I suspect $$$ is the reason for no STC--it takes a lot of that commodity to get through the STC process--and I don't think it's required.

I don't profess expertise in this area, but there are many things which can be permanently mounted in certificated airplanes without STCs. My IA has plenty of expertise, I rely on him to follow the rules, and he has a good relationship with the FAA rep he has to deal with. My airplane has a full page single spaced of mods, some in place when I bought the airplane but most installed by him with the blessing of the FAA obtained in advance when necessary. I would agree that the Dynon EFIS isn't acceptable in a certificated airplane, but comparing it to the AOA because both are instruments is sort of like comparing apples to onions--they're both ball shaped and edible, but that's about it.

Zane, it's true that I don't even consider the AOA in most circumstances, only when coming into a very short strip. I tend to fly "seat of the pants" without reference to either it or the ASI most of the time, because I've been flying for a long time and I really do know my airplane. But when I want to really slow it down, it's a valuable benefit. Just like one doesn't use a handheld GPS as a primary nav instrument in IFR conditions but instead uses it to augment situational awareness, the AOA offers that benefit. As for a scan issue, mine is mounted on top of the panel so it's easily seen with peripheral vision without taking my eyes off the approaching runway--no need to scan it. BTW, I hardly ever look at my VSI--its lag makes its usefulness much less than the primary instruments of altitude and airspeed. When I have inexperienced passengers, I do use the VSI to confirm my "seat of the pants" feeling that I'm not exceeding a comfortable descent rate that will bother their ears.

In any event, I don't regret having the AOA installed, at all. Whether others choose to install one in their own airplanes is their business--but it's not their business to discourage others. After some 50 hours or so of using mine under all conditions of loading from pilot only and a few gallons of gas to full gross, airport elevations from 1200' MSL to 7800' MSL, and landing areas from very short to almost 2 miles long, I would like to see one in every light airplane, because I think it would materially reduce the approach-to-landing accident rate.

Cary

Cary wrote:In your "tests" of the 185 with the AOA installed, I doubt that you materially changed the weight you were carrying, or the ASI would have shown a much lower airspeed at light weights than at gross weight, assuming that the AOA was correctly installed and calibrated--it's fundamental aerodynamics that minimum controllable air speeds are significantly lower with lower operating weights. Thus, the ASI could not have shown the same information as the AOA.

As in Mike's case, I beg to differ. I spent an entire summer many moons ago flying D-8 parts, tools, and mechanics out of Barrow Alaska up into the hills south of Atqasuk in a C206. This was into a muddy, rocky, rutted up outcropping of rock that we pretended was an airstrip. Loads ranged from gear spread and tires damn near flat heavy, to just me and the mechanic. That airplane got a work out, as did I.

The C206 was equipped with an AOA indicator, I have no idea what brand because once I got over the novelty, it was totally ignored for the remainder of my time in that airplane. I can't speak for how anyone else in the world flys an airplane, but if I'm working short and rough, as that entire summer was, I don't use ASI (or AOA) much once I get set up for my approaches.

I'll work in close with an eye on my ASI to get it in the ballpark, but after that it's all trim for that airspeed and attitude, throttle for vertical speed, then it's eyes out the airplane and concentrate on my touchdown picture, and seat of my pants feeling out my sink. I don't care what my ASI says, or AOA shows, or the stall horn is doing. All the info I need is out the window and in my seat. Staring at a needle on a gauge, or lights on an indicator is distracting, and gets my attention off what what's important at that instant.

Like I said, I speak for myself only. And, I'll say the same about lots of add-on gadgets like STOL kits, etc. For the average Joe, money is much better spent on gasoline and flying time to develop skill and experience, that it is to wring out small fractions more performance from airplanes that aren't used to their full potential in the first place.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:...than it is to wring out small fractions more performance from airplanes that aren't used to their full potential in the first place.

I totally agree on this particular issue, BUT...

I'm also totally guilty of liking gadgets and neat-o panel stuff. A nearly identical argument often resurfaces for PCAS/Mode C proximity warning instruments, with one side saying they are useful as an addition to visual scanning, and one side saying don't waste your money-- eyeballs are all you need. That one always gets heated!

