dtuuri
Final Approach
What is "the" hypoxia observation?? This sounds like good info, for me anyway, since I haven't heard of it that I remember.
Multiple 30 minutes segments above 12,500' prohibited?
- Thread starter PeterNSteinmetz
- Start date
alfadog
Final Approach
I can read exposure meaning the other definition too. If I'm up for 20, down for an hour, up for 20, then I'm never exposed for 30 minutes. Especially never exposed for 30 minutes duration.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Partial pressures in different tissues are a tricky thing. I would not take a “bounce back” in a finger reading to mean that your deep tissues have regained their oxygen levels. The different types of tissues regain those levels at different rates, I would guess the finger very quickly while the brain, maybe quick, maybe not so quick. I’m no expert, but I know enough to know that your statement could be a dangerous one.
I’d like to hear more from someone like @bbchien
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
Just imagine if they decided to really refine this reg and started stating specific spo2 levels and minimum sample rates, cumulative effects and acceptable delivery systems and monitors. Some of it could be fairly well defined but the cumulative effect could get kinda complicated. Then again they could just force compliance (minimum levels) and cumulative would be irrelevant such as:
"Spo2 levels must be maintained at or above XX% on all flights above pressure altitude XXXXXft. Monitoring must be performed on all required flight crewmembers when above XXXXXft. Monitoring shall be performed every N minutes. Authorized monitoring devices are listed in [....]. The aircraft must carry enough O2 and delivery system to maintain the levels specified above for all flight crew." ... then add stuff for non flight crew / passengers but they don't need monitoring just a minimum liters per minute per person or something.
Seems to me the spirit of current regulation is that if you'll be above 12,500 for more than 30 minutes the required flight crew need to have supplemental o2 on board. If your flight has a couple of these then the clock starts over.
I find it funny that the Alaska guys popping down for a minute...there is no regulation requiring a minute. It could be a second and still reset. But going around it should be covered in whatever other regs that require the pilot to operate the plane in a safe manner...those should be vague enough to superceded the little 1 minute resets to get around this supplemental o2 FAR.
I know my body needs supplemental o2 before 12500ft so the current FAR is too relaxed for me. Probably based on super fit astronaut test pilots during the 60's or something.
"Spo2 levels must be maintained at or above XX% on all flights above pressure altitude XXXXXft. Monitoring must be performed on all required flight crewmembers when above XXXXXft. Monitoring shall be performed every N minutes. Authorized monitoring devices are listed in [....]. The aircraft must carry enough O2 and delivery system to maintain the levels specified above for all flight crew." ... then add stuff for non flight crew / passengers but they don't need monitoring just a minimum liters per minute per person or something.
Seems to me the spirit of current regulation is that if you'll be above 12,500 for more than 30 minutes the required flight crew need to have supplemental o2 on board. If your flight has a couple of these then the clock starts over.
I find it funny that the Alaska guys popping down for a minute...there is no regulation requiring a minute. It could be a second and still reset. But going around it should be covered in whatever other regs that require the pilot to operate the plane in a safe manner...those should be vague enough to superceded the little 1 minute resets to get around this supplemental o2 FAR.
I know my body needs supplemental o2 before 12500ft so the current FAR is too relaxed for me. Probably based on super fit astronaut test pilots during the 60's or something.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Brain wise, 12,500 feet (48 minutes) requires about 30 minutes to recover cognitively, in young ERAU west student sin the altitude chamber flying the sim.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
You did use “segment” in your “reasonable interpretation” explanation in post #22. I get it. The point I’m making is the rule shouldn’t be ‘interpreted’ so as to say it doesn’t say what it does say. Now I’m all for understanding the ‘spirit and intent’ of a law and the ‘letter of the law.’ I have violated the ‘letter of the law’ many many times. Sometimes you have to literally do that in order to comply with it’s intent. But I don’t have to ‘rewrite’ the letter of the law to do that. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Pet peeve of mine.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
Does recovery mean they brought them back to sea level and then determined it took 30 minutes to recover.
PeterNSteinmetz
En-Route
I guess I don’t understand the pet peeve really. Are you arguing that the letter of the law should not be re-written to clarify it’s intent? I am puzzled.
In this OP and thread, I have really been more concerned with the letter of the law and what someone could be violated for. I imagine most of us agree on what is safe and reasonable.
It strikes me the intent was likely to put pilots on notice that for the average pilot, if you are above 12,500 for more than 30 mins, your cognition is likely to start being impaired. Maybe the data on exact rates of recovery wasn’t available when this was written or maybe they didn’t think the up / down / up case would be frequent enough to merit trying to spell it all out.
Of course with any regulation there will always be those that are going to try to cut it at the edge.
