FAA/AOPA Committee Pushes AOA

I think every RV should be equipped with AOA, it's a great tool; even the FAA is getting onboard now as they recognize the benefits of this simple device!

From Avweb:

A report on approach and landing loss-of-control accidents has emerged from a work group co-chaired by the FAA and AOPA, recommending that GA "embrace to the fullest extent" angle-of-attack (AOA) systems and work to improve pilot decision making. The work group advises the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee. Its focus was derived from an FAA overview that found loss of control accounted for 40.2 percent of fatal general aviation accidents that took place from 2001 to 2010. Particular areas of concern included flying after a period of inactivity and transition training, as well as pilot decision-making.

Pilot decision-making remains a focus of safety concerns in general, as 85 percent of fatal accidents can be traced to pilot actions, according to AOPA. The report notes that controlled flight into terrain accidents have decreased and it attributes that improvement to new in-cockpit technology like terrain-aware GPS units. AOA systems, says the report, offer pilots awareness of their margin over stall and account for weight and acceleration differences, by design. The report notes that AOA systems offer substantial safety benefits but notes that cost and regulations may produce barriers for the pilots of light aircraft. The FAA "will need to identify the right level of certification," it says. It notes that the FAA should address these issues "with streamlined processes" for certifying and installing new technology that offers "a high probability of safety benefits" balanced against "low safety risk.

I've been flying with an AFS Pro AoA unit in the Valkyrie for six months now, and am coming to believe that we can solve a lot of the LOC accidents (in the pattern) with more emphasis on AoA. In fact, we'll have an article in a near/future issue of Kitplanes on this. I am one of those who (as a Flight Test Aero Engineer) totally understands the use and concepts of AoA (and have flown machines that you can ONLY fly by AoA) - but never included it in my own planes because I learned to fly by feel, learned to fly THEM by feel, and just couldn't get myself to refer to an AoA that wasn't "in my face". I have flown with the indication on the EFIS, but that simply wasn't in the right place.

I have learned, flying with the unit in the -8, that there are a lot of circumstances (high, hot, heavy) when my sense can lie, and I am closer to the edge than I thought I was. I don't expect experienced folks to believe me - you'll need your own conversion event to learn it. But give it a chance - you might be surprised. And this comes from a guy with experience ranging from Cubs to the Hypersonic Glider.

We all learned to fly in airplanes with stall characteristics that meet certification requirements - benign, lots of warning, balanced. Experimental airplanes can be very different - there are no requirements for good warning or benign breaks. I have experienced some amazing aerobatics in some aircraft following the stall. This is why it is important to us - these are not Cessnas and Pipers. RV's are pretty good, very honest...but the warning is not that of a Cherokee.

Even experienced guys can learn to adapt - just ask Jerry VanGrunsven, the man who convinced me to install one.

Yep, I have a friend who flew A-6's on and off carriers, then flew for Delta in MD 80's for years.

Guess what. He bought a two-place Pitts, got a bunch of dual....aaaand installed a vane-type AoA on the wing strut, went out and calibrated it and makes consistent approaches and landings.

Best,

I agree, so glad Garmin decided to add AOA to their system. Now I don't have to waste time developing my own any further!

Who's going to be the first to test whether or not the dynon heated pitot/AOA is compatible with the new G3X?

Walt said:

From Avweb:

It notes that the FAA should address these issues "with streamlined processes" for certifying and installing new technology that offers "a high probability of safety benefits" balanced against "low safety risk.

Click to expand...

It would be great if the FAA could find the right level of certification and streamline the process so an AOA device could be added to a certified airplane without anything more than an A&P entry in the airframe logbook. I suspect though that more will be required since my understanding is these units need to be calibrated after they're installed, if they are to yield meaningful data.

I've been thinking about adding the AOA to by Dynon D100...and while that may not put it on the glare shield, it would still be a handy reference. This post just might have pushed me over the edge...if not, it has moved me a lot closer to pulling the trigger.

