tgardnerh

Here's a conjecture that reconciles the theory and experience: When it's hot out, we spend a non-trivial amount of energy rejecting heat, managing sub-clinical dehydration, and otherwise using up our physiological reserve. This both increases our O2 demand (so we get hypoxic faster), and impairs our cognition, so it becomes an ADM sooner. Re: internal medicine, she's freakishly good at keeping many many balls in the air at once, and at noticing when something is just not quite right. Its like her personality is perfect for IM (and a great case study of why its good I never got into med school). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ambient conditions change what goes into your nose, but by the time it reaches the gas exchange membrane in your lungs, the gas is going to be 98 degrees, 100% RH, 21% oxygen, and whatever the ambient pressure is. The only part that depends on the ambient conditions is pressure, so pressure altitude should be what controls the partial pressure of oxygen where it counts (unless you boost the %O2 of course).

Which direction is your experience--do you find that for a given pressure higher DA means worse oxygen saturation? On first principles (and per my wife, who did a year of anesthesia before switching to IM), the air at the alveolar membrane is 98.6 degrees and 100% RH, so ambient temperature *shouldn't* matter. But also a stunning number of things in medicine that come down to "ehh, it seems like this causes that, nobody knows why," so I know better than to trust first principles here.

I'm convinced that a huge portion of the danger of mountain flying is just that we get varying degrees stupid when hypoxic. So many accidents seem to be a variation on "after cruising at 11,500 feet for an hour, pilot who definitely knows better continued flight into weather/rising terrain/improper landing site." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen products that sort of jury rig a heat exchanger between the condenser and the pool plumbing, but your idea seems great. There's nothing "special" about it, so any qualified tech will understand your system in 30 seconds, and there's no weird failure modes that you'll get to find. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another question that might be revealing about whether its the turbo system or the higher MP is whether it runs smoothly with turbo engaged and partial throttle. EG you go to 8k, note the MP and FF, throttle back to drop the MP by a few inches, close the waste gate to get MP back, and then re-lean to the same FF. If its still as rough as before then I *think* that would rule out any cause after the throttle. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have an engine monitor? If so, what's the GAMI spread when it's running smoothly, and then what is it when it's running rough? Do the cylinders peak in the same order with and without the turbo going? Could you have an intake leak? I imagine that on an injected engine it could cause the affected cylinder to run lean when MP is less than ambient pressure, and rich when MP is above ambient pressure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Until recently my family was "judgement proof" (grad school + residency), but I made it a point to carry as much liability as the company would write for exactly this reason. Driving and flying impose risk on the rest of the world, and we have a responsibility to cover that risk. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I asked Blackstone their opinion on this after my car went ~18 months before getting due for an oil change, and they told me in no uncertain terms that mileage matters, months do not. I believed them, but also the car is only worth 5 AMU, so the stakes are lower.

I hope you're right, and I hope the FAA gives some clear guidance about what you need to know about a potential landing site *before* doing a low pass. A low pass only makes sense if sometimes you can reject the landing site, but it's obvious that a Learjet doing a low pass over a gravel bar isn't inspecting it for a possible landing site, so... ugh.

I haven't read the full decision because it's 700+ pages, but skimming, I see that they lean into the "not necessary for landing" bit rather than just relying on the general recklessness rule of 91.13. As written, I just don't see how to distinguish this case from flying low and slow down a paved runway at a sleepy airport to look for FOD. Perhaps more worrisome to me, this decision seems to outlaw intentional go-around practice, which is obviously not necessary for landing, and definitely takes you over the airport fence at less that 500 feet! Some key quotes from the attached decision: "I further find that Respondent's low pass operation at 100 feet or less above ground level and his flight path was not necessary for takeoff or landing." (P 733, line 19), and "While a low pass is recommended for -- while a low pass was recommended in Ops Guidance, it still must comply with the regulatory requirements of Section 91.119." (P 739, line 16), and "such operations below the minimums of Section 91.119 must still be necessary for takeoff or landing under the circumstances. Under the circumstances in this case, it was not necessary. I, therefore, reject Respondent's argument that the Off-airport Ops Guide excused his violation." (P 739, line 23) NTSB_Palmer_033023.pdf

If the FAA wanted to say they didn't believe he had a good faith intention of landing, so it was a low pass and not an inspection pass, whatever, that's their choice, but as far as I can tell they're just claiming an inspection pass that does not end in a landing is not "for the purposes of landing." Which basically bans all inspection passes anywhere that has a structure within 500 feet (like airports!).

I've seen your "prebuy the seller" approach referenced around here a few times--what are you looking for there? What is the human equivalent of looking for a corroded spar cap? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All snark aside, my wife was an anesthesiology resident when she had our first child. A few hours into labor she was very nauseous, and we went several rounds of me arguing she should take the zofran based on my experience taking, and her being unconvinced despite having given it dozens (hundreds?) of times in the prior year. She relented, took the pill, the nausea passed, and she slept for 4 hours. I felt pretty smug! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About 10 years my dad was complaining about the decline in air travel experience, and I checked--a first class ticket now costs about what economy cost pre-deregulation (inflation adjusted). He's flown first class ever since. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk