I am curious as to why all these comments are 1 year ago? Having made over 700 carrier landings with AOA and teaching it to GA pilots who have it installed in their aircraft, I can only guess that the negative comments reference AOA are from pilots that never flew with it. During my 30 years with the airlines I wished that I had one many times with high gusty winds and wind shear while approaching a runway with standing water, etc. I have had to go-around on a micro-burst hanging onto a stick shaker with no visual indication of how much more lift that I had to get out of there. I have used it for max range and for max endurance during holding, etc. It is a great asset if you understand it and are trained properly. In most cases in GA aircraft the threshold crossing speed can be 10-15 kts slower than normally flown thus making more perfect landings and using less rubber, brakes and runway. NUFF SAID!!
Mr. Wood, I agree with you. would you be available to discuss this subject with me further? I am trying to get the most out of my AOA gauge and have a few questions. If so I am available at jtm2@flash.net
Hey Skip, thanks for your comment. As a commercial jump pilot and CFI, I 100% agree with you. It would be brilliant to have an AoA system in the jump aircraft I fly to pitch for a precise Vy no matter the gross weight of the aircraft on that load of skydivers. When we are lighter, Vy shifts to a lower airspeed, but without a precise weight, pulling out the book, and coming up with an estimate, it is very hard to tell. Similar as density altitude increases into the summer, indicated Vy decreases. Having a real AoA system that would indicate climb, stall, and best glide (L/D max) speeds would be invaluable for sure. Only reference I have is the angle of the wings relative to the horizon, I can use that to try to judge an angle of attack in the climb.
Thanks, nice video. That quick shot of the wing with the array of yarn telltales does a fantastic job illustrating what is happening with the airflow boundary layer in a stall.
A long overdue development. I don't think it should be underestimated how many lives this could save (and could have saved - thinking more along the lines of commercial use).
AOA should be the standard for defining not just approach and stall speeds, but also your best glide speed, and the vy as well. In an engine out emergency the extra glide range gained by gliding at the best aoa just might save your life, while the use of AOA during normal climbout and cruise might result in reduced fuel use.
A problem here is that AOA give best glide and max range only in no wind situations. Then again, that’s true for trying to use published speeds too. I’d also argue against using either Vx or Vy in climbout. Better to be above these so as to allow for airspeed decay during surprise time to reaction. That surprise time at low altitude is the real killer. Such allows for better cooling too.
The Icon AOA indicator is design perfection. They could probably generate additional revenue licensing their display to the manufacturers of those retrofit systems.
I’d argue even Icon can improve. Take that AOA and shift it left half a radius. Then slap down a total energy probe gauge to its right though make that color coded with no units too. And no tone, don’t need a glider’s tone which would be constant if at power. AOA and total energy would work extremely well together.
Please explain to me how a stall warning horn would be too late? Such is based on suction near the leading edge of the wing, which is how most GA AOA systems work. In other words, the stall warning horn is itself an AOA device. Its first limitation is that it only indicates near stall and at stall so fast rates of change while still in the green though decaying don’t register as quickly. It’ll still sound before and at stall, however. The more likely problem with horns is that they can be involuntarily mentally tuned out. Many GA land with horn creating at least a minimum audible level hence we wrongly grow accustomed to hearing it. This isn’t to discourage AOA indicators - of those I’m a big fan. Just checking to see are we discounting horns for the right reasons?
The air is moving under and over the wing.The stall happens when the air can only move under or rt befor.Also the plane will stall if the plane Flys to slow.If the nose is pitched up and the plane cant glide.
3:06 - I'm assuming they also don't take into account other factors that can change the wing's stall angle, such as icing or damage to the wing's leading edge.
That would make complete sense. It would be impossible to know the AoA the wing would stall under those conditions. Too many extra variable to account for that would require more equipment. AoA indicators only work under given set of data.
Your pitot-static is just a susceptible to icing hence even your 1g unaccelerated stall reference fails you in those conditions. This is a bit of a strawman argument trying to put extra requirements on the better system to justify the old system that can’t handle those particular requirements either.
So... does the vane-type AOA indicator take flap configuration into account? Also, do any of these take icing conditions into account, or is it still too hard to implement?
