Unless the unit in some way deactivates the seat of the pants feeling...you still have that input right? Yes proper instruction & seat time will make you better! So one more gizmo can't be all bad? Seems like the few guys here who have them have positive feed back. ALL technology is new at some point & there's always old-timers who don't like change. Think of all the first's in aviation... I bet there was a critic to match each one.

So I am sitting here at lunch eating my turkey sandwich and reading this thread. Thanks for the entertainement guys!

This is a great example of the double standards and pretzel logic many pilots use, often times for no valid reason. I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating since GPS was brought up in the context of this thread. I have no doubt whatsoever that when GPS came out, the majority of old, grizzled, set in their ways, highly experienced pilots scoffed at the entire concept...

"I don't need no electronic gadget, my E6B works just great!"
"Ain't nobody never had a sectional chart battery fail, you silly whippersnapper!"
"I been flying the Mississippi Delta for 40 years, I already know every finger and bend in all the rivers!"
"Listen Sales Boy, I don't need your little toy, all you have to do is follow the wolf tracks to old man Wickersham's cabin and then make a left until you see the pile of bear shit, and then line up with the gold miner's camp ruins, and you'll be in Fairbanks in ten minutes!"

Sure enough, once people gave it a try with an open mind, they finally had to admit through gritted teeth that although you can certainly fly without GPS, it is in fact a tremendous improvement over their old E6B and following wolf tracks. Nowdays those same pilots are the very first ones standing in line at the Garmin both to hear about the WhizBang 5000 (now with real-time lunar surface winds !).

The inventors of FAX machines, the automobile, LED lighting, personal computers, GAMI injectors, VG's, cell phones, Bushwheels, disposable diapers, and toilet paper will tell you the very same story....

Hey Bob, remember when that old hillbilly said to you "We don't need some invention called "toilet paper", my family's been using our hands for two hundred years." and the he picked up a hot dog and offered you a bite?

EZFlap wrote:This is a great example of the double standards and pretzel logic many pilots use, often times for no valid reason. I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating since GPS was brought up in the context of this thread. I have no doubt whatsoever that when GPS came out, the majority of old, grizzled, set in their ways, highly experienced pilots scoffed at the entire concept...

"I don't need no electronic gadget, my E6B works just great!"
"Ain't nobody never had a sectional chart battery fail, you silly whippersnapper!"
"I been flying the Mississippi Delta for 40 years, I already know every finger and bend in all the rivers!"
"Listen Sales Boy, I don't need your little toy, all you have to do is follow the wolf tracks to old man Wickersham's cabin and then make a left until you see the pile of bear shit, and then line up with the gold miner's camp ruins, and you'll be in Fairbanks in ten minutes!"

That is NOT true. I think I've finally reached the grizzled stage, and got enough hours north of the Arctic Circle to earn a comment here. I do not have a single good memory of Pre-GPS VFR (or IFR) flying in shit wx as a working pilot up north. It was hard, dangerous work, and a lot of really good guys got killed trying to do it. I got lucky, and even though I came microseconds away from splattering myself, I never quite did.

We embraced ADF, and a lot of villages put in bootleg transmitters for us to find our way in. We all tried LORAN, but it was a dismal failure that far north. Then when GPS hit the scene, man oh man, we all were in heaven. What a lifesaver. And now, with 1st and 2nd generation Capstone, life is moving map good.

So it is not fair to say that we old guys don't embrace the new. We just don't embrace the new that doesn't do anything new or better for our flying, and based on personal use and experience is just smoke and mirrors. But hey, it's a gadget, and gadgets are cool. If it works for you guys, have fun.

Gump

Vick wrote:All valid points MTV and yet Sparky was a believer, no questioning his credibility

I met Sparky, and he was quite the gentleman, and a good writer.

But, he crashed twice as PIC within a few miles of the same spot within a year or so.....tragically, the last one took his life. It appears that the device he had mounted in his airplane didn't help him in the end.

MTV

L-19 wrote:Unless the unit in some way deactivates the seat of the pants feeling...you still have that input right? Yes proper instruction & seat time will make you better! So one more gizmo can't be all bad? Seems like the few guys here who have them have positive feed back. ALL technology is new at some point & there's always old-timers who don't like change. Think of all the first's in aviation... I bet there was a critic to match each one.

Angle of Attack indicators are distinctly NOT new technology...they've been around for many decades. The point that so many here cannot seem to grasp is that the devices under discussion in this thread are NOT TRUE angle of attack sensors. True angle of attack sensors are indeed wonderful devices. These ain't them.

