Airplane oxygen refills

[facthunter]

You sometimes have to descend to get away from turbulence  (near Jet stream). and flew at FL180 where the headwind was ONLY 80 knots. Others battled away at high levels and I made up 20 minutes on them AND got a smooth ride.  Nev

[Ian]

9 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You sometimes have to descend to get away from turbulence  (near Jet stream). and flew at FL180 where the headwind was ONLY 80 knots.

Is the turbulence associated with flying in the jetstream worthwhile given the fuel, time and airframe hours?

 

I'm still waiting for someone to do some dynamic soaring near the jetstream as the delta V should be great enough to support it. The turbulence might be an issue though.

[facthunter]

There are risks of strong CAT. One day I actually got over 220 kts tailwind giving a groundspeed of 700 knots and that's noticeably quick.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

11 hours ago, Ian said:

There's no requirement for IFR, IFR is required for class A airspace which is

• Above FL245 outside radar coverage
• Above FL180 within radar coverageplace in a very small aircraft

So the opportunity to expand your horizons is simply limited by oxygen and your aircraft.

 

The chart below is an example of a really good resource provided to the flying community.

https://www.casa.gov.au/australian-airspace-structure

 

Thanks Ian -viewed the CASA chart - no actual ruling on VFR remining below 10,000ft. I was sure my training (back around 1990's) had a "rule" against  going over 10K.

 

I have been up at this altitude on a small number of occasions - trying to stay above turbulence - its an uncomfortable place, in a very small aircraft, that seems to shrink around you, to virtually nothing.  Movement /engine noise almost ceases  and mortality seems very very close. 

[KRviator]

Just be aware that you need a C2 not just RAMC or C2 Basic to go above 10,000 too. It's not just the airframe & oxygen.

[Ian]

On 20/03/2023 at 10:07 PM, KRviator said:

Just be aware that you need a C2 not just RAMC or C2 Basic to go above 10,000 too. It's not just the airframe & oxygen.

The current state of medicals in Australia is a bit of a farce. It is arbitrary, lacking a risk based approach and only serves to prop up the field of "Aviation medicine".

https://www.casa.gov.au/basic-class-2-medical-certificate-fact-sheet-pilots

Both ATSB and FAA have published papers on pilot incapacitation events over extended periods of time and it is both interesting and informative to understand the what, why and how these incidents occurred.

However based upon these events it is unlikely that there is any differentiating factor where a DAME rather than a GP would have made a difference in any of the incidents. One of the biggest risk factors was food poisoning or flu or respiratory infections. Incapacitation events increase with age which is pretty much as you'd expect.

 

Given that laser strike got such high ratings it should be considered against the backdrop of https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/safety/in-flight-safety/laser-strikes/aeromedical-effects-of-a-laser-strike/  and   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26651301/

From one article, "Significant injury resulting from a laser strike is unlikely."

That's not to say that the morons doing this shouldn't be held accountable for being nuisances.

 

However the key thing to keep in mind is, given the cost and relative ineffectual nature of this control, is whether these resources would be better spent elsewhere.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Ian