Hello 👋 I am a safety systems enthusiast masquerading as a plane guy, and this is my blog about planes. No underlying philosophical messages about safety here, nope, not at all
I write longer (sometimes funny) posts analyzing the causes and lessons from accidents, which you can find under the tag #crash roundup. My mom thinks they're really good
Maybe read this before you send me an ask!
Frequently asked questions:
Q: What is your favourite plane?
A: The L-1011 TriStar and the A380. I <3 failgirls
Q: What do you think of (military plane)?
A: Not very safe!
Q: What do you think of (startup experimental aircraft)?
A: I would not trust a sillicon valley company to tie my shoe, let alone make a large flying object designed to contain my human body and overfly populated areas!
Q: What is your least favourite plane?
A: The DC-10. Fight me bitch
Q: Favourite airline?
A: Pacific Southwest Airlines, RIP. I have a weird pinup style picture of one of their flight attendants posing in front of a TriStar's tail engine fan as my phone wallpaper. Also they were not at fault for that midair and that Mayday episode is the worst thing they've ever produced
Q: What is your beef with helicopters?
A: Hovering is a sin!
Q: Are you a pilot?
A: I can't legally obtain a pilots license due to my medical history, so I've never seriously considered it, but one of my long term dreams is to be well enough to recieve a medical and learn to fly someday!
Q: Who would win in a fight, the NTSB, BEA, or MAK?
A: The BEA would be too busy covering Airbus' ass to deflect a single blow, but while the NTSB was pummelling it the MAK would come in from behind and beat it over the head with a long snarky rebuttal of the Russian regulators' opposing comments
When Dana Air flight 0992 lost power on both engines on final approach and slammed into a suburban area in Lagos in 2012, all 153 people on board and 6 on the ground were killed. Investigators from Nigeria's Accident Investigation Bureau found more than just an explanation for the accident itself. This story is one of negligence that traces its roots back not to Nigeria, but to the United States of America, where a pattern of abuse of poorly regulated countries in the "third world" has long allowed companies and individuals to make a quick buck at the expense of lives.
I'll just warn you now. This story is going to make you really, really angry.
Nigeria is currently one of the most powerful, populous, and rich countries in Africa, but it had suffered near constant political unrest for decades before finally settling into a stable democratic government in 1999. It goes without saying that a short-lived military dictatorship is not going to be prioritizing public infrastructure projects, meaning that by the time the new millenium rolled around, the road and rail networks were not nearly sufficient for a populous urban nation. Several small local airlines popped up to provide easier travel between destinations within the country, one of which was Dana Air.
While airlines like this serve a vital role, that doesn't mean they're... good. In fact, it seems like Dana Air was pretty fucking bad. Airlines are businesses and operate on thin margins, so in countries where oversight is less well developed (like if, say, the government hasn't even existed for a decade yet), the less scrupulous will cut every corner to eke out a profit.
That's where our first major issue arises. Captain Peter Waxtan. If you're thinking that doesn't sound like a Nigerian name, you would be right. Captain Waxtan was from Florida. If you are the hiring manager of a small African airline, that should be a massive red flag. Working abroad is common for pilots, but an American pilot typically does not quit their day job at Spirit Airlines to fly for a struggling regional carrier in Nigeria. If they have ended up applying for a job at Dana Air, it's probably because there is some reason they're having trouble getting work elsewhere. In the case of Waxtan, this may have to do with the time his license was suspended by the FAA due to a series of hard landings and failing to adhere to proper maintenance procedures. Doesn't look great on a resume.
Captain Waxton and his First Officer, Mahendra Singh Rathore (who doesn't have a similarly checkered past- he came up through the company as a cabin attendant and this was probably just a small step in a normal career for him), were flying 147 passengers from Abuja to Lagos that day in a secondhand MD-83. Although the takeoff was normal, a problem presented itself soon after- the left engine stopped responding to throttle commands. It was still running, but it wasn't producing any more than idle power, and moving the levers did nothing to change this.