AoA which an airplane stalls with Icing would depend on type of icing and exactly where it accumulated. Even altitude if you're high enough. That would be NASA level equipment lol.
This is a Debbie Downer comment. It’s not perfect therefore it isn’t good. That’s bad logic. Pitot-static systems are just as susceptible to these concerns. Strawmen are not appreciated.
It is totally understandable that military and commercial aircraft (basically jets) require an AOA indicator. Their landing and TO weights vary dramatically and the difference between coefficient of lift clean and dirty is dramatic. However, for GA we fly with much smaller differences. The "book" tells us numbers at gross weight for air speeds and as long as we stay above that number we are always flying a safe AOA. I would argue the difference in AOA approach speeds between a GA aircraft at gross weight and one almost empty of fuel and one person on board would be very small anyway. Yes, if you are trying to wedge yourself into a high altitude back country short strip, AOA would be helpful. But for the most of us flying normally, we takeoff and land at small differentials of airspeed in any configuration.
True until your student gives you a wrapped up overshooting base to final turn then tries to pull harder to get to lineup perhaps even stepping on the inside rudder to help the turn along. This is the case AOA if readily prominent in your scan saves your life. It’s also apparent in T-38 crashes where they used speed like GA does versus the TA-4 & T-45 navy planes. If your problem translated up to the USAF, then the USN solution likely translates back down just as well.
I wish I fully understood these AOA devices in exhaustive detail. Does anyone? Are all the considerations discussed anywhere? Does the AOA display always give proper guidance (nearness of spin/stall/control-loss) in every situation (every altitude, every speed, every orientation, every position of flaps, ailerons, elevators, rudder, aircraft weight, current position of CG, etc)? I don't have any reason to believe the AOA is taking *everything* into account and giving the correct answer, and I would be surprised to learn it actually is. OTOH, I don't know for sure that AOA is not precise in every situation. Where would I find out? As a separate matter, let me say this. My interest in AOA (which I have not flown with yet) would primarily be for super-short landings (and take-offs) in places 99.9% of pilots would never even consider landing (because the landing area is too short, or is on the 15/30/45-degree upslope just short of a mountain ridge, etc). One concern I have from performing these bush/STOL landings is... I feel like I need to keep my eyes glued to the spot I'm aiming to contact the ground (and immediate surroundings), and staring anywhere else to watch an AOA seems like a distraction of attention that I probably cannot afford. In theory, the AOA sounds great. When making these crazy landings, one must *NOT* stall the airplane... well, at least until within a foot or two of the ground, and the *theory* of AOA sounds great for that... especially for landing at a huge variety of altitudes from sea-level to 20,000 feet (mountaintops in Chile). The fact is, strictly from practice I can land super-slow from a super-slow-and-steep descent without stalling, at any altitude... even when I don't know the exact altitude. One just gets a feel for the airplane. And "somehow" we also get to understand how more or less weight impacts the approach and landing, even variations in CG... though I must say CG is the one variable I refuse to let get even close to marginal for fear of being "surprised" at the last moment. But my overall question... and this is a question... is whether AOA can really be helpful in situations like this? The theory (especially as stated by strong advocates of AOA devices) says "yes", but my general sense says "no". Just the need to take my eyes off the target landing spot/area make me think "no AOA"... for this kind of flying. Add to that any imprecision caused by airplane configuration, altitude, temperature, humidity, winds (in any direction), gusts, updrafts, downdrafts, control surfaces, aircraft weight and CG... and my feeling is "no AOA". But I'd like to hear what others think about this. Note that I suspect AOA is probably a good thing in other situations... like landing when you have plenty of time to land, plenty of runway length and width, crappy visibility (or no visibility), and so forth. In other words, for most situations, AOA sounds like it might be great. Though, I must admit, I still wonder why AOA is necessarily better than a good stall warning horn (which involves no visual distraction, just familiarity with how the various sounds it makes relate to closeness to actual stalls... as determined by previous stall practice in each airplane).
i think its just a simple tool to be added to the list of instruments to help lower deaths. and prob more of a decoration for experienced aviators than an actual tool.
