August 2014 

NASA/TM–2014-218514 

Review of Research on Angle-of-Attack 

Indicator Effectiveness 

Lisa R. Le Vie 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. 

It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI 

program provides access to the NASA Aeronautics 

and Space Database and its public interface, the 

NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one 

of the largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are published in 

both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes the 

following report types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but 

having less stringent limitations on manuscript 

length and extent of graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, seminars, 

or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services. 

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI program home page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443-757-5803 

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

443-757-5802 

• Write to: 

 STI Information Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

 7115 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

 

August 2014 

NASA/TM–2014-218514 

Review of Research on Angle-of-Attack 

Indicator Effectiveness 

Lisa R. Le Vie 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

7115 Standard Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 

443-757-5802 

Acknowledgments 

This work was conducted under the NASA Aviation Safety Program’s Vehicle Systems Safety Technologies 

(VSST) Project. The support of the Project Manager, Mr. Paul Krasa, is gratefully appreciated. 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate re porting and does not constitute an 

official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration.
i 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2

2. Angle-of-Attack ........................................................................................................... 4

3. Historical Research ...................................................................................................... 6

4. AoA in the Cockpit .................................................................................................... 10

4.1 General Types .................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Military AoA Systems ........................................................................................ 17

4.3 Commercial Transport and Business Aircraft AoA Indicators .......................... 19

4.4 AoA on the HUD................................................................................................ 22

4.5 General Aviation AoA Systems ......................................................................... 24

5. AoA Display Benefits ................................................................................................ 28

5.1 Energy State Awareness/Upset Recovery .......................................................... 28

5.2 Detect/Diagnose Air Data System Failures ........................................................ 30

6. Training ..................................................................................................................... 32

7. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................. 34

8. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 35

9. References ................................................................................................................. 36
ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Aircraft Accident Statistics for Worldwide Commercial Fleet 2003-2012 ........ 2

Figure 2: Angle-of-Attack, Flight Path Angle and Pitch attitude ...................................... 4

Figure 3: Lift at Angle of Attack ....................................................................................... 5

Figure 4: Different Pitch Attitudes and Stall AoA............................................................. 5

Figure 5: Common AoA Sensor Types ............................................................................ 10

Figure 6: Angle of Attack sensor on Embraer 145 ........................................................... 11

Figure 7: Specialties AoA indicator displaying arbitrary numbers .................................. 11

Figure 8: Teledyne Avionics Angle of Attack Indicator .................................................. 12

Figure 9: AoA Indicator displaying degree units ............................................................. 12

Figure 10: Inset of Boeing AoA Gauge ........................................................................... 13

Figure 11: Specialties, Inc. B-2 Dial-type AoA Indicator ............................................... 14

Figure 12: Specialties, Inc. AoA Approach Index Indicator ........................................... 14

Figure 13: AoA Display and Key .................................................................................... 15

Figure 14: AoA Indexer ................................................................................................... 16

Figure 15: T38 AoA System and Displays ...................................................................... 17

Figure 16: Navy F/A-18 HUD display showing AoA and the AoA Bracket .................. 18

Figure 17: Navy F/A-18 AoA Indexer ............................................................................. 18

Figure 18: F-16 AoA Display System ............................................................................. 19

Figure 19: Cessna AoA Indicator and Indexer ................................................................ 20

Figure 20: Optional Airbus AoA Indicator ...................................................................... 20

Figure 21: Boeing AoA Gauge ........................................................................................ 21

Figure 22: Gulfstream PFD AoA Located Under Airspeed Tape .................................... 22

Figure 23: Rockwell Collins HGS6250 AoA Indicator ................................................... 23

Figure 24: Rockwell Collins HGS4200 AoA Indicator .................................................... 24

Figure 25: Garmin GI 260 Angle of Attack Indicator ...................................................... 25

Figure 26: Garmin G3X AoA System ............................................................................. 26

Figure 27: Alpha System AoA Griffin Chevron Display ................................................ 26

Figure 28: ICON A5 Light Sport Aircraft AoA indicator ................................................ 27
iii

Nomenclature 

AAIU Air Accident Investigation Unit

AFM Airplane Flight Manual

AoA Angle of Attack 

BEA Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses

CRJ Canadair Regional Jet

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

HGS Head-up Guidance System 

HUD Head-Up Display

LOC-I Loss-of-Control – In Flight

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

PFD Primary Flight Display

UPS United Parcel Service

USAF United States Air Force

VSST Vehicle Systems Safety Technologies
1 

Abstract

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted a literature 

review to determine the potential benefits of a display of angle-of-attack (AoA) on the 

flight deck of commercial transport that may aid a pilot in energy state awareness, upset 

recovery, and/or diagnosis of air data system failure. This literature review encompassed 

an exhaustive list of references available and includes studies on the benefits of 

displaying AoA information during all phases of flight. It also contains information and 

descriptions about various AoA indicators such as dial, vertical and horizontal types as 

well as AoA displays on the primary flight display and the head up display. Any training 

given on the use of an AoA indicator during the research studies or experiments is also 

included for review. 
2 

1. Introduction

Accidents resulting from Loss of Control – In Flight (LOC-I) continue to be the principal 

cause of commercial transport aviation fatalities worldwide (Figure 1). Between 2003 

and 2012, 24 percent of fatal accidents, accounting for 39 percent of total aviation 

fatalities, were attributable to LOC-I. Of these, 59 percent occurred during the 

takeoff/initial climb and final approach/landing phases of flight (Boeing, 2013). In 

response to these findings, cooperative industry-government research into flight deck 

technologies, with the potential to minimize the problems and contributing factors of 

loss-of-energy state awareness, has been initiated. 

Figure 1: Aircraft Accident Statistics for Worldwide Commercial Fleet 2003-2012 

(Boeing, 2013) 

One technology that has been proposed to increase the pilot’s ability to avoid, detect, and 

recover from situations that may lead to LOC-I is an angle-of-attack (AoA) display. This 

idea is motivated by the following: AoA information is considered most useful to the 

flight crew to show the margin to stall or stall warning, and AoA information may also be 

useful in the diagnosis of an air data system (e.g., pitot or static system) failure. An AoA

indicator may further aid the pilot in recovering the aircraft from an upset situation. 

An airplane upset occurs when an airplane unintentionally exceeds the normal flight 

parameters found in either line operations or training. They are unintentional in nature 

because the aircraft is not doing what it was commanded to do, and therefore is entering 
3 

unsafe conditions. Upsets can be attributed to the environment, equipment and/or pilots 

(Upset Recovery Industry Team, 2008). 

While each airplane model’s specific value may vary, the following criteria are generally 

used to define an airplane upset situation (Upset Recovery Industry Team, 2008): 

• Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees, nose up; 

• Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees, nose down; 

• Bank angle greater than 45 degrees; 

• Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the 

conditions. 

The purpose of this research is to review literature from industry, academia and 

government agencies to evaluate past research on AoA displays and their effectiveness; 

review the types of AoA systems and their use; discuss the potential benefits of AoA

displays to aid in energy state awareness, upset recovery and diagnosis of air data system 

failures; and review any previous training given or currently suggested regarding AoA

indicators. 
4 

2. Angle-of-Attack 

Angle-of-attack (AoA) is an aerodynamic parameter critical to understanding airplane 

stability, performance and control. AoA is the angle between a reference line on the 

airplane or wing and the relative wind or on-coming air. 

Two other angles are more commonly referred to in reference to the fuselage (Figure 2). 

They are the pitch angle (attitude) and the flight path angle. The pitch angle is the angle 

between the fuselage and the horizon and is displayed on either the artificial horizon or 

the attitude indicator. The flight path angle, also referred to as the climb or descent 

angle, is calculated as the vertical angle between the velocity vector (i.e., where the 

airplane is going) and the Earth’s horizon and can be displayed on the primary flight 

display as a flight path vector. In still air (i.e., no wind), AoA is the difference between 

the flight path angle and the pitch attitude (angle), assuming no wind (Cashman, Kelly, 

and Nield, 2005). 

Figure 2: Angle-of-Attack, Flight Path Angle and Pitch attitude (Upset Recovery 

Industry Team, 2008) 

A typical wing has a range of AoA over which it can function efficiently. With a typical 

cambered wing design, there is a small amount of lift at zero degrees of AoA (Figure 3). 

