he excerpt from Icon regarding an AOA indicator is essentially correct, although I might quibble with some of the terminology.
But that's exactly my point (if perhaps poorly illustrated) that the terminology states "how much more it's possible to ask of the airplane regardless of [basically everything else]" - objectively speaking that's strictly true.. but when you combine it with shots of dudes thinking they're Maverick flying through canyons and waterways 100-500 ft off the deck it's an invitation to keep that AoA pegged. In my (not so humble) opinion.. I mean, why would you not? Imagine if BMW advertised that in their marketing "our in dash G meters tell the driver just how much harder they can push the turn when cornering on and merging onto that pesky highway" (strictly, that's true, but you don't see that kind of advertising for obvious reasons. Cars that have g meters are generally driven by experts on closed courses)
Have you ever flown an airplane with an AOA indicator or been trained in the use of same?
Yes. In many ways it is the single most important "how well is my airfoil working" instrument and should be educated to more people in primary training. Many people's rote memorization of approach speeds, stall speeds, etc. works well enough but isn't actually speaking to the airfoil itself. Later generation Cirrus have them on the PFD and watching the AoA change during turns, etc., is enlightening
I get exasperated when my situation is exacerbated
Do you get exasperated in spite of the exacerbation, or despite it?
One should understand the application and limitations of any instrument they're trusting their life to
I totally agree, I think it's that "limitations" part that's missing. It's not just their site though, it's what you see in the non aviation magazines and the whole image they're selling that's worrisome. They're selling a limitless fun toy, that, like a jetski, generally is "safe" since you'll just end up wet in the water /S
Broken out as individual data points everything about Icon can be rationalized away. But when you look at the big picture and house of cards that's built it should come as no surprise to anyone that these accidents happen, and aside from the fuel starvation incident, all follow a very similar pattern of low altitude maneuvering incidents. With a parachute, AoA, strong stall/spin resistance, amphib capabilities, this should be the safest plane out there.. these dumb accidents show a deficiency in the training at the very least. When we saw the rash of Cirrus accidents they didn't all follow a similar theme, but resulted from people not understanding the limits of what was supposed to be a very safe airplane and not using the chute. With the overhaul in training the plane has become of the safest and still continues to sell, the added training didn't turn buyers off, as I doubt it would not turn off Icon buyers either. The plane is cool enough by itself.. it doesn't need to have the "watch how many Jager shots I can do at the bar with my new haircut for my Tinder date" branding
-the most agreement we've (possibly) been in this thread?
... yeah, shear.