The crew discussed this issue at length, but at no point did they decide to just turn around and get it checked out. In fact, they didn't even ask the company for directions or let anyone on the ground know what had happened. They simply continued flying on one engine. Captain Waxtan seemed intent on getting the plane to its destination- maybe because Lagos was also the location of the company's maintenance base, or more cynically, because after this duty he was set to fly back to the USA for fifteen days off. In fact, he seemed more concerned about being investigated by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority than about the safety of the flight.
Let me just make this clear: this is completely unacceptable. The only reason an engine failure on a commercial plane isn't a complete emergency is because any aircraft with two engines is certified to fly with only one. But "certified to fly" and "fine to just keep going" are two very different things. Redundancy doesn't mean you can just keep going about your merry fucking way. If it saves your ass, that's great, but now there is no more redundancy.
That's the second issue. If you have a bizarre and unknown mechanical problem with your left engine, there's a slight chance that whatever caused that issue is also present in the right engine. On approach, descending at idle, the pilots had no idea their right engine had failed until they tried to increase thrust to slow their rate of descent. And... nothing. Neither engine was capable of producing more than idle thrust, and that was not going to get them to the runway in their current configuration. They tried several troubleshooting techniques, but at no point did they consult the dual engine failure checklist. The plane was descending rapidly over the suburbs of Lagos, and where it came down was a matter of chance.
Thankfully, the first building struck was an under-construction apartment block, which likely made the difference between a handful of deaths on the ground and dozens or hundreds. At least six people in Lagos were killed as the wreckage careened into a printing press and several houses. Not a single person onboard the aircraft survived the crash or the subsequent fire.
So why, exactly, did the engines fail in the first place? That was the first question the Accident Investigation Bureau had to answer, and believe it or not, it led them right back to Florida.
The engines had last been overhauled in 2011 by Millenium Engine Associates in Miami. During this maintenance, they had neglected to bring the left engine into compliance with a service bulletin intended to strengthen the fuel manifold. This exact weak pipe is what fractured in the event, leading to the engine failure.
But then... what about the right engine? It clearly suffered the same or a similar failure, but its fuel manifold had been brought into compliance with the SB before it was even sold to Dana Air. What happened to it?
Well, dear reader, that's the final "fuck you" in this case. If you're not already pissed off, this should help. The AIB had sent the remains of the engines to Millenium Engine Associates for analysis, and when asked to return them, the company just... didn't. They sent back the left engine, but the right engine has never been seen again. It's a blatant act of disrespect (and frankly, probably a coverup) by a company confident that they would see absolutely no recourse.
That's the unfortunate reality we have to face when discussing a crash like this. It is tempting for people in so-called "first world countries" to blame any and all accidents in the "third world" on the simple fact that these countries are poorer and less developed. But time and time again, whether it's this incident, UTA 141, Ethiopian 302, or dozens of other crashes, the blame instead lies with the way the rest of the world actively abuses these nations who are not powerful or rich enough to stand up against it. Sometimes, like in these cases, it's quite literal. But even when it's not, the legacy of colonialism and the years of political unrest that follow it make countries like this often incapable of maintaining the high safety standards their people deserve. Yet people in the rest of the world click their tongues. Of course something like that would happen there, they say, bloody hands and all. The people there just aren't as advanced as us.
I don't have a quippy closing statement or an uplifting ending. Fuck the system that allows hundreds of people to die for some asshole in Florida to make a buck. Fuck colonialism, fuck capitalism, fuck you, fuck me, fuck planes. I told you this story would make you angry. You should be angry.
If you want a more in-depth discussion of this accident ft. a funny lady rather than an extremely pissed off man, please check out Disaster Breakdown's video on the subject. She's really fucking funny.
Fans of well written plane content, I have great news to relay from Admiral Cloudberg
And if you are not as excited as me seeing that, you might just need to take some time out of your day to read her last massive essay so you know just how fucking good this is gonna be. The Admiral is one of the writers behind Mentour Pilot, so if you like those scripts, you're going to love this shit
how do u feel about the icon a5 just like in general as a plane. i think its cool :]
As a person who hates both cars and libertarians idk if I can judge this one impartially dog. If its goal is to erode the safety of the skies the same way early car manufacturers eroded the safety of everywhere else I think that's a bad plane
I've had some thoughts on the A5 ever since I saw it featured years ago as the next coolest thing in recreational aviation.
