onetrack Posted May 12 Posted May 12 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. 2
Thruster88 Posted May 12 Posted May 12 An engine fire would be one of the worst things that can happen while flying. Firewalls have to be fire proof. 1 1
Blueadventures Posted May 12 Posted May 12 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? I have fitted the factory and British approved system and through firewall valve setup. 1 2
facthunter Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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 1
BrendAn Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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. 1
facthunter Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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 1
BrendAn Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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 1
facthunter Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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 1
Blueadventures Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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. 1 1
onetrack Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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. 1
BrendAn Posted May 13 Posted May 13 (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 May 13 by BrendAn
Moneybox Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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. 4
Blueadventures Posted May 13 Posted May 13 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. Looks nice, what price? I'm on my second RAAus CO detector ($95) and they are a compact size. 2
facthunter Posted Thursday at 06:02 AM Posted Thursday at 06:02 AM 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 1 1 1
Garfly Posted Thursday at 06:06 AM Posted Thursday at 06:06 AM 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. 2 2
Moneybox Posted Thursday at 08:32 AM Posted Thursday at 08:32 AM 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. 2
pmccarthy Posted Thursday at 10:04 AM Posted Thursday at 10:04 AM I bought a brand new aircraft then paid to have several firewall penetrations properly sealed. 2 2 1
Moneybox Posted Thursday at 12:47 PM Posted Thursday at 12:47 PM (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. This happened on my way to Northam, a three hour flight. I ducked into the plumbing supply shop and grabbed a pipe union. 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 Thursday at 12:58 PM by Moneybox 3
facthunter Posted Friday at 12:39 AM Posted Friday at 12:39 AM 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 1
Moneybox Posted Friday at 01:22 AM Posted Friday at 01:22 AM 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. 2
Garfly Posted Friday at 02:38 AM Posted Friday at 02:38 AM (edited) 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 Friday at 03:08 AM by Garfly 3 1
skippydiesel Posted Friday at 04:26 AM Posted Friday at 04:26 AM 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.😈 1 2
Student Pilot Posted Saturday at 11:24 AM Posted Saturday at 11:24 AM 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. 2 3
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now