6 ms·

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

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.
- aeternum 2y ago
  This is a common argument but makes little sense because the accident and loss rates of GA is so incredibly high. The cost of an ADS-B receiver for example is only $200. Full transceivers are a few thousand. Aircraft owners are already paying well over that as insurance rates yearly because of all the accidents, so total cost to fly would likely decrease by mandating things that actually move the needle on safety, especially ADS-B and fuel alerts.
sokoloff 2y ago
> the vast majority of GA accidents could be completely avoided with slightly better avionics. 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.
- aeternum 2y ago
  Most cars give you significant warnings that you're about to run out of gas and as a result very few people do. Improved avionics could warn you that you're flying into a storm or that the airplane is not airworthy or that you are converging with other traffic. Complacency kills because it sneaks up on pilots, but it doesn't have to be that way. We should not accept that the FAA's answer is an IMSAFE checklist. Pilots should not have to die simply because they didn't realize they were feeling slightly stressed or emotional prior to takeoff and forgot to check a single one of the 40+ items on the preflight/runup/takeoff checklists. Of course good pilots should check it all anyway but just as NHTSA requires safety warnings for cars, we could save many more lives if we required low fuel warnings, terrain warnings, gear warnings, speed warnings, etc. in aircraft avionics.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    I agree there is room for improvement and smarter airplane equipment is undoubtedly part of that. I do not believe that “slightly better avionics will completely avoid the vast majority of GA accidents.”
  - NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
    >Most cars give you significant warnings that you're about to run out of gas and as a result very few people do. You will see accident reports where the problem is that the pilot just completely failed to put enough fuel in the airplane and then flew it until it ran out; but that's not the typical thing. What's much more common is that the pilot takes off with what seems like ample fuel, gets halfway there, discovers weather that is worse than expected, has to fly lower than planned, burns a lot more fuel as a result, discovers that they will have to refuel, can't find an airport with good weather at which to land, and ends up flying a graveyard spiral into a fatal crash caused by disorientation in conditions for which they are not trained. The majority of accidents are traceable to poor planning or decision-making once airborne; and I tend to agree with the other poster that improved avionics are not going to make a really big difference.
FabHK 2y ago
> GA planes give you no warning that you're in a skid. "The ball" will show you that you're in a skid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_and_slip_indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_and_slip_indicator

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.

aeternum 2y ago
This is a common argument but makes little sense because the accident and loss rates of GA is so incredibly high. The cost of an ADS-B receiver for example is only $200. Full transceivers are a few thousand. Aircraft owners are already paying well over that as insurance rates yearly because of all the accidents, so total cost to fly would likely decrease by mandating things that actually move the needle on safety, especially ADS-B and fuel alerts.

sokoloff 2y ago

> the vast majority of GA accidents could be completely avoided with slightly better avionics. 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.

aeternum 2y ago
Most cars give you significant warnings that you're about to run out of gas and as a result very few people do. Improved avionics could warn you that you're flying into a storm or that the airplane is not airworthy or that you are converging with other traffic. Complacency kills because it sneaks up on pilots, but it doesn't have to be that way. We should not accept that the FAA's answer is an IMSAFE checklist. Pilots should not have to die simply because they didn't realize they were feeling slightly stressed or emotional prior to takeoff and forgot to check a single one of the 40+ items on the preflight/runup/takeoff checklists. Of course good pilots should check it all anyway but just as NHTSA requires safety warnings for cars, we could save many more lives if we required low fuel warnings, terrain warnings, gear warnings, speed warnings, etc. in aircraft avionics.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  I agree there is room for improvement and smarter airplane equipment is undoubtedly part of that. I do not believe that “slightly better avionics will completely avoid the vast majority of GA accidents.”
- NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
  >Most cars give you significant warnings that you're about to run out of gas and as a result very few people do. You will see accident reports where the problem is that the pilot just completely failed to put enough fuel in the airplane and then flew it until it ran out; but that's not the typical thing. What's much more common is that the pilot takes off with what seems like ample fuel, gets halfway there, discovers weather that is worse than expected, has to fly lower than planned, burns a lot more fuel as a result, discovers that they will have to refuel, can't find an airport with good weather at which to land, and ends up flying a graveyard spiral into a fatal crash caused by disorientation in conditions for which they are not trained. The majority of accidents are traceable to poor planning or decision-making once airborne; and I tend to agree with the other poster that improved avionics are not going to make a really big difference.

FabHK 2y ago

> GA planes give you no warning that you're in a skid. "The ball" will show you that you're in a skid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_and_slip_indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_and_slip_indicator