Looks to me this article is from John Zimmerman, not Dick Collins.
"John Zimmerman said:
I think that’s hopelessly naive.
Given all the hype, a casual observer might think the concept was just discovered. But as any pilot with even a basic knowledge of history knows, it’s been a hot topic numerous times over the years, as far back as Wolfgang Langewiesche’s classic book
Stick and Rudder. Today, almost every turbine airplane has an AoA instrument. It’s hardly a new idea.
The latest push has centered on bringing this technology to piston airplanes. It started with the FAA, who
declared affordable AoA instruments one of its most-wanted safety improvements. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute has enthusiastically
supported the cause, too.
I don't think most AoA proponents are saying this is a new concept, although getting the FAA on board with allowing installation in certified aircraft without a STC might be. And given that Stick and Rudder tried to teach us to visualize AoA and how it affects a wing, doesn't a nearly direct display of same seem like something Wolfgang would have supported wholeheartedly?
But the most newsworthy AoA story to come out recently was courtesy of ICON Aircraft, the designer of the yet-to-be-delivered amphibian LSA. They recently released
a video touting the AoA instrument that will be front and center in their A5 cockpit. The glitzy video presents AoA as if it’s a major breakthrough in aviation and ICON is the first airplane ever to offer it.
I don’t blame ICON. This is the type of thing startups have to do to get attention and keep customers excited during the long march from concept to shipping a product. And their AoA design does look appealingly simple. But the media who accept this at face value and the “safety experts” who think it’s a revolution should know better. AoA is an instrument, nothing more, nothing less.
Most of the above is likely true, at least the part about ICON thinking this offering might be a valuable differentiator.
Some AoA advocates point to the
Asiana 214 crash in San Francisco as an example of the type of accident that could be prevented with such an instrument. To me, it shows exactly why AoA won’t do much. Most importantly, the pilots have to
look at the instrument for it to be of any use. In the Asiana case, the crew managed to ignore the airspeed indicator for a long time, even as it eventually showed them being almost 30 knots slow. Another instrument wouldn’t have prevented this disaster.
Besides looking at the instrument, pilots have to know how to react to its indications. For the GA pilot struggling to log 25 hours in a year, the physical stick and rudder skills may be more important than the recognition skills.
John shows his own lack of experience with the many AoA systems that provide verbal warnings which pretty much negates his claim that you have to look at the instrument for it to be of any value.
An AoA instrument also won’t help the idiot who buzzes his girlfriend’s house at 20 ft and pulls up at 3 Gs. Neither will it prevent the over-gross takeoff on a hot day that eventually results in a stall. These scenarios are both depressingly common, and get grouped under the “loss of control” heading.
Wrong again John, for two reasons. One is that had that idiot learned to fly in an airplane with an AoA indicator he'd probably have a better grasp of how pulling up abruptly increases AoA dramatically and the other is that verbal warning would likely have convinced him to ease off on the pullup
before he got into stall territory. Also this particular example pretty clearly emphasizes the reason an airspeed indicator is a poor substitute for AoA. The idiot pilot probably thought he was perfectly safe because his airspeed was well above the normal "stall speed".
Ex-military pilots (like some on the ICON team) love AoA because it’s religion in the military. To them, it seems shocking that GA pilots are still flying based solely on airspeed. I’ll admit that, when landing on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier at night, AoA is probably a great tool. But for the average Cherokee pilot landing on a 5000 ft. runway, the situation is quite different.
No kidding. A Cherokee could probably land, take off, climb a few hundred feet and land again on a 5000 ft runway. But put that same Cherokee pilot on short final for a <1500 ft grass runway with trees on each end and AoA becomes far more useful.
Airspeed control on final approach matters a lot more than a new instrument in the panel. Here’s the simple fact that most AoA proponents know, but don’t like to admit: airspeed is a great proxy for AoA most of the time. General aviation pilots fly in a very small envelope: +/- 10 degrees in pitch and 30 degrees of bank in most cases. Within those boundaries, monitoring airspeed is a perfectly good way to keep from stalling.
Now John is either being deliberately obtuse or he has far less understanding of AoA vs airspeed. Pitch attitude means nothing, you can achieve any flyable AoA at least briefly at any pitch attitude. And while a 30 degree bank only raises the "stall speed" about 7.5% or about 3 Kt with flaps extended, that's only true if the pilot doesn't try to arrest an excessive descent rate by pulling up. I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of pilots have at one time or another exceeded 2 g briefly in a 30° bank for one reason or another and in that case the "stall speed" has gone up over 40%.
If you’re doing aerobatics or flying a jet at FL410, an AoA instrument may be essential; in the pattern in a 172 it’s not going to tell you much more than the airspeed indicator.
It might not tell John much more than the airspeed indicator but it sure does for me. And BTW, since one of John's major (incorrect) objections was that an AoA system won't help because the pilot has to look at it, doesn't it seem like calling an ASI a perfectly good substitute is a bit hypocritical since an ASI doesn't provide any useful info unless you look at it. And given the typical ASI location under the glareshield vs many AoA indicators mounted on top of the glareshield coupled with the fact that an AoA indictor reacts about 10 times more quickly to pitch and bank changes than the ASI I'd say it's a no brainer that AoA can indeed provide more and better information about what the wing is about to do.
Yes, I know that “a wing can stall at any airspeed,” but how often do you read about a stall/spin accident that occurred at 150 knots? Most of the base-to-final stall/spin scenarios happen because the pilot got too slow, plain and simple. That suggests good airspeed control would improve safety more than a new instrument in the cockpit.
You won't see many 150 Kt stalls in a Cherokee given that the wings would come off first. And while I agree that low airspeed is a major factor in most any stall/spin accident in the pattern, exactly how slow is too slow is far more obvious on an AoA indicator than an ASI and mounted on the glareshield in the pilot's field of vision when looking outside (as he should be in the pattern) with a much quicker response to pilot input an AoA could well be responsible for a significant reduction in these accidents even without the added benefit of verbal announcements.
But here’s where the breakdown is. Ask most flight instructors and they’ll tell you that new students and licensed pilots alike are dreadful at airspeed control. If the common standard of staying within +5 and -0 knots of Vref were enforced, thousands of pilots would have to surrender their certificates.
Be that as it may, I think it's likely that pilots trained to monitor AoA in the pattern would do a better job of maintaining the correct airspeed and be more aware of the margin they have above stall.
We don’t have an instrument problem, we have a stick and rudder skills problem. Instead of spending a lot of money on new instruments, let’s teach pilots how to maintain the proper airspeed on final. That would be revolutionary.
Revolutionary? You mean that CFIs haven't been trying to do exactly that for the last century? Do you think it might just be possible that an AoA indicator on the glareshield might be a useful tool for training better pilots, albeit ones that are somewhat dependent on AoA?
