Your favorite altitude

[Mxsmanic]

When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what altitude
AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at what
altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort? Also,
what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
perspective)?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what altitude
> AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at what
> altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort? Also,
> what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> perspective)?

The question makes no sense as written.

Generally 3000 AGL minimum to have some glide room if the engine quits.

For short trips, 4500/5500 MSL, longer trips 5500/6500, real long
trips or over mountains, 7500/8500.

A Tiger.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan[_1_]]

In mountainous areas, I like to stay at least 1000 ft. above the
highest terrain along the course. More if the winds aloft are high.
Out here in the west, it always seems like I'm bumping up against the
oxygen altitude limits if I'm IFR though...

--Dan



On Apr 11, 12:55 pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> > altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what altitude
> > AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at what
> > altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort? Also,
> > what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> > perspective)?
>
> The question makes no sense as written.
>
> Generally 3000 AGL minimum to have some glide room if the engine quits.
>
> For short trips, 4500/5500 MSL, longer trips 5500/6500, real long
> trips or over mountains, 7500/8500.
>
> A Tiger.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 11, 12:25 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what altitude
> AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at what
> altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort? Also,
> what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> perspective)?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It totally depends on what you are flying. I'm much more comfortable
below 1,000 in the J-3 vs the M20.

-Robert

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what
> altitude
> AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at
> what
> altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort?
> Also,
> what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> perspective)?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

More that once over the plains around Amarillo Texas I would fly cross
country at about 3 feet. I had to climb to go over the barbed wire fences.
Perfectly legal as best I could tell. I could easily have landed if my
engine quit. It is REALLY flat up there.

Danny Deger

[george]

On Apr 12, 8:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:25 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> > altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what altitude
> > AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at what
> > altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort? Also,
> > what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> > perspective)?
>
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> It totally depends on what you are flying. I'm much more comfortable
> below 1,000 in the J-3 vs the M20.
>
anything that clears the granite overcast :-)

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what
> altitude
> AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at
> what
> altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort?
> Also,
> what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> perspective)?
>

From 3' to 10,000' depending on the aircraft, population, terran and purpose
of the flight.

[Paul kgyy]

Given favorable winds, I like to fly at 7-9000 over the plains. In
mountains, which I don't do much any more, I like to be as high as I
can without oxygen considerations, which usually means 10-12,000 if
not for too long, or if more than half an hour I start using O2.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
> altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what altitude
> AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at what
> altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort? Also,
> what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
> perspective)?

Well there's safety in altitude - but it's highly dependant on
circumstance...

A flight I like to do (from NZCH) is head out over the city (within the
CTR so tower provides an upper limit) and then circumnavigate Banks
Peninsula (1,000' to 3,000' or above - thereabouts), then arrive back
via New Brighton and nip along the beach at 500' AGL (passensgers get a
great sense of speed and exhileration - and if I have an engine problem
I can drop the plane on the beach easy as), then climb up to 1,500' and
do a T&G at Rangiora (NZRT) and then back to NZCH per tower
instructions.

Great fun, not expensive, very safe.

--
Duncan

[Jose]

I like to fly low. Ideally, I'd fly 500 feet above the treetops in good
visibility. It's a great XC excercise, but WATCH FOR TOWERS! :)
Most often I'm a thousand or two above the ground, depending on terrain.
Windy and hilly make me want some more altitude. I will climb for a
good tailwind and to remain within gliding distance of land.

The view is quite different at nine thousand than at two.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Cherokee 180

90% of the time I'm cruising between 3000 AGL and 5000-7000 MSL. I'm
occasionally between 2000 and 3000 AGL for sightseeing, never lower,
and rarely above 9000 MSL (takes too long to get there).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone"
> for altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At
> what altitude AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the
> ground, and at what altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high
> for your own comfort? Also, what type of aircraft do you normally fly
> (just to put these numbers in perspective)?

I fly all sorts, send me 50$ and i'll tell you how low I fly in each one.

Oh and that's $50 for each type.


Bertie

[Aluckyguess]

the smooth one

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
>> altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what
>> altitude
>> AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at
>> what
>> altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort?
>> Also,
>> what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
>> perspective)?
>
> The question makes no sense as written.
>
> Generally 3000 AGL minimum to have some glide room if the engine quits.
>
> For short trips, 4500/5500 MSL, longer trips 5500/6500, real long
> trips or over mountains, 7500/8500.
>
> A Tiger.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[EridanMan]

Completely agree with the 'depend on circumstances' crowd, although I
have found that the aviation community tends to be split into two
personalities - those who prefer to get "as high as practical", and
those who tend to enjoy staying lower, enjoying the view (for what its
worth, the latter crowd in my experience seems to do more to make sure
they stay over easily land-able terrain, whereas the 'get-high' group
tends to take more direct routing, so I'm not sure one is particularly
more dangerous than the other).

