Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:11 AM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
2. 07:25 AM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (Sam Sax)
3. 07:48 AM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (Roger Kemp M.D.)
4. 08:52 AM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (cjpilot710@aol.com)
5. 08:52 AM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (cjpilot710@aol.com)
6. 10:52 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 (james shaner)
7. 02:55 PM - Re: Congratulations to Pappy (Yak Pilot)
8. 08:50 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 (Stephen Morrey)
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: Congratulations to Pappy |
Pappy will not be able to go into any bar in central Florida now without be
assailed young, hot 18 year chicks. =C2- Poor guy.
Congrats Jim!! ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cpayne" <cpayne@joimail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:24:51 PM GMT -06:00 Central America
Subject: Yak-List: Congratulations to Pappy
Pappy (Jim Goolsby) was awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award toda
y 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 li
ke that.
Just to let all you folks out there know, the FAA is always keeping tabs. T
oday'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 rati
ngs, etc. From first student pilot submission to his last B-24 type rating.
Craig Payne
===========
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
===========
MS -
===========
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: Congratulations to Pappy |
Congratulations, Pappy!!
You did it! ...and well deserve it!
Warmest regards to Dede and family,
Sam Sax
Miami
-----Original Message-----
>From: Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com>
>Sent: Dec 12, 2009 8:24 PM
>To: yak-list <yak-list@matronics.com>
>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 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: | Congratulations to Pappy |
Congratulations Pappy. A feat few of us mere mortals shall ever attain.
Kudos are richly deserved.
Roger =9CDoc=9D Kemp
YAK 50 78YK
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jblake207@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Congratulations to Pappy
Pappy will not be able to go into any bar in central Florida now without
be assailed young, hot 18 year chicks. Poor guy.
Congrats Jim!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cpayne" <cpayne@joimail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:24:51 PM GMT -06:00 Central America
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.
nbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: | Re: Congratulations to Pappy |
Thanks Sam!
Happy and joyous Hanukkah to you and your family.
Pappy
In a message dated 12/13/2009 10:26:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
cd001633@mindspring.com writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: Sam Sax <cd001633@mindspring.com>
Congratulations, Pappy!!
You did it! ...and well deserve it!
Warmest regards to Dede and family,
Sam Sax
Miami
-----Original Message-----
>From: Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com>
>Sent: Dec 12, 2009 8:24 PM
>To: yak-list <yak-list@matronics.com>
>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 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 |
Like my fellow recipients agreed, all those years, we were just lucky an
d
didn't get caught!! :-)
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 12/13/2009 10:48:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
viperdoc@mindspring.com writes:
Congratulations Pappy. A feat few of us mere mortals shall ever attain.
Kudos are richly deserved.
Roger =9CDoc=9D Kemp
YAK 50 78YK
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jblake207@comca
st.net
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Congratulations to Pappy
Pappy will not be able to go into any bar in central Florida now without
be assailed young, hot 18 year chicks. Poor guy.
Congrats Jim!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cpayne" <cpayne@joimail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:24:51 PM GMT -06:00 Central America
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 flyi
ng
for 50 years minimum, no accidents and never getting caught ...or somethi
ng
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.
nbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
========================
============
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List)
========================
============
========================
============
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: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 |
Can someeone tell me how to reply to messages I get a "pop 3" error messag
e when I try..
Also=2C how do I filter out the CJ posts on the Yak site? Is there a separ
ate Yak 52 site I do not know about?
Thanks=2C
Jim Shaner
> Date: Fri=2C 11 Dec 2009 23:59:40 -0800
> From: yak-list@matronics.com
> To: yak-list-digest@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&C
hapter 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=2C every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pavement I g
et it
>
> This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I trie
d 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 ste
er.
> At this point the pressure is correctly set.
>
> My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old=2C watery and probably l
ess than
> the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the same on
compression
> and extension=2C 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=2C is this normal? If
not=2C any
> advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing the str
ut 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=2C
> keith.mckinley@townisp.com writes:
>
> Keith=2C
>
> 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 i
n the
>
> strut will cause the piston to bottom out (extend) into the enter V colla
r
> 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=2C you shouldn't hear anything
> normally. You may hear it occasionally taxing over rough ground.