Each to his own toys. I learned to fly in a lawnchair with only tach and engine monitor, and I've found little that's better.

Gump,
I can't agree more, If it is short and or rough, as in landing off airport!! When you get close to the ground your head should be out of the Cockpit and looking at what you are doing, If it is not and your butt is not the most important instrument you have at hand then I think you need to go practice some more!!!
You should be able to land the damn thing with out looking at anything in the panel,
For you that argue this, just go out and cover up the panel and learn what your plane feels like, if you can't land it that way, practice some more!
My $.02 for what it's worth????
I know it will never happen to you but what happens if you have a total electrical failure in the dark and your damn flashlight battery's quit!
It doesn't matter how many precautions you take, if you fly enough hours you will need to know what your damn plane feels like!!
GT
All of these things are nice to have and play with, but never trust your Ass or anyone you have with you on them!

Cary wrote:Whether others choose to install one in their own airplanes is their business--but it's not their business to discourage others.

Again, I disagree. That's like saying after I've used Brand X gizmo and found it lacking, I don't have the right to tell anyone that I think it's crap. I used an AOA for four months, and I formed my opinion based on that experience. If a fellow pilot asks me what I think, I'll tell them.

Cary wrote:I would like to see one in every light airplane, because I think it would materially reduce the approach-to-landing accident rate.

Again, that's not my experience, and I think it's dangerous mind-set to be in as far as our flying freedoms go. If a guy's so far behind the power curve that he stalls/spins turning base to final, a row of blinking lights is not going to save him.

Gump

I've got to agree with what folks are saying about butt over AoA indicator, however....

I found one to be useful in a limited sense. A buddy and I bought an RV-4 about 10 years ago. It came with an Advanced Flight Systems AoA indicator. The display head was mounted in the canopy, straight in front of you (no looking down to see it). What I found was the indicator helped speed the development of my butt feel as I transitioned into the airplane. Flying at different weights, sorting out margin with steep climbouts (where God's g is as much aft as it is down), how close to stall during acro, etc. Note that this airplane gets flown in a pretty wide variety of regimes -- not just weights, but g-loads too. So you can use these indicators as a tool to develop your feel of the airplane.

But that's a very narrow window of time. My guess is that the basic feel probably developed a quarter faster than it would have otherwise. (so that's what, maybe an hour's flight time saved?) With basic feel established, the thing didn't really contribute at all. The "fine" feel you get the old fashioned way.

So, you could save a little early flight time learning a new airplane, and get your butt-feel up to speed marginally faster -- if you wanted. I can also see the thing working the other way. Gadgets can distract more than they help.

Personally, I wouldn't spend money or effort on one. But they are kind of neat.

--Tony

Cary,

You are telling us that you are using that device for PRIMARY pitch information, yet you say it shouldn't require any kind of approval?????

Holy cow! What the hey SHOULD require FAA approval, then?

And, when people are offering their honest opinion of a modification, based on experience, I'd listen, and if you decide you don't like that information, don't use it. But, don't tell me that I shouldn't provide an honest and real world assessment of a device to be mounted in an airplane.

MTV

mtv wrote:
And, when people are offering their honest opinion of a modification, based on experience, I'd listen, and if you decide you don't like that information, don't use it. But, don't tell me that I shouldn't provide an honest and real world assessment of a device to be mounted in an airplane.

MTV

I sure wish you had been this altruistic and open-minded when the subject of my modification device to be mounted in an airplane was being discussed.

As long as he did not remove the ASI, which is certified for primary reference, then adding another (perhaps useful, perhaps not) attitude reference should by all rights not be a major FAA concern. It's like having a legal TSO radio in the panel, and having a Radio Shack handheld COM sitting in your lap. The Radio Shack unit is not TSO and cannot be "primary communication" but as long as he didn't remove the TSO radio it really is not a big deal to the FAA

Nope, if it's mounted in the airplane, by FAA regulations, it has to have a basis for approval. Most FSDOs will tell you that if it isn't TSO'd, as in an airplane part, it simply cannot be mounted in an airplane. Now, I have also found FSDO's that would permit non TSOd stuff in airplanes.

