I forgot about the 1,000 hours to absorb the apparent rate of closure technique. My students soloed in tailwheel in quite a bit less than ten hours making all three landings on the numbers. They simply didn't know how to maintain a too fast to land airspeed, round out, and hold off. Without a lot of interior distractions, humans can learn to fly pretty quickly.

On my C182p, for AOA I am using a Levil BOM. It is also my ADSB in as well. I have an Iphone mounted in my peripheral and the BOM broadcasts AOA info and Airspeed to my Iphone. I am working with a friend to get me some software that when I am in cruise it automatically switches my iphone to the ADSB screen and when I drop below 100mph or so it automatically switches to AOA mode. He already has some amazing software for the BOM where his ADSB is quite similar to a TCAS system. Also his AOA has two modes. The software monitors both ambient cockpit noise and speed so it has two AOA calibrations. By monitoring the cockpit noise and speed, he can assume that a landing condition AOA is needed due to the lesser engine noise. When in cruise or maneuvering above typical landing speeds, it defaults to a higher speed AOA calibration. Pretty ingenious.

The BOM also is sending ADSB info to my Ipad mini on my yoke as well for FlyQ. In addition, I am installing another ipad mini on my copilot yoke and the BOM will broadcast a full set of redundant instruments to the copilot so that when my wife, dad or friend is flying they get their own set of Pitot/Static driven instruments they can look at instead of having a Parallax issue trying to see mine.

If my 182 were not straight out of the 70's and I had a glass cockpit (maybe one day), then the BOM also can be a full set of redundant instruments should the glass panel go out and being Pitot driven its better than an IMU based system that most Ipad Nav software use. So a bit of peace of mind in that case.

Marc

Fly by the seat of your pants, yes very nice to have the skill, and the time to achieve it, but lets be more realistic and open minded.

On average private pilots fly less than 50 hrs per year? And adding a device that is way more accurate than an airspeed indicator, that its just in your peripheral vision that will make you a safer and more accurate pilot its a bad idea? I don't think so.


Want to add, the AoA indicator will teach you to fly the wing and find the limits of your plane.
Only way to land at this places in my 182 its by flying very slow and riding the stall warning, in my case I learned with the AoA indicator, of course you can learn without it, but trust me a device that teaches you to fly the wing its not useless, its also very accurate Vx, Vy, Vg.

Good point Larry. I made my pre-commercial Ag students get up each morning and start all the primary trainer airplanes whether they planned to fly that day or not. Most ended up flying. Keeps them sharper. That was before phones were computers. Device deficit helped keep them on task.

As I noted earlier, I see little value in these things, because they are NOT a TRUE AOA device. That said, if you feel like they really help your flying, go for it.

Here is what I consider to be the unfortunate truth, however:

Flight instruction today tends to be a, production line. There are a lot of reasons for that, a very large reason being the obscene cost of flight training these days.....a flight school isn't going to stay in business very long if they extend the training beyond the minimum required.

And, what is that Minimum required? It's spelled out now in the Airman Certification Standards or ACS. Used to be the Practical Test Standards or PTS. Now, the ACS is a wee bit better than the PTS was, but still, what instructors typically do is teach to the test, as specified by the PTS. No extra flying or training than is absolutely required to meet that standard.

Secondly, who are our flight instructors? They are typically our least experienced commercial pilots, NOT our most experienced pilots. There are good reasons for that, and I absolutely don't want to take anything away from our flight instructors who are out there day in and day out, working with students. They don't know what their instructors (who were the brand new commercial pilots of their generation) didn't teach them, because those folks didn't know.....etc. You get the drift.

And, finally, technology in the cockpit has become almost overwhelming, yet the "required" minimum flight time to meet the ACS hasn't changed since I completed my private certificate in 1970. Seriously.....we now MUST devote a fair bit of time to learning the airplane's electronics, at least in most new trainers. In addition, there are more regulations, more complex means of deriving information, etc, etc.

