29 Mar 2024, 05:52 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 25 Jan 2016, 18:57 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It's powerful stuff, thousands of pilots drunk that Cirrus Kool Aid and are now hopelessly hooked on them. So the SR22 is just a gateway drug? Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 25 Jan 2016, 22:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 7975 Post Likes: +6844 Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So the SR22 is just a gateway drug?
Pretty much so. I am pretty sure the whole idea behind SF50 design philosophy is to capture those thousands of SR22 pilots who are hooked on Cirrus brand and want more.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 01 Feb 2016, 17:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6059 Post Likes: +702 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
yes Peter, FYI the TBM is great at FL270/280, cabin psi of 6.2 give a cabin of 8000'. I can fly all day and not be tired. Username Protected wrote: I was feeling a disturbance in the force today, and realized this thread has been without activity WAY too long.. Any chance we could renew interest in:
Single engine pressurized above FL 250
I don't think it has been discussed in enough detail.. And I'm missing it, like a friend that moved away..
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 11:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 14529 Post Likes: +22860 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Epic is planning to certify to FL 340, and Stratos FL 410. Can they do it? How high can they go, what is the real limit? For me personally, the real limit is determined by number of people, not hardware. I won't go above the low 20's single-pilot. In an emergency there is a pretty good chance a given person won't get their mask on correctly, or fast enough, or whatever. I really doubt anyone flying their cirrus jet single pilot is wearing a mask all the time. And i mean wearing it, not just dangling a quick-don. It's a heck of a risk at those altitudes they are striving for.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 12:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Epic is planning to certify to FL 340, and Stratos FL 410. Can they do it? How high can they go, what is the real limit? The new Denali is getting certification to FL310 https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/denali
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 14:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +2330 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The new Denali is getting certification to FL310 Looks like the SF50's limitation to FL280 was related to RVSM, not pressurization at all. And Cirrus is rumored to be looking at certifying higher just as new RVSM rules are to come out.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 15:19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8415 Post Likes: +8303 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Epic is planning to certify to FL 340, and Stratos FL 410. Can they do it? How high can they go, what is the real limit? For me personally, the real limit is determined by number of people, not hardware. I won't go above the low 20's single-pilot. In an emergency there is a pretty good chance a given person won't get their mask on correctly, or fast enough, or whatever. I really doubt anyone flying their cirrus jet single pilot is wearing a mask all the time. And i mean wearing it, not just dangling a quick-don. It's a heck of a risk at those altitudes they are striving for.
I had a pressurization failure emergency at 310 this summer. Quick don mask on in about 5-10 seconds from annunciation with no ill affects at all. I don’t hesitate to fly that high single pilot but I do think recurrent training (which I had had 60 days earlier for the second time in a year made a difference).
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 17:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 14529 Post Likes: +22860 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I had a pressurization failure emergency at 310 this summer. Quick don mask on in about 5-10 seconds from annunciation with no ill affects at all. I don’t hesitate to fly that high single pilot but I do think recurrent training (which I had had 60 days earlier for the second time in a year made a difference). Yep it's fine until it isn't. If you have an issue you'll never know it. the fact that you took a chance and got away with doesn't change the fact that you took a chance. We all have a different risk tolerance and I personally put that one pretty far to the edge. Others disagree and that's fine.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 17:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you have an issue you'll never know it. The computer tells you if pressure drops/is dropping If you're talking about "explosive" decompression then yeah, you won't know. But that's the case on a 737 too.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 17:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/27/16 Posts: 900 Post Likes: +578 Location: KAPA - Denver
Aircraft: 1983 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I had a pressurization failure emergency at 310 this summer. Quick don mask on in about 5-10 seconds from annunciation with no ill affects at all. I don’t hesitate to fly that high single pilot but I do think recurrent training (which I had had 60 days earlier for the second time in a year made a difference). Yep it's fine until it isn't. If you have an issue you'll never know it. the fact that you took a chance and got away with doesn't change the fact that you took a chance. We all have a different risk tolerance and I personally put that one pretty far to the edge. Others disagree and that's fine.
How do you figure? I spent 5 minutes in an FAA PROTE chamber at FL270 a couple weeks ago. Was definitely not 100% at the end of those 5 minutes but was still functional. Not saying I’d go fly up in the flight levels without O2, but 300 seconds is a lot longer than 5-10.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 17:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 14529 Post Likes: +22860 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Like i said, everyone has their own risk tolerance. A lot of things *should* be ok yet people die every year from stuff that shouldn't have happened.
I view single-pilot above the low 20's a lot like single-engine over the mountains at night. Yes it will probably be ok, but if that single point failure decides to fail, then there is no fallback plan, you just die.
I'm in no way opposed to taking risks - but at least admit that the risk exists. You can't wish it away.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Single engine pressurized above FL 250 Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 22:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8415 Post Likes: +8303 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I had a pressurization failure emergency at 310 this summer. Quick don mask on in about 5-10 seconds from annunciation with no ill affects at all. I don’t hesitate to fly that high single pilot but I do think recurrent training (which I had had 60 days earlier for the second time in a year made a difference). Yep it's fine until it isn't. If you have an issue you'll never know it. the fact that you took a chance and got away with doesn't change the fact that you took a chance. We all have a different risk tolerance and I personally put that one pretty far to the edge. Others disagree and that's fine.
Getting out of bed in the morning has risk. Every part of aviation has risks. I accept that we don't see eye to eye on that. I think flying a twin piston is a greater risk than FL 310 in a modern SE turbine. YMMV.
Yes, I took a chance but don't see it as a very big one. I don't think this is correct: "If you have an issue you'll never know it". In a sudden pressurization loss such as I had it's pretty obvious quickly and the warning systems are there. Perhaps you are more thinking about a slow loss which is certainly more insidious and harder to catch. It's an issue for pressurized aircraft regardless of number of pilots (witness Payne Stewart's accident as an example).
In the TBM community we lost a high profile owner apparently to a slow loss event a few years ago. While tragic it focused everyone on the risks of a slow pressurization loss in pressurized aircraft. In my plane I have installed a device which warns of lower and lessening internal cabin pressure as a partial defense against this risk. I have also taken training for just these kinds of events which include flying a simulator in a pressure tank while losing pressure to help identify my own hypoxia characteristics.
Training and better equipment don't eliminate risk. But they can mitigate it and help reduce it. Flying any kind of equipment is about risk management. You manage risk in pressurized aircraft by flying lower apparently. That's a sound technique but there are still risks in the 20's and equipment and training are still valuable there. Again, flying lower is a mitigation not elimination of risk.
Yes, as you say "the fact that I{sic} took a chance and got away with doesn't change the fact that {I} took a chance." I did. I accept it and don't think it's unreasonable. What I do think is unreasonable is to imply a criticism of another's risk decisions while ignoring our own. Perhaps you're not saying there is a speck in my eye but it sounds a bit like it. I don't think there is a log in yours I think we just see the risks of aviation differently.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|