fluffysheap

I'm not sure I'll make it out there that early, but if I can, I'll be there.

It seems unlikely to be a hijacking. Even if the plane managed to somehow evade radar, there aren't a lot of places where you could land and hide a plane that big. Maybe they could go to North Korea, but even there, without being spotted by South Korea or Japan, seems hard. Airliner fuel economy isn't good at low altitude (and there's no other way they could avoid being spotted). I don't see cell phones as being a factor one way or another. The plane was over water. I don't see why Boeing would help pay for a ransom. If there was a mechanical failure perhaps, but not terrorism, whether a bomb or hijacking. Hostages are expensive, and you need to keep them alive so that there's a reason to pay a ransom. We would have heard something by now. The Vietnamese say they have seen an oil slick, but I'm not sure if that's corroborated yet. Sadly it looks like all the signs point to either an accident or a bombing or perhaps a shootdown. Because of the fake passports I'm expecting bombing, but it's too early to know for sure.

If the turbo isn't dripping out the exhaust, it's fine In all seriousness, continuous redline is 1650. Anything under that is fine. It will be hotter LOP, and at higher altitude. With the settings you listed, you actually are being a bit conservative. You should be able to increase to something like 33"/10.5GPH/1600TIT at FL200 or lower.. Or you can keep it where you have it for a little better fuel economy (in still air).

Fish oil is good stuff, but I don't think it will help you lose weight, at least not directly. My guess, the start of the fish oil coincided with increased awareness of your health and was just part of an overall improvement in diet. If you have "fish burps," that means the fish oil you've been taking is poor quality. There are different ways to deal with that. One is to get a capsule that delays the release of the fish oil into your intestines instead of your stomach. Or, you can just get better fish oil. The best way to do this (as well as get the highest amounts of omega-3) is with liquid form oil, but not everyone is willing to deal with that. Liquid oil has to be better, because if it tasted as bad as the stuff they put in the cheap capsules, everyone would puke if they tried to swallow it. The other thing to look out for is whether the oil is in ester or glyceride form. Ester form is cheaper to make, but it isn't as good for you. The dosage on the bottle might be the same, but actual bioavailability is probably half of what is in the glyceride. So it's a false savings. This is what I take: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002CQU55K (I have no direct interest in any way in this product, just a satisfied customer) It's a little more expensive, but I'm convinced it's worth it.

Yeah, that. Not the first time I've made that mistake, either. I say airport IDs and set my radios more or less at random most of the time.

I'm based at FTG too and would be happy to take you up, especially in exchange for a Maule ride. I have a 231, which isn't as fancy as Joe's Acclaim, but it costs a lot less! I'm not a CFI, though. As far as winds, if you can stand in it, you can land in it. I've landed in 25G35 near direct crosswind, and 40G50 at about 20 degrees. The 25 was pretty much about the limit of my ability, but I imagine a very skilled pilot could manage even more. The headwind was a nonevent except for the weird feeling of having almost no landing roll. Don't use flaps in heavy winds. Landing, the Mooney is really very similar to the Arrow, it's just a little floatier, but not that different. FTG has such long runways that you can float all day and it doesn't make any difference. Aside from the control arrangement, I think the biggest difference flying-wise is that the Mooney's trim is much more effective, and the Mooney has a strong nose-down tendency when you deploy flaps.

I'd like to add something the examiner who did my IFR checkride told me. If the airport you are landing at has RVR measurement equipment, treat it as gospel and don't land unless it is above minimums, no matter what you can see. Visibility requirement is air visibility, not ground, meaning you get the benefit of the doubt - UNLESS there is RVR equipment, and then you don't. In the specific case given in the question, I'd land assuming I'm able to see the runway/REIL within 100' of DH. Actually seeing the runway is the most important thing, and the reported visibility has you covered from a legal/technical standpoint.