As the AoA increases, lift increases, until the air flowing over the wing will eventually 

separate from the upper surface, resulting in a loss of lift, or a stall. This stall condition 

can occur at any airspeed, altitude, or attitude (Figure 4), but will always occur at the 

critical angle of attack. Therefore, knowing when the wing is approaching this critical 

AoA is an important element of aircraft energy state awareness (Upset Recovery Industry 

Team, 2008). 
5 

Figure 3: Lift at Angle of Attack (Upset Recovery Industry Team, 2008) 

Figure 4: Different Pitch Attitudes and Stall AoA (Upset Recovery Industry Team, 

2008) 
6 

3. Historical Research

The idea that usable AoA information can be gathered from a display already in the 

cockpit has persisted over the years. Cockpit displays, such as the stall margin on the 

airspeed tape and the pitch limit indicator on the primary attitude display, show AoA

implicitly in the cockpit. Since AoA is a parameter that can’t be sensed by pilots (Tucker 

and Gordon, 1959; Karayanakis, 1982), displayed AoA is beginning to be considered a 

valuable piece of information needed for many situations during flight; especially

resolving upset recovery situations and detecting air data system failures. The following 

is a historical review of the studies done on AoA displays. 

Svimonoff (1958) introduced the United States Air Force (USAF) Advanced Flight 

Instrument Panel that included an AoA indicator. This report detailed the evaluation of 

this system by various military, airframe and equipment test pilots as well as the 

implementation and recommended improvements of the overall system. At the time, 

AoA was an entirely new control parameter being displayed to the pilots. The large scale 

used on the indicator and the unstable characteristics during turbulence hindered the 

pilot’s ability to develop a technique or use for the information presented. The AoA 

indicator developed for the test was only shown during the useful and well defined phases 

of flight: final approach, cruise and stall. No training on the use of the AoA indicator 

was given to the pilots beforehand. Pilots originally thought the AoA indicators were 

useless, but as they became familiar with and learned how to incorporate the information 

better, they understood the benefits and the resistance to the indicators subsided. The 

designers found that reducing the original scale factor of the AoA indicator and fixing the 

unreliable characteristics of the indicator in turbulent air helped increase acceptance and 

understanding by the pilots. There was a suggestion for further investigation on 

requirements for the display of AoA, as well as a training program that would allow 

pilots to take full advantage of the information. 

Several other studies were done to test and judge the efficacy of AoA indicators. During 

flight studies to determine potential operating problems for the future of jet transports,

Fishel, Butchart, Glenn, and Robinson (1958) investigated the relationship between 1g 

stall speed and stall characteristics that occurred during take-off and landing maneuvers. 

An AoA indicator was installed to give pilots a better indication of the aircraft’s attitude

during take-off. The pilots discovered that when the AoA indicator was used with other 

instruments (which the authors did not specify) they were able to achieve an optimal 

take-off attitude at speeds below the intended take-off speeds. This lessened the large 

AoAs and increased drag normally attributed to higher take-off speeds and over-rotation, 

and enabled the pilots to maintain proper aircraft attitude during take-off and climb-out. 

Again in 1958, the Second Air Defense Command Safety Symposium (Orr, 1958), 

discussed flight safety issues in the terminal area and it was recommended that an AoA

indicator be added near the airspeed indicator for future deliveries of their aircraft, and 

installed on the current inventory. This AoA indicator would be used in conjunction with 

a glideslope indicator to aid in establishing final approach sink rate. 
7 

Later, in 1963, during a presentation of ‘lessons learned’ from high speed supersonic 

transport flight operations, Barton (1963) stated that AoA indicators reduced pilot 

workload and allowed for more accurate control during the landing phase of flight. This 

increased control provided an additional margin of safety. 

Several studies were done in the late 1960s through the 1970s. A study by Gee, Gaidsic, 

and Enevoldson (1971) evaluated whether AoA information was a useful addition to the 

General Aviation cockpit. The pilots, who did not receive any training with the display 

prior to flying in the experiment and varied widely in their piloting experience, 

appreciated the ease with which the AoA indicator allowed them to obtain trim and 

power settings. Piloting tasks that included take-offs, climbs, low speed maneuvers, 

approaches and landings were evaluated. The study found that an AoA indicator was a 

desired display to convey margin to stall as well as being a single reference point that 

allowed the pilot to select an approach trim condition which resulted in consistent flare 

and float characteristics regardless of weight or flap settings. It was concluded that 

displaying AoA was valuable during final approach as a way to maintain the flight path 

to the airport and in maneuvers to flare. Furthermore, it was found to be a desirable 

control parameter when used in conjunction with airspeed, attitude and other information. 

In 1972, a conference was held by the Flight Mechanics Panel to discuss handling 

qualities criteria of aircraft within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

countries. Twenty-one papers were presented and discussed to determine the direction 

that the panel should take in the future. In the comments section of the paper titled 

“Criteria for Stall and Post Stall Gyrations,” (Lamar, 1972) several commenters 

mentioned the desire to have an AoA indicator included in the cockpit display and one 

commenter questioned “if the test pilot of an aircraft needed an angle of attack indicator

to stay out of a stall, then shouldn’t every aircraft have one?” Hancock (1972) stated 

that: 

Fundamentally, and it has always been recognized as such, stall is a function of 

angle of attack, also rate of change of angle of attack, rather than speed. It would 

be more logical to express the safety margin in terms of angle of attack, especially 

from the point of view of accounting for atmospheric turbulence effects. However, 

the use of speed is more convenient and is by now well established; it is 

understood that the definition of the slow rate of decrease of speed is equivalent 

to a statement on the slow rate of increase in the angle of attack. 

It was further proposed that AoA information would be valuable during the transition 

flight phase as well as during upsets caused by turbulence (Hancock, 1972).

Odle (1972) tasked with studying and evaluating an AoA system for use in the United 

States Air Force (USAF) Air Training Command’s flight training program, found that 

AoA systems were most valuable in preventing stalls during the traffic pattern and 

landing phase. The study was used to determine which flying maneuvers could be flown 

using the AoA system and how, using AoA, those maneuvers should be flown. A large 

majority of the pilots in the study used AoA information and airspeed to control the 
8 

aircraft with greater confidence while flying traffic patterns and maneuvers requiring 

maximum performance. Further research was suggested to better understand other 

beneficial uses of an AoA indicator. Other studies cited in Karayanakis (1982) found that 

AoA feedback was useful during flight maneuvers such as: take-off, climb, turns, cruise, 

slow-flight, descent and landings. The AoA indicator gives the pilot a safe margin to 

stall that is independent of weight, bank angle, g-forces or density altitude variations. 

The Navy evaluated AoA indicators to determine the optimum settings for the phases of 

flight where it determined it was most beneficial (Carlquist, 1960). They found that an 

AoA indicator provided useful information during steep turns, while gaining altitude 

where thrust was limited, maximum endurance flight at steady altitude, ground control 

approaches, normal field landings in smooth air, and carrier landings. It was impractical 

to use during cruise since the optimum AoA changed along with altitude, and it was 

difficult to use during times of turbulence. The AoA indicator was a primary reference 

during ground control approaches, stall warning, and smooth air landings and it was a 

secondary reference during other phases of flight. Following this study, it was 

recommended that AoA systems be installed according to military specifications. For the 

Navy, using AoA for low-speed control during carrier landings has shown a reduction in 

stall accidents and high energy landings (Forrest, 1969; Karayanakis, 1982). They also 

found that implementing the use of AoA on their other aircraft contributed to a 

substantial reduction in workload by providing a known margin to stall. This knowledge 

allowed pilots to achieve maximum aircraft performance during flight maneuvers. There 

was an almost complete elimination of early rotation during takeoff, and aircraft using 

AoA indicators were able to attain and maintain maximum range and endurance. 

Furthermore, AoA indicators were used to prevent stalls at high altitudes (above 40,000 

feet) during high-g maneuvers. This led to significant improvements of all Navy jet 

operations. Forrest (1969) also believed that many of these advantages applied to 

commercial aircraft and anticipated the widespread use of AoA indicators in both 

jetliners and corporate jets. 

