X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:29:56 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from p3plsmtpa01-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.82.87] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with SMTP id 6015994 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:06:48 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=72.167.82.87; envelope-from=tom@lachollatech.com Received: (qmail 14863 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2013 00:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (69.244.34.179) by p3plsmtpa01-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.87) with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2013 00:06:11 -0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <50F74053.303@lachollatech.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:05:39 -0700 From: Tom Thibault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: Nasal canula, 18,000 feet, and the FARs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim and Scott, Yes, I am well aware of the dangers of hypoxia and my own symptoms of it from my USAF pilot training. I have a quality oximeter and monitor myself and my wife regularly. Also, Jim, I had already read the OK-09-439 document. That document also claims that cannulas are restricted to below 18,000 feet by regulation, but then never cites a reference. So, while I am very careful at altitude, I guess the conclusion is that the use of cannulas, in an experimental at any altitude, is legally up to the pilot. Tom