Flying out of KFTG in Denver, ATC always issues me a SID. Then, 90% of the time, they give me direct routing before I get to the first waypoint. I think they just want to give me a path that's low-workload (for them) in case they get busy. The only time I've ever been given a STAR was flying into KBJC in Seattle. Being Seattle, it was IMC and, again I think they just wanted to be able to predict what was going to happen without worrying about it. I had never flown one before and, I must confess, I didn't fly it all that well. Probably caused them more work than they saved

I hadn't seen the recent ones because they're just too new. Unless there's a specific accident I'm interested in, I don't usually bother with NTSB reports less than about six months old because so many of them have no useful information, often just a blank page. I'm not saying the parachute is utterly useless, just that it doesn't actually save lives often enough to make the Cirrus safer than the average. And sometimes it turns embarrassments into accidents when pilots pull the handle unnecessarily, although none of these induced accidents have been fatal. The CAPS history page is a good resource, which I hadn't seen. A summary: 54 attempted activations* 16 saves from mechanical problems (this is admittedly more than I expected; I expected 5-10) 19 saves from pilot error, including flying into bad weather** 2 rocket failures 8 failures due to activating outside the envelope 9 other (no data, midair collision, pilot incapacitation; some of these were saves) The page doesn't count accidents where the system is simply never activated, or is activated after ground impact. There are a lot of these. There's also quite good evidence that many of the saves, whether mechanical or pilot error, would have been survivable anyway. One pilot activated the CAPS because he got lost, and this is counted as a save. In both cases where the system failed outright, the occupants survived. * There are 249 total Cirrus accidents in the NTSB database, 98 of which have been fatal; but not all Cirrus accidents, including some reported on the CAPS page, are in the NTSB database due to them occurring outside the US ** One of these is counted as a save by the CAPS page, but a similar accident is not considered a save by that page. I count neither of them as saves.

I don't really disagree, it's just not what typically happens. I've flown with four flight schools, all part 61, and the rental agreement for all four specifically said no landings on unpaved surfaces. When I've asked, I've been told the insurance doesn't permit it. I didn't push it because I didn't plan to do any soft field landings anyway. If you're looking specifically for training for unpaved surfaces you could probably find a school that allows it, but my point is that most students earning their PPL today, perhaps with the exception of those in Alaska, have had no useful training in soft field operations.

Statistically, the Cirrus parachute is not very helpful. I can actually only remember reading one NTSB accident report (though I presume there are others) - out of thousands I've read and dozens of those being Cirrus - where the plane had some in-flight problem, the pilot activated the parachute, the parachute worked, and the people on board the plane actually survived. In most Cirrus accidents, one of those things doesn't happen. Early on, the Cirruses had a *worse* fatality rate than most other GA aircraft - maybe the parachutes gave a false sense of security, or maybe it was just new-plane teething problems. Now, I believe, their accident and fatality rate is pretty much typical. For mountain flying, maybe the parachute is potentially helpful if you have an engine out. Over water, I'd rather have a Mooney or any retractable, so I could ditch (hopefully) without flipping over. It's bad enough trying to get out of a plane in the water without getting tangled in a giant parachute too. I would feel safer in a turbine single than a piston twin. Statistics don't indicate any significant safety benefit in a piston twin. Two engines don't save you if you run out of gas, which is the #1 cause of power loss. They don't really help all that much if one of the engines fails at takeoff. If I had a Socata budget, I'd buy one, but I don't. I think in most situations I'd rather have a turbocharged single than a typical twin. The longer gliding distance from flying higher, plus the superior weather-avoidance ability, is probably more real-world benefit than the extra engine. If you start at 25,000 feet, you can glide about 60 miles. It's about 150 miles from Miami to the Bahamas. So there's only about a 30 mile zone where you're out of gliding range of one shore or the other. Ten minutes, give or take. Winds actually improve the situation, if you account for them properly. Granted this doesn't help much if you're trying to go to, like, Hawaii. But my guess is that the majority of GA long over-water trips by American-based aircraft are to the Caribbean. I feel "safe enough" in a piston single. I fly over mountains regularly. I haven't flown over open water, but only because I haven't had a reason to yet. I would be willing to do it if I had a raft. The hassle of international flight is a bigger deterrent for me than the risk of engine failure!

