Ron Lee
Well Known Member
Interesting reading here:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_AccidentCause_207911-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_AccidentCause_207911-1.html
Oh, I agree that people are more likely to stall it in than hit something in the air. But good airmanship and constant practice -- it seems to me -- is the best instrument to prevent that. I think it's really important to know your plane, the sounds, the speeds, the performance and to diligently practice stalls and the various weights and profiles for stalls. If you do that, you've already got all the indicators you need.
Traffic, it seems to me, is another story.
Stall warning or traffic alerts: Which offers the best safety benefit?
The false sense of security with Traffic is believeing all aircraft have transponders and comm radios. I fly out of an airport that has three aircraft, that fly regularly, that have niether radio. Living in the midwest where there is very little airspace that requires any radios I keep my eyes outside as much as possible and would rather have my recently install AOA system, which is an aspect of flight that I have control over. Just my two cents.
And then there are places like SoCal, that are virtual beehives of activity
And then there are places like SoCal, that are virtual beehives of activity, where aircraft equipped with transponders and comm radios have near misses with each other every day, and occasionally a mid-air.
How well does the AOA work on the GRT EFIS. Can you always believe it? Does it ever lie to you?
Traffic warning, no question in my mind. The airplane gives you plenty of warning that it is going to stall. Traffic gives you very little, particularly if it is behind you, high wing vs low wing in climb/decent, etc. Also, as others have noted, most certified airplanes already have stall warning devices.
Part of my answer is from the glider point of view. We often fly formation in gaggles while thermaling and traffic is my #1 concern, even above landing out.
Another thing to remember is that if you stall and spin, you are probably uncoordinated. Every airplane has a ball or yaw string, and better stall warnings won't keep the rudder in the correct position.
TODR
but one can never be trained to "see and avoid" better.
IMHO, stall prevention can be "fixed" with enough training, but one can never be trained to "see and avoid" better.
There are definitely skills that can be learned to significantly improve your ability to see other aircraft...
True, we can all likely get better than we are now, but even "eagle eyes" Chuck Yeager can't see through the wing, cabin roof or engine cowl of many airplanes. Heck, in my Hiperbipe, I can hardly see anything in any direction.
The point is, many airplanes are essentially blind in many fields of view. There is no training to overcome that basic deficiency.
This is where I think some training would be useful. I'm really interested in the military's approach from the link earlier.
Most of the flight had the zaon box warning the pilot about itself, apparently.
Which it definitely will. If you don't read the instruction manual.
Which it definitely will. If you don't read the instruction manual.
TIS will get better, but its an awfully expensive option. I've had only one inflight experience with the zaon approach, and it seemed laughable. Most of the flight had the zaon box warning the pilot about itself, apparently.
There is no single answer for traffic - relegating traffic avoidance to flight following, TIS, etc. is no excuse for not looking outside to see traffic which might be coming right at you. This is where I think some training would be useful. I'm really interested in the military's approach from the link earlier.
When ADS-B is up and running and everyone is plugged in, it probably will be very good.
Didn't we fly down to Red Wing? I don't recall warnings all the way.
But I wasn't paying much attention. It was all I could do keep from stalling it in.
I don't know what TIS is but I do know a system called TCAS worked quite well when I was flying for a living. It works so well, the PIC is authorized to deviate from an assigned IFR altitude and follow its commands if it goes off - had it happen a number of times.
I suspect the system is not a part of GA because it is expensive, but it does work. When ADS-B is up and running and everyone is plugged in, it probably will be very good.
Not everyone will be "plugged in" to ADS-B.
I don't know what TIS is but I do know a system called TCAS worked quite well when I was flying for a living. It works so well, the PIC is authorized to deviate from an assigned IFR altitude and follow its commands if it goes off - had it happen a number of times.
I suspect the system is not a part of GA because it is expensive, but it does work. When ADS-B is up and running and everyone is plugged in, it probably will be very good.
This ADS-B stuff is similar to the days when GPS was coming on the scene. Most old timers thought it was a fad and that it would never replace traditional land based NAV sources. ADS-B is coming to the masses and we are mandated to either get on board or face restrictions in 2020. Nothing we can do is going to stop it.
ADS-B Out is different. It is there to help the FAA save money and offers little or no benefit to people who only equip with it, thus far more people will not equip with ADS-B Out than you think.
Not everyone has the "get the latest technology" mindset.
A logical outcome (unintended consequence) of the ADS-B Out mandate is that more people will cruise around with their transponder off above 10,000 feet.
Most airplanes - assuming they are in trim - fly just fine if you let go of the stick. The problem tends to be the pilot.I think any fool with an airman's certificate understands the CONSTANT threat of stalling vs. the OCCASIONAL threat of if a middair.
...
But we already HAVE an instrument to prevent those situations, we just don't use it nearly enough.
ADS-B Out is different. It is there to help the FAA save money and offers little or no benefit to people who only equip with it, thus far more people will not equip with ADS-B Out than you think.
Not everyone has the "get the latest technology" mindset.
A logical outcome (unintended consequence) of the ADS-B Out mandate is that more people will cruise around with their transponder off above 10,000 feet.