drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
I asked the welding supply place that I shop at. They sell the oxygen to the airport here, and assure me it is exactly the same stuff. Their CO2 seems to work great in my kegerator as well.
Another unresponsive plane over the Atlantic-TBM 700
- Thread starter Champcar
- Start date
I asked the welding supply place that I shop at. They sell the oxygen to the airport here, and assure me it is exactly the same stuff. Their CO2 seems to work great in my kegerator as well.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I know of a certain well known operator of lears that used to buy used tires from other operators to save money. That is just being flat out cheap, but he and his company are still around. When he got his G-II he sent a mechanic to Savannah for training, from Van Nuys, on a Greyhound. True story.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
The only airplanes I've worked on that the O2 bottles would be reachable in flight would be the Legacys and Falcons, most Gulfstreams have them installed under the floor in the forward cabin, Lears are normally in the nose compartment.
auw2fly
Goldmember
The bottle is accessed in the right wing root, with a shut off valve on the tank. If that is turned off, there will be a CAS message displayed. (I, along with most operators I believe, just leave it on all the time.)
There is another switch inside the airplane to prevent the bottle from being emptied by small leaks in the plumbing and masks. If that switch is off, there is not a CAS message displayed.
That is for the 850 anyway, not sure if the 900 is the same.
FL350
Well-Known Member
Not the bottle itself, I thought I heard of some valve that had to be switched on before each flight, and it's on the outside of the aircraft.
I know on the Hawker there is a knob by the captain's arm that you twist open to turn on the O2 supply, and that's the only one that we turn on and off as pilots. It sits next to a gage that indicates the quantity in the tank as well
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Well, I mean, are they discarded because they are in fact worn out or because a lazy mechanic didn't want to clean them or bother checking them and wanted to get the markup on selling owners new plugs? I knew an FBO that would encourage owners to get new tires if they had any visible wear on them, then run the tires the rest of the way out on their own flight school aircraft. Scummy yes, dangerous no.
TJ Fitz-Gerald
New Member
This is my first post on jetcareers. I'm not a career pilot, just a "hobby flier" with about 400 hours TT but let me recap and then ask a question that seems to have been missed in this discussion. I read these forums in the hope that it will instill an over abundance of caution and knowledge that my brain can access should I ever be in a similar situation, so I apologize if my comments are considered "dumb" by the standards of the average poster here.
First, I find that most pilots, myself included, are "of a different breed". We tend to be more adventurous and more willing to take risks than the average Joe. This is good for us but it usually carries with it a certain "ego" factor which we all must be willing to push aside. I've found myself in trouble a few times and I just think it's easy to look foolish than look dead.
Second, The oxygen issue that is discussed here seems to state that there are three different types of oxygen and it all comes from the same source but doesn't necessarily go into the same containers and thus doesn't come out at the high standards. Welding oxygen doesn't care about impurities in the tank at the time of filling because a welding torch isn't that picky about the oxygen it uses. Medical oxygen is confined to a container in an oxygen only environment where no other pressurized gasses or contaminants have been introduced into the tank or tubing. Aviation oxygen is put into tanks that are vacuumed prior to filling to ensure that there is a minimal amount of moisture to prevent icing which can occur with a moist/humid gas being released under pressure and that can lead to a oxygen system failure (while this is not likely to be a problem at lower altitude or on the ground, the results can be hazardous at FL250 where the outside air temp could be below -100F). This is something that I'm personally not comfortable drawing any conclusions on after reading the wide range of "opinions" from experienced pilots, but it's knowledge that I intend to do a lot more research on in the near future.
Third, The reason I usually read these types of forums to learn how to avoid the same mistakes that have injured or killed other pilots. In this case, ego played a huge factor in this fatal crash (IMHO). So with this nice plane, what prevented the PIC from dialing in a FL of 120 as he was talking to Atlanta Center? It appears from Flightaware tracking that this plane had an autopilot with altitude hold (3 axis auto pilot?). Had the plane descended to 12,000 feet and continued to fly for 3 hours, there is a very good chance that the pilot(s) would have had sufficient time to regain consciousness and regained control of the plane. Of course if he knew he was losing pressure, MAYDAY-MAYDAY-MAYDAY would've been the correct response but as soon as he stated "we need to go lower" ... that should've been a PAN-PAN-PAN situation (IMO). I've had to "threaten" to use a Mayday with ATC before to get their attention when they weren't giving me proper direction or help (Example: Tower keeps telling me I should see the airport in sight when I'm approaching 45 minutes of fuel on a night flight and they refuse to give me a heading and just say "you should see it" instead of giving me a bearing, so I asked "Do I need to issue a mayday to get a bearing?" then they gave more assistance ... but the tower in DAB more commonly deals with ERAU students instead of a relatively low time private pilot). I've used PAN myself when reporting a funnel cloud during a cross country flight north of Orlando instead of a simple PIREP (I used "pan-pan-pan pirep funnel cloud report", it may have been excessive but not to other aircraft in that flight path).
