Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Moneybox, the problem with a simple rat trap vent is the potential to admit CO gases into the cabin. The exhaust system cuff or wrap is a far safer arrangement.

  • Like 2
Posted

An engine fire would be one of the worst things that can happen while flying. Firewalls have to be fire proof. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Moneybox said:

If you have enough air temperature in the engine bay perhaps a simple Rattrap Vent would be a quick fix?

 

image.thumb.png.09b56b045c5c5a990b4cbbb786f63dd1.png

 I have fitted the factory and British approved system and through firewall valve setup.  

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

Anything like that is hardly Likely to be stink free, is it?   Also on a cold day it would be lucky to be hot enough to do much.  I wouldn't take the Carbon Monoxide risk.  Nev

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Anything like that is hardly Likely to be stink free, is it?   Also on a cold day it would be lucky to be hot enough to do much.  I wouldn't take the Carbon Monoxide risk.  Nev

same system as blues in the texan i trained in. worked great and there was no smell at all.

  • Like 1
Posted

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning is insidious. Where does your Oil tank Vent and how do you know there's absolutely NO  leaks from the exhaust system?  Nev

  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning is insidious. Where does your Oil tank Vent and how do you know there's absolutely NO  leaks from the exhaust system?  Nev

a well maintained engine will take care of leaks but we do have detectors as well.

you don't need a cabin heater to get carbon monoxide intrusion.

remember the dramas with jabirus until they figured out it was getting sucked into the cabin through the ventral fin cable outlet

  • Informative 1
Posted

The cabin generally runs at a Pressure Below ambient. The Oil tank has a breather. You haven't told me where that goes. It can even vent OIL in turbulence.  You can't guarantee you have No exhaust Leaks. Nev

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The cabin generally runs at a Pressure Below ambient. The Oil tank has a breather. You haven't told me where that goes. It can even vent OIL in turbulence.  You can't guarantee you have No exhaust Leaks. Nev

Oil vents to fire wall bottom; away from engine bay.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
3 hours ago, BrendAn said:

same system as blues in the texan i trained in. worked great and there was no smell at all.

Unfortunately Carbon Monoxide is a tasteless, odourless, and colourless gas, known as the "silent killer", because it replaces the oxygen in your bodys cells, and kills you very effectively and very quickly, with no warning. It has killed many people.

The smells from the exhaust you can normally smell, are the remnant gases from the combustion of the chemical constituents of the petrol. You do not necessarily need to smell those remnant gases smells, to be poisoned by CO. 

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Unfortunately Carbon Monoxide is a tasteless, odourless, and colourless gas, known as the "silent killer", because it replaces the oxygen in your bodys cells, and kills you very effectively and very quickly, with no warning. It has killed many people.

The smells from the exhaust you can normally smell, are the remnant gases from the combustion of the chemical constituents of the petrol. You do not necessarily need to smell those remnant gases smells, to be poisoned by CO. 

i was referring to nevs comment that heaters smell.  did you not read my comment about carbon monoxide detectors. you and nev are convinced i am a complete dickhead and i can't change that. i will still sleep tonight. not from from carbon monoxide poisoning either.

Edited by BrendAn
Posted

I just bought this and we'll have it in the motorhome over the next two weeks. If I get time before we leave I'll try it behind the Honda Quad to see if it actually works.

 

image.thumb.png.4f6259d97f3c424aedcc19f19c2bd759.png

  • Informative 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Moneybox said:

I just bought this and we'll have it in the motorhome over the next two weeks. If I get time before we leave I'll try it behind the Honda Quad to see if it actually works.

 

image.thumb.png.4f6259d97f3c424aedcc19f19c2bd759.png

Looks nice, what price?  I'm on my second RAAus CO detector ($95) and they are a compact size.

  • Informative 2
Posted

Peoples words are being twisted here. Anyhow that bulkhead IS a firewall. It's just ridiculous to use the Heat from the engine Bay to the heat the cabin directly.  I can't see how it would ever be approved by a responsible authority.  The  accepted way is from a heater Muff on some Part of the  exhaust system with Fresh air drawn from outside of the engine area.. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

All the manufacturers say you should not use vehicle exhaust to check these electronic detectors because it can ruin the sensor.

The pilot involved in this amazing CO poisoning survival story recommends having two detectors to check against each other.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative 2
Posted
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Peoples words are being twisted here. Anyhow that bulkhead IS a firewall. It's just ridiculous to use the Heat from the engine Bay to the heat the cabin directly.  I can't see how it would ever be approved by a responsible authority.  The  accepted way is from a heater Muff on some Part of the  exhaust system with Fresh air drawn from outside of the engine area.. Nev

 

Nev I agree there could be any sort of stray fumes in the engine bay however the muffler is also there on most of these light planes. At least the muff would just be drawing from around the muffler but that's right amongst a lot of exhaust fittings on the Rotax so if there's a leak you're in the right place to pick it up.

