I think the key point is that you "flew over". I flew at the altitudes you suggested weren't palatable in a turboprop, yet I didn't experience the liist of issues you suggested would have been present. Yes, the airliners were doing some deviation, and they seem to always be asking to try a different altitude, no matter when/where I am flying. I did see the the pirep for severe turbulence by an airliner in central FL. All I can think of is that they found a cell to fly through, because there were no similar pireps.

It looks like you were reaching FL400, south of Tallahassee, just south of the heavy precip shown on nexrad, at about 10:45 EST. I flew through at about 12:45 EST, through nexrad returns that looked more or less identical to what you were flying above.

Look, I'm not disputing the benefits you get with a higher altitude in a jet. I fully agree that higher has advantages. I'd also add that I almost never see an advantage to flying lower to avoid headwinds in the 960. As winds decrease with a lower altitude, the TAS decreases, and the fuel burn increases. Invariably, there is almost never any significant time benefit, and the fuel burns are always higher.

I'm simply suggesting that the weather system you were referencing was not an issue for a turboprop. You want to have suitable weather avoidance equipment if you try to fly through something like that, but at the end of the day, I never had to deviate from my filed route. My issue isn't with your general premise .... my issue is with the premise that a turboprop wouldn't want to fly across that weather system. I did it safely and comfortably, albeit maybe not as safely and comfortably as you might have experienced.

I am reminded of the quote, attributed to Gore Vidal:

"It is not enough to win. Others must lose."

We were clearly experiencing a different aspect of the system given the difference in wind and effects. I was quite further west and earlier.


Not much point to the block given the private ADS-B networks out there.


Suggests a significant change in wind speed in a relatively short lateral distance. That's usually an indicator of turbulence as air masses rub against each other.


We were treated to an ATC frequency almost 100% busy with airliner deviations and turbulence reports. We also had icing reports for anyone under FL300. I didn't personally fly through all that, so I can only rely on what was said on frequency. Tops were into the high 30s.

I was sure glad not to be down in the 20s. Flying over is wonderful. I kept thinking how uncomfortable this trip would be in my MU2.


Somewhere about 100 knots on the nose, flying lower is equal fuel. But before that, flying lower might be more fuel, but it is less of a penalty and worth the lesser time. The real bummer is if flying lower puts you in weather, icing, or turbulence. When the winds are howling like that, this often occurs.


It would be over my route and time. It would have been slow, IMC, bumpy, and icy in the 20s. Echo tops (XM weather) say cells had precip up to FL350. Maybe in the low 30s the icing goes away, but the others remain based on the radio traffic. You can fly through all that in a turboprop, but it would be no fun.

Mike C.

Yep, we are going around in circles now....

The entire reason there are different models of aircraft is because people have different missions. I fly into contaminated runways but they are long (KAXX and KANK) and have never had an issue. The rest of my flying is in the middle of the country plus an annual trip to the Bahamas. I hope to explore more of the Caribbean and my plane is perfect for that. No, I am not flying into St Bart's but I wouldn't go there even if I had a TP - it's just not my kind of place.

The speed of our plane allows us to do a day trip to the beach while taking another family of 4 or ski for 2 days without missing any work or school. It's the perfect plane for us. I also believe that it is the safest plane one can fly. If an engine fails the AP doesn't even kick off. I have thrust to spare - it will happily take off and fly on one engine. It will fly slow, it will fly fast. It cannot Vmc roll. The list goes on an on.

Finally, I will leave you with a jet in snow pic. Yes, I taxied through that snow just fine (it's good to have a turf-rated airplane).


And here is the runway. No different than driving a car in the same conditions. I have neither ABS nor thrust reversers. Just be smooth.

Do you honestly expect someone to admit to violating an FAR in a public forum using their real name?

More particularly, be on speed. Any excess is significant runway usage.

No ABS and no TRs means you are operating with less margin. I have both ABS (never used, I assume it works) and TRs (used all the time, they work nicely). I'd also touch down as early on the runway as you are comfortable with rather than routinely wasting the first 1000 ft.

