A prominent proponent of angle of attack (AoA) indicators is applauding the FAA for recommending they be installed in all airplanes. The agency published a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) recommending AOA systems be installed as standard equipment in new airplanes and retrofitted in the existing fleet. The full document is reprinted below. "Outstanding step forward by the FAA, recognizing the importance of AoA systems in keeping the pilot better informed on where the wing is operating relative to the stall," said Paul Dye, a serial homebuilder and former NASA Flight Director who has been promoting the tech for years. "Increasing the use of AoA systems - and training pilots to use them – will never prevent all accidents. But it is a definite step in the direction of reducing the number of loss of control mishaps.
The AOA indicator can improve safety if it’s properly integrated, pilots are well-trained, and the display is standardized. Without these, it can become a distraction, adding stress and causing mistakes. Standardization across manufacturers is key to keeping it simple and effective.
Technology only works if you know how to use it and use it properly. To much technology can be more of a distraction than a help. We’re still piling planes into the ground with annoying stall warning horns. I am convinced at this point in GA history training is the best bang for the buck regarding safety.
A whole lot of pilots would ignore it much like they ignore “airspeed indicators”, “slip skid balls” and instructors who tell them over and over to NOT ignore those things. So it may be a marginal savings at best.
Another and simple way of understanding stalls and stalling is to actually teach them, fly all the way into them, let it fully stall and then calmly recover from one, find out you can actually do them without crashing. Different higher tech airplanes have different stalling characteristics. So be shown by someone totally familiar with that aircraft. But before I gave it all up, I had a young flight instructor with me. I slipped on final, I stalled in flight. The kid thought he was going to die in each instance. Or maybe it was just because he was flying with me…hmmm.
The premise is faulty logic because:
If you are even halfway aware then you already don’t stall/spin into the planet.
If you are unaware then adding another instrument to be unaware of is silly.
Since so many accidents occur when the pilot panics and starts pulling back on the yoke; I don’t think that adding more unused information increases safety.
There is already a requirement for a stall warning device in all aircraft so I really don’t understand what this discussion is about. A stall warning device is an angle of attack indicator. In most of the aircraft I have flown they had a visual reference gage that I really never look at, but I knew the stall warning computer was using it to run a stick shaker or warning horn. The 737 Max had a single angle of attack indicator on it But it crashed due to the angle of attack indicator, not working properly with the computer.
I agree. Teaching full stalls, incipient stalls and spins, plus recoveries is primary to understanding how a wing develops and loses it’s lift. Teaching approach to stalls is of marginal benefit except to familiarize someone with the sluggish control feel and abnormally nose high attitude. If AOA is taught ab initio then a student will refer to this instrument instinctively throughout their flying careers. BTW, why is there always a little bit of string on the nose of gliders?
Accident mitigation is really a systems engineering problem, including operating environment, sensor capabilities, maneuver considerations, human factors in display, pilot skills, and so much more. To ignore this complexity and grab onto an overly simplistic “solution” – requiring AOA displays – is, sadly, nothing more than virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is when a complex situation is reduced ad absurdum to something that sounds good, feels good, is catchy, and will impress the unknowledgeable.
Research of literally thousands of NTSB reports shows that base to final loss of control accidents are as likely as not to be botched steep turns, similar to botched 360° turns at altitude. These low angle of attack, ball-centered loss of control events will not trigger AOA sensors.
There are also numerous stories at flight instructor conferences on the current low quality of pilot and CFI applicants. Giving marginally qualified applicants one more gadget to ignore in extremis is unlikely to solve problems. (First draft had an editing error, sorry)
The opportunities for safety improvement are real and should be pursued. Advocating AOA devices, is however, virtue signaling rather than addressing the real underlying problems.
Yes, let’s add another expensive device to all aircraft. If pilots can’t keep their planes trimmed to a safe airspeed, maybe they can learn how to use an AoA gauge. Apparently, a lot of them can’t read fuel gauges or weather reports. It’ll be great.
My Maule has a kind of AOA in the form of a leading edge tab that operates a microswitch that turns a light on the panel about 5 mph before a stall. The difference is that it’s an on-off sensor with no in-betweens. Most AOA devices use a similar mechanical vane operated by air pressure from the relative wind but they control a variable resistor (or similar device) that shows the angle of the wing over a range in different colors. They have to be calibrated properly to be accurate and they can drift out of calibration over time. I think an AOA indicator is good for inexperienced pilots or those who aren’t familiar with the stall characteristics of a new (to them) airplane. I’ve owned and flown my Maule for 26 years and over 1,800 hours and have done a lot of actual stall training so I know what an imminent stall or real stall feels like and how to recover based on the feel of the controls. Adding a AOA indicator in my Maule wouldn’t make sense and would cost about $5,000. It might also give me a false indication if there was any ice buildup on the wing or wind vane. I agree that the manufacturer’s airspeed table isn’t the best way to detect the proximity of a stall. Modifications like my vortex generators alter the airplane’s stall characteristics. It’s better to practice stalls in the full range of flap, CG and bank configurations and create a calibration card for your specific airplane. That’s what McCall Mountain Canyon Flying Seminars had me do in my airplane when I did refresher training with them in 2016.
You nailed it Andrew. So easy for the government and those who spent their life in it to just say “throw money at the problem”. It would be a complete waste of money for you to have to add this system to your plane. Once size fits all is not the answer, plus I get tired of people telling me how to spend my money. Been flying 49 years in everything from helicopters to triple 7’s and have not seen the need for this. Fly the plane, keep SA, and always leave a way out.
Hmmm. I honestly doubt that installing an AOA system is the solution for sloppy flying and ignorance of training. The basics, power, pitch and airspeed seem to have been forgotten. Basic stall warning systems seem to get ignored. How the plane “feels” seems now forgotten as well. I think the cost of this enhancement is not worth the minimal effect, in my opinion, it will have on preventing accidents. I’ve seen AOA indications ignored in the cockpit too. I agree that the conditions that AOA is useful is only in clean wing conditions. Calibrating AOA to each aircraft is also an important factor.
If anybody actually read the document they might notice it is targeting transport category aircraft. Typically these are much more sophisticated airplanes that require type ratings and structured training. There were so many things wrong in that Colgan air accident and what we ended up with was a1500hr requirement before you were permitted to expose your passengers to a stall LOC accident.
, I wonder what that looks like?