Wow, great discussion, and I appreciate everyone taking time to comment (and to continue to comment!). Paul, thank you so much for the mutual support!
A number of the comments have understandably focused on AOA hardware, displays, and sensors. Those are worthwhile discussions, but they're actually separate from the central idea of the paper. The paper is intentionally system agnostic. It isn't advocating a particular AOA system, display, or manufacturer. It's asking a much simpler question: would general aviation benefit from adopting a common aerodynamic language for aircraft control?
That's the motivation behind the Fast, On-Speed, Slow framework. It isn't intended to replace V-speeds or the guidance in the POH. Those remain essential performance references. Instead, Fast, On-Speed, and Slow describe the aerodynamic state of the wing in a way that remains meaningful regardless of aircraft type.
If you step back and look at how we actually fly, the framework is remarkably simple. During most normal maneuvering flight we're either intentionally fast, intentionally on-speed, or intentionally slow. Fast provides energy margin. On-speed represents a highly efficient operating point that balances lift demand, controllability, and energy management, making it an excellent reference for many maneuvering tasks, including the approach and landing environment. Slow is generally reserved for operations where we intentionally accept reduced stall margin, such as slow flight, stall practice, or other training exercises.
That's really the point of the paper. The proposal isn't that every pilot should buy a particular AOA indicator. It's that pilots, instructors, manufacturers, and avionics developers could all benefit from speaking the same aerodynamic language. Once we agree on that common language, the discussion of how best to present that information to the pilot—whether by airspeed, angle of attack, audio cues, visual displays, or some future technology—becomes a separate engineering and human factors discussion.
One quick observation on the audio discussion. I understand that flying with tones is different, and I recognize it isn't for everyone. My only suggestion is to give a well-calibrated system an honest try before deciding. Most of us who've flown with progressive audio for any length of time have found it becomes surprisingly intuitive because it lets you keep your attention
outside the cockpit. Whether you ultimately prefer tones, a visual display, a numerical presentation, or something else is really a human factors discussion. Lots of ways to skin the cat.
Here is a great example of an AOA tone "glove save." There was an over-shooting gust end game during a short approach. There is also a big 'ol AOA "indexer" right in the center of my scan (where I prefer a visual display):
BTW, this clip was generated by our new video editor that allows you to upload a log and video--they system auto-synchs and generates video for de-brief.
One of the significant shortcomings of all civilian AOA systems is a lack of factory or automatic calibration and common (standard) cues. We've made significant progress in the last month fusing multiple AOA sources and improving automatic calibration. This is fascinating to watch--the system is calibrating itself as I just "fly around" in each flap setting (an AOA system requires a separate calibration for each flap setting):
The team and I will be up at Oshkosh. I believe we have a forum on Monday. We've got a simulator with the ONSPEED system up in the PPC (Pilot Proficiency Center) adjacent to the museum and will likely have another one set up somewhere on campus at a place TBD. Reach out to me via text at (850) 974-4472, and if I'm available I'm happy to chat! And to foot-stomp Paul's post--take advantage of any of the AOA venues to learn and experiment.
