The FAA grounded a skydive O2 system today

[Spizzzarko 0]

Cannulas and masks would not work for skydiving as just when you approach the altitude in which O2 is needed, you put on your helmet.




I call bullshit on that dude. In the Air Force we use nasal canulas underhelmets on every jump to altitude in colorado. We did a lot of those. So you are wrong and it can be done very easily.

[PhreeZone 15]

At least one of Fayard's Otters uses a 1 + inch steel pipe with the outlets drilled, tapped and sodered/welded into the pipe. I looked at the flow of it and the tubes go from the tank that sits behind the rear bulk head towards the front of the plane. The tube is under the inside panels but I think it goes to the front of the plane where the value is located and then goes back under the panels and enters the metal piping towards the center.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[tdog 0]

Quote

I call bullshit on that dude. In the Air Force we use nasal canulas underhelmets on every jump to altitude in colorado. We did a lot of those. So you are wrong and it can be done very easily.

Were they cannulas issued to the person - permanently, they took in freefall... Or did they take them out at the last second and put on their helmet? Or how? Full face, open face? Germs from person to person with something up their nose?

I know this is entering the lame-ass excuse part, but it is not likely that skydivers are going to buy and maintain their own cannula for a higher-altitude boogie when the simpler solution of a tube that you can put near your mouth/nose to suck in the O2 works just as well.

The point I was trying to make, if you want users to use it, make it simple, stupid, and idiot proof...

(Yes, the Air Force folks you are talking about are special kinds of idiots, better than us civilian idiots, and are issued all their gear for free and have dedicated planes they always jump out of.)

But - you are right, there is a way....

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I know this is entering the lame-ass excuse part, but it is not likely that skydivers are going to buy and maintain their own cannula for a higher-altitude boogie

Yeah, that is pretty lame-ass. That stuff is cheap, and there is no reason a skydiver shouldn't be expected to purchase a small section of hose and a canula. Heck, we all buy chem lights for night jumps, right? It's an easy solution as long as the DZ has the needed equipment in stock and the skydivers know they need to drop a few bucks for their own life support equipment.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[tdog 0]

Quote

Yeah, that is pretty lame-ass. That stuff is cheap, and there is no reason a skydiver shouldn't be expected to purchase a small section of hose and a cannula.

But does the anti-lame-ass purchase and maintenance of a cannula solve any problem other than satisfying red tape of government bureaucracy?

I can't think of a single time I have been on a plane where we had the hoses and we were not able to get the O2 delivered in a satisfactory way. We are not talking high altitude jumps, just ones a few thousand feet above the required altitude.

If we were gonna be on a plane for hours - that is one thing - as no one wants to hold the hose up to their mouth. On a quick climb to altitude, where the system is needed for the last few thousand feet - seems like a lot of hardware with no return on investment...

Correct me if I am wrong.

P.S. at the event that caused this crack-down of policy, use of the o2 was already at about 50%, the other 50% left the hoses dangling... Adding additional hardware will reduce this even more, unless there is a mandate on the DZ/Plane...

[Zing 2]

It's going to be hilariously tragic after a bunch of skydivers go out and buy their own canula or mask ... only to find out that the FAA has decided that previously approved portable O2 systems are now deemed illegal for use in skydiving aircraft ... dropping the jumpers with their spiffy helmets and new canulas from lower altitudes because there is nothing to plug them into.
It is my understanding that the grounded O2 system is an approved portable type used in 100s of general aviation aircraft, but one FSDO has now decided that an approved, portable O2 system is illegal in a jump plane.
Does anyone else believe that this is an issue the USPA should be on top of?

Zing Lurks

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Does anyone else believe that this is an issue the USPA should be on top of?

Yup. They should be helping to develop standards so the FAA is satisfied, and stays out of our hair, and so that the 32,000 members are provided with a reasonable level of safety.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[pms07 3]

Quote

Quote

I call bullshit on that dude. In the Air Force we use nasal canulas underhelmets on every jump to altitude in colorado. We did a lot of those. So you are wrong and it can be done very easily.

Were they cannulas issued to the person - permanently, they took in freefall... Or did they take them out at the last second and put on their helmet? Or how? Full face, open face? Germs from person to person with something up their nose?