>
> Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>
>
> <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. Eve
n
> at slow speeds=2C every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pave
ment
> I get it
>
> This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I trie
d
> 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 ha
rd
> to steer. At this point the pressure is correctly set.
>
> My gut feeling is that the hyd fluid is both old=2C watery and probably l
ess
> than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the
> same on compression and extension=2C just like a normal shock absorber on
a car.
>
> Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the stu
t.
>
> So before I drain everything and try to service it=2C is this normal? If
> not=2C any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servic
ing 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=2C
> 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 t
o
> move "clunk" up and down. We have a US manufactured 4140 steel end lug wi
th
> new bearing in stock to solve this problem.
>
> I doubt your problem has anything to do with OVER extension of the oleo/f
ork
> in the nose gear. It might clunk if it were grossly UNDER pressured=2C bu
t
> not OVER pressured.
>
> Always yakin=2C
> Doug
>
> On Fri=2C Dec 11=2C 2009 at 7:08 AM=2C 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. E
ven
> > at slow speeds=2C every time I hit even a small crack or bump in the pa
vement
> > I get it
> >
> > This only happens on the upstroke or when the strut fully extends. I tr
ied
> > reducing the air pressure in the strut thinking it might be over servic
ed
> > 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=2C watery and probably
less
> > than the required quantity. I believe the strut should work almost the
same
> > on compression and extension=2C just like a normal shock absorber on a
car.
> > Certainly the clunk I hear when it over extends can't be good for the s
tut.
> >
> > So before I drain everything and try to service it=2C is this normal? I
f not=2C
> > any advice you guys may have for fixing this problem and/or servicing t
he
> > 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=2C
> but in the mean time=2C we're here=2C the band is playing=2C 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 l
ooks
> like....
>
>
> Gill=2C
> For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short te
rm
> exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage fro
m
> 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=2C Carl Zenz=2C pp. 4
45:
> PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
> A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupation
al
> 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 protectio
n
> from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low lev
els
> of carbon monoxide.
> The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
> workers who are performing a normal 8-hour=2C 40 hour week assignment. It
was
> not designed for the population at large=2C 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=2C the
> recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to tho
se
> workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise=2C under the condi
tions
> of reduced ambient oxygen concentration=2C such as would be encountered b
y
> workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level)
=2C the
> permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
> appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of t
he
> blood. In addition=2C workers with physical impairments will not be provi
de
> 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=2C as
> determined by a time-weighted reading=2C hopcalite-type carbon monoxide m
eter=2C
> calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide=2C or by a g
as
> detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations
=2C
> 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=2C 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=2C I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying w
ith
> personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up t
o
> TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do no
t
> use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date=2C 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 mys
elf
> after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pl
an
> on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suck
ers
> 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 bec
ome
> a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are goin
g
> 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=2C December 09=2C 2009 4:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> 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 lo
wer
> in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter th
e
> cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits=2C 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=2C December 08=2C 2009 7:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> William=2C
> The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of C
O
> 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. I
t
> 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 Daeg
er
> CO meter way to many times.
> On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shi
eld
> 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 Halvers
on
> Sent: Tuesday=2C December 08=2C 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=2C is
that
> air still not good?
>
> Thanks!
>
> William Halverson
> YAK-55
>
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
> +Sent: Tuesday=2C December 8=2C 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=2C 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 bulkhea
ds
> +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=2C th
at 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 clo
sed
> +fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested t
o
> +ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply tha
t
> 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 l
ooks
> like....
>
>
> The following is provided to demo that even our wonderful government does
n'
> t have a standard:
>
>
> American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
>
> TLV (Threshold Limit Value)=2C 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=2C December 11=2C 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Cent
ral
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
=C2
> - =C2- =C2-looks like....
>
>
>
> Gill=2C
> For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short te
rm
>
> exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage fro
m
>
> 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=2C Carl Zenz=2C pp. 4
45:
> PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
> A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupation
al
>
> 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 protectio
n
>
> from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low lev
el
> s
> of carbon monoxide.