Several studies, (Carlquist, 1960; Ellis, 1977; Gee, Gaidsic, and Enevoldson, 1971; 

Karayanakis 1982) noted that acceptance of AoA indicators varied with exposure. Most 

pilots have more experience and familiarity with the airspeed indicator and this may have 

had an influence on the perception of its usability. Pilots who were unfamiliar with AoA

indicators needed practice with the instrument and an adjustment period to really 

understand the benefits. Carlquist (1960) found that acceptance by military pilots was 

varied due to factors which included: presentation, sensitivity, reliability, environmental 

conditions, aircraft maintenance procedures, individual pilot training and experience, and 

squadron policy and procedures. 

Many of the previous studies called for further investigation into the actual requirements 

for an AoA display as well as further studies to better understand the full range of uses 

and benefits of displaying AoA in the cockpit. Studies of this nature were not found. In 

fact, research into displaying AoA information directly in the cockpit was primarily 

conducted prior to the 1980s. The research that was reviewed covered AoA use in 
9 

general aviation, military, and early transport aircraft; however, research using current 

general aviation, military and jet transport aircraft was not found. 
10 

4. AoA in the Cockpit

An AoA system contains all the components needed to calculate and display AoA in the 

cockpit. An AoA system typically contains these four components: sensors, transducers, 

indicators and stall-warning devices. Sensors can be either vane or probe types (Figure 

5) which sense differential pressure through ports. One or more of these sensors are 

attached to either the wing or the forward fuselage (Figure 6) and sense the relative 

airflow. Transducers transform the sensor output to create a signal that is sent to the 

cockpit indicator. This signal can be sent directly or passed through an air data system

(MacDonald, 2002). This signal must be corrected for flow effects across the aircraft 

nose and fuselage, position errors, and Mach number as well as other aerodynamic 

corrections to create an AoA measure relative to the aircraft wing. For commercial 

transport aircraft, these corrections can be significant (Cashman, Kelly, and Nield, 2005). 

AoA indicators include various display methods which may present the information 

implicitly (e.g., Pitch Limit Indicator, PLI, or ‘barber pole’ airspeed warnings) or 

explicitly indicating AoA using angles, normalized units, or symbols (e.g., indexers). 

Finally, stall-warning devices use AoA data to warn of impending stalls. Because AoA is 

critical for stall and stall margin awareness, the systems typically compute and display 

the critical AoA (stall AoA). For accuracy this computation must take into account how 

the critical AoA changes with the aircraft configuration (e.g., gear, flaps, spoilers, etc.), 

Mach number, and other aerodynamic effects (MacDonald, 2002). 

Figure 5: Common AoA Sensor Types (MacDonald, 2002) 
11 

Figure 6: Angle of Attack sensor on Embraer 145 (Schock, 2014) 

AoA is displayed in the cockpit in a variety of ways. Examples of AoA displays are 

taken from previous research as well as current AoA display options used in military, 

private and commercial aircraft. AoA indicators come in various stand-alone styles: 

circular/dial, horizontal, or vertical. They are also available on the primary flight display 

or head-up display as a dial, tape, or as a display of the calculated AoA value. Their size 

and position vary by manufacturer and aircraft. The scale on the indicator may display 

AoA in arbitrary units (Figure 7), normalized units (Figure 8), or actual degrees (Figure 

9). The dial-type scale not only gives current AoA information, but it can also function 

as a rate-of-change indicator. This rate-of-change information can give the pilot an 

awareness of the situation that can keep the aircraft from entering a critical AoA state. 

AoA indexers, normally found in military aircraft, are also reviewed.

Figure 7: Specialties AoA indicator displaying arbitrary numbers (Carlquist, 1960) 
12 

Figure 8: Teledyne Avionics Angle of Attack Indicator (Starfleet Support, LLC, nd) 

Figure 9: AoA Indicator displaying degree units (Airbus, 1995) 

4.1 General Types

Normalized AoA indicators show a series of numbers between 0.0 and 1.0, where 0.6 is 

an AoA that is approximately 30 percent above margin to stall, taking into account the 

aircraft’s current weight and configuration (Aarons, 2006). Since this stall AoA is 

dependent upon aircraft configuration, among other things, the normalization factor 

would need to change if a normalized AoA value of 1.0 is to always indicate the critical 

AoA. Furthermore, using normalized AoA indicators on commercial jet aircraft would 

require that the AoA calculation include Mach number which would inhibit the indicator 

from being used as a cross-check of a possible pitot or static system failure (Cashman, 

Kelly, and Nield, 2005). Color wedges can be added on a dial indicator to further 

situation awareness. As an example, a green wedge from 0.0 to 0.6, a yellow wedge from 

0.6 to 0.8 and a red wedge from 0.8 to stall. Staying in the green should keep the pilot 

out of harm’s way. The green-yellow border, which is still within the 30 percent margin 

to stall, is best for low-speed, maximum lift maneuvers that typically occur directly after 

takeoff or during final approach. At 0.8, the stall warning devices normally activate 

(Aarons, 2006). 
13 

With a non-normalized design, the AoA read-out reflects only the sensed AoA (Figure 

10). In a pitot or static failure situation, the marks indicating stall warning, stick shaker 

and the speed tape bands may act erratically, but the needle and numerical read-out of 

AoA will remain stable and usable. This also enables non-normalized indicators to be 

used as a backup for an unreliable airspeed reading (Cashman, Kelly, Nield, 2000). 

Figure 10: Inset of Boeing AoA Gauge (Cashman, Kelly, Nield, 2000) 

Two types of early AoA indicators (not depicted), the Kollsman airspeed/AoA indicator 

and the Specialties Inc. AoA indicator were evaluated by Tucker and Gordon (1959) at 

the Air Force Flight Test Center. Thirty-two flights, primarily testing power approach 

problems, were flown. Secondary considerations included maximum range and 

endurance, as well as recovering from stalls and engine flame-outs during approach. The 

Kollsman airspeed/AoA indicator presented AoA indirectly on the airspeed indicator 

using a “marked ring which travels the circumference of the indicator. Aligning the 

airspeed needle with the appropriate AoA index, the airplane will be flown at the 

optimum airspeed for that condition at essentially all the gross weights and bank angles.” 

(Tucker and Gordon, 1959) Because there were two moving reference points, the 

information provided was not useable rate information until the aircraft’s airspeed and 

AoA was close to optimum. The movable reference points also made it unsuitable for 

measuring closeness to the desired AoA. The presentation allowed the pilots to reference 

either airspeed or AoA independently. The Specialties, Inc. gauge provided a direct 

indication of AoA, but it was done in arbitrary units that the pilots had no experience 

interpreting. Pilots in the Tucker and Gordon (1959) study preferred the Kollsman 

system over the Specialties, Inc. AoA system. Both indicators were evaluated and while 

it was discovered that both were good for optimizing cruise, neither was recommended 

for inclusion into the USAF’s F-106 or F-102 fleet because they were not believed to aid 

in the approach problems for which they were tested. The study did find that both 

systems would be useful in the event of a pitot-static system failure. 

In a 1960 study looking to determine optimum AoA settings for all applicable phases of 

flight, the Navy studied two (of which only one system is pictured below) dial-type 

indicators with a pointer that moved counterclockwise in increasing value of AoA, in 

units from 0-30 (Figure 11) (Carlquist, 1960). This movement better matched the 

movement of both the airspeed indicator and aircraft pitch attitude. Three movable index 

markers rotated within the face. The marker with a hashed area at 25-27 units indicated 
14 

the point of the stall warning while the other two movable markers could mark other 

desired pre-determined values. A fixed marker at the 3 o’clock position marked the 

optimum approach AoA. 

 Figure 11: Specialties, Inc. B-2 Dial-type AoA Indicator (Carlquist, 1960) 

The study also included an AoA approach index indicator (Figure 12). The center circle

was lit to indicate the optimum approach angle and the chevrons lit up to give the 

direction of correction needed to maintain the optimum approach angle (Carlquist, 1960). 