But, again consider the Dynon EFIS. It contains an airspeed indicator, a electro magnetic compass and an altimeter. Try installing that in an airplane with all that stuff already installed, and placard the Dynon as "Not to be used for primary information" and see how far you get. We did it, then got told by the FAA to remove them. I have seen ONE FSDO approve them, but they also stopped approving them. Again, it's purely supplemental information, in addition to the primary instrumentation. Why would that not be a GREAT idea?

And, no offense, but I did offer my opinion on your device. You didn't like my opinion. So be it.

As the old story goes, opinions are like A-Holes....we've all got one, but mine's the only one that doesn't stink

MTV

I'm with Gump. Most of my time is in a J3. The only instrument that matters in it is the oil pressure gauge, and I don't use it much on short final.

"You are telling us that you are using that device for PRIMARY pitch information, yet you say it shouldn't require any kind of approval?????"

Where did you find that in any of my posts? Betcha can't.

Then you said, "Nope, if it's mounted in the airplane, by FAA regulations, it has to have a basis for approval."

So cite and quote the FAA reg. Betcha can't.

Cary

It seems that we go thru this same debate every year or so.

Most of us have angle of attack vanes and indicators in our planes. They are called stall warnings. The difference is that the stall warning only tells us of one angle of attack. It only tells us that angle when it first lights or sounds. It is a good safety device but we can fly safely without it if we know our planes.

I am a firm believer in AOA equipment and flying with it. I can use all of the information and help that I can get. I can fly without it but I can fly more accurately with it.

We all should know the differences in AOA flying or airspeed flying when it relates to stall speed determinations.

If you know your plane as well as Gump and have his sensitive seat of the pants, AOA may not be of much help.

flyer wrote:If you know your plane as well as Gump and have his sensitive seat of the pants, AOA may not be of much help.

I don't know how to respond to that, except to say I agree. And I certainly don't "know" my airplane any better than most folks I know that fly. But, the gauntlet was thrown, and in response I offered my opinion based on what my personal experience has been.

A bunch of the Beech guys like it too. I will install one one of these days. Those who say they aren't worth a shit just simply don't know what they're talking about.

The outfit I worked for at the time had a contract with the North Slope Borough in Barrow to supply their coal mining venture on the far northwest slope of the Brooks Range. I was relatively new, and didn't give a shit, so I got sent up end of May and flew the contract until it shut down in the fall. Four months, and just shy of 600 hours flying in a C206 equipped with a reserve lift indicator (I think that's what it was called).

For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, the western end of the Brooks Range in the summer consists of howling west winds, rain, snow, fog and freezing fog. Pretty much every day. Where we based out of was an old Herc strip up in the hills, maybe 100 miles south of Atqasuk and 75 miles east of Point Lay. This was pre-GPS days, so to find the strip I flew bearings off the village NDB's, dropped thru the muck to where I had ground contact, then Mark-I eyeballs the rest of the way. I never once got "lost" but sometimes I looked harder than others.

Once I found the strip, the fun was just beginning. The strip was built on the lee of a ridgeline, aimed North/South, with the prevailing winds westerly, burbling over the ridge pretty constant in the 30+ KT range. Add in fog, rain, snow, and a really heavy airplane, life was not fun two to three times a day. In fact as I walked to the airplane each morning I would consciously look around and think, "This is going to be my last day on earth. I wonder what it's going to be like to die?" It was balls to the wall flying.

Anyway, point of this long story... I cheat while I fly. I'll use any trick, toy, gadget, technique, whatever makes my life easier... And gets me through my flying day. Like before GPS, I have absolutely no fond memories of sweating out VFR Nav up in that shit wx. And as far as AOA indicator, if that thing had given me just one iota of help or information, I'd be sitting here swearing by it to all of you now. But, it didn't.

I was busier than shit on my approaches and departures. That airplane was like riding a rodeo bull, only the eight second horn never blew, and that AOA indicator was absolutely useless with lag time and bouncing back and forth. It just didn't tell me anything. I trimmed for pitch attitude, and used throttle for elevator, and felt my way in.