Kinda a 'get up, get there' vs 'low, slow, and enjoy the view'
dichotomy.

I think most of us fall somewhere in between, it the main thing is
what do we want to get out of a particular flight.

About the only exception i'll say in terms of other 'altitude
preference'. When flying heavily congested, open vfr airspace (such
as SF bay on a bay tour), I've always been most comfortable flying at
'250 and '750 altitudes rather than '000 and '500... The rational is
pretty simple - its still trivially easy to track my altitude
precisely (the mind responds faster to vertical or horizontial
orientations on the altimeter than it does reading particular values),
while at the same time, it gets me 'off the beaten path' so to speak.

The safety value is marginal, if nill in reality (between sightseeing
pilot's not holding altitude and differing altimeter calibrations),
but I still do it now out of habit.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> In mountainous areas, I like to stay at least 1000 ft. above the
> highest terrain along the course. More if the winds aloft are high.
> Out here in the west, it always seems like I'm bumping up against the
> oxygen altitude limits if I'm IFR though...

Why only when you are IFR?

I note that a lot of the areas in the western U.S. have sizable mountains.

If you have a choice between continuing straight on and climbing several
thousand feet to clear some mountains (with the potential need for
supplementary oxygen), and taking a detour to go them without a change in
altitude but at the cost of extra time and distance, which do you usually
prefer or consider more prudent?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> anything that clears the granite overcast :-)

I presume that "granite overcast" is a slang term for terrain?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Danny Deger writes:

> More that once over the plains around Amarillo Texas I would fly cross
> country at about 3 feet. I had to climb to go over the barbed wire fences.
> Perfectly legal as best I could tell. I could easily have landed if my
> engine quit. It is REALLY flat up there.

Three feet would make me uncomfortable, but to each his own.

It also wouldn't be legal, since it violates 91.119(a), although in Texas I
suppose there isn't anyone around to watch and enforce.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul kgyy writes:

> Given favorable winds, I like to fly at 7-9000 over the plains. In
> mountains, which I don't do much any more, I like to be as high as I
> can without oxygen considerations, which usually means 10-12,000 if
> not for too long, or if more than half an hour I start using O2.

Do you always keep oxygen on hand, or do you only bring it along if you
suspect you'll be needing it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> About the only exception i'll say in terms of other 'altitude
> preference'. When flying heavily congested, open vfr airspace (such
> as SF bay on a bay tour), I've always been most comfortable flying at
> '250 and '750 altitudes rather than '000 and '500... The rational is
> pretty simple - its still trivially easy to track my altitude
> precisely (the mind responds faster to vertical or horizontial
> orientations on the altimeter than it does reading particular values),
> while at the same time, it gets me 'off the beaten path' so to speak.

Do you risk getting into any trouble by not following the x500 rule for
altitude?

Wouldn't it be safer to fly at x200 or x700 altitudes, since the transponder
rounds off to the nearest hundred?

Unusual altitudes appear to violate 91.159 unless you're at 3000 AGL or below,
although I thought I had read somewhere that VFR flights could fly at any
altitude as long as they were not directed otherwise by ATC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Danny Deger writes:
>
>> More that once over the plains around Amarillo Texas I would fly cross
>> country at about 3 feet. I had to climb to go over the barbed wire
>> fences.
>> Perfectly legal as best I could tell. I could easily have landed if my
>> engine quit. It is REALLY flat up there.
>
> Three feet would make me uncomfortable, but to each his own.
>
> It also wouldn't be legal, since it violates 91.119(a), although in Texas
> I
> suppose there isn't anyone around to watch and enforce.
>
> --

91.119(a) says: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails,
an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.

You didn't read my post. I clearly stated I could have safely landed if the
engine failed.

Danny Deger

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Three feet would make me uncomfortable, but to each his own.
>
> It also wouldn't be legal, since it violates 91.119(a), although in
> Texas I suppose there isn't anyone around to watch and enforce.

You are mistaken for one of two mutually exclusive reasons:

First reason:
He said he could have landed in the event of engine failure and there was
no persons or property at risk.

Second reason:
Applicability. Actually this is the second time you would have made this
particular mistake. Read section 91.1 and then read part 103 (it's a pretty
short read, as FARs go!). What type of plane do think Danny could have been
flying?

(In a previous thread the OP had specifically stated he was flying an
ultralight and you asserted he had been in violation of 91.119. Part 91 is
not applicable to ultralights.)