Last edited:
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
PeterNSteinmetz
En-Route
Apparently reaction times after 30 mins of hypoxia equivalent to 18,000 feet do not recover until 24 hours back at sea level. Other cognitive functions recover more quickly.
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/23756314/v86n4/s5.pdf
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/23756314/v86n4/s5.pdf
dtuuri
Final Approach
No way. The crew needs to be USING the O2 during all flight time more than 30 minutes above 12,500. No "resetting" nuthin'. You guys don't need a doctor to explain this, you need a lawyer (or a CFI).
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
I get where you are coming from but the reg sure doesn't say that. From the regs you could fly 29 minutes at 13999ft, descend down below 12500 for an instant and do it again and again....stupid...yeah...compliant...also yes.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Is English your first language?
alfadog
Final Approach
Is English your first language?
Perhaps you might want to recognize that there are differing opinions on this without the disparaging side comments? Just sayin'
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
91.211 Blank slate. Write it
PeterNSteinmetz
En-Route
If you read the comments in this thread, you’ll see that there are multiple people on both sides of this, and both sides believe the truth of their side is obvious. That usually suggests the issue is not so terribly clear.
If you read a careful parsing of the definitions and regulations above, I think it is clear that the meaning of the regulation is not unambiguous. It was an unfortunate use of the words part and duration. There was clearer language which could have been used, but it was not.
But is this really any surprise? There are tons of FAA regulations that are not so clear and specific interpretations or rulings are required. Perhaps the circumstances have never arisen requiring such.
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz
En-Route
Fair enough. If the FAA wanted to say that the cumulative total time above 12,500 in one flight can not exceed 30 minutes, they could have said something like
“91.211 Supplemental oxygen.
(a)General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry -
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL), when the required minimum flight crew is not using supplemental oxygen, for more than 30 minutes in any one flight;”
I will leave the rest alone for now as it does not pertain to the original question.
Isn’t that a clearer way to say that the cumulative time cannot exceed 30 minutes?
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
Based in Utah I am used to flying 11.5 to 12.5. It’s a non-factor for me. Got stuck in an updraft once up to 15-something for a few minutes. Non-factor.
But this conversation makes me want to have my CFII take us up to those altitudes for maneuvers. See if there is any major difference in perception under the hood.
But this conversation makes me want to have my CFII take us up to those altitudes for maneuvers. See if there is any major difference in perception under the hood.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
That would work. Says the same thing but would be less likely to be ‘interpreted.’ I like it.
DTOURI asked a question "What is "the" hypoxia observation?? This sounds like good info, for me anyway, since I haven't heard of it that I remember."
That was an agreed process that my wife and I created after the training on hypoxia. To understand our relationship when flying, you should know that she took and passed Commercial Ground School, with a score in the 90's. She knows and understands flying and air navigation, is a very supportive air crew member. We believe in CRM, which means, in some instances, she has veto power over my choices, but rarely uses the power.
The hypoxia test I failed related to her observation of the quality of my altitude maintenance, whether I held the CDI to 1 dot, and my response to being notified that I was outside specifications. If I promptly corrected, and did not overshoot, fine. If I laughed, and indicated that it was not really important to keep it that close all the time, I was within FAA standards, I failed the test. No debate. Failed meant an immediate descent to the pre agreed altitude. This sort of relationship is necessary for safe flight at the edges of human capability. If nothing went wrong, I probably would have been fine up there...............
The real issue is proper CRM, and reasonable rules, more than exact compliance with the letter of the FAR's. It is a well known fact that a person living at high altitude has different blood chemistry, allowing them to achieve higher levels of physical and mental effort than someone who just arrived from sea level (my normal pressure altitude). Thus, someone who lives in Denver will be safer at 14,000 feet for an hour than I after 30 minutes. It is reasonable for me to expect trouble earlier than the FAR's set as limits, and I have a process in place to capture the time when I have reached my personal limit.
I spent a week in Colorado Springs, and was well aware of my progressive acclimation to the altitude, and enjoyed our trip to the top of Pikes Peak much more at the end of the visit than I would have at arrival.
Modern flying with all the electronic aids which can hide the fact that we are failing to keep ahead of the plane can lead to skirting the real limit on the wrong side, and failing to successfully deal with an unexpected event. This is especially true if you have an autopilot.
That was an agreed process that my wife and I created after the training on hypoxia. To understand our relationship when flying, you should know that she took and passed Commercial Ground School, with a score in the 90's. She knows and understands flying and air navigation, is a very supportive air crew member. We believe in CRM, which means, in some instances, she has veto power over my choices, but rarely uses the power.
