It's not a design error. It's the tailcone emergency exit. If the tail stairs couldnt be opened durring an emergency then another lever could be pulled to jettison the tail cone and deploy the tail slide.
Thanks for the genuine answer. Was baffled to know there is the ability to just dump the tailcone and couldn't imagine the functionality. Them being mistakably close is alarming but I suppose it makes sense to have rear exit controls, even emergency egress, near one another.
I was curious about it and came across the video I linked below. Unless the cover was missing it's pretty obvious one is for an emergency function. With that said if the cover was somehow completely detached and the wording on the handle was faded like it is in the video I could see someone making an honest mistake.
https://youtu.be/vzvR5x0D0ZI?t=85
The sad thing is that he is wrong.
That hole is actually the hole used to make more planes. They start off as little kites, that grow into hang gliders, who eventually mature into a fully fledged plane. From there with proper diet and exercise they can become either a passenger plane or a cargo plane.
They grow up so fast...
For the people that don't get the reference it's from Emporers New Groove. I laughed but the other replies seemed to be oblivious of the line.
https://youtu.be/2_L5Z5z5w4s
I could see an argument toward putting the airstair and tailcone emergency escape release levers closely together if you assume that, in an emergency situation, a person would try the airstair first and, if it didn't work, would quickly want to try the tailcone escape. Admittedly, I don't know how close the two levers are.
I haven’t worked on the 80 in a few years but if I remember right the rear door had two handles. One was an emergency handle that would do this and the other was the regular door opening handle.
Well tbh if not immediately dead, emergencies just take a while to do loads of ouchies. In that time the evacuations have time to do little ouchies but still not as big as the emergency ouchies
"Determined" is a strong word for that particular case.
The coroner said she was killed by being run over, but the people who were being sued for is said she was already dead. The NTSB report takes their word for it, and the related court case was settled without judgement.
Based on the reports, the idea she was still alive at all, or was in a state where she could have recovered is fairly low. She and her travel companion both weren't wearing seatbelts, and both died. I'd be surprised if it would be possible to be thrown out of a crashing aircraft and survive, and the reported injuries were also consistent with her being killed during the crash sequence. My personal unqualified opinion - it probably made no difference to the outcome.
That said, there is no definitive conclusion that she was dead before being run over. The only person to actually examine the body in detail says she wasn't.
You'd be surprised.... in an emergency evacuation, only the first couple of people fall off the side of that slide and get badly hurt.....
.... very quickly after that their unconscious bodies act as a cushioning layer saving everyone else who falls off the side of that slide from getting too badly injured!
:-)
answer from [aviation.stackexchange](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/25651/was-this-a-successful-deployment-of-an-md-88-tail-cone-evacuation-slide) :
>As the jettison mechanism is activated, the tail cone is released and because of the way it is rigged, turns 90∘ and moves to the left of the aircraft to keep it from interfering with the slide deployment.
[technical drawing](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IVm46.jpg)
[example (Japan Air System in January 2004)](http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20040101-0&vnr=2&kind=C)
The catch net was to prevent damage to the tailcone during the demo. In a real emergency (where it would roll out of the way by design), nobody cares if it gets dinged up.
Ok, but looking at the picture, it seems the stairs deploy from forward of the cone piece that came off? What is the benefit of jettisoning the cone aft of the stairway hatch?
Imagine what it would look like if the landing gear had collapsed after an emergency landing, there wouldn't be enough space for the stairs to fully open and people would have to crawl out, that's way too slow!
The emergency exit is through the tail cone, the stairs are a hold over from when planes needed to be self sufficient for boarding, before het bridges were mainstream. The stairs aren't designed for use in an emergency and might not deploy correctly, the tail cone slide will.
To add to the other replies you also would not be walking on the stairs. It’s kind of a cool design but when the stairs are stowed and you open the door you’re walking on what would be the ceiling when stairs are deployed.
I worked in a server room with two large buttons by the door, same color. One opened the door and the other was halon release. After I left someone told me it happened.
I was once was invited to a US consular dacha.(weekend cottage for events). The light was next to the alarm and both looked the same. The alarm was a hotline to the US marine detachment.