Assuming no damage to probes or vanes, yes, AOA is always proper relative to stall. This is one of the few times you can actually say “always.” Suction types can get blockages just as your pitot tube would. Vanes can get bent. They can also get water inside that can freeze.
True. But what is even more at fault is the insane policy to make airplanes take actions against pilot wishes (control inputs). The reason that is an insane policy is these systems take actions on *VASTLY* too little knowledge. Unlike a human pilot who tries to be aware of everything, these insane systems take actions based on something as simple as a single sensor (like the output of the AOA sensor). Consider how stupid this is! Based on a faulty output from thee AOA sensor the control system flew the airplane into the ocean... even though a 5 year old child knows you don't want to fly an airplane into the ground or ocean (or below 0 feet altitude)... *especially* to "get out of trouble". In general aviation the first thing to remember in any usual or dangerous situation is always *FLY THE AIRPLANE.* Obviously the creators of these commercial airplanes have thrown that "prime directive" out the window by overruling pilot control inputs... *which is a terrible idea.* What is even more insane is, the control systems fly the airplane into the ground or ocean, or take other self-destructive actions contrary to pilot control inputs *without saying anything verbally.* Given that these systems *DO* say things like "terrain" or "pull up" and such... you'd think they'd tell pilots "hey moron, I'm flying the airplane and too bad if you don't like it". Okay, I'm being cynical, but the point remains... at the very least these systems should *TELL* pilots they are over-ruling them and why... and what the pilots need do to disable or overrule the control system.
@@maxbootstrap7397 all modern equipment from airplanes to defense equipment like submarines planes fighters etc have hidden fly by wire capabilities. It's crazy world. The purchasing owner doesn't even know! Think Malaysia airlines! Also coming to your cars.
@@klam77 : Yes indeed. However, it appears general aviation equipment is a bit behind the curve... which is good for me (only a private pilot). While I don't mind having a *SIMPLE* autopilot in my airplane (that controls pitch/roll/yaw only to go in the direction I specified), I *NEVER* want any situation in which control of the airplane is split between pilot and avionics/control systems. Either *I* am flying the airplane, or the autopilot is flying the airplane, albeit only in the very simplest of ways possible, namely in the direction I specified. I don't want the damn control system to be taking measures to avoid stalls or even avoid running into terrain or ocean. And I want to take *FULL* control of the airplane *instantly* in the event "something seems wrong or odd". What I do want to *HEAR* is stall-warning horns blaring and/or voice warnings from avionics like "terrain ahead" or "terrain nearby" or "terrain too close" or "approaching stall speed" or "excessive bank angle" or "uncoordinated yaw" or whatever-they-wish. But it *MUST* be left up to me to decide what I want to do about these messages. In most cases I the pilot will be perfectly aware of the situation, and just ignore the helpful voice. But in those cases a pilot might be surprised by the message, it *MUST* be up to the pilot to scan the instruments (and out the window if visibility allows), make decisions, and take those actions the pilot deems appropriate. Perhaps one funny factoid is this. As a scientist and engineer, I've designed a number of devices/systems/robotics that control equipment, but in the end the human in control can press a red button or equivalent to stop or disengage the automatic processes. And in a lot of cases the control system is just following instructions provided by the human controller... except with a speed and precision no human could achieve. But in no case would I ever create a system in which the automation decided to overrule the human controller in any dangerous way. Of course there were things like "limit switches" that prevented both human and automation from moving parts of the machine beyond certain limits, but that's different. In the case of flying airplanes, too many factors need to be taken into account for software to be able to make a good decision in every case. That *ANYONE* designing these systems would even consider doing what they are in fact doing, just shows how totally insane these designers are.
@@maxbootstrap7397 very true! also, as an aside, imagine how the legal system actually protects against such liability. Not one word on this in the news! Like nothing happened. Meanwhile the average Joe is held liable for all manner of nickels and dimes. It's an absurd world. All talk covering up great dystopia.
