Originally Posted by
GlobalNav
The AoA display should be designed to support the pilot’s proper and effective use of it (whatever that is). It should be considered, not in isolation, but in the context of the rest of the flight display(s) and the instrument scan which the pilots are expected to conduct. Does any airline which has aircraft equipped with the AoA display have approved pilot procedures for its use? If a check ride was conducted, in which phases of flight would a pilot be faulted for failure to maintain awareness of the AoA display? If one were to evaluate the AoA display design, what measure of performance would be used? Considering the approved Boeing EFIS with the AoA in the upper right corner, how does that fit Basic T flight display philosophy? Of course it doesn’t, because AoA was never part of the Basic T. But if there was a logical, task performance-based purpose for the AoA display, why would it be placed above the altitude display, about as far from the airspeed and attitude indications as it could be? Yet, we suppose it enhances safety?
Hi Nav,
The purpose of the AoA indicator on the Max is not to read as an additional flight instrument.
It is a position indicator.
Therefore there is no requirement for it to be included in the scan etc.
If you get a disagree warning you can tell quickly which signal is the troublemaker.
To me it makes sense and yes, it is a safety feature.
If, together with the mod on MCAS travel and necessary information to converting crews, it had been incorporated from the beginning, then it would have given a valuable clue and could have prevented these tragic events.
I am still not a fan of the MCAS as a solution to the control force requirement. That doesn’t make me criticise every move Boeing makes, however, when they try to learn from their mistake.