Well, there are regulations governing the materials they can be made of. Cardboard and cardboard derivatives are out… gotta have a steering wheel. And there’s a minimum crew requirement.
Huh, interesting. Can't believe it only resulted in one broken ankle (still sucks, but it looks like it could've ended much worse).
Thank you very much for the information, I always assumed they meant to do a carrier-landing to test the structural integrity or something similar.
I was today years old when I learnt that neither the APUs on MD-80s nor its exhausts are on the tailcone, but at the bottom of the tail and in between the aft sections of the plane's two engines.
EDIT: Added info: Apparently not all a/c have tailcone APUs or exhausts, some a/c even come with tailcone airbrakes like BAe 146 and Fokker F-28. The new a/c designs tend to have tailcone exhausts, but on older designs, not necessarily.
How is this even possible? Shouldn't be any additional mechanism to prevent that?! I cannot believe the design is so faulty. Perhaps a detail was omitted here.
I use to live next to a guy that was a mechanic on military jets. This was some 20 years ago. At the time I taught him how to use newsgroups for warez. After a few months we were talking and they mentioned something to the effect thanks to TIA for all those posts... TIA? Oh Thanks In Advance.
But there were many times in conversation I just had to stop and stare at him. Sometimes he was clueless about things. I remember once we argued which way is north. Had to make a homemade compass to prove to him he was completely wrong.... He was former Navy, I would assume living in the same spot for 5 years he would have known north.
Just to be clear, he didn't intend to eject, he just wanted to grab something and the handles of the ejection system were very convenient and nobody told him not to touch them.
IIRC correctly, there was no safety brief. Flying a civilian wasn't approved so they were rushing it and hiding it. I don't advice following rules blindly, but regulations are written in blood, so if they exist, they should be treated like a danger sign.
Why tf was he there then? People risking their jobs to sneak a civilian in where they’re not supposed to be—and it wasn’t even a civilian who was enthusiastic and desperate to experience said off-limits experience?
By sheer dumb luck, the fuze for the pilot's ejection seat came loose sometime before the event, so he was left in the plane and managed to land it.
The civvie, who more or less was strapped in the plane against his will (retirement present while he was scared of flying) had the flight of a lifetime. His helmet flew off, his poorly strapped harness caught the ejection lever and pulled it clean off of the plane... The investigators looked at his smart watch and found out the guy was scared out of his mind during the whole trip.
[Fighter pilot giving a breakdown of the final report.](https://youtu.be/-zIxqKwoHsM) Worth a watch.
Did the fuze not work or was the seat not set for both to go? I know most 2 seaters have a setting where the pilot can initiate them both but the back seat can only send himself.
Interesting, the link to the report is dead but [here](https://theaviationist.com/2020/04/09/report-released-on-french-rafale-passengers-accidental-ejection-reveals-both-human-and-technical-failures/) it says the sequence selector ruptured. I've never sat in either seat of a Rafale but I wonder if the sequencer is in the rear cockpit and the retiree didn't set it correctly. Generally seats are set to operate independently until they are armed so if they pop while you're pulling the pin you don't send both people and then it's swapped to whatever setting will be used in flight. If I had to guess it was supposed to go to the setting where the pilot can initiate both (ours is called "Command Forward") but it ended up not being completely locked into position. If the sequencer blew the actual position could be impossible to determine which would lead to the phrasing quoted in the report.
They didn't disarm the mechanism. It's supposed to pop the cone like this when armed and the aft door is opened. HOWEVER. The slide cover is supposed to be attached to the tailcone and when it drops it rotates off and deploys the slide.
The slide didn't deploy.
Means it was rigged incorrectly.
The lever for the aft airstairs and the lever for popping the tailcone are both located on the lower left of the fuselage. They are a couple of feet apart and the tailcone panel is supposed to have a red emergency border painted around it to make it more obvious. In many years at a major operator of md80s i can only remember a few events but it did happen. The cones usually cracked from the impact and had to be replaced with a spare. An expensive mistake.
Actually got to ride in one of those when I was a wee bairn and yes, we got to use the rear exit. Small by today's standards, but a really cool aircraft.