AOA was not at fault in the 737 max crashes. A faulty indicator creating faulty feed was contributory, however, poor airmanship leaving throttles up, getting fast while not getting high to troubleshoot, and undoing fixes that worked all played more in contribution. See NYTimes for a thorough write-up. Perhaps most egregious were faulty maintenance on the sensor, poor records, and rotten aircraft turnover from crew to crew. Remember, understanding AOA would have saved Air France. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html
This sounds like a distraction. And the video is a marketing tool, not a teaching one. As an ab initio student glider pilot, I haven't experienced an unplanned stall yet. My instructor was once a fighter pilot, and hammered in disciplined procedures. I would rather spend $2000 on training with him than this gadget. I spent some weeks building airfoils, and testing them, with XFLR5. This was just to entertain myself. However, I gained a small sense of the geometry that makes for an abruptly stalling wing, Since then, I have wondered whether aircraft with a poor stall spin accident record should be labeled as having demanding flight characteristics (yes, a warning label).
Kramp Drucker I'm sure the air safety institute has no issue with you paying for training. In fact, I have a hunch they may encourage it. That being said, I don't see your point. Having an Angle of Attack indicator in no way hampers your training or skills. It seems you are upset that they are advertising the technology as opposed to being upset that the technology is inferior, because it isn't. Priorities man. "I don't need this" is not the same thing as "this isn't useful". Complaining about them marketing the AoA indicator simply because it is marketing seems ridiculous.
Your personal financial situation/decision does nothing to dispel the fact that an AoA indicator is a very useful tool. And understanding AoA enhances safety, whether you buy an AoA indicator or not. Be safe out there, and by all means keep training, because with your easy dismissal of the information, you are going to need all the training you can get.
The vane type is the only type that is a true AOA indicator. The pressure differential is only a Stall Margin Indicator based on airspeed and has to be calibrated to actual stall. Not very useful and a waste of money. Every airplane has an AOA indicator and has since the Wright Bros took to the air. It is the elevator control. AOA indicators tell what angle the airfoil is to the relative wind not how much lift you are making or can make. Lift capability depends on AOA and how much relative wind is available. The ASI is a pressure gauge calibrated in Knots or MPH measuring Dynamic pressure, the difference between static and dynamic or the pressure created by movement through the air(relative wind). The more Dynamic pressure you have the more aerodynamic lift you can make. If you have very little you can't make very much. With high dynamic pressure you can fly at low angles of attack. With minimum pressure it will require high angles of attack. If you want to do a loop it will take a lot of dynamic pressure and a fairly high AOA to start and finish the loop. The elevator is the AOA indicator. Place it aft of or forward of the critical AOA position and the aircraft will stall no matter what speed (dynamic pressure) or attitude. The position where Critical AOA occurs will change slightly with CG & weight. No airplane can stall with the elevator in the neutral position. Save you money and take some dual or a course from a really knowledgeable instructor and let him demonstrate how to stall and un-stall with the AOA controller. The FAA don't get it and never has. An AOA gauge is no better that the stall warning horn or light. If you are watching the AOA gauge your not watching everything else. It is like watching the slip skid ball. Its too late when the ball is outside the center lines. Your butt can tell you faster if you will learn to feel it in you butt. True AOA indicators are very expensive. The are useful for many things but not needed for stall / Spin recognition, prevention or recovery.
There's lots of hoopla here but the consider the obvious -- if AOA was all that good as a guidance instrument, it would have been adopted years ago. Stall warning, you bet it's useful, but I've done the flight tests in my RV-9A and done the analysis, and visual AOA has lots of shortcomings for GA. And GA planes are not flown like Navy jets landing on a carrier, so let's ignore those specious comments. It's the emperor's new clothes of GA equipment.
It wasn’t adopted years ago because they didn’t know how to do it in propwash. That’s the problem with GA and vane style systems. Wing mounted suction based systems solve this concern. The empower had no clothes before AOA.
You know, you are doing a video about something that kills hundreds of people per year. Perhaps you shouldn't instruct the actor to read the script like he's describing cool arts and crafts you can make with your kids.
