New heights new concerns

[Jabiru Phil]

What a crazy comment!

 

Methinks that you have not had the opportunity to abtain a RAA licence where you would have learnt about carb icing and it's seriosness

 

perhaps some schools may not teach but I doubt it

 

the

 

questions here seem to indicate this or is it the answers that are leading the conversation?

 

Good topic and usefull for revision especially for pilots that were licenced a while ago when standards were being set

 

The bfr perhaps should have a review of carby ice in the Clayton test

 

 

[Mazda]

Turbo I don't understand. Are you saying certificate holders are not taught meteorology, and don't understand airframe icing vs carby icing?

 

 

[deadstick]

Why the fear mongering? its 10000 feet, not stratospheric! the RAA syllabus is well and truelly adequite for flight up to 10K.... sheeeeesh we arent flying international here its basic VFR. Look out and be seen apply's, dont be scared of the unfamiliar, if there was the minimal chance of any error os gap in knowledge the guys who get payed and take so long reviewing all aspects o the regulation would not allow it. I suggest anyone who is not confident with flight at these levels or deems there knowledge to be innadequite, have a chat with a CFI or hit the books to refrech your understanding as you will find you were tested on the knowledge required to cruise below 10K.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Phil and Mazda.

 

Maybe I could have chosen my words better,

 

I don't think there should be any issues with carby ice because this is taught as a matter of routine.

 

However in moving up as far as 10,000 feet, there will be other issues which would previously not been applicable, and given the extent of this thread, it seems to me that those issues, the higher altitude issues, may not have been added to the syllabus.

 

 

[deadstick]

the main prob will be the pilots that 'smoke' suffering hypoxia!!

LOL. Pilot says to passenger, giggling, Blue lips and finger tips! Must be part smurf!...

 

 

[deadstick]

Lol, part of my training was in a hyperbaric chamber, had a red headed course mate ( now known as the hornet whisperer or fire god when at Tyndall), well the alt was set at 25000 feet and we had to do simple puzzles whilst waiting for any signs of hyp, I went real early and gang loaded my oxygen mask, but red who was a very very smart lad was still cracking away with blue lips and a shlt eating grin, when I asked him what 2+2 was he just looked at me with a stupid look on his face quite happy to pass onto the next world. Well he was force gang loaded and took ages to lose the cyanosis from his extremities, very dangerous thing hypoxia cause unless your disciplined and adhere to a strict plan ( ie mentally if I see blue or can't think as fast as usual conduct a oxy drill) you will die as it inhibits all mental processing...

 

 

[deadstick]

Note to all, hypoxia can be caused by co2 as well so get your self a detector, inhibits the bloods ability to carry oxy.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Haha chad. I'm not gunna ask what gang loaded is, knowing you navy boys it won't be pretty.

 

 

[deadstick]

Always room for one more motz!

 

 

[deadstick]

RAAF lost one of their hornet early on due to hyp, pilot was known for flying maverick style ( without oxy mask clipped) last seen on radar heading out to sea up north if I recall correctly.

 

 

[poteroo]

The original post begs the question that pilots will need increased training. It will mean extra work on airspace procedures and on navs for students. Existing pilots will need to catch up, and this will be checked on their next BFR. With priveliges come responsibilities!

 

happy days,

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hi potts, i read the first post as quoting the need to stay out of IFR airspace, which is only class A and not likely to be ventured into in ya average RAA acft. Icing, which im sure we have covered as being a non-issue, and transponders, which are not required in class G regardless of altitude. The only valid concern raised so far is the hypoxia issue, apart from that where do we direct this extra training?

 

I can see a couple of things that could need to be adressed.

 

1. At 5000+ your RPT and other high performance traffic are more likely to be in your airspace, particularly near airfields and on a descent profile from flight levels. Extra vigelence will be needed and good listening watch maintained on the area freq's.

 

2. Getting stuck ontop of cloud.

 

3. Lengthy descents causing cooling of the engine and the possability of the fuel being cold soaked and causing shock cooling, although at sub 10000 im not sure how much of a problem this will be.

 

4. hemispherical levels above 5000 ft are mandatory.

 

what else can we come up with?

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Note to all, hypoxia can be caused by co2 as well so get your self a detector, inhibits the bloods ability to carry oxy.

You mean CO.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Freezing levels??...if your not in cloud, then this isnt an issue...

It is very possible to be in visible moisture (rain) and stilll be in VMC. If you are above 5 or 6000 feet in winter you could well experience airframe icing. Please remember that when you are just below the freezing level (down to approx -5) you could possibly experience clear ice which is the heaviest type of ice and may well increase your gross weight, as well as reshape your airfoil. Given that LSA have a relatively low gross weight, this does have implications with regard to stall speed. Other things you may not have considered are control/trim cables freezing up, especially if there is residual water in the fuselage.

