FL180 Cessna 172 Skyhawk

gotta agree with seggy, it's a good idea to go with the regs. Things can go wrong at any time and you don't want to have a razor thin safety margin on things.
 
I don't know what the big deal is.

Mt. Everest base camps are 17,000 to 25,000 feet...Mt. Kilimanjaro is 19,340 feet and is hiked by many. Even I hiked up one that was 12,400 and none of us in the group felt out of breath until we sprinted a bit and tried to test it. Another 6,000 feet isn't much when you're not doing anything physical and it's only for a few minutes. We're talking strenous hiking with backpacks and people are not using oxygen. Taking a plane up to 17,999 for a few minutes is hardly a risk.

As for the service ceiling debate, I agree completely with the facts TGrayson presented -- under specific conditions, a certain climb rate cannot be topped. That does not mean you can't ride mountain wave on a cold day with a light load right up to the floor of class A.
 
The worst thing is you can be a freaking Chuck Yeager and the best pilot that ever lived but do something wrong and the whole world will fall on you like a ton of lead. Ask the Comair guy from that Kentucky accident how he feels.
 
Nick said:
I don't know what the big deal is.

Mt. Everest base camps are 17,000 to 25,000 feet...Mt. Kilimanjaro is 19,340 feet and is hiked by many. Even I hiked up one that was 12,400 and none of us in the group felt out of breath until we sprinted a bit and tried to test it. Another 6,000 feet isn't much when you're not doing anything physical and it's only for a few minutes. We're talking strenous hiking with backpacks and people are not using oxygen. Taking a plane up to 17,999 for a few minutes is hardly a risk.
Click to expand...


What does human physiology at all have to do with how an aircraft mechanically operates?
 
Nick said:
I don't know what the big deal is.

Mt. Everest base camps are 17,000 to 25,000 feet...Mt. Kilimanjaro is 19,340 feet and is hiked by many. Even I hiked up one that was 12,400 and none of us in the group felt out of breath until we sprinted a bit and tried to test it.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a big deal if you're used to it. Colorado folks could probably handle it pretty well. Some other guys like me who never lived higher than 200' msl would have problems depending on physical condition. sdcvoh didn't mention that he had altitude chamber training before so people assummed that he's taking too much risk.
 
The OP broke a FAR folks. He had a picture of him going ABOVE FL180, as a private pilot.

This goes a lot deeper than risk taking.
 
amorris311 said:
forgive and forget. hahaha
Click to expand...


True, but making excuses and having a cavalier attitude about it really isn't going to make one forgive or forget. He basically said because he didn't get caught it is ok.

We all have to learn, but don't want to see anyone ruin their career or get hurt.
 
JDMcFly said:
What does human physiology at all have to do with how an aircraft mechanically operates?
Click to expand...

I got the sense that some people thought it was too high in a light airplane even with oxygen. Maybe they weren't arguing that and I misinterpreted a post or two.

As for the mechanical operation of the airplane -- the airplane in this debate does not have an altitude limitation.
 
i can tell you right now. he flies in the same airspace that i do. i dont want to see people do stupid things while im flying around!
 
Seggy said:
Risk management isn't something that complex like you are trying to make it.
Click to expand...

No, it's not complex, but it certainly isn't a clear cut formula, either. You say I'm making it too complex, I say you're making it too simple.

For what it's worth, I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my butt, either. John and Martha King talk about pretty much what I've been talking about.

Seggy said:
If one has risky behavior in aviation it WILL get you one day. Hopefully you won't get hurt or hurt anyone else, but those that don't minimize the risk when they fly, will get caught one day.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Seggy said:
Blowing a tire, having to replace the brakes, and having gear issues WILL happen. Excessive heat and cold expansion to an engine in a rental 172 because someone wants to try to fly in the flight levels isn't normal rental issues that come up.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not normal, but it still falls in to the "stupid renter pilot" category. I wouldn't get upset with sdvc...whatever his name is...for abusing the engine, I'd explain to him what's going on and train him how to manage the engine in a better way. It's a mistake made out of ignorance, not recklessness. Just like how some pilots are hard on the gear or brakes, this instance was hard on the engine.

