(no title)
danielschonfeld | 1 year ago
The FAA has been trying for better angle of attack instrumentation but what I described above isn’t an easy fix with technology.
When you talk to pilots who inadvertently stall spin and lived to tell the tale most of them will tell you they didn’t even recognize that they were in a stall. That’s where the problem starts.
bombcar|1 year ago
Fancier aeronautics has a way of letting the plane get ahead of the pilot even faster.
lovecg|1 year ago
danielschonfeld|1 year ago
If you need a better understanding look for a video of a pilot I think in South Africa or Australia who took a cameraman and his wife and stalled shortly after takeoff.
It’s interesting to see how many warning signs throughout the whole video are glaring at him yet he keeps flying all the way into the crash. What’s also interesting is that that’s it. Just warning signs but if you really try to put yourself in his shoes it’s entirely hard to accept the warnings as everything on surface level understanding seems normal, controlled and flat. Very very very flat.
I think the biggest problem with real life stalls as compared to training world ones are that they are either more benign or entirely out of left field and believing you’re about to go into one doesn’t even begin to enter the pilot’s mind let alone correct recovery techniques.
aeternum|1 year ago
Similarly given yoke input, bank angle and speed you could warn of an impending stall well before it actually happens with a few position encoder sensors. As you point out, the current system relies on pilots recognizing a stall which is a foolish thing to rely on and almost all GA stall warning sensors are only on one of the wings and require actual airflow disruption to work. In many cases that is already too late or the other wing could stall first. The calculation doesn't even have to be perfect since most pilots want plenty of margin of safety on a base to final turn. I'd much rather have a false alarm + go-around than an inadvertent spin.
The collision thing is also ridiculously irrational. The FAA requires drones over half a pound to continually transmit their location yet somehow considers it sufficiently safe for planes to fly without a radio nor transponder around most of the airports in the US relying only on pilots looking out the window.
It's just disappointing that the vast majority of GA accidents could be completely avoided with slightly better avionics.
sokoloff|1 year ago
Reading accident reports or the annual summary McSpadden Report (previously called the Nall Report), I get a different view: if pilots would keep fuel in the airplane and flowing to the engine(s), not fly into weather beyond the capability of the airplane and crew, and divert or not takeoff at the onset of signs that an aircraft is not airworthy, would reduce serious accidents by half or more. Better avionics has relatively little to do with that (other than the proper use of a fuel totalizer or better).
Complacency kills more pilots than weak avionics.
nradov|1 year ago
FabHK|1 year ago
"The ball" will show you that you're in a skid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_and_slip_indicator