"The pilot's inadequate preflight inspection..." "The pilot's improper flight planning..." "The pilot's improper fuel management..." "The (often student) pilot's failure to maintain directional control on landing" "The pilot's inappropriate decision to <do something really stupid>" If you removed all of the NTSB reports where the probable cause is one of those, there wouldn't be many accidents left. Still not as safe as airlines, but probably safer than cars. One thing that's often overlooked in statistics is the general existence of Alaska. Alaska flying has a lot of accidents, and they're frequently fatal. Meanwhile, Alaska's population is so low that it can't contribute meaningfully to the risk of car accidents, even if Alaska driving is actually less safe than average. I'm not sure what percentage of accidents or fatalities are Alaska-related - maybe 10%? - but it's enough to move the needle, for sure. Perversely, the reason many people feel safer in cars is because of the perception of being more in control, but in reality the majority of aircraft accidents are self-inflicted. Meanwhile, many car accidents are the result of poor driving by somebody else, or genuine accidents (in the sense of fluke occurrences) where the driver has no significant ability to prevent the accident. Younger people have more to lose, but also more to gain. A business risk earns money that they have more time to spend, a Jackass stunt impresses girls that an 80 year old wouldn't be able to. They're also more likely to survive their risk-taking, and more likely to be strong enough to take the risks in the first place. Perhaps the difference isn't as significant in an airplane, but evolution wasn't planning for that. Some other thoughts... Experimental aircraft have their own set of risks. Experimentals have a much higher accident rate due to buzzing and improper aerobatics - I believe due to the pride taken by the builder/pilot who then goes and does something dumb to show off. That's separate from the fact that most aerobatics in general are flown by experimentals. Then there are the various accidents caused by construction problems. Most, although of course not all, of these turn up in the first few flights. Many of them result in power failures that don't even show up in the accident reports because they usually happen in the pattern, and often while the plane is being flown by a qualified test pilot, and therefore just turn into a regular dead-stick on-airport landing. Then there are accidents caused by things that are supposed to be improvements, but aren't, like John Denver's fuel selector. Finally there are accidents caused by pilots actually experimenting, which are the only ones that "should" happen. The only pilot I personally knew who was killed in an accident was killed in an experimental by a power loss on what amounted to the plane's second flight; but he also, in my opinion, should have been able to safely land regardless, as he was flying a biplane over a wheat field. Even in experimentals, you usually need bad luck and a mistake. But even within the experimental category, there are variations. Lancairs have a lot of stall/spins. RVs tend to have landing follies. The canard family has fuel contamination and different kinds of landing problems. So while the RVs have plenty of accidents, the Lancairs have many more fatal accidents. Overall, if you disregard the "phase 1" (initial 50 hours) accidents, experimentals are only slightly less safe than factory-built GA. I can't figure out why night IFR is more dangerous than day IFR, although the statistics say it is. I actually prefer to fly at night, as there's less traffic (and that traffic is easier to see), controllers are less harried, and the weather is better (less turbulence, and the thunderstorms have often died down). VFR- sure, you might fly into terrain or clouds you couldn't see, or land on some debris on the runway. But IFR should pretty much take care of all that. There's still some risk of a runway problem, but less, because IFR-capable airports are usually better maintained, and terrain and IMC should be a nonissue. Even most of the birds have gone to sleep, although I still managed to almost hit a bird at night once. I wonder how many of these increased accidents are a result of misjudging the runway height due to lack of night-flying proficiency? Even if it's a lot, those usually shouldn't be fatal. I'm in that 500-1000 hour zone where accident rates increase. That I do understand. It's a zone where you feel like you know what's coming and can handle anything and so get complacent, but of course you can't handle anything. I've had probably more in-flight problems than the average 500 hour pilot. Something stupid happens on almost every flight. Sometimes it's a major problem, sometimes it's harmless, but there's usually something. I don't feel lucky enough to create my own problems too, I have enough as it is!

You couldn't pay me to fly commercial. Before I had the Mooney, I drove everywhere. Sure, sometimes there's weather that airlines can fly in that Mooneys can't. But when the weather is bad enough that the airline flights start to get cancelled, then GA wins again. With your own plane, you can go as soon as the weather lets up. With the airlines, you'll go when they're good & ready. Might be the next day, might be a week. When your Mooney flight gets cancelled, you know about it in advance because you cancelled it. You never get stuck in the airport. You never miss a connecting flight and get stranded in the middle of nowhere, or worse, Atlanta*. You can take two passengers for the same cost as traveling alone. You can usually land closer to your actual destination on the ground. You can fly the day before Thanksgiving for the same price as a Tuesday in March. You can carry all the Christmas gifts you want. You don't have to book in advance. You don't have to hurry up and wait. The flight waits for you, and it leaves when you're ready. Unless the battery is dead. The real problem is coast-to-coast flights. It's just really expensive to make that flight, and if you're going west, it's kind of a challenge to do it in one day. But a thousand miles or less and you'll come out ahead or even. * No offense intended. All in good fun.

