The way around algorithms would be to make a selsyn system that moved a mechanical AoA needle on the instrument panel, but it would not help if the needle or the AoA sensor was misaligned.
Nor would it help the pilot flying hadn't got the basic gut instincts of handling an aircraft that had slipped outside the envelope. Concorde had a huge AoA scale. IIRC, not far left of the flight system. The skippers of that aircraft would I'm sure have put its indications to good use.
I can well see that Concorde pilots needed that information, but I'm not too sure it's needed on ordinary jet transport. Nice to have, but not
needed per se. Also, that squitty little indicator on the $80,000 upgrade really doesn't seem adequate.
More 'Shouting' on the flightdeck? Hmmm, not sure about that. 'PULLING TOO HARD.' etc. is needed. I think just a big red placard saying, 'DON'T PULL TOO FAR WHEN THE CONTROLS ARE SQUISHY.' would do it. After all, NO SMOKING worked in the DC3. Oh, wait, perhaps not. I still remember the smell of petrol and the piles of dog-ends in the screen's condensation trough.
Just how much basic flying must be bellowed at the Magenta Line children? From Tiger to my first jet transport, the aircraft let me know by the seat of my pants that the wings were working. The feel of a slow aircraft was chalk and cheese . . . and sphincter-clamping. I just don't understand how anyone could be sitting on mushy air and not know. And yet it's happened, for a horribly long time on the 447. Do modern pilots never take the aircraft to the shake/nudge/push? Is it conceivable they really need that indication, all because a simulator is not capable of generating anything more than a vague illusion of g force?
Later editions of Davis' HtBJ had an impassioned plea for pilots to be able to lay hands on a smaller training aircraft, not least of all because of the above. More costs? The need for this say, once every five years for something so important seems a small price, now this need is emerging from several major losses.