4 ms·

Excellent points, it's really these other aspects that get pilots into trouble. For example it's crazy that most pilots are still taught to calculate W&B using

Excellent points, it's really these other aspects that get pilots into trouble. For example it's crazy that most pilots are still taught to calculate W&B using printed charts and approximate takeoff performance. I think you could save more general aviation lives with a fairly minimal system. A gas gauge sensor that calculates whether you have enough fuel to get to your destination + reserve. Avionics where you input your personal minimums like crosswinds and weather and it warns you if you're about to accept a landing or flight-plan that violates those. Encode that data and send it to ATC via transponder so valuable comm bandwidth is not lost asking for fuel status when emergencies occur. A gear down warning. It's ridiculous that we still have so many belly landings and consider it a "good" to rely on training and human memory to prevent them. How much cheaper would complex airplanes be if we didn't have the crazy insurance rates due to this? Angle-of-attack and spin warnings. It's ridiculous that even $1mil+ Cirrus planes can't detect when you're too slow in a base to final turn and sound a warning before you spin. We have the technology, it's foolish to depend on a decades old stall horn! A system that parses all the hundreds of notams and filters out the important ones.

iamtheworstdev 2y ago
> For example it's crazy that most pilots are still taught to calculate W&B using printed charts and approximate takeoff performance. We're taught that so we know what we're doing. Then we open our iPhone app (EFB or electronic flightbag) and do it there. In fact, part of the reason we do it there is because most of them phone home to their maker and log that we did it. So if there's an accident people can know "well they did their W&B" > the rest of the things Regulations have made aviation so expensive that it's ridiculous. A lot of airplanes flying today are flying with their same avionics from 60 years ago because upgrading is expensive. To get the gas calculation you mention would require a certified GPS (on the low end from Garmin that's $6,000) and an engine monitor ($5,500 from Garmin), plus installation costs of another few thousand dollars. Most planes have a gear down warning (ie, 3 indicator lights) but their original "bitching betty" is hard to hear because we now wear ear protection when we fly and have noise cancelling headphones. You probably can't even integrate that with a new Garmin system because they've gone full encrypted CANBUS to lock out integrations. re: spin warnings - not sure what to tell you there. Stall speed is based on weight and configuration (flaps) and 99% of GA planes have no idea what they weigh or if their flaps are deployed. But again, it's not that we can't do those things, it's just that they're completely cost prohibitive. Getting anything certified today is a flippin' nightmare and at too high of a cost to ever break even.
- TylerE 2y ago
  Stall speed is a misnomer. Stalls occur due to exceeding the critical angle of attack and can happen at ANY speed.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    I think that was his point. To calculate if you are going to stall in a final, you need to know your weight and flap setting to see if you will exceed the critical angle of attack when doing the turn, exactly because the speed isn’t constant.
    - lovecg 2y ago
      No, you just need an angle of attack sensor. These are increasingly available for small GA planes.
      - blt 2y ago
        stall AoA depends on flaps though?
        lovecg 2y ago
        Yes, and some sensors do take flaps position into account (or you compromise and have it display the AoA with a typical approach setting).
      - echoangle 2y ago
        You need an AoA sensor to see if you are currently stalling or are just about to stall. To predict if you will stall at a specific point in your approach before you’re there, you need to know your weight, too.
  - the__alchemist 2y ago
    Whoever is downvoting this: Stop. It's the key point here. Planes don't need to know their weight to produce a stall warning; AoA is a great metric, and GA planes not having an indicator or warning based on it is astonishing.
BWStearns 2y ago
As much as I am excited about Airhart, I would be way more excited for all of these items than I would be for the fly by wire bit. These would be more likely keep me and my wallet in one piece and lower the cost of aviation. Unfortunately they're not terrifically sexy or super lucrative problems.
danielschonfeld 2y ago
While some base to final stall accidents are as simple as you make it sound a good chunk of them happen when you try to come OUT of the turn at an already slow speed increasing the angle of attack on one wing alone. The stall and subsequent spin catches the pilot entirely surprised unaware of why they’re even stalling and with very little escape bandwidth. 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.
- aeternum 2y ago
  Right but I don't know of any GA stall/spin warning system that takes into account pilot input. Even simple sensors are lacking, for example accelerometers are nearly free yet GA planes give you no warning that you're in a skid. 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.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Civilian drones are fairly new. There are century old GA aircraft still flying around. I'm sure the FAA would love to require them all to carry radios and transponders but it's technically and politically difficult to impose new requirements on old certified aircraft. Some owners can barely afford to fly as it is so they'll resist any new mandates.

