Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1817
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by GyvAir »

I'm not making any guesses as to whether hypoxia was a factor or not in this accident. I will say though that it’s not to be taken lightly, in aviation or otherwise.
My personal experiences with hypoxia have varied greatly from one exposure to the next at similar altitudes. I've noticed the effects of hypoxia at altitude/duration as low as 10,000'/30 minutes when I was already tired or a bit sick. I've felt and performed reasonably well with no supplementary oxygen at 14-15,000'/60 minutes on other occasions. (don’t worry, not as flight crew)
iflyforpie wrote:I fly all kinds of passengers (read unfit and elderly tourists) at those altitudes without O2 all of the time and I've never seen any display signs of hypoxia...
I suspect if you were to ask these same passengers to perform some simple tasks requiring a bit of mental prowess or physical dexterity after an hour at 13,000', you would have a few laughs at the results.

From http://www.avmed.in/2011/03/flying-into ... g-hypoxia/

It is important to remember that there are several factors which affect the onset and the severity of the effects of hypoxia. This includes:-
• Altitude. Higher the altitude, lower is the partial pressure of alveolar oxygen; hence shorter is the latent period and greater the severity of effects.
• Rate of ascent. The greater the rate of ascent the more rapid the onset of signs and symptoms of hypoxia
• Duration at Altitude. The effects of hypoxia are more severe if the duration at altitude is prolonged. This is due to the fact that the effects of hypoxia are cumulative.
• Ambient Temperature. High or low environmental temperature favours the development of hypoxia.
• Physical Activity. Physical effort at altitude raises the demand for Oxygen and hence the symptoms of hypoxia are more severe. This fact is to be remembered by aircrew other than pilots too.
• Individuals Susceptibility. Individuals differ considerably in their ability to withstand hypoxia.
• Physical Fitness. A high standard of physical fitness is conducive to a better tolerance of hypoxia. Regular physical training improves the tolerance levels.
• Smoking. Smoking makes an individual more liable to suffer from hypoxia due to binding of haemoglobin with Carbon monoxide present in the smoke. A smoker who smokes prior to sortie has already compromised him-/herself to hypoxic insult, where s-/he is at an apparent altitude of 7,000, 14000, 22000 ft as compared to a non-smoker pilot at sea level, 10000 and 20000 ft, respectively. Be informed that if one smokes three cigarettes before a sortie, it is as if s-/he is already at an equivalent altitude of 8000 feet, with its implications due to compromised vision.
• Organic Diseases. Effects of hypoxia are more severe in those with disease of the heart, lungs or blood, which interferes with the normal oxygenation and circulation, to restrict adequate physiological compensation.
• Emotional State. Apprehension and anxiety make an individual more susceptible to the effects of hypoxia.
• Acclimatisation. Acclimatisation while residing at high altitude raises the individual’s ability to withstand hypoxia.
• Equivalent Lung Altitude. Breathing air at a sea level is associated with a certain partial pressure of oxygen in the lungs (104 mm Hg). By breathing 100% Oxygen, the same partial pressure is brought about at a much greater altitude i.e. at 33,000 ft. The table below shows various equivalent lung altitudes while breathing 100% Oxygen. This concept is found useful in designing the Oxygen system for combat aircraft to ensure adequate oxygenation of the aircrew at different altitude.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by CID »

It's a little disheartening seeing experienced pilots discounting the effects of hypoxia. The truth of the matter is that symptoms of hypoxia are quite insidious. You may very well have experienced decreased capacity without knowing it. Imagine for a moment, a scenario where you have been flying at 15,000 feet for a few hours and then are suddenly thrust into a situation where you need ALL of your mental faculties to properly recover. Are you comfortable with that potential emergency? You don't need to be running a marathon in the airplane to require large amounts of oxygen to function properly.

And no... acclimatization doesn't happen by flying at that altitude occasionally or even daily. You must eat, sleep, work and play at that altitude continuously for several days or even weeks for acclimatization to occur. It's not just "getting used to it". The body actually goes under physiological change.

I don't want to belabour the point or even suggest it was a factor in this accident at this point. I did however want to address the notion that senior experienced pilots are making such statements on a site like this. It's irresponsible in my opinion. Not only does it break the rules, there have been many studies done that verify the condition and it's effects on pilots.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Cat Driver »

I know I may be verging on annoying a lot of pilots here, aside from the discussion on this accident where we really do not know if they were using oxygen or not, we must accept some well known and medically proven facts regarding how the body reacts to oxygen and pressure loss.

The bottom line is there are rules that govern the need for supplemental oxygen and if we ignore them we are entering a known high risk area.

We all at one time or another have flown at altitudes where we should have used oxygen and the flights were successful, however were we really operating within our safe zone?