I have an AoA indicator in my -6A, and I'd give up a lot of other things in the cockpit to keep it. I really like it during acro - having an idea of how much more I can pull without an accelerated stall is great. I favor it over the airspeed indicator when coming down on final. That said...

Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that mandating yet-another-thing will automatically make pilots safer. Pilots who ignore the airspeed indicator and stall warning devices won't pay any closer attention to an AoA indicator. I think we (homebuilders in general and RVators in particular) will pay more attention to AoA devices because it's in our nature. I don't think the same is true of the GA pilot population at large.

Though I've never flown behind an AOA, I'm convinced that it is a superior indicator of impending stall. I think it will be a fine addition to any cockpit and will no doubt save some lives.

That said, is recognizing the stall really the problem?

...Or is the alarming and increasing ineptness of pilots to manage the "post stall" event?

After all, an indicator will NEVER "prevent" an aerodynamic stall as long there's a pilot in the loop to misinterpret or completely ignore the indication. And a "stall" has never killed anyone anyway - it's the impact that kills.

So yes, I'm on my "more training" soapbox again, and I worry that this push for AOA, while rooted in good intentions, will further ignore flight training and "dumb down" the pilot population just as Cessnas and Pipers with nosewheels have. I hope I'm wrong, and this new push will also include an emphasis on the science of flight.

Best use for an AOA in small aircraft

AOA's in small, light aircraft should be used primarily as training devices to teach how to feel when the aircraft is nearing a stall.

The best thing is, by using an AOA I don't need an instructor, I can train myself!

This is assuming I already know how to recover from practice stalls of all types, which I should have learned in order to get my license.

So here's how I would use an AOA in my light airplane- I would go out and - at a safe altitude - really get to know it - getting near the stall, or even sometimes stalling - departure, landing, flaps, accelerated or not, and looking at the indicator, getting a feel for the aircraft - feel of the controls, the bite of the wing, your butt in the seat, the sound of the air over the wing and fuselage - comparing all this to the indications of the AOA display. I would pull it up to the first indications of a stall, of all types and configurations, and back it off, and watch the AOA as I did this.

I would practice this for several hours over several flights and see if after a while I could start to tell without looking exactly what the indication is on the AOA. BTW, I would bring a safety pilot for a couple of reasons - one, to help keep an eye out for traffic, as my focus would obviously be inside the cockpit quite a bit - but also to have the plane loaded as I might normally.

After becoming comfortable with practice at altitude, I would go back to the airport and do some short field approaches and landings, again with a safety pilot to help keep an eye out for traffic. I would practice normal approaches too, and see how the feel of each compares to my AOA indications.

After several hours, and several sessions of this kind of practice, I am pretty sure I could tell by feel exactly what the indication of the AOA was, without looking at it. My confidence would be higher, and most importantly, I would not need an airspeed indicator, or AOA, to know when I am nearing an unsafe flight regime. I would know the flight characteristics of my airplane better. My eyes would be outside of the cockpit more in the busy traffic pattern, and I would be an all around better and safer pilot.

Perhaps, indeed there are times when my feel would lie to me, and perhaps it may save my life in those instances, but in my experience you are a better pilot if you do have the feel, and most pilots don't bother to develop that, they rely on instruments far too much of the time. If the emphasis from the powers that be was more on using these as training devices, I would be much happier.

Since my passengers are sometimes people that are very precious to me, I just want to be the best and safest pilot I can be. That's how I roll!

To borrow a phrase from Stein (it's okay I am a customer) "just my 2 cents"

Ironflight said:

I've been flying with an AFS Pro AoA unit in the Valkyrie for six months now, and am coming to believe that we can solve a lot of the LOC accidents (in the pattern) with more emphasis on AoA. In fact, we'll have an article in a near/future issue of Kitplanes on this.

Even experienced guys can learn to adapt - just ask Jerry VanGrunsven, the man who convinced me to install one.

Click to expand...

Paul, Maybe you can talk Jim Weir into making a pressure differential box/switch that we can copy.