[EridanMan]

I'm _well_ below 3000ft AGL (if you check the SF chart, you'll see the
whole area I'm talking about resides beneath a 1500/3000 foot SFO
Bravo shelf).

Transponders only need to be calibrated to within 300 feet, so the
granularity isn't important, as I mentioned, I find it FAR easier to
hold a 250 or 750 altitude anyways because I can just reference a
horizontal line on the altimeter.

And, this is just my personal practice, I _do not_ vouch for it beyond
that, and If anyone has an issue with it, I'm interested to learn why.

[Mxsmanic]

Danny Deger writes:

> You didn't read my post. I clearly stated I could have safely landed if the
> engine failed.

And if your engine quit before you could climb to avoid the barbed-wire fence?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> First reason:
> He said he could have landed in the event of engine failure and there was
> no persons or property at risk.

If he had to climb to avoid a barbed-wire fence, he wasn't high enough to land
safely. If the engine quits before he climbs for the fence, he hits the
fence, and there's not enough room below him to turn. After a power loss he
has only a few seconds to land even with no obstacles.

> Second reason:
> Applicability. Actually this is the second time you would have made this
> particular mistake. Read section 91.1 and then read part 103 (it's a pretty
> short read, as FARs go!). What type of plane do think Danny could have been
> flying?

I don't recall him specifying an aircraft type.

> In a previous thread the OP had specifically stated he was flying an
> ultralight and you asserted he had been in violation of 91.119. Part 91 is
> not applicable to ultralights.

Then I was mistaken in that thread. However, I don't keep a log of what
everyone has said in every thread; I generally read and respond to posts
individually, keeping no more than a few prior posts in context.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dan writes:

> > In mountainous areas, I like to stay at least 1000 ft. above the
> > highest terrain along the course. More if the winds aloft are high.
> > Out here in the west, it always seems like I'm bumping up against the
> > oxygen altitude limits if I'm IFR though...

> Why only when you are IFR?

> I note that a lot of the areas in the western U.S. have sizable mountains.

> If you have a choice between continuing straight on and climbing several
> thousand feet to clear some mountains (with the potential need for
> supplementary oxygen), and taking a detour to go them without a change in
> altitude but at the cost of extra time and distance, which do you usually
> prefer or consider more prudent?

Since most aircraft don't have oxygen, the question is rather pointless.

If an aircraft does have oxygen, it most likely has the capability
of easily clearing mountains and the choice is obvious.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Out here in the west, it always seems like I'm bumping up against the
>> oxygen altitude limits if I'm IFR though...
>
> Why only when you are IFR?
>
> I note that a lot of the areas in the western U.S. have sizable mountains.

You answered your own question; the difference to simplify a bit, is that
the minimal altitude required when flying over mountains is much higher when
flying IFR than what you can do VFR.

> If you have a choice between continuing straight on and climbing several
> thousand feet to clear some mountains (with the potential need for
> supplementary oxygen), and taking a detour to go them without a change in
> altitude but at the cost of extra time and distance, which do you usually
> prefer or consider more prudent?

Depends on the weather, the aircraft I am flying, whether it is day or
night and my currency (recent flying in the conditions considered and
in turn how confident I feel doing the thing), the duration of the
flight (how tired will I be), etc.

For instance I am fine with flying over mountains, OR at night OR IFR
(in IMC that is); I am getting less confortable with two of these elements
together, and I won't go with all three. Having the choice between single
and (one) multi engine make the choice a wee bit more complicated (well,
actually no, it doesn't; considering the aircraft from which I can choose
it makes more sense economically to pick one of the single engines is
nobody else is willing to share the cost) :-)

A typical flight I have done a couple of times is flying from San Jose
to Las Vegas; I don't mind going over the mountain with a clear weather
and little wind early in the morning; but I'll make the detour southward
when flying back in the evening/night.

May be am I just a wuss,

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

wrote:
>
> Since most aircraft don't have oxygen, the question is rather pointless.
>
> If an aircraft does have oxygen, it most likely has the capability
> of easily clearing mountains and the choice is obvious.

A portable oxygen system is quite affordable (and actually reduces
fatigue during long flights even if you don't fly at altitudes legally
requiring to use it); quite a few normally aspirated piston singles
can fly quite happily at these altitudes (well, not by much, but
they can)

--Sylvain

[[email protected]]

Sylvain > wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Since most aircraft don't have oxygen, the question is rather pointless.
> >
> > If an aircraft does have oxygen, it most likely has the capability
> > of easily clearing mountains and the choice is obvious.