It is like sitting in the bar with a group of friends drinking beer, even though we think we are thinking and acting normally ...were we? :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Doc »

FICU wrote: I've spent time in Nepal and have seen very fit people show symptoms of hypoxia and develop altitude sickness at that altitude to the point where they couldn't go higher.
.
Hiking with heavy packs through Nepal and sitting in an airplane have slightly different levels of physical exertion. Not sure many of us could do 50 push ups in the back of the old Dak at 13000 feet. Not that many of us could do 50 push ups at sea level in Rhode Island either, but it would be hoped you get my point???
---------- ADS -----------
 
FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by FICU »

CID wrote:And no... acclimatization doesn't happen by flying at that altitude occasionally or even daily. You must eat, sleep, work and play at that altitude continuously for several days or even weeks for acclimatization to occur. It's not just "getting used to it". The body actually goes under physiological change.
Not quite. You acclimatize by going to a higher altitude temporarily then going down to a lower altitude to rest. You will find that air crew, even those in pressurized jets, are acclimated to the cabin altitudes they routinely fly at in cruise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by FICU »

Doc wrote:Hiking with heavy packs through Nepal and sitting in an airplane have slightly different levels of physical exertion. Not sure many of us could do 50 push ups in the back of the old Dak at 13000 feet. Not that many of us could do 50 push ups at sea level in Rhode Island either, but it would be hoped you get my point???
It has nothing to do with levels of physical exertion. Being at altitude forces your body to increase the red blood cell count to be able to transport more oxygen. We do nothing physical in flying yet we don't easily fall asleep like most of our pax in cruise because they don't spend the time we do at altitude.

I flew in a Twotter in Nepal at over 12,000 feet and with the incredible scenery out the windows to gaze at 80% of the pax were fast asleep and when we landed a I asked some of them why they slept with so much to look at to which they replied they couldn't keep their eyes open even if they tried. Most live near sea level in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by shimmydampner »

Of course physical exertion is a factor; it places a greater demand for oxygen on the body. That's neither here nor there though, really.
Flyinthebug, l should clarify, it's not intelligent speculation that l have issue with, it's the nonsense speculation. Suggesting that a highly experienced mountain pilot would suffer from such severe hypoxia at 13,000 feet that he would be unable to keep his aircraft from hitting a mountain is, in my opinion, nonsense. And, no offense, but so is assuming this to be a no wind situation (given what we know about the weather during the initial response to the crash) and that the crew would choose to climb a twin at 140 kts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by FICU »

Your body will acclimatize regardless of physical exertion. Exertion affects rate.

This has been beaten around enough I think.
---------- ADS -----------
 
stallie
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: A desert near you

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by stallie »

Average QNH is 980 for the area. Haven't looked to see what is was on the day, but IF it was average add another 1000 feet for effective altitude. Also, the crew had been living at sea level all summer, not sure how long they'd had at pole to acclimatise (9600 feet).

That said, hypoxia alone doesn't explain this accident. It may be a link in the chain/ layer of cheese but not the cause. It may have lead to subtle impairment that prevented the crew from catching the real error or trap (eg wrong gps coords) but I believe to root cause is elsewhere.

There's an elephant in the room though.
---------- ADS -----------
 
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5625
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by North Shore »

There's an elephant in the room though.
....Which is?
---------- ADS -----------
 
groncher
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by groncher »

It's not uncommon for these crews to spend a fair bit of time at pole or other field camps on the plateau at elevations over 10000'. That is on the ground working and sometimes camped out there.
Not sure if this is the case for this crew though, just pointing it out. Not too sure about the hypoxia theory.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by CID »

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anything with respect to the accident but I have a little trouble with professional pilots stating that they routinely break the rules and fly passengers around in unpressurized "comfort" at high altitude. And to justify it they just state that nothing bad as happened as yet.

And then there is the wisdom of how pilots in pressurized cabins "acclimatize" to cabin altitude which doesn't go above 9000 feet. There is a huge difference in the oxygen content of air when you go from 9000 to 13,000 feet. Any high altitude flying course will teach you that.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with the statement about acclimatizing C-FICU. Studies show that a minimum of a continuous exposure at 8000 to 9000 for about 15 days is required to improve resistance to the effects of hypoxia and those effects last about 3 weeks. I believe you are making reference to the practice of mountain climbers on Everest. They do the "up and down" acclimatization because they just don't have the time to do any better. The climbing window is very narrow on Everest.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Expat
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:58 am
Location: Central Asia

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Expat »

Lost Lake wrote:Hypoxia would not have been a problem.Not sure of base camp altitudes, but I believe it was around 6,000. Anyone who has lived at that altitude builds a tolerance.
True. I have lived the past three years at 8400 feet, and we regularly fly at 15,000 feet without oxygen for the passengers, and crew. No effects... :shock:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Expat
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:58 am
Location: Central Asia

