Looking back at the airspeed should be instinctive

[pelmet]

Similarly when VMC, not looking at the real horizon, ie outside, is the reason for far more loss of control accidents than not looking inside.

As far as I know, most loss of control accidents involve a stall. That has more to do with lack of airspeed instead of not being aware of the horizon and the aircraft bank angle. Seeing as most loss of control accidents happen in the pattern, I suspect that few are accidentally banking our of control by accident with proper airspeed.

Keep in mind that I am referring to day VMC.

[PilotDAR]

I have flown a couple of aircraft with AOA indicators. They were of little use to me and ignored.

Generally, for GA planes with an aftermarket AoA, I agree. If the AoA is a part of the type design, they seem to be better. Be very aware of aftermarket AoA systems installed in airplanes which have other mods (STOL kits, VG's, Wing extensions. If the AoA systems has been set up to try to optimize the performance of the modified plane, there is opportunity for AoA indication error on the slow side. the relationship between IAS ans CAS is a factor, where the AoA should be set up in CAS, rather than IAS< but the data is unavailable for the modified plane. When I have had to set up AoA's on modified planes, I set them up to the original flight manual speeds, and they provided AoA guidance on the safe side, though did not optimize the plane's expanded capability.

I agree that airspeed awareness is important, and yes, a reason to be aware of ASI information. Add to that is that the pilot must understand what an appropriate amount of airspeed would be for what they are doing at that moment, and what they could be doing in thirty seconds. I can show you my C 150 with an indicated airspeed (momentarily) at 20 MPH and no stall warning indication, or at 80 MPH with a stall warning. Knowing your airspeed is part of the equation, knowing what it needs to be is also vital.

[Bede]

(I instructed a control systems engineer once and told him to tell me his "error" and "derivative" and apply a proportional derivative feedback loop to correct. It all made sense to him then.)

Most instructors apply an (internal) integral term too. I’m sure you know what I mean!

Lol.

English was his second language but this explanation made sense to him. I can't see it making sense to any one else though.

[Pilotdaddy]

Here are my two cents as a very green instructor. When working in the pattern, I can perceive pitch changes that the student inadvertently makes which then causes a change on the airspeed indicator. There definitely is a delay.. say around one second, from the time of the pitch change to the time it registers in the ASI. That in and of itself makes the ASI inferior to the horizon when judging airspeed.

I can see the argument of watching your ASI, as a new student, as your perception of these pitch changes are probably not developed yet. It allows you to catch your error and then correct the pitch. Interestingly enough, is the way to correct this to look at the ASI more? I think not... It's actually to be proficient in recognizing the pitch change so that you look at it fewer and fewer as you get more experience. The ASI almost acts like training wheels, imo, where it's beneficial in the beginning, but not so much as you develop your skills. Looking at the ASI all the time is like continuing on to bike, without taking your training wheels off.

So, in the beginning (I'm thinking around first solo stage), I think it's ok to look at the ASI say 7-8 times in the pattern to confirm that your pitch angle matches your desired airspeed. However, I do think that the goal should be the other way around in that we should wean the student from using the ASI as he or she becomes more sensitive to the minute pitch changes so as to nail whatever speed they need to nail in the circuit without much help from the ASI.

[photofly]

English was his second language but this explanation made sense to him. I can't see it making sense to any one else though.

It's obviously how my 1970's (analogue) S-TEC autopilot works too

[Bede]

English was his second language but this explanation made sense to him. I can't see it making sense to any one else though.

It's obviously how my 1970's (analogue) S-TEC autopilot works too

Sorry to hijack this thread. Analogue electronic feedback systems are impressive enough but mechanical PID control is even more impressive. It blows me away how they could accomplish what they did with springs and bellows and no transistors.

Anyways, back to silly flight training philosophies. I think students should be paying attention to the oil pressure gauge. If the oil pressure drops, the engine will stop and if the engine stops the airplane will slow down and if the airplane slows down it will stall and if you stall you may crash so pay attention to the oil pressure gauge.

[photofly]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball-and-disk_integrator

[pelmet]

I have flown a couple of aircraft with AOA indicators. They were of little use to me and ignored.