I know this is entering the lame-ass excuse part, but it is not likely that skydivers are going to buy and maintain their own cannula for a higher-altitude boogie when the simpler solution of a tube that you can put near your mouth/nose to suck in the O2 works just as well.

The point I was trying to make, if you want users to use it, make it simple, stupid, and idiot proof...

(Yes, the Air Force folks you are talking about are special kinds of idiots, better than us civilian idiots, and are issued all their gear for free and have dedicated planes they always jump out of.)

But - you are right, there is a way....

Sparky got it correct...cannulas are really not all that difficult. Yes, everyone should have their own cannula and they are not very expensive. I have several that are 10-15 years old at least and still work great for both flying or jumping.

Putting your helmet on over the cannula is simple and the way to go in my view. Unplug and then skydive when ready to exit. Doesn't matter what type of helmet you wear. Or take the cannula off just prior to exit if you want. How difficult is that?

To me, sharing a cannula might be similar to sharing a condom. Knock yourself out if that's what you think is appropriate however.

You are correct, you have entered the lame-ass excuse arena. If cannulas aren't simple and idiot proof, I don't know what is.

I won't comment on the idiot comments about the air force other than to say...if you can't figure out how to use a cannula it's real unlikely you will survive skydiving for any significant amount of time....

[tdog 0]

Quote

I won't comment on the idiot comments about the air force other than to say...if you can't figure out how to use a cannula it's real unlikely you will survive skydiving for any significant amount of time....

It was sarcasm. I called us civilians idiots too. Anyone who jumps out of planes for the fun of it is an idiot - and thus all my good and best friends are idiots, and I am proud of it.

You have defended the technology - which I fundamentally agree would work if every person who came to the boogie was told to buy their own cannula or was included as part of the entrance fee (remember, this all started because of a boogie fatality)...

But - you have NOT answered why a cannula is BETTER than using the hold-the-tube-to-whatever-hole you are breathing in for the 3-5 minutes where o2 is required technique...

The naked ended tube you hold up to your face:

1) Is fool proof - no hardware interface required by the jumper.
2) Is cheap - no hardware required by the jumper.
3) Is easy to use - just grab it and hold to your mouth or nose.
4) Is safe - nothing to snag or disconnect on exit
5) Is allergy/sinus clog friendly - if your nose is clogged up, hold to your mouth
6) Is sanitary - by putting it just in front of your nose or mouth, no touch...
7) Is flexible - if the plane does a go around, you can quickly grab a hose and hold it to your nose in less than a second.
8) Is compatible - just attach a cannula if that is what you choose to use.
9) Is familiar - skydivers who have never used o2 before can comfortably use the system without learning how to make the hose fit under their helmet, how to connect or disconnect, etc.

And - remember, the fatality was a wingsuit pilot

10) Is wingsuit friendly - no additional post-wing-zip up disconnect, manipulation, just drop the hose and go

Every part of the cannula makes this system MORE complex, MORE gear dependant, LESS reliable.

I will admit, a pilot flying a plane who needs to hands available at all times needs a cannula.

Please - if you think there is a key advantage to a cannula, educate me.

Quote

...if you can't figure out how to use a cannula it's real unlikely you will survive skydiving for any significant amount of time....

Back at 'cha - if you can figure out how to hold a tube to your nose for 3 minutes it's real unlikely you will survive skydiving for any significant amount of time...

I fully support the USPA protecting the DZOs with the FAA, to support any method of o2 delivery the skydiver opts to use, from a raw hose to a cannula.

[kallend 1,634]

Quote

Quote

I call bullshit on that dude. In the Air Force we use nasal canulas underhelmets on every jump to altitude in colorado. We did a lot of those. So you are wrong and it can be done very easily.

Were they cannulas issued to the person - permanently, they took in freefall... Or did they take them out at the last second and put on their helmet? Or how? Full face, open face? Germs from person to person with something up their nose?

I know this is entering the lame-ass excuse part, but it is not likely that skydivers are going to buy and maintain their own cannula for a higher-altitude boogie when the simpler solution of a tube that you can put near your mouth/nose to suck in the O2 works just as well.

The point I was trying to make, if you want users to use it, make it simple, stupid, and idiot proof...

(Yes, the Air Force folks you are talking about are special kinds of idiots, better than us civilian idiots, and are issued all their gear for free and have dedicated planes they always jump out of.)

But - you are right, there is a way....