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Expat »

FICU wrote:
Doc wrote:Hiking with heavy packs through Nepal and sitting in an airplane have slightly different levels of physical exertion. Not sure many of us could do 50 push ups in the back of the old Dak at 13000 feet. Not that many of us could do 50 push ups at sea level in Rhode Island either, but it would be hoped you get my point???
It has nothing to do with levels of physical exertion. Being at altitude forces your body to increase the red blood cell count to be able to transport more oxygen. We do nothing physical in flying yet we don't easily fall asleep like most of our pax in cruise because they don't spend the time we do at altitude.

I flew in a Twotter in Nepal at over 12,000 feet and with the incredible scenery out the windows to gaze at 80% of the pax were fast asleep and when we landed a I asked some of them why they slept with so much to look at to which they replied they couldn't keep their eyes open even if they tried. Most live near sea level in Canada.

I agree. I live at high altitude, and even train hard in the gym, and when I go on holidays, I am restless, due the high red cell count... It is a fact.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
bezerker
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: YVR

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by bezerker »

Why was my post deleted?
There is a huge difference in the oxygen content of air when you go from 9000 to 13,000 feet. Any high altitude flying course will teach you that.
100% incorrect and makes the rest of the above posters comments suspect.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by FICU »

CID wrote:I believe you are making reference to the practice of mountain climbers on Everest. They do the "up and down" acclimatization because they just don't have the time to do any better. The climbing window is very narrow on Everest.
They do the "up and down" because that is exactly how how acclimatize to living at higher altitudes by producing more red blood cells.

My opinion is from training I have received in Nepal. I have witnessed it first hand. I was one of 4 in our group of 12 who did an acclimatization climb to close to 18,000' from 14,400'. The rest of the group didn't want to go up with us. We went down and slept. The next day took us from 14,400' to just over 17,000' and the 4 of us who did the climb the day earlier had no problems with the altitude gain where as the rest of the group struggled with the altitude change.

My last post on this... take it for what it is worth.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Doc »

Would the mod who deleted my post please send me a PM with an explanation. I had every right to post what I did. This is a "speculation" thread. Chances are very good I knew Bob Heath longer than you did, and no disrespect was posted by me.
Failing that, lock the thread because it's an insult. If you don't want "speculation", change the name of the thread, or close it. I will be happy to share my comments with anybody via PM. Apparently, we can't "speculate" here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Doc »

North Shore wrote:
There's an elephant in the room though.
....Which is?
They were flying lower than the charted hight of surrounding peaks. Perhaps this will be deleted again. How is this disrespectful? It's a fact. The reason, perhaps is unclear, but the physical evidence is iron clad.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5166
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Rowdy »

Doc wrote:
North Shore wrote:
There's an elephant in the room though.
....Which is?
They were flying lower than the charted hight of surrounding peaks. Perhaps this will be deleted again. How is this disrespectful? It's a fact. The reason, perhaps is unclear, but the physical evidence is iron clad.
Pretty obvious that is the END result. We are all sitting here wondering. WHY they were below. What factors LED to the impact on the hillside.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brown Bear
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by Brown Bear »

Hi Rowdy. You know me. You just don't know it.
The original descent from was it 13000 down to 8000 or so, then back to 13000, would indicate that they meant to be at 13000?
Was it a route they flew often? Were they aware of the peak heights?
:bear: :bear:
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by CID »

We actually don't know if they knew they were flying below the peaks. We don't know yet if the positions reported by the on-board "SPOT" (or whatever they had) reported pressure altitude or indicated altitude or GPS altitude or if the pilots corrected for cold temperatures.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goldeneagle
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by goldeneagle »

CID wrote:We actually don't know if they knew they were flying below the peaks.
ummm. That is the one detail out of this whole incident, that we do know definitively. The rest, is quite sketchy due to lack of and/or conflicting information, but, there is no doubt as to wether or not they were flying below the peaks.

Just think about it for a minute, and that part is quite obvious. If they weren't below the peaks, this thread wouldn't exist...
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by CID »

Umm......goldeneagle, read my post again. It clearly says "We actually don't know IF THEY KNEW they were flying below the peaks."

Either they thought they were above the peaks or they knew they were below but couldn't climb or change course for some reason.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goldeneagle
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by goldeneagle »

CID wrote:Umm......goldeneagle, read my post again. It clearly says "We actually don't know IF THEY KNEW they were flying below the peaks."
I stand corrected, misread your original post.
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: Kenn Borek Antarctic Cause/Speculation Thread

Post by 2R »

Any pictures yet ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”