Carbon Monoxide Detector?

[Morgans]

Another informal survey.

How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
when you fly?

Why, or why not?
--
Jim in NC

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Morgans wrote:
> Another informal survey.
>
> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?
>
> Why, or why not?


I've flown many aircraft that have one of those stick-on type brown dots but
I've never flown anything with a battery powered detector. I've also flown an
old Apache with a Janitrol heater that would give you a headache every time you
used it. I flew all that winter with a blanket on my lap. What can I say?
Part 135 maintenance....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jay Honeck]

> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?

Yes.

See it here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P4845270C

It's small, and VERY sensitive. (It will sound an alarm in an extended
climb, when the nose is high and the exhaust stream hits the fresh-air
intake mounted way up at the top of the tail.)

It's not cheap, but we fly all winter -- and I never trusted those dumb
"Dead Stop" things to do anything...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[tom418]

I use several $ 2 variety "button" CO detectors. I started using them after
seeing a bunch of emergency vehicles surrounding a PA28 on the ground at
Long Island MacArthur APT back in 1985. A couple from New England became
unconscious during their taxi out. Leak was traced to a faulty heater
shroud. They made it. Fortunately, they passed out before they took off.
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Another informal survey.
>
> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?
>
> Why, or why not?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:
> Another informal survey.
>
> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?
>
> Why, or why not?


Yes. The "why" should be obvious, particularly if you fly a
single-engine airplane with cabin heat provided by the muffler shroud.

The cardboard dots and most of the "Home Depot Specials" are almost
worthless. You need an electronic monitor that will display low levels
of CO, starting at 10ppm or lower, and alarm at those lower levels.

The CO monitor that Jay Honeck linked to is a very good one. Aeromedix
used to sell an imported Senco detector that alerted at low CO levels,
but I believe that Senco went out of business or was acquired by someone
else (this is the detector that I'm using). The key is to avoid the
purchase of a detector that is UL listed or approved to US residential
standards, because those detectors will alarm only at fairly high CO
concentrations.



JKG

[Carl Orton]

I use the same one as Jay - AeroMedix. Love the sensitivity.

Why battery over the "dots"? Allegedly the dots wear out over time (OK - so
do batteries), but more because I value my life. Plus, being an engineer,
it's fun to play around with it. In the winter with all the vents closed up,
it's amazing to see how much CO comes in from the tailcone area. Just
cracking a vent or cabin air or heat just a bit to produce positive pressure
almost instantly removes the issue.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Another informal survey.
>
> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?
>
> Why, or why not?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[john smith]

> Why battery over the "dots"? Allegedly the dots wear out over time (OK - so
> do batteries), but more because I value my life. Plus, being an engineer,
> it's fun to play around with it. In the winter with all the vents closed up,
> it's amazing to see how much CO comes in from the tailcone area. Just
> cracking a vent or cabin air or heat just a bit to produce positive pressure
> almost instantly removes the issue.

The dots will give a false CO reading when exposed to autogas fumes,
also. AVIATION CONSUMER did a report on the CO dot detectors back in the
80's or 90's.

[[email protected]]

Yes they did, and they discovered that the dots work pretty well. They
recommended an electronic one as top of the line, but said that if you
keep fresh dots in the plane, it is not a bad solution, IIRC. I'm
puzzled by the thinking that an electronic device will always work as
expected. The dots are so simple they are probably more reliable,
although not as effective. You should definately have something in the
plane for CO detection.

Bruce Cunningham



john smith wrote:
> > Why battery over the "dots"? Allegedly the dots wear out over time (OK - so
> > do batteries), but more because I value my life. Plus, being an engineer,
> > it's fun to play around with it. In the winter with all the vents closed up,
> > it's amazing to see how much CO comes in from the tailcone area. Just
> > cracking a vent or cabin air or heat just a bit to produce positive pressure
> > almost instantly removes the issue.
>
> The dots will give a false CO reading when exposed to autogas fumes,
> also. AVIATION CONSUMER did a report on the CO dot detectors back in the
> 80's or 90's.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
wrote:
> Yes they did, and they discovered that the dots work pretty well. They
> recommended an electronic one as top of the line, but said that if you
> keep fresh dots in the plane, it is not a bad solution, IIRC. I'm
> puzzled by the thinking that an electronic device will always work as
> expected. The dots are so simple they are probably more reliable,
> although not as effective. You should definately have something in the
> plane for CO detection.