My MU2 could land shorter than my Citation, but it couldn't takeoff shorter, so the effective runway length limits are about the same. I was expecting to lose runway options in the Citation, I really didn't. The only capability I lost was turf runways which meant I can't land at my brother's private field, but I only did that about 5 times in my MU2 history, so not a huge loss.

I'd have no problems operating in the conditions you indicated above.

Mike C.

Do you honestly expect someone to admit to violating an FAR in a public forum using their real name?

If I am single pilot I do wear my mask above FL350. My family is in the back and they deserve that extra step in safety.

That’s also why I fly around FL340-350 a lot. I use more fuel down there but for shorter flights it’s not a huge deal.

I do wish there was a system that kept the mask close and ready to put on in seconds that would allow us to fly higher without the mask on.

Like most FAA rules this rule was written in blood. Crashtalk has taught me that.

Mike

1960s through 1970s vintage Sabreliners typically used "horse collar" crew oxygen masks that you hung around your neck for flights above FL350. The masks had two long, plastic tabs that kept the mask strap extended. If the mask was needed, you pulled the extended strap against the back of your head, releasing the tabs and allowing the strap to hold the mask tightly against your face. With only one, large strap, the mask was likely not as effective as a more modern EROS mask, but there was not doubt it could be placed on your face very quickly. Unfortunately, my Google skills are failing me today and I can't find a good photo.

Greg

The vast majority of hypoxia accidents start below FL350, and usually on initial climb out.

The Citation V in Oregon.

The Citation V in Virginia.

The Lear Jet in South Dakota (Payne Stewart).

And so on.

I am aware of very few hypoxia accidents that started above FL350. One such example is N804ST where a hose clamp failed in cruise at FL430 and check valves didn't work to slow down the cabin pressure loss. The pilot and occupants lost consciousness but woke up on the spiral down and managed to land safely. Even in that case, it took 20 seconds to depressurize the cabin.

It seems the rapid decompression event we all fear just doesn't happen that often, but the slow insidious loss of pressure is what really kills people.

Mike C.

The vast majority of hypoxia accidents start below FL350, and usually on initial climb out.

The Citation V in Oregon.

The Citation V in Virginia.

The Lear Jet in South Dakota (Payne Stewart).

And so on.

I am aware of very few hypoxia accidents that started above FL350. One such example is N804ST where a hose clamp failed in cruise at FL430 and check valves didn't work to slow down the cabin pressure loss. The pilot and occupants lost consciousness but woke up on the spiral down and managed to land safely. Even in that case, it took 20 seconds to depressurize the cabin.

It seems the rapid decompression event we all fear just doesn't happen that often, but the slow insidious loss of pressure is what really kills people.

Mike C.

NTSB gave up. The probable cause is listed as:

"A loss of airplane control due to pilot incapacitation for reasons that could not be determined."

The altitude of last contact was around FL200, deviations started at FL270, and the max altitude reached was FL310. All of these are well below the FL350 oxygen mask rule, and are altitudes where turboprops can operate.

There wasn't much left of the plane afterward.

Mike C.

NTSB gave up. The probable cause is listed as:

"A loss of airplane control due to pilot incapacitation for reasons that could not be determined."

The altitude of last contact was around FL200, deviations started at FL270, and the max altitude reached was FL310. All of these are well below the FL350 oxygen mask rule, and are altitudes where turboprops can operate.

There wasn't much left of the plane afterward.

Mike C.

I use this product in-line with my headset. Serves as a backup to both the cabin altitude indication and the cabin pressure warning system in the event of slow depressurization.
Cheap insurance, and I like having two copies of important safety items. The built-in system alarms at 10,000, I set this to alarm at 12,500.
The one time I had a rapid depressurization at FL260, I was so freaked out by the noise of the windshield failing and busy with the emergency descent, I was probably hyperventilating and never felt any anoxia/dizziness (and I was below Class A very rapidly). But I know the upper flight levels are a completely different situation and your lungs work in reverse: lights out after first breath.

This unit has worked for 7 years with no difficulties.

http://www.donmask.com/#:~:text=When%20 ... %20Message.

Do you honestly expect someone to admit to violating an FAR in a public forum using their real name?