Figure 12: Specialties, Inc. AoA Approach Index Indicator (Carlquist, 1960) 

In 1969, Forrest wrote a report for the FAA which studied whether using AoA 

information as well as other required instruments would “enhance the process of learning 
15 

to pilot an airplane”. They found that most of the benefit of using AoA came while 

flying steep ascent and descent. However, it was determined that AoA displays may be 

more beneficial to instrument rated pilots, since most beginning pilots use visual cues to 

fly. The researchers felt that one limitation to their study was the presentation of AoA. 

Sixty percent of the instructor pilots felt that a different presentation of AoA may have 

improved its use by the subject pilots during flight. The instrument used was a dial-type

indicator that used arbitrary reference units, graduated in thirty units. Certain reference 

units applied to certain maneuvers, and it was the pilot’s job to know which reference 

unit correlated to which maneuver. Recommendations for further research into using an 

AoA indicator in instrument flight training were made since there are many benefits to 

using AoA that may be better realized at the instrument pilot level (Forrest, 1969). 

The AoA indicator used on a twin engine general aviation airplane for a 1971 study 

conducted by Gee, et al., was a horizontal display, mounted above the instrument panel 

on the left side of the cockpit (Figure 13), to enable it to be within the pilot’s field-ofview as he looked through the windscreen. The regions were color coded to simplify 

understanding of the information. 

Figure 13: AoA Display and Key (Gee, Gaidsic, and Enevoldson, 1971) 

Pilots in Odle’s 1972 study, which looked at AoA use in various flight maneuvers for the 

USAF’s Air Training Command’s Instrument Flight Center, stated a desire for AoA to be 

displayed as the percent of lift available. They felt that displaying the percent of lift 

available led to better understanding and easier application of the AoA information. 

Additionally, displaying AoA as a percentage of lift available was appropriate and 

desired due to the fact that when the display read 0.8, the pilots knew that there was 20 

percent lift available, whereas when an indicator showing available AoA read 0.8, this 

corresponded to 20 percent of available AoA left. While similar, the differences are 
16 

significant. The pilots felt that displaying AoA as a percentage of lift available was more 

direct and transferable across aircraft. The study also recommended that a 

standardization of AoA displays and symbology across airframes be implemented (Odle, 

1972). 

For Odle’s (1972) study, a Bendix Standardized AoA System was used that included an 

AoA indicator and a head-up indexer. The Bendix indicator (not pictured) is a round dial

which displayed the percentage of available AoA. The scale ranged from zero lift angle 

(0) through the stall angle (1.1), where 1.0 represents a stall. The approach index is set at 

0.60, while maximum endurance is set at 0.30. The approach to stall is shown with 

amber coloring and begins at 0.90, while the stall area is shown with red coloring and 

begins at 1.0 (Odle, 1972). 

The head-up indexer (Figure 14) was mounted directly in front of the pilot and used trend 

information to indicate high, slightly high, on approach, slightly low or low AoA flight 

information. The indexers were unanimously accepted by the study pilots who found 

them to be an effective cue of the direction of pitch attitude correction needed to maintain 

an optimum AoA. Furthermore, it allowed the pilot to fly ‘heads up’ with better aircraft 

control and more accuracy during the traffic pattern and landing phase (Odle, 1972). 

Figure 14: AoA Indexer (Odle, 1972) 

Odle (1972), Egan and Goodson (1978) looked at AoA displays in military aircraft and 

suggested a standardization of the system and the symbology across the military to 

reduce confusion and aid in skill and knowledge transfer when switching between 

different aircraft. 

In Ellis’ Light Plane Stall Avoidance and Suppression study (1977), pilots evaluated

three styles of AoA indicators: a dial-type indicator with a normalized scale of zero to 

one, which presented percent of maximum lift available; a vertical indexer with chevrons 

and a ‘donut’ indicating optimum angle of attack; and a slow-fast meter that was 

horizontally mounted. It was noted that with familiarity and practice that any of the three 

styles could be used effectively as an AoA indicator (Ellis, 1977). The study did not 

mention whether the pilots had any preference towards any particular display style 

sampled. 
17 

4.2 Military AoA Systems 

The AoA system for the T-38 (Figure 15) includes a dial indicator for each pilot that 

displays AoA as a percentage of maximum lift during all phases of flight as well as an 

AoA indexer which operates and illuminates when the aircraft is configured for landing 

or when flaps are extended 5 percent or more with the landing gear up (USAF, 1978). 

The dial is calibrated counterclockwise in increments of 0.1, with each increment from 0 

to 1.1, representing approximately 10 percent of aircraft lift. It has two colored arcs, 

yellow to represent buffet warning and red to represent stall warning. Furthermore, the 

AoA indicator contained three white indices at 0.18 to denote maximum range, 0.3 to 

denote maximum endurance, and 0.6 to denote optimum final approach at 1g flight. The 

indexer will illuminate the chevrons and circle independently or in combination to 

indicate different AoA conditions such as red for low speed, green for on speed, and 

yellow for high speed. 

Figure 15: T38 AoA System and Displays (USAF, 1978) 

The Navy F/A-18 displays true AoA in degrees in the Head-Up Display (HUD) (Figure 

16). When the landing gear is down, an AoA bracket appears. The bracket moves with 

respect to the velocity vector and the center of this bracket indicates the optimum 

approach AoA. The pilot also has an AoA indexer mounted to the left of the HUD which 

operates when the landing gear is down and locked during flight (Figure 17). The 

chevrons and the circle light up in different combinations to give the pilot a visual 

indication of the aircraft’s airspeed and AoA during landing. The true airspeed and AoA

can be referenced on the HUD as described above (United States Navy, 2008).
18 

Figure 16: Navy F/A-18 HUD display showing AoA and the AoA Bracket (United 

States Navy, 2008) 

Figure 17: Navy F/A-18 AoA Indexer (United States Navy, 2008) 
19 

The F-16 AoA system (United States Air Force, 2002) consists of an indicator located on 

the instrument panel, an indexer located on the top left side of the glareshield and the 

HUD AoA display (Figure 18). The AoA indicator displays AoA in true degrees on a 

vertically moving tape indicating -5 to +32 degrees. Color coding from 9 to 17 degrees 

corresponds to the color coding on the AoA indexer. The AoA indexer provides a visual 

indication of aircraft AoA by illuminating either one of the chevrons or the circle. The 

indexer operates continuously with the landing gear handle up or down. The HUD 

display uses an AoA bracket when the landing gear is lowered. When the flightpath 

marker is even with the top of the bracket, the AoA of the aircraft is 11 degrees. When 

the flightpath marker is in the middle of the bracket, the AoA of the aircraft is 13 degrees 

and when the flight path marker is even with the bottom of the bracket, the AoA of the 

aircraft is 15 degrees. 

Figure 18: F-16 AoA Display System (United States Air Force, 2002) 

4.3 Commercial Transport and Business Aircraft AoA Indicators

Cessna offers an optional AoA indicator and indexer on their Citation X Model 750 

(Figure 19). The indicator is standardized from 0 to 1.0, and contains colored arcs 

(Cessna, year unknown). The green arc, located from 0 to 0.60, represents normal 

operation. The yellow arc, located between 0.60 and 0.80, represents the area where the 

aircraft may be approaching the critical AoA. The yellow arc also contains a symbol 

between 0.55 and 0.65 and represents the optimum landing approach airspeed. The red 

arc, from 0.80 to 1.0, represents where low speed buffet may occur and if uncorrected, 

could continue on to a full stall. The stick-shaker activates around 0.83 +/-0.02. This 

information is valid for all aircraft configurations and weights. The Cessna approach 

indexer is mounted on the pilot’s glareshield and uses three lighted symbols to indicate 

one of five AoA conditions. When lit, the top chevron, colored red, indicates a high 

AoA. This chevron points down to indicate that the AoA should be decreased. A slightly 
20 

high AoA is indicated when the top chevron and the green circle are lit. Only the green 

circle lights up when the AoA is on the optimal approach reference. A slightly low AoA

is indicated when the circle and bottom chevron, colored yellow, are lit. The bottom 

chevron lights up when the AoA is low. This chevron points up to indicate that the AoA

should be increased. 