BTW.... Jerry VanGrunsven was test flying the AoA in Old Blue back in 1999. So he is a long time believer in AoA.

He once said that there is at least 80 ways to stall an aircraft.

AOA display

I agree with those that think the AOA instrument is very useful, however, like others have said, I'd love for it to be on the glare shield instead of in the panel. I'm flying behind the legacy Dynon's and I believe there's a thread somewhere where Brian or someone made a device to do just that. This thread just got me thinking about it again. Guess I'll go see if I can find it.

Synthetic AoA

Paul,

Did I read somewhere that you were testing a synthetic AoA that didn't require the pressure ports to give a pretty good indicator of actual AoA? Perhaps I was dreaming, but if this was something real, it could be a great addition to GA aircraft without the plumbing requirement.

Regards, Mickey

Ironflight said:

And this comes from a guy with experience ranging from Cubs to the Hypersonic Glider.

Click to expand...

I always chuckle when I see how unassuming and down-to-earth Paul is about his former day job, but his modesty has never induced me to under-appreciate his valuable insights. ("Hypersonic Glider"! I can imaging a day coming down the road when some young buck won't know what he's alluding to here!)

Don said:

This post just might have pushed me over the edge...if not, it has moved me a lot closer to pulling the trigger.

Click to expand...

Ditto. Some earlier post within the last few years on this same topic sold me thoroughly. As a long-time but still low-time pilot, I'm convinced AOA is the single best insurance I can buy to help me fly my creation safely. In fact, my AOA system is literally the first piece of panel kit I ever bought!

--
Stephen

I am not looking at my instruments for the majority of of the traffic pattern. I would find an audio-only AOA to be as valuable as an audio-visual AOA and more valuable then a display-only AOA.

My .02

I'm with Glen here, and I know this is going to be controversial, especially with the likes of Paul having a different opinion, which I respect and hold in the highest honor. That being said, the traffic pattern or final is nowhere to have our heads inside the cockpit, and there is already way too much of that going on. I'm sorry, but if we are operating these RV's that close to the edge, than something is wrong. This dependency on automation has empirically caused a documented deterioration of basic airmanship within the airline industry. Perhaps an audio warning system is appropriate for the times you might get distracted by an airplane on the runway, someone cutting in front of you, ATC instructions, or the myriad of other distractions that can happen in the traffic pattern. But to be chasing the AOA or airspeed, as happens when people begin to start relying on them as opposed to "attention grabbers" when needed is way over-kill for our aircraft in normal situations.
Now AOA useage while out doing aerobatics or for instructing what the airplane feels like and helping someone understand how far you can push the airplane, or in an emergency engine out situation, that's great, and I am in full support.
I promise I won't conintue with my opinion here, but wanted to get it out there.
Thanks for listening.

Vic

Ironflight said:

...I have experienced some amazing aerobatics in some aircraft following the stall. This is why it is important to us - these are not Cessnas and Pipers. RV's are pretty good, very honest...but the warning is not that of a Cherokee.

Click to expand...

Even a Cessna 150's stall is not like that of a Cherokee. That's how I saw my first spin as pilot in command. The instructors liked to fly the Cherokee which was air conditioned and I'd fly the 150 solo because it was cheaper. I was shown the accelerated stall in the Cherokee and tried to duplicate it later in the 150. As the stall horn started to chirp, I noticed that I was holding right aileron in a left turn (I later figured out this was because the instructor was not in the other seat) which meant it would break into the turn, not out of the turn as I was expecting. I decided to roll out and rethink things, but got sloppy with the rudder and the next thing I knew, I was in a power-on spin. I knew how to recover from flying RC models and I'd been through numerous spins with a friend in his J-3, so I got out of it pretty quickly, but it took about half an hour of flying around before I was calmed down enough to attempt a landing.

Audible

Glen,
The Dynon is audible, when properly hooked up, and there may be some settings that I haven't investigated yet, but right now mine alerts me on the last yellow bar, I think. She has a nice voice!!!!

