Your favorite altitude

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.