On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 23:35, David Long &/or Cathy Lincoln wrote: > I hope that my recent diatribe on oxygen and oximetry was not taken as > support for the regulation and policing argument. > > I fall strongly into the education, self-responsibility and > common-sense faction (although some would occasionally argue > otherwise!) :-)
That's all very well - but there appears to be a fair degree of 'machismo' attached to altitude and oxygen. I have heard in the bar at several clubs people claiming they can operate quite safely (well) above 10,000' for extended periods - despite the admission that they have never undergone a chamber 'ascent' to determine just what their physiological limits really are. If we are so keen on education and self responsibility, just why is this such a prevalent attitude? After all, the regulation regarding the use of oxygen above 10,000 ft is not exactly new. On more than one occasion, these sentiments were expressed by pilots for whom I would otherwise have significant respect. These are the people to whom novices look for guidance, education and examples of responsibility. It would seem that the method you are proposing has been proven not to work... -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 Brisbane, Australia http://www.hart.wattle.id.au _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