I hope this forum and thread has been as informative to others as it has been to me.
Thank you all for your contributes to my own personal knowledge base
First, I find that most pilots, myself included, are "of a different breed". We tend to be more adventurous and more willing to take risks than the average Joe. This is good for us but it usually carries with it a certain "ego" factor which we all must be willing to push aside. I've found myself in trouble a few times and I just think it's easy to look foolish than look dead.
Second, The oxygen issue that is discussed here seems to state that there are three different types of oxygen and it all comes from the same source but doesn't necessarily go into the same containers and thus doesn't come out at the high standards. Welding oxygen doesn't care about impurities in the tank at the time of filling because a welding torch isn't that picky about the oxygen it uses. Medical oxygen is confined to a container in an oxygen only environment where no other pressurized gasses or contaminants have been introduced into the tank or tubing. Aviation oxygen is put into tanks that are vacuumed prior to filling to ensure that there is a minimal amount of moisture to prevent icing which can occur with a moist/humid gas being released under pressure and that can lead to a oxygen system failure (while this is not likely to be a problem at lower altitude or on the ground, the results can be hazardous at FL250 where the outside air temp could be below -100F). This is something that I'm personally not comfortable drawing any conclusions on after reading the wide range of "opinions" from experienced pilots, but it's knowledge that I intend to do a lot more research on in the near future.
Third, The reason I usually read these types of forums to learn how to avoid the same mistakes that have injured or killed other pilots. In this case, ego played a huge factor in this fatal crash (IMHO). So with this nice plane, what prevented the PIC from dialing in a FL of 120 as he was talking to Atlanta Center? It appears from Flightaware tracking that this plane had an autopilot with altitude hold (3 axis auto pilot?). Had the plane descended to 12,000 feet and continued to fly for 3 hours, there is a very good chance that the pilot(s) would have had sufficient time to regain consciousness and regained control of the plane. Of course if he knew he was losing pressure, MAYDAY-MAYDAY-MAYDAY would've been the correct response but as soon as he stated "we need to go lower" ... that should've been a PAN-PAN-PAN situation (IMO). I've had to "threaten" to use a Mayday with ATC before to get their attention when they weren't giving me proper direction or help (Example: Tower keeps telling me I should see the airport in sight when I'm approaching 45 minutes of fuel on a night flight and they refuse to give me a heading and just say "you should see it" instead of giving me a bearing, so I asked "Do I need to issue a mayday to get a bearing?" then they gave more assistance ... but the tower in DAB more commonly deals with ERAU students instead of a relatively low time private pilot). I've used PAN myself when reporting a funnel cloud during a cross country flight north of Orlando instead of a simple PIREP (I used "pan-pan-pan pirep funnel cloud report", it may have been excessive but not to other aircraft in that flight path).
I hope this forum and thread has been as informative to others as it has been to me.
Thank you all for your contributes to my own personal knowledge base
Last edited:
Opinion is noted, but I'm not sure that can be established just yet, unless corroborating evidence can be established.
Complacency perhaps? Overconfidence in personal ability? Possibilities, but nothing I've seen yet to prove those. But, the investigation is still young.
Did you specifically ask the tower to give you a point out? "They weren't giving me proper direction" is you not being a pilot in command. YOU asking for what you need from them, is. They can't read your mind. You need to request if you need a bearing or a point out, then if you don't get it, go from there.
TJ Fitz-Gerald
New Member
Asking three times for a heading I think qualifies as "asking" for a bearing/heading. The tower kept trying to give me IFR instructions and an ILS approach instead of a simple command like "Turn left to a heading of a 140 and airport is 4 miles ahead". I was VFR at the time with virtually zero IFR training. The tower down here deals with ERAU students who do things a bit different than the private pilot student (like flying 3 mile long finals in a C172 because they are training for jets instead of these small puddle jumpers that many private pilots have and use and that has led to some accidents in the past in airports in this region).
