Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:54 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 (cubflyer1940@yahoo.com)
2. 01:54 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 (cubflyer1940@yahoo.com)
3. 02:34 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 (cubflyer1940@yahoo.com)
4. 05:31 PM - Congratulations to Pappy (Cpayne)
5. 07:08 PM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (T A LEWIS)
6. 07:30 PM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (David Jester)
7. 07:31 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 (gill.g@gpimail.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 |
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Yak-List Digest Server <yak-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Yak-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Fri 12/11/09: 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:09 AM - CJ nose strut "clunking" (keithmckinley)
2. 07:43 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 07:43 AM - Fw: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (doug sapp)
5. 08:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 09:06 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
7. 09:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(vectorwarbirds@aol.com)
8. 09:46 AM - Restoration blogs (Barry Hancock)
9. 11:30 AM - Re: Restoration blogs (keithmckinley)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: Restoration blogs (barryhancock)
11. 02:44 PM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Gill Gutierrez)
12. 08:27 PM - Re: [Norton Antis am] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 07:09:59 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my airplane
has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even at slow
speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried reducing
the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced but that
made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard to steer.
At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less than
the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same on compression
and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car. Certainly
the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not, any
advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the strut would
be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:31 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
In a message dated 12/11/2009 10:10:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
keith.mckinley@townisp.com writes:
Keith,
Nope it's not normal to hear a clunk. And I think you're correct in
needing to totally service that strut (air and fluid). To much pressure in the
strut will cause the piston to bottom out (extend) into the enter V collar
that centers the wheel when the strut is fully extended. To much pressure
and you will not be able to get the nose gear to caster for turning.
If the hyd and air pressure are correct, you shouldn't hear anything
normally. You may hear it occasionally taxing over rough ground.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "keithmckinley"
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the
same on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If
not, any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
strut would be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:32 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
-----------------------------1260545133--
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 07:44:37 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
Keith,
Check:
1. Proper adjustment of the over center stay on the nose gear linkage.
The "clunking" may be it comming in and out of the over center
position.-----not good.
2. The bearing on the TOP end of your nose gear actuator. Many of the
"end lugs" were not properly heat treated and are very soft. In time the
hole in which the bearing is pressed will elongate allowing the bearing to
move "clunk" up and down. We have a US manufactured 4140 steel end lug with
new bearing in stock to solve this problem.
I doubt your problem has anything to do with OVER extension of the oleo/fork
in the nose gear. It might clunk if it were grossly UNDER pressured, but
not OVER pressured.
Always yakin,
Doug
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:08 AM, keithmckinley
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>wrote:
> keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
>
> Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
> airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
> at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
> I get it
>
> This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
> reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
> but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
> to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
>
> My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
> than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same
> on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
> Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
>
> So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not,
> any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
> strut would be appreciated.
>
> Keith
>
> --------
> Keith McKinley
> 700HS
> KFIT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
>
>
--
Maybe life is not the party that we were expecting,
but in the mean time, we're here, the band is playing, so we may as well
dance....."
Douglas Sapp
Doug Sapp LLC
18B Riverview Road
Omak WA 98841
PH 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 08:35:00 AM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 09:06:02 AM PST US
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn'
t have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts per
million)
=C2-
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM =C2-
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
=C2-
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
=C2-
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
=C2-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really =C2
- =C2- =C2-looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low level
s
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the condition
s
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), th
e
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter
,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ o
r
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my =C2-Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals =C2-along getting a
good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on mysel
f
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucker
s
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only becom
e
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O
2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp =C2-
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. =C2-NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. =C2-FAA says 5
0 ppm. =C2-The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lowe
r
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. =C2-Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem t
o
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. =C2-Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shiel
d
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that i
s
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a close
d
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
===========
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
===========
MS -
===========
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
From: vectorwarbirds@aol.com
Well I don't know exactly how anyone thinks using a sealed oxygen mask br
inging in clear air from in front of the aircraft is only mitigating the
CO problem? Its totally clean fresh air, it don't get no better than tha
t in my opinion. Zero CO in the mask. Nobody is ever going to solve seali
ng the cockpit from CO, never going to happen. You're just wasting your
time and still breathing CO while you screw around trying to. Funny how
everyone can spend so much time, energy and money trying to solve a probl
em than cannot be solved with those means, or maybe thats exactly the prob
lem, people just have to solve it no matter what it takes. I was taught
the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Half a day of work, about
100 bucks and the CO problem in my AC is solved forever. Like I said, KI
SS. Good luck with all the mods!