  • Informative 2
Posted (edited)

I just watched that video right through. He's one lucky guy to have his plane bring him down in one piece. I'm going to order another carbon monoxide sensor.

 

Enginepipe.thumb.jpg.5fa2d0543e1212c6aa601905db3536c4.jpg

 

This happened on my way to Northam, a three hour flight.

 

Repair.thumb.jpg.cadc641ba3c799fdfb345a491e601e47.jpg

 

I ducked into the plumbing supply shop and grabbed a pipe union.

 

Repair2.thumb.jpg.9ee0b458c009fd2590e27c07dce46595.jpg

 

And then into Supercheap for a muffler bandage. It was enough to get me back home. I've since replaced the pipe but I smelt the exhaust fumes and didn't realise until I landed in Northam that the Zenith sounded like a tractor when taxiing.

Edited by Moneybox
  • Informative 3
Posted

MB. the end of my last sentence makes the difference. The air supply Must come from outside of the Cowl where it cannot be contaminated by exhaust fumes. Nev

  • Agree 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, facthunter said:

MB. the end of my last sentence makes the difference. The air supply Must come from outside of the Cowl where it cannot be contaminated by exhaust fumes. Nev

Ok, I haven't seen it done like that. I didn't realise fresh air was supplied to the cuff.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

image.thumb.jpeg.412e32f085e2d40f2b024f712465cf5a.jpeg

 

As an example, clean air for the heater is the sole purpose of the little round intake in the nose of the P92 Tecnam ES.   But that's no guarantee, of course, that such systems won't also develop cracks and admit toxic fumes along with warmed up air.  So the muff and its muffler are big deals on the annual. But, yeah, in winter months at altitude, I'd say a heater is very nice to have ... and CO detectors are pretty cheap insurance.

 

 

The  fatal Beaver seaplane (VH-NOO) crash into the Hawkesbury over 8 years ago was a high profile local case which, at the time, had the ATSB exercised over the lack of compulsory CO detection.  (In this case, they determined that the causes were cracks in the exhaust system along with holes in the firewall.)

 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/investigation-reports/ao-2017-118-final.pdf

 

Some excerpts:

 

"What the ATSB found

   // ... Toxicology results identified that the pilot and passengers had higher than normal levels of carboxyhaemoglobin in their blood. This was almost certainly due to elevated levels of carbon monoxide (CO) in the aircraft cabin. The ATSB’s wreckage examination established that several pre-existing cracks in the exhaust collector ring, very likely released exhaust gas into the engine/accessory bay, which then very likely entered the cabin through holes in the main firewall where three bolts were missing from the magneto access panels. In addition, the examination also found that the in situ bolts used by the operator’s external maintenance provider to secure the panels were worn, and were a combination of modified AN3-3A bolts and non-specific bolts.

A 27 minute taxi, with the pilot’s door ajar, before the passengers boarded likely exacerbated the pilot’s elevated carboxyhaemoglobin level. As a result, the pilot would have almost certainly experienced effects such as confusion, visual disturbance and disorientation. Consequently, it was likely that this significantly degraded the pilot's ability to safely operate the aircraft. //

 

 

No regulatory requirement for carbon monoxide detectors

 

// ... As a result of this investigation, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority now strongly recommends pilots wear personal CO detectors, which are now widely available and inexpensive (refer to airworthiness bulletin AWB 02-064 Issue 2). However, at the time of writing, there was no regulatory requirement for any type of detector to be carried. Consequently, it was up to the operator and/or pilot’s discretion to carry such a device. //

... Several overseas investigation agencies have made safety recommendations to their respective aviation regulators to mandate the carriage of active CO detectors. However, despite the ongoing threat CO exposure poses to aircraft occupants and the potential fatal consequences, these recommendations have not been accepted to-date. If there had been a requirement for VH-NOO to be fitted with a CO detector that actively engaged the pilot’s attention, it was likely the pilot would have been alerted to the presence of CO. This would have provided the pilot time to take mitigating action."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Garfly
  • Like 3
  • Informative 1
Posted

 

The Oaks- Benalla

 

Outbound -2 hr, 8500 ft  12C. A little cool in the cockpit

 

Return  - 2.4 hrs, 7500 ft 5C. Had the forethought to put little chemical heating pads in my boots.  Slightly more comfortable than the outbound flight.😈

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

I disagreed with the ATSB's findings Gary, knowing that aircraft personally and having been directly associated with the company doing the maintenance for something like 15 years before the accident. 

  • Like 2
  • Informative 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...