I am curious as to why all these comments are 1 year ago? Having made over 700 carrier landings with AOA and teaching it to GA pilots who have it installed in their aircraft, I can only guess that the negative comments reference AOA are from pilots that never flew with it. During my 30 years with the airlines I wished that I had one many times with high gusty winds and wind shear while approaching a runway with standing water, etc. I have had to go-around on a micro-burst hanging onto a stick shaker with no visual indication of how much more lift that I had to get out of there. I have used it for max range and for max endurance during holding, etc. It is a great asset if you understand it and are trained properly. In most cases in GA aircraft the threshold crossing speed can be 10-15 kts slower than normally flown thus making more perfect landings and using less rubber, brakes and runway. NUFF SAID!!
Mr. Wood, I agree with you. would you be available to discuss this subject with me further? I am trying to get the most out of my AOA gauge and have a few questions. If so I am available at jtm2@flash.net
Hey Skip, thanks for your comment. As a commercial jump pilot and CFI, I 100% agree with you.
It would be brilliant to have an AoA system in the jump aircraft I fly to pitch for a precise Vy no matter the gross weight of the aircraft on that load of skydivers. When we are lighter, Vy shifts to a lower airspeed, but without a precise weight, pulling out the book, and coming up with an estimate, it is very hard to tell. Similar as density altitude increases into the summer, indicated Vy decreases. Having a real AoA system that would indicate climb, stall, and best glide (L/D max) speeds would be invaluable for sure. Only reference I have is the angle of the wings relative to the horizon, I can use that to try to judge an angle of attack in the climb.
Thanks, nice video. That quick shot of the wing with the array of yarn telltales does a fantastic job illustrating what is happening with the airflow boundary layer in a stall.
A long overdue development. I don't think it should be underestimated how many lives this could save (and could have saved - thinking more along the lines of commercial use).
AOA should be the standard for defining not just approach and stall speeds, but also your best glide speed, and the vy as well. In an engine out emergency the extra glide range gained by gliding at the best aoa just might save your life, while the use of AOA during normal climbout and cruise might result in reduced fuel use.
Vx also would be an invaluable indication to have
A problem here is that AOA give best glide and max range only in no wind situations. Then again, that’s true for trying to use published speeds too. I’d also argue against using either Vx or Vy in climbout. Better to be above these so as to allow for airspeed decay during surprise time to reaction. That surprise time at low altitude is the real killer. Such allows for better cooling too.
Should definitely choose one that accounts for flap settings.
The Icon AOA indicator is design perfection. They could probably generate additional revenue licensing their display to the manufacturers of those retrofit systems.
I’d argue even Icon can improve. Take that AOA and shift it left half a radius. Then slap down a total energy probe gauge to its right though make that color coded with no units too. And no tone, don’t need a glider’s tone which would be constant if at power. AOA and total energy would work extremely well together.
Outstanding video, thanks for empowering us with applicable knowledge. 💝🛫
Please explain to me how a stall warning horn would be too late? Such is based on suction near the leading edge of the wing, which is how most GA AOA systems work. In other words, the stall warning horn is itself an AOA device. Its first limitation is that it only indicates near stall and at stall so fast rates of change while still in the green though decaying don’t register as quickly. It’ll still sound before and at stall, however. The more likely problem with horns is that they can be involuntarily mentally tuned out. Many GA land with horn creating at least a minimum audible level hence we wrongly grow accustomed to hearing it. This isn’t to discourage AOA indicators - of those I’m a big fan. Just checking to see are we discounting horns for the right reasons?
The air is moving under and over the wing.The stall happens when the air can only move under or rt befor.Also the plane will stall if the plane Flys to slow.If the nose is pitched up and the plane cant glide.
3:06 - I'm assuming they also don't take into account other factors that can change the wing's stall angle, such as icing or damage to the wing's leading edge.
That would make complete sense. It would be impossible to know the AoA the wing would stall under those conditions. Too many extra variable to account for that would require more equipment. AoA indicators only work under given set of data.
Your pitot-static is just a susceptible to icing hence even your 1g unaccelerated stall reference fails you in those conditions. This is a bit of a strawman argument trying to put extra requirements on the better system to justify the old system that can’t handle those particular requirements either.
Love these vids :)
So... does the vane-type AOA indicator take flap configuration into account? Also, do any of these take icing conditions into account, or is it still too hard to implement?