For those unaware, this is the ICON A5 -
Its designed as a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) which means its subject to the regulations and design requirements for an aircraft of that category and class. Its about 23 feet (7m) long, has a wingspan of about 35 feet (10.5m) and weighs up to 1680 pounds (762kg) fully loaded. It only seats two and is powered by a single 100 horsepower Rotax engine. Oh and its an amphibian meaning it has a lower fuselage shaped like a boat hull and retractable landing gear, so it can take off and land from a runway or from water.
Apart from the high weight and the amphibian thing, it has pretty average performance for a LSA with regards to things like speed and range. So why would a pilot buy one of these things instead of say a spunky little Cessna 152 or a Piper Cub on floats?
The answer is that they wouldn't. Because its not made for pilots.
ICON and influencers have marketed the A5 as more of a flying car than an airplane. Don't believe me? Here's the interior of a mercedes compared to the A5.
Looks a lot different than any cockpit I've ever sat in and thats by design.
They have the genius idea to sell these to rich people who'd like a flying toy without all the hassle of getting those pesky pilot certificates. Instead you get get a sport pilot certificate which includes a minimum of 20 hours of flight training, 15 of those with an instructor and 5 more hours solo. Meet the other knowledge and experience requirements and pass a practical test and you can buy and fly your own A5.
If these seem like pretty relaxed requirements thats because they are. A 17 year old getting their private certificate has to undergo more comprehensive training to fly a little Cessna. But thats the point and thats what the CEO of ICON had admitted to in the quote above.
He says "the government has regulated it from the framework of 'airplanes are dangerous difficult transportation devices that really should be kept away from the public.'" YES YES YES!! I get asked a lot if I think its scary or dangerous flying helicopters and my answer is always the same - I've had way more near death experiences on my drive to go fly a helicopter than I ever had in the air.
If this guy had his way we'd see less training, less regulation, and less safety, all so he could see more flying jetskis to rich assholes who don't care. We train like hell to stay safe and proficient so we dont hurt ourselves, our passengers, or innocent bystanders and you see how accidents can still happen. I dont want to share the skies with anybody who takes that less seriously than I do.
I dont fault the airplane for what it is. By accounts its an alright little thing and I'd honestly give it a go with an instructor who had enough experience with them. But the people behind it pushing it to market as a toy are misguided at best and dangerously negligent at worst.
I mean it depends whether you mean among plane fans or among actual companies.
For real purposes: there is none. There is basically no niche where a trijet would be useful. Back in the day when we were ekeing out tiny margins, a trijet allowed you to go farther without the inefficiencies of four engines. Nowadays your dual engine plane can do all that shit, so it's just a matter of "this fucker big enough we need another set?"
From the perspective of plane fans. There has definitely been a collapsing of design patterns as time has worn on and we have developed more and more understanding of efficiency. It's like how modern cars, designed for maximum safety and efficiency, all kinda look the same. We've all sort of decided that a regional jet looks like the CRJ and that a larger longer range jet looks like the 737 and if it gets even bigger it's allowed to have four of the fuckers. It creates a yearn for the unique. And I think because we've seen the MD-11 continue to be used and either mocked or beloved by enthusiasts into the modern era, that nostalgia for trijets is something easier to latch onto than say, a nostalgia for tails with multiple stabilizers or other design quirks.
Modern trijets like the Falcon 8x (which started production in 2016) claim they do have performance benefits over their 2-engine counterparts including things like better range, better takeoff and landing parameters, and improved safety due to increased redundancy. I'm not sure about the first two points since I'm not a pilot or a dispatcher but I will say, when one of our planes lost engine 2 (the one in the middle) due to damage to the aircraft, the passengers on the flight did not notice that we had lost an engine, and the plane continued to perform as normal until it landed, because that's the main thing they're designed to do. Falcons can't takeoff with only two engines, but they can reach their destination on only two.
These benefits are only realistic in the private / business sector, in my opinion. Also, Dassault (the company that makes Falcons) has released an updated airframe for their two-engine planes this year, but have not updated the trijet design yet.