When I bought my plane, I sent it to Don Maxwell for a thorough going-over - a pre-buy that turned into an annual. It took a lot longer than I expected, but he found an AD that wasn't properly complied with *and* some prior damage that wasn't previously known. Because of this, I think any time a plane undergoes an ownership change, or a change in maintenance regime, it ought to get an annual from square one. Just so there are no surprises. That doesn't mean I think it should be mandatory - as if we need more costs and things to be liable for - but as a conscientious owner, that's what I'd want done.

At $100K either a J or K would be a good choice. The J has more useful load - you might need that if you want to carry two passengers regularly. A typical K has a useful load in the 850-875 pound range, which leaves you with about 450 pounds of payload with full fuel. The Encore has a gross weight increase, but a price premium, and there are fewer of them out there. You won't get the full benefits of a K model unless you get an instrument rating. Maintenance is supposedly more expensive in the K, but I'm not sure how accurate that really is. I have a K and haven't had any turbocharging-related issues. I guess if I need a new turbo at some point I might change my mind. The J's Lycoming and K's Continental both have their own issues, I'm not sure either is exactly better than the other. You should probably be prepared to travel to find the right plane for you. Unfortunately, there just aren't that many of them out there, and you can't rely on the right one being nearby. I traveled all over the country looking at planes before finally buying one only 150 miles away! As far as grass fields. My personal minimums do not include landing on grass. It's partly because Mooneys are not really the best plane for that mission, but also because I have no real training for it. The "soft field technique" you learn in PPL training is, IMO, not adequate for actual unpaved field landings. Most flight schools don't allow actual grass landings - which is usually enforced by their insurance companies. So for most private pilots and even instructors, soft-field is just something you do to check the box on the private pilot checkride and not something you learn because you intend to ever actually do it. So, IMO, inexperienced pilot + lack of viable instruction + aircraft marginal for the mission = not something I'd recommend. But if you get real soft-field instruction and some Mooney experience, then maybe it would be ok on a well-maintained grass strip. If landing on grass is really part of your mission, I think the Bonanza is probably better than the Mooney - it sits up higher, at least - but the Cessna 182 is really a better choice. It's a great jack-of-all-trades plane. No matter what the criterion - speed, load, fuel efficiency, rough surface, IFR, whatever - it's not the best, but it's also not too bad. Worst problem is that Cessnas make you look like a dork. No way around that. I'm not surprised that insurance is cheaper on the Mooney than the Bonanza. Both are complex, but Mooney's safety record is better, even excluding the V-tail Bonanzas.

What does it have that DUATS or fltplan don't?

Tacoma Narrows is pretty far from Seattle, and it's on the opposite side of Tacoma. It's an hour away from downtown Seattle by car, longer if there's traffic. It's as far as Paine Field in Everett. Assuming you're not actually going to Tacoma, you would be better off with Renton for sure. It's a fun airport to fly into, though. The Tacoma Narrows bridge is right there (assuming it doesn't fall down again), and the runway is practically sticking out into Puget Sound. Not recommended for Asiana pilots.

That reminds me, I forgot to mention this: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=ct_sfov&time=latest&imageType=image Great for seeing cloud tops. The downside is that it measures any cloud tops, including cirrus, so sometimes it's misleading. But it's nevertheless very useful.

For me: Avilution AviationMaps on my Android tablet. Has all sectionals, TACs, IFR enroutes, AFD entries, approach plates, and arrival/departure procedures. Also gets TFRs, airmets, winds aloft, etc. but requires an internet connection to get them. It is not free, but it isn't very expensive either. It has other features too but I tend to not use them. For planning: skyvector.com to plan routes and see fuel prices. aviationweather.gov to get winds aloft and view TAF/METAR/FA/airmets duats.com for filing flight plans and formal briefings avnwx.com for visualizing pireps and weather While having all these separate pieces means having to switch among various browser tabs, IMO they're all better at their specific strengths than fltplan. I have nothing against fltplan, I just rarely find that I need it. I have a spreadsheet for weight & balance that I keep in Google Docs, but I rarely need it. The one thing that isn't available on any of these sites is a route planner that takes aircraft performance data and winds aloft and calculates the optimal route/altitude and ETE. I don't think fltplan can do that either. So I usually end up eyeballing it based on the wind speeds and streamlines on aviationweather.gov, then I adjust my groundspeed on skyvector based on wind estimates. I'm usually accurate within 10 minutes on a 5-6 hour flight, which is close enough for me. If you tell duats.com that you want emailed updates to your flight plan, it will tell you what departure and routing you are likely to get. It's not a substitute for clearance delivery, but it's nice to know. One thing that has been upsetting lately is that I am seeing some discrepancies in the visualized airmets between what is on avnwx/skyvector and what is on aviationweather.gov. Of course the formal text description in the text briefing is the authority, but that's so difficult to understand that it doesn't usually help resolve the inconsistency.