AoA which an airplane stalls with Icing would depend on type of icing and exactly where it accumulated. Even altitude if you're high enough. That would be NASA level equipment lol.
This is a Debbie Downer comment. It’s not perfect therefore it isn’t good. That’s bad logic. Pitot-static systems are just as susceptible to these concerns. Strawmen are not appreciated.
It is totally understandable that military and commercial aircraft (basically jets) require an AOA indicator. Their landing and TO weights vary dramatically and the difference between coefficient of lift clean and dirty is dramatic. However, for GA we fly with much smaller differences. The "book" tells us numbers at gross weight for air speeds and as long as we stay above that number we are always flying a safe AOA. I would argue the difference in AOA approach speeds between a GA aircraft at gross weight and one almost empty of fuel and one person on board would be very small anyway. Yes, if you are trying to wedge yourself into a high altitude back country short strip, AOA would be helpful. But for the most of us flying normally, we takeoff and land at small differentials of airspeed in any configuration.
True until your student gives you a wrapped up overshooting base to final turn then tries to pull harder to get to lineup perhaps even stepping on the inside rudder to help the turn along. This is the case AOA if readily prominent in your scan saves your life. It’s also apparent in T-38 crashes where they used speed like GA does versus the TA-4 & T-45 navy planes. If your problem translated up to the USAF, then the USN solution likely translates back down just as well.
I wish I fully understood these AOA devices in exhaustive detail. Does anyone? Are all the considerations discussed anywhere? Does the AOA display always give proper guidance (nearness of spin/stall/control-loss) in every situation (every altitude, every speed, every orientation, every position of flaps, ailerons, elevators, rudder, aircraft weight, current position of CG, etc)? I don't have any reason to believe the AOA is taking *everything* into account and giving the correct answer, and I would be surprised to learn it actually is. OTOH, I don't know for sure that AOA is not precise in every situation. Where would I find out?
As a separate matter, let me say this. My interest in AOA (which I have not flown with yet) would primarily be for super-short landings (and take-offs) in places 99.9% of pilots would never even consider landing (because the landing area is too short, or is on the 15/30/45-degree upslope just short of a mountain ridge, etc). One concern I have from performing these bush/STOL landings is... I feel like I need to keep my eyes glued to the spot I'm aiming to contact the ground (and immediate surroundings), and staring anywhere else to watch an AOA seems like a distraction of attention that I probably cannot afford.
In theory, the AOA sounds great. When making these crazy landings, one must *NOT* stall the airplane... well, at least until within a foot or two of the ground, and the *theory* of AOA sounds great for that... especially for landing at a huge variety of altitudes from sea-level to 20,000 feet (mountaintops in Chile). The fact is, strictly from practice I can land super-slow from a super-slow-and-steep descent without stalling, at any altitude... even when I don't know the exact altitude. One just gets a feel for the airplane. And "somehow" we also get to understand how more or less weight impacts the approach and landing, even variations in CG... though I must say CG is the one variable I refuse to let get even close to marginal for fear of being "surprised" at the last moment.
But my overall question... and this is a question... is whether AOA can really be helpful in situations like this? The theory (especially as stated by strong advocates of AOA devices) says "yes", but my general sense says "no". Just the need to take my eyes off the target landing spot/area make me think "no AOA"... for this kind of flying. Add to that any imprecision caused by airplane configuration, altitude, temperature, humidity, winds (in any direction), gusts, updrafts, downdrafts, control surfaces, aircraft weight and CG... and my feeling is "no AOA". But I'd like to hear what others think about this.
Note that I suspect AOA is probably a good thing in other situations... like landing when you have plenty of time to land, plenty of runway length and width, crappy visibility (or no visibility), and so forth. In other words, for most situations, AOA sounds like it might be great. Though, I must admit, I still wonder why AOA is necessarily better than a good stall warning horn (which involves no visual distraction, just familiarity with how the various sounds it makes relate to closeness to actual stalls... as determined by previous stall practice in each airplane).
i think its just a simple tool to be added to the list of instruments to help lower deaths. and prob more of a decoration for experienced aviators than an actual tool.
