I share your concern about the cavalier approach many pilots have toward
oxygen use. I wouldn't join a quest to tighten the regulations, however.
I'd prefer the education route.

Let me ask this. Would you be satisfied if pilots monitored their SpO2 with
a pulse oxymeter and maintained their oxygen saturation percentage in the
mid to high 90's? I trust no oxygen system and always use a pulse oxymeter.

Your concern about the use of the "Oxymizer" cannula with a pulse demand
oxygen system is well founded.

Bill Daniels


"Neptune" wrote in message
...
As an MD soaring pilot (Boulder CO) and ex military fighter nock I have
become interested the FAA mandates as concerns oxygen use in civilian
aircraft and especially gliders as we have more weight concerns that the
powered boys.

I apologize if this sounds egocentric, but I have done a great deal of
work - both practical as well as medical literature research - in this
area.
To make a long story short it appears that the FAA mandates on the use of
oxygen (14CFR23.1443) are unequivocally at least 40years out of date and
at
least two levels of medical monitoring sophistication out of date. I spite
of this commercial companies are espousing the most amazing performance
levels for their oxygen delivery systems based on no objective
peer-reviewed
literature studies at all.

The FAA regs address constant flow systems and in 2004 the systems have
advanced significantly to pulsed systems.

I do have some flight test data from the only company that has apparently
performed in-flight testings, but due to no physician being involved the
study was exceptionally dangerous (levels to 18,000). I am amazed that
nobody had serious neurologic problems. However the value of this totally
poor "study' was that unequivocally the FAA 14433 mandates - even for
continuous flow - (in my opinion) are dangerous, and the "oxymizer"
cannulae
do not appear to function as advertised.

I have been to CAMI with my concerns, but as usual they have funding
problems and as a result appear to not be particularly interested in doing
the necessary research.

I have had email contact the British through the Medical Officer of the
soaring organization and they have no information.

Since I am in residence in the North Island of New Zealand 6 months/year I
recently went to Omarama and spoke with several reputedly knowledgeable
individuals there - same story as the Brits - no information and
littleconcern - "she'll be right, mate!". Both countries seem to be
following the lead of the FAA. In effect my concerns are being ignored
there
as well as in the USA. Furthermore it appears that the EU may be about to
accept the FAA mandates...

The end result - in my medical/flying experience - is that due to
amazingly
outmoded FAA mandates on oxygen flow based on ancient equipment we pilots
are flying with equipment that had not been tested in a peer-reviewed
objective manner. The only flight testing that I know about indicates that
the FAA mandates for constant flow systems are dangerous and relates to
constant-flow systems.

I am not saying that the newer "pulsed" systems are dangerous - but they
have not been objectively tested and some of the manufacturers claims seem
to me to be - well - a bit excessive.

I feel I have enough information to take my concerns officially to the
FAA,
but realistically expect my communication to simply be buried. As a result
I
think it would be much more likely to get attention were I to send
information to some member of Congress or Congressional committee..

(1) Does anyone out there have any comments? I would be especially
interested to communicate with other individuals with knowledge of oxygen
systems in use internationally in light aircraft/gliders (je peux parler
Francais und I kann auch auf Deutsch unterhalten).

(2) Any recommendations as to how to bypass the probable FAA stonewalling
and get the attention of someone who might conceivably give a damn?

Neptune