At 10:43 AM 25/08/04 +1000, you wrote:
>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.
Because we aren't educating?
Maybe these people also read Philip Wills or other aviation literature
where it becomes quite apparent that you don't suddenly drop dead or
instantly lapse into unconsciousness at 10,001 feet.
Maybe they know that in the US they can operate to 12500 without oxygen
quite legally?And between 12500 and 14000 for up to 30 minutes?
I can see where this might lead people to question the 10,000 foot limit
and set personal limits which might differ a little from this blanket limit.
Take a small example. It is OK to be at 9000 to 10000 for hours on end
without oxygen but not OK to climb quickly from a winch launch to say 11000
and come straight down again?
Which of these two cases is more likely to lead to a hypoxic pilot?
If you set very conservative limits in the law people know there is a built
in cushion and will push that.
The GFA used to do this with the aft C of G limit of gliders. They don't do
this any more and that is fortunate for you as otherwise you would not be
able to fly your glider, most likely.
>
>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.
You need to be a little more discriminating about whom you have respect for.
I've seen and heard of a lot glider pilots do really dumb things. One was
at 17000 feet in a cloud on a limited panel with no oxygen, another got a
diamond height in this country without oxygen. The former was an RAAF
officer and military pilot and the other one had a day job flying
airliners. I ain't gonna tell who! Fortunately they both survived the
experience and realised later how silly they had been.
Mind you, "I heard in the bar" probably isn't a great or reputable source
of anything and I don't think we should base rules and enforcement on this.
I've heard a lot of really weird aerodynamic theory in the bar too.
>
>It would seem that the method you are proposing has been proven not to
>work...
So where are the broken gliders and injured or dead pilots (statistics)as a
result of this to back up your assertion?
This area isn't where these are occurring.
Why not put the effort into areas where it will provide the most safety
benefit for the effort? I'll leave you to dig into the stats (if they are
made available to you)
and figure out where these areas are.
Ten thousand feet is really just an easy to remember arbitrary number and
I imagine when this was set by CASA or its predecessors a bunch of ex RAAF
people sat around and said "well the Air Force says 10000 so let's use
that" and I think you may find that the 10000 feet in Australia has more to
do with our transition level by tying both the oxygen use and altimetry
changes to a common level. We get away with this because we have no really
high or extensive mountains.
Nobody was much affected by this anyway. Most powered planes in Oz aren't
turbo'd and they don't have to cross high mountains and most seem to fly
between 1500 and about 5000 or so AGL. The IFR guys might get up to the
7000 to 9000 levels. A 10000 foot oxygen level doesn't really affect many
people. These people making the rules most likely didn't even think (or
know) about glider pilots doing a Gold C height.(what's a Gold C anyway?).
BTW the US Navy requires oxygen use above 4000 feet at night because of a
measureable decrease in night vision acuity. Neither the FAA or CASA seem
to worry about this for civilians.
I imagine the GFA didn't want to stir the pot over an issue that wasn't
really a great problem and treated it just like they treat the cloud
clearance issue which is far more likely to get us into trouble with other
airspace users.
They were quite aware from long experience that on the odd days in southern
Australia that you can do a Gold C height people could generally go and do
this with no ill effects.
Or no worse than having a couple of beers later might have anyway.
Last year at Bob Ward's place I talked with Richard Van Grunsven about
legal liability etc and while we were bemoaning the state of affairs in the
US with regard to this he said to me that the answer the pollies and
lawyers give him is this : The law doesn't have to be perfect, it just has
to be better than wholesale murder in the streets.
As we seem to have achieved that by and large it would seem smart to treat
some arcane corners of the law with benign neglect. Nobody - not the
pollies, the lawyers or the police wants 100% of the laws enforced 100% of
the time.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
