 

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

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.

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:

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.

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!

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

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!).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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:-

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

???

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.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewc...&context=jhpee

Being a smoker can also delay the onset of AMS.

How high ?
 

The altitude that safely gives me the best ground speed.

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.

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

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.

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 !

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.

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

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

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...psgqrsuasf.jpg

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.

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.

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

No, not the Antonov. Mooney M20C.