New AOA/Speed controller for GA aircraft

NineThreeKilo said:
Oh jesus!

How about learn to fly the damn plane lol

Maybe if he wasnt soooo busy looking at all the flashing lights and dials he could have hit that center line :dunno:
Click to expand...

So are you stating that AoAs serve no purpose? If so, why are they required in so many aircraft?

A 172 isn't a Lear, but that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to be had.
 
I believe an AOA Indicator in my periphery (and in my headset) makes me a safer pilot.

I don't really care if someone (even a general) thinks AOA is only needed by a weak pilot or that it serves no purpose, or that a real aviator only needs to listen to the wind or feel for the burble. But as long as I continue to see good, experienced pilots auger in on base to final, I will gladly accept a crutch and offer myself up for ridicule.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
It is "FAA approved" but only to the extent that the FAA has officially recognized that the installation is a minor modification and does not require a STC.
Click to expand...

Headset are a minor installation still they need to be TSOd for use in aircraft. AOA indicators for certificated aircraft need to be FAA TSO-c54 approved, like the Safe Flight devices. However it could be because the airplane already has a certificated stall indicator that the Alpha System device is not considered primary for stall indication. A placard should indicate this. AOA sensor installation is not trivial and is unique for each aircraft model.

I would be cautious on relying on the Alpha System, specially under icing conditions. AOA are very helpful in determining proximity to stall under icing conditions. A frozen AOA sensor could mislead you to believe you are not close to a stall condition when in fact you are. This is one reason why they need to be FAA approved

José
 
Piloto said:
..the Alpha System device is not considered primary for stall indication. A placard should indicate this..
Click to expand...

That's correct Jose. The Alpha System is secondary and placarded as such. Attached is the 12/15/2011 memo from the Small Airplane Directorate. I also wrote to my FSDO before installation for confirmation that it was kosher to install with a logbook entry and he confirmed in writing that it was. Here's the meat and potatoes of the FAA memo, copied from the Alpha Systems web site:

Small Airplane Directorate Approval Letter

On December 15, 2011 the US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration's Small Airplane Directorate Division issued a letter to Alpha Systems AOA, which is manufactured by DepotStar, Inc.

This letter states the following:

"This letter is in regards to the installation of Alpha Systems - AOA system on Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category airplanes.

The installation of any component on an aircraft must be evaluated for its affect on weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness.

The Small Airplane Directorate views your system as non-required equipment that provides a safety benefit. We also recognize that there appears to be conflict between 14CFR parts 1, 21 and 43 regarding the classification of a major change. 14 CFR part 43, Appenix A does not use the word "appreciable" when classifying a change as do parts 1 and 21. As such, the Small Airplane Directorate and the Flight Standards Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division has evaluated the installation of the Alpha Systems - AOA system on Normal, Utility, Acrobatic CAR3 or Part 23 airplanes. We conclude the installation can be considered a minor alteration, provided certain provisions are met." Said provisions are listed in the letter linked above.
 

Attachments

Piloto said:
I would be cautious on relying on the Alpha System, specially under icing conditions. AOA are very helpful in determining proximity to stall under icing conditions. A frozen AOA sensor could mislead you to believe you are not close to a stall condition when in fact you are. This is one reason why they need to be FAA approved
Click to expand...

The heated probe is optional and its installation exceeds the parameters of logbook only, requiring a 337, etc.
 
Piloto said:
I would be cautious on relying on the Alpha System, specially under icing conditions. AOA are very helpful in determining proximity to stall under icing conditions. A frozen AOA sensor could mislead you to believe you are not close to a stall condition when in fact you are. This is one reason why they need to be FAA approved
Click to expand...

As was already said, the heated probe option helps there. I wouldn't rely on it in icing, but I would be curious as to what it said and cross-check it vs. my other instruments. I've had pitot heat fail in icing and give me a wrong airspeed indication.
 
Hey, nice instrument. It an instrument like any other.
Lay off the guy.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So are you stating that AoAs serve no purpose? If so, why are they required in so many aircraft?