> The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
> workers who are performing a normal 8-hour=2C 40 hour week assignment. It
was
>
> not designed for the population at large=2C 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=2C the
> recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to tho
se
>
> workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise=2C under the condi
tion
> s
> of reduced ambient oxygen concentration=2C such as would be encountered b
y
> workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level)
=2C th
> e
> permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
>
> appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of t
he
>
> blood. In addition=2C workers with physical impairments will not be provi
de
>
> 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=2C as
> determined by a time-weighted reading=2C hopcalite-type carbon monoxide m
eter
> =2C
> calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide=2C or by a g
as
>
> detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations
=2C
> 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=2C 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=2C I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying w
ith
>
> personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up t
o
>
> TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do no
t
>
> use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date=2C 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 mys
el
> f
> after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pl
an
>
> on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suck
er
> 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 bec
om
> e
> a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are goin
g
>
> 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=2C December 09=2C 2009 4:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> 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 lo
we
> r
> in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter th
e
>
> cockpit. =C2-Based on the fore mentioned limits=2C your measurements se
em 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=2C December 08=2C 2009 7:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
>
> William=2C
> The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of C
O
>
> 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. I
t
>
> 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 Daeg
er
>
> CO meter way to many times.
> On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shi
el
> 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 Halvers
on
>
> Sent: Tuesday=2C December 08=2C 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=2C is
that
>
> air still not good?
>
> Thanks!
>
> William Halverson
> YAK-55
>
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
> +Sent: Tuesday=2C December 8=2C 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=2C 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 bulkhea
ds
>
> +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=2C th
at 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 clo
se
> d
> +fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested t
o
>
> +ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply tha
t
>
> is
> +not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
> +
> +Doc Kemp
>
>
> ===========
>
> =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle=2C List Admin.
> ===========
> ===========
> MS -
> ===========
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7 ______________________________
_______
>
>
> Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really l
ooks
> 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=2C it don't get no better than th
a
> t in my opinion. Zero CO in the mask. Nobody is ever going to solve seali
> ng the cockpit from CO=2C 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=2C energy and money trying to solve a pro
bl
> em than cannot be solved with those means=2C or maybe thats exactly the p
rob
> lem=2C people just have to solve it no matter what it takes. I was taught
> the KISS principle. Keep It Simple=2C Stupid. Half a day of work=2C about
> 100 bucks and the CO problem in my AC is solved forever. Like I said=2C K
I
> SS. Good luck with all the mods!
> TGB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET
> Sent: Fri=2C Dec 11=2C 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 does
n
> 't have a standard:
>
> American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH)
> TLV (Threshold Limit Value)=2C 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=2C December 11=2C 2009 10:28:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Cent
ral
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
> >
>
> Gill=2C
> For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short te
r
> m
> exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage fro
m
> 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=2C Carl Zenz=2C pp. 4
45:
> PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
> A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupation
a
> 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 protectio
n
> from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low lev
e
> ls
> of carbon monoxide.
> The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
> workers who are performing a normal 8-hour=2C 40 hour week assignment. It
wa
> s
> not designed for the population at large=2C 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=2C the
> recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to tho
s
> e
> workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise=2C under the condi
tio
> ns
> of reduced ambient oxygen concentration=2C such as would be encountered b
y
> workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level)
=2C
> the
> permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
> appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of t
h
> e
> blood. In addition=2C workers with physical impairments will not be provi
de
> 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=2C as
> determined by a time-weighted reading=2C hopcalite-type carbon monoxide m
ete
> r=2C
> calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide=2C or by a g
as
> detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations
=2C
> 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=2C 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=2C I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying w
ith
> personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up t
o
> TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do no
t
> use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date=2C 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 mys
e
> lf
> after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pl
a
> n
> on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suck
e
> 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 bec
o
> me
> a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are goin
g
> 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=2C December 09=2C 2009 4:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> 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 lo
w
> er
> in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter th
e
> cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits=2C 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=2C December 08=2C 2009 7:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
> >
>
> William=2C
> The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of C
O
> 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. I
t
> 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 Daeg
e
> 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 shi
e
> 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 Halvers
o
> n
> Sent: Tuesday=2C December 08=2C 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=2C 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=2C December 8=2C 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=2C 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 bulkhea
d
> 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=2C th
at
> 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 clo
s
> ed
> +fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested t
o
> +ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply tha
t
> 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=2C
>
> For those of you interested in what deep restorations of CJ's look like
=2C we are
> running blogs on our current projects. Each aircraft is different=2C uniq
ue=2C 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=2C Inc.