Generally, for GA planes with an aftermarket AoA, I agree. If the AoA is a part of the type design, they seem to be better. Be very aware of aftermarket AoA systems installed in airplanes which have other mods (STOL kits, VG's, Wing extensions. If the AoA systems has been set up to try to optimize the performance of the modified plane, there is opportunity for AoA indication error on the slow side. the relationship between IAS ans CAS is a factor, where the AoA should be set up in CAS, rather than IAS< but the data is unavailable for the modified plane. When I have had to set up AoA's on modified planes, I set them up to the original flight manual speeds, and they provided AoA guidance on the safe side, though did not optimize the plane's expanded capability.

I agree that airspeed awareness is important, and yes, a reason to be aware of ASI information. Add to that is that the pilot must understand what an appropriate amount of airspeed would be for what they are doing at that moment, and what they could be doing in thirty seconds. I can show you my C 150 with an indicated airspeed (momentarily) at 20 MPH and no stall warning indication, or at 80 MPH with a stall warning. Knowing your airspeed is part of the equation, knowing what it needs to be is also vital.

That's odd.....someone here has a different opinion as seen below(last line).....

New, old, every, pilot, would benefit by focusing on understanding their aircraft's Angle of attack in different phases of flight, and how this might be affected by their inputs in different parts of the circuit, with different wind conditions.

Not airspeed, certainly in isolation, anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=141693

Great deal of (VFR) approach accidents, stem from the base to final turn, and it isn't just random, on why this is.

I have flown a couple of aircraft with AOA indicators. They were of little use to me and ignored.

Wow just wow.

Credibility lost not that I thought you had any to begin with!

To all the inexperienced pilots here, be very careful who you get you advice from. Your flying career will bring you into contact with people who seem like they know what they are talking about when in fact, they are giving you dangerous information. And of course, some obviously have no credibility at all as seen in the last line just above this paragraph. At least, they are obvious.

[pelmet]

So, in the beginning (I'm thinking around first solo stage), I think it's ok to look at the ASI say 7-8 times in the pattern to confirm that your pitch angle matches your desired airspeed. However, I do think that the goal should be the other way around in that we should wean the student from using the ASI as he or she becomes more sensitive to the minute pitch changes so as to nail whatever speed they need to nail in the circuit without much help from the ASI.

While I have never counted the number of times I look at the ASI in the pattern, I would expect at least 7-8 times. Several times during climbout. On the downwind, especially if slowing down, and several times after the turn to base leg. It has served me well over the years.

[photofly]

The pervasive error in thinking in this thread is that one can be cognizant of one's attitude yet somehow forget to look at the airspeed, and that therefore looking at the airspeed is the only thing and an important thing to correct.

If you are conscious of your aircraft attitude, you will already be using airspeed as a check on whether your attitude is correct.

One may be surprised by an unintentionally high nose attitude, but it doesn't take an airspeed indicator to notice that.

If your unintentionally low airspeed surprises you, you were not conscious of your aircraft attitude. That's a really really bad thing and needs work to be fixed.

If you are not conscious of your aircraft attitude then waffling about airspeed is irrelevant.

[Bede]

^ exactly

[Big Pistons Forever]

For me, this is a good example of getting the "what" i.e. look at the airspeed; ahead of the "why" i.e. maintaining the desired aircraft state.

So in the original example the airplane had obviously deviated significantly away from the desired state. The "solution" is not to look at the airspeed indicator more it is to analyze why the deviation occurred and why it took looking at the airspeed to recognize it.

Depending on how and why a deviation occurred looking at the airspeed may be entirely appropriate, but i echo the numerous other posters that have a big problem with your binary approach to this which boils down to

Looking at the ASI is good so looking at it more will automatically save lives

The challenge as instructors is to develop those automatic instinctual behaviors that will ensure that the pilot can attain and maintain the desired aircraft performance at every part of the flight and recognize and correct deviations from the desired flight path

As it happens I recently flew with a pilot that looked at the airspeed indicator a lot. This was immediately obvious in the initial climb as the nose was continually bobbing up and down as he chased the ASI instead of setting the correct pitch attitude. Personally when I see this my head wants to explode because it means that the pilot probably was poorly instructed on the critical foundation maneuvers ex 5 to 9. I can say conclusively that looking at the ASI more is unlikely to make the pilot less likely to become one of he 1500 that Pelmet referenced.

Finally a confession. As an Instructor I have been guilty of having to force my self to stop continually looking at an instrument. It was the hobbs meter and generally involved an annoying student

[rookiepilot]

New, old, every, pilot, would benefit by focusing on understanding their aircraft's Angle of attack in different phases of flight, and how this might be affected by their inputs in different parts of the circuit, with different wind conditions.