iamtheworstdev 2y ago

> For example it's crazy that most pilots are still taught to calculate W&B using printed charts and approximate takeoff performance. We're taught that so we know what we're doing. Then we open our iPhone app (EFB or electronic flightbag) and do it there. In fact, part of the reason we do it there is because most of them phone home to their maker and log that we did it. So if there's an accident people can know "well they did their W&B" > the rest of the things Regulations have made aviation so expensive that it's ridiculous. A lot of airplanes flying today are flying with their same avionics from 60 years ago because upgrading is expensive. To get the gas calculation you mention would require a certified GPS (on the low end from Garmin that's $6,000) and an engine monitor ($5,500 from Garmin), plus installation costs of another few thousand dollars. Most planes have a gear down warning (ie, 3 indicator lights) but their original "bitching betty" is hard to hear because we now wear ear protection when we fly and have noise cancelling headphones. You probably can't even integrate that with a new Garmin system because they've gone full encrypted CANBUS to lock out integrations. re: spin warnings - not sure what to tell you there. Stall speed is based on weight and configuration (flaps) and 99% of GA planes have no idea what they weigh or if their flaps are deployed. But again, it's not that we can't do those things, it's just that they're completely cost prohibitive. Getting anything certified today is a flippin' nightmare and at too high of a cost to ever break even.

TylerE 2y ago
Stall speed is a misnomer. Stalls occur due to exceeding the critical angle of attack and can happen at ANY speed.
- echoangle 2y ago
  I think that was his point. To calculate if you are going to stall in a final, you need to know your weight and flap setting to see if you will exceed the critical angle of attack when doing the turn, exactly because the speed isn’t constant.
  - lovecg 2y ago
    No, you just need an angle of attack sensor. These are increasingly available for small GA planes.
    - blt 2y ago
      stall AoA depends on flaps though?
      - lovecg 2y ago
        Yes, and some sensors do take flaps position into account (or you compromise and have it display the AoA with a typical approach setting).
    - echoangle 2y ago
      You need an AoA sensor to see if you are currently stalling or are just about to stall. To predict if you will stall at a specific point in your approach before you’re there, you need to know your weight, too.
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  Whoever is downvoting this: Stop. It's the key point here. Planes don't need to know their weight to produce a stall warning; AoA is a great metric, and GA planes not having an indicator or warning based on it is astonishing.

BWStearns 2y ago

As much as I am excited about Airhart, I would be way more excited for all of these items than I would be for the fly by wire bit. These would be more likely keep me and my wallet in one piece and lower the cost of aviation. Unfortunately they're not terrifically sexy or super lucrative problems.

danielschonfeld 2y ago

While some base to final stall accidents are as simple as you make it sound a good chunk of them happen when you try to come OUT of the turn at an already slow speed increasing the angle of attack on one wing alone. The stall and subsequent spin catches the pilot entirely surprised unaware of why they’re even stalling and with very little escape bandwidth. 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.

aeternum 2y ago
Right but I don't know of any GA stall/spin warning system that takes into account pilot input. Even simple sensors are lacking, for example accelerometers are nearly free yet GA planes give you no warning that you're in a skid. 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.
- nradov 2y ago
  Civilian drones are fairly new. There are century old GA aircraft still flying around. I'm sure the FAA would love to require them all to carry radios and transponders but it's technically and politically difficult to impose new requirements on old certified aircraft. Some owners can barely afford to fly as it is so they'll resist any new mandates.