A 172 isn't a Lear, but that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to be had.
Click to expand...

The AoA meters, lights, etc do as advertised, no question.

However in a small plane light like a 7AC, 150, 172, PA28, many small trainer twins, etc, you REALLY should be able to feel your wings just fine, furthermore these small planes will tell you in a million ways, sound, feel, buffeting, stick force, etc WAY before you get into the big boogie man stall spin they keep talking about.

My personal plane doesnt have one, nor does she have a stall horn or light, I can sure as heck tell what my wing is doing though.


Perhaps the money spent outfitting a 172 with AoA meters would be better spent on some REAL spin and maybe aerobatic training??
 
NineThreeKilo said:
The AoA meters, lights, etc do as advertised, no question.

However in a small plane light like a 7AC, 150, 172, PA28, many small trainer twins, etc, you REALLY should be able to feel your wings just fine, furthermore these small planes will tell you in a million ways, sound, feel, buffeting, stick force, etc WAY before you get into the big boogie man stall spin they keep talking about.

My personal plane doesnt have one, nor does she have a stall horn or light, I can sure as heck tell what my wing is doing though.


Perhaps the money spent outfitting a 172 with AoA meters would be better spent on some REAL spin and maybe aerobatic training??
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that someone should be able to feel one's way through flying these spam cans just fine. I have no problem with stalls, spins, Vmc demos, etc. and do them regularly.

Now let's take a look at the accident statistics which seem to indicate that many people fail in this department for one reason or another and do stall/spin/die. Maybe they just never were any good at flying. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they simply got overloaded and failed to pick up on the obvious signs that they would've seen on a normal day (that seems to be the biggest one). In any event, if a tool can help provide some advance warning to these people who do not deserve to die, then I'm all for it. Hence why we'll look to install an AoA at next annual.
 
Piloto said:
An AOA does not tell you that safety margin but the airspeed indicator does.
Click to expand...
You've got it exactly backwards. One can stall at any airspeed, but always at the same angle of attack. And please, listen just this one time. The lives of your passengers are in danger.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
However in a small plane light like a 7AC, 150, 172, PA28, many small trainer twins, etc, you REALLY should be able to feel your wings just fine, furthermore these small planes will tell you in a million ways, sound, feel, buffeting, stick force, etc WAY before you get into the big boogie man stall spin they keep talking about.
Click to expand...
Way to miss the point. It's all about the reserve of what Langeweische calls "buyoancy". Everyone can sense when airplane is about to stall, duh. But it's too late unless you're about to touch down. And making that "WAY" uppercase still doesn't do it large enough.
 
Piloto said:
Headset are a minor installation still they need to be TSOd for use in aircraft. AOA indicators for certificated aircraft need to be FAA TSO-c54 approved, like the Safe Flight devices. However it could be because the airplane already has a certificated stall indicator that the Alpha System device is not considered primary for stall indication. A placard should indicate this. AOA sensor installation is not trivial and is unique for each aircraft model.
Click to expand...
TSOs are not required for "supplemental" equipment (i.e. items not required by FAR or TCDS). All the aftermarket AoA systems are supplemental and the only ones that require any certification are the kind that tap into the existing pitot static system.

I would be cautious on relying on the Alpha System, specially under icing conditions. AOA are very helpful in determining proximity to stall under icing conditions. A frozen AOA sensor could mislead you to believe you are not close to a stall condition when in fact you are. This is one reason why they need to be FAA approved

José
Click to expand...
The Alpha AoA probe can include a heater which provides good protection in icing conditions, something I can vouch for personally. And due to the geometry of the probe the gauge always reads zero (fully stalled) if you leave the heat off and it ices up. IMO (based on several years of flying a deiced twin with AoA) your concerns are unfounded (but worth considering nonetheless).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
....
Now let's take a look at the accident statistics which seem to indicate that many people fail in this department for one reason or another and do stall/spin/die. ....
Click to expand...