> A portable oxygen system is quite affordable (and actually reduces
> fatigue during long flights even if you don't fly at altitudes legally
> requiring to use it); quite a few normally aspirated piston singles
> can fly quite happily at these altitudes (well, not by much, but
> they can)

All true.

However, if you look in airplanes on the line, you almost never see
a 172/Warrior class airplane with oxygen.

You will occasionally see it in 182/Archer class airplane.

The vast majority of GA aircraft out there fall in those classes.

While my Tiger has a service ceiling of 13,800, I will probably
never get an oxygen system as I fly for fun which means going
around the mountain is no issue and physiological conciderations
for the crew (a wife with diabetes) limits legs to 3 hours or less
unless I want to lose the airplane in the divorce setttlment.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Sylvain > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

> >> Out here in the west, it always seems like I'm bumping up against the
> >> oxygen altitude limits if I'm IFR though...
> >
> > Why only when you are IFR?
> >
> > I note that a lot of the areas in the western U.S. have sizable mountains.

> You answered your own question; the difference to simplify a bit, is that
> the minimal altitude required when flying over mountains is much higher when
> flying IFR than what you can do VFR.

> > If you have a choice between continuing straight on and climbing several
> > thousand feet to clear some mountains (with the potential need for
> > supplementary oxygen), and taking a detour to go them without a change in
> > altitude but at the cost of extra time and distance, which do you usually
> > prefer or consider more prudent?

> Depends on the weather, the aircraft I am flying, whether it is day or
> night and my currency (recent flying in the conditions considered and
> in turn how confident I feel doing the thing), the duration of the
> flight (how tired will I be), etc.

> For instance I am fine with flying over mountains, OR at night OR IFR
> (in IMC that is); I am getting less confortable with two of these elements
> together, and I won't go with all three. Having the choice between single
> and (one) multi engine make the choice a wee bit more complicated (well,
> actually no, it doesn't; considering the aircraft from which I can choose
> it makes more sense economically to pick one of the single engines is
> nobody else is willing to share the cost) :-)

> A typical flight I have done a couple of times is flying from San Jose
> to Las Vegas; I don't mind going over the mountain with a clear weather
> and little wind early in the morning; but I'll make the detour southward
> when flying back in the evening/night.

> May be am I just a wuss,

Maybe, but mostly likely you will get to be an old wuss.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Since most aircraft don't have oxygen, the question is rather pointless.

You can carry oxygen on board easily enough. It seems prudent to me to always
have oxygen on board, but that's just me.

> If an aircraft does have oxygen, it most likely has the capability
> of easily clearing mountains and the choice is obvious.

If the choice were obvious, I wouldn't ask.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Since most aircraft don't have oxygen, the question is rather pointless.
>
> You can carry oxygen on board easily enough. It seems prudent to me to
> always
> have oxygen on board, but that's just me.

Sounds to me like you need oxygen just to fly your desk. It's useless to the
vast majority of GA flights.

>
>> If an aircraft does have oxygen, it most likely has the capability
>> of easily clearing mountains and the choice is obvious.
>
> If the choice were obvious, I wouldn't ask.

The choice is extremely obvious to most any experienced pilot, and this is a
pilots forum.

[TheSmokingGnu]

wrote:
> I will probably
> never get an oxygen system as I fly for fun which means going
> around the mountain is no issue...

You think going around is fun, just wait 'til you try going _through_ it!

:P

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Sounds to me like you need oxygen just to fly your desk. It's useless to the
> vast majority of GA flights.

Sounds to me like you fly pretty low most of the time. Oxygen is useful even
at 5000 feet.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Sounds to me like you need oxygen just to fly your desk. It's useless to
>> the
>> vast majority of GA flights.
>
> Sounds to me like you fly pretty low most of the time. Oxygen is useful
> even
> at 5000 feet.

For what?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> First reason:
>> He said he could have landed in the event of engine failure and there
>> was no persons or property at risk.
>
> If he had to climb to avoid a barbed-wire fence, he wasn't high enough
> to land safely. If the engine quits before he climbs for the fence,
> he hits the fence,

Nope, wrong again, nmoron.


Bertie

[Gary[_2_]]

On Apr 12, 12:27 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If he had to climb to avoid a barbed-wire fence, he wasn't high enough to land
> safely. If the engine quits before he climbs for the fence, he hits the
> fence

So, your belief is that an airplane cannot climb (even 1 foot, which
is about what would be required in this case), once the engine stops?

Your simulator is not proving to be a good training tool...

[Paul kgyy]

>
> Do you always keep oxygen on hand, or do you only bring it along if you
> suspect you'll be needing it?
>
I take it only if I expect to need it, i.e. if headed for mountains.