And, EZ, as I noted when I brought up GPS, the air taxi community in Alaska, as Gump notes, JUMPED on that bandwagon. I had one of the first panel mounted GPS units installed in an airplane, a Trimble. I'd flown the friendly skys of the northern Interior of AK for several years without GPS, for which I am eternally grateful, because when that GPS got stuck in my panel, I REALLY appreciated it. And, yes, I still carried a paper chart, and I was also grateful that I learned that country BEFORE GPS, so that if the GPS checked out, I'd at least be able to find my way home using a chart.

MTV

The (hopefully humorous) examples were meant to illustrate a general attitude that a lot of pilots have about change or new ideas. It was an admittedly cartoonish mocking of some of the things that I've heard, and been told by other manufacturers of new products.

That being said, if the pilots flying in remote Alaska indeed did not have that kind of negative attitude towards the GPS when it was new, then I will stand corrected and offer an apology. I certainly was not up there in cold AK flying through ice fog etc. The apology is sincere.

Let me go about this from another direction, and hopefully I won't piss too many good guys off this time:

All professional athletes, in every sport, are the best of the best of the best. They've developed better and more finely tuned instincts for their sport than the rest of us. They've built bigger muscles, and faster reactions, and practiced a hundred times more than any amateur. They see and feel the most subtle cues and things that nobody else can. They can do better at their worst than we can at our best in their respective sports.

And yet the serious ones all strive to have the latest and best equipment. They embrace the use of new shoes with better energy-rebounding rubber compounds, even though they can already jump higher than us. They welcome and embrace lighter skis, or stronger racquet strings, even though they set a world record or took home the trophy last year. Lance Armstrong wrote a book titled "It's Not About the Bike", but you can bet your ass in a pink miniskirt on Hollywood Blvd. that he made damn sure he had the lightest and best bike there is.

The winning world champion superstar F-1 drivers are the first ones to use a new gadget if it allowed them to drive one one-hundredth of a percent better. They'd embrace something even only as a training tool for them to develop and refine their already superior tactile senses, "sight picture", or timing. They'd be happy to use it so they can drive better in the actual race even though the training tool was removed to save an ounce.

And Mike... what exactly are you referring to as a TRUE AOA indicator, as opposed to what is being discussed? My use of the term refers to a move-able vane type sensor in the airstream that is mounted to a potentiometer.

EZFlap wrote:
And Mike... what exactly are you referring to as a TRUE AOA indicator, as opposed to what is being discussed? My use of the term refers to a move-able vane type sensor in the airstream that is mounted to a potentiometer.

Look at virtually any turbojet airplane, certainly any with swept wings, and you'll find a TRUE AOA system installed. They DO WORK, but they are prohibitively expensive, AND, where do you mount the sensors on a single engine propeller driven airplane?

The cost of a CERTIFICATED AOA system is orders of magnitude more than one of the systems we're discussing, and that is NOT all because of certification costs.

If I get to the airport in the next couple days, I'll take a photo of a Warrior pitot mast, which also incorporates the static port in the same mast. Then, you can look at the sensor for these devices, and you tell me what the difference is. Your airspeed instrument is just as reliable and just as accurate as these devices are, frankly. So, what's the point of adding yet one more gadget when in fact all the information you need is being transmitted to you reliably by the airframe.

Does this work in a swept wing jet? Hell no, which is specifically why they are equipped with TRUE, certificated AOA sensors. Couple of folks have mentioned that an AOA sensor works just as well at gross weight and near empty. True enough, but again, consider the takeoff weight of an F/A18 compared to it's landing weight....a far different ratio than our little airplanes, and again, the F 18 is using a TRUE AOA sensor system, not some goofy little modified pitot mast out on one wing.

Again, a lot of folks on here are believing the hype of the manufacturers of these things, rather than looking at the facts and understanding a bit more about aerodynamics.

True Angle of Attack indicators are indeed available. They cost a LOT more than these things we're discussing, and for many good reasons. Mostly engineering as opposed to hype.

MTV

What I was asking, is whether your definition of a true AOA sensor is one of the little wedge shaped vanes mounted on a pivot, on the side of the fuselage. Commonly seen on swept wing jets.

As opposed to the LRI style with two 'pitot' holes drilled into a block of aluminum at different angles.

The wedge (vane) type is what I'm saying is the right way to sense alpha, not the pitot holes mast type.

You have to mount any of these devices in relatively free stream. Same for pitot and static. So it would have to mount at the top of the fin, or out in front of the wing, or hang on a strut, etc. Finding the right mounting location is indeed the biggest obstacle to this entire idea.

mtv wrote:

L-19 wrote:Unless the unit in some way deactivates the seat of the pants feeling...you still have that input right? Yes proper instruction & seat time will make you better! So one more gizmo can't be all bad? Seems like the few guys here who have them have positive feed back. ALL technology is new at some point & there's always old-timers who don't like change. Think of all the first's in aviation... I bet there was a critic to match each one.