Figure 19: Cessna AoA Indicator and Indexer (Cessna, undated) 

Airbus offers an optional AoA indicator on the A340 that provides the crew the true AoA

between -5 and +25 degrees (Figure 20). There is an indicator on both the Captain and 

First Officer side; they are fed directly from the air data inertial reference unit on the 

corresponding side. In the event of failure of the AoA system, the pointer is positioned at 

the lower stop and an amber warning flag appears (Airbus, 1995). 

Figure 20: Optional Airbus AoA Indicator (Airbus, 1995) 
21 

Boeing offers an optional, non-normalized AoA indicator on its 737-600/-700/-800/-900, 

767-400, and 777 flight displays (Figure 21). The indicator combines a digital readout, 

showing body AoA in degrees, and an analog pointer with a red tick mark indicating the 

stall warning AoA. In addition, an approach reference band in green is shown whenever 

landing flaps are being used. Because the displayed value of AoA is non-normalized, it 

can be used as a backup when there is a suspected pitot or static source blockage or 

failure. This indicator can also be used to determine margin to stall during upset recovery 

(Cashman, Kelly & Nield, 2000). 

Figure 21: Boeing AoA Gauge (Cashman, Kelly, Nield, 2000) 

Other aircraft manufacturers are also offering AoA indicators. Gulfstream displays AoA

as a computed, normalized value ranging from 0.00 to 1.10 with 0.00 corresponding to 

zero lift, while 1.00 is the stick pusher activation threshold. This normalized AoA

information is displayed on the primary flight display (PFD) below the airspeed tape 

(Figure 22). The AoA number can change color from white, during normal operations, to 

amber for approach to stall, and to red to indicate a stall. When used together with the 

airspeed tape, pilots can use these as indications of low speed and/or high AoA situations

(Gulfstream, 2003). 
22 

Figure 22: Gulfstream PFD AoA Located Under Airspeed Tape (Gulfstream, 2003) 

4.4 AoA on the HUD

The Rockwell Collins HGS6250 is a Head-up Guidance System that has an AoA

indicator (Figure 23) for the HUD. It displays both an analog and a digital readout of 

AoA. It contains 6 index marks representing from -5 degrees to +20 degrees, and 

markers that show an approach reference band, a stick-shaker threshold and a maximum 

lift-over-drag reference (FedEx, 2012).
23 

Figure 23: Rockwell Collins HGS6250 AoA Indicator (Fed Ex, 2012) 

Another option by Rockwell Collins (Figure 24) shows the approach reference band, 

(which is variable in accordance with flap settings), and a stick-shaker point which 

indicates the point at which stick-shaker occurs. The area past the stick-shaker pointer is 

the “stay-out zone” and is represented by groups of hashed lines (Rockwell Collins, 

2002) 
24 

Figure 24: Rockwell Collins HGS4200 AoA Indicator (Rockwell Collins, 2002) 

The styles and types of AoA indicators reviewed are diverse and varied. Most of the 

studies involving AoA indicators sampled only one indicator and did not compare types 

of indicators. In those that sampled more than one type, there was little mention by the 

researchers of any pilot preferences between those sampled. The following research did 

mention indicator type/style preferences. Tucker and Gordon (1959) stated that the 

Kollsman system of presenting AoA indirectly on the airspeed indicator was preferred

over the Specialties, Inc. AoA indicator displaying arbitrary units. Sixty percent of the 

instructor pilots in the FAA report Angle of Attack Presentation in Pilot Training

(Forrest, 1969) felt that a different presentation, other than displaying arbitrary units 

matched with certain maneuvers, would have been more beneficial. Another pilot 

preference mentioned in the literature was that AoA be displayed as a percentage of lift 

available (Odle, 1972). Many studies suggested designing a standardized AoA display to 

ease acceptance and understanding across aircraft; further studies into this were not 

found. 

4.5 General Aviation AoA Systems 

In May 2013, the FAA Fact Sheet for General Aviation Safety stated that AoA indicators 

are one of the technologies that have the highest possibility of significantly enhancing 

safety and reducing fatalities. According to the FAA, an AoA indicator gives the pilot a 

visual aid during critical phases of flight that helps to prevent Loss of Control. The 

approval of AoA indicators for GA aircraft has been streamlined by the FAA as the

Administration works towards encouraging the retrofitting of the entire GA fleet (FAA, 

Dugette & Dorr, 2013). American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

International has published functional operation and minimum performance requirements 

for an AoA system in support of this effort (ASTM, 2013). More recently, in February 

2014, the FAA released a memorandum that simplified the design and production 
25 

approval of AoA systems. Manufacturers, using the functional operation and minimum 

performance standards published by ASTM International, can apply for FAA approval 

via a letter certifying that the system meets those standards. This AoA system is a nonrequired/supplemental system that is to be installed and operated as a standalone/independent system. It must not interface with any certificated system (i.e., pitot 

static, stall warning, etc.) except to draw electrical power needed to run the AoA unit and 

any sensor or display unit mounting requirements. To keep policy interpretation 

consistent, the FAA’s Chicago Aircraft Certification Office will be the only office to 

process the manufacturer’s application of their AoA system for market (FAA, Dorr & 

Cory, 2014; FAA, Hempe & Seipel, 2014). 

Several manufactures offer AoA systems for general aviation aircraft. Garmin offers a 

normalized AoA indicator (Figure 25) which uses a combination of chevrons and colors 

to enable the pilot to easily understand the information. The green bars on the bottom 

show the minimum visible AoA and build towards the calibrated AoA approach target, 

the small green circle. Increasing the AoA beyond the target is indicated by yellow bars 

and further by yellow chevrons pointing down. If the AoA increases and exceeds the 

critical AoA, red chevrons, pointing down, illuminate and begin to flash. There is also an 

audible alert that begins to beep once the first red chevron is illuminated and increases in 

intensity and speed until it reaches a constant tone as the top chevron illuminates and 

flashes, indicating a stall condition (Garmin, 2014). 

Figure 25: Garmin GI 260 Angle of Attack Indicator (Garmin, 2014) 
26 

Garmin also offers the same AoA indicator displayed on the PFD using the above color 

and audio features (Figure 26).

Figure 26: Garmin G3X AoA System (Garmin, 2014) 

Alpha Systems has a chevron Style AoA display (Figure 27) that will display a green bar 

to indicate normal operations for cruise and that AoA is low, and no action is required. A 

blue donut lights up to indicate “Optimum Alpha Angle” which is a 30 percent margin 

above stall. A yellow chevron lights up indicating a relatively high AoA and the need to 

take action to reduce AoA. And finally, a red chevron indicates an AoA that is too high; 

immediate action is required to reduce the AoA and stall recovery procedures should be 

performed. The display also has sixteen different brightness levels and four different 

audio options. Each AoA display is calibrated to the aircrafts specific lift curve (Alpha 

Systems, 2014).

Figure 27: Alpha System AoA Griffin Chevron Display (Alpha Systems, 2014) 
27 

ICON Aircraft offers an AoA system on its A5 Light Sport Aircraft (Figure 28) that is 

currently in production. It is an analog display that gives graphical information about 

how much lift is available from the wing before it stalls. The indicator uses green, 

yellow, and red sectors to give a direct indication of the performance of the wing in real 

time (ICON, 2013). 

Figure 28: ICON A5 Light Sport Aircraft AoA indicator (ICON, 2013) 

These examples are just a sampling of the many different types of General Aviation 

AoA indicators currently on the market. This was not meant to be a complete list 

and peer-reviewed research was not found on any current AoA indicators on the 

market. 
28 

5. AoA Display Benefits

5.1 Energy State Awareness/Upset Recovery

During low speed conditions and/or upset recovery situations, presenting a visual cue of 

AoA information in the cockpit can allow the pilot to gather independent verification of 

how the wing is flying and whether the aircraft’s AoA is increasing, decreasing or 

holding steady. This information may be useful when a pilot is disoriented and cannot 

trust vestibular cues or their own seat-of-the-pants intuition (Ellis, 1977; Langdon, 1969; 

Odle, 1972). The literature is reviewed to evaluate evidence that the display of AoA in 

the cockpit has been useful for energy awareness, stall awareness, and stall and upset 

recovery. 

