Originally Posted by
HazelNuts39
An airplane moving forward at 500 kt encountering a sharp-edged upward gust of 100 kt would see the AoA increase by 11.3 degrees. That would increase the lift/weight ratio to about 1.8 and put the airplane in a stall. If the airplane maintains its pitch attitude, it would be accelerated upwards at initially approx. 0.8 g. The increased drag in the stalled condition would decelerate the airplane horizontally.
OK, so taking this statement as the basis for our raw numbers and the fact that we know moderate turbulence does not as a rule lead to stall warnings or loss of AP, this means :
- Either moderate turbulence does not reach 100kts vertical
- Or the vanes and systems are designed to cope with this kind of anomaly
Personally I'm leery of getting too theoretical in this manner, as we begin to diverge from the facts on the ground.
Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Choosing not to make that info available for the pilot's display looks to me like an attitude problem. (And again, I appreciate that the real estate in "display area" is precious, and is (allegedly) allocated with great care, particular in modern design processes. )
Probably more a case of "no-one else does it" than anything else. The FPV display option comes pretty close.
Would a discreet AoA display have made the pilots aware, as they were flopping about, that they were in stall, a fact that seems to have escaped their notice?
Maybe, maybe not. Given my previous remarks on scan breakdown, there is ample argument against.
My position isn't too far from yours. If they couldn't diagnose a stall from the information they were provided, then it leaves the question open. That said, if it's easy enough to implement (and I'm pretty sure it is), that option should be exercised if for no other reason to provide more defence-in-depth than already exists.