TGB
-----Original Message-----
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:05 am
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn
't have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts pe
r
million)
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short ter
m
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupationa
l
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low leve
ls
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It wa
s
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to thos
e
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditio
ns
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level),
the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of th
e
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide mete
r,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ
or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bil
l
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myse
lf
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pla
n
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucke
rs
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only beco
me
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that
I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an
O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an
8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm.
The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be low
er
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daege
r
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shie
ld
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverso
n
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is tha
t
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. Th
e
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkhead
s
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that
is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a clos
ed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
&nbs===============
======
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 09:46:27 AM PST US
From: Barry Hancock <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Restoration blogs
Gang,
For those of you interested in what deep restorations of CJ's look like, we are
running blogs on our current projects. Each aircraft is different, unique, and
fun. Feel free to leave comments on the blogs or email us with questions.
553MW.blogspot.com
8120C.blogspot.com
Happy Flying!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(909) 606-4444 office
(949) 300-5510 cell
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
"Making your warbird dreams a reality!"
Express Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave, B-110, Unit J
Chino, CA 91710
Regular Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave., Box 91
Chino, CA 91710
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the designated recipients. If the reader of this message
is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
use, dissemination, forwarding or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete the
original message and all attachments from your system. Thank you
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 11:30:56 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Barry,
Those airplanes are beautiful! Now I'm depressed.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277202#277202
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 12:23:14 PM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "barryhancock" <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Thanks, Keith. Keep in mind that these are show quality restorations and cost double
or more what a stock CJ does. 553MW is the second of our fully overhauled
airframe with all new everything, stainless steel firewall, etc. These are
not ordinary CJ's... ;)
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277209#277209
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 02:44:37 PM PST US
From: "Gill Gutierrez" <gill.g@gpimail.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 08:27:00 PM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton Antis am] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Thanks Gill. For me the 50 has way to high of a mean average of CO in the
cockpit. It was just simpler to add the closed fresh air system than it was
to go through all the seals gyrations. With the tail dragger there is a
whole new dynamic for exhaust gases rolling under the aircraft especially
with the tail wheel not having a boot around it. The negative pressure
created by prop wash flowing over the canopy just seems to suck that crap
right up into the empennage like a vacuum cleaner.
Fly safe.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 |
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Yak-List Digest Server <yak-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Yak-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Fri 12/11/09: 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:09 AM - CJ nose strut "clunking" (keithmckinley)
2. 07:43 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 07:43 AM - Fw: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (doug sapp)
5. 08:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 09:06 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
7. 09:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(vectorwarbirds@aol.com)
8. 09:46 AM - Restoration blogs (Barry Hancock)
9. 11:30 AM - Re: Restoration blogs (keithmckinley)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: Restoration blogs (barryhancock)
11. 02:44 PM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Gill Gutierrez)
12. 08:27 PM - Re: [Norton Antis am] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 07:09:59 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my airplane
has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even at slow
speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried reducing
the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced but that
made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard to steer.
At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less than
the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same on compression
and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car. Certainly
the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not, any
advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the strut would
be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:31 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
In a message dated 12/11/2009 10:10:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
keith.mckinley@townisp.com writes:
Keith,
Nope it's not normal to hear a clunk. And I think you're correct in
needing to totally service that strut (air and fluid). To much pressure in the
strut will cause the piston to bottom out (extend) into the enter V collar
that centers the wheel when the strut is fully extended. To much pressure
and you will not be able to get the nose gear to caster for turning.
If the hyd and air pressure are correct, you shouldn't hear anything
normally. You may hear it occasionally taxing over rough ground.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "keithmckinley"
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the
same on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If
not, any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
strut would be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:32 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
-----------------------------1260545133--
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 07:44:37 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
Keith,
Check:
1. Proper adjustment of the over center stay on the nose gear linkage.
The "clunking" may be it comming in and out of the over center
position.-----not good.