AC 120-09 from the FAA (2012) states that any transport category airplane must have 

one or more natural or synthetic indications of an approach to stall. These may include: 

aerodynamic buffeting (some airplanes will buffet more than others), reduced roll 

stability and aileron effectiveness, visual or aural cues and warnings, reduced elevator 

(pitch) authority, inability to maintain altitude or arrest rate of descent, and/or stick 

shaker activation (if installed) (FAA, 2012). 

AoA information may drive one or several of these indications and the visual display of 

AoA may complement the stall warning systems already in place. Binary stall warning 

systems (i.e., stall horns, stick shakers) provide a fixed margin to stall. These systems 

typically do not provide information leading up to that activation, nor does it provide 

information between the stall warning and the aerodynamic stall. An airspeed indicator 

provides information across the entire range of the flight envelope, but is only accurate 

for stall prediction in un-accelerated flight. An AoA indicator provides information 

across the same flight envelope range as an airspeed indicator, but remains accurate under 

accelerated G loads. The AOA indicator can keep the pilot from entering into a situation 

where binary stall warning systems activate and can also provide information between the 

warning activation and actual aerodynamic stall, depending on the format and resolution 

of the display. An AoA indicator adds a margin of safety to low speed maneuvers by 

providing information about how the wing is flying and enables the pilot to keep the 

aircraft in the air. For example, when flying a holding pattern, an increase in AoA can be 

an indication of wing icing. The extra wing loading due to turns at low speed can induce 

a stall quickly, even on a “clean” wing (Air Safety Week, 1999). 

When stall warning systems are misunderstood, as in Air France Flight 447 (Bureau 

d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses, 2012), an AoA indicator can be a single point of reference 

where the pilot can see the margin to stall and determine whether the aircraft is in a stall. 

An AoA indicator would have given the pilot knowledge of how the wing was flying. 

This knowledge can be crucial in the first few seconds of an emergency and can give vital 

information that assists the pilot in recovering the aircraft. In Air France 447, the 

accident report noted that the crew inadvertently entered an upset situation after an 

autopilot disconnect. The destabilization of the flight resulted in a sustained stall, which

the crew never formally identified or recovered from. The instantaneous feedback of an 

AoA indicator can give the pilot key information quickly that can be used to assess the 
29 

flight condition and keep the aircraft in the air. This information may allow better 

comprehension of what is happening which can increase their situation and energy state 

awareness (Ellis, 1977). 

While pitch attitude - the angle between the aircraft body reference and the horizon - can 

typically be recognized by pilots, this is not the case when pilots attempt to determine 

AoA. Trubshaw, as quoted in Karayanakis (1982) believes that, from the pilot’s 

standpoint, the rate of change of AoA while approaching a stall is a significant piece of 

information that should be displayed. Furthermore, Hancock (1972) stated that a pilot 

can believe that the aircraft has recovered from a stall, based on pitch attitude, their

vestibular system and/or other clues, but still be at a critical AoA which can lead to a 

secondary stall. 

AoA information can give the pilot the ability to reliably use the aircraft’s maximum 

climb performance, which is necessary to effectively travel through severe wind shear. 

However, this is rarely directly displayed in the cockpit. Therefore, in a 1983 report it 

was suggested that AoA indicators be installed as part of the cockpit instrumentation 

displayed to the pilot. These indicators are considered to be “simple instruments” that 

can accurately inform a pilot how best to fly their aircraft (Townsend, 1983). 

The investigation of a fatal December 1995 accident of American Airlines Flight 965 in 

Cali, Columbia found that after the Ground Proximity Warning System sounded, the first 

officer repeatedly increased pitch attitude until the stick-shaker activated and then 

reduced pitch until the stick-shaker warning ended. The first officer may have been using 

the stick-shaker activation as an indication of the aircraft’s maximum AoA that would 

enable him to gain the maximum available thrust and altitude. Without an actual AoA 

indicator, the pilot could not keep the pitch attitude in the stick-shaker region because he 

had no idea how much lift was still available or how close the aircraft was to a stall. The 

report showed that if he had held the AoA at stick-shaker activation steadily during his 

recovery, the aircraft may have cleared the first collision site (NTSB, 1996). As a result 

of these findings, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued Safety 

Recommendation A-96-094. It reads: 

TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA): Require that all 

transport-category aircraft present pilots with angle-of-attack info in a visual 

format, and that all air carriers train their pilots to use the info to obtain 

maximum possible airplane climb performance. (NTSB, 1996) 

This recommendation was reiterated again after a fatal December 1996 accident of an 

Airborne Express DC-8 in Narrows, Virginia. In this report the NTSB also states that “a 

display of angle of attack on the flight deck would have maintained the flightcrew’s 

awareness of the stall condition and it would have provided direct indication of the pitch 

attitudes required for recovery throughout the attempted stall recovery sequence.” The 

NTSB also believed that the accident may have been prevented if a direct indication of 

AoA was presented to the flightcrew (NTSB, 1997). 
30 

The FAA evaluated the NTSB’s recommendation A-96-094 and found that using ground 

proximity warning systems would reduce the occurrence of ground proximity escape 

maneuvers by enabling the pilot to determine a terrain threat well before any maximum 

climb maneuver would be needed. The NTSB mentioned in a later response to the FAA 

that there were several other scenarios where AoA information would have been 

beneficial to the flightcrew. These included erroneous airspeed, blocked static ports, and 

improperly entered fuel weight. The FAA believed that these scenarios and the accidents 

they caused were not related to the original need for maximum climb performance, but 

instead could be addressed without requiring AoA indicators. The FAA further stated 

that pilots can reference the predetermined pitch and power settings to accomplish 

continued flight and landing in such incidents. The NTSB stated in 2001 that an AoA

indicator is a single point of reference that gives a quick indication of the margin to stall 

and is more accessible than the charts providing recommended pitch and power setting 

for each scenario (NTSB, 2001). While the issues brought up in the discussion between 

the NTSB and the FAA have been addressed by incorporating terrain avoidance systems

and better defined procedures and training in those systems, there is still a missing 

component, one that may improve all of the systems already in use, a cockpit display of 

AoA. 

Ellis (1977), Langdon (1969) and Odle (1972) believed using AoA in low speed 

situations may be useful as an aid to upset recovery. The aircraft incidents described 

above are included as they contain recommendations that may prevent those same 

situations from happening again. Current studies researching the use of AoA indicators 

as an aid in airplane energy state awareness or upset recovery were not found. 

5.2 Detect/Diagnose Air Data System Failures 

An AoA indicator may be effective as an additional independent or redundant 

information source in the event of a pitot static system failure. AoA may be a useable 

indication of airspeed during recovery as both airspeed and AoA offer the same accuracy 

in low speed operations (Carlquist, 1960; Odle, 1972). The literature is reviewed to 

assess the efficacy of AoA in detection, diagnosis, or recovery in the event of air data 

system failures. 

In 1996, both a Birgenair 757 and an AeroPeru 757 crashed due to blocked pitot systems. 

In these accidents, the airspeed and altitude indicators gave conflicting and erroneous 

readings and the pilots were without a secondary system to use as a cross check. An AoA

indicator could be used to detect and diagnose air data system failures. In the event of 

pitot tube blockage, an AoA indicator can serve as a secondary source of information to 

confirm the suspected issue and prevent an inadvertent loss of control, thereby assisting

the pilot in keeping the aircraft in the air. (Air Safety Week, 1999). 

Following an incident involving a UPS 747-200 freighter with unreliable readings of both 

altitude and airspeed, due to open static port drain lines, UPS asked that their response be 

included in the final report of the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU). It is as 

follows: 
31 

An additional option that should be addressed is the inclusion of an Angle 

of Attack (AoA) presentation in the cockpit. The AoA provides immediate 

reference for stall protection in the event that there is a failure of both 

airspeed indicators. The information presented by the AoA is immediate 

and continuous as opposed to the task of referencing charts in manuals. It 

is also more accurate than using Target Pitch and Thrust Settings. 

Additionally, in cases where the Captain's and the First Officer's airspeed 

indicators do not agree, the AoA would provide a reference source to the 

flight crew to help determine which airspeed indicator is reading correctly

(AIUU, 2000). 