Which is why I wish on that revamp of the PTS the feds did a little while back they would have brought back spin training, not just BS avoidance. Prior to 1949 when the CAA REQUIRED spin training (as in demonstrating a full spin and recovery on heading).

Look even a little girl with no AOA, TCAS, G1000, BRS, Radar, Auto throttles, or even a frikin engine can do it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTqOuxrBF0


zaitcev said:
... But it's too late unless you're about to touch down. ...
Click to expand...

Really?

My pre-solo students can feel when the plane is getting behind the power curve, they put the nose down, step on the high wing if needed and that's that, end of issue.

I've had my same pre-solo guys fly with a airspeed indicator and altimeter "failed" and they can do touch and goes just fine.
 
So in 54 posts or less we are at the point that one can fly without an AOA device and we are reminded that we can fly without most of the instruments and tools which reside in our 1/2 decade old aircraft.
We also know that no instrument works in every situation and in every weather condition.

However.

Each of the tools we have is useful if not used in the extreme or to excess.

So -- the forum has given us some insight where the tools are useful and where they are not, and like most flying forums there are some strident folks which drive home the points in grand fashion.

Great entertainment Eh..

And if you read between the lines you get the benefit of many hours of flying experience.

Better than watching reruns on TV.

Oh, I do have an AOA and I like it for what it does for me. (as I do enjoy the Ipad /Garman/Zaon/ new seat covers and BAS belts...etc. )
A simple list of pros and cons would have been as useful but not nearly as much fun.

:D
 
patrick wentworth said:
So in 54 posts or less we are at the point that one can fly without an AOA device and we are reminded that we can fly without most of the instruments and tools which reside in our 1/2 decade old aircraft.
We also know that no instrument works in every situation and in every weather condition.

However.

Each of the tools we have is useful if not used in the extreme or to excess.

So -- the forum has given us some insight where the tools are useful and where they are not, and like most flying forums there are some strident folks which drive home the points in grand fashion.

Great entertainment Eh..

And if you read between the lines you get the benefit of many hours of flying experience.

Better than watching reruns on TV.

Oh, I do have an AOA and I like it for what it does for me. (as I do enjoy the Ipad /Garman/Zaon/ new seat covers and BAS belts...etc. )
A simple list of pros and cons would have been as useful but not nearly as much fun.

:D
Click to expand...

Well said :)
 
JohnAJohnson said:
I believe an AOA Indicator in my periphery (and in my headset) makes me a safer pilot.

I don't really care if someone (even a general) thinks AOA is only needed by a weak pilot or that it serves no purpose, or that a real aviator only needs to listen to the wind or feel for the burble. But as long as I continue to see good, experienced pilots auger in on base to final, I will gladly accept a crutch and offer myself up for ridicule.
Click to expand...

I don't know you from Adam, but you, sir, are one exceptionally intelligent man.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Which is why I wish on that revamp of the PTS the feds did a little while back they would have brought back spin training, not just BS avoidance. Prior to 1949 when the CAA REQUIRED spin training (as in demonstrating a full spin and recovery on heading).

Look even a little girl with no AOA, TCAS, G1000, BRS, Radar, Auto throttles, or even a frikin engine can do it!
Click to expand...

You seem very convinced of your teaching abilities, which are extremely old school and ignore all of the data out there. You also seem to think that because they do it in a controlled training environment they will without question be able to do it when it matters most, when the data shows that's not always true.

What you describe in their abilities is just what I did, what my students have done, and what most others have. It's nothing special. We've all done it.

What you're missing, and the whole point, is that the merit for these extra tools doesn't come when everything it's right. How much actual experience do you have doing real flying? It's obviously low, and you've dodged the question when I've asked before. When you start doing a few thousand hours of real flying in crappy weather and end up fatigued like the rest of us have, you will realize that you and your students are human and therefore can fail. Nobody should need TAWS, yet CFIT happens all the time. Same thing. Why wear seat belts? You should never crash...
 