Just waving the tube near your mouth or nose is not very efficient. However, putting the tube inside a closed full-face helmet works very well. In my experience, better (and easier) than a cannula and almost as good as a mask.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Just waving the tube near your mouth or nose is not very efficient. However, putting the tube inside a closed full-face helmet works very well. In my experience, better (and easier) than a cannula and almost as good as a mask.

He he he - this thread has gone full circle. I suggested in an early post that the tube fits nicely in the little holes on the front of the helmet.

[itllclear 1]

Quote

this thread has gone full circle

The original post in this thread was about the FAA grounding a certain system, not about the safety of the particular system.

Many of the planes from which we jump have been modified from the configuration set out in the original type certificate. The interpretation I got from an FAA Airworthiness Inspector was that if anything is attached to the structure of an aircraft by other than a "Tie wrap" or clamp, it's a modification and needs paperwork.

Modifications require either a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), or an FAA Form 337 (Major Repair or Alteration).

Modifications can fall into a number of categories:

1) Demonstrated to the satisfaction of the FAA to be safe, and legal due to having the correct FAA paperwork (i.e. a complete portable oxygen system purchased from a manufacturer who has done the testing and provided the paperwork to the FAA)
2) Demonstrated to be safe in other installations in other aircraft, but not legal because paperwork for this particular installation in this aircraft has not been completed.
3) Probably Safe but not demonstrated to be safe due to insufficient testing having been done, and illegal because there is no FAA paperwork.
4) Probably or definitely unsafe, and due to no FAA paperwork, illegal.

There have been cases in which one FSDO thought a field approval for a modification with a form 337 would be satisfactory, but another FSDO though it required an STC. Basically it means that the modification was legal in one area but not in another.

There have been other cases in which one FSDO thought no paperwork was required, but another FSDO did.

If either of these situations is the case, it has to be resolved @ FAA HQ in D.C.

Then there are issues that all agree should have paperwork, but it just hasn't been brought to the attention of the FAA. It may be that the system is definitely safe, but testing required to get approval is prohibitively expensive, and the operator made a decision that the risk of a problem was small enough, and the potential gain was great enough, to operate without paperwork.

We do a lot of things in skydiving that are probably not legal, but get away with them until there's an accident and the FAA has to investigate. For example, seat belt usage was often overlooked until the 1992 Perris Otter incident.

I don't know the particulars of the incident that prompted this thread. Does anyone have that knowledge?

BSBD

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[billvon 2,404]

>but it is not likely that skydivers are going to buy and maintain their
>own cannula for a higher-altitude boogie . . .

"Buy and maintain?"

A more accurate description of the actions required would be "keep the cannula they give you for free whenever you do a high altitude load and keep it in your gear bag." It's about as difficult as "buying and maintaining" a pull up cord.

> if you want users to use it, make it simple, stupid, and idiot proof...

Nothing is truly idiot proof. A high altitude jump is NOT just another skydive, and idiots should not make such jumps. Perhaps the answer is not an idiot proof system, but a system that excludes idiots.

[tdog 0]

Quote

I don't know the particulars of the incident that prompted this thread. Does anyone have that knowledge?

This is to you and Bill Von, since his comment was that a high altitude jump is not a normal jump.

I was on the load that caused the investigation. (I believe, based upon the hints in this thread) If you want to get more details or want to discuss the incident - look at the MOAB incident thread(s)... There was a wingsuit fatality.

"High Altitude" is relative. A BASE jumper thinks 1000 feet is high. I think 24,000 MSL is high. My friend was in the army and his special forces unit was doing "specialty high altitude training" from 16,000 MSL, with an exit altitude lower than the neighboring sport DZ's average exit.

So - I looked it up. The SIM defines the jump we did as "intermediate altitude". It would take another 2,500 feet to make it a "high altitude" jump (20,000 ft)

It was a boogie.

The field elevation was 4450'.

My neptune shows exits all weekend at 12,500-13,000 AGL.

The calculated exit hence was 17,500 ASL.

o2 is required at 15,000 AGL per the rule book.

I saw the o2 system being turned on at 9,000 AGL, or 13,500 ASL. The pilots had cannulas, and I remember seeing a mask for one of the pilots over the weekend, but I don't remember which jump(s)/aircraft(s).