The AIUU’s lead investigator for the case, Graham Liddy, stated that an AoA indicator is 

a single point of reference that is simple and easier than looking for pitch and thrust 

information from books and graphics during an emerging situation. Having AoA

information readily accessible can keep the crews from becoming distracted and allow for 

a quicker diagnosis and recovery (Air Safety Week, 2004). 

As part of its investigation into the Air France accident of Flight 447 on June 1, 2009, 

due to blocked pitot tubes, the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) stated that “only 

a direct readout of the angle of attack could enable crews to rapidly identify the 

aerodynamic situation of the aeroplane and take actions that may be required.” (Bureau 

d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses, 2012) One of the many factors that are believed to be a 

contributing cause of this accident is the crew not identifying or reacting to the stall 

warning. This may be because of a combination of factors, one of which is that there was 

not any visual indication available to confirm the approach to stall given by the aural stall 

warning (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses, 2012). 

Most of the recommendations for using AoA indicators as a backup for pitot static system 

failure were written in response to incidents that occurred. Current research into the use 

of AoA as a verification for pitot static system failure was not found. 
32 

6. Training

The display of AoA as discussed in Section 2 has been shown to provide beneficial 

information to the flight crew. As part of the cost-benefit trade-off, the question of the 

training and proficiency requirements for various indicators must be considered. In this 

section, the literature was reviewed to identify training provided prior to the various 

research studies and any remarks about either provided or suggested training. 

In some of the studies reviewed, little to no training was given to pilots before using the 

AoA indicators (Gordon & Tucker, 1959; Ellis, 1977). While there was also not any 

training done for the AoA portion of Svimonoff’s 1958 Air Force Integrated Fight 

Instrument report, it was recommended that a training program be created to allow the 

Air Force to take full advantage of the new AoA system (Svimonoff, 1958). 

Forrest (1969) studied the impact of presenting AoA instrumentation training during 

initial private pilot training. He also looked into determining when to present AoA

during instruction so that it would have the biggest impact on learning. This study was 

carried out in the initial phases of flight instruction and ground school for student pilots. 

Training for both groups was identical except the experimental group’s instruction 

contained the addition of AoA indicator instruction. Of the ten instructors, seven felt that 

incorporation of an AoA indicator during commercial and instrument training would 

improve the attainment of pilot skills enough to warrant installing an AoA indicator in 

general aviation aircraft. It was found that some of the student pilots in the experimental 

group seemed, at times, confused by the AoA indicator. The original idea that 

incorporating an AoA indicator into pilot training would simplify the process of learning 

to fly was only accomplished once the student pilot had enough knowledge to properly 

utilize the instrument. Once this occurred, the experimental pilot group obtained an 

8.32% increase in their final check ride performance over the 20 hour check ride scores, 

while the control group only achieved a 1.54% increase in their performance. Some 

flight instructors and examiners involved in the study offered the opinion that teaching 

the use of an AoA indicator during instrument flight training would better utilize the full 

potential of the indicator. The study concluded that there was no significant difference in 

flying performance or apparent maneuvering skills between those students trained on the 

use of an AoA indicator and those trained without. This led to the recommendation that 

there be no further consideration given to adding AoA training at the private pilot level. 

There was a suggestion that a project be considered to determine the advantage of adding 

AoA indicator training during instrument flight training. 

In Gee, Gaidsick, and Enevoldson’s 1971 evaluation study, no formal training on how to 

use the provided AoA indicator was given. The safety pilot did direct the participating 

pilots to develop a technique to use for the study, but each pilot was encouraged to 

develop his own technique in using the information displayed. 

In the 1972 military study to determine which flying maneuvers could be flown using an 

AoA indicator and how the information should be used during those maneuvers, the test 

pilots were given a thorough briefing before flight to ensure familiarity with the AoA
33 

system (Odle, 1972). At the conclusion of the study, it was recommended that AoA

training be available for instructor pilots at each base as soon as AoA equipped aircraft 

became available. Furthermore, it was recommended that a training film be made 

detailing the procedures, techniques, and uses and of an AoA indicator in the cockpit. 

Boeing (Cashman, Kelly, Nield, 2000) stated that using an AoA indicator can be a way to 

increase understanding of the physics of flight as well as aid in a crew’s situation 

awareness of their aircraft’s wing during normal and non-normal flight conditions. While 

the AoA indicator is considered unambiguous, its use and reliability as a secondary 

backup indicator is dependent on each individual airline’s training scenarios and 

procedures. Training should focus on emphasizing the use of an AoA indicator as a 

cross-check/back-up to airspeed and Mach indicators, as well as the understanding that 

AoA information is most useful during low speed, high AoA flight to aid in stall 

prevention and upset recovery. Furthermore, the green approach band on the Boeing 

AoA indicator can be used as a cross-check for configuration, reference speed 

calculation, and/or gross weight errors. However, staying within this green band during 

the approach phase of the flight, without taking into consideration the regulatory 

requirements that lead to normal variations of AoA measurement, can lead to 

inappropriate approach speeds. 

Conclusive studies involving research into whether training on the use of an AoA

indicator made a difference in its use was not found. The literature reviewed contained 

limited information on whether training was given or not, with little description to the 

type of training offered. Suggestions for training found in Cashman, et al. (2000) provide 

the only detailed discussion of training needs for large transport airplanes. 
34 

7. Concluding Remarks

This work collected and reviewed literature to assess the state-of-the-science with respect 

to the benefits of using various forms of AoA displays to aid in energy state awareness, 

upset recovery, and diagnosis of air data system failure. Different styles and types of 

AoA indicators and displays were discussed with descriptions of each. 

AoA indicators have been shown to give pilots more accurate control and knowledge of 

the aircraft’s performance and aerodynamics, which is especially useful as the aircraft

approaches a stall. In addition, some studies have shown that AoA indicators are

effective in reducing pilot workload. The most beneficial use of an AoA display may be 

as an aid in upset prevention/recovery situations and the detection of pitot or static system 

failures. However, definitive works quantifying these benefits were not found. The 

literature did show that AoA can be a beneficial display and may be used in the following 

phases of flight: take-off, climb, turning, maximizing cruise, descent, final approach, low 

speed maneuvers, maneuvers to flare, landing, as well as high g turns, approach to stall, 

and identifying and recovering from stalls at low and high altitudes. However, definitive 

works that determine the requirements for an AoA display were not found. 

Training was offered in some studies, while others allowed the subject pilots to attain 

their own techniques for the use of AoA indicators in flight. Definitive works to 

determine the requirements for training for and with AoA information were not identified 

in this review. This work concludes with the recommendation that two lines of research 

be pursued for further investigation of appropriate AoA indicator design and training. 
35 

8. Recommendations

Based on the literature review, the benefits of an AoA display have been touted - that is, 

it can provide a direct indication of the airflow angle relative to the wing, which can be 

especially beneficial for stall margin awareness, and it may also be useful in detecting air 

data failures. However, most of the literature concerning the benefits in these areas is

conjecture based on the information available from an AoA display and how it may be 

used by a pilot/crew. 

Further, the lack of AoA research since about the late 1970s warrants further studies. In 

particular, two lines of research are recommended:

• Current research into the display of AoA is needed. Research should be 

conducted into how to best display AoA and when it should be used during 

commercial transport aircraft operations. The effectiveness of AoA, or any 

parameter for that matter, is significantly influenced by where and how the 

information is presented and how it can be integrated and used in the intended 

operation. 

• Very little data was found on how pilots should be trained to use AoA and how a 

training program can best transfer its utility and benefits to the users. Future 

research must also consider the extent of training and training methods for

dedicated AoA indicators. 
36 

9. References

(1999, August). Angle of attack displays could enhance safety. Air Safety Week, 13 (34). 

(2004, February). In-flight emergency caused by simple maintenance oversight. Air 

Safety Week, 18 (8). 

Aarons, R.N. (2006, April). Using angle-of-attack indicators; it may not be a primary 

indicator, but its information can be primo. Business & Commercial Aviation, 98

(4), 46-48. Retrieved from 

http://www.safeflight.com/upload/AoA%20article%20B&CA%20April%202006.p

df

Air Accident Investigation Unit. (2004). Final Report: AIUU Report No. 2004-004. 

Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from 

http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/12850-REPORT_2004_004-

0.PDF 

Airbus Industrie Training & Flight Operations Support Division. (1995). A340 technical 

training manual, mechanics/electrics & avionics course, navigation. Retrieved 

from http://takata1940.free.fr/aoa1.jpg, http://takata1940.free.fr/aoa2.jpg, and 

http://takata1940.free.fr/aoa3.jpg 

Alpha Systems. (2014). Griffin Installation Manual P# AOA-9050-Griffin. (IOMGriffin, Rev. A). Retrieved from

http://www.alphasystemsaoa.com/assets/PDFs/Griffin%20Installation%20Manual%

20revA.pdf

ASTM International. (2013). Standard specification for performance of angle of attack 

system, F3011-13. West Conshohocken, PA. Retrieved from http://www.astm.org 

Aviation Safety Boeing Commercial Airplanes. (2013, August). Statistical summary of 

commercial jet airplane accidents, worldwide operations, 2003-2012. Retrieved 

from http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf 

Barton, J.A. (1963) Implementing safety lessons learned from high speed flight 

operations to the supersonic transport, Flight Safety Foundation International Air 

Safety Seminar. Dallas, TX.

Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA). (2012). Final report on the accident on 1st 

June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203, registered F-GZCP, operated by Air France. 

Retrieved from http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/fcp090601.en.pdf 

Carlquist, R. (1960). Recommended angle of attack setting for various flight maneuvers; 

Report #1, final report. Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland. 
37 

Cashman, J.E., Kelly, B.D., and Nield, B.N. (2000). Operational use of angle of attack on 

modern commercial jet airplanes. Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company. Aero 

Magazine, (4). 

Cessna. (undated). FAA approved airplane flight manual supplement for Cessna CitationX series airplane. Cessna Citation X Model 750, Section 3: Instrumentation and 

Avionics (Document 750MA-00). 

Dorr, L., and Cory, E. I. (2014). FAA clears path for installation of angle of attack 

indicators in small aircraft. Washington, DC. Federal Aviation Administration. 

Retrieved from

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15714

Duguette, A., and Dorr, L. (2013) Fact sheet - General aviation safety. Washington, DC. 

Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved from 

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13672

Egan, D.E., and Goodson, J.E. (1978) Human factors engineering for head-up displays: 

A review of military specifications and recommendations for research. Naval 

Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. Pensacola, FL. 

Ellis, D.R. (1977). A study of lightplane stall avoidance and suppression (FAA-RD-77-

25). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service. 

Federal Aviation Administration. (2012). Stall and stick pusher training. (AC No: 102-

109). Retrieved from 

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-

109.pdf 

FedEx. (2012) FAA approved airplane flight manual supplement for Boeing 757-200 

series airplane, revision 1. Boeing 757-200 HUD/EFVS System Airplane Flight 

Manual (AFM) Supplement STC ST00313BO, FedEx Document: ER 10-120. 

Fischel, J., Butchart, S.P., Robinson, G.H. (1958) Flight studies of problems pertinent to 

low-speed operation of jet transports. NASA Conference on Some Problems Related 

to Aircraft Operation. (pp. 61-81). NASA, Langley Field, VA. 

Forrest, F.G. (1969). Angle of attack presentation in pilot training (DS-69-6). Federal 

Aviation Administration. Washington, DC. 

Garmin. (2014). Garmin GI 260. [photograph]. Retrieved from 

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/aoaindicator11-12536.php

Garmin. (2014). G3X Touch pilot’s guide. (Document 190-01754-00 Rev. A). 
38 

Gee, S.W., Gaidsick, H.G., and Enevoldson, E.K. (1971) Flight evaluation of angle of 

attack as a control parameter in general-aviation aircraft. (NASA Document No. 

D-6210). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington, DC. 

Gulfstream. (2003). G550 Operating Manual, Production Aircraft Systems (Document: 

2A-27-00). 

Hancock, G.J. (1972). Criteria for stall and post stall gyrations. AGARD Conference 

Proceedings No. 106 on Handling Qualities Criteria (pp. 12-1 to 12-10). Technical 

Editing and Reproduction Ltd. London. 

Hempe, D.W., Seipel, J.D. (2014). Approval of non-required angle of attack (AoA) 

indicator systems (Memo No.: AIR100-14-PM01). Retrieved from 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/eb0fac0c16415

09586257c76005e6274/$FILE/AIR100-14-110-PM01.pdf

ICON. (2013, July). ICON aircraft releases production details on A5’s angle of attack 

system. Retrieved from 

http://www.iconaircraft.com/dl/news/pdf/20130722_ICON_Aircraft_A5_Angle_of

_Attack_System.pdf

Karayanakis, N.M. (1982). Angle-of-attack feedback in manual aircraft control: Piloting 

techniques and some flight training implications (Doctoral dissertation). Available 

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. 

Lamar, W. E. (1972). Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development 

(AGARD) conference proceedings No. 106 on handling qualities criteria. Technical 

Editing and Reproduction Ltd. London. 

Langdon, S.D. (1969) Fixed wing stability and control theory and flight test techniques 

(USNTPS-FTM-No. 103). Naval Air Test Center. Patuxent River, MD. 

MacDonald, S. A. F. (2002). From the ground up. New Castle, WA: Aviation Publishers 

Co., Limited.

National Transportation Safety Board (1996). Safety recommendation A-96-90 through -

106. Washington, DC. 

National Transportation Safety Board. (1997). Safety recommendation A-97-46 through -

52. Washington, DC. 

National Transportation Safety Board. (2001). Safety recommendation history for A-96-

094 FAA. Washington, DC. 

Odle, M.L. (1972) ATC angle of attack training (AD-757 243). National Technical 

Information Service. U. S. Department of Commerce. Springfield, VA. 
39 

Orr, G.W. (1958). Seminar #1 - Flight safety operation of aircraft in the terminal area. 

Report of the Second Air Defense Command Safety Symposium. Colorado Springs, 

CO. 

Rockwell Collins. (2002). HGS pilot guide for the Bombardier CRJ 700, model 4200

(Document: 9701-1153 Revision A). 

Schock, C. (2014). Angle of Attack sensor on Embraer 145. [photograph]. Retrieved from 

http://training.deicinginnovations.com/?page_id=1274 

Starfleet Support, LLC. (2014). Teledyne Avionics Angle of Attack (AOA) Indicator. 

[photograph]. Retrieved from 

http://starfleetsupport.com/images/Pages/Avionics2/IMG_2417L_AOA.jpg

Svimonoff, C. (1958). The Air Force integrated flight instrument panel (WADC 

Technical Report 58-431) Arlington, VA: Armed Services Technical Information 

Agency (ASTIA).

Townsend Jr., J.W. (1983). Low-altitude wind shear and its hazard to aviation. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Tucker, R.C., and Gordon, H.C. (1959). Evaluation of Kollsman and Specialties Inc. 

angle of attack presentation (AFFTC-TN-59-28). Arlington, VA: ASTIA 

Document Service Center. 

United States Air Force (1978). T-38A/B flight manual (T.O. 1T-38A-1).

United States Air Force. (2002) F-16C/D flight manual (T.O GR1F-16CJ-1). Lockheed 

Martin Corporation. 

United States Navy. (2008) NATOPS Flight manual Navy model F/A-18E/F 165533 and 

up aircraft. (A1-F18EA-NFM-000). 

Upset Recovery Industry Team. (2008). Airplane upset recovery training aid, revision 2. 

Federal Aviation Administration & Airline Industry. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Review of Research On Angle-of-Attack Indicator Effectiveness 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Le Vie, Lisa R.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-20361

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 03

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted a literature review to determine the potential benefits 

of a display of angle-of-attack (AoA) on the flight deck of commercial transport that may aid a pilot in energy state awareness, 

upset recovery, and/or diagnosis of air data system failure. This literature review encompassed an exhaustive list of references 

available and includes studies on the benefits of displaying AoA information during all phases of flight. It also contains 

information and descriptions about various AoA indicators such as dial, vertical and horizontal types as well as AoA displays 

on the primary flight display and the head up display. Any training given on the use of an AoA indicator during the research 

studies or experiments is also included for review. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Air data systems; Angle of attack; Display devices; Systems failure

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

47

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

 284848.02.03.07.01 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2014-218514

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 08 - 2014