Notice that on the Asiana flight 214 that crashed at SFO a drop in air speed that caused loss in altitude was the root cause of the accident. There is no mention of AOA, but failure by the pilot to maintain the target speed of 137 Kts. No doubt that AOA provides some added safety but airspeed is key to all phases of flight, from take off to landing. And AOA indication is deceaving at times, like on take off. On the take off run the AOA indicates you are not close to stall while the airspeed tells you are below Vs. You go by air speed Vr to rotate at the proper time not by AOA.

José
 
Piloto said:
Notice that on the Asiana flight 214 that crashed at SFO a drop in air speed that caused loss in altitude was the root cause of the accident. There is no mention of AOA, but failure by the pilot to maintain the target speed of 137 Kts.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that AOA would magically solve all crashes. On a 777 I assume they had such an instrument, in fact, and it was probably showing that their AOA was well above normal, heading for a stall. They chose to ignore it just as they did the airspeed indicator and the outside sight picture. (This is given a certain set of assumptions about the crash and I am not trying to cast judgement on the pilots themselves yet)

No doubt that AOA provides some added safety but airspeed is key to all phases of flight, from take off to landing.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Angle of attack is what keeps the plane flying and the wing developing lift. If you want to "measure" that by airspeed, and fly based on a set of safe airspeeds, fine, but you need to have some understanding of what keeps that wing flying. I fly by a set of speeds too, and I don't have an AOA indicator, but I understand what is really happening to that wing, and how airspeed and attitude relate to the AOA the wing is experiencing.

And AOA indication is deceaving at times, like on take off. On the take off run the AOA indicates you are not close to stall while the airspeed tells you are below Vs. You go by air speed Vr to rotate at the proper time not by AOA.
Click to expand...

If you are on the takeoff roll going 20 knots, you are below the "stall speed" and the plane (likely) won't get airborne, that's true, but the wing is not stalled. The AOA would correctly show a very low angle of attack, which would increase as you rotated, and then approach the critical angle (stall) as you get airborne, particularly if you're making an aggressive VX climb.
 
From Ted

No, it's not. Angle of attack is what keeps the plane flying and the wing developing lift. If you want to "measure" that by airspeed, and fly based on a set of safe airspeeds, fine, but you need to have some understanding of what keeps that wing flying. I fly by a set of speeds too, and I don't have an AOA indicator, but I understand what is really happening to that wing, and how airspeed and attitude relate to the AOA the wing is experiencing.


But then Ted why my plane over the runway at 20kts and AOA in no stall indication does not get off the ground when I pull on the yoke. But I know that as soon I reach 80kts I can pull on the yoke and it will get airborne. You may have notice that the POH never mention AOA but airspeeds. And then how come you don't have an AOA indicator?

José
 
Piloto said:
But then Ted why my plane over the runway at 20kts and AOA in no stall indication does not get off the ground when I pull on the yoke. But I know that as soon I reach 80kts I can pull on the yoke and it will get airborne. You may have notice that the POH never mention AOA but airspeeds. And then how come you don't have an AOA indicator?

José
Click to expand...

Actually during the takeoff run, at around 10 knots I get the first, leftmost red light (deep in a stall), and as I accelerate, the lights move to the right, telling me my AOA is decreasing. At around 55=60, the red lights go out, the blue light illuminates, I rotate, continue to accelerate, and I climb out with a yellow light illuminated. One technique is to use the AOA indicator to determine when the plane will fly, independent of weight and other factors.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Actually during the takeoff run, at around 10 knots I get the first, leftmost red light (deep in a stall), and as I accelerate, the lights move to the right, telling me my AOA is decreasing. At around 55=60, the red lights go out, the blue light illuminates, I rotate, continue to accelerate, and I climb out with a yellow light illuminated. One technique is to use the AOA indicator to determine when the plane will fly, independent of weight and other factors.
Click to expand...

Interesting, and perhaps I was stretching my knowledge of AoA indicators a bit. Logically, though, shouldn't the true angle of attack remain constant, probably around 0 degrees (depending on the airframe and wing), as you accelerate on the ground? In other words, I would assume that the angle of attack would be similar on the ground at 20 knots and in level cruise at 120 knots. Perhaps it's taking more into account than I realized.