The skydivers each had their own tube hanging from a pipe on the ceiling that was long enough to use either sitting or standing. The system was operational and well maintained in that it delivered o2 to us reliably. I saw the system had a valve and flow regulator and when the pilot turned on the system he dialed in the airflow while watching the flow meter.

The time we were exposed to 15,000 ASL + altitudes on the jump (and every jump except one where a go around was necessary) was "normal", meaning a typical aircraft climb to jump run followed by an immediate jump. Less than 5 minutes. None of the longer jump runs and higher altitude exposure periods associated with formation aircraft loads or military loads where the aircraft has to "dial in" the jump run timing/location.

About 50% of the skydivers picked up the tubes and held the o2 in their face. The others knew it was available but opted not to.

So - to recap my views: If this was a special invite of high altitude formation jumpers, or a "high altitude jump" as defined by the SIM as 20,000 feet - I can see cannulas being practical and good investments for all.

However, at a boogie with a group of "unorganized" skydivers, going to "intermediate altitude" as defined by the SIM, where a tube can effectively be held to your mouth/nose for the 2 or 3 minutes when o2 is required - I believe the system the aircraft had installed was effective and appropriate - without cannulas.

[kallend 1,634]

Quote

...

However, at a boogie with a group of "unorganized" skydivers, going to "intermediate altitude" as defined by the SIM, where a tube can effectively be held to your mouth/nose for the 2 or 3 minutes when o2 is required - I believe the system the aircraft had installed was effective and appropriate - without cannulas.

Of course, one of the first symptoms of hypoxia is a false belief that everything is fine!


And I don't see the significance of being "unorganized". Does being unorganized somehow reduce your oxygen demand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Quote

...

However, at a boogie with a group of "unorganized" skydivers, going to "intermediate altitude" as defined by the SIM, where a tube can effectively be held to your mouth/nose for the 2 or 3 minutes when o2 is required - I believe the system the aircraft had installed was effective and appropriate - without cannulas.

Of course, one of the first symptoms of hypoxia is a false belief that everything is fine!


And I don't see the significance of being "unorganized". Does being unorganized somehow reduce your oxygen demand?

Ok, I will bite... Maybe the cannula is better? I have asked before and I will ask again - what proof is there that O2 delivery is going to be better with a cannula than an identical hose, with identical flow, held directly in front of your nose or mouth with deliberate breathing from the hose?

When I said "unorganized" - I was referring to the fact that the jumps had no single load organizer, no single training briefing, and no guarantee of compatibility of cannula hoses brought in gear bags with the hoses installed on the plane (size/couplers/male vs female ends, etc)

I still believe the system used is KISS and BETTER for "unorganized jumps" from "intermediate altitude", hence does not jeopardize the jumpers...

I seek data that I am wrong, that a cannula can deliver O2 more effectively than a hose a centimeter away from your mouth or nose, or stuffed inside a closed full face helmet. When you give me data that shows the ROI is worth it in terms of equipment, training, cost, risk of system failure with a more complicated system, etc - then I will support the cannula system.

Until then, you can twist my words and quote just portions of my posts, making it sound like I am jeopardizing jumpers, when in fact, my posts have been trying to express why I think a raw hose is better for the situation. Go up a few posts and you will see I laid out a complete bulleted list of why I support the system as being better.

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

I don't know the particulars of the incident that prompted this thread. Does anyone have that knowledge?

There has been quite a bit of speculation in this thread,so to clarify for all...the FAA did NOT ground a Skydive Arizona aircraft nor its 02 system.

[itllclear 1]

Quote

There has been quite a bit of speculation in this thread,so to clarify for all...the FAA did NOT ground a Skydive Arizona aircraft nor its 02 system.

Betsy--

Thanks for getting the record straight.

A discussion of the Oxygen requirements and specific equipment should probably go to Safety and Training.

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[kallend 1,634]

I think you misunderstand me.

I have no issue a hose inserted into a closed full face helmet which is, for practical purposes, the much the same as a mask. However, just waving a hose 1cm from your mouth or nose is not going to be very effective IMO. And just believing that you are OK because you feel OK is NOT evidence, given that feeling OK is in fact a symptom of hypoxia.

You wrote: "I seek data that I am wrong, that a cannula can deliver O2 more effectively than a hose a centimeter away from your mouth or nose,"

You are asking for evidence that your method doesn't work before concluding that it doesn't. I think you need evidence that a safety system works before concluding it does.

