Peter wrote:
I very much doubt that will run for the 30 mins or so one needs…
Everything about oxygen is very individual. I have a friend who often flies at 14-15,000ft and has never had an incident (1500+ hours at these heights). I recently flew at 14,500ft for about 20 min with 4 people on board, all healthy young men, not an issue with anyone, not even a headache. But you can never trust this and you can never be sure the next flight will be the same, so having a couple of those on board seems like a good precaution, even at lower altitudes.
Vladimir wrote:
I am thinking of getting one of these as a quick backup for my system.
Given the EDS failure mode “valve shut” I already have one for this purpose.
europaxs wrote:
I already have one for this purpose.
Any experience passing airport security (as a GA pilot) with them?
Nope, it’s in my aircraft permanently and I operate from an airfield without the security stuff.
Yes Peter, that was a typo… I meant to type that I got myself down to 88%, rather than 98%. 98% saturation is normal for me…
Cobalt wrote:
There are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with the new freedoms granted to private operators, but fortunately they lost the debate.
Cobalt, no offence taken. My point is that the regulation gives on the one hand but takes on the other. For sure, there are examples of it being safe but equally, EASA want pilots to ‘prove’ (determine) that it will be safe. It’s a fuzzy logic.
Some think that giving people more freedom causes them to take more responsibility for themselves and hence err on the side of caution. It is an argument commonly used to defend free speed on the freeways. One needs to make sure that pilots are indeed aware of the effects of hypoxia to approach the subject with respect.
I once did a flight where I spent 45 minutes above FL100, thereof 20 minutes at FL130 with 4 POB. Several hours after the flight one passenger complained about a very strong headache. Whether that was related to hypoxia, I do not know. She seemed fine during the flight.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
My point is that the regulation gives on the one hand but takes on the other. For sure, there are examples of it being safe but equally, EASA want pilots to ‘prove’ (determine) that it will be safe. It’s a fuzzy logic.
(b) was originally proposed as AMC to the rule in (a), and I think you can see it has exactly the character of AMC. This was opposed by the some states at EASA Committee, though not for the reasons that you might think. The rationale was that if it goes into the rule, the Commission pays for it to be translated. Ah, rulemaking…
Everyone who thinks this is a matter of “feel fine” should have a ride in an altitude chamber.
I did, and I felt fine and pretty much in control the whole time.
But I was videotaped and it was merciless to look at. I looked and talked and behaved like a complete junkie.
Oxygen may well be a very individual matter, that does not help much because you cannot find your own limits by trial and error. It is just not safe.