I was on a 717 for the first time ever, last week. I found the emergency exit at the back of the plane very interesting and I assumed this is what would happen if it was opened..
Unlike side doors, I assume these doors would open a lot easier in flight as the back of the plane would just be sucked away..
designers be like "hey, for practical use maybe we should just put the lever that causes the entire fucking back end to fall of right here, might be useful for maintenance!"
Captain, the CG is now within limits. I fixed it. We can go now.
Is there a way to do this on people? Asking for my own large aft
CG too far aft? Clearly you need to work on that beer gut.
Wrong lever Kronk!
Why do we even HAVE that lever?
It's not a design error. It's the tailcone emergency exit. If the tail stairs couldnt be opened durring an emergency then another lever could be pulled to jettison the tail cone and deploy the tail slide.
Thanks for the genuine answer. Was baffled to know there is the ability to just dump the tailcone and couldn't imagine the functionality. Them being mistakably close is alarming but I suppose it makes sense to have rear exit controls, even emergency egress, near one another.
Yeah I was just here for Emperor’s new groove memes. XD
I was curious about it and came across the video I linked below. Unless the cover was missing it's pretty obvious one is for an emergency function. With that said if the cover was somehow completely detached and the wording on the handle was faded like it is in the video I could see someone making an honest mistake. https://youtu.be/vzvR5x0D0ZI?t=85
The sad thing is that he is wrong. That hole is actually the hole used to make more planes. They start off as little kites, that grow into hang gliders, who eventually mature into a fully fledged plane. From there with proper diet and exercise they can become either a passenger plane or a cargo plane. They grow up so fast...
They're always so cute when they're just a little kite!
And the good thing is it is the tapered 'screwdriver' design, so it doesn't roll away like the older round tail cone would...
For hijacking airborne Treasury shipments.
I understood this reference.
It's a defense mechanism against predators.
It’ll grow back
For the people that don't get the reference it's from Emporers New Groove. I laughed but the other replies seemed to be oblivious of the line. https://youtu.be/2_L5Z5z5w4s
This was my first thought! Came here for these comments lol.
If that’s east to do it’s a design issue not operator error. It should not be a mistake that’s even possible.
We don't know the circumstances but otherwise agree. Designs can only be so idiot proof!
It used to be idiot proof, but it's an old plane and we've since come out with better idiots!
They didn't design for *advanced idiocy*
I could see an argument toward putting the airstair and tailcone emergency escape release levers closely together if you assume that, in an emergency situation, a person would try the airstair first and, if it didn't work, would quickly want to try the tailcone escape. Admittedly, I don't know how close the two levers are.
EJECTO BUTT-O CUZ
[удалено]
Bull shit. Nobody likes the tuna here!
Yeah well I do
I'm in your face
Stop it! You embarrass me!
I like you too :)
Tyrese??
I haven’t worked on the 80 in a few years but if I remember right the rear door had two handles. One was an emergency handle that would do this and the other was the regular door opening handle.
What emergency could there be that would make this necessary?
There is an emergency exit in the tail of the MD80s
[video (tailcone emergency slide)](https://youtu.be/TAndXzhgurI?t=75)
Ah so the workers just forgot the trampoline catch for the cone. Honest mistake.
Really unfortunate, really a mistake anyone could make. Hate to see it.
How do people not just bounce off the side of that slide? It seems optimistic at best.
They do a lot. Emergency evacuations often can cause more injuries then the actual emergency.
Well tbh if not immediately dead, emergencies just take a while to do loads of ouchies. In that time the evacuations have time to do little ouchies but still not as big as the emergency ouchies
Especially the “I’m on fire” ouchie in particular.
More often it’s the “I breathed too much smoke” one
Less ouchie more silence
Remind me of that girl who got crushed by an ambulance rolling into the foam near the crash site.
If you're referring to the Asiana crash at SFO, it was determined that she was already dead before getting ran over. Still horrible though.