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Danny Deger writes:
>
>> You didn't read my post. I clearly stated I could have safely landed if
>> the
>> engine failed.
>
> And if your engine quit before you could climb to avoid the barbed-wire
> fence?
>
> --

It is called airspeed.

Danny Deger

> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

TheSmokingGnu > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I will probably
> > never get an oxygen system as I fly for fun which means going
> > around the mountain is no issue...

> You think going around is fun, just wait 'til you try going _through_ it!

I don't get you.

Why would I ever try that?

I only fly VFR and for fun; i.e. I have no schedule to make and if
I don't like what I see ahead of me, I go somewhere else.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Since most aircraft don't have oxygen, the question is rather pointless.

> You can carry oxygen on board easily enough. It seems prudent to me to always
> have oxygen on board, but that's just me.

Real oxygen in real airplanes costs real money and real weight.

Since in most GA aircraft it is a struggle to get to an altitude
where oxygen is required and except around places like the Rockies
seldom necessary to go that high, most people don't bother with it.

> > If an aircraft does have oxygen, it most likely has the capability
> > of easily clearing mountains and the choice is obvious.

> If the choice were obvious, I wouldn't ask.

It is obvious to people that fly real airplanes.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:

> > Sounds to me like you need oxygen just to fly your desk. It's useless to the
> > vast majority of GA flights.

> Sounds to me like you fly pretty low most of the time. Oxygen is useful even
> at 5000 feet.

Only for someone with a health issue or for very long legs.

What would you think it would be useful for to the general pilot?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Sylvain]

TheSmokingGnu wrote:

> You think going around is fun, just wait 'til you try going _through_ it!

I did try that once, wouldn't recommend it (one of the little problems I
was talking about in one of MX threads)

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

wrote:

>> even at 5000 feet.
>
> Only for someone with a health issue or for very long legs.
>
> What would you think it would be useful for to the general pilot?

When flying at night. I didn't believe it would make a difference
either until I tried (the most noticeable effect is the improvement
in your vision)

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> For what?

For keeping your head clear. Five thousand feet is quite a distance up unless
you actually live at that altitude, and a bit of pure oxygen will not hurt and
may well help.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Sylvain > wrote:
> wrote:

> >> even at 5000 feet.
> >
> > Only for someone with a health issue or for very long legs.
> >
> > What would you think it would be useful for to the general pilot?

> When flying at night. I didn't believe it would make a difference
> either until I tried (the most noticeable effect is the improvement
> in your vision)

It is my understanding that it is time and age dependant.

Two questions; how old are you and do you see an immediate improvement
or does it depend on how long you are flying.

In my case it is moot since I limit my night flying to short "see the
pretty lights" in the local area trips for others.

BTW, I've found that if you have an airport with ALS, it impresses
the hell out of non-pilots if you can get the tower to turn
everything on during final for a few seconds.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> TheSmokingGnu > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I will probably
>>> never get an oxygen system as I fly for fun which means going
>>> around the mountain is no issue...
>
>> You think going around is fun, just wait 'til you try going
>> _through_ it!
>
> I don't get you.
>
> Why would I ever try that?
>
> I only fly VFR and for fun; i.e. I have no schedule to make and if
> I don't like what I see ahead of me, I go somewhere else.
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Jim, two definitions your might want to take a look at...


joke (jok)
n.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Only for someone with a health issue or for very long legs.
>
> What would you think it would be useful for to the general pilot?

It improves cerebration and CNS function, both of which are very sensitive to
oxygenation. For example, night vision works better with oxygen, even at 5000
feet.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TheSmokingGnu]

wrote:
> I don't get you.
>
> Why would I ever try that?

'Twas a joke, Jim!

You'd need a really big engine, and a good cushion of airspeed anyway. :P

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I guess that's a true statement since I, personally, have never
> gone more than 3 minutes without inhaling oxygen (at any altitude).
> But since most airlines pressurize to 5000 - 8000 ft, it is a retarded
> statement in the context of practical aviation use.

Try some night flying with and without.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Real oxygen in real airplanes costs real money and real weight.

Becoming confused or blind because you're a bit low on oxygen can cost you
your life.

> Since in most GA aircraft it is a struggle to get to an altitude
> where oxygen is required and except around places like the Rockies
> seldom necessary to go that high, most people don't bother with it.

There are altitudes where it is required, and altitudes where it's just a good
idea. The latter are much lower than the former. If you decide you don't
need it, you don't have to use it (unless regulations require it), but I don't
see what harm there is in having it on board.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> So, your belief is that an airplane cannot climb (even 1 foot, which
> is about what would be required in this case), once the engine stops?

It cannot climb without slowing down. It cannot speed up without descending.
These are serious constraints.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is my understanding that it is time and age dependant.