So, what gets left out of training? A LOT of very basic airmanship skills. For a couple of reasons, not the least of which is our current crop of CFIs often didn't get exposed to those basic skills and techniques during their training, and also, as noted above, it's Train to the ACS, which are MINIMUMS.

Okay, that's a long dissertation to explain why I don't like these devices: Every pilot should have come out of training with at least some basic skills and aerodynamic knowledge. EVERY pilot should come out of training having stalled their airplane MANY, MANY times, and should be VERY familiar with high alpha flight, what it FEELS like.

Unfortunately, that's not the aviator that we often produce these days. So, it's totally natural for a pilot who is a product of that system to look for a "gadget" that can help them feel more comfortable. And, installing one of these things is easier than flying with a crusty old CFI who will take them up to the edge and over in all sorts of ways.

The irony is, however, that after you install one of these things, YOU have to calibrate it, which means YOU have to go out and stall the plane, multiple times, and perform slow flight, etc, etc. In the process, if you were paying attention, you will have probably gotten a much better feel for your airplane.

So, if that's your style, go for it. But, in my experience, just a little exposure to high angle of attack flight, and a lot of stalls will get you to a point where you can do BETTER than you would using one of these devices.

But, whatever winds your watch.

MTV

Concerning landing stalls, what Alpha and Garmin should really be concerned with, you can get about four actual landing stalls practice down a mile of runway in hover taxi. I agree with your point Mike, but OGE (out of ground effect) stalls only somewhat simulate IGE (in ground effect) stalls. Rather than being a special situation landing technique, soft field landing, should drive the how to land technique. The funky, no aileron control and only moderate rudder and elevator control, power off stall poorly prepares students for the solid rudder and elevator feel of the some power stall. Now put that some power stall at one inch AGL where it is useful, and it is really a highly controlled event. And it is about a hundred times easier than the round out and hold off using the elevator as both airspeed control and glide angle/rate of descent control. This small common sense piece of reality could save students hundreds of dollars in overextended flight programs. The minimums, as defined by ACS, are not only less useful, they are more difficult and take longer to learn.

You are dead right, MIke, about the technology. With my weak mind, I had to walk away from instrument instruction. I survived 400 hours of IMC in Hueys on the old technology because I believed in the instruments. I just can't go there with all the features, buttons, touch places, etc. of the computer. If there is a 50-50 chance to be wrong, I will find it 100% of the time. KISS was my life.

MTV,

While I do have the BOM and am using it for my AOA, I am not really using it to its potential yet as my plane is still set up as a family airplane. I have a set of VG's, Cessna HD Nose fork and an MT prop about to go on next month. Even then, I will never go anywhere crazy so seat of the pants flying will likely do me fine. Yet this C182 is new to me and since I already had the BOM for my ADSB in I figure, I may as well add the AOA tool since it was there already in software. When landing on my local concrete runway, I hardly get anywhere near the potential of the wing and what the AOA will show, but I do like that I have a redundant ASI on my phone in my peripheral and no longer need to glance down to look at my ASI on my panel. I like that it keeps my head up and the ASI is calibrated so its within 1 or 2 MPH of what my panel is showing.

Once the items above have been installed, I do plan to try and see where the new envelope of this wing is and recalibrate my BOM AOA. As I begin to venture out to more and more difficult locations, I do hope the AOA is another added piece of info I have access to when needed. Coupled to that, just flying more will also help with the added time in the plane and build more of the seat of the pants feel as well. I also agree with you that panels have become overly dependent on graphical displays and touch screens and such. I like that my only technology in my plane is the Ipad, Iphone, BOM and an EI CGR-30p. Other than that its straight out of 1973 and I plan to keep it that way.

OGE stall practice with or without AOA indicators is valid for understanding where not to be when too low to recover from inadvertent stall. In that low altitude realm, prevention rather than recognition and recovery is the only useful tool. That tool is already designed into the dynamic neutral stability of the airplane. What does the airplane want to do in pitch up? In all turns? Instructors should teach no pull on the elevator without zoom reserve well above Vy in airspeed. Unless a show pilot with Bob Hoover practice and expertise, we have no need of the razors edge at low altitude.

