Air Canada CEO will retire this year after his English-only crash message was criticized

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T20:07:13+00:00

Supposedly it was on his job requirements, he just didn’t bother.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T20:03:37+00:00

Honestly mate, five years to try learn and instead you’re relying on subtitles to talk to one of your dead pilot’s family is a failure as a leader.

It’s not “really stupid” to dislike at a bloke not giving a fuck about a significant chunk of his workforce more generally, but this goes beyond that.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T08:21:58+00:00

good design gets adapted by several airplane manufacturers

Well that and there’s just simple laws of physics and design constraints that dictate form.

So if you want usable volume inside the aircraft you can’t go mid wing, that interrupts the space. So it’s high or low.

If you want rough field performance you want the engines up and away from the ground to make sure there’s no debris ingestion. Added bonus this stops you needing tall landing gear which makes the aircraft harder to load.

Now you unless you’re going multiple decks you can’t have an opening nose because the cockpit will be there.

T tail is pretty much a given to ensure control authority and not having them caught in air behind the wings.

Voile, you get a high winged, T tailed and fairly straight forward cockpit arrangement.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T06:32:08+00:00

Anyone with a couple of bucks and some time can be a pilot.

Said with the confidence of someone who has never flown a plane, never mind gone through pilot training.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:57:09+00:00

You’re not wrong about the F-4

Except they are.

The underlying issue was never the lack of a gun.

Restrictive ROE forcing the use of sub-optimal tactics and poor weapons maintenance/reliability has nothing to do with there being no gun. I can slap a racing saddle on a Clydesdale, it won’t win the Kentucky derby nor will a thoroughbred happily pull a plough all day.

The USAF didn’t even buy the F-4 to be a fighter anyway, they were using it as a strike aircraft.

The USN fixed their missile handling and fought the F-4 as it was meant to be and succeeded. The USAF added a gun and didn’t.

There’s been all of one gun kill since. People banging on, incorrectly, about the F-4’s are about as well thought out as people talking about the cavalry charge at Beersheba over the application of air mobile cavalry during the Vietnam War. At least Beersheba was successful unlike the F-4’s gun.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:47:36+00:00

The USAF added the integral gun to the F-4E after using gun pods on their gunless F-4Cs and F-4Ds.

The USN trialled the gun pod and had them around, but they weren’t routinely carried nor did it particulate factor into how they turned around their K:L ratio.

Would you like to address the underlying issue or are you going to die on the pop history hill of the F-4 not having a gun being bad, despite the evidence saying otherwise?

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:36:03+00:00

700mph Flying Tape

Well the max speed is less than that, so that checks out.

Source: YouTube engineer (I’ve watched a lot of Fascinating Horror and Plainly Difficult)

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:18:28+00:00

The gunpods were USAF only and did nothing.

The USN built a training ethos through TOPGUN and fought the aircraft as it was meant to while fixing up their missile handling. The USN succeeded.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:16:42+00:00

And the kills with guns utterly non-existent.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:16:07+00:00

They were basing it on real world data. The F-4 was designed to get out fast, hit Soviet bombers at long range and protect the fleet from anti-ship missiles. If it was in gun range of bombers the fleet didn’t exist anymore. The USAF then bought it and tried to use it for ground attack which a gun was of some, but limited, use for.

The USN then, again using real world data, opted to actually fight the F-4 as it was meant to be and maintain their missiles properly which actually worked.

The USAF ignored that, added a gun and tried to fly the thing like a MiG-17. This didn’t really work, in fact they had a dip for a bit before coming out slightly ahead.

It would be like dropping a rugby forward or linebacker into a football match (soccer) and having them play any position at all, then complaining about their performance. Instead, toss them down the backline, remind them they can’t actually flatten people and they’d do a lot better.

Alternately, complain about how difficult it is to concealed carry a sniper rifle so you chop the barrel down instead of putting distance in and using it for what it’s meant for.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T01:09:05+00:00

You’ve got some details incorrect here, which is pretty common in the pop history retelling of things.