Not airspeed, certainly in isolation, anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=141693

Great deal of (VFR) approach accidents, stem from the base to final turn, and it isn't just random, on why this is.

Thanks,

Unless there is any significant amount of g away from 1g, your airspeed indicator is close enough to an AOA to be considered as one, in my opinion. Even in a 30°bank, the stall speed only increases by about 15%.
In the base to final accidents, they didn't maintain a proper airspeed and got too slow for the maneuver they were executing.

Hmmm. I strongly suspect, of course cannot prove, that most base to final stall - spin accidents happened as a result of a significant deviation from that (maximum) 30 degree, coordinated banked turn.

Also suspect by the time the pilot realizes from the airspeed indicator they are too slow for the aircraft state, it's far too late.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hmmm. I strongly suspect, of course cannot prove, that most base to final stall - spin accidents happened as a result of a significant deviation from that (maximum) 30 degree, coordinated banked turn.

Also suspect by the time the pilot realizes from the airspeed indicator they are too slow for the aircraft state, it's far too late.

Not only too slow but almost certainly badly uncoordinated

[pelmet]

Hmmm. I strongly suspect, of course cannot prove, that most base to final stall - spin accidents happened as a result of a significant deviation from that (maximum) 30 degree, coordinated banked turn.

Also suspect by the time the pilot realizes from the airspeed indicator they are too slow for the aircraft state, it's far too late.

Not only too slow but almost certainly badly uncoordinated

That is why one should be instinctively looking at the airspeed earlier. They are not doing so and get to the point where...."by the time the pilot realizes from the airspeed indicator they are too slow for the aircraft state, it's far too late."

As for badly uncoordinated turns to final. I have done them a lot. It is called a slipping turn and used to lose altitude and was part of my training for my private pilots license. Obviously, that is different than a skidding turn which is something I try to avoid and so should others. I wonder if ones airspeed is reasonably higher than approach speed, there will not be a problem. However, that is unconfirmed and I don't want to give out any bad information, so perhaps that could be confirmed by instructors who have done this sort of maneuver.

I can say conclusively that looking at the ASI more is unlikely to make the pilot less likely to become one of he 1500 that Pelmet referenced.

Considering that most of the 1500(or the pilots flying out of that 1500) were likely not looking at their ASI for a significant amount of time up to the point of losing control.....I say you are wrong. But one of those things one cannot actually prove for those cases. You and others seem to be confusing people who don't look at their airspeed indicators for long periods of time while maneuvering with people who are looking at them way to much to the exclusion of proper flying.

We do know the Asiana report. 24 seconds of not looking at the ASI prior to the loss of control. And people actually think that looking at the ASI more would not have helped.

[Pilotdaddy]

Looking at the ASI during a slip will just cause you to read (and maybe react to) an inaccurate airspeed reading, especially if you only have one static port.

[Raincoast]

Hmm, who to listen to here? Three guys with a bunch of instructing time between them, or a dogmatic crank with a ghoulish fascination with accident reports??

[Big Pistons Forever]

. We do know the Asiana report though. 24 seconds of not looking at the ASI prior to the loss of control. And people actually think that looking at the ASI more would not have helped.

My thought was to comment that the Asiana crash has little relevance to GA flying as the human factors elements are centered around automation dependency and managing technology. However on further reflection the primary factor in the undesired aircraft state that the Asiana pilots allowed to develop was covered in Lesson Plan 2 of the PPL syllabus. Attitude + Power = Performance. In this case they failed to recognize that there was not enough power to, with the set attitude maintain the required performance. The aircraft energy diminished to such an extent that the aircraft was not able to make the end of the runway.

Large aircraft like the Asiana 777 have a lot of inertia. Lack of early recognition of the uncommented low power setting was the critical problem. By the time the aircraft had started slowing down they were already in big trouble as the deacceleration had to be arrested and then the airplane had to start accelerating again all of which takes significant time. So even this accident which superficially seems to support your argument, I would suggest ultimately is a better example of the importance of knowing and understanding the total aircraft performance not being fixated on just one, lagging indicator

Not only too slow but almost certainly badly uncoordinated

You are correct I should have said Not only too slow but almost certainly unintentionally badly uncoordinated

[pelmet]

Hmm, who to listen to here? Three guys with a bunch of instructing time between them, or a dogmatic crank with a ghoulish fascination with accident reports??

Take your choice. Just remember, every pilot flying who was part of the 1500 people who died over a ten year period due to loss of control accidents(most of which involved stalls) spent a significant amount of time learning from what in total was a large number of instructors across the U.S.