I would still like to see it on the glareshield though for more precise alerts. I'm pretty sure there isn't any difference in the Dynon voice as you get closer to the actual stall.

I'll Volunteer

Dbro172 said:

Who's going to be the first to test whether or not the dynon heated pitot/AOA is compatible with the new G3X?

Click to expand...

I'll take that challenge. I just received my Dynon pitot tube today, and I'm planning on using the G3X. However, I'm just on my first wing right now, so it'll be a while.

AFS AOA Pro

...in my panel for the last nine years. Left side up top so I can keep its massive disply easily in my peripheral vision on the 180* decending turn to final. I have this routine of 1) eyeballs out 90% of the time with a 2) quick glance at the AOA (5%) and 3) quick glance at airspeed (5%). Rinse and repeat. Over time I developed a feel for the procedure and kinda know what the AOA is going to be showing (if the fuel state, baggage and DA aren't too out of whack). Move any/all of those variables up very far and the AOA will really surprise you with its reading.....like at the end of a return from OSH (low fuel, big bags, hot day).

If it broke today I'd order another one tomorrow.



Another, slightly larger image from a different angle:
http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/ConfiguringPanel-021[1].jpg

An older picture of my panel but the AOA is still in the same location, she also yells: "ANGLE ANGLE PUSH PUSH" in my ear when I get to slow.

vic syracuse said:

the traffic pattern or final is nowhere to have our heads inside the cockpit, and there is already way too much of that going on.
<snip>
But to be chasing the AOA or airspeed, as happens when people begin to start relying on them as opposed to "attention grabbers" when needed is way over-kill for our aircraft in normal situations.

Click to expand...

As a user of AOA for many RV years, I don't have any major disagreement with Vic's opinions. However, I don't think most pilots who use AOA are "chasing" AOA any more than airspeed. Chasing either is non-productive, unsafe, and unnecessary in order to yield great utility of either instrument.

Most accomplished pilots include airspeed in a comprehensive scan that takes in many parameters and assures a safe outcome of the landing. AOA can be used in the same manner.

The LRI indicator is in the center of the panel of my RV-6 (slightly dated photo but you get the idea...) and is large enough to easily monitor with peripheral vision. But even then, it is only checked at sporadic intervals, not continuously. A stabilized approach will not result in extreme excursions of airspeed or AOA. The LRI probe also feeds the Dynon AOA and it provides an audio warning.



I admit, I'm a dedicated believer in the utility of AOA in our planes. And it seems the powers that be are rapidly embracing its value. The nice thing about using AOA is how its utliltiy can be realized without making any large behavioral changes in how we conduct routine ops.

I was introduced to AOA systems back in the mid 70's when I started flying biz jets. Every corp. jet I flew during my career had an AOA system. I became a true believer over the years. When I decided to build the RV-10 there was never any question for me. I installed the AFS Pro. I installed it in the panel, but thought about having it up on the glareshield. I flew corp. aircraft with both configurations, and decided that the value was pretty much the same in either location. Comments from Glen and Vic about the value of the audio is spot on, IMHO.
I, like Paul, learned to fly by the "feel" of the airplane and still believe that is supremely important. But, like Paul, I also learned many years ago just how valuable AOA information can be to augment "feel".
I would not be without AOA if at all possible.

rv8ch said:

Paul, Did I read somewhere that you were testing a synthetic AoA that didn't require the pressure ports to give a pretty good indicator of actual AoA?

Click to expand...

After reading this question and the rest of this thread I correlated the discussion of another couple of threads describing the difference between AHRS instruments and velocity vector displays.

Mathematically, an approximation of AoA is possible by comparing the AHRS nose attitude and velocity vector flight attitude. The delta of these two angles has a strong correlation to the angle of attack.

rv8ch said:

Did I read somewhere that you were testing a synthetic AoA that didn't require the pressure ports to give a pretty good indicator of actual AoA? Perhaps I was dreaming, but if this was something real, it could be a great addition to GA aircraft without the plumbing requirement.

