Its all about as useful as trying to put out an inferno by pissing on it till they decide where they think DEWs will be in 2050/2060/2070.

That is, both USN usage/capabilities and adversarial usage/capabilities…. which will define both the use of and the defence against. From that, pretty much everything else will cascade.

Looking like (once again) it is a case of the important flight information – altitude, attitude and airspeed – being lost in the clutter amongst other sh!t that is not needed to fly a plane.

To grab two examples –
If AF447 had been aware of their altitude changes… the problem could have been averted.
If Asiana 214 had been aware of their speed changes… the problem could have been averted.

It may be that the FAA/EASA should consider mandating that a primary display (front and centre) should be dedicated to displaying only that information. Furthermore, any HUD should display only that information.

Perhaps the solution would be to test them on the job. Have a senior pilot make a “deliberate mistake” at some point in a random flight (obviously, one that could be corrected, but delay the correction enough so the co-pilot would be failing in their duty by not point it out). If the co-pilot/flight engineer doesn’t call them on it. Formal warning.

Repeat the same test some time in the future. If they again don’t call them on it. Bye-bye.

If they fail to spot the problem… then bye-bye too as they aren’t fulfilling their primary role anyway!

You would think word would soon spread amongst the pilots. The message is clear; either throw cultural deference in the bin as you walk onto the flight deck, or get a different job.

IMO, this accident is a mix of pilot error and a cultural divide stopping the other pilots from speaking up and/or correcting the issue themselves.

I suppose the question is – how do you change the regulations to deal with that?!?!

“CS25:999 – Stop being dumb f**ks and do your job – if you aren’t willing to call your senior officers on a mistake, don’t enter the f**king cockpit!”

I believe reason is Su-33 has different, more powerful flap configuration than MKI, and this requires some kind of balancing force from canards.

Sound logic. Out of interest – how much different? [I could go digging – but you might know it straight away]

It is interesting to note the high positive deflection of the tail (that is counteracting pitching motion produced by canards) and by doing so increasing overall amount of lift generated.
I`m guessing that the price is higher induced drag, but that is not so important for such low speeds where you need as much as possible amount of lift.

The idea there is quite simple – by deflecting the canard & elevator to both produce lift, the aircraft can produce more lift for a given aircraft AoA and airspeed – so the pilot can make a slower approach while still maintaining sufficient view of the carrier deck.

25 deg is more than enough. Su-27, which may seem like a good high AOA performer is also soft limited to 24 deg AOA.

Its more than enough if you aren’t chasing much post-stall maneuvering.

[Note that the post was in response to the assertion that the F-16 was a “great AoA performer”.]

The British Empire can hardy be called a failed superpower at its height it controlled a ¼ of the earths land mass and held sway over one fifth of the worlds population

So how much land mass does it control and how much of the world’s population does it hold sway over now?

I think it safely meets the definition of failed!

[Not that Team America or quasi-Soviet Russia have been doing much better in avoiding their inevitable decline either.]