Assuming no damage to probes or vanes, yes, AOA is always proper relative to stall. This is one of the few times you can actually say “always.” Suction types can get blockages just as your pitot tube would. Vanes can get bent. They can also get water inside that can freeze.
@@davidjd123 experienced aviators will quickly favor the AOA. It ain’t decoration.
whats the last airport
മലയാളി....
It's ironic but AOA was at fault in the Lion Air crash.
True. But what is even more at fault is the insane policy to make airplanes take actions against pilot wishes (control inputs). The reason that is an insane policy is these systems take actions on *VASTLY* too little knowledge. Unlike a human pilot who tries to be aware of everything, these insane systems take actions based on something as simple as a single sensor (like the output of the AOA sensor). Consider how stupid this is! Based on a faulty output from thee AOA sensor the control system flew the airplane into the ocean... even though a 5 year old child knows you don't want to fly an airplane into the ground or ocean (or below 0 feet altitude)... *especially* to "get out of trouble".
In general aviation the first thing to remember in any usual or dangerous situation is always *FLY THE AIRPLANE.* Obviously the creators of these commercial airplanes have thrown that "prime directive" out the window by overruling pilot control inputs... *which is a terrible idea.* What is even more insane is, the control systems fly the airplane into the ground or ocean, or take other self-destructive actions contrary to pilot control inputs *without saying anything verbally.* Given that these systems *DO* say things like "terrain" or "pull up" and such... you'd think they'd tell pilots "hey moron, I'm flying the airplane and too bad if you don't like it". Okay, I'm being cynical, but the point remains... at the very least these systems should *TELL* pilots they are over-ruling them and why... and what the pilots need do to disable or overrule the control system.
@@maxbootstrap7397 all modern equipment from airplanes to defense equipment like submarines planes fighters etc have hidden fly by wire capabilities. It's crazy world. The purchasing owner doesn't even know! Think Malaysia airlines!
Also coming to your cars.
@@klam77 : Yes indeed. However, it appears general aviation equipment is a bit behind the curve... which is good for me (only a private pilot). While I don't mind having a *SIMPLE* autopilot in my airplane (that controls pitch/roll/yaw only to go in the direction I specified), I *NEVER* want any situation in which control of the airplane is split between pilot and avionics/control systems. Either *I* am flying the airplane, or the autopilot is flying the airplane, albeit only in the very simplest of ways possible, namely in the direction I specified. I don't want the damn control system to be taking measures to avoid stalls or even avoid running into terrain or ocean. And I want to take *FULL* control of the airplane *instantly* in the event "something seems wrong or odd".
What I do want to *HEAR* is stall-warning horns blaring and/or voice warnings from avionics like "terrain ahead" or "terrain nearby" or "terrain too close" or "approaching stall speed" or "excessive bank angle" or "uncoordinated yaw" or whatever-they-wish. But it *MUST* be left up to me to decide what I want to do about these messages. In most cases I the pilot will be perfectly aware of the situation, and just ignore the helpful voice. But in those cases a pilot might be surprised by the message, it *MUST* be up to the pilot to scan the instruments (and out the window if visibility allows), make decisions, and take those actions the pilot deems appropriate.
Perhaps one funny factoid is this. As a scientist and engineer, I've designed a number of devices/systems/robotics that control equipment, but in the end the human in control can press a red button or equivalent to stop or disengage the automatic processes. And in a lot of cases the control system is just following instructions provided by the human controller... except with a speed and precision no human could achieve. But in no case would I ever create a system in which the automation decided to overrule the human controller in any dangerous way. Of course there were things like "limit switches" that prevented both human and automation from moving parts of the machine beyond certain limits, but that's different.
In the case of flying airplanes, too many factors need to be taken into account for software to be able to make a good decision in every case. That *ANYONE* designing these systems would even consider doing what they are in fact doing, just shows how totally insane these designers are.
@@maxbootstrap7397 very true! also, as an aside, imagine how the legal system actually protects against such liability. Not one word on this in the news! Like nothing happened. Meanwhile the average Joe is held liable for all manner of nickels and dimes. It's an absurd world. All talk covering up great dystopia.