Click to expand...

Yes, Mickey, I have flown with the synthetic, computed AoA in the GRT system for several years, and it is useful under approach conditions - except that it is invisible down on the EFIS screen - that is simply not where I am looking on approach...which is where I am in total agreement with Vic (For whom I have the greatest respect) when he says:

vic syracuse said:

.... the traffic pattern or final is nowhere to have our heads inside the cockpit, and there is already way too much of that going on.
Vic

Click to expand...

This is one of the major reasons that I have not embraced it before - if it isn't in my line of site when I am flying the pattern, I don't want it. I rarely (if ever) look at the ASI in the VFR pattern for the same reason - it is too far down in the weeds.

I agree with those who like audio - I flew with the Skyview in the the RV-14, and it gives a really nice "ticking" sound as AoA increases - it gets more excited the closer you get to the stall. The AFS does tell you to "Push, Push!" when you get on the stall threshold, but the Dynon tells me - intuitively - how close I am - it is "analog", if you will, rather than "digital" (good, bad).

the glare-shield-mounted indicator in our -8 does not block vision, but is in the field of view on approach. The variable pitch or rate audio would be even better,and I would like to see all of the AoA providers implement it.

As a person who grew up in the middle of the country (flatland close to sea level), but is shifting his center of gravity westward, I have a new appreciation for how handling qualities change with density altitude and loading. Some experienced folks might be surprised to see where they are really flying relative to the stall if they give themselves a chance to fly AoA.

Re: audio indications...

IIRC, quite a few Piper retract pilots have landed gear up *despite* the audible warning system blaring away trying to tell them to lower the gear.

There are no silver bullets...

PaulR said:

I agree with those that think the AOA instrument is very useful, however, like others have said, I'd love for it to be on the glare shield instead of in the panel. I'm flying behind the legacy Dynon's and I believe there's a thread somewhere where Brian or someone made a device to do just that. This thread just got me thinking about it again. Guess I'll go see if I can find it.

Click to expand...

I'm a huge believer in AoA, and like most agree it should be in line of sight to be useful. I have a SkyView AoA system, what are my options for getting something that is glareshield mounted without droppping ANOTHER $800 for a second AoA system like AFS offers? I see this as a huge product "hole"...I would like a glare mounted AoA indicator that takes its reading from my SkyView. Any commercially available solutions out there? Exactly like what Brian did...

I was going to bring up the landing gear thing. As long as there have been retracts, there have been people trying to figure out ways to prevent gear up landings. Lights, horns, waving flags, and even Pipers infamous "automatic" deployment system - all to no real avail. Pilots continue to ignore these systems at an alarming rate, and the insurance rates reflect this fact. It seems that a belly landing in a light aircraft is not a matter of "if", but "when" it will happen.

Again, as long as a pilot has the "choice" to ignore lights, beeps or "angle, angle, push", he will.

I just hope he has the training and skill to deal with what comes next.

Flying Scotsman said:

Re: audio indications...

IIRC, quite a few Piper retract pilots have landed gear up *despite* the audible warning system blaring away trying to tell them to lower the gear.

There are no silver bullets...

Click to expand...

Correct - there are never any silver bullets ("Make something idiot proof, and nature will invent a better idiot....")

But in this discussion, it is a red herring. the truth is that if you are looking for SAFETY (whatever that is), you are best served by staying on the ground. If you are looking for a way to DECREASE RISK, then a good, usable AoA system is a measurable way to do that. It won't guarantee safety - it will add another line of defense against being trapped in an error chain.

Ironflight said:

... If you are looking for a way to DECREASE RISK, then a good, usable AoA system is a measurable way to do that. It won't guarantee safety - it will add another line of defense against being trapped in an error chain...

Click to expand...

As long as people remember that technology is a way to augment, not replace, basic airmanship, then I think we all agree. Very often it seems, this is not the case. Technology is adopted at the expense of a hard won skill.

