🦈💜
Well-Known Member
"Where are we."
Hawker Down near AKR
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
"Where are we."
It's not irrelevant in the civilian world, just because you haven't used it. I already gave examples of civil planes that have them, and have numbers that correspond to them. And many civil aircraft have had them for a very long time. Mainly used for enroute profiles. For approach/landing, there isn't a necessary number you even need to know. When the donut is illuminated on the indexer, you're on speed. Up/down arrow, and you're slow/fast. And that indicator sits right in front of you face, illuminated when the aircraft is configured for landing. Otherwise its off.
It's something that's a very good safety aid to civil high-performance aircraft, if guys would get out of their comfort zone and desire to actually learn something new.
Last edited:
The on-speed indication of an AOA gauge varies, it's not that if you're off an exact speed by one knot, it's going to say you're fast/slow. Having a "fast" indication chevron isn't that bad, at least you know it's correct for what you're doing and what you've added. But having the red/slow chevron, is something I'd think anyone would want staring at them, if in fact their aircraft was in that regime for any reason and they didn't otherwise catch it.
Last edited:
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
I will say that at CAE we were taught to set 1.3 on the AOA indicator and use that in the jet I fly for inside the marker. Our jet will also put a green line on the speed tape for a reference to 1.3 from the AOA indicator information. You recheck your numbers when your green line is showing a higher speed then your calculated ref
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
HOW DO YOU DO IT IN THE CHALLENGER, GULLEY? A.J. wouldn't tell me. Must be some kind of trade sekrit.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
The X had AOA cheverons on the glareshield and alalog panel AOA guage. The F900 had AOA on the speed tape but only under a certain speed. A shame since it is so useful for long range cruise. The 525 had AOA on the dash and the panel. The PC-12 had AOA.
No one doubts the usefulness of AOA. Sheeeeeeeeeetttttt, I like the little tell tail on the canopy of a glider for coordinated boo yaaaahhhhhhhh
But
Did you guys read the CVR transcript?
No one doubts the usefulness of AOA. Sheeeeeeeeeetttttt, I like the little tell tail on the canopy of a glider for coordinated boo yaaaahhhhhhhh
But
Did you guys read the CVR transcript?
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
We have AOA, and it bares no relevance to what caused this crash. So we just change the system in which they were sloppy with. Instead of saying they were slow, we can say they weren't on AOA. Makes no difference, they are dead, and their passengers are dead. How do you follow an instrument approach using AOA? Why is it any different than following an approach speed? It is pitch and power settings, that's all it is, whether you look at AOA or airspeed in that situation...
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
Where do I start?
We're not talking what caused this crash specifically right now. We're talking a sidebar conversation regarding AOA that the conversation took a direction to.
I'm not saying emergency retrofit aircraft with it or they're grounded. But for safety purposes, it's a very good nice-to-have on new build aircraft, and many new avionics packages are coming with digital indexers as standard, as others have noted.
An airspeed you have to compute for given variables. You don't necessarily need to do so with an AOA, it's correct regardless of those variables But used together, the two of them complement one another. AOA indexer indications give you an idea of if your airspeed computations are correct or not, whether you computed them or a computer box did.
For someone who was so big on this safety thing regarding 135 duty and rest rules in that other thread (and angry with the people who dared question it), you sure are highly against this as a nice-to-have, and very simple, safety measure. And I suspect that's only because you're unfamiliar with it, as you're arguing against something that you freely admit here that you have no experience with.
Last edited:
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
Okay Coleman, you vampire weird little man.Boris Badenov said:
Maybe you can start by being totally oblivious while I get the airplane ready, only to ask me to take glamour shots of you in a flight suit. Weird enough.
Even weirder is hearing your Matt start maniacally laughing as he goes in the back to change. So yeah, @boris_badenov, I try to bring pants with me when I fly the Challenger.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
The weak bring pants. The Stronk ARE pants. You wouldn't understand.
z987k
Well-Known Member
AoA is how every aircraft is flown. It's the most relevant thing at any time that the airplane is in the air.