The hypoxia test I failed related to her observation of the quality of my altitude maintenance, whether I held the CDI to 1 dot, and my response to being notified that I was outside specifications. If I promptly corrected, and did not overshoot, fine. If I laughed, and indicated that it was not really important to keep it that close all the time, I was within FAA standards, I failed the test. No debate. Failed meant an immediate descent to the pre agreed altitude. This sort of relationship is necessary for safe flight at the edges of human capability. If nothing went wrong, I probably would have been fine up there...............
The real issue is proper CRM, and reasonable rules, more than exact compliance with the letter of the FAR's. It is a well known fact that a person living at high altitude has different blood chemistry, allowing them to achieve higher levels of physical and mental effort than someone who just arrived from sea level (my normal pressure altitude). Thus, someone who lives in Denver will be safer at 14,000 feet for an hour than I after 30 minutes. It is reasonable for me to expect trouble earlier than the FAR's set as limits, and I have a process in place to capture the time when I have reached my personal limit.
I spent a week in Colorado Springs, and was well aware of my progressive acclimation to the altitude, and enjoyed our trip to the top of Pikes Peak much more at the end of the visit than I would have at arrival.
Modern flying with all the electronic aids which can hide the fact that we are failing to keep ahead of the plane can lead to skirting the real limit on the wrong side, and failing to successfully deal with an unexpected event. This is especially true if you have an autopilot.
dtuuri
Final Approach
"Disparaging" is in the eyes of the beholder. I assume Sinistar is a smart person, so logically the difference might be more one of translation into his first language (if English it is not) within his brain than interpreting FARs. No offense was meant, Sinistar. I am sorry if you took it that way. But for you both, here's how I parse it, FWIW, keeping in mind this rule has been around as long as I can remember, and that goes back more than 50 years, during which I've never once heard the spin on it you guys are saying:
Flight time under 91.211 is divided into two kinds, oxygen required and not required, like this:
- Oxygen is required for all flight time above 14,000 feet plus all flight time above 12,500 feet that exceeds 30 minutes.
- Oxygen is not required for all flight time 12,500 feet or below nor flight time from 12,500 feet to 14,000 feet that is less than 30 minutes.
dtuuri
Final Approach
A "flight" can have en route stops. Is the 30 minutes per segment or per flight?
Last edited:
Yep. The reg is written vaguely enough to allow anyone to complete a flight with short exposures to altitudes above 12,500 for any amount of total duration.
If I have a flight that is six hours in duration and during that flight I am above 12,500 ten times for five minutes each, I am well within the allowable exposure in the regulation. If 30 minutes is an absolute, it would say so.
Army regulations concerning use of oxygen specifically allow this also...
Navy and USAF friends said they had to go on oxygen anytime at or above 10,000 feet but they were all attack and fighter folk.
Larry in TN
En-Route
Arguing about this is pointless. The only way to get a definitive answer is to write in for an official interpretation.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,039
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
The use of the negative "is not using supplemental oxygen" adds an unnecessary logic layer. A clearer statement would be...
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) for more than 30 minutes total between take off and landing unless the required flight crew is using supplemental oxygen.
I can see both sides of this debate; my initial interpretation of the reg was that the 30 minutes was a continuous block of time, and not, say, three 10 minute blocks here and there that added up to 30 minutes over a long flight at various altitudes. Spending 10 minutes above 12,500 then 50 at 6500, repeat three times, may not be a very practial or routine flight plan, but it wouldn't lead to hypoxia, either, over a three hour flight. The intent, however, is clear. In any situation that MAY lead to hypoxia, use supplemental oxygen. Perhaps THAT would be the best wording,
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Last edited:
Brad Z
Final Approach
Yes, it's described in 14 CFR part 11. That said, the FAA doesn't have rulemaking teams sitting around looking for regulations to add or revise. It is VERY VERY VERY hard to change the regulations. The administrative procedure act ensures it is not easy. Not to mention various executive orders, the Trump 2 for 1, etc. Rulemaking is based on limited resources and is done by priority. Rulemaking for clarity is seldom justified on its own, but is often included in other wider-spread rule making efforts.
Brad Z
Final Approach
Typically when there is a question about the intent of a regulation, you track down when that regulation was added or amended and look at the rationale for rulemaking. Modern day rulemaking includes a significant amount of explanation, intent, response to comments, etc. In this case, 91.211 has remained unchanged from when it was first codified in part 91 back in 1963, meaning it probably dates back even further. Back then they didn't keep very good records of why they enacted certain regulations, and comments weren't publicly adjudicated.
