Carbon Monoxide Detector

[GAHorn]

With regard to CO (carbon monoxide) in the cabin...

Everyone should have a CO detector. You aren’t required to have one TSOd for aircraft.

I have one in each of my airplanes that works very well, and provides an audible alarm as well as a flashing-warning lamp and a digital read-out of the ppm of CO detected.

It can be mounted with Velcro on the tunnel, just forward of the flap-handle, where it’s flashing warning light and digital readout is visible and where the likelihood of any CO WILL BE QUICKLY APPARENT. (That is where your cabin heater and air enters from the exhaust system.)

It is INEXPENSIVE.... LESS THAN $25. It is small. It does not require an A&P or even a logbook entry as it is “loose equipment”. GET ONE! (Amazon Prime is free delivery in two days.)

https://www.amazon.com/Kidde-Battery-Op ... 391&sr=8-7

[gfeher]

I have one coincidently mounted exactly where George suggests. I think it's the same model. Works great and I don't need to think about it. Once you put the battery in it, it's always on. If I remember correctly, it doesn't need to be replaced for 10 years (although you will need to replace the batteries periodically). Great solution and far less expensive than other CO detectors.

[n3833v]

Same here. I have had one for years to be safe and fly again.

John

[hilltop170]

Has anyone had the alarm go off?

[GAHorn]

The one I posted above went off, confirming the bad mufflers on the 172. (Annual inspection was being performed during which they were replaced.)

[rnealon1]

Thanks for this information, I have been wondering what type of CO2 detector to add.

Google search turned up this at Walmart for $20.82 free delivery:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Kidde-KN-COP ... P0QAvD_BwE

Just ordered 4 for plane and house.

Bob

[DaveF]

That Kidde CO monitor only displays when levels exceed 30ppm. That’s not fatal, but definitely higher than you want in your airplane without warning. But it’s a lot better than no detector!

[TFA170]

I have the Sentry ADS-B IN that has a built-in CO monitor as well. I didn't get it for that, but it's a great feature to have.

[GAHorn]

After 8 hours exposure at 30 PPM will have no effect on a person. While one can spend lots more money on a CO-detector.... this inexpensive one is so available and so effective that, in my opinion, there is NO excuse not to have one.

Here’s a detailed article about. CO detection and accident reports and data to support my statement above: https://www.avweb.com/ownership/carbon- ... detectors/

(And keep in mind that, while a Sentry might be considered a permanent installation.... it’s CO detection lifetime is limited. CO detectors mfr’d since 2013 are generally expected to be useful for ten years, while earlier ones are not.)

[DaveF]

As I said, beats no detector at all. Buy a detector and use it. A 30ppm detector will save you from a broken exhaust or other bad CO event.

But note that the author of the article you cited actually has a different opinion. He says:

I believe that aviation safety is best served by a sensitive low-level detector, not one that’s intentionally “blinded” to concentrations below 30 PPM. For in-flight use, we’re not simply worried about high CO levels that can make you ill – we care even more about low levels of CO that can produce subtle cognitive impairment. Furthermore, when flying at altitude in an unpressurized aircraft, we’re already somewhat impaired by altitude hypoxia, so it doesn’t take much CO to increase impairment to a dangerous level. That’s because the effects of altitude and CO are additive.

[TFA170]

(And keep in mind that, while a Sentry might be considered a permanent installation.... it’s CO detection lifetime is limited. CO detectors mfr’d since 2013 are generally expected to be useful for ten years, while earlier ones are not.)

Sentry was not purchased as a CO detector - I merely mentioned it because many are buying ADS-B IN, so why not get the CO detector while you're at it? WAAS GPS, ADS-B In, AHRS (emergency backup PFD), and CO detector - The CO detector wasn't even a factor for consideration in my purchase, but was more of a 'nice to have.' And it's far from a permanent install; because it's a portable and battery powered accessory, I can use it in everything I fly.

[GAHorn]

As I said, beats no detector at all. Buy a detector and use it. A 30ppm detector will save you from a broken exhaust or other bad CO event.

But note that the author of the article you cited actually has a different opinion. He says:

I believe that aviation safety is best served by a sensitive low-level detector, not one that’s intentionally “blinded” to concentrations below 30 PPM. For in-flight use, we’re not simply worried about high CO levels that can make you ill – we care even more about low levels of CO that can produce subtle cognitive impairment. Furthermore, when flying at altitude in an unpressurized aircraft, we’re already somewhat impaired by altitude hypoxia, so it doesn’t take much CO to increase impairment to a dangerous level. That’s because the effects of altitude and CO are additive.

Yes, .... and in the same article the author points out that exposure to 30 ppm for 8 hrs has no observable effect.

The problem with “unta-sensitive” CO detectors is they are prone to False-Alarms. I’ve flown in a 172 that had one of the “FAA Approved” models that the owner’s chief complaint was .... False Alarms. He’d spent quite a bit of money uselessly chasing down exhaust leaks which did not exist. There’s NOTHING worse than crying “WOLF” .... It destroys confidence and is a distraction, IMO. YMMV

[DaveF]

The table in the article says "no obvious symptoms", because the author's point in writing the story (other than that he's a professional writer), is that CO affects you subtly, and that's dangerous.

Here’s my take: Given the concern about cognitive impairment and the aggravating effect of hypoxia, I consider CO concentrations of 10 PPM or more in the cockpit to be something worth worrying about, and concentrations above 20PPM to be grounds for landing at the next reasonable opportunity to determine the cause of the CO contamination. A CO concentration of 35 PPM or more in the cockpit of an unpressurized aircraft should be treated as an emergency: the pilot should go on supplemental oxygen immediately (if available), and make a precautionary landing as soon as possible.

But, ok. Go with the table. Do you think it applies at 5000 agl? Does it apply to a typical overweight old-guy pilot? Smoker? I bet it doesn't. So we completely agree on the need for having whichever detector you like (except for the black spot type), but I still think a low-level-indicating CO monitor is better. CO is bad stuff. I'm not willing to ignore readings of up to 30ppm. I also have an engine monitor and digital fuel flow gauge. CO monitors aren't the only thing we disagree about. Oh, and a Lycoming.

My monitor almost always reads zero in my 170. If it goes up to 10, I'm checking it out! But the monitor never reads zero in a friend's RV because broken mufflers aren't the only way for CO to enter the cabin. My 210 leaked exhaust into the cabin by several paths, none a broken muffler. We used a sensitive monitor to help find and eliminate the leaks.

That's it. MMMV.

[GAHorn]

Dave, Very Respectfully,... I posted this thread...Not to cause a disagreement. We DO NOT DISAGREE that there are more sensitive CO detectors available on the market... Some of which are specifically designed for aircraft.

The problem most airplane owners have with those detectors is their COST versus their perceived benefits... which is a very subjective matter.

My purpose in this thread was to point out there are very inexpensive CO detectors available that are of Good Quality and so Very Affordable...there is no good excuse not to have one onboard everyone’s airplane.

If you can justify spending the high dollars the ultra-sensitive CO detectors cost... then certainly that is your choice.

But get a CO detector of your choice and put it in your airplane.

[iowa]

i used this one for years
isn't it ok?