Hypoxia is unrelated to age. Vision is affected very rapidly by low oxygen
levels (seconds).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

TheSmokingGnu > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I don't get you.
> >
> > Why would I ever try that?

> 'Twas a joke, Jim!

> You'd need a really big engine, and a good cushion of airspeed anyway. :P

Insert picture of Homer Simpson here.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > It is my understanding that it is time and age dependant.

> Hypoxia is unrelated to age. Vision is affected very rapidly by low oxygen
> levels (seconds).

Do you work for Microsoft support?

Everything you have said is totally correct and totally unrelated to
the discussion at hand.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Only for someone with a health issue or for very long legs.
> >
> > What would you think it would be useful for to the general pilot?

> It improves cerebration and CNS function, both of which are very sensitive to
> oxygenation. For example, night vision works better with oxygen, even at 5000
> feet.

Do you have a reference for that 5000 feet number or is this your
opinion?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Real oxygen in real airplanes costs real money and real weight.

> Becoming confused or blind because you're a bit low on oxygen can cost you
> your life.

Normal, healthy people do not become confused flying at normal GA
altitudes due to lack of oxygen and you don't become blind at any altitude.

> > Since in most GA aircraft it is a struggle to get to an altitude
> > where oxygen is required and except around places like the Rockies
> > seldom necessary to go that high, most people don't bother with it.

> There are altitudes where it is required, and altitudes where it's just a good
> idea. The latter are much lower than the former. If you decide you don't
> need it, you don't have to use it (unless regulations require it), but I don't
> see what harm there is in having it on board.

That's because you have never payed real money to fly nor ever performed
real pre-flight planning.

Once again, no context to understand the answer.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> For what?
>
> For keeping your head clear. Five thousand feet is quite a distance up
> unless
> you actually live at that altitude, and a bit of pure oxygen will not hurt
> and
> may well help.
>

Apparently you would find it helpful in flying your desk. Might I suggest
you turn up the flow rate.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gary writes:
>
>> So, your belief is that an airplane cannot climb (even 1 foot, which
>> is about what would be required in this case), once the engine stops?
>
> It cannot climb without slowing down. It cannot speed up without
> descending.
> These are serious constraints.
>

Well then, it seems very obvious you need to similate a tune-up. Simulate
cleaning the plugs and see if that helps.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gary writes:

> > So, your belief is that an airplane cannot climb (even 1 foot, which
> > is about what would be required in this case), once the engine stops?

> It cannot climb without slowing down. It cannot speed up without descending.
> These are serious constraints.

Energy management; once again no context for understanding.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Sylvain]

wrote:

>> When flying at night. I didn't believe it would make a difference
>> either until I tried (the most noticeable effect is the improvement
>> in your vision)
>
> It is my understanding that it is time and age dependant.
>
> Two questions; how old are you and do you see an immediate improvement
> or does it depend on how long you are flying.

early 40s, but I heard similar comments from kids in their 30s. :-) The
improvement is noticeable quite rapidly (I'd say within minutes of
getting supplemental oxygen); for instance, the lights on the ground
that looked like seen through a little haze become sharp.

Get yourself through one of these high altitude training thing; you'll
be able to experiment a few other interesting side effects of hypoxia.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Do you have a reference for that 5000 feet number or is this your
> opinion?

Yes, I do. And if you had the AIM memorized, as many real pilots seem to wish
to pretend, you wouldn't have to ask.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> All airlines are flying with cabin pressure above 5000 ft.

No, they are not. On many flights the cabin pressure is well below that. And
pilots do have supplemental oxygen. And they are not flying VFR.

> It's amazing that they aren't all dropping out of the sky, ain't it?

Nobody said anything about dropping out of the sky. But at 5000 feet, the
lower levels of oxygen do indeed have an effect on neurological function.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Normal, healthy people do not become confused flying at normal GA
> altitudes due to lack of oxygen and you don't become blind at any altitude.

As long as you're not the pilot of any aircraft in which I'm travelling, you
can believe whatever you want.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gene Seibel writes:

> Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
> at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
> to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
> speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
> groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
> fly a little higher at night.

From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa to
the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not sure
whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but perhaps not
very interesting scenery-wise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Do you have a reference for that 5000 feet number or is this your
> > opinion?

> Yes, I do. And if you had the AIM memorized, as many real pilots seem to wish
> to pretend, you wouldn't have to ask.

You mean where it says:

"For optimum protection, pilots are encouraged to use supplemental
oxygen above 10,000 feet during the day, and above 5000 feet at
night."

The key words being "encouraged", "above", and "at night".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Normal, healthy people do not become confused flying at normal GA
> > altitudes due to lack of oxygen and you don't become blind at any altitude.

