Your favorite altitude

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.