Maybe it works better for you guys in nicer conditions. Don't know, but I hope it does.

Gump

Okay, I'll admit it, I like gadgets . . . and the AOA indicator does look cool. I've still got toy money to spend before BO tries to take the rest of it . . .

When I load up the Husky within a few pounds of gross or in a sub-optimal manner, I do a test stall at altitude before putting into anyplace short or challenging.

The Husky behaves well, honest pre-stall mush, adequate warning, no abrupt break or wing drop, assuming rudder anywhere near where it should be. Like Gump and others, on short final my head's outside, no longer even glancing at dials and needles. Understanding and appreciating how a plane communicates, and a quick glance at the ASI earlier on in the approach, is more than enough for me.

For those who feel the need for an AOA on a recip GA aircraft, no problem. This ain't religion, so I feel no urge to convert non-believers or remove their heads if I can't.

I know we are talking about short final.

I will only briefly bring up the subject of shortest turns in a canyon or while turning over water, like up in Alaska, while looking down. Your stall speed increases dramatically as you pull gs. It may not have the same feel before a higher speed stall occurs. Your stall angle of attack remains the same although your stall speed is much higher. How many stall/spins turning final have there been?

I think that Gump and other very experienced pilots do fly by angle of attack and not airspeed. They do it by feel. The outside wing reference also gives them angle of attack.

If you had an AOA indicator that you could look at without having your head down on the gages, would it not be an added safety benefit?

Some planes are easier to fly and land than others. I find that when I am flying and maybe a little tired, I will use any extra safety gadget that will help. I also think that we should all be open to try things more than once.

flyer

flyer wrote:I know we are talking about short final.

I will only briefly bring up the subject of shortest turns in a canyon or while turning over water, like up in Alaska, while looking down. Your stall speed increases dramatically as you pull gs. It may not have the same feel before a higher speed stall occurs. Your stall angle of attack remains the same although your stall speed is much higher. How many stall/spins turning final have there been?

Speaking just to the box canyon turn. I do that by slowing to 60 mph indicated, full flaps, full throttle, crank it over to at least 60 degrees while hauling back on the elevator. The stall warning is sounding throughout the turn. The plane feels like it's turning in its own length, though I know this is not the case - - it is a tight turn, moreso the slower the airspeed and steeper the bank.

I've tried hard, but I can't get the Husky to stall out of this manuever - assuming rudder coordinated (usually a bit of top rudder). The only time I look at any instrument is a quick glance at my ASI going in to be sure < 60 mph. After that, it's all outside and flying. No need for an AOA indicator.

As to those unfortunate souls who have perished stalling and spinning in, moose stalls, strong and/or unexpected turbulence when close to the ground etc. If one were instead watching an AOA, I'd think all might well be looking just fine right up until that sudden horrific tailwind gust, or microburst, or thermal induced in-rush hits. Then, just like the little female voice in my Garmin that that suggests "pull up, pull up or were all gonna die", the alarm from the AOA would be too late. Safest is to learn to avoid those perilous conditions in the first place. It helps to remember that Mother Nature can handily dish out more than we or our little airplanes can handle. I think the key to living to an old age while partaking of flight is not some instrument such as the AOA under discussion, but rather gaining the experience and wisdom to know when not to push Mother N.

I'm no expert or even all that experienced as compared to many here. It's sobering and makes one doubly cautious realizing that true experts such as Sparky Emerson have died doing what we do.

I've never figured out how to focus on the gauges while being banged around on short final. I'd rather just depend on the feel of the rate at which stick and rudder forces are changing.

Interesting article in AOPA this month by Rod Machado.

License to Learn
Fly it right
By Rod Machado


Riddle me this: When is an airplane not an airliner?

Answer: When it’s not an airliner. But that reality hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of many to fly their small, single-engine airplanes as if they’re operating a jumbo jet.