As for your statement about what I will call....an interest in accident reports....sounds like just about every aviation safety officer/investigator/reporter/etc. Something I doubt you will ever be able to be, based on that statement. Some I suppose, just need to re-invent the wheel instead of observing that it is round.

[pelmet]

In this case they failed to recognize that there was not enough power to, with the set attitude maintain the required performance. The aircraft energy diminished to such an extent that the aircraft was not able to make the end of the runway.

Exactly.

Despite the differences in inertia, the basics of flying the GA aircraft and the 777 are basically the same. One can be manually flying as they were or on autopilot. If you don't monitor your speed, your energy may get to low. Look at the airspeed in reasonable intervals and you will be aware of your energy(without getting into all the real energy stuff that glider pilots use) and be able to take appropriate action. The exact same thing can happen to a GA aircraft on final approach depending on circumstances such as drag.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Pelmet


I would suggest you read what I actually wrote......

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Very good thoughts in this thread - but let me give a couple of examples of how relying on pitch attitude can be difficult (bearing in mind that I have extremely limited experience).

Both the examples I can think of involve flying circuits - at YTZ and at YOO.

At YTZ on a hazy day, flying south towards the lake, the horizon can almost disappear - even in VMC - making it extremely difficult (especially for someone of my experience) to discern pitch. At YOO, there is higher terrain to the north which makes the aircraft feel more nose down than it is. It's quite noticeable at circuit altitude. In both cases I've needed to rely on the ASI to verify I was at the correct pitch. Bearing in mind that I have not yet figured out how to accurately use the attitude indicator to give me pitch information, this may be an example of how relying on the horizon may be insufficient.

These are edge cases, but I can see how they might be used as an argument to rely more on the ASI in some conditions. This may just be a lack of experience speaking though.

[l_reason]

Just as BPF said “For me, this is a good example of getting the "what" i.e. look at the airspeed; ahead of the "why" i.e. maintaining the desired aircraft state.”

The 777 guys would have been better off looking at the N1 20 seconds earlier NOT the AI. They needed to fill in the part of the Attitude + Power = Performance equation to know the speed was going to bleed off. In a transport category airliner you must pay even more attention to A+P=P as you have to anticipate power changes and it’s difficult to hear how much power you are making. You can’t just react to the AI as the engines take so long to spool up/down. Far better to do this —> "why" i.e. maintaining the desired aircraft state.” For the record I’ve never flown the triple, only it’s little siblings.

When teaching in the circuit I find it more useful to cover the AI with my hand when the student starts to screw up. Lets say the target speed is 65, 20 flap down and 1500rpm. Student starts letting the nose come up in the turn, speed rolls back to 60, they don’t do anything. Toss your left hand out over the AI and say “how is your speed doing?” The student should be able to tell that they are not in a good state and react accordingly; pitch, power or both. Get this, they won’t need to know what the speed was. You can do the same thing in the climb out. In the end you’ll have a pilot that will think why is my nose so high in this base turn like photofly, rookie, BPF, Bede, PilotDAR.... would be thinking.

[Heavy Rayn]

This was a great thread to read through. My initial take away from the first post is simple: pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

For the student pilots (or anyone) reading this thread I also wanted to touch on base to final turns and the stall/spin scenarios that are the major killer in GA. Based off my instructing experience these base to final loss of control issues likely result in pilots leaving the turn to final too late and then trying to over bank the aircraft while already low and slow relative to the ground. The aircraft I did the majority of my instructing in stalled at 36 dirty, approach 55. Over banking into steep turn region can result in an increase of stall speed by 1.41 in a 60° turn, resulting in our new stall speed of being approximately 51 knots. If a pilot is already slow on approach and then over banks the base to final turn this situation becomes very dangerous very quickly, and then add in other factors such as but not limited to wind gusts it can go from bad to worse.

TLDR: if you turn late from base to final, don’t develop a habit of over banking at all, but especially without adjusting your pitch (pitch controls airspeed), maintain a moderate bank angle, allow the aircraft to cross through the final approach course (within reason) and then bring the aircraft back around to intercept final all while maintains a safe bank angle. If anything doesn’t look good or gets too far out of whack just overshoot and try again. Don’t force anything.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Don’t force anything.

I can relate to this from my junior years in IT, building and fixing desktops, replacing hardware: If you're forcing it, you're doing it wrong.