2. The bearing on the TOP end of your nose gear actuator. Many of the
"end lugs" were not properly heat treated and are very soft. In time the
hole in which the bearing is pressed will elongate allowing the bearing to
move "clunk" up and down. We have a US manufactured 4140 steel end lug with
new bearing in stock to solve this problem.
I doubt your problem has anything to do with OVER extension of the oleo/fork
in the nose gear. It might clunk if it were grossly UNDER pressured, but
not OVER pressured.
Always yakin,
Doug
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:08 AM, keithmckinley
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>wrote:
> keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
>
> Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
> airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
> at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
> I get it
>
> This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
> reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
> but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
> to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
>
> My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
> than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same
> on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
> Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
>
> So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not,
> any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
> strut would be appreciated.
>
> Keith
>
> --------
> Keith McKinley
> 700HS
> KFIT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
>
>
--
Maybe life is not the party that we were expecting,
but in the mean time, we're here, the band is playing, so we may as well
dance....."
Douglas Sapp
Doug Sapp LLC
18B Riverview Road
Omak WA 98841
PH 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 08:35:00 AM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 09:06:02 AM PST US
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn'
t have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts per
million)
=C2-
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM =C2-
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
=C2-
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
=C2-
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
=C2-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really =C2
- =C2- =C2-looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low level
s
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the condition
s
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), th
e
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter
,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ o
r
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my =C2-Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals =C2-along getting a
good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on mysel
f
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucker
s
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only becom
e
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O
2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp =C2-
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. =C2-NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. =C2-FAA says 5
0 ppm. =C2-The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lowe
r
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. =C2-Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem t
o
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. =C2-Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shiel
d
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that i
s
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a close
d
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
===========
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
===========
MS -
===========
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
From: vectorwarbirds@aol.com
Well I don't know exactly how anyone thinks using a sealed oxygen mask br
inging in clear air from in front of the aircraft is only mitigating the
CO problem? Its totally clean fresh air, it don't get no better than tha
t in my opinion. Zero CO in the mask. Nobody is ever going to solve seali
ng the cockpit from CO, never going to happen. You're just wasting your
time and still breathing CO while you screw around trying to. Funny how
everyone can spend so much time, energy and money trying to solve a probl
em than cannot be solved with those means, or maybe thats exactly the prob
lem, people just have to solve it no matter what it takes. I was taught
the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Half a day of work, about
100 bucks and the CO problem in my AC is solved forever. Like I said, KI
SS. Good luck with all the mods!
TGB
-----Original Message-----
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:05 am
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn
't have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts pe
r
million)
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short ter
m
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupationa
l
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low leve
ls
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It wa
s
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to thos
e
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditio
ns
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level),
the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of th
e
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide mete
r,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ
or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bil
l
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myse
lf
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pla
n
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucke
rs
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only beco
me
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that
I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an
O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an
8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm.
The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be low
er
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daege
r
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shie
ld
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverso
n
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is tha
t
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. Th
e
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkhead
s
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that
is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a clos
ed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
&nbs===============
======
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 09:46:27 AM PST US
From: Barry Hancock <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Restoration blogs
Gang,
For those of you interested in what deep restorations of CJ's look like, we are
running blogs on our current projects. Each aircraft is different, unique, and
fun. Feel free to leave comments on the blogs or email us with questions.
553MW.blogspot.com
8120C.blogspot.com
Happy Flying!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(909) 606-4444 office
(949) 300-5510 cell
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
"Making your warbird dreams a reality!"
