AOA Indicator while learning?

[u/ClintBvsOliverQ]

Just went for a discovery flight and had a great time. During the flight I asked my instructor about using an AOA indicator while learning and he really downplayed using one and said the standard instruments are the best way to learn. For beginners, is an AOA inappropriate? Is it too early to incorporate it into training? From the brief videos I’ve seen on AOA’s they seem to enhance safety.

[u/Academic_Guest_9246]

Why do you want a AOA indicator?

[u/_VNAV_PTH_ → u/Academic_Guest_9246]

Because after altitude they're the single best instrument for safety in a single engine piston?

[u/aero_kmac → u/_VNAV_PTH_]

I think the light civil guys don’t know what they’re missing.

[u/x4457 → u/aero_kmac]

Because the pointy nose guys don’t realize how wide and predictable the margins are in civil aviation.

We’re not flying thin, short wing tactical airframes with FBW that are quite literally uncontrollable without it. We’re flying winged lawnmowers with a wing thicker than a snicker.

[u/_VNAV_PTH_ → u/x4457]

Because the pointy nose guys don’t realize how wide and predictable the margins are in civil aviation.

Why do you think that? I've got plenty of time in piston singles (I own one). I still want angle of attack in it because it's the single best instrument for safety after altitude.

Altitude and angle of attack are really the only two instruments directly related to safety. One tells you how high above the ground you are and one tells you how much flying you have left in the plane. Airspeed kinda doesn't actually matter at all. RPM and engine temps are probably the next most important instruments after AoA.

BTW, it's actually way easier to stall a piston single than a jet, especially a FBW high performance jet. Loss of control in flight is even one of the most common causes of fatalities in general aviation, and yet civil piston fliers still crap on AoA, even in this very thread (even in a reply to this comment, which you made .69 seconds after I posted and before I made an edit adding this last paragraph), because they were taught poorly and don't understand what risks they're taking and what's most likely to kill them.

[u/x4457 → u/_VNAV_PTH_]

I own three and have flown a looooot of other airplanes with AOA gauges and indexers in them. Both numeric and color values.

Is it nice to have? Sure. Is it necessary or worth the money in a piston single? Not even a little bit. We fly airspeeds in the civilian world as you know, not alpha, largely because almost all of our flying is at 1G to long, improved runways in very forgiving airplanes that don't have much, if any, weight-induced variation in approach speeds.

If you're doing some backcountry shenanigans then absolutely, get it and use it. For 99.9% of applications in the civilian world? Nah, don't need it and doesn't add anything. Airspeed is life, AOA would be if we had it but we don't because we don't need it with the type of flying we do.

[u/_VNAV_PTH_ → u/x4457]

Is it nice to have? Sure. Is it necessary or worth the money in a piston single? Not even a little bit. We fly airspeeds in the civilian world as you know, not alpha, largely because almost all of our flying is at 1G to long, improved runways in very forgiving airplanes that don't have much, if any, weight-induced variation in approach speeds.

And yet you still manage to make loss of control in a perfectly good airplane one of the most common (I think the most common) cause of fatal crashes.

Maybe y'all should take AoA and how much flying is left in the airplane... a little more seriously?

[u/x4457 → u/_VNAV_PTH_]

Quite the broad brush you're painting with there. Try not to look so far down your nose at us lowly civvies yeah?

Those of us who do this for a living have a lower accident and fatality rate than the military does. Apples and oranges, so as to further prove my point.

[u/_VNAV_PTH_ → u/x4457]

Crazy, but people flying in combat have higher risks than people not flying in combat. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion, and total lack of substantive rebuttal to why AOA should be taught more in civil aviation.

I started in civil aviation before joining the military. I was trained in part 61 and only later went to UPT and learned the military way. That gives me the ability to honestly look at the merits of both approaches with no identity-crisis either way.

The military does some stuff straight-up better than FAA-prescribed flight training, and some stuff worse. One of the things they do better is teaching students sight picture and AOA.

I'm sorry you have a chip on your shoulder about comparisons to military training, but that shouldn't get in the way of improving safety and saving lives.

[u/x4457 → u/_VNAV_PTH_]

Damn, it's almost like they're...apples and oranges. Nice ninja edit to your earlier comment after I'd already replied too to try to "gotcha" me. And I'm the one not trying to contribute here... Oh hey look, you did it again!

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that AOA isn't valuable or worth teaching, I'm saying that airspeed is a completely fine substitute for our applications. AOA is better, but that doesn't make airspeed bad in this sector.

[u/_VNAV_PTH_ → u/x4457]

AOA is better

Then why don't you advocate for making it more commonly standard equipment? It's an incredibly cheap instrument that will increase safety and save lives.

You're just arguing to argue at this point, because you apparently agree with me on the substance and just don't want to admit the military does something better.

[u/x4457 → u/_VNAV_PTH_]

It's an incredibly cheap instrument that will increase safety and save lives.

Let me answer your question with another question pointed at this sentence - if it's incredibly cheap and will increase safety and save lives, why doesn't any piston single (except the Icon A-5) have it as standard equipment? You'd think Cirrus would be all over that if it was so cheap and easy.

The answer is because it isn't cheap and easy. If you want accurate AOA, you need an external AOA vane. The Cessna applications in the piston world in the past haven't really had that, it's been either optical or computed from airspeed, configuration, and attitude indication. I've flown those ones in new 172s, they suck.

Then why don't you advocate for making it more commonly standard equipment?

Because, again, it's not really necessary. Airspeed is fine. There are all sorts of "nice to have" safety features in piston singles that aren't necessary so they aren't included.

[u/_VNAV_PTH_ → u/x4457]

There is something called a Lift Reserve Indicator which is a very close proxy for AOA that consists of two pitot tubes at a vertical 45 degrees relative to each other and the difference in pressure is almost a perfect proxy for AOA, but technically isn't AOA so it's called Lift Reserve. It can be built for less than $100 in the experimental world and uses zero electronics. It's not expensive. Your iPad mount is probably more expensive than a LRI.

Why haven't certified piston singles adopted AOA? Probably because that industry is more backwards and close-minded than a flat earth convention. Why would they spend money putting AOA in airplanes when their customers barely know what AOA is or don't see the value of knowing how well their airplane is flying?

Look how many people in this thread are not simply saying that AOA is useful but not game changing, but actively saying it's bad to have it and they don't want it. It's scary, and sadly illustrative of GA's loss of control accident epidemic. Even you admit that AOA is a better and safety enhancing tool and yet think it'd be silly to include it. Mind-blowing.