jimp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Lonnie" <@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>>> 5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even
heavy
>>> smokers.
>> Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but
not
>> conservative enough to ****eld smokers from the effects of altitude.
Heavy
>> smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the
effects
>> of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.
>
> Funny, I'm a heavy smoker by anyone's definition, live at 1300 feet, and
> at 8500 feet there is no effect on my vision.
>
> Once at 7500 feet at night things got a little blurry and I became
> concerned it might be oxygen effects, so I dropped down lower and
> nothing changed even after I landed, so I chalked it up to being
> tired that late at night.
>
> Maybe your black and white, one size fits all, blanket statements just
> aren't true for everyone.
>
>
Jim, you must be mistaken. It must be true be because Anthony read about
it on the internet.
|
