airdisaster.info

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-44121377

Breakfast or not, I always thought that the sudden plunging needed to be to 10,000 ft.........

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-44121377

Breakfast or not, I always thought that the sudden plunging needed to be to 10,000 ft.........

Much discussion there over altitude vs. health.

10,000 feet is a nice round number where most healthy people can hang out all day long.

I forget, but at 24,000? for short times, most people's long-term health is probably not harmed? (You might not be awake, and hopefully you aren't 90 with heart issues, but you can peacefully sleep without killing extra brain cells)...Not sure where they were flying, but if it's around some of those really tall mountains, 24K might be a good idea.

Or, at the very least you slow down to VDon't Blast So Much Damn Air Through The Busted Window and Risk Further Damage at 24,000 and then descend more slowly (in terms of forward speed).

At FL240 the TUC is about 5 minutes. Now as you said the time to have any permanent consequence is much much longer. People will recover as soon as they start breathing normal O2 partial pressure.

Now, the reason why this plane didn't go down sooner was not to keep the airspeed low. You can slow down, apply full spoilers, lower the landing gear, and you will go down pretty fast even with a slow forward speed.

But this plane was over mountains with an MSA of FL235. As soon as they cleraed the mountains they went down to 10000ft.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b890953&opt=0

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-44121377

Breakfast or not, I always thought that the sudden plunging needed to be to 10,000 ft.........

Not when you are over 20,000ft mountains.

.....hopefully you aren't 90 with heart issues....

I'm 61. (though I used to be a lot younger)
Does high blood pressure count?

.....hopefully you aren't 90 with heart issues....

I'm 61. (though I used to be a lot younger)
Does high blood pressure count?

The truth here is not funny...I too WAS younger and take some BP meds...A couple years ago, we drove to the top of the Big Island in Hoowaii- sea-level to 13K...Telescopes and some snow piles and the sunset were most awesome. Also, looking DOWN on a thunderstorm.

BUT

It didn't take much to be breathing a little heavy.

A couple months ago, Aviation Typists Monthly described taking a not-so-healthy person up in an unpressurized single and causing some distress....I think this was around 8K or so.

But as Gabbie points out- nailing a mountain top (and the ensuing fire) is also going to cause some hypoxia (and other breathing difficulties).

Did 14.173 feet in Peru, looked down at airplanes cruising direction Lukla in Nepal. Did not died.
Well done Chinese 'bus drivers.
Per

Did 14.173 feet in Peru, looked down at airplanes cruising direction Lukla in Nepal. Did not died.
Well done Chinese 'bus drivers.
Per

Well, Lukla is at about 9000ft. So depending where you were, you might have been at a lower altitude than in Peru.

I could've sworn I saw some posts on another forum where a certain marine engineer was about to school some young wannabe professional pilots on the difference between sucking and blowing. Did they get deleted?

...the difference between sucking and blowing....

You could always ask a hostie whether she knows the difference.....
...if you fancy your chances.....
...of a slap in the face.

Did 14.173 feet in Peru, looked down at airplanes cruising direction Lukla in Nepal. Did not died.
Well done Chinese 'bus drivers.
Per

Well, Lukla is at about 9000ft. So depending where you were, you might have been at a lower altitude than in Peru.

I know how high I was, and bear in mind, if your destination airport is at 100 feet as, you don't cruise there at 100 feet.
Per

Did 14.173 feet in Peru, looked down at airplanes cruising direction Lukla in Nepal. Did not died.
Well done Chinese 'bus drivers.
Per

Well, Lukla is at about 9000ft. So depending where you were, you might have been at a lower altitude than in Peru.

I know how high I was, and bear in mind, if your destination airport is at 100 feet as, you don't cruise there at 100 feet.
Per

Going to Lukla? Likely not mote than 12500ft (and probably even less than that), still at least 1673ft below Peru.
Anyway, not saying that you were above or below Peru. Just saying that, with the information you've given, it could be either.

Well, Lukla is at about 9000ft. So depending where you were, you might have been at a lower altitude than in Peru.

I know how high I was, and bear in mind, if your destination airport is at 100 feet as, you don't cruise there at 100 feet.
Per

Going to Lukla? Likely not mote than 12500ft (and probably even less than that), still at least 1673ft below Peru.
Anyway, not saying that you were above or below Peru. Just saying that, with the information you've given, it could be either.

OK, May 17th here. Partytime.
Per