Ice or Hypoxia?

AviatorGator said:
This is what I was thinking. I certainly wouldn't want to stay in severe icing at the MEA of 6k in hilly/mountainous terrain. A climb up to 12/13k ought to change something for the better. At worse you'll be higher when you are forced to come back down.

In very controlled settings (of course) I have experimented with the effects of hypoxia (at night) at 13k, 15k, 17k, and 19k. Hypoxia is handled differently by different people. A whole array of factors including your age, your fitness level, whether you smoke or not, etc. all go into the equation. If I was forced to, I'd go to 13k or 15k in a heartbeat without O2. 17k is dicey but it beats the heck out of just staying at 6k and planning on scud running.

This is also an excellent reason why the airplane should always have O2 in the bottle.
Click to expand...

Excellent reason why you should have a garmin 296 or better with a sectional out, even flying IFR. 02 isn't going to do anything if you can't climb because you've already got too much.
 
Then again, the OP didn't specify if the AC was AFKI or not. If it wasn't, that changes things. If it is... sling it out and climb.
 
3-5 k difference often gets you out of the icing...but sometimes not. I have been above 21,000 feet off O2 for 30 minutes...I was the passenger during that segment.
 
dasleben said:
partial pressure of oxygen
Click to expand...

DING DING DING!! Winner! This is the key term in this case. -- Bill Nye


What do we do?

[YT]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6U7rOUSvYM8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6U7rOUSvYM8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YT]


Autopilot at 18k. After awhile pitch sync down ~100 fpm or alt select a lower alt in case you pass out. Depends on how bad it is behind, maybe do this after reversing course.
 
work on your cardio... a lot, then pick 18k and don't worry about it. Wouldn't hurt to live at 9k or so either.
 
mshunter said:
Your in the soup, and the forcast was wrong, again. The breifer said freezing level was supposed to be at 9000, and your at the MEA of 6000. Tops are reported at 17000. You are over mountains, and the nearest airport is 40 minutes away, along with the possibility of a lower altitude. You can't turn back because it's getting worse behind you. Do you deal with the ice, which is going to cripple you airplane, or do you climb up above it and deal with Hypoxia? The airplane you are flying is turbocharged with a service ceiling of 25000. The O2 bottle is empty.
Click to expand...

Use the WX radar + Sectional to find somewhere you can descend below MEA. IF unable, then I guess hypoxia is better than flying 40 minutes in the soup building ice.
 
If you've not one of the hypoxia prone people 18k is not to bad at all. Hopefully you've either been there on foot or done an altitude chamber and know your specific signs and how it effects you.
 
z987k said:
If you've not one of the hypoxia prone people 18k is not to bad at all. Hopefully you've either been there on foot or done an altitude chamber and know your specific signs and how it effects you.
Click to expand...

What differentiates those who are and who are not 'hypoxia prone'? A third lung?

And the 'to'. Spelling error or result of hypoxia?

(my symptoms have not changed. euphoria, tingling and single-focus thought)
 
Orange Anchor said:
What differentiates those who are and who are not 'hypoxia prone'? A third lung?

And the 'to'. Spelling error or result of hypoxia?

(my symptoms have not changed. euphoria, tingling and single-focus thought)
Click to expand...

We had a guy from South America, did most of his private on up at 12k and lived somewhere in the area of 8k. Long story short, the hypo chamber had to get pretty damn high for him to get any effects. Compared to me he was hypoxia immune.
 
Orange Anchor said:
What differentiates those who are and who are not 'hypoxia prone'? A third lung?

And the 'to'. Spelling error or result of hypoxia?

(my symptoms have not changed. euphoria, tingling and single-focus thought)
Click to expand...

People of Tibetan, Andean, and Masai origin are often gifted with the helpful products of evolution. Andean people tend to be more barrel chested with larger lung capacities, Tibetans (if I remember correctly) ingest more nitrogen into their bloodstream which widens their capillaries, and Masai have more hemoglobin (or something along these lines). It's an adaptation that's evolved in recent history and is macro scale. The problem though is that high altitude peoples tend to have low birth weights.
 
jynxyjoe said:
We had a guy from South America, did most of his private on up at 12k and lived somewhere in the area of 8k. Long story short, the hypo chamber had to get pretty damn high for him to get any effects. Compared to me he was hypoxia immune.
Click to expand...

Yes and if you have enough red blood cells and enlarged lungs, no big deal. and even living in DEN or ABQ provides some benefits but most of us are 'low landers' and 18 IS a big deal.
 
ppragman said:
People of Tibetan, Andean, and Masai origin are often gifted with the helpful products of evolution. Andean people tend to be more barrel chested with larger lung capacities, Tibetans (if I remember correctly) ingest more nitrogen into their bloodstream which widens their capillaries, and Masai have more hemoglobin (or something along these lines). It's an adaptation that's evolved in recent history and is macro scale. The problem though is that high altitude peoples tend to have low birth weights.
Click to expand...