Just a few extra things to consider, but certainly not in surmountable!:thumb_up:

 

Some good info here:

 

http://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/Aircraft_Icing_Handbook.pdf

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good start Motz, and the confusion showing up in the above posts indicates there has been no syllabus amendment to cover the regulation changes.

 

RAA had a Duty of Care to introduce this before the regulation changed, and all Instructors had a Duty of Care to ensure all people they were responsible for received this training prior to graduating into this space.

 

It's a Public Liability issue.

 

As an example, if you are visiting worksites/factories etc you don't (or shouldn't) get past the reception area without going through a safety indoctrination and being supplied with safety vest and eye/ear protection when its required.

 

Up in the Queensland mining area, you don't even get out to the mine site to work unless you've done a $650.00 TAFE course whether you want to be a cleaner, mechanic or driver, and we are waaaaay behind on this.

 

CASA's well aware of public liabability and are rapidly rewriting regulations to put duty of care onus on us, not them.

 

I gave an example of what public liability is about in this thread a couple of weeks ago.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/multiple-runways-in-use-at-a-noncert-non-towered-aerodrome-question.27772/page-2

 

Post #9 was the old prescriptive legislation, where they could be sued in some cases if the regulation was considered to contribute to the accident, or if they had not been publicising it or enforcing it.

 

Post #22 was the new prescriptive legislation putting the onus fair and square on the pilot, so if he hit someone he was automatically negligent.

 

Post #35 was a rough explanation of how it worked.

 

Mazda mentioned that radio changes followed the FAA, but the FAA regulations are public liability related as well.

 

So a height syllabus is urgently required, and unsuspecting pilots should be warned urgently, and trained asap.

 

As I said in the other post, while nothing happens, nothing happens, but if someone goes down from above 5000' through not understanding the implications of say hypoxia, the people who had a duty of care to point that out are going to be the defendants.

 

 

[deadstick]

You mean CO.

Yeah, thanks Dave

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx Howard. Clear ice (as you'd know) requires large super cooled water droplets to form. General rain or showers (which RAA acft should be avoiding anyway) will generally not produce large super cooled water droplets. Large water droplets are found in CB and TSU (generally) which we as RAA aircraft are not likely to encounter. Your kingair on the other hand..:)....

 

 

[deadstick]

I personally don't see any deficiency in the RAA training syllabus for flight up to 10k, even hypoxia is a very low risk unless you are really unfit or have a lung condition you should be fine at or below 10k,This example is hypoxic hypoxia ( inability for the lungs to process the oxy to the blood) the other three types are possible, stagnant hypoxia ( no circulation of the blood preventing oxy to the brain/ cells old people's blue feet) histotoxic hypoxia (Blood still accepts oxy but won't release it to the cells) and hypeamic hypoxia ( blood won't Carry oxy). Our biggest threat of hypoxia would have to be histotoxic as our exposure to the possibility of co poisoning is far greater than reduced barometric pressure below 10k.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Merv, I try and stay away from that nasty stuff as much as possible, I prefer 'Wing Commanders Weather'...

 

Luckily in 27 years of flying I reckon I have only seen 'severe' icing once!:thumb_up:

 

 

[turboplanner]

deadstick you've had very thorough training, and GA pilots have been trained, so it's second nature, but this is new to RA pilots.

 

Just skimmming quickly through the posts, quite a few subjects show up, some being merely briefings

 

SpriteAH #1

 

DavidH http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/10-000-feet-for-raa-uses-and-threats.25516/

 

Frank Marriott #5

 

Tomo #8

 

Jabiru Phil #10

 

Mazda #11

 

Motz #18

 

CFI #30

 

Poteroo, here's the rub, it can't be done at the next BFR, it was contributary negligence for every related accident from the moment the new regulation came in. That's the power of public liability - I've never sent a person to a PL Lawyer with a couple of examples that hasn't come back with a face white as a ghost.

 

My suggestion is for CFI's to talk it over, come up with a list for training and get RAA Ops guys to publicise it fast.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

yea tubz, i can see where your coming from, and to be honest ive not given it a great deal of thought up till now.

 

I think most of the issues could be covered adequately in an hour briefing, depending on the pilots background of course, but i agree that syllabus adjustments need to be made to cover buts.

