Lear 35 down approaching Teterboro

[Evan]

I wouldn't argue that, I would make a factual statement to that effect, like you just did. Not sure what there is to argue there.

The argument being as to whether a dedicated AoA indicator is thus needed.

[ATLcrew]

I believe that ATLcrew is referring to the fact that you can navigate down the system pages in the MFD to the point where you can get the raw reading of different sensors including the AoA vane.

Actually, that would be in the MCDU, not the MFD, and no, that's not what I meant. That menu is not normally shown or taught. Except to me and maybe nine other serious nerds like me.

[ATLcrew]

You could argue that the FPV is an AoA reference (pitch - FPA = AoA).

I wouldn't argue that, I would make a factual statement to that effect, like you just did. Not sure what there is to argue there.

[Gabriel]

The A320 originally had an (optional) analog gauge. I didn't know there was a standard EFIS version. Where does it display?

Gabriel would like an indication integrated with the PFD pitch scale. You could argue that the FPV is an AoA reference (pitch - FPA = AoA). As well as any aircraft with a pitch limit indicator.

I believe that ATLcrew is referring to the fact that you can navigate down the system pages in the MFD to the point where you can get the raw reading of different sensors including the AoA vane. I think you can do that inn many planes. Although I don;t know if I would call that an AoA "indicator".

Regarding the FPV, yes, that's the idea. Just that the flight path has to be the "air" flight path.

[3WE]

Gabriel would like an indication integrated with the PFD pitch scale.

Will you be suggesting this to Airbus, or are you counting on them monitoring this board?

Should there be a poll established on the forum?

[Evan]

I'm not opposed to it. In fact, I'm so not opposed to it that I'm even aware that the 320 series actually has one. It's not marketed as such and is not normally displayed, but it's available for anyone who wants to use it.

The A320 originally had an (optional) analog gauge. I didn't know there was a standard EFIS version. Where does it display?

Gabriel would like an indication integrated with the PFD pitch scale. You could argue that the FPV is an AoA reference (pitch - FPA = AoA). As well as any aircraft with a pitch limit indicator.

[3WE]

A reminder: almost all aircraft have AOA indicators...just not on the panel...

[ATLcrew]

Sully could have used it. Anywhere you have to fly at the limit of lift, such as extending a glide or a low altitude stall and ground avoidance situation. I also agree that it would be useful in building AoA awareness. I'm not opposed to it. Why would anybody be opposed to it?

I'm not opposed to it. In fact, I'm so not opposed to it that I'm even aware that the 320 series actually has one. It's not marketed as such and is not normally displayed, but it's available for anyone who wants to use it.

[elaw]

That will all go away when we drive by wire...

Especially when "we" are the Whizbang Model 7000b self-drive computer.

[Schwartz]

Yes, I am aware at least for the PFD in the 737. Didn't know about the HUD.


Yes, that's why I proposed the "very easy, non-intrusive and very intuitive way right there in the attitude indicator in the form of an airspeed vector pointer" type.
I think that where I am pointing and where I am going are 2 of the crucial things that I would like to have presented in the PFD. One of them is. The other one typically isn't.


For a given configuration you approach always at the same AoA no matter the weight or CG. Today you need look-up tables to set the Vee speed, and they are not taking the GC into account so you get only an approximation to the ideal Vref. Plus, in gusting winds conditions, the AoA is more stable than the speed.


Yes, because RPM in a car is a far analogy to AoA in an airplane (not!). Would you like an indicator in the car that tells you how much of the available coefficient of friction you are using? I would.

In most cars the RPM gauge is not necessary because you can hear the engine and in a standard you can feel it as well. There are clues about the available coefficient of friction from the instant you start to accelerate, brake, or steer depending on how you do it, especially if you know your car. That will all go away when we drive by wire...

[3WE]

Understood but I just don't agree. Speed is simpler and better for some things AoA is simpler and better for other things. You don't say we should choose between vertical speed and slope, or between heading and track.

Speed is used for sooooooo many things- Traffic spacing in particular (and historically timed approaches), wind gust factors, and etc.

AOA is going to be relegated to a secondary use.

[Evan]

Understood but I just don't agree. Speed is simpler and better for some things AoA is simpler and better for other things. You don't say we should choose between vertical speed and slope, or between heading and track.

No, but I'm sure you are familiar with the old saw: 'airspeed is life'. I think pilots should have a single parameter to focus on for a given aspect of flight. For example, you fly a final approach by airspeed, keeping a close watch on airspeed, not glidepath or vertical speed. As long as your speed is health and your pitch is where it belongs (windshear aside), your glidepath is good and your AoA is in the safe range, and you cross the threshold at the right speed and sinkrate. I'm saying, don't add to the parameters a pilot must monitor. Choose one or the other.

[Gabriel]

I get your point about that. So why didn't we train pilots to fly by AoA 100 years ago? It doesn't seem that difficult to invent an AoA vane.

My point is that, to keep things simple enough to be safe, I think we have to make a choice to fly primarily by EITHER a target AoA or a target airspeed.

Understood but I just don't agree. Speed is simpler and better for some things AoA is simpler and better for other things. You don't say we should choose between vertical speed and slope, or between heading and track.

[Evan]

On the other hand, a given wing in a given flaps configuration stalls ALAWAYS at the same AoA. A car doesn't skid always at the same coefficient of friction.

I get your point about that. So why didn't we train pilots to fly by AoA 100 years ago? It doesn't seem that difficult to invent an AoA vane.

My point is that, to keep things simple enough to be safe, I think we have to make a choice to fly primarily by EITHER a target AoA or a target airspeed.

[Gabriel]

Something tells me YOU wouldn't need an indicator. Just a calculator.

My airplane AoA awareness is much better than my car friction coefficient awareness, even with orders of magnitude more hours behind the wheel than behind the yoke.

On the other hand, a given wing in a given flaps configuration stalls ALAWAYS at the same AoA. A car doesn't skid always at the same coefficient of friction.