The FAA is proposing changes to oxygen-mask requirements for pilots operating pressurized aircraft under Parts 91 and 135. The proposed rule, published Thursday, would allow pilots to fly at higher altitudes without requiring one pilot at the controls to continuously wear an oxygen mask.
Part 91 Changes
Under current Part 91 regulations, one pilot must generally wear and use an oxygen mask above FL350, although two-pilot crews equipped with quick-donning masks are exempt through FL410. Under the proposal, pressurized aircraft equipped with quick-donning masks could operate at any altitude for which the airplane is certificated without requiring a pilot to continuously wear a mask.
“The proposed amendments would allow the operation of airplanes at higher altitudes without requiring at least one pilot at the controls to wear and use an oxygen mask,” the FAA said in its notice. “If adopted, these proposed changes would reduce regulatory and economic burdens on operators by changing certain requirements pertaining to pilots’ use of oxygen masks.”
Part 135 Thresholds Rise
For Part 135 operations using more than one pilot, the new proposal language would raise the altitude at which at least one pilot must wear an oxygen mask from FL350 to FL410. The single-pilot operation threashold would also increase, from FL250 up to FL350. These new updates come in response to a requirement in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.
The FAA estimates oxygen servicing costs between $100 and $400 per fill. Based on roughly 4.7 million annual Part 91 and 135 turbojet and multiengine turboprop operations, the agency estimates operators could save between $4.7 million and $18.6 million annually for every 1% of those operations that avoid an oxygen servicing event under the revised rules. Comments on the proposal are due Nov. 23.
This is a bad proposal. Many corporate aircraft are certified at FL410 and above where TUC is measured in seconds. It is customary for many corporate flight crews to exit the flight deck to visit the cabin for any number of reasons. Thus, safety of flight is compromised under this proposal.
I disagree with MoMule. This would just adjust the FAR’s to what most crews already do now. It is well known that the O2 rules are the most violated rule of all the FAR’s. In my 18 years of flying pressurized aircraft, I can think of only one crewmember who actually followed the current FAR’s for O2 use. One jet I flew combined smoke goggles with the quick donning O2 masks into one unit, which made it difficult to see out when wearing. What I think is really nuts is certifying civilian aircraft to FL510, when the military requires their pilots to be in a full pressure suit for flights above FL500.
I recall that the B767 had a better type of quick-donning mask, protected by a lid that popped open on demand or command.
I agree this rule is frequently violated in part 121 operations. When I participated in that flying our (unwritten) procedure was to pull the mask out and have it in your lap so it was ready to go instead of putting it on. Dumb rule and considering the potential transfer of germs probably causes lost work days as well.
I wasn’t operating during COVID but a real consideration…
This was a rumor at least 10 years ago that they would change the mask requirement.
Yes, change this rule! When was the last time there was a rapid decompression at altitude? (Rapid D vs insidious onset hypoxia). And why are part 121 rules different than part 135? Current rules seem whimsical. Consistent rules will reinforce the intent/rationale.
Some years ago, I noticed that the Scott Eros masks which we had in all our aircraft, were not cierified to the altitudes we operated normally at. I think, from memory, they were certified to something like 350, but our planes all flew are 450 and above. I had asked manufacturers about this and was met with no response. So I decided not to push it.
Im retired now, so I don’t know if this issues was ever addressed. Fling with a mask on is a pain. I know, I’ve done it in the sim. I can’t imagine having to do a long f\ight wearing a mask. However, I do have to agree that at altitude, you don’t have much time in the event of an explosive decompression. That said, the likelihood of an event is pretty rare too.
Most of the recent events, have happened at relatively low altitudes. Is this risk acceptable? I don’t know.