Originally Posted by
Mad (Flt) Scientist
Also, give the 'worst case scenario' of being grossly overweight, there are warning systems or characteristics which will alert the crew to a too-slow approach; there's nothing to warn you that your calculated landing distance is too short (that I know of) except indirect clues. So to stall on approach requires the weight error and failure to respond to warnings. With an AoA approach, what's going to protect against overrun?
Well, that's my point! If you happen to be a a higher weight than originally caculated, then you'll SEE the disparity between your planned Vref versus your AoA.
THAT is what will protect from overrun. A prudent (ahem, sane) pilot will note the difference and recalculate landing distance, as something is obviuosly wrong.
Originally Posted by
Mad (Flt) Scientist
Scheduled speeds can also be affected by, amongst others, VMC (a, l or g), VMU or variations in stall AoA with conditions; none of which will be captured by a simple AoA target.
Well, you're throwing in conditions that were not part of the original debate! My point was that it was sad that Cessna chose to not make the AoA standard on a CE-750. My gripe was that a simple glance at the guage can be very helpful in
quickly determining general climb ability, such as an ATC request...VMC (a, l, or g), 2nd segment, VMU, etc. are all different situations. To clarify, I was meaning that when I'm at FL430 (with both engines running!) and for some reason I want/need to go up, a basic AoA guage would be a simple reference, that in cooperation with an SAT guage, can quickly be used to determine if you're gonna make it.