You didn't mention you asked three times in your original post. Still, if you aren't getting what you need, you need to tell tower specifically what you need, as they may not know and aren't in your cockpit. Even if you need to find another way to ask the question, including declare an emergency if you feel the need and are in that position
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Exactly, one shouldn't underestimate the "you should see it" comment by ATC. It usually means that you are in conditions you aren't prepared for or you are not at the location you are reporting. After reporting low fuel state and the possibility of being lost, I've never had anything but a helpful friend on the other end.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
There is a really simple way to fix this situation.. "tower I am turning to a heading of 140"
I think he's saying that's what he was expecting to hear from the tower, because he didn't know where the airport was at the time and that's what he was trying to get from tower.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
Ahh, I see. Well in that case, like you said, find another way to ask the question. Sometimes you really have to dumb down what you're asking for.
TJ Fitz-Gerald
New Member
My example really missed the target there. It was meant to show willingness to use a Mayday instead of a fear of using it and it got twisted into a different problem straying away from this thread.
Trying to get back on topic here a bit ... what could've been differently and what should've been done differently to prevent this incident or future similar incidents? Answering this type of question does of course require us to make some assumptions about the cause and condition at the time of incapacitation. Is resetting the Altitude level on your autopilot a complex operation or does this vary widely based on the autopilot used?
Also, this may be a bit far fetched and more futuristic than is currently possible, is it possible to have some type of mid-air capture device that can be used to hook and retrieve aircraft? Or maybe just a way to slave an auto-pilot to a transponder so that it can be taken over by ATC (and of course turned off manually by an active pilot/crew in the event a system is hacked). Or is this just one of those cases where the cost doesn't justify the benefits? (just as an example, and I could be losing millions by not patenting this right now, is to allow a two-way autopilot/transponder to "dial-in" the serial number of another slaved auto-pilot and send controls to that auto-pilot instead of it's own. The serial numbers of these units could be kept in an off-line database and cross referenced by tail numbers and only released to ATC's. When engaged, it would also produce a loud screeching noise from the second auto-pilot being controlled. Just to prevent abuse/hacking you'd have to send a command, you'd need to be within range, on the same frequency, have the serial number and also have a control capable unit too.)
I know my mind doesn't work "normally". I like to think outside the box on how to prevent things like this from happening again.
Trying to get back on topic here a bit ... what could've been differently and what should've been done differently to prevent this incident or future similar incidents? Answering this type of question does of course require us to make some assumptions about the cause and condition at the time of incapacitation. Is resetting the Altitude level on your autopilot a complex operation or does this vary widely based on the autopilot used?
Also, this may be a bit far fetched and more futuristic than is currently possible, is it possible to have some type of mid-air capture device that can be used to hook and retrieve aircraft? Or maybe just a way to slave an auto-pilot to a transponder so that it can be taken over by ATC (and of course turned off manually by an active pilot/crew in the event a system is hacked). Or is this just one of those cases where the cost doesn't justify the benefits? (just as an example, and I could be losing millions by not patenting this right now, is to allow a two-way autopilot/transponder to "dial-in" the serial number of another slaved auto-pilot and send controls to that auto-pilot instead of it's own. The serial numbers of these units could be kept in an off-line database and cross referenced by tail numbers and only released to ATC's. When engaged, it would also produce a loud screeching noise from the second auto-pilot being controlled. Just to prevent abuse/hacking you'd have to send a command, you'd need to be within range, on the same frequency, have the serial number and also have a control capable unit too.)
I know my mind doesn't work "normally". I like to think outside the box on how to prevent things like this from happening again.
TJ Fitz-Gerald
New Member
Another potential solution could be a capture system attached to the weapons mounts system of a Harrier Jet. Just a few spread across the country could be used in situations like this ... but again, does the cost and incurred liability prevent something like this from being developed?
As a pilot, I approach these situations from a how to avoid mentality (easy) or how to save aircraft and life once this happens (much more difficult and sometimes not possible or realistic to do so).
As a pilot, I approach these situations from a how to avoid mentality (easy) or how to save aircraft and life once this happens (much more difficult and sometimes not possible or realistic to do so).
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I would be willing to bet that it would cost at least 10x to develop what you're talking about vs. the payouts on loss of life claims.
Be realistic. Simple solutions are the best ones. Detecting a cabin pressure loss and having the autopilot react to that makes more sense. And, in fact, as I learned this week, has been developed and deployed on many aircraft for a long time.