How old is your installation? I had heard the newer ones are better than the older ones - I am thinking about getting TKS, but don't think I would want it at 7 kts of speed loss - that's a lot!

The purpose of stadium TFRs is not security. It is to get rid of banner towing planes. Note that the TFR does not apply to NHL or NBA games, regardless of seating capacity, because those are played indoors. They are more like the Disney TFRs than the VIP TFRs. Flying into or out of Boeing Field or Sea-Tac in Seattle will take you within a stone's throw of both of Seattle's major stadiums. However, they are both located within KBFI's airspace (or within the Class B for Sea-Tac depending on altitude), meaning you need to be in contact with ATC already. Being under control of ATC is basically a free pass on stadium TFRs. I don't think VFR flight following counts, but an IFR or Bravo clearance from approach, or a tower clearance does. So, basically, it's nearly irrelevant. Neither Boeing tower nor Seattle Approach make any effort to prevent you from flying over the stadiums, in fact they will often send you quite near them. I have flown around over Denver while the Rockies are playing. Coors Field isn't exactly near any airport, but it's close enough to KBJC that you might accidentally bust the TFR if not paying attention. So the airport ATIS always warns you when it's in effect. That said, I've been on VFR flight following and asked Denver Approach whether I was in danger of busting the stadium TFR and they not only didn't remember it was in effect, they seemed entirely unconcerned about it. I think the biggest risk, and the only one I've heard of anyone actually violating, is if you are flying to some uncontrolled airport near a college that happens to be covered by a stadium TFR. I think if that is your destination, you ought to know at least if there is a major college there and check the football schedule. The active status of stadium TFRs needs to be in a standard briefing, at least. Regular TFRs certainly are. The traveling schedule of the President and VP is publicly available, so no bad guys are learning anything from TFR postings. If the President goes somewhere unannounced, his TFR is unannounced too. But that is actually not that common.

It's an interesting case to make. The important thing is to compare the increase in the density of the intake charge going into the manifold, to the pressure drop over the intercooler. The cooler the air, the more power. The greater the pressure drop, the less power. Suppose the air temperature around the intercooler is the same as the temperature of the air coming out of the turbo. Obviously, in this case, the intercooler is doing no good, but you still get the pressure drop. So the intercooler is hurting in this case. It isn't as odd as it might seem - Mazda RX-7s and Nissan Z's of the 1980s had their intercoolers mounted on top of the engine (the turbo models had a slot in the hood where the intercooler took in air), and if the car wasn't moving, the intercooler was surrounded by hot air from the engine and was actually more of an "inter-heater." But once the car got going above about 20 or 30 mph, the outside air would blow through the slot and properly cool the intake air. A turbo-normalized engine at sea level is another example. At sea level, the turbo's not doing anything - the air is already at the right pressure. But the intercooler still creates a restriction in the intake. Now, for an opposite thought experiment, suppose you managed to build an intercooler that had no pressure drop at all. (It isn't possible, but let's pretend). In this case, you'd still get the cooling effect, but no additional restriction. That would mean the air density on the cold side is higher than the density on the hot side. Since we've already stipulated that the pressure is the same, that means that air needs to flow more quickly on the hot side to keep the overall mass air flow the same*. That is to say, this hypothetical super-efficient intercooler actually sucks the air out of the turbo! Real intercoolers are somewhere in between. They have a pressure drop, and they also have a temperature drop. So the question at that point becomes whether the loss of intake efficiency due to pressure drop is greater or smaller than the gain due to the cooler, and thus denser, air. An intercooler that cools the air more than it restricts it would increase power, and one that restricts more than it cools would decrease it. It's not going to be possible to assign one magic efficiency value to an intercooler because it will vary based on conditions. It would be a pretty lousy intercooler that was a net negative for most situations, but I suppose it's possible. Sure - for a turbo-NORMALIZED engine, at sea level. 30"MP after intercooler is probably slightly less power than 30" without it, because at that pressure, the turbo isn't heating the air, so there's nothing to cool! If you've got an intercooler like the really bad one in his example, that drops 6" of pressure, then suddenly instead of what amounts to a naturally aspirated engine, you've got a turbo that's needing to make 36". And that's going to take some power. But I would doubt his claim that backpressure is responsible, or at least mostly responsible. I would say that the increased temperature of the intake air is probably more of a factor. Even after the intercooler, you're probably going to have air that's at least 30 degrees hotter than what it would otherwise be, and we all know what 30 degrees will do to your density altitude. But if the engine is boosted even at sea level, rules change. Intercooled is basically always better than non-intercooled then. And even that normalized engine, once you go above sea level, is really a boosted engine, where the MP redline just happens to be 30". The intercooler's better there too, although one that drops 6" of pressure probably isn't helping much. * I'm not sure the best way to explain this, but if anyone doesn't believe it I'll try.

