>
> I really want to know how many accidents or incidents involving at
> least one glider attributable in whole or part to lack of supplementary
> oxygen (at any altitude) have occurred during the last 50 years
> (anywhere in the world)
>
> That's the kind of data you need to determine whether the rule is
> reasonable and rational. Defending a rule in the absence of that
> data is an expression of *opinion*, not based on a true assessment
> of risk.
>
Without doubt accurate data is required to determine whether a rule is rational.
Unfortunately if a pilot suffering residual effects of hypoxia trashes his glider on
landing a report is unlikely to ascribe the cause to hypoxia, since it won't be
measured. This is in the same category as dehydration induced accidents.
Consequently sifting back through the records may not be an effective measure. Unless
a spectacular high altitude break up or a "Stuart Payne" event occurs hypoxia won't
get a mention in a report.
It would be interesting to know what a person's hypoxia recovery profile looks like
during descent from a high altitude flight. It might be that in any reasonable
descent full recovery may occur without use of supplemental oxygen. If that is the
case a bit of risk taking is probably reasonable provided there are no mountains or
other aircraft around. I can't say I have seen anything published on recovery
profiles.
When all issues are considered I don't reckon I would be too keen on gaggle flying
with "no oxygen" pilots at 13,000.
Redmond Quinn
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