Seggy said:
When you operate the engine outside of what it was designed to do, you are not minimizing the risk. I doubt they designed the engine to be leaned out at 17,999 feet. See, not that hard to minimize the risks associated with flying.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the engine manufacturing specs to comment one way or the other on high altitude performance. I know that the Piper Twin Commanche and Piper Seminole engines are certified to somewhere in the neighborhood of FL180-FL200 though, and I don't think those engines are significantly different than a 172's. They're all small, normally aspirated Lycomings.

Seggy said:
I know I can land the 1900 fully loaded in about 1000 feet if I wanted to. I actually HAD to, one time because some yahoo wasn't talking on the radio and had to hold short of the runway to prevent an accident. Anyway, the company dictates we must use 4000 feet of runway to land the airplane. It is a set limitation that I follow. There have been times I have been offered 33R in BOS to land on. If we accepted it we would get right in, no flow delays. It is not within our margin of safely, so we don't use it. I know I can land an airplane there safely but why chance it? I know how the 1900 preforms on short runways, why do I need to land on it to prove a point?
Click to expand...

Passenger carrying Part 121 ops are a completely different animal than Part 61/91 flight training ops.

There are all kinds of limitations set in the 121 world that are highly conservative. Nothing wrong with that...in fact, as a passenger, I'm quite thankful for it.

But it's not a fair anology to compare "risk management" at an airline to "risk management" as a private pilot. There are totally different risks and rewards involved, and the threshold for acceptable risks and rewards is different.

Seggy said:
You want to see how a 172 reacts high, slow, and heavy? Take it to 13,000 feet. Is that 5000 feet REALLY going to make a difference that one can tell, that being between 13,000 and 18,000 feet?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? When was the last time you flew a light plane up high?

It absolutely makes a difference. Saying there is no noticeable difference between 13k and 18k is like saying there's no difference between flying solo versus flying loaded to max gross weight, flying on a 60 degree day versus a 100 degree day, or landing on a calm day versus landing with a 10 knot crosswind.

It's not that there is a shockingly huge difference, but it is certainly a noticeable difference and is worth exploring. I consider it especially important to explore this region because it's on the limits of the plane's capabilities. It's usually when a pilot is pushed to the limits by external factors that they get in to accidents--times when it would be especially nice to have experience flying to the limits so they could know better what to expect.

Even though you don't fly your Beech 1900 into runways less than 4000 feet long, isn't it a good feeling knowing you *could* put it down in 1000 feet if you had to, because you've actually done it in the past? The same could be said for altitude. Nobody intends to be in a spot where they *have* to fly at their service ceiling, but you and I both know there are times in flying where crap happens. When that crap happens, knowing the absolute, precise limits of the plane could make a big difference. Going to 13k when you could go to 18k doesn't represent truly finding the limits of anything.

The reason I feel so strongly about this is because it almost caught me once. I won't go in to all the details, but basically there was a time when I was flying my 140 and I *needed* every ounce of performance out of it. I'm talking, "perfectly coordinated turns, mixture perfectly leaned, pitched perfectly for Vx/Vy (because they had converged!)" kind of performance, and I needed it at 400 AGL. It was a nice feeling knowing I'd already been there and done that in the practice area in the past, so I knew exactly how the plane handled, rather than try to figure it out as I zoomed along at my service ceiling, which happened to be at 400 AGL during that experience.
 
jrh said:
But it's not a fair anology to compare "risk management" at an airline to "risk management" as a private pilot.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is a fair analogy!

The difference is in publicity - when an airliner crashes the whole world knows about it almost instantaneously; when a "private" plane crashes the public doesn't care (unless a celebrity or acquaintance is involved...)

jrh said:
There are totally different risks and rewards involved, and the threshold for acceptable risks and rewards is different.
Click to expand...

This is why the accident rate among "private" pilots is so much higher than in airline flying.

The threshold for risk should not change, only the performance of the different aircraft types which dictates what you "can" and "can't" do with it and also what you "should" and "should not" do with it.