Ironflight said:

Correct - there are never any silver bullets ("Make something idiot proof, and nature will invent a better idiot....")

But in this discussion, it is a read herring. the truth is that if you are looking for SAFETY (whatever that is), you are best served by staying on the ground. If you are looking for a way to DECREASE RISK, then a good, usable AoA system is a measurable way to do that. It won't guarantee safety - it will add another line of defense against being trapped in an error chain.

Click to expand...

Well put. As you say, there is no silver bullet that will save everyone. Tools are only useful if a person knows how and is willing to use them. So while it's true to point out that people still ignore gear-warning horns and such, I get the feeling it gets presented as nullifying the whole benefit of AoA, and I couldn't disagree more with that.

It kind of reminds me of discussions I have with my partner. She has a very strong opposition to advanced cockpit technology because she feels that GPSs and magenta lines and such lead to an overall decrease in pilot proficiency. She has a point, but where I think she goes wrong is that instead of seeing this as a human failure, she sees it as an inherent problem with the technology - that is, that it's nigh-inevitable that slapping a glass panel in your plane will cause you to forget how to read a sectional.

But that's not the fault of the technology; that's the fault of the pilot who becomes serenely dependent on all the advanced stuff and isn't prepared with a Plan B when the shiny stuff fails.

The same thing goes for AoA indicators and gear warning systems. They're tools intended to increase awareness. People can and will still ignore them at their own peril, but that's a condemnation of the operator, not a failure of the tool itself.

AoA Installs

Would be appreciated if pictures of AoA wing installations could be posted. I will be installing an AoA and would appreciate some visual help. Thanks very much.

Vane Stall Warner

Let's not forget the vane-type stall warner that Van's sells as an accessory. Perhaps they are including it in some of the kits now - I noticed that it's standard equipment on the RV-12 and I am installing one on my RV-3B.

You might sneer at it, but it reports angle of attack audibly when close to the stall. What it's not so good at is advising the most efficient angle of attack to fly when you're not near the stall. Still, it's a single-point AOA system for use when your head is out of the cockpit.

I think it's a valuable device to have and worth the effort. Plus I'm used to having it on my Cessna 180, where it's proved its worth. When I hear it, it definitely gets my attention.

Dave

N546RV said:

...The same thing goes for AoA indicators and gear warning systems. They're tools intended to increase awareness. People can and will still ignore them at their own peril, but that's a condemnation of the operator, not a failure of the tool itself...

Click to expand...

No argument from me! My comment (not argument) is that in addition to the natural tendency of the individual to allow skills to lapse in the face of new technology, there appears to be an "institutional" component to this behavior as well. Perhaps an example is the FAA's "institutional" encouragement of a long, stabilized, jet airliner style, power on approach for everything from Cessna 150's on up. Or perhaps the switch from "stall" training to "stall awareness" training. It is as if the institution has endorsed the belief that stalls are dangerous, so if we avoid stalls, we don’t need to worry about them. So now we have a whole generation of pilots that are afraid of stalls, and will never learn how to manage them due to lack of practice.

I think we as a group/industry need to pay more than lip service to the fact that technology is an "aid". There is little doubt that AoA, as an actual measurement, is much easier to understand than the derived value using IAS, DA and loading condition most of us grew up with. But placing that info in front of the pilot, no matter how obvious, still does not in any way affect the aerodynamics of the airplane.

As a side note related also to the recent threads on stalls and training - It strikes me as a little odd that we will argue until blue in the face about the value of "redundancy" - like triple redundant electrical systems for a primarily day/VFR airplane - yet many of the same people will eschew additional stick and rudder skills in difference to technology like AoA. If you want redundancy, stack the deck in your favor with as many tools as you can – skill and technology.

