Need oxygen information

[Neptune]

As an MD soaring pilot (Boulder CO) and ex military fighter nock I have
become interested the FAA mandates as concerns oxygen use in civilian
aircraft and especially gliders as we have more weight concerns that the
powered boys.

I apologize if this sounds egocentric, but I have done a great deal of
work - both practical as well as medical literature research - in this area.
To make a long story short it appears that the FAA mandates on the use of
oxygen (14CFR23.1443) are unequivocally at least 40years out of date and at
least two levels of medical monitoring sophistication out of date. I spite
of this commercial companies are espousing the most amazing performance
levels for their oxygen delivery systems based on no objective peer-reviewed
literature studies at all.

The FAA regs address constant flow systems and in 2004 the systems have
advanced significantly to pulsed systems.

I do have some flight test data from the only company that has apparently
performed in-flight testings, but due to no physician being involved the
study was exceptionally dangerous (levels to 18,000). I am amazed that
nobody had serious neurologic problems. However the value of this totally
poor "study' was that unequivocally the FAA 14433 mandates - even for
continuous flow - (in my opinion) are dangerous, and the "oxymizer" cannulae
do not appear to function as advertised.

I have been to CAMI with my concerns, but as usual they have funding
problems and as a result appear to not be particularly interested in doing
the necessary research.

I have had email contact the British through the Medical Officer of the
soaring organization and they have no information.

Since I am in residence in the North Island of New Zealand 6 months/year I
recently went to Omarama and spoke with several reputedly knowledgeable
individuals there - same story as the Brits - no information and
littleconcern - "she'll be right, mate!". Both countries seem to be
following the lead of the FAA. In effect my concerns are being ignored there
as well as in the USA. Furthermore it appears that the EU may be about to
accept the FAA mandates...

The end result - in my medical/flying experience - is that due to amazingly
outmoded FAA mandates on oxygen flow based on ancient equipment we pilots
are flying with equipment that had not been tested in a peer-reviewed
objective manner. The only flight testing that I know about indicates that
the FAA mandates for constant flow systems are dangerous and relates to
constant-flow systems.

I am not saying that the newer "pulsed" systems are dangerous - but they
have not been objectively tested and some of the manufacturers claims seem
to me to be - well - a bit excessive.

I feel I have enough information to take my concerns officially to the FAA,
but realistically expect my communication to simply be buried. As a result I
think it would be much more likely to get attention were I to send
information to some member of Congress or Congressional committee..

(1) Does anyone out there have any comments? I would be especially
interested to communicate with other individuals with knowledge of oxygen
systems in use internationally in light aircraft/gliders (je peux parler
Francais und I kann auch auf Deutsch unterhalten).

(2) Any recommendations as to how to bypass the probable FAA stonewalling
and get the attention of someone who might conceivably give a damn?

Neptune

[jer]

Let's see if I understand this. You have a solution and your looking for a
problem?



In article >, "Neptune"
> wrote:
>As an MD soaring pilot (Boulder CO) and ex military fighter nock I have
>become interested the FAA mandates as concerns oxygen use in civilian
>aircraft and especially gliders as we have more weight concerns that the
>powered boys.
>
>I apologize if this sounds egocentric, but I have done a great deal of
>work - both practical as well as medical literature research - in this area.
>To make a long story short it appears that the FAA mandates on the use of
>oxygen (14CFR23.1443) are unequivocally at least 40years out of date and at
>least two levels of medical monitoring sophistication out of date. I spite
>of this commercial companies are espousing the most amazing performance
>levels for their oxygen delivery systems based on no objective peer-reviewed
>literature studies at all.
>
>The FAA regs address constant flow systems and in 2004 the systems have
>advanced significantly to pulsed systems.
>
>I do have some flight test data from the only company that has apparently
>performed in-flight testings, but due to no physician being involved the
>study was exceptionally dangerous (levels to 18,000). I am amazed that
>nobody had serious neurologic problems. However the value of this totally
>poor "study' was that unequivocally the FAA 14433 mandates - even for
>continuous flow - (in my opinion) are dangerous, and the "oxymizer" cannulae
>do not appear to function as advertised.
>
>I have been to CAMI with my concerns, but as usual they have funding
>problems and as a result appear to not be particularly interested in doing
>the necessary research.
>
>I have had email contact the British through the Medical Officer of the
>soaring organization and they have no information.
>
>Since I am in residence in the North Island of New Zealand 6 months/year I
>recently went to Omarama and spoke with several reputedly knowledgeable
>individuals there - same story as the Brits - no information and
>littleconcern - "she'll be right, mate!". Both countries seem to be
>following the lead of the FAA. In effect my concerns are being ignored there
>as well as in the USA. Furthermore it appears that the EU may be about to
>accept the FAA mandates...
>
>The end result - in my medical/flying experience - is that due to amazingly
>outmoded FAA mandates on oxygen flow based on ancient equipment we pilots
>are flying with equipment that had not been tested in a peer-reviewed
>objective manner. The only flight testing that I know about indicates that
>the FAA mandates for constant flow systems are dangerous and relates to
>constant-flow systems.
>
>I am not saying that the newer "pulsed" systems are dangerous - but they
>have not been objectively tested and some of the manufacturers claims seem
>to me to be - well - a bit excessive.
>
>I feel I have enough information to take my concerns officially to the FAA,
>but realistically expect my communication to simply be buried. As a result I
>think it would be much more likely to get attention were I to send
>information to some member of Congress or Congressional committee..
>
>(1) Does anyone out there have any comments? I would be especially
>interested to communicate with other individuals with knowledge of oxygen
>systems in use internationally in light aircraft/gliders (je peux parler
>Francais und I kann auch auf Deutsch unterhalten).
>
>(2) Any recommendations as to how to bypass the probable FAA stonewalling
>and get the attention of someone who might conceivably give a damn?
>
>Neptune
>
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

I share your concern about the cavalier approach many pilots have toward
oxygen use. I wouldn't join a quest to tighten the regulations, however.
I'd prefer the education route.

