Yes they did, and they discovered that the dots work pretty well. They
recommended an electronic one as top of the line, but said that if you
keep fresh dots in the plane, it is not a bad solution, IIRC. I'm
puzzled by the thinking that an electronic device will always work as
expected. The dots are so simple they are probably more reliable,
although not as effective. You should definately have something in the
plane for CO detection.

Bruce Cunningham



john smith wrote:
Why battery over the "dots"? Allegedly the dots wear out over time (OK - so
do batteries), but more because I value my life. Plus, being an engineer,
it's fun to play around with it. In the winter with all the vents closed up,
it's amazing to see how much CO comes in from the tailcone area. Just
cracking a vent or cabin air or heat just a bit to produce positive pressure
almost instantly removes the issue.

The dots will give a false CO reading when exposed to autogas fumes,
also. AVIATION CONSUMER did a report on the CO dot detectors back in the
80's or 90's.