If I recall correctly, the big problem with the "dots" is that they
require a relatively high concentration of CO before they will indicate.
They will not detect a problem, they will tell you when you're in big
trouble, and by that time... you're in big trouble. Without an
electronic detector capable of displaying low concentrations of CO, and
alarming on those concentrations, you could be flying for hours with
dangerous levels of CO and never realize it until you become noticeably
impaired.



JKG

[tom pettit]

I've got a "black dot" that is supposed to be good for 18 months. It turned
black on a long flight the other day, so I bought a Night Hawk (Kidde)
battery operated alarm so I could trouble shoot the problem. It cost only
about $40. It will detect 11-999 ppm. The display reads continuously from
30 to 999, but by using the peak hold feature, you can get readings down to
11 ppm.

Being able to read actual values as I made changes to ventilation settings,
sealing with tape, etc. has been very useful.

tom


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Another informal survey.
>
> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?
>
> Why, or why not?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[[email protected]]

I looked up the AC article from Oct 2000. Here is verbatim what they
said.

"The Underwriters Lab standard, which was recently revised upward,
requires CO alarms to signal well ahead of the onset of symptoms for
the "average" person. (That in itself may be a moving target, since
response to CO varies by individual.)
Specifically, UL requires an 85-decibel alarm signal to sound within
189 minutes if 70 parts per million CO is detected. If the level is 150
PPM, the alarm limit is 50 minutes and it's 15 minutes at 400 PPM.
The old requirement was 90 minutes for 100 PPM and 35 minutes for 200
PPM. "

About the dead stop spot detector;

"Having seen these in dozens of aircraft, nary a one darkened, we
assumed they were nothing more than a feel-good gimmick, albeit a cheap
one. That's hardly the case, however. When exposed to CO in our test
device, the Dead Stop turned noticeably darker after about five minutes
of exposure at around 125 PPM, a low to mid-level of CO. At 500 and
above, the patch darkens fast enough to watch, turning pitch black."

Like a poster said, the electronic ones can be useful for finding
leaks, and if you feel that the spots are not sensitive enough for you.
But I think the spots have good value and are hardly worthless. Every
airplane should have at least as much onboard.

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
> > Another informal survey.
> >
> > How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> > when you fly?
> >
> > Why, or why not?
>
>
> Yes. The "why" should be obvious, particularly if you fly a
> single-engine airplane with cabin heat provided by the muffler shroud.
>
> The cardboard dots and most of the "Home Depot Specials" are almost
> worthless. You need an electronic monitor that will display low levels
> of CO, starting at 10ppm or lower, and alarm at those lower levels.
>
> The CO monitor that Jay Honeck linked to is a very good one. Aeromedix
> used to sell an imported Senco detector that alerted at low CO levels,
> but I believe that Senco went out of business or was acquired by someone
> else (this is the detector that I'm using). The key is to avoid the
> purchase of a detector that is UL listed or approved to US residential
> standards, because those detectors will alarm only at fairly high CO
> concentrations.
>
>
>
> JKG

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> But I think the spots have good value and are hardly worthless. Every
> airplane should have at least as much onboard.

I used to put a new one in the plane every Fall.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> How many of you have, and use a battery powered Carbon Monoxide Detector
> when you fly?
>

One here.

> Why, or why not?
>

Cheap insurance in northern Germany, where the heater is often on. Did the
research, which made it obvious that the card board "spots" are next to
useless.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article om>,
wrote:
> "The Underwriters Lab standard, which was recently revised upward,
> requires CO alarms to signal well ahead of the onset of symptoms for
> the "average" person. (That in itself may be a moving target, since
> response to CO varies by individual.)
> Specifically, UL requires an 85-decibel alarm signal to sound within
> 189 minutes if 70 parts per million CO is detected. If the level is 150
> PPM, the alarm limit is 50 minutes and it's 15 minutes at 400 PPM.
> The old requirement was 90 minutes for 100 PPM and 35 minutes for 200
> PPM. "

70ppm is way, way too high for prolonged exposure in aircraft at
altitude. In cruise, you should see ZERO.

Personally, my subjective observation is that AC is sometimes right and
sometimes wrong with their conclusions. Often, they don't provide
enough information, or provide incomplete information, so it's difficult
to make an informed decision. I suggest that you look up some of Mike
Busch's old articles from AvWeb (back in the good old days) for some
additional analysis on the subject of CO detection.






JKG