Takeoff is where these devices and ASI can help shock a pilot into not trying to climb too quickly which means too slow. Vx or Vy is generally too slow and is entirely too slow for the average three seconds to accept that we have an engine failure. Vy pitch attitude for three seconds at zero thrust equals fatality usually. Airspeed is life below pretty high altitude so all of these indicators should be mute until safely coming into ground effect on short final.

Totally agree with MTV about the training nowadays, you can see the 747 patterns all over the place.

I don't like cluttering the panel and cockpit either, no Ipad, no Iphone, just one small GPS, you can see in picture the AoA HUD with the slip indicator.(There is an AV30 now where the black instrument cover is)
No need to look inside the cockpit when maneuvering or landing.
Calibration its easy , I did mine 10 years ago in the 182, and never had to do it again.

The AoA indicator is no replacement for slow flight or stalls practice , those should be practiced often if the pilot wants to be proficient in the plane they fly, which its an important factor because there are lots of pilots that never practice a stall, slow flight or an emergency after getting their license, an AoA indicator can help this pilots and save them from mistakes.

motoadve wrote:Totally agree with MTV about the training nowadays, you can see the 747 patterns all over the place.

I don't like cluttering the panel and cockpit either, no Ipad, no Iphone, just one small GPS, you can see in picture the AoA HUD with the slip indicator.(There is an AV30 now where the black instrument cover is)
No need to look inside the cockpit when maneuvering or landing.
Calibration its easy , I did mine 10 years ago in the 182, and never had to do it again.

The AoA indicator is no replacement for slow flight or stalls practice , those should be practiced often if the pilot wants to be proficient in the plane they fly, which its an important factor because there are lots of pilots that never practice a stall, slow flight or an emergency after getting their license, an AoA indicator can help this pilots and save them from mistakes.

x2

I’d love one as a reference. Not as a primary instrument.

I am a fairly new pilot who learned on a round gauge 6-pack, but soon transitioned to the G3X. I think the glass panel has more information in a smaller space, think quicker scan time. The plane I was flying with the G3X had the AOA pitot and had both visual and audio alerts to stall. I liked the audio a lot, virtually never looked at the chevrons

My new plane will have the AOA pitot as well but with the Dynon Skyview HDX.

I do agree that setting the parameters OGE is not the same as it will react IGE. I was too chicken to set them to a full solid horn to go off IGE. I will revisit this when the new plane is flying and I am flying off my 40 hours…. Plenty of time to test

LAs I flew more and more in the backcountry I stopped looking at IAS on final, at that point I could feel the plane and airspeed did not really seem like a big deal

mtv wrote:
Look me up, I’ll go fly with you, and we’ll poke the edges, no fee.

MTV

I feel like this is appropriate:

Everyone learns a little bit differently so it is possible that an AOA could be helpful for some people that like the high tech stuff. I have a glass cockpit with a GFC 500 in my 180. I enjoy flying IFR and for an older guy love the glass cockpit geeky stuff. With that being said - all of that high tech stuff is relatively useless for STOL/Backcountry flying. I agree with Mike's comments 100% about how much flight training has changed in the last 30 years. It amazes me how dependent we have become on EFBs, engine monitors, glass instruments, GPS waypoints, etc... Fun stuff and definitely has a place but useless for really flying the airplane on the envelope. Like anything in aviation it just takes time and practice. It is hard to find an instructor with these skills because the art of stick and rudder flying is slowly being lost. The FAA will cite an improvement in accident rates to support the current ACS and flight training recommendations but those who frequent sites like BCP.org are seeking a different flying experience that demands a different approach and training than what is currently being taught.



Josh

Im selling a new, out of the box KLR 10 AOA, great unit.
PM if interested.
Roman

Seems like the Luddites are coming out of the woodwork here... Like listening to grandpa yelling at the TV saying how no one needs a remote control or ranting about how automatic transmissions are ruining the automobile.