Express Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave, B-110, Unit J
Chino, CA 91710
Regular Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave., Box 91
Chino, CA 91710
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the designated recipients. If the reader of this message
is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
use, dissemination, forwarding or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete the
original message and all attachments from your system. Thank you
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 11:30:56 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Barry,
Those airplanes are beautiful! Now I'm depressed.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277202#277202
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 12:23:14 PM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "barryhancock" <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Thanks, Keith. Keep in mind that these are show quality restorations and cost double
or more what a stock CJ does. 553MW is the second of our fully overhauled
airframe with all new everything, stainless steel firewall, etc. These are
not ordinary CJ's... ;)
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277209#277209
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 02:44:37 PM PST US
From: "Gill Gutierrez" <gill.g@gpimail.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 08:27:00 PM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton Antis am] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Thanks Gill. For me the 50 has way to high of a mean average of CO in the
cockpit. It was just simpler to add the closed fresh air system than it was
to go through all the seals gyrations. With the tail dragger there is a
whole new dynamic for exhaust gases rolling under the aircraft especially
with the tail wheel not having a boot around it. The negative pressure
created by prop wash flowing over the canopy just seems to suck that crap
right up into the empennage like a vacuum cleaner.
Fly safe.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 |
Z
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Yak-List Digest Server <yak-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Yak-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Fri 12/11/09: 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:09 AM - CJ nose strut "clunking" (keithmckinley)
2. 07:43 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 07:43 AM - Fw: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (doug sapp)
5. 08:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 09:06 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
7. 09:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(vectorwarbirds@aol.com)
8. 09:46 AM - Restoration blogs (Barry Hancock)
9. 11:30 AM - Re: Restoration blogs (keithmckinley)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: Restoration blogs (barryhancock)
11. 02:44 PM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Gill Gutierrez)
12. 08:27 PM - Re: [Norton Antis am] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 07:09:59 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my airplane
has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even at slow
speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried reducing
the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced but that
made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard to steer.
At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less than
the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same on compression
and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car. Certainly
the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not, any
advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the strut would
be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:31 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
In a message dated 12/11/2009 10:10:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
keith.mckinley@townisp.com writes:
Keith,
Nope it's not normal to hear a clunk. And I think you're correct in
needing to totally service that strut (air and fluid). To much pressure in the
strut will cause the piston to bottom out (extend) into the enter V collar
that centers the wheel when the strut is fully extended. To much pressure
and you will not be able to get the nose gear to caster for turning.
If the hyd and air pressure are correct, you shouldn't hear anything
normally. You may hear it occasionally taxing over rough ground.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "keithmckinley"
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the
same on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If
not, any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
strut would be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:32 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
-----------------------------1260545133--
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 07:44:37 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
Keith,
Check:
1. Proper adjustment of the over center stay on the nose gear linkage.
The "clunking" may be it comming in and out of the over center
position.-----not good.
2. The bearing on the TOP end of your nose gear actuator. Many of the
"end lugs" were not properly heat treated and are very soft. In time the
hole in which the bearing is pressed will elongate allowing the bearing to
move "clunk" up and down. We have a US manufactured 4140 steel end lug with
new bearing in stock to solve this problem.
I doubt your problem has anything to do with OVER extension of the oleo/fork
in the nose gear. It might clunk if it were grossly UNDER pressured, but
not OVER pressured.
Always yakin,
Doug
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:08 AM, keithmckinley
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>wrote:
> keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
>
> Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
> airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
> at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
> I get it
>
> This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
> reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
> but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
> to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
>
> My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
> than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same
> on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
> Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
>
> So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not,
> any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
> strut would be appreciated.
>
> Keith
>
> --------
> Keith McKinley
> 700HS
> KFIT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
>
>
--
Maybe life is not the party that we were expecting,
but in the mean time, we're here, the band is playing, so we may as well
dance....."
Douglas Sapp
Doug Sapp LLC
18B Riverview Road
Omak WA 98841
PH 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 08:35:00 AM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 09:06:02 AM PST US
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn'
t have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts per
million)
=C2-
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM =C2-
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
=C2-
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
=C2-
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
=C2-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really =C2
- =C2- =C2-looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low level
s
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the condition
s
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), th
e
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter
,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ o
r
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my =C2-Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals =C2-along getting a
good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on mysel
f
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucker
s
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only becom
e
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O
2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp =C2-
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. =C2-NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. =C2-FAA says 5
0 ppm. =C2-The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lowe
r
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. =C2-Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem t
o
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. =C2-Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shiel
d
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that i
s
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a close
d
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
===========
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
===========
MS -
===========
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
From: vectorwarbirds@aol.com
Well I don't know exactly how anyone thinks using a sealed oxygen mask br
inging in clear air from in front of the aircraft is only mitigating the
CO problem? Its totally clean fresh air, it don't get no better than tha
t in my opinion. Zero CO in the mask. Nobody is ever going to solve seali
ng the cockpit from CO, never going to happen. You're just wasting your
time and still breathing CO while you screw around trying to. Funny how
everyone can spend so much time, energy and money trying to solve a probl
em than cannot be solved with those means, or maybe thats exactly the prob
lem, people just have to solve it no matter what it takes. I was taught
the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Half a day of work, about
100 bucks and the CO problem in my AC is solved forever. Like I said, KI
SS. Good luck with all the mods!