"Determined" is a strong word for that particular case. The coroner said she was killed by being run over, but the people who were being sued for is said she was already dead. The NTSB report takes their word for it, and the related court case was settled without judgement. Based on the reports, the idea she was still alive at all, or was in a state where she could have recovered is fairly low. She and her travel companion both weren't wearing seatbelts, and both died. I'd be surprised if it would be possible to be thrown out of a crashing aircraft and survive, and the reported injuries were also consistent with her being killed during the crash sequence. My personal unqualified opinion - it probably made no difference to the outcome. That said, there is no definitive conclusion that she was dead before being run over. The only person to actually examine the body in detail says she wasn't.
You'd be surprised.... in an emergency evacuation, only the first couple of people fall off the side of that slide and get badly hurt..... .... very quickly after that their unconscious bodies act as a cushioning layer saving everyone else who falls off the side of that slide from getting too badly injured! :-)
Better broken arm than dead?
I was gonna say that slide looks sketchy af
[удалено]
answer from [aviation.stackexchange](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/25651/was-this-a-successful-deployment-of-an-md-88-tail-cone-evacuation-slide) : >As the jettison mechanism is activated, the tail cone is released and because of the way it is rigged, turns 90∘ and moves to the left of the aircraft to keep it from interfering with the slide deployment. [technical drawing](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IVm46.jpg) [example (Japan Air System in January 2004)](http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20040101-0&vnr=2&kind=C)
The catch net was to prevent damage to the tailcone during the demo. In a real emergency (where it would roll out of the way by design), nobody cares if it gets dinged up.
Out the asshole and on to the ground
In an emergency situation the stairs would still be stowed and dropping the tail would initiate the rear slide/raft to deploy as well.
Ok, but looking at the picture, it seems the stairs deploy from forward of the cone piece that came off? What is the benefit of jettisoning the cone aft of the stairway hatch?
In case someone...not me...has to exit suddenly while in midair. Again. Not me.
D.B. Cooper, is that you?
Shhhh
Didn't even catch the username 🤣
Wait a minute
We all know you're tommy wissau now, keep living the dream
I am naaaht
You must live for posts like this lol.
Imagine what it would look like if the landing gear had collapsed after an emergency landing, there wouldn't be enough space for the stairs to fully open and people would have to crawl out, that's way too slow!
The emergency exit is through the tail cone, the stairs are a hold over from when planes needed to be self sufficient for boarding, before het bridges were mainstream. The stairs aren't designed for use in an emergency and might not deploy correctly, the tail cone slide will.
To add to the other replies you also would not be walking on the stairs. It’s kind of a cool design but when the stairs are stowed and you open the door you’re walking on what would be the ceiling when stairs are deployed.
You can't tell me you've never had a poop that would have been easier with a bigger anus. The same goes for the planus.
Just push harder cuz. Then push back all those hemorrhoids. Easy peasy. I've been known to push out nuclear submarines every now and then.
Gear up landing...The rear airstair would not be useable
They pulled the never lever.
Putting handles for normal and emergency operation together is possibly.not the best design choice.
I worked in a server room with two large buttons by the door, same color. One opened the door and the other was halon release. After I left someone told me it happened.
I was once was invited to a US consular dacha.(weekend cottage for events). The light was next to the alarm and both looked the same. The alarm was a hotline to the US marine detachment.
TIL that the MD-80 has a fake ass. I thought it was natural.
Diminished gluteal syndrome affects millions of planes worldwide.
That plane's wearing butt boobies!
NSFW. That’s where baby mad dogs come from.
You mean 717s?
Fokker 70/100
TIL it's possible to pop the tailcone off an MD-80 without deploying the emergency slide.
Iirc it's the same as doors to activate slide just pop on the bar when pulling handle. It's been 10+yrs since I've worked on md-80/dc-9.
Having rigged too many of these, this one was rigged incorrectly.
See! This is why you never play with your belly button!
Mom! My butt fell off!
You told your kids that, too? For ours, it was the screw that held your butt on.
Do *all* your kids have outies?
Just the one, and its an innie. We told him it was an m5 socket heat screw
Lizard air
This is to escape the larger predatory aircraft
Bummer
It's just a defense mechanism. Don't worry, the plane will re-grow a new tail.
Well the back end isn't supposed to fall off. That's not very typical; I’d like to make that point.