On its face, emulating the pros seems like a good idea, given that airline pilots are quite proficient at not bending the machines they fly. But upsizing gives airline pilots some things that single-engine operators lack—two or more big engines and a co-pilot who can be ordered in all sizes and shapes, for example. What seems like an excellent piloting strategy may in reality be an enormous safety handicap.

Not long ago, I gave a flight review to a fellow in a Cessna 172 whose takeoff consisted of calling out a rotation speed, an initial climb speed, a post-initial climb speed, and then a cruise climb speed. My guess is that it would have taken a flathead screwdriver and WD-40 to pry his eyeballs off the airspeed indicator. I have no doubt that upon reaching rotation speed he would have pointed the airplane’s nose up to climb, whether the propeller was still there or not.

It turned out that his flight school preps all their pilots for commuter airline jobs, whether they want one or not. Keep in mind that when airline pilots rotate their machines, they’re sure they will climb (and the props often are already missing). You can’t say the same for smaller airplanes. Small airplanes climb only when they want to climb, not when the airspeed indicator says they should climb.

Another example of airline piloting behavior used by small-airplane pilots is the almost obsessive reliance on written checklists. On a recent flight, I had one fellow pull out and start reading a post-takeoff checklist a few hundred feet off the ground. Huh? I gently took the checklist from his hands and tucked it away in my side-door pouch (where he couldn’t get to it). The student said, “What am I going to do for a climb checklist?”

I replied, “I’ve shortened it for you. Here it is:

“Checklist item number 1. Get away from the ground pronto. Checklist item number 2. Don’t bump into anything while doing it.”

Checklist Man was so focused on reading that he wasn’t thinking about the critical nature of an engine failure at low altitude, let alone seeing and avoiding airport traffic.

Of course, airline captains must rely heavily on checklists, and they can do so safely because they have copilots who’ve graduated from Dick and Jane to VX and VREF. For small-airplane drivers, however, the use of a written checklist in the cockpit should be inversely proportional to their horizontal and vertical proximity to the runway. It’s no secret that the closer you are to an airport, the greater your risk of changing paint and unapproved parts with another airplane. Immediately after takeoff and just prior to landing, your eyeballs should be looking out, not in.

Another symptom of heavy-metal flying behavior being used in small airplanes is the excessive emphasis on a stabilized approach when landing. In this context, the term stabilized approach means establishing a bigger airplane on a final approach that’s long enough to work all the knots and kinks out of the glidepath. When this involves turning final at or below traffic-pattern altitude in a small airplane, the result is often a long, shallow glidepath. I’m not against stabilized approaches in small airplanes, but they shouldn’t involve crossing time zones or require filling out U.S. Customs forms.

I recall one commercial student who insisted on extending her downwind legs so she could fly a final approach 2.5 miles in length. The pilots operating behind her weren’t tickled by having to continually reset their watches and postpone lunch appointments. I finally asked Glidepath Lady if she was going to turn base for Runway 36 soon, or whether we should just get a clearance to land on Runway 18 as she came around the other side.

Keep in mind that small airplanes are easy to stabilize on any approach, even when turning final one-half mile or less from the runway. That’s because they’re small airplanes, meaning they respond quickly to changes in pitch and power. Voluntarily lengthening the final approach leg without a commensurate increase in altitude confers very little safety benefit, while almost always generating an unnecessary increase in risk.

Finally, flying an airliner is a numbers game. Controlling a big machine means flying by the numerical values associated with pitch, bank, and power. For the most part, it’s the flight instruments that tell you what an airliner is doing. In a small airplane, it’s your rear end—the seat of your pants—that should provide you with that information. Your senses are your co-pilot. You must look outside while you fly, aided by the sensations of sight, touch, and sound. Unfortunately, when private pilots operate as if they’re in a multipilot environment, they often do so at the expense of listening to what their pants are telling them. So listen to your pants.

We should fly an airplane as if it’s the airplane we’re actually flying, not the one that someone thinks we might fly at some future time. Even if there is a beverage service involved, private pilots operating a single-engine airplane in a single-pilot environment decrease their safety margin by acting as if they’re flying heavy-metal, multicrew machines.

AMEN!

MTV