TGB
-----Original Message-----
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:05 am
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn
't have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts pe
r
million)
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short ter
m
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupationa
l
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low leve
ls
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It wa
s
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to thos
e
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditio
ns
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level),
the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of th
e
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide mete
r,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ
or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bil
l
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myse
lf
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pla
n
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucke
rs
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only beco
me
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that
I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an
O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an
8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm.
The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be low
er
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daege
r
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shie
ld
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverso
n
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is tha
t
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. Th
e
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkhead
s
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that
is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a clos
ed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
&nbs===============
======
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 09:46:27 AM PST US
From: Barry Hancock <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Restoration blogs
Gang,
For those of you interested in what deep restorations of CJ's look like, we are
running blogs on our current projects. Each aircraft is different, unique, and
fun. Feel free to leave comments on the blogs or email us with questions.
553MW.blogspot.com
8120C.blogspot.com
Happy Flying!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(909) 606-4444 office
(949) 300-5510 cell
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
"Making your warbird dreams a reality!"
Express Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave, B-110, Unit J
Chino, CA 91710
Regular Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave., Box 91
Chino, CA 91710
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the designated recipients. If the reader of this message
is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
use, dissemination, forwarding or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete the
original message and all attachments from your system. Thank you
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 11:30:56 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Barry,
Those airplanes are beautiful! Now I'm depressed.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277202#277202
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 12:23:14 PM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "barryhancock" <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Thanks, Keith. Keep in mind that these are show quality restorations and cost double
or more what a stock CJ does. 553MW is the second of our fully overhauled
airframe with all new everything, stainless steel firewall, etc. These are
not ordinary CJ's... ;)
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277209#277209
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 02:44:37 PM PST US
From: "Gill Gutierrez" <gill.g@gpimail.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 08:27:00 PM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton Antis am] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Thanks Gill. For me the 50 has way to high of a mean average of CO in the
cockpit. It was just simpler to add the closed fresh air system than it was
to go through all the seals gyrations. With the tail dragger there is a
whole new dynamic for exhaust gases rolling under the aircraft especially
with the tail wheel not having a boot around it. The negative pressure
created by prop wash flowing over the canopy just seems to suck that crap
right up into the empennage like a vacuum cleaner.
Fly safe.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Congratulations to Pappy |
Pappy (Jim Goolsby) was awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award today in
a ceremony at Lakeland (Sun 'n Fun). That means he has been flying for 50 years
minimum, no accidents and never getting caught ...or something like that.
Just to let all you folks out there know, the FAA is always keeping tabs. Today's
recipients each received a stack of papers for everything FAA had on them.
For Jim that was about an inch thick stack of Ratings, LOA type ratings, etc.
From first student pilot submission to his last B-24 type rating.
Craig Payne
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Congratulations to Pappy |
Good on You Pappy!
Terry Lewis
----- Original Message ----
From: Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com>
Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 8:24:51 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Congratulations to Pappy
Pappy (Jim Goolsby) was awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award today in
a ceremony at Lakeland (Sun 'n Fun). That means he has been flying for 50 years
minimum, no accidents and never getting caught ...or something like that.
Just to let all you folks out there know, the FAA is always keeping tabs. Today's
recipients each received a stack of papers for everything FAA had on them.
For Jim that was about an inch thick stack of Ratings, LOA type ratings, etc.
From first student pilot submission to his last B-24 type rating.
Craig Payne
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Congratulations to Pappy |
Very cool.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com> wrote:
>
> Pappy (Jim Goolsby) was awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot
> Award today in a ceremony at Lakeland (Sun 'n Fun). That means he
> has been flying for 50 years minimum, no accidents and never getting
> caught ...or something like that.