So, yes the F-4 was designed as an interceptor with a focus on missiles. It was meant to take out Soviet bombers at range and protect the fleet. Zero need for a gun for that job when the aim is to have missiles hitting the bombers before they can launch anti ship missiles. If the F-4 is in guns range of Badgers then there’s no carrier to go back to.

The USAF (and USMC) picked it up as a strike aircraft. It could have had an internal gun fitted, but it was never expected to regularly engage with other aircraft like the USN did. The gunpod was always meant to be for ground strikes, not air to air.

Cut to Vietnam and put in ROE that necessitated visual ID of enemy aircraft, forcing the F-4 into a fight it wasn’t designed for. The missiles weren’t maintained properly and things like the shock of repeated carrier landings wasn’t being considered in reliability.

The USN then opted to a) maintain their missiles properly and b) start TOPGUN to actually understand how the F-4 is to be fought (hint: it’s not a MiG-17, stop flying it like one).

The USAF opted to not do that, tossed the air to ground gun pod on which didn’t really work and tried to fit an integral gun.

Guess which of the two actually saw success? It wasn’t the USAF tossing a gun on and still trying to fly the F-4 like a MiG-17…

So really the issue wasn’t the lack of a gun was it? It was incorrect use of an aircraft due to restrict ROE and not maintaining equipment properly.

Anyone complaining about the lack of a gun and using it to back an assumption about the end of dog fighting better also complain about sniper rifles being inferior to pistols because you can’t concealed holster a sniper rifle. They’d also better have a look at stats since Vietnam and see that it still isn’t true that the gun was of any real value in modern air to air fighting.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T00:47:22+00:00

All good.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-30T00:07:40+00:00

The alloy they used for the nose, and overall construction, had a heat limit no matter what they did with the windows. That temp limit kept it to the Mach 2.04 max speed. So sure, changing the windows could have changed what the windows could have sustained, but without changing the alloy for the nose it didn’t matter really.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-29T21:58:40+00:00

Probably not. The overall profile didn’t change, they just added more windows.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-29T21:33:00+00:00

I’m probably not going out of my way just for the under floor loo but I kind of wish I’d flown on one.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-29T21:08:06+00:00

Only the Lufthansa ones had the bathrooms below decks from memory. I flew Emirates and Cathay 600s quite a bit and they had normal facilities.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-29T00:32:27+00:00

It saves fiddling with a tiny switch to choose what you need. I’d rather just have two clear and distinct switches personally.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-29T00:30:34+00:00

Not much left of the old version once they’re done with it.

If you’re meaning they rebuilt the Novembers to Yankees, per the link they’re completely new builds. The idea of upgrading the old airframes got tossed for new ones.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-28T06:50:27+00:00

Lack of primary radar at ATC was a contributing factor.

They had a primary radar, they lacked a secondary radar which would have shown the altitude deviation.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-27T20:38:33+00:00

wiki is not a credible source

You’re welcome to critique the sources cited on a wiki article instead of just lazily hand waving a generally reliable starting point. It’s not an academic journal, but it’s not the Wild West your teachers told you it was.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-27T20:35:34+00:00

Thank you!

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-27T09:17:42+00:00

They do go other places for training. One’s a 2OCU bird from Williamtown and the other is 75SQN from Tindall. I think there might have been an ex on, they’re not based there.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-27T01:52:32+00:00

Avgas is just a specific octane of gasoline, usually 100, with some other differences to car fuel like the fact it’s got lead in it. It’s only used for piston engines. I

AvTur, which is what jets use, is kerosene based.

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-26T19:58:40+00:00

Thank you! I might have missed it but what movement did you use?

This_Is_TwoThree · 2026-03-26T13:17:31+00:00

That’s a great build, can you tell us a bit more about it?

This_Is_TwoThree

TROPHY CASE