Really in the piloting business it's a simple equation:

1. Can I do it? If no, stop. If yes, proceed to #2.

2. Should I do it? If no, stop. If yes, proceed!

Judgement and experience is where #2 come into play.


Can you take a Cessna 172 up above FL180?

Yes, you can since it is legal according to U.S. (but not European) regs and the manufacturers POH doesn't prohibit it and the aircraft (obviously) is, under certain conditions, physically capable of doing it.


Should you take a Cessna 172 up above FL180?


In the immortal words of Harry Callahan, "a man's just got to know his limitations..."






Kevin
 
staplegun said:
This is why the accident rate among "private" pilots is so much higher than in airline flying.
Click to expand...

Ehhh...sort of. I think the accident rate among general aviation is higher mainly because of the vast diversity of the operations, coupled with a lack of hard standards, such as the 4000 foot minimum runway length Seggy mentioned. If every private pilot had a set of op specs dictating his every move, general aviation would probably be ten times safer. However, it would also be ten times less flexible, which really is a critical factor when it comes to the utility of general aviation. If it's not flexible, it's not much better than airline service.

staplegun said:
The threshold for risk should not change, only the performance of the different aircraft types which dictates what you "can" and "can't" do with it and also what you "should" and "should not" do with it.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree.

The threshold for any type of flying, in my mind, is, "No person ever gets hurt and no metal ever gets bent."

The problem is that, as you pointed out, different aircraft change the standards of what can or should be done to stay within the threshold. Most of the time it boils down to pilot judgement, which is notoriously unreliable.

The airlines solved the problem by setting rigid, conservative standards for everything. Private pilots rarely do that.

staplegun said:
Really in the piloting business it's a simple equation:

1. Can I do it? If no, stop. If yes, proceed to #2.

2. Should I do it? If no, stop. If yes, proceed!

Judgement and experience is where #2 come into play.
Click to expand...

Good way to break it down. Unfortunately, I don't think it resolves Seggy's and my disagreement, since we're debating #2!
 
Ehhh...sort of. I think the accident rate among general aviation is higher mainly because of the vast diversity of the operations, coupled with a lack of hard standards, such as the 4000 foot minimum runway length Seggy mentioned. If every private pilot had a set of op specs dictating his every move, general aviation would probably be ten times safer. However, it would also be ten times less flexible, which really is a critical factor when it comes to the utility of general aviation. If it's not flexible, it's not much better than airline service.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you, but I also must include experiences and pilot attitudes as well. Rules and regulations, in my opinion, are strictly enforced moreso in 121/135 ops than in general aviation. Why? A paycheck.

I can't see some ATP or commercial pilot cavalierly breaking FAR like our Cessna FL180 pilot and then joking about it.
 
I can't believe some of you guys are backing this guy up.

Did he exceed any limits? Maybe, who knows. What was the CHT of the engine? How much damage did you do to the thing by not having enough airflow over the engine while having the thing firewalled? What was the oil temp? How fast did you come down after your little trip to the flight levels? Did you consider shock cooling? You CAN shock cool an IO-360, as hard as it is. What happens if you were to stall and couldn't recover for a few thousand feet with some traffic passing below you?

Did you have oxygen? Because if you didn't, I'm going to strait up call you a complete hack with a lack of respect for common sense who I wouldn't want to ever have in my cockpit. Did you legally need it? That's debatable. I'd for sure say that you violated 91.13, careless and reckless operation. That's the one that's reserved for people doing stupid things that are not caught by the other rules.

So did you outright break any rules? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows, and I sure don't care. But did you do something REALLY stupid and proceed to brag about it? Yup, you sure did that.

Good luck in this business if you keep pulling stunts like this, kid. Take people's critical responses seriously and understand you just did something real stupid and got away with it. You didn't get away with it because you were good, you got away with it because you were lucky.
 
This thread scares me.
I've done some stupid stuff in life and in flying. None of it I'm proud of. So I can't really go after the OP but just take it easy man and if your that bored with flying just imagine how bored you're going to be later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top