Things to remember in very hot weather

Michael Ash writes:

You don't legally need oxygen for the passengers until 15,000ft ...

I know, but I prefer not to wait until the law requires it to take
precautions. Some people show signs of hypoxia at half that altitude. Why
take the risk?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
B A R R Y wrote in newsLM9k.5801$LG4.5340
@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

muff528 wrote:

Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
Do you fly?

109F on the ground would be at or near 100F at 3,000. That's still hot,
especially with the sun beating on you through the windows.


Actually, it would probably be lower, but it depends on the stability of
the air on the day...


Like what? Maybe 97 or 98? G

Wouldn't that be NEAR 100? G

In article ,
Michael Ash wrote:

At the risk of turning this thread into something useful,

Heaven forfend!

does anyone have
any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
want to avoid that myself.

This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
that high to begin with, but I'm curious.

Depends on the person, really.

I have a friend who begins to exhibit severe headaches and some cyanosis
(his lips and fingernails start to go purple) above about 8000'. He's
been warned to be very cautious about higher elevations, as he's
probably a prime candidate for mountain sickness. So much for his dreams
of trekking the Himalayas.

That's a bit extreme, but it's worth watching for if you have a
passenger who's never been at altitude before.

Heavy smokers, or anyone with compromised cardiopulmonary function
should be cautious, probably.

There are affordable blood oxygenation meters, typically used by
clipping on a finger, to determine blood O2 levels if you spend much
time at higher elevations without supplementary oxygen.

In rec.aviation.student Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Michael Ash
wrote:

At the risk of turning this thread into something useful, does anyone have
any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
want to avoid that myself.

Those oximeter things are pretty inexpensive now. You could use one of those
to monitor your own status as well as your pax's need for supplemental oxygen.

A good point. I was actually looking at the prices the other day. It's
right on my threshold for buying one. The only reason I wouldn't is just
because I so rarely have the opportunity to get up to the altitudes where
it would be useful to have one. Maybe come winter when high-altitude
flying is possible (I'm a glider guy) I'll get one.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Ash writes:

You don't legally need oxygen for the passengers until 15,000ft ...

I know, but I prefer not to wait until the law requires it to take
precautions. Some people show signs of hypoxia at half that altitude. Why
take the risk?

You know, I addressed this point, and you snipped it. Why did you do that?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Michael Ash wrote:

At the risk of turning this thread into something useful,

Heaven forfend!

does anyone have
any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
want to avoid that myself.

This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
that high to begin with, but I'm curious.

Depends on the person, really.

Good point!

I have a friend who begins to exhibit severe headaches and some cyanosis
(his lips and fingernails start to go purple) above about 8000'. He's
been warned to be very cautious about higher elevations, as he's
probably a prime candidate for mountain sickness. So much for his dreams
of trekking the Himalayas.

That's a bit extreme, but it's worth watching for if you have a
passenger who's never been at altitude before.

Heavy smokers, or anyone with compromised cardiopulmonary function
should be cautious, probably.

Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.

There are affordable blood oxygenation meters, typically used by
clipping on a finger, to determine blood O2 levels if you spend much
time at higher elevations without supplementary oxygen.

Mentioned in another post as well. As I said in the reply, I might well
get one once high-altitude season rolls around again.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike writes:

Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL
even
on hot days.

True, but then you have to start thinking about oxygen.

I have a Skyox 4-place system, so that's not a problem, but you certainly
don't need O2 at 9000'.

And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real
aircraft
than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.

That is a matter of opinion. Nothing is fun at 43° C.

Of course. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some are just more
relevant than others.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike writes:

The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.

So how does it work?

Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
cooler in my home that worked just fine.

You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.

Mike writes:

Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
cooler in my home that worked just fine.

That would be a swamp cooler rather than true air conditioning. It would work
in an aircraft if the humidity were low enough, but the weight of the
necessary water sounds like a major drawback.

You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.

Still not true A/C, but better than nothing.

I suppose adding a compressor to an engine would raise all sorts of issues
with certification, testing, performance, etc.

Mike writes:

I have a Skyox 4-place system, so that's not a problem, but you certainly
don't need O2 at 9000'.

It doesn't hurt, and it's a good idea at night.