I understand all this. I did the Imogene a few years ago and crossed the peak at 13,120. Next year let my crazy nephew talk me into the Snow River Duathlon which was mostly all above 10. And yes, there are many regions where the people acclimate to high altitudes. It's just they are not 'prone to hypoxia' as much as they have by living there adapted.

And yes, a lot of it has to do with how you process oxygen. Friend of mine did a rim-to-rim-to-rim run at the Grand Canyon. He adapted by wearing a painter's mask to increase lung capacity and to process the oxygen better went on a very high iron diet. VERY high red blood cell count.

And yes, the Masai probably have a lot of extra red blood cells as they consume cow's blood as part of their diet. We were offered some when we were on the Masai Mara but declined. It was too close to dinner and we didn't want to spoil our meal. (The Kenyans also drank a mix of Tusker beer and ginger ale. At first I couldn't figure out which was supposed to ruin the other but the ginger ale seemed to clean the palate and the beer slake the thirst. And it was a lot better than what I assumed the afternoon aperitif of blood was going to be)
 
jynxyjoe said:
So then, not a third lung.
Click to expand...

Well.. there are some exceptions.

betterthanbeer.jpg


but I don't know what she flies or for whom.
 
Orange Anchor said:
What differentiates those who are and who are not 'hypoxia prone'? A third lung?

And the 'to'. Spelling error or result of hypoxia?

(my symptoms have not changed. euphoria, tingling and single-focus thought)
Click to expand...

Something like that. Ever spent a good long time at or above 9k? After a year or so there, you can withstand altitude(or alt + exercise) much better than flatlanders. If I remember right, it has to do with your red blood cell count going way up. Also those that smoke tend to not take it as well... alcohol, drugs, etc, etc. Some people also have genetics not in their favor. There are lots of things that would make you more apt to experience hypoxia than another person.
Obviously knowing your symptoms is a good thing.
 
As stated, generally a change in altitude of 2-4,000 feet will remove you from icing conditions.

Having stated that, I deal with hypoxia every day dropping jumpers from 14,500. Let me tell you the onset can be quick, decrease functionality and make you real dopey. I'd try to climb to get out of ice, but wouldn't climb higher than 14k for longer than 10 minutes or so.

That's just my opinion based on experience.
 
z987k said:
Something like that. Ever spent a good long time at or above 9k? After a year or so there, you can withstand altitude(or alt + exercise) much better than flatlanders. .
Click to expand...

That was not the point. The post was not being prone to hypoxia which I disagree with. We are ALL prone to hypoxia.. just some of us live at higher altitudes, have more red blood cells, greater lung capacity and have adapted to that higher altitude. That is adaptation and does not mean one is no longer 'prone to hypoxia.'

FWIW, a while back I read a report that said that people with a few extra pounds did better than thin people when subjected to Gs. That weight lifters were better off than runners. That light smokers were better off than non-smokers (they developed more red blood cells). That short people were better off than the tall. That women used oxygen better, they could sustain more Gs and they tolerated pain better. The conclusion OF THE PAPER was that the best fighter pilot physiologically was a short, chubby, cigar smoking woman who lifted weights.
 
maybe a poor choice of the word prone, but what I meant was less likely.. which also happens to be what Mr. webster says to but.. I think the point was the same regardless of arguing over a word. And you can twist it any way you want, I am sure you knew exactly what I meant.
 
There are certain things that make people more prone to hypoxia than others.

Hereditary factors such as circulatory issues. Medication and residual side effects. With less air pressure squeezing you, you may be more prone to stagnant hypoxia.

Caffeine. Recent alcohol usage (even beyond the statutory 8 hours.)

Carbon monoxide. Smokers, anyone? The rule of thumb I was taught was that smokers start out with about a 5000 foot loss of altitude resilience. Granted, I can't remember if that was just in terms of night vision or general ability to transfer oxygen through their tissues.

I managed to acquire a 'pulse-ox' monitor in my travels. It depicts the level of O2 saturation in the blood and pulse rate. Interesting to see how things start to fade off little by little about 10,000 density altitude.

In other words, I think the rules regarding usage of O2 and hypoxia awareness are comprehensive and should be strongly, strongly respected.
The onset is insidious and might not be easily recognizable.

Remember- one of the first symptoms is a generally increased sense of well-being.

I would risk hypoxia ONLY as a last resort. Ice is a bad, bad thing, but my ability to reason and correctly perceive the situation around me is my last line of defense against the elements. It's the last thing I'd willingly trade for an 'out' in a given situation.
 
z987k said:
maybe a poor choice of the word prone, but what I meant was less likely.. which also happens to be what Mr. webster says to but.. I think the point was the same regardless of arguing over a word. And you can twist it any way you want, I am sure you knew exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...

My point was the the flt at 18k without oxygen is not a big deal. Excepting for sherpas and those with an overabundance of red blood cells, it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top