Edit -- Ok, I looked up the Alpha Systems product. Do you have what they refer to as a "reserve lift indicator?" It seems like it takes two pressure readings and uses the difference to generate something similar to an angle of attack. I wonder if that explains why it's different on the takeoff roll when the plane really isn't flying yet, even though the angle of the wind creates a low angle of attack.
 
Last edited:
Piloto said:
Notice that on the Asiana flight 214 that crashed at SFO a drop in air speed that caused loss in altitude was the root cause of the accident. There is no mention of AOA, but failure by the pilot to maintain the target speed of 137 Kts. No doubt that AOA provides some added safety but airspeed is key to all phases of flight, from take off to landing. And AOA indication is deceaving at times, like on take off. On the take off run the AOA indicates you are not close to stall while the airspeed tells you are below Vs. You go by air speed Vr to rotate at the proper time not by AOA.

José
Click to expand...

Okay...I'll say what everyone else wants to...

You

Should

Not

Be

Flying
 
Piloto said:
But then Ted why my plane over the runway at 20kts and AOA in no stall indication does not get off the ground when I pull on the yoke.
Click to expand...

Whether a wing is or is not stalled is not the same question as whether it will provide enough lift for level or climbing flight. That, of course, requires sufficient airflow over the wings as well. For example, you can fly a steep descent with a normal angle of attack (not-stalled) and yet the wing isn't generating enough lift to keep the plane in the air. But it's still not aerodynamically stalled unless your angle of attack reaches a critical value, which happens at varying airspeeds depending on your attitude and mode of flight. So yes, of course airspeed is important for flying. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying AOA provides a different way of directly understanding what the wing is doing as it slices through the air. Airspeed and AoA are together going to determine how the wing performs, but AoA alone determines whether it is stalled.

Disclaimer -- I have never flown behind an AoA indicator. I don't feel that I need one for the type of flying I do. I may be full of it and not know how the gauge really works. For example, I'm surprised it indicates red and moves to green while accelerating on the runway, and would like to know more to understand why it does that. But, I also have enough of an engineering background to believe I'm on the right track with regards to AoA vs airspeed, and why they are both useful to a pilot, and why AoA is a more direct way of understanding what's happening to the wing.
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
Interesting, and perhaps I was stretching my knowledge of AoA indicators a bit. Logically, though, shouldn't the true angle of attack remain constant, probably around 0 degrees (depending on the airframe and wing), as you accelerate on the ground? In other words, I would assume that the angle of attack would be similar on the ground at 20 knots and in level cruise at 120 knots. Perhaps it's taking more into account than I realized.
Click to expand...

Logically 20 on the ground and 120 in the air would both seem the same. I'm still not sure how that works. Maybe it reads the diverted air off the leading edge instead of strictly the oncoming wind.

dukeblue219 said:
Edit -- Ok, I looked up the Alpha Systems product. Do you have what they refer to as a "reserve lift indicator?" It seems like it takes two pressure readings and uses the difference to generate something similar to an angle of attack. I wonder if that explains why it's different on the takeoff roll when the plane really isn't flying yet, even though the angle of the wind creates a low angle of attack.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think all the Alpha Systems are considered reserve lift indicators, and the probe has two holes, as you describe.
 
Piloto said:
From Ted

No, it's not. Angle of attack is what keeps the plane flying and the wing developing lift. If you want to "measure" that by airspeed, and fly based on a set of safe airspeeds, fine, but you need to have some understanding of what keeps that wing flying. I fly by a set of speeds too, and I don't have an AOA indicator, but I understand what is really happening to that wing, and how airspeed and attitude relate to the AOA the wing is experiencing.


But then Ted why my plane over the runway at 20kts and AOA in no stall indication does not get off the ground when I pull on the yoke. But I know that as soon I reach 80kts I can pull on the yoke and it will get airborne. You may have notice that the POH never mention AOA but airspeeds. And then how come you don't have an AOA indicator?