> (909) 606-4444 office
> (949) 300-5510 cell
> www.worldwidewarbirds.com
> "Making your warbird dreams a reality!"
>
>
> Express Mailing address:
> 7000 Merrill Ave=2C B-110=2C Unit J
> Chino=2C CA 91710
>
> Regular Mailing address:
> 7000 Merrill Ave.=2C Box 91
> Chino=2C 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=2C you are hereby notified that any review
=2C
> use=2C dissemination=2C forwarding or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.
> Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or telephone=2C and delete t
he
> 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=2C
>
> 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=2C Keith. Keep in mind that these are show quality restorations an
d cost double
> or more what a stock CJ does. 553MW is the second of our fully overhauled
> airframe with all new everything=2C stainless steel firewall=2C etc. Thes
e are
> not ordinary CJ's... =3B)
>
> Barry
>
> --------
> Barry Hancock
> Worldwide Warbirds=2C 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 l
ooks
> like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> As you correctly imply=2C exposure is individual specific. Age=2C health
=2C
> exposure frequency=2C levels=2C other factors and maybe even the gene poo
l play
> into our individual responses. I agree=2C 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=2C December 11=2C 2009 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Gill=2C
> For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short te
rm
> exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage fro
m
> 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=2C Carl Zenz=2C pp. 4
45:
> PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
> A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupation
al
> 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 protectio
n
> from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low lev
els
> of carbon monoxide.
> The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
> workers who are performing a normal 8-hour=2C 40 hour week assignment. It
was
> not designed for the population at large=2C 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=2C the
> recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to tho
se
> workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise=2C under the condi
tions
> of reduced ambient oxygen concentration=2C such as would be encountered b
y
> workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level)
=2C the
> permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
> appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of t
he
> blood. In addition=2C workers with physical impairments will not be provi
de
> 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=2C as
> determined by a time-weighted reading=2C hopcalite-type carbon monoxide m
eter=2C
> calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide=2C or by a g
as
> detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations
=2C
> 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=2C 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=2C I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying w
ith
> personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up t
o
> TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do no
t
> use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date=2C 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 mys
elf
> after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pl
an
> on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suck
ers
> 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 bec
ome
> a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are goin
g
> 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=2C December 09=2C 2009 4:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> 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 lo
wer
> in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter th
e
> cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits=2C 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=2C December 08=2C 2009 7:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> William=2C
> The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of C
O
> 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. I
t
> 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 Daeg
er
> CO meter way to many times.
> On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shi
eld
> 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 Halvers
on
> Sent: Tuesday=2C December 08=2C 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=2C is
that
> air still not good?
>
> Thanks!
>
> William Halverson
> YAK-55
>
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
> +Sent: Tuesday=2C December 8=2C 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=2C 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 bulkhea
ds
> +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=2C th
at 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 clo
sed
> +fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested t
o
> +ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply tha
t
> 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 l
ooks
> 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 w
as
> 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=2C December 11=2C 2009 4:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> As you correctly imply=2C exposure is individual specific. Age=2C health
=2C
> exposure frequency=2C levels=2C other factors and maybe even the gene poo
l play
> into our individual responses. I agree=2C 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=2C December 11=2C 2009 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Gill=2C
> For a your healthy 20-30 year old CO exposure at these levels of short te
rm
> exposure are not real health problems. I will give the direct passage fro
m
> 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=2C Carl Zenz=2C pp. 4
45:
> PERMISSIBLE THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
> A summary of the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupation
al
> 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 protectio
n
> from adverse behavioral manifestations resulting from exposure to low lev
els
> of carbon monoxide.