 

To be honest, and just to emphasize, the greatest threat (IMHO) is the descent cone into regional airfields. At 9500, the danger zone is going to be much further out of the 10 mile radius that we are all so used to. Pilots will be much more likely to be tangling with RPT etc in glass G. The majority of the extra training I will be giving nav endorsed pilots will be directed towards this threat. Some points to cover would be:

 

1. Correct area frequency monitoring

 

2. Situational awareness, and expanding the threat radius at higher altitudes.

 

3. Distance/speeds/descent profiles of high performance acft

 

4. Cardinal quadrants

 

5. hemispherical cruise levels

 

6. Hypoxia awarness

 

7. Engine monitoring during extended descents

 

8. TAS calculations

 

 

[Mazda]

Motz, good post above.

 

My concern from what I've read in this thread is how RA-Aus pilots are currently being trained. FYI, there is no special GA training for operating above 5,000'. All of Motz' points above should be taught to all pilots, especially in nav training. Is this not currently being taught?

 

One of my biggest concerns is the confusion on here about both airframe icing and carby icing. Is this covered in current training? If not, there are good reasons to brief it. Maybe it is taught but it doesn't really sink in because pilots might think it isn't necessary to know it?

 

To be honest, icing should be the least of your concerns here, because if the weather is bad enough for you to get icing VFR, you shouldn't be there. Perhaps part of the education is when to go or not go. Remember, many RA-Aus pilots don't have any time at all under the hood, and the last thing you want is to put yourself in a position with no visibility and no instrument training, flying an aircraft without TSOd instruments.

 

I love RA-Aus for the opportunities it gives to people, but please, if you do have plans to fly in bad weather, get the appropriate training or don't get airborne. Never underestimate the weather, it kills people more than anything else in aviation.

 

On hypoxia, be aware that in the USA pilots can fly along all day without oxygen at 12,500' and up to 14,000' for short periods. Maybe those Americans are fitter than us!

 

One thing I do think is very important in Motz's post is the engine monitoring on descent. This is taught in GA, especially in types which need a warm engine (and cowl flaps). Keep your engine warm, or it may not respond when you need it, and it can cause damage to the engine.

 

The traffic danger is definitely down low, close to airports. Have a look at the collision stats - they are at or near airports. I agree that pilots need to be aware of the approach profiles of higher performance aircraft and plan their frequency change in accordance with that. The higher you are, the earlier you need to monitor the CTAF, and always keep a good lookout - after all, you are in VMC.

 

 

[facthunter]

Large unpressurised aircraft rarely fly above 8,000 feet, (unless you are near the Rockies or flying across PNG) A lot of U/L's will hardly be able to get much above that anyhow. I've legally had C-172's up to FL150 and they don't go like homesick angels. You end up climbing at a speed closer to the stall as you get closer to the service or absolute ceiling. Sitting there with the nose at a higher than normal attitude, and closer to the stall is not a lot of fun. The controls are "mushy".You think you are standing still.

 

IF you are a smoker the rubbish you inhale reduces your ability to carry oxygen in the blood. This takes a while to wear off. It's mainly CO (carbon Monoxide) that is the problem. Younger people who are fit cope better..

 

You can become accustomed to higher altitudes but it takes time. You are not in outer space at 10,000', but you would need a reason to go there, and an aircraft that had a bit of reserve performance, to do it safely and comfortably. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

......On hypoxia, be aware that in the USA pilots can fly along all day without oxygen at 12,500' and up to 14,000' for short periods. Maybe those Americans are fitter than us! ....

When I first moved to the USA to live at an elevation of 6300 ft I suffered from altitude sickness for a while. After I became acclimatized I resumed flying - first with a local doing some mountain flying. Whenever I visited lower elevations I felt so good.I needed at least 11,000 ft altitude to go anywhere and the occasional leap to 14,000 to get over a ridge.

On many occasions I'd spend a good part of the day in an aeroplane up around 12,000 ft.

 

Fine if you are living in that environment but not good for visitors. That's why the USA has that rule and their pilots (mostly) are aware of its provisions and limitations.

 

While I'm here: the USA is a great place for aviators. If anyone gets a chance to experience it then you will thoroughly enjoy it.

 

I'll never forget one flight north-west from Denver. The usual Tower advice to "watch density height" which would've been about 8,500 ft that day and incidentally "microbursts in the area" and "your destination reported severe weather an hour ago". Clear blue skies with just the occasional thunderstorm. Just north of Comanche Peak I climbed high and turned left. Smoothest and most pleasant cross-country flight that can recall. Weather is very changeable and can be nasty there however.

 

Photo taken over the Red Desert (elevation 7,000 ft) just west of Rawlins, WY, USA.

 

 

 

[Ultralights]

also, from personal experience, dont fly above 5000 ft if you have anything close to what would normally be a cold or the "sniffles" climbing to 8000 plus and not being able to equalise the pressures in your inner ear is excruciating. and debilitating..