Here are my thoughts:

I've flown behind the Garmin, Bendix, and Alpha quite a bit and think that AOA's are fantastic and are a GREAT tool to have in the toolbox. I'm 100% in favor and have been installing them in most of the airplanes I have been working on. Personally, I've been flying the KLR since 2014 and consider it an important part of my slow flight.

With respect to Garmin: It seems to work just fine inside the G3X system, but I wouldn't install the stand alone kit. Although the install is a little bit faster (and smaller) than the Alpha, I just personally like the Alpha system.

King and Alpha: FWIW, they are the EXACT same units. Before AOA's started to catch on, Mark Korin (the owner of Alpha) licensed his tech to Bendix King, who marketed it as the KLR10. The only difference was the form factor of the head unit so it wouldnt directly compete (at least from an industrial design point, with the Alpha.) The King got some ribbing because (for whatever reason) they chose an egg shape for the head unit, but the important bits are the same. The EXACT same.

King ran with it for a couple of years until the license came up for renew. At that point, AOA's were becoming more ubiquitous, and Alpha decided not to renew. The stock of KLRs quickly ran out (because the price point of the King was less than the Alpha) and that was it... no more stock. Spruce (weirdly) still has the sku listed, but one hasnt been able to buy new units for several years. Also, Spruce has always had their sku's messed up with confusion about units with heated probes, swivel mounts, etc etc etc... they still have them listed for sale from $1750 to almost $3k, but the reality is that there is no stock, nor will there be. If you can find a new set, it should run around $1700-$1800.

At around this same time, Alpha upgraded their head unit. This change was primarily the lights, changing from incandescent bulbs projecting thru a colored film to actual colored LEDs. The display is much brighter now and dramatically more crisp. Alpha also has some other wiz-bang value props like the HUD etc... but the underlying tech is pretty much the same as its been.

A comment was made about just using the ASI... I can see the intention, but keep in mind that the airspeed is a measure of the energy the wing has available, where as the AOA is a measure of the lift the wing has, regardless of DA or aircraft weight.

It is true that the pilot must "calibrate" the device. To do this, (on the Alpha/King) you enter three data points. One at rest in the hangar, one at cruise, and one somewhere above stall. I find this pretty cool as I can set the device to whatever comfort level one wants. In my bird, the "center" of the device presents at 1.2 VSO. For a new pilot in a new bird, I might set it up at 1.4 or 1.5 depending. As they get more comfortable with the machine, we can move it closer to the edge... the trick is comprehending what the data means and using it properly.

This is the common misconception with the "tool." Its not an "if-then" instrument, but rather a device that gives you sliding scale of where you are in any state. This is why the AOA is much more than the stall horn or the ASI.

With respect to the Alpha: Not must more to say. Solid and good tech. Easy install and a great system. If your in the market, don't waste the time with all the fancy stuff, just the basic system is all you need. (keep in mind that the HUD install will increase the install time, and thus increase the price) If your in the market, I'd say go for the new unit Roman says he has and save some bucks.

If his gets snapped up, I think I have one new-in the-box kit in my shop (I had bought a couple when I heard Bendix was no longer going to be selling them)

NET/NET, I think AOA's in general are a really great and useful tool. It’s not a magic bullet or a panacea for stupidity, but a worthwhile item that will increase safety. If you learn to incorporate it into your suite of tools, it will be a benefit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2gnf-NUtD4&t=143s

I’ve always been a huge fan of the HUD display in motoadve’s 182 (I still say it as moto-Dave in my head, years later haha!).

But I’m also a big fan of the moving vane of the CYA-100 system vice the differential pitot types. They’re both accurate enough for GA use, though.

I was typing this up when Bigrenna chimed in and covered much of what I was going to say. I agree with him. Here is what I was typing:


It has been mentioned that the AOA indicators that we are discussing for the GA fleet do not represent true AOA, and that they need to be calibrated.

On the point of true AOA, it does function much like an airspeed indicator using pressure differences taken at two points on a probe. So yes, it is not a true angle. However, as has also been mentioned before, most of the GA instruments that we so willingly trust are also not giving true values of what they display. Nearly every instrument uses a measurable physical property to estimate the truth.