Toobuilder said:

No argument from me! My comment (not argument) is that in addition to the natural tendency of the individual to allow skills to lapse in the face of new technology, there appears to be an "institutional" component to this behavior as well. Perhaps an example is the FAA's "institutional" encouragement of a long, stabilized, jet airliner style, power on approach for everything from Cessna 150's on up. Or perhaps the switch from "stall" training to "stall awareness" training. It is as if the institution has endorsed the belief that stalls are dangerous, so if we avoid stalls, we don?t need to worry about them. So now we have a whole generation of pilots that are afraid of stalls, and will never learn how to manage them due to lack of practice.

Click to expand...

And neither can I argue with any of this.

I'm reminded of the state of driver education in the US. Back in the 90s when I was taking driver's ed, I remember the section in the book about skid control. It sounds so easy on paper...just steer into the skid! So simple!

Of course, what I found out once I got on the road and started driving like, well, a teenager, was that that is a horrendous oversimplification. Sure, it'll stop the skid, but it's also likely to send you skidding in the other direction. (there's a ditch in rural North Carolina that can attest to this particular learning experience)

The book knowledge isn't wrong, but it overlooks that subtlety and the feel required to know when to stop steering into the skid so you can drive away looking all rosy. Luckily, there were lots of dirt roads where I grew up, so I got to polish my skid control skills Dukes of Hazzard style.

Anyway, what I'm kind of getting at is that drivers' education seems woefully inadequate when it comes to (IMO) the most important skills...how to handle a sticky situation when it happens. Book knowledge is nearly useless for this without practical application, but most people's first practical application happens like mine did...unexpectedly. That's not a good learning environment by any means.

Sooo...the question becomes, why are the training requirements seemingly being dumbed down? I have yet to take a spin training course, but it's at the top of my training to-do list. I don't intend to go out and intentionally spin the Archer I rent...but I'm a fallible human, and if I make a mistake, I don't want to try and remember how PARE goes and then try to transform that into physical actions.

It seems like there are two schools of thought with these things. The first is to teach how to handle situations like spinning aircraft and skidding cars. The second is to teach avoidance of situations that might lead to those situations. There's nothing wrong with teaching avoidance, but if the thing you're trying to avoid becomes a scarey boogeyman, and you don't learn about it, then you might find yourself hung out to dry one day when that boogeyman comes knocking.

extended use of AOA is just another great example that shows how far experimentals have lept beyond certified aircraft technologically. still amazed it took the players so long to start discussing all the certification requirements vs safety improvements that cannot economically be realized because of all the extra paperwork...


having flown a significant amount of hours now behind an AOA system, it's nice and definitely an excellent stall warning device (aural, "ANGLE ANGLE PUSH").

however, i am not so much a believer in propagating "AOA-controlled" approaches. although consistent, flying in the yellow range leaves very little energy reserves for a nice flare/ corrections... too close for comfort to the stall.

regards, bernie

Just of possible interest is this thread on home made AoA.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=794

Not sure if it worked reliably or not.

Yes you can

Don said:

It would be great if the FAA could find the right level of certification and streamline the process so an AOA device could be added to a certified airplane without anything more than an A&P entry in the airframe logbook.....

Click to expand...

A few years ago one of the major airplane magazines added AOA (LRI?) to a Mooney.

I found this one with Google in about 10 seconds:
http://www.rraircraft.com/1967-mooney-m20f-sold.html

At least in the case of the LRI, it is completely separate from the other systems in the airplane and thus can be added without such (expensive) requirements as STC.

My personal choice of LRI was because I wanted an analog display that did not require electrics. As much as I like my GRT stuff, I wanted analog in the upper left corner of my panel for easy visibility and instant comprehension for landings. I concede that there are other excellent choices available.

Another option for "certified" or experimental aircraft.

http://www.alphasystemsaoa.com/

looks the same as LRI

Walt said:

Another option for "certified" or experimental aircraft.

http://www.alphasystemsaoa.com/

Click to expand...

FWIW, the mechanical option on that site looks almost identical to the LRI. I think the product "split" a few years ago. It even mounts the same on the inspection plate.

I did not look at the electronic version.