All the FBOs at BFI are pretty nice. If you land or stay over a weekend, Galvin will give you $1.00 off their fuel price, making it cheaper than Clay Lacy (but still more expensive than RNT). Maybe Clay Lacy has discounts available too, but they don't advertise them. Both will give you free parking if you fuel up. Honestly, for a downtown airport, BFI is not very expensive. Still expensive in an absolute sense of course. Renton is actually farther in practice because Boeing is right by I-5 and Renton is not. Unless, of course, you're going to somewhere that's actually nearer to Renton. If you happen to have a Car2Go membership, Boeing is near enough to places where you can get usually one of those. Renton isn't. Both have a lot of interesting aircraft. BFI has the museum of flight and often has some random Boeing-built military castoffs sitting around. Renton on the other hand usually has some amphibious aircraft since it's one of few places where both water and land runways are available.

I have.... but I live at 6000'. It's possible that even though I'm acclimated I took a little more O2 hit than someone at sea level would. For the record, I would usually check right at the end of a fairly serious session (warmup jog, then weights or similar - that's anaerobic so probably doesn't matter much - then interval training on the exercise bike), when I was pretty well beat, and the value I got was usually about 87-88. It would come back up quickly, but not immediately, after stopping. I'm not elite, not by any stretch of the imagination, but at the time I was in decent but not amazing shape, in my late 20s, and I did go until I needed to stop. So I'm not sure my experience, given the altitude, is that far off of what your guy is saying. If I just did the warmup and the weights I would stay in the 90s. So I guess I made three errors: First, assuming that my experience acclimated at altitude translates to sea level, second presuming that someone who was in worse shape might experience even lower O2 levels - as opposed to just stopping sooner at the same O2 level, and third not properly explaining that my experience was "train to exhaustion" rather than simply "do some exercise." Even the second assumption, while it might have been wrong for someone healthy, wasn't pulled completely out of the air. Both of my parents suffered from respiratory failure as a result of cancer, and their O2 levels after activity were routinely 85 or below (with supplemental oxygen). In that case, the doctors were just happy if the resting level was above 90, and didn't really worry about what happened during activity. There's also the possibility that my oximeter - which is the same one my parents used - reads a point or two low. It's an older prescription one from the late 90s, but still works. Although I'm certainly not in the physical condition I was in ten (wow!) years ago, I'll repeat the test, and I'll also try at sea level and the next time I'm in Leadville, just to get some extra data points. Also, I did the quick Google search and the first two articles I found with actual measured data were here: http://jap.physiology.org/content/19/2/284.abstract http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070811103657AATcZ5F Both of which showed 85% as possible during exercise, but only for athletes. So it looks like my real incorrect assumption was that someone in worse shape would have a lower blood O2 saturation, rather than a higher one. I was in shape but a short of a real athlete, so ending up around 87-88 doesn't seem out of line. I was in good shape and dropped to the high 80s, my parents were in poor health and dropped to the low 80s. I extrapolated and figured someone in average health would also drop into the mid-80s. But apparently that's wrong. For purposes of hypoxia-induced health problems, I'm not sure what this indicates. I still don't think short-duration exposure to the high 80s is going to kill brain cells.

I would be interested, but none of my Android devices have a barometer. I use Avilution and while it's a great chart/AFD replacement, it's crummy for checklists. I am still using laminated paper.