> The recommended standard is designed to protect the safety and health of
> workers who are performing a normal 8-hour=2C 40 hour week assignment. It
was
> not designed for the population at large=2C 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=2C the
> recommended standard may not provide the same degree of protection to tho
se
> workers who smoke as it will to none-smokers. Likewise=2C under the condi
tions
> of reduced ambient oxygen concentration=2C such as would be encountered b
y
> workers at very high altitudes (e.g. 5000 to 8000 feet above sea level)
=2C the
> permissible exposure stated in the recommended standard should be lowered
> appropriately to compensate for loss in the oxygen-carrying capacity of t
he
> blood. In addition=2C workers with physical impairments will not be provi
de
> 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=2C as
> determined by a time-weighted reading=2C hopcalite-type carbon monoxide m
eter=2C
> calibrated against a known concentrations of carbon monoxide=2C or by a g
as
> detector tube units certified under Title 42 of the Code of Regulations
=2C
> 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=2C 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=2C I know how I as an old fart feel after a day of flying w
ith
> personal exposure in my aircraft up to 50 to 100 ppm with engine run-up t
o
> TO and savaging for shut down. I personally am more fatigued when I do no
t
> use a fresh air source and a mask than when I do. To date=2C 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 mys
elf
> after a sortie to see what my % carboxyhemoglobin levels are. I do not pl
an
> on doing that either unless there is a problem. I can tell you those suck
ers
> 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 bec
ome
> a problem when there is an accident related to CO. Some aircraft are goin
g
> 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=2C December 09=2C 2009 4:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> Roger=2C
>
> 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 lo
wer
> in the cockpit as compared to the exhaust stack and that it does enter th
e
> cockpit. Based on the fore mentioned limits=2C 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=2C December 08=2C 2009 7:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Yak-List: Ever wonder what it really
> looks like....
>
>
> William=2C
> The very top of the canopy bow is free of CO. There is about 3-4 ppm of C
O
> 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. I
t
> 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 Daeg
er
> CO meter way to many times.
> On the 555 I do not know if you have a vent right on top of the glare shi
eld
> 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 Halvers
on
> Sent: Tuesday=2C December 08=2C 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=2C is
that
> air still not good?
>
> Thanks!
>
> William Halverson
> YAK-55
>
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
> +Sent: Tuesday=2C December 8=2C 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=2C 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 bulkhea
ds
> +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=2C th
at 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 clo
sed
> +fresh air system. That being an aviators mask that has been fit tested t
o
> +ensure a good seal and a sealed regulator getting a fresh air supply tha
t
> is
> +not communicating with the cockpit ambient air.
> +
> +Doc Kemp
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
>
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: Congratulations to Pappy |
Congrats Pappy, a feat I will never attain!-
-
Mark
--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com> wrote:
From: Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Congratulations to Pappy
Pappy (Jim Goolsby) was awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award toda
y 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 li
ke that.
Just to let all you folks out there know, the FAA is always keeping tabs. T
oday'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 rati
ngs, etc. From first student pilot submission to his last B-24 type rating.
Craig Payne
le, List Admin.
Message 8
| 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: RE: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/11/09 |
I remmber seeing an M14P common torque value chart, specifically I am
looking for the valve adjustment nut torque. Does anyone know the proper
torque? Does anyonehave a torque value chart for the yak52 and m14p tks
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM, james shaner <jimshaner@msn.com> wrote:
> Can someeone tell me how to reply to messages I get a "pop 3" error
> message when I try..
>
> Also, how do I filter out the CJ posts on the Yak site? Is there a
> separate Yak 52 site I do not know about?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Shaner
> > Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:59:40 -0800
> > From: yak-list@matronics.com
> > To: yak-list-digest@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
> >
> >
> > <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 <http://553mw.blogspot.com/>
> > 8120C.blogspot.com <http://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
> >
> >
> >
> > Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> >=================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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! --
|