AOA was not at fault in the 737 max crashes. A faulty indicator creating faulty feed was contributory, however, poor airmanship leaving throttles up, getting fast while not getting high to troubleshoot, and undoing fixes that worked all played more in contribution. See NYTimes for a thorough write-up. Perhaps most egregious were faulty maintenance on the sensor, poor records, and rotten aircraft turnover from crew to crew. Remember, understanding AOA would have saved Air France. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html
This sounds like a distraction. And the video is a marketing tool, not a teaching one.
As an ab initio student glider pilot, I haven't experienced an unplanned stall yet. My instructor was once a fighter pilot, and hammered in disciplined procedures. I would rather spend $2000 on training with him than this gadget.
I spent some weeks building airfoils, and testing them, with XFLR5. This was just to entertain myself. However, I gained a small sense of the geometry that makes for an abruptly stalling wing, Since then, I have wondered whether aircraft with a poor stall spin accident record should be labeled as having demanding flight characteristics (yes, a warning label).
Kramp Drucker I'm sure the air safety institute has no issue with you paying for training. In fact, I have a hunch they may encourage it.
That being said, I don't see your point. Having an Angle of Attack indicator in no way hampers your training or skills. It seems you are upset that they are advertising the technology as opposed to being upset that the technology is inferior, because it isn't.
Priorities man. "I don't need this" is not the same thing as "this isn't useful". Complaining about them marketing the AoA indicator simply because it is marketing seems ridiculous.
Your personal financial situation/decision does nothing to dispel the fact that an AoA indicator is a very useful tool. And understanding AoA enhances safety, whether you buy an AoA indicator or not. Be safe out there, and by all means keep training, because with your easy dismissal of the information, you are going to need all the training you can get.
The vane type is the only type that is a true AOA indicator. The pressure differential is only a Stall Margin Indicator based on airspeed and has to be calibrated to actual stall. Not very useful and a waste of money.
Every airplane has an AOA indicator and has since the Wright Bros took to the air. It is the elevator control.
AOA indicators tell what angle the airfoil is to the relative wind not how much lift you are making or can make. Lift capability depends on AOA and how much relative wind is available. The ASI is a pressure gauge calibrated in Knots or MPH measuring Dynamic pressure, the difference between static and dynamic or the pressure created by movement through the air(relative wind). The more Dynamic pressure you have the more aerodynamic lift you can make. If you have very little you can't make very much. With high dynamic pressure you can fly at low angles of attack. With minimum pressure it will require high angles of attack. If you want to do a loop it will take a lot of dynamic pressure and a fairly high AOA to start and finish the loop. The elevator is the AOA indicator. Place it aft of or forward of the critical AOA position and the aircraft will stall no matter what speed (dynamic pressure) or attitude. The position where Critical AOA occurs will change slightly with CG & weight. No airplane can stall with the elevator in the neutral position. Save you money and take some dual or a course from a really knowledgeable instructor and let him demonstrate how to stall and un-stall with the AOA controller. The FAA don't get it and never has. An AOA gauge is no better that the stall warning horn or light. If you are watching the AOA gauge your not watching everything else. It is like watching the slip skid ball. Its too late when the ball is outside the center lines. Your butt can tell you faster if you will learn to feel it in you butt. True AOA indicators are very expensive. The are useful for many things but not needed for stall / Spin recognition, prevention or recovery.
Thanks for the insight,,Im curious though, can you expand on why the FAA dosent get it ?and never has? Thanks
There's lots of hoopla here but the consider the obvious -- if AOA was all that good as a guidance instrument, it would have been adopted years ago. Stall warning, you bet it's useful, but I've done the flight tests in my RV-9A and done the analysis, and visual AOA has lots of shortcomings for GA. And GA planes are not flown like Navy jets landing on a carrier, so let's ignore those specious comments. It's the emperor's new clothes of GA equipment.
It wasn’t adopted years ago because they didn’t know how to do it in propwash. That’s the problem with GA and vane style systems. Wing mounted suction based systems solve this concern. The empower had no clothes before AOA.
BS
You know, you are doing a video about something that kills hundreds of people per year. Perhaps you shouldn't instruct the actor to read the script like he's describing cool arts and crafts you can make with your kids.