Based on my personal experience with inspectors and enforcement attorneys, I wouldn't expect them to ever take enforcement action for a violation of 91.211(a)(1) because someone did multiple intervals above 12,500 that resulted in a cumulative exposure of more than 30 minutes. Here's why:
1) What did it come to their attention? Was it a result of an accident? A complaint? If so, I suspect there are many other regulations that are much more concrete that were violated. An inspector is going to look at the situation as a whole. This might come as a shock to some, but when someone breaks one rule, they're typically not afraid to break another. Someone may call the FAA to complain about a reckless pilot who's flying too low, but ultimately the FAA pursues certificate action because the pilot hadn't bothered to get a medical, flight review, or annual on the airplane in the last decade.
2) Without any interpretation or rationale defending a more liberal interpretation of 30 minutes, enforcement attorneys aren't going to try to risk enforcement action that is questionable. It takes too much time, and there are too many other things to deal with. Though the general impression of FAA attorneys (on the internet) is that they're out to get people, they're typically the ones pumping the brakes on pursuing any certificate action that is in any way on shaky legal ground.
3) Compliance philosophy- a vague interpretation of a regulation is much better handled through counseling and discussion, than certificate action. If there is a disagreement between the pilot and the inspector regarding the intent of the regulation, the inspector can pursue a legal interpretation. That happens frequently. But again, there'd be no reason to believe the pilot intentionally violated the regulation, so there would be no need to pursue enforcement action.
Based on my personal experience with inspectors and enforcement attorneys, I wouldn't expect them to ever take enforcement action for a violation of 91.211(a)(1) because someone did multiple intervals above 12,500 that resulted in a cumulative exposure of more than 30 minutes. Here's why:
1) What did it come to their attention? Was it a result of an accident? A complaint? If so, I suspect there are many other regulations that are much more concrete that were violated. An inspector is going to look at the situation as a whole. This might come as a shock to some, but when someone breaks one rule, they're typically not afraid to break another. Someone may call the FAA to complain about a reckless pilot who's flying too low, but ultimately the FAA pursues certificate action because the pilot hadn't bothered to get a medical, flight review, or annual on the airplane in the last decade.
2) Without any interpretation or rationale defending a more liberal interpretation of 30 minutes, enforcement attorneys aren't going to try to risk enforcement action that is questionable. It takes too much time, and there are too many other things to deal with. Though the general impression of FAA attorneys (on the internet) is that they're out to get people, they're typically the ones pumping the brakes on pursuing any certificate action that is in any way on shaky legal ground.
3) Compliance philosophy- a vague interpretation of a regulation is much better handled through counseling and discussion, than certificate action. If there is a disagreement between the pilot and the inspector regarding the intent of the regulation, the inspector can pursue a legal interpretation. That happens frequently. But again, there'd be no reason to believe the pilot intentionally violated the regulation, so there would be no need to pursue enforcement action.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
I do not find it odd that more than just a few of us interpret this in a way other than you do. That is because it is not specific enough.
You make it seem as if this has been crystal clear for the entire existence of the regulation and completely clear to all but a few of the hundreds of thousands of pilots who have had to learn this stuff. You seem to imply that no one has questioned your interpretation and therefore you are right. You throw in your experience of 50 years as if there is any other doubt then you are just right because you've been doing this longer than most. I could care less about your language comment it was just another way of you trying to shame and/or disqualify my reading of the regulation.
You can parse it any way you like but it is just your interpretation, not mine. I believe your parsed interpretation is far more clear...and safe! But just because some wording is vague (in this case the assumption of "cumulative") does not mean it must default to an interpretation that is more safe. Yes, defaulting to the safer case makes sense but it doesn't mean your parsing and the actual written reg result in equivalency.
If I had my say, I'd skip the whole interpretation process and provide a modern regulation. If the new regulation called out minimum spo2 levels then there would be no need for any cumulative requirements. It would also allow high elevation acclimated pilots more leeway. It would also skip another weak spot in the regulatio... how much o2 is needed and how often they should use it. Requiring a spo2 level doesn't require how they achieve it so that wording can be avoided all together.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Then they have to say how often you measure. And provide TSO specifications for your now mandatory “certified” $300 o2 monitor that has to be calibrated bi annually.
I see nothing wrong with the current reg. I’ll be on the conservative side of it anyway.
This thread is a great example of why we can't have nice things. When people are trusted to apply common sense, they find a way not to. Which forces regulators to be overly proscriptive, which makes people feel over regulated, which makes more people try to find more ways to get around the rule, which forces regulators to be even more overly proscriptive, rinse, repeat, yadda, yadda, yadda.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Shame we can’t make the “do gooders” who would mandate that cost upon us pay for these things out of their, and only their, pockets.
ktup-flyer
En-Route
There’s nothing medical about the oxygen regs. They wrote them based off of the altitude and time it would take the DC3s to get over the Rocky Mountains back when they were used as airliners
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
I live at 6500 feet. Whenever I go to sea level, I forget to breath.....