José
Click to expand...

Because the wing isn't stalled
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Logically 20 on the ground and 120 in the air would both seem the same. I'm still not sure how that works. Maybe it reads the diverted air off the leading edge instead of strictly the oncoming wind.

Yep, I think all the Alpha Systems are considered reserve lift indicators, and the probe has two holes, as you describe.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wonder how it would display on a "big jet."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
... they do it in a controlled training environment they will without question be able to do it when it matters most....



....What you describe in their abilities is just what I did, what my students have done, and what most others have. It's nothing special. We've all done it.....

.... How much actual experience do you have doing real flying? It's obviously low, and you've dodged the question when I've asked before. ....
Click to expand...

A) all training is done in a controlled environment, sim engine failures to lost procedures, that's just training

B) BS! you are trying to tell me MOST PPL student pilots practice full spins and revocover on heading!

C) I don't recall you ever asking me that.
I have over 3000hrs at this point, flew floats and Tailwheel in the PNW, so yea did the weather thing, flown 200seres from coast to coast and back, half of which IMC, flown AG, flown turbine, gold seal CFI a few times over, did photo work, flown DZ work, flown.....
Log about 100hrs a month on average, own my own plane too

How bout you champ?
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
Thanks. I wonder how it would display on a "big jet."
Click to expand...

On the military Lockheed stuff I'm familiar with, specifically the C-141, it had vanes, one on each side of the plane. They came alive on the takeoff roll and their positions were fed into a computer called the "RGA Computer". RGA stood for "Rotation Go Around". It would provide fly-to steering bars in the ADI, showing max climbout angle. Regardless of weight, bank angle, etc. Of course it also fed AOA information to the panel.

On the F-16, the pitot probe has five salt shaker type holes in the front, and the differential pressures are again fed into a computer. In the F-16s case, that info is used for a lot of stuff, mostly to keep the airplane in the envelope.

In both cases the signals are analyzed and processed before being presented for use. The Alpha Systems raw air pressure from its two lines attached to its probe are also analyzed and processed by a computer before being presented for use.

When computers enter into the loop, you can make it display however you want, so the takeoff roll display is probably an enhanced, but welcome feature, at least on my plane, and on the old Starlifter.
 
timwinters said:
Okay...I'll say what everyone else wants to...

You

Should

Not

Be

Flying
Click to expand...

"Never assume what others may be thinking" Fidel Castro 1962. How do you explain he outlived 7 world leaders younger than him and still ticking. Last one: Hugo Chavez.

José
 
The more that people trot out their "merits," the more it shows their shortcomings.
 
I like the alpha systems AOA in my 180. I use it pretty much exclusively. Especially on tight short field strips with obstacles ...

When conditions are right, some approaches are so slow, the ASI is useless, it reads 0 or shaky erroneous readings that slow.....
 
NineThreeKilo said:
A) all training is done in a controlled environment, sim engine failures to lost procedures, that's just training
Click to expand...

Exactly. People manage to crash doing things in reality they did fine in training. So, doesn't it make sense to have extra safety nets? The rest of the industry thinks so.

B) BS! you are trying to tell me MOST sudden pilots practice full spins and revocover on heading!
Click to expand...

Sorry, not what I was trying to imply. Stalls and other seat of the pants "fly the plane" stick and rudder skills is what I was getting at.

WRT the spins and recover on a heading, the stats on that were pretty clear that it was far more useful to recognize and recover first than to know how to recover from a spin since you'll be too low to recover once you're in.

C) I don't recall you ever asking me that.
I have over 3000hrs at this point, flew floats and Tailwheel in the PNW, so yea did the weather thing, flown 200seres from coast to coast and back, half of which IMC, flown AG, flown turbine, gold seal CFI a few times over, did photo work, flown DZ work, flown.....
Log about 100hrs a month on average, own my own plane too
Click to expand...