>
> Just to let all you folks out there know, the FAA is always keeping
> tabs. Today's recipients each received a stack of papers for
> everything FAA had on them. For Jim that was about an inch thick
> stack of Ratings, LOA type ratings, etc. From first student pilot
> submission to his last B-24 type rating.
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 |
L
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: cubflyer1940@yahoo.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Yak-List Digest Server <yak-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-12-11&Archive=Yak
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Yak-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Fri 12/11/09: 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:09 AM - CJ nose strut "clunking" (keithmckinley)
2. 07:43 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 07:43 AM - Fw: CJ nose strut "clunking" (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: CJ nose strut "clunking" (doug sapp)
5. 08:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 09:06 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
7. 09:35 AM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(vectorwarbirds@aol.com)
8. 09:46 AM - Restoration blogs (Barry Hancock)
9. 11:30 AM - Re: Restoration blogs (keithmckinley)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: Restoration blogs (barryhancock)
11. 02:44 PM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Gill Gutierrez)
12. 08:27 PM - Re: [Norton Antis am] Re: Ever wonder what it really looks like....
(Roger Kemp M.D.)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 07:09:59 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my airplane
has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even at slow
speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried reducing
the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced but that
made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard to steer.
At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less than
the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same on compression
and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car. Certainly
the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not, any
advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the strut would
be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:31 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
In a message dated 12/11/2009 10:10:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
keith.mckinley@townisp.com writes:
Keith,
Nope it's not normal to hear a clunk. And I think you're correct in
needing to totally service that strut (air and fluid). To much pressure in the
strut will cause the piston to bottom out (extend) into the enter V collar
that centers the wheel when the strut is fully extended. To much pressure
and you will not be able to get the nose gear to caster for turning.
If the hyd and air pressure are correct, you shouldn't hear anything
normally. You may hear it occasionally taxing over rough ground.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "keithmckinley"
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
I get it
This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the
same on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If
not, any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
strut would be appreciated.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:43:32 AM PST US
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
-----------------------------1260545133--
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 07:44:37 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ nose strut "clunking"
From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
Keith,
Check:
1. Proper adjustment of the over center stay on the nose gear linkage.
The "clunking" may be it comming in and out of the over center
position.-----not good.
2. The bearing on the TOP end of your nose gear actuator. Many of the
"end lugs" were not properly heat treated and are very soft. In time the
hole in which the bearing is pressed will elongate allowing the bearing to
move "clunk" up and down. We have a US manufactured 4140 steel end lug with
new bearing in stock to solve this problem.
I doubt your problem has anything to do with OVER extension of the oleo/fork
in the nose gear. It might clunk if it were grossly UNDER pressured, but
not OVER pressured.
Always yakin,
Doug
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:08 AM, keithmckinley
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>wrote:
> keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
>
> Quick question for you all before I start undoing things. From day one my
> airplane has had a noticeable "clunk" in the nose strut while taxing. Even
> at slow speeds, every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement
> I get it
>
> This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tried
> reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over serviced
> but that made the strut VERY mushy and actually made the airplane very hard
> to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
>
> My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old, watery and probably less
> than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same
> on compression and extension, just like a normal shock absorber on a car.
> Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stut.
>
> So before I drain everything and try to service it, is this normal? If not,
> any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the
> strut would be appreciated.
>
> Keith
>
> --------
> Keith McKinley
> 700HS
> KFIT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277159#277159
>
>
--
Maybe life is not the party that we were expecting,
but in the mean time, we're here, the band is playing, so we may as well
dance....."