Angle of Attack indicators are distinctly NOT new technology...they've been around for many decades. The point that so many here cannot seem to grasp is that the devices under discussion in this thread are NOT TRUE angle of attack sensors. True angle of attack sensors are indeed wonderful devices.

MTV

Not sure why you quoted me? I didn't say they were new.

Also Gump, no offense to old timers meant, just a generalization. I bet over 90% of what I've learned in life was from them! Respect given.

Worth mentioning, T-34Cs had an AoA system. No doubt it was spendy but that was a straight wing with a prop - seemed to work just fine. You certainly didn't need it, they equipped it so to familiarize students with the fundamentals of flying an AoA approach. Ironically many of the IPs were prior helo pilots so they didn't have much experience with or understanding of the system, but it was there nonetheless.

Compared to the grizzled curmudgeons here, I am a relatively low time pilot. But I was taught to fly a taildragger by feel. No gadget will ever take that away from me. For my little plane, an AOA indicator or alarm unit wouldn't be worth its weight under normal circumstances. It's not going to help me get off the ground shorter, nor to fly straight and level more efficiently. For the occasional, unusually steep climb a quick glance at the ASI is sufficient. Then, eyes back outside the cockpit.

mtv wrote:

Vick wrote:
But, he crashed twice as PIC within a few miles of the same spot within a year or so.....tragically, the last one took his life. It appears that the device he had mounted in his airplane didn't help him in the end.

MTV

He crashed once as PIC, the last one, and when you combine it with what he did two days before up at FL230 in his 180, without O2, you will realize that what ever gizmos he had onboard were irrelevant.

BM,

Sparky was serving as CFI in the Husky accident, therefore he was PIC in that one as well.

MTV

Bonanza Man wrote:He crashed once as PIC, the last one, and when you combine it with what he did two days before up at FL230 in his 180, without O2, you will realize that what ever gizmos he had onboard were irrelevant.

Care to elaborate on the FL230?

IFR HLN-BIL. Some distance west of Billings he requested a climb from either 190-210 or 210-230. He never took the descent clearance Salt Lake gives all BIL arrivals, which is at or descending to 130. He was not in radio contact anymore and went by Billings and eventually in the vicinity of Sheridan(approx 90 miles past BIL) comm was reestablished. He did not maintain an altitude after comm loss, just drifted all over the sky. Eventually ZLC got him rounded up and headed back toward BIL. He landed uneventfully. Either one or two days later he went to BZN where he left the plane for a day due to bad weather.

mtv wrote:BM,

Sparky was serving as CFI in the Husky accident, therefore he was PIC in that one as well.

MTV

No, all pilots that weekend, me included, were told that the owner/student was the PIC. I flew with a different instructor who had lots of Bonanza time and it was also discussed before we even fired up the plane.

Bonanza Man wrote:

mtv wrote:BM,

Sparky was serving as CFI in the Husky accident, therefore he was PIC in that one as well.

MTV

No, all pilots that weekend, me included, were told that the owner/student was the PIC. I flew with a different instructor who had lots of Bonanza time and it was also discussed before we even fired up the plane.

Of course he wasn't PIC, that way he's not liable if you dork up your airplane, you're PIC, your problem.

Bonanza Man wrote:

mtv wrote:BM,

Sparky was serving as CFI in the Husky accident, therefore he was PIC in that one as well.

MTV

No, all pilots that weekend, me included, were told that the owner/student was the PIC. I flew with a different instructor who had lots of Bonanza time and it was also discussed before we even fired up the plane.

Well, I was an instructor that weekend at that event, and I can tell you that you might want to read the FARs pertaining to PIC responsibilities. An instructor cannot just say "I'm not PIC" nor can an event do so. If there's a CFI in the airplane, and they are giving instruction in any way, they are PIC.

Again, that doesn't mean the "sole manipulator of the controls" ie: You, can't ALSO log PIC time.

But, believe me, the FAA is quite serious about a CFI being responsible, regardless of any waivers, etc.

MTV

Got the AOA installed. This video is the second flight. The Alpha Systems folks wants you to install/adjust the device so that as you slow in a clean configuration the needle will be at the red/yellow boundary, under the "a" symbol, at the minimum controllable speed for that configuration. I see little use in that knowledge so I adjusted mine so the dirty stall, gear down and full flaps, occurred at the "a" symbol. The video is after I had adjusted the probe. Sorry for the jumpy video, first time I've attached the camera to the pilots window, but you'll get the gist of the event. I had full right rudder and when the plane started rolling left and I couldn't control it I called it good and recovered, the needle was on the symbol as desired so I'll call it adjusted.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LefcV5KrQSw[/youtube]

Second video is a short approach to my airport to see how the needle reacts. It is smooth here also.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_kwjHQhUFk[/youtube]

Third video is a normal landing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax8VNBK1y78[/youtube]