In article ,
Michael Ash wrote:

In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Michael Ash wrote:
Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.

For passengers, mostly.

I've done some testing previously, and have determined that up to at
least 11,500' there're no noticeable effects for me. (Modulo fatigue,
recovery from illness, etc.) The initial checks I did with another
pilot, my instructor at the time, and he brought oxygen along.

Over the past several decades, I've been tested for VO2max, and I'm on
the high side of the population. I used to cycle competitively, which
was initially the reason to check, after that just curiousity.

Has to be careful choice of grandparents; I've lived essentially at sea
level for my whole life (California coastal, mostly).

My son smokes; him I'd want to check if we cross the Sierra Nevada or
points east.

Thanks for the additional details, very interesting. It's particularly
interesting that you say you're on the high side of the population and yet
you still seem to come in well below the FAA requirements for passenger
oxygen.

?? Something got scrambled in translation...

If it wasn't clear, I didn't resort to oxygen, we just had it along on
the flight, just in case.

I've never used supplementary oxygen, but the highest density altitude
I've experienced was Mt. Whitney at about 14,500'. It's not exactly
comparable, but it was a one-day up and back hike.

I guess this is one case where they don't err heavily on the side of caution.

I think they still do, certainly judging from my altitude-intolerant
friend.