> As long as you're not the pilot of any aircraft in which I'm travelling, you
> can believe whatever you want.

I think you are safe on that account.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gene Seibel writes:

> > Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
> > at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
> > to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
> > speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
> > groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
> > fly a little higher at night.

> From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa to
> the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not sure
> whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but perhaps not
> very interesting scenery-wise.

It is possible to fly around the Earth without ever changing altitude
at all.

What's your point?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You mean where it says:
>
> "For optimum protection, pilots are encouraged to use supplemental
> oxygen above 10,000 feet during the day, and above 5000 feet at
> night."

No. Try again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You mean where it says:
> >
> > "For optimum protection, pilots are encouraged to use supplemental
> > oxygen above 10,000 feet during the day, and above 5000 feet at
> > night."

> No. Try again.

OK, how about:

"Although a deterioration in night vision occurs at a cabin pressure
as low as 5,000 feet, other significant effects of altitude hypoxia
usually do not occur in the normal healthy pilot below 12,000 feet."

First, you don't fly VFR at 5,000 feet.

Second, "a deterioration" has no quantitative value.

In practice, it means point light sources start becoming slightly
fuzzy at 5,000 feet. They also become slightly fuzzy if the windscreen
isn't squeeky clean.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> OK, how about:
>
> "Although a deterioration in night vision occurs at a cabin pressure
> as low as 5,000 feet, other significant effects of altitude hypoxia
> usually do not occur in the normal healthy pilot below 12,000 feet."

Good.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> My wris****ch has an altimeter. I know EXACTLY what cabin pressure
> is.

Then you know that all airlines are not flying with cabin pressures of 5000
feet. The cabin pressure depends on the aircraft's altitude, the maximum
pressure differential for the aircraft and any climb or descent in progress.

> I've never seen it. Lowest I've seen is 5000 ft. Normal seems to run about
> 5500. Assuming a 30k+ altitude.

Don't assume a 30K+ altitude. Many flights take place below that.

> Never used except in an emergency.

That's not what the FARs say.

> Irrelevant.

Highly relevant when the major effect of hypoxia is visual impairment.

> If you're a fat smoker in poor cardio-vascular health, you may notice a
> difference.

A lot of pilots in good health notice a difference when they take oxygen at
5000 feet or above. But don't worry, it's not illegal to skip the oxygen at
5000 feet even though it may cause visual impairment, just as it's not illegal
to smoke even though it may cause cancer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[JB]

I have watched this thread from the peanut gallery and have to say
that here is yet another example of MXS running folks around in
circles chasing their tails, and his. It started off well
enough...with real pilots doing their best to answer his (perhaps
bizarre) question. Instead of typing "thank you" and moving on, he
casually shifts the subject by taking bits and parts of your replies
out of context, becoming argumentative, and ultimately insulting...not
to anyone in particular, but to pilots as a group or some sub-group of
pilots who fit his labels. Many of you then think you are obligated
to respond to his mis-quotes and insults. Round and round you go....

Eventually this thread will die out and MXS will start over with
another topic. Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.

Sorry.....but after 80+ messages, I couldn't sit on my hands any
longer. I will now return to the peanut gallery and observe.

--Jeff

[Thomas Borchert]

Jb,

> Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
> might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
> pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
> what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.
>

You're completely off-base here. He doesn't want to change that
behavious. It's exactly what he wants to do. He is not after
information, but rather he wants to have fun playing us.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Judah]

"EridanMan" > wrote in news:1176350711.848357.286000
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> And, this is just my personal practice, I _do not_ vouch for it beyond
> that, and If anyone has an issue with it, I'm interested to learn why.

My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be doing
it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Try some night flying with and without.

You first.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You first.

I don't take risks. I might try it with, but not without.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gene Seibel writes:
> > Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
> > at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
> > to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
> > speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
> > groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
> > fly a little higher at night.
>
> From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa to
> the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not sure
> whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but perhaps not
> very interesting scenery-wise.


A bit like the interior of your head.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gary writes:
> > So, your belief is that an airplane cannot climb (even 1 foot, which
> > is about what would be required in this case), once the engine stops?
>
> It cannot climb without slowing down. It cannot speed up without descending.
> These are serious constraints.
>

onlz in your tiny little mind.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Gene Seibel writes:
>> > Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
>> > at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
>> > to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
>> > speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
>> > groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
>> > fly a little higher at night.
>>
>> From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa
>> to
>> the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not
>> sure
>> whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but
>> perhaps not
>> very interesting scenery-wise.
>
>
> A bit like the interior of your head.
>
>

Simular, but I think it is safe to assume his head has a lot more
uncontrolled airspace.