Now I get it. My initial impression was that you were sub-500 hours. But your hours also explain your attitude - I see mostly stick-and-rudder flying listed in your credentials, and if you fly 100 hours a month on average, then you probably don't remember what it's like for many people who don't fly that regularly and might not have that same level of proficiency and capability. What surprises me is that you don't see what happens to pilots who don't get to fly as much. That was the biggest thing instruction taught me. And while we seem to be in agreement that people should be doing stick and rudder exercises, your clearly macho attitude regarding other safety nets is where we differ.

How bout you champ?
Click to expand...

2000+ hours, about 1600 multi almost all in piston twins with about 50 hours in a Cheyenne and Commander 690. Long XCs - 8-10 hours on the hobbs is a common day for me, so is ending up in a different time zone/climate/country from where I started. My trip to Canada last month was 11 in a day going to middle of nowhere uncontrolled airspace in Quebec. See the map in my signature. Why check the weather, I'm going anyway kind of trips. Ice, storms, low approaches to mins, etc. Used to be 500 hours a year in a combination of planes (last year I had 7 different planes I flew regularly), now down to 100ish. Really don't use the autopilot much, and most of my flying has been single pilot IFR.

And the biggest thing I've learned is that, while my insurance broker has told me that pilots like me they don't worry about crashing, I know I am human and can make mistakes like all the other people who've crashed before me. I don't need all the shiny gismos, but I do like having them since one day they might help me not me a statistic should I screw up.

Guess that makes me a wimpy pilot for acknowledging what the rest of the industry realized a long time ago. :rolleyes:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Exactly. People manage to crash doing things in reality they did fine in training. So, doesn't it make sense to have extra safety nets? The rest of the industry thinks so.



Sorry, not what I was trying to imply. Stalls and other seat of the pants "fly the plane" stick and rudder skills is what I was getting at.

WRT the spins and recover on a heading, the stats on that were pretty clear that it was far more useful to recognize and recover first than to know how to recover from a spin since you'll be too low to recover once you're in.



Now I get it. My initial impression was that you were sub-500 hours. But your hours also explain your attitude - I see mostly stick-and-rudder flying listed in your credentials, and if you fly 100 hours a month on average, then you probably don't remember what it's like for many people who don't fly that regularly and might not have that same level of proficiency and capability. What surprises me is that you don't see what happens to pilots who don't get to fly as much. That was the biggest thing instruction taught me. And while we seem to be in agreement that people should be doing stick and rudder exercises, your clearly macho attitude regarding other safety nets is where we differ.



2000+ hours, about 1600 multi almost all in piston twins with about 50 hours in a Cheyenne and Commander 690. Long XCs - 8-10 hours on the hobbs is a common day for me, so is ending up in a different time zone/climate/country from where I started. My trip to Canada last month was 11 in a day going to middle of nowhere uncontrolled airspace in Quebec. See the map in my signature. Why check the weather, I'm going anyway kind of trips. Ice, storms, low approaches to mins, etc. Used to be 500 hours a year in a combination of planes (last year I had 7 different planes I flew regularly), now down to 100ish. Really don't use the autopilot much, and most of my flying has been single pilot IFR.

And the biggest thing I've learned is that, while my insurance broker has told me that pilots like me they don't worry about crashing, I know I am human and can make mistakes like all the other people who've crashed before me. I don't need all the shiny gismos, but I do like having them since one day they might help me not me a statistic should I screw up.

Guess that makes me a wimpy pilot for acknowledging what the rest of the industry realized a long time ago. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

OK, I more or less agree with you, though I like to teach spins as it takes the mystery and fear of the unknown away from it IMO.

How'd you like Quebec?? I can speak French to save my life, AWSOME place though and the women... well... good choice for a x-country!


EdFred said:
You're Billy Bad Ass Pilot, you should be able to figure it out with all your spouted credentials.
Click to expand...

I'll make a note to tone my bad ass factor down a little then

Don't hate :D
 
Last edited:
I just have one question about all this. Has anyone tried to fly with a string tied to a stick protruding from the wing? Does it display anything useful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top