Douglas Sapp
Doug Sapp LLC
18B Riverview Road
Omak WA 98841
PH 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 08:35:00 AM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 09:06:02 AM PST US
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn'
t have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts per
million)
=C2-
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM =C2-
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
=C2-
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
=C2-
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
=C2-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really =C2
- =C2- =C2-looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low level
s
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the condition
s
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), th
e
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter
,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ o
r
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my =C2-Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals =C2-along getting a
good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on mysel
f
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucker
s
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only becom
e
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O
2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp =C2-
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. =C2-NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. =C2-FAA says 5
0 ppm. =C2-The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lowe
r
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. =C2-Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem t
o
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. =C2-Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shiel
d
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that i
s
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a close
d
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
===========
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
===========
MS -
===========
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
From: vectorwarbirds@aol.com
Well I don't know exactly how anyone thinks using a sealed oxygen mask br
inging in clear air from in front of the aircraft is only mitigating the
CO problem? Its totally clean fresh air, it don't get no better than tha
t in my opinion. Zero CO in the mask. Nobody is ever going to solve seali
ng the cockpit from CO, never going to happen. You're just wasting your
time and still breathing CO while you screw around trying to. Funny how
everyone can spend so much time, energy and money trying to solve a probl
em than cannot be solved with those means, or maybe thats exactly the prob
lem, people just have to solve it no matter what it takes. I was taught
the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Half a day of work, about
100 bucks and the CO problem in my AC is solved forever. Like I said, KI
SS. Good luck with all the mods!
TGB
-----Original Message-----
From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:05 am
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government doesn
't have a standard:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
TLV (Threshold Limit Value), Time Weighted Average (TWA): 25 PPM (parts pe
r
million)
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit: TWA - 35 PPM
NOTE: NIOSH bases their REL up to a 10hour exposure
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): 50 PPM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Standards for outdoor air: 9 PPM
NOTE: no standard for indoor air
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short ter
m
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupationa
l
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low leve
ls
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It wa
s
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to thos
e
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditio
ns
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level),
the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of th
e
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide mete
r,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ
or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bil
l
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myse
lf
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pla
n
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those sucke
rs
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only beco
me
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that
I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an
O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an
8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm.
The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be low
er
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
>
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daege
r
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shie
ld
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverso
n
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is tha
t
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. Th
e
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkhead
s
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that
is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a clos
ed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
&nbs===============
======
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 09:46:27 AM PST US
From: Barry Hancock <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Restoration blogs
Gang,
For those of you interested in what deep restorations of CJ's look like, we are
running blogs on our current projects. Each aircraft is different, unique, and
fun. Feel free to leave comments on the blogs or email us with questions.
553MW.blogspot.com
8120C.blogspot.com
Happy Flying!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(909) 606-4444 office
(949) 300-5510 cell
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
"Making your warbird dreams a reality!"
Express Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave, B-110, Unit J
Chino, CA 91710
Regular Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave., Box 91
Chino, CA 91710
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the designated recipients. If the reader of this message
is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
use, dissemination, forwarding or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete the
original message and all attachments from your system. Thank you
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 11:30:56 AM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Barry,
Those airplanes are beautiful! Now I'm depressed.
Keith
--------
Keith McKinley
700HS
KFIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277202#277202
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 12:23:14 PM PST US
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Restoration blogs
From: "barryhancock" <bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Thanks, Keith. Keep in mind that these are show quality restorations and cost double
or more what a stock CJ does. 553MW is the second of our fully overhauled
airframe with all new everything, stainless steel firewall, etc. These are
not ordinary CJ's... ;)
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277209#277209
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 02:44:37 PM PST US
From: "Gill Gutierrez" <gill.g@gpimail.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 08:27:00 PM PST US
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [Norton Antis am] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really looks
like....
Thanks Gill. For me the 50 has way to high of a mean average of CO in the
cockpit. It was just simpler to add the closed fresh air system than it was
to go through all the seals gyrations. With the tail dragger there is a
whole new dynamic for exhaust gases rolling under the aircraft especially
with the tail wheel not having a boot around it. The negative pressure
created by prop wash flowing over the canopy just seems to suck that crap
right up into the empennage like a vacuum cleaner.
Fly safe.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
As you correctly imply, exposure is individual specific. Age, health,
exposure frequency, levels, other factors and maybe even the gene pool play
into our individual responses. I agree, it's smart to take precautions.
Thanks for your kind response.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Gill,
For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short term
exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage from
the textbook concerning CO exposure concerning workers. The military's'
standard does not significantly differ from what is here stated. The
following is from Occupational Medicine 3rd edition, Carl Zenz, pp. 445:
PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) is as follows:
Employees are to be protected against acute carbon monoxide poisoning and
deleterious myocardial alterations associated with levels of
carboxyhemoglobin in excess of 5%. They are also to be provided protection
from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low levels
of carbon monoxide.