[buttman]

On Apr 13, 9:13 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Jb,
>
> > Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
> > might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
> > pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
> > what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.
>
> You're completely off-base here. He doesn't want to change that
> behavious. It's exactly what he wants to do. He is not after
> information, but rather he wants to have fun playing us.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

and you all are obviously having fun being played.

[Judah]

"buttman" > wrote in news:1176578878.799988.243290
@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> and you all are obviously having fun being played.

Not all, but certainly some.

[george]

On Apr 15, 7:27 am, "buttman" > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 9:13 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
> > Jb,
>
> > > Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
> > > might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
> > > pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
> > > what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.
>
> > You're completely off-base here. He doesn't want to change that
> > behavious. It's exactly what he wants to do. He is not after
> > information, but rather he wants to have fun playing us.
>
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> and you all are obviously having fun being played.


Pilots enjoy talking flying with other pilots.
Mixup is merely banking upon the hope that some may not notice that he
is a game playing kook

[EridanMan]

> My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be doing
> it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.

LOL...

I suppose I can understand what your saying... but anyone who depends
on using Off Altitudes for traffic avoidance already has problems
unrelated to their scheme for picking altitudes... Especially in the
heavily air-trafficed scenic areas I'm describing, where out of town
(and inexperienced) pilots are bobbing up, down, left and right
jockeying for the best view;)

There is nothing about flying at an off-level that in and of itself
promotes collision avoidance... in fact, if anything, not being where
you're 'expected' to be might have a slight effect to the contrary.
however - in a situation where "see-and-avoid" is the rule, and Norcal
approach is calling out traffic calls virtually non stop, I see being
at an 'off' level as being just one more slight layer of protection...
if everything else breaks down... I fail to see him, he fails to see
me, ATC fails to see either of us, and we just so happen end up at the
exact same position at the exact same time, then there is slightly
more chance that we'll do so at enough of a varying altitude that it
won't end both of our day.

Obviously, for this to have any effect, every other mechanism out
there for keeping us out of eachother's paths must have failed
(including gross failures for both of us in our PIC duties)... But
given the nature of the airspace in question... I'll take that slight
level of added contingency.

And I highly doubt that enough people on here will read my tactic, let
alone actually start practicing it, to have any statistically
noticable effect on GA flying practices over the SF Bay;) But even if
they did, just the idea of getting pilot's to 'spread out' over our
available altitudes instead of bunching up on a few 'typical' wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing... IMHO at least.

[Judah]

"EridanMan" > wrote in
ups.com:

>> My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be
>> doing it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.
>
> LOL...

As a practice, I typically fly 100' over or under the 000 or 500.

But I was just joking about spreading the word. I didn't make up the idea, I
heard it from someone else and thought it was a good one.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 14, 7:56 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Gene Seibel writes:
> >> > Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
> >> > at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
> >> > to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
> >> > speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
> >> > groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
> >> > fly a little higher at night.
>
> >> From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa
> >> to
> >> the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not
> >> sure
> >> whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but
> >> perhaps not
> >> very interesting scenery-wise.
>
> > A bit like the interior of your head.
>
> Simular, but I think it is safe to assume his head has a lot more
> uncontrolled airspace.-



Fair assumption


Bertie

[Lady Pilot[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 14, 7:56 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> oglegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> Gene Seibel writes:
>> >> > Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally
>> >> > fly
>> >> > at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go
>> >> > down
>> >> > to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
>> >> > speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
>> >> > groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend
>> >> > to
>> >> > fly a little higher at night.
>>
>> >> From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of
>> >> Iowa
>> >> to
>> >> the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm
>> >> not
>> >> sure
>> >> whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but
>> >> perhaps not
>> >> very interesting scenery-wise.
>>
>> > A bit like the interior of your head.
>>
>> Simular, but I think it is safe to assume his head has a lot more
>> uncontrolled airspace.-
>
>
>
> Fair assumption
>
>
> Bertie
>

Oh my god...how could you even start to believe this maxi?

Confused...but I'm sure you are *not*.

LP

[Kev]

On Apr 12, 10:17 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nobody said anything about dropping out of the sky. But at 5000 feet, the
> lower levels of oxygen do indeed have an effect on neurological function.

Yes, but the effect of 5000' above sea level depends on where you
live ;-)

For example, I lived in Denver for years at over 5000'. Your body
becomes acclimated.

(Which is why Olympics training is done in nearby Colorado Springs.
When I moved back down to sea level, I could lift sofas with one hand
for about a week.)

Kev

[mike regish]

I've done it without.

mike

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Try some night flying with and without.
>
> You first.