altitude and Haleakala?
Sep 1, 2006, 2:35 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Citizen of Canada, Member of the World!
Programs: AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG... you get the picture
Posts: 2,091
altitude and Haleakala?
without trying to sound too dumb, would anyone have advice on whether or not it's "safe" to drive up Haleakala with a 10 month old infant, with respect to the altitude? We're looking for things to do in Maui, and the volcano sounds beautiful, but not if we're risking the health or comfort of our baby. Thanks!
Sep 1, 2006, 2:53 pm
#2
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PEK
Programs: A3*G, UA Gold EY Silver
Posts: 8,957
In short, no, it's not advised. He/she won't be able to tell you how they're feeling. If you go up slowly (say, make a few 1-hour stops) then you should be okay, as it takes time to adjust. I went up to Mauna Kea a few weeks back and even though we had a half-hour stay at the visitor's center that's at 2800m, at the top of the 4200-meter mountain I still felt a little "woozy."
I remember back as a teen I had trouble adjusting to the altitude up on Haleakala. I had difficulty breathing and headaches both times I went up there. This time I didn't have this problem.
Again, I wouldn't advise you to go up there with an infant. If you manage to get up there by yourself, I'd suggest going to see the sunrise.
I remember back as a teen I had trouble adjusting to the altitude up on Haleakala. I had difficulty breathing and headaches both times I went up there. This time I didn't have this problem.
Again, I wouldn't advise you to go up there with an infant. If you manage to get up there by yourself, I'd suggest going to see the sunrise.
Sep 1, 2006, 3:58 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: DL SkyClub Lifer
Posts: 10,000
Palal is pretty much right, but there's a big difference between Mauna Kea (13,796') and Haleakala (10,023'). Keep in mind that the pressure of an airliner cabin is similar to being at 8,000-10,000' - similar to the visitor station (9,200') on Mauna Kea, and not all that different from the summit of Haleakala.
While you definitely should not take infants to the summit of Mauna Kea, taking them to the summit of Haleakala is not substantively different than taking them on an airliner. Just keep an eye on 'em, and if they look unusually lethargic, head down to lower elevation.
-Dan (sometimes works on top of Mauna Kea; thinks Haleakala is "low.")
While you definitely should not take infants to the summit of Mauna Kea, taking them to the summit of Haleakala is not substantively different than taking them on an airliner. Just keep an eye on 'em, and if they look unusually lethargic, head down to lower elevation.
-Dan (sometimes works on top of Mauna Kea; thinks Haleakala is "low.")
Sep 1, 2006, 4:00 pm
#4
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lahaina, Hawai'i
Programs: HA Pua. Platinum WP, PR, QF, UA, AA, DL, NW Prince Preferred
Posts: 4,786
Originally Posted by Fermat
without trying to sound too dumb, would anyone have advice on whether or not it's "safe" to drive up Haleakala with a 10 month old infant, with respect to the altitude? We're looking for things to do in Maui, and the volcano sounds beautiful, but not if we're risking the health or comfort of our baby. Thanks!
Sep 1, 2006, 8:00 pm
#6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,075
Several times, I have ridden a bike to the top of Haleakala -- no problem. Once, I drove to the summit of Mauna Kea -- problem. I was dizzy just walking up a short flight of stairs.
As Dan said, there is a big difference between 13k and 10k feet. Unless there is a known health problem, I wouldn't hesitate to bring your little one up to the top of Haleakala.
As Dan said, there is a big difference between 13k and 10k feet. Unless there is a known health problem, I wouldn't hesitate to bring your little one up to the top of Haleakala.
Sep 1, 2006, 8:20 pm
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Citizen of Canada, Member of the World!
Programs: AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG... you get the picture
Posts: 2,091
thanks for the replies! Any idea on how long it roughly takes to descend from the top if we needed to do this quickly (AMS symptoms for example)?
Sep 1, 2006, 8:33 pm
#8
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Orlando, FL, US
Programs: DL-Dirt Medallion;US-Cast Iron Preferred; HH-Gold; Avis First
Posts: 3,617
Originally Posted by DanTravels
Keep in mind that the pressure of an airliner cabin is similar to being at 8,000-10,000' - similar to the visitor station (9,200') on Mauna Kea, and not all that different from the summit of Haleakala.
Sep 1, 2006, 9:47 pm
#9
Moderator: Hawaii-based airlines & Hawai'i forums
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ka ʻĀpala Nui, Nuioka
Programs: NEXUS/Global Entry, Delta, United, Hyatt, IHG, Marriott, and Hertz
Posts: 18,038
I don't know how accurate it is, but the barrometric altimiter in my watch reads about 5600' at cruising altitude on my flights...
I too have gotten a bit woozy making the drive up to the top of Haleakala. It was awfully cold up there too.
I too have gotten a bit woozy making the drive up to the top of Haleakala. It was awfully cold up there too.
Sep 3, 2006, 9:25 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 19,523
I too have gotten a bit woozy making the drive up to the top of Haleakala.
I'm sorry, but despite what some of you are saying...the air up at Haleakala is a lot thinner than airline air. It just has to be, from my own and others reactions.
Sep 3, 2006, 9:40 pm
#12
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PEK
Programs: A3*G, UA Gold EY Silver
Posts: 8,957
Once again, it's all about adaptation. If you ascend slowly you'll be fine. Biking to the top as dhuey did will be exhausting, but will cetainly give you more than enough time to adapt to the air as you go up.
If you live above sea level you may have it a bit easier, but don't count on it. You'll be coming from sea level, presumably you already adapted to sea level if you're not going to go there straight from the plane, so it doesn't really matter even if you live in Denver. You'll still have to adapt to the 3000-meter height.
If you live above sea level you may have it a bit easier, but don't count on it. You'll be coming from sea level, presumably you already adapted to sea level if you're not going to go there straight from the plane, so it doesn't really matter even if you live in Denver. You'll still have to adapt to the 3000-meter height.
Sep 3, 2006, 10:30 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: DL SkyClub Lifer
Posts: 10,000
Well, if you just flew in from Denver the night before, you might still be somewhat acclimated to 5000'.
But hey... take it slow and enjoy the scenery on the way up; stop at the various visitor center type places, and that should probably be good enough.
But hey... take it slow and enjoy the scenery on the way up; stop at the various visitor center type places, and that should probably be good enough.
Sep 4, 2006, 9:20 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Citizen of Canada, Member of the World!
Programs: AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG... you get the picture
Posts: 2,091
Originally Posted by Palal
Once again, it's all about adaptation. If you ascend slowly you'll be fine. Biking to the top as dhuey did will be exhausting, but will cetainly give you more than enough time to adapt to the air as you go up.
If you live above sea level you may have it a bit easier, but don't count on it. You'll be coming from sea level, presumably you already adapted to sea level if you're not going to go there straight from the plane, so it doesn't really matter even if you live in Denver. You'll still have to adapt to the 3000-meter height.
If you live above sea level you may have it a bit easier, but don't count on it. You'll be coming from sea level, presumably you already adapted to sea level if you're not going to go there straight from the plane, so it doesn't really matter even if you live in Denver. You'll still have to adapt to the 3000-meter height.