Yeah, important caveat that my blind spot is business jets & very small regional planes. I have no doubt that these same benefits that made trijets useful in the 60s also apply to modern, smaller jets with different margins from larger ones. Having three engines all mounted on the fuselage absolutely would make one of these handle like a dream in an engine out scenario.
Though I love redundancy more than most people, I would argue that like, the redundancy benefits of three over two engines are marginal... the circumstances that could cause the loss of two engines at the same time but wouldn't cause the loss of all three engines on a trijet are like, some United 232 shit... or like even worse given that United 232 still had engine control on the two working engines. I'm not crazy about the idea of continuing to the destination with an engine out and passengers on board regardless of how many engines there are, just like, on principle? It would definitely make it safer in a fuckin. Dana Air 0992 scenario. But if you've gotten into that situation in the first place there is a serious fucking problem
One time in the 90’s i traveled on a 747 that had Nintendo consoles in the headrests. Never saw them again.
What’s the coolest entertainment feature you’ve seen/heard of on a plane?
I mean, that.
But also, while I am not very interested in the actual onboard experience of aircraft, I have been privy to this detail in the case of Swissair 111 and happen to know that on the planes fitted with their horrible terrible no good badly installed IFE system you could in fact play Doom.
I mean it depends whether you mean among plane fans or among actual companies.
For real purposes: there is none. There is basically no niche where a trijet would be useful. Back in the day when we were ekeing out tiny margins, a trijet allowed you to go farther without the inefficiencies of four engines. Nowadays your dual engine plane can do all that shit, so it's just a matter of "this fucker big enough we need another set?"
From the perspective of plane fans. There has definitely been a collapsing of design patterns as time has worn on and we have developed more and more understanding of efficiency. It's like how modern cars, designed for maximum safety and efficiency, all kinda look the same. We've all sort of decided that a regional jet looks like the CRJ and that a larger longer range jet looks like the 737 and if it gets even bigger it's allowed to have four of the fuckers. It creates a yearn for the unique. And I think because we've seen the MD-11 continue to be used and either mocked or beloved by enthusiasts into the modern era, that nostalgia for trijets is something easier to latch onto than say, a nostalgia for tails with multiple stabilizers or other design quirks.
i normally feed my planes a standard all-grain diet but i've seen some talk suggesting that they actually have a more omnivorous diet in the wild and need a higher protein intake than they can get from grain alone, can you give some advice on this?
Okay yeah so common misconception, really all animals require nutrients you can't get from veg alone or that are rare in them and they will resort to eating meat like how deer will eat birds. It's not the USUAL though and that is something they only do under conditions when their diet is lacking. So if you are using normal off the shelf formulated plane food they do NOT need supplementation with meat
And I don't just mean "oh, my little work mistake is actually nothing compared to a fiery crash that kills people," either. The reason commercial flight is so many orders of magnitude safer than any other form of transportation is because after every accident and incident, an independent regulatory body investigated it with the express goal of figuring out exactly what happened, why, and how to prevent the same thing from ever happening again—not to root out which person deserved the blame or the liability.
It's a simple, shockingly effective idea. It's also worlds away from how most people approach their own mistakes and the mistakes of others.
Because it’s never just one person’s fault. And even when it is, it still isn’t.
The sharpest, best-trained pilots make worse decisions when they're tired or sick or stressed out, so there's two of them. The most dedicated and experienced air traffic controllers garble an instruction over the radio sometimes, so pilots are trained to always repeat clearances back to catch misunderstandings quickly. The best and brightest maintenance mechanic still overlooks a screw or misconnects a wire once or twice in her career, so aircraft systems are built with two or three or four layers of redundancy, and pilots are exhaustively trained to deal with failures safely.
Everyone eventually has a bad day. Every component breaks down. Every computer gets a bad a Windows update and spirals into a reboot doom loop. If it’s possible for one person’s mistake to domino into a mushroom cloud of a fuckup, then that task is too critical to be one person's sole responsibility. The accident sequence starts with the design of the system—so how do you improve the system to keep it from happening again?
oh yeah. The “modern commercial aviation is the safest form of transport” thing only applies to planes, btw. A helicopter is a beautiful metal horse that wants to break its legs and die so so so badly