The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
workers who are performing a normal 8-hour, 40 hour week assignment. It was
not designed for the population at large, and any extrapolation beyond the
general worker population is unwarranted. Because of the well-defined
smoking and a common exposure to carbon monoxide and inhaled smoke, the
recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to those
workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise, under the conditions
of reduced ambient oxygen concentration, such as would be encountered by
workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level), the
permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood. In addition, workers with physical impairments will not be provide
the same degree of protection as the general worker population. It is
anticipated that the criteria and standard recommendation in the document
will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
CONCENTRATION
Occupational exposure to carbon monoxide shall be controlled so that no
worker shall be exposed to a concentration greater that 35 ppm, as
determined by a time-weighted reading, hopcalite-type carbon monoxide meter,
calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide, or by a gas
detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations,
Part 34.
No level of carbon monoxide to which workers are exposed shall exceed a
ceiling concentration of 200 ppms.
These are the same standards that are applied the occupational medicine
sections of the Aerospace Medicine departments in both of my Wings.
Now saying all of this, none of it applies to what we are doing in the CJ or
YAK communities because these are hobbies for most part not an occupation.
The fact is there is a risk that exists in the community. How that
information is used individually is up to each of us in our own aircraft.
Me personally, I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying with
personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up to
TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do not
use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date, I am still
passing my Flying Class II AF and FAA physicals along getting a good bill
of health from my internist. I have not done an arterial blood gas on myself
after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not plan
on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suckers
hurt! An arterial blood gas is the only way to determine %
carboxyhemoglobin.
Do with this information as you please. This is a hobby. It will only become
a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are going
to have higher emissions than others. You have to determine your own
personal safety/comfort level. I am not comfortable with the levels that I
am exposed to when I fly so I try to mitigate that exposure by wearing an O2
mask with a fresh air source.
Doc Kemp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gill Gutierrez
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
Roger,
EPA's ambient standard for CO is 9 ppm for 8 hours and is based on an
increased health risk by 1 in a million. OSHA's standard is 50 ppm for an 8
hour exposure. NIOSH has a lower standard of 35 ppm. FAA says 50 ppm. The
Navy allows less than 10 ppm in pilots air supply to avoid psychosis.
Barry's video gives us an idea of air circulation in the cockpit but does
not tell us anything about concentrations of CO except that it will be lower
in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter the
cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits, your measurements seem to
support that CO is not a serious problem especially since no one flys CJ's
or Yaks more than 3 hours at any one time. Did I misunderstand?
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
William,
The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of CO
beginning 1/2 way down the canopy bow. It is 5 ppm at the canopy rail. It
goes up to between 10 ppm and 15 ppm 1/2 down the side of the fuselage. It
is roughly 20 ppm at the wing root. At the waist level with the engine
idling and canopy cracked to the first detint has on average 25 ppm that
spikes to 35 ppm with engine runup. Higher in the 50. You are literally
sitting in a CO bath. I have heard that high CO reading alarm on the Daeger
CO meter way to many times.
On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shield
like the 50 does. If so that usually reads 5 -6 ppm on the 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Halverson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
So tell me - if you have a fresh air vent at the top of the canopy, is that
air still not good?
Thanks!
William Halverson
YAK-55
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 09:58 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
looks like....
+
+Read the article in Red Stars latest edition, type set errors and all. The
+take home message is the same. That data was put to gather and verified
over
+multiple sorties along with over years of testing. You can do all the
+structural mods you want but you are not getting rid of the Carbon
Monoxide.
+Short of completely sealing the cockpit fore and aft with sealed bulkheads
+and canopy seals with fresh compressed air from a source that is not
sitting
+behind the engine sucking air from the leaks in the exhaust stacks, that is
+the only way to almost zero CO in the pit with you. The only way to
+guarantee that you have zero CO inspired (you breath in) is to use a closed
+fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested to
+ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply that
is
+not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
+
+Doc Kemp
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|