Pulse oxymeters aren't all that expensive.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ltdiver 3]

I work in the field of physical therapy, and frequently educate and monitor those pulmonary patients who come our way. We use pulse oximeters with these patients. I know, from experience with these oxygen-users that if they pull the cannula down from their nose, or hold it in front of their mouths it does not work in the capacity it is intended for. They need to create a reservoir for oxygen. Without it, it does not keep their oxygen level above what it would be just on room air only.

For a simple explanation, see this web page: http://www.ccmtutorials.com/rs/oxygen/page13.htm

My preferred way of obtaining supplimental oxygen when on 'high altitude' jumps is via nasal cannula, due to its comfort and convenience of application. I put my helmet on, over the cannula and breath in through the nose, quietly and comfortably. When it comes time for exit, I am able to pull the tube from inside my helmet, and jump, no problem.

This explanation is from the individual's side of things. As to the aircraft design, et al, I'd listen to itllclear.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[LouDiamond 1]

Good link and description of how a nasal cannula works....on the ground As I've said in other O2 threads, nasal cannulas are OK'd for use by the FAA up to a specific altitude but in general are useless above 18k. They are however better than just sucking on a hose or placing a tube by ones face as long as they are used below 18K MSL for preventing hypoxia.

At altitudes above 18k MSL a mask needs to be used period. Not only that, but at altitudes above 18k MSL there needs to be an increase in the O2 flow/pressure and prebreathing needs to be done to prevent DCS which is what becomes the major concern over hypoxia at those altitudes. Since most of the RW records are being set at altitudes above 18k MSL, this is a major concern since rapid ascension and multiple lifts to altitudes above 18K MSL are done all in one day. As I have said in other O2 threads, it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured on a high altitude jump/record if the exit altitudes continue to increase.

IMO ( and physiologically speaking), if you wanted to be smart about it and do it right, a mask would be used for all flight levels requiring the use of supplimental O2. In fact, at the recent VRW record, masks were used by the participants without issue.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

At altitudes above 18k MSL a mask needs to be used period. Not only that, but at altitudes above 18k MSL there needs to be an increase in the O2 flow/pressure and prebreathing needs to be done to prevent DCS

I agree completely. I guess I should have quantified my post by defining the 'high altitude' WWR jump I was involved in was done from 16,500 AGL (18,000' MSL at Perris).

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[billvon 2,404]

>I have no issue a hose inserted into a closed full face helmet which is,
> for practical purposes, the much the same as a mask.

I disagree. Most helmets are VERY heavily vented; indeed, the ones that are not vented tend to fog pretty quickly. Good helmet design allows for a significant amount of airflow, but redirects the air to where it is not objectionable (i.e. in your eyes or up your nose.)

Depending on the placement of the hose in the helmet, you are going to get somewhere between 0% and 50% of the available oxygen.

>I think you need evidence that a safety system works before concluding it does.

Agreed. Very few tests have been done.

[billvon 2,404]

>When you give me data that shows the ROI is worth it in terms of
>equipment, training, cost, risk of system failure with a more complicated
>system, etc - then I will support the cannula system.

It is not worth the ROI. The worst case is an unconscious or dead skydiver, and they don't cost much. (Not to be morbid or anything, but that's the bottom line.) In terms of pure economics, the cheapest possible system is the best choice, even if it doesn't work. Basically something to fulfill the FAA requirement. Most skydivers will be OK if you're only going to 18K even with a cruddy small-manifold "wave it in the general area of your nose" system. Even if they get no supplemental O2 they will probably be OK. I've seen people jump from 26,000 MSL after losing their O2 system three minutes out and they all survived. (Many didn't remember much, but no one died.)

However, if your criterion is effectiveness, that's a whole different story. Cannulas give you about 50% effectiveness; oxymizer types give you closer to 70-80%. The "wave the hose around your nose" technique gives you way less than 50%. A non-rebreather mask gets you a bit over 50%, and a simple rebreather mask can come close to 100%. Demand systems can achieve 100%. ("Effectiveness" here being defined as the amount of O2 that the system produces that actually gets into your lungs.)

Keeping the hose IN your mouth, assuming you know how to breathe with two sources (which is NOT a given) can also reach 50%.

You can make up for a less effective system by increasing flow rates; that's an option if you don't mind the cost/hassle of going through O2 more quickly.