Airspeed indicator - pressure monitor with tons of error (flying with a groundspeed of 40 mph with the airspeed indicator pegged at zero).

Altimeter - pressure sensor with associated errors

Compass - magnet with movement errors

DG - gyro with precession errors

VSI...Vacuum instruments.... I can go on and on. Why isn't anyone talking about how worthless the ASI is because it is a pressure transducer and not an actual airspeed measurement device?

The bottom line is that you should know your instruments and understand the differences between the indication and the truth.

Most GA planes, when keeping the fore-aft balance constant, seem to have about a 1 mph change in stall speed for every 100 pounds. For my 185, that can be be a difference of 10 mph depending on the loading. While I could try to always feel the plane and mentally adjust airspeeds in my head and listen for my stall horn and ....... or I can look for the calibrated light where I know the plane feels controllable in slow flight and this is consistent across the 10 mph window between heavily and lightly loaded. There is a dramatic difference in feel between a 185 flown at 2300 lbs and 3350 lbs.

Like Bigrenna, I calibrate the instrument to come alive when I get slow so the sensitivity of the gauge increases. I like the ability to calibrate this myself.

I essentially use the AOA as a normalized airspeed indicator which adjusts for weight and balance when in the landing configuration. When going into short areas, I set up the plane and establish my target AOA. From there, I feel the plane and glance occasionally at the lights. I like it.

SOOOOOOOO how does the AOA know the weight of the airplane? I went to the IFLYAOA.COM and could not find how the instrument knew the weight I had that day!!! ASI takes into account air density, you may not like what it says and your actual ground speed may not be the same but that is what pilot training is for. The big issue is if you are going to fly that close to the stall speed of small backcountry aircraft you will be looking out the side for touchdown point not over the nose!! If my stall speed changed 1mph/100lbs I would have been dead long ago. As far as not needing a remote for the TV, unless you have stood holding aluminum foil around rabbit ears so your parents could watch Lawrence Welk you got some room to grow. I still say it is just a ASI with colors. If in a small GA aircraft you had your airspeed projected in a HUD what would be different????
DENNY

Oooops repost wine 3rd glass of whine.
DENNY

DENNY wrote:SOOOOOOOO how does the AOA know the weight of the airplane? I went to the IFLYAOA.COM and could not find how the instrument knew the weight I had that day!!! ASI takes into account air density, you may not like what it says and your actual ground speed may not be the same but that is what pilot training is for. The big issue is if you are going to fly that close to the stall speed of small backcountry aircraft you will be looking out the side for touchdown point not over the nose!! If my stall speed changed 1mph/100lbs I would have been dead long ago. As far as not needing a remote for the TV, unless you have stood holding aluminum foil around rabbit ears so your parents could watch Lawrence Welk you got some room to grow. I still say it is just a ASI with colors. If in a small GA aircraft you had your airspeed projected in a HUD what would be different????
DENNY

The AoA reporting systems don’t know the weight of the airplane, but the wing does.

A wing in the same configuration will stall at the same angle. As you increase weight in the airplane, you increase the lift you’re requiring that wing to provide. For a given airspeed, to make more lift you need more AoA. If you get past the stall angle, then the wing will stall, regardless of airspeed.

It’s exceptionally hard to get a wing past the stall angle with any appreciable airspeed, so this only really matters at low airspeeds.

You probably haven’t died yet because even the backcountry folks leave “a couple of knots/mph for mom” extra airspeed on approach/landing, which combined with experience and proprioceptive cues soaks up the differences in actual stall speeds based on loading/environmental factors.

An AoA reporting device is just another instrument that can help a pilot understand the safe operating capabilities of their airplane.

——————

Nobody is forcing anyone else to install one, I wonder why there’s always such vehement response to these sorts of things? If you want to perch a potted plant on your wing because you think it’ll help you fly safer, why the hell not? And an AoA is actually scientifically relevant here!