I'd be interested to see how it's displayed. I've rode up front on a couple 73s and have never seen it.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Good god dudes. Let me clarify, since my comment started this whole sidebar…..
1. I asked if AoA gauges or indicators are not used in civilian jet aircraft (or something to that effect) because I didn't know. Totally get that it isn't something you train to, that your POM's are written to cover, not covered procedurally, etc etc. I'm not arguing here that these guys should have just looked down and suddenly they would have the one answer to get them and their pax out of their collective s**t show, while having no training or procedure to even reference. There are times when a serious compound emergency not covered in the POM (i.e. totally different scenario) might require you to improvise like that, but that isn't what I am getting at here. I think that not following sound procedures is what got them in trouble here, rather than not following a non-procedure.
2. The reason I brought it up is because when I hear a comment from the report that someone was really "hoping they wouldn't stall" or whatever their words were to that effect, it makes me confused because there IS such a simple answer to that question, in the form of an AoA indicator. Re-read everything I wrote in paragraph one and realize that I am not insinuating that this scenario would have lent itself to this fix, given the current practices and procedures of most of you all. What I am saying is that perhaps there would be some value in integrating this simple concept across the board of aviation. I have yet to see any sound argument against flying an AoA reference approach, and really all I have heard is "well we don't do it that way". If that is the only reason not to, maybe we should.
Cool, now that I have re-stoked the fires of debate, I'm out
1. I asked if AoA gauges or indicators are not used in civilian jet aircraft (or something to that effect) because I didn't know. Totally get that it isn't something you train to, that your POM's are written to cover, not covered procedurally, etc etc. I'm not arguing here that these guys should have just looked down and suddenly they would have the one answer to get them and their pax out of their collective s**t show, while having no training or procedure to even reference. There are times when a serious compound emergency not covered in the POM (i.e. totally different scenario) might require you to improvise like that, but that isn't what I am getting at here. I think that not following sound procedures is what got them in trouble here, rather than not following a non-procedure.
2. The reason I brought it up is because when I hear a comment from the report that someone was really "hoping they wouldn't stall" or whatever their words were to that effect, it makes me confused because there IS such a simple answer to that question, in the form of an AoA indicator. Re-read everything I wrote in paragraph one and realize that I am not insinuating that this scenario would have lent itself to this fix, given the current practices and procedures of most of you all. What I am saying is that perhaps there would be some value in integrating this simple concept across the board of aviation. I have yet to see any sound argument against flying an AoA reference approach, and really all I have heard is "well we don't do it that way". If that is the only reason not to, maybe we should.
Cool, now that I have re-stoked the fires of debate, I'm out
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
That wasn't how I read it. I read it as the captain saying "Dude, you can't go so slow." and the other dude argumentatively saying "Why not", and the captain was saying "Because I don't want to stall in IMC".
It didn't read like a very healthy cockpit environment at all, to me.
-Fox
Yeah. That was one of their problems, among a good few.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, I only really breezed through it prior to going to work so that might well have been a misinterpretation on my part. That aside, I think there have been plenty of such mishaps in the history of aviation. I think it could be debated that the most serious ones were a complete loss of SA from the crew (i.e. they stopped "flying the jet" to do something else), in which case no instrument would have helped. So in all fairness, there is that.
Last edited:
KLB
Well-Known Member
This particular operator is not one a very good one even by South Florida standards. Ive heard that they're training department is non existent and the owner their is a real piece of work. I'm glad that I steered clear of operators out if FXE. That airport produces the worst of the worst.
Joshwa
Well-Known Member
As the best analogy, how is AoA used in tactical transports like the A400, C130, C-17 and so on? That would be the best practice/advice on how to use it in transport category aircraft I would imagine?
It is an option on the 737 that we didn't have, and provided as a graduated gauge on the Lear which was only trained in the context of unlreiable airspeed.
It is an option on the 737 that we didn't have, and provided as a graduated gauge on the Lear which was only trained in the context of unlreiable airspeed.