Let me ask this. Would you be satisfied if pilots monitored their SpO2 with
a pulse oxymeter and maintained their oxygen saturation percentage in the
mid to high 90's? I trust no oxygen system and always use a pulse oxymeter.

Your concern about the use of the "Oxymizer" cannula with a pulse demand
oxygen system is well founded.

Bill Daniels


"Neptune" > wrote in message
...
> As an MD soaring pilot (Boulder CO) and ex military fighter nock I have
> become interested the FAA mandates as concerns oxygen use in civilian
> aircraft and especially gliders as we have more weight concerns that the
> powered boys.
>
> I apologize if this sounds egocentric, but I have done a great deal of
> work - both practical as well as medical literature research - in this
area.
> To make a long story short it appears that the FAA mandates on the use of
> oxygen (14CFR23.1443) are unequivocally at least 40years out of date and
at
> least two levels of medical monitoring sophistication out of date. I spite
> of this commercial companies are espousing the most amazing performance
> levels for their oxygen delivery systems based on no objective
peer-reviewed
> literature studies at all.
>
> The FAA regs address constant flow systems and in 2004 the systems have
> advanced significantly to pulsed systems.
>
> I do have some flight test data from the only company that has apparently
> performed in-flight testings, but due to no physician being involved the
> study was exceptionally dangerous (levels to 18,000). I am amazed that
> nobody had serious neurologic problems. However the value of this totally
> poor "study' was that unequivocally the FAA 14433 mandates - even for
> continuous flow - (in my opinion) are dangerous, and the "oxymizer"
cannulae
> do not appear to function as advertised.
>
> I have been to CAMI with my concerns, but as usual they have funding
> problems and as a result appear to not be particularly interested in doing
> the necessary research.
>
> I have had email contact the British through the Medical Officer of the
> soaring organization and they have no information.
>
> Since I am in residence in the North Island of New Zealand 6 months/year I
> recently went to Omarama and spoke with several reputedly knowledgeable
> individuals there - same story as the Brits - no information and
> littleconcern - "she'll be right, mate!". Both countries seem to be
> following the lead of the FAA. In effect my concerns are being ignored
there
> as well as in the USA. Furthermore it appears that the EU may be about to
> accept the FAA mandates...
>
> The end result - in my medical/flying experience - is that due to
amazingly
> outmoded FAA mandates on oxygen flow based on ancient equipment we pilots
> are flying with equipment that had not been tested in a peer-reviewed
> objective manner. The only flight testing that I know about indicates that
> the FAA mandates for constant flow systems are dangerous and relates to
> constant-flow systems.
>
> I am not saying that the newer "pulsed" systems are dangerous - but they
> have not been objectively tested and some of the manufacturers claims seem
> to me to be - well - a bit excessive.
>
> I feel I have enough information to take my concerns officially to the
FAA,
> but realistically expect my communication to simply be buried. As a result
I
> think it would be much more likely to get attention were I to send
> information to some member of Congress or Congressional committee..
>
> (1) Does anyone out there have any comments? I would be especially
> interested to communicate with other individuals with knowledge of oxygen
> systems in use internationally in light aircraft/gliders (je peux parler
> Francais und I kann auch auf Deutsch unterhalten).
>
> (2) Any recommendations as to how to bypass the probable FAA stonewalling
> and get the attention of someone who might conceivably give a damn?
>
> Neptune
>
>
>

[Kilo Charlie]

I am also an physician (anesthesiologist and pediatric intensivist) and have
read what little literature there is out there. I agree with the your
assessment that few, if any reasonably performed studies have been done. I
also agree with the idea that some of the manufacturers of oxygen equipment
present overly optimistic claims for the performance of their products.

I also agree however, with the 2 posts above re 1.) the question of whether
there is a problem i.e. do you have data (since you seemed convinced that is
the only way to accurately determine things) that there have been mishaps
directly related to lack of oxygen in the sailplane community and if so
let's hear about it, and 2.) that it very clearly does not matter if any
studies have been or will be done if you are using a pulse oximeter and can
see that your sats are in the 90's in flight.

The final line for me when asked my professional opinion re these systems is
to tell pilots that if they REALLY wish to be safe while flying at high
altitudes they should purchase a pulse oximeter and know how to use it.
Notwithstanding the various hemoglobinopathies and pathological shifts in
the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve (which are extremely rare for you non
medical types) the pulse oximeter provides all the info you will need.
Certainly if you are a wave addict then participating in a high altitude
chamber course would be of help.

Finally I absolutely disagree with the notion that more regulation would be
preferred in this area.

I'll end with a question....why do so many folks that wish to present strong
and possibly controversial opinions wish to use pseudonyms?

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Paul Repacholi]

"Bill Daniels" > writes:

> I share your concern about the cavalier approach many pilots have
> toward oxygen use. I wouldn't join a quest to tighten the
> regulations, however. I'd prefer the education route.

> Let me ask this. Would you be satisfied if pilots monitored their
> SpO2 with a pulse oxymeter and maintained their oxygen saturation
> percentage in the mid to high 90's? I trust no oxygen system and
> always use a pulse oxymeter.

> Your concern about the use of the "Oxymizer" cannula with a pulse
> demand oxygen system is well founded.

Have you seen the article on avweb about Cheane-Stokes breathing?
I think it was in one of John Deakins articles on flying at FL290
for a non-stop CA-KA sort some such nonsense. Nope, but refered to,

See
http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181936-1.html

for some of the details. The URL to the respiration article
is dead, but you may be able to get a copy if you ask.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.