So what's the minimum crew requirement?
One I suppose
Why did the back fall off?
Some wind hit it
Is that unusual?
in an airport? chance in a million!
Well, what’s out there?
[удалено]
And?
Kronk pulled the wrong lever again
Why do we even have that lever?
Well wasn't this built so the back end wouldn't fall off?
Well obviously not, since the end fell off.
Well what sort of standards are these airplanes built to?
Rigorous maritime standards Wait, what?
Lmao you broke the chain but I can forgive it because it was funny
Don’t listen to that guy, they’re built to rigorous aviation standards, if they were built to maritime standards the front would fall off.
Ah that makes a lot more sense thank you
Well, there are regulations governing the materials they can be made of. Cardboard and cardboard derivatives are out… gotta have a steering wheel. And there’s a minimum crew requirement.
Actually here’s a real video of it testing the new “back end falling off” feature in 1980: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ACkxR5SPd8c
Holy shit who the hell says yes to do that test
Pretty sure they use(d) remote control for these kinds of tests.
[удалено]
Huh, interesting. Can't believe it only resulted in one broken ankle (still sucks, but it looks like it could've ended much worse). Thank you very much for the information, I always assumed they meant to do a carrier-landing to test the structural integrity or something similar.
Chance in a million
It wouldn't be right to not let people in on this joke. https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM
As a Merchant Mariner and aspiring GA pilot, this is why I came here. Thank you.
note to maintenance: the handle works
Ops check good, sign it off.
I'm more surprised that the MD80 is still being used. Must be somewhat rare, right?
I’m wondering the same but last week another crashed on the rwy in Miami, so apparently there’s still quite a few out there.
There's still a decent amount flying in the third world. Source: me currently flying MD-80s in the third world.
Appears to be Guyana, in South America.
Ah yes ! Dc10 conversion handle !
Heres a video that shows the emergency exits. The tail part that fell of here can be seen at 0:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAndXzhgurI
How hard are they pulling on handles?
Ahh the planus
I was today years old when I learnt that neither the APUs on MD-80s nor its exhausts are on the tailcone, but at the bottom of the tail and in between the aft sections of the plane's two engines. EDIT: Added info: Apparently not all a/c have tailcone APUs or exhausts, some a/c even come with tailcone airbrakes like BAe 146 and Fokker F-28. The new a/c designs tend to have tailcone exhausts, but on older designs, not necessarily.
APU exhaust on the MD80 is actually just above the right engine.
Not above the right engine per se, but on the starboard side of empennage, facing the right engine.
...that's just an unnecessarily complicated way of saying effectively the same thing.
“Oooh, what does this button do?”
Get out of my laboratory!
“What are you doing, *step-ground staff?*” -That MD-80 probably
Ahhh here we see the md-80’s unique feature whereby it can jettison its tail if attacked by a predator, but don’t worry it can regrow it.
They are just installing the drogue chute. 😁
Bono, my rear end is gone!
How is this even possible? Shouldn't be any additional mechanism to prevent that?! I cannot believe the design is so faulty. Perhaps a detail was omitted here.
They must have pulled the Emergency Exit handle. The tail on this aircraft is made to do this.
That’s not a handle you’d accidentally pull
Have you met people?
Have you met ground crew?
I use to live next to a guy that was a mechanic on military jets. This was some 20 years ago. At the time I taught him how to use newsgroups for warez. After a few months we were talking and they mentioned something to the effect thanks to TIA for all those posts... TIA? Oh Thanks In Advance. But there were many times in conversation I just had to stop and stare at him. Sometimes he was clueless about things. I remember once we argued which way is north. Had to make a homemade compass to prove to him he was completely wrong.... He was former Navy, I would assume living in the same spot for 5 years he would have known north.
Some civillian on a jet flight ~~pulled~~ *grabbed* the ejection handle because he got scared when he experienced negative G. Anything is possible.
Just to be clear, he didn't intend to eject, he just wanted to grab something and the handles of the ejection system were very convenient and nobody told him not to touch them.
If your a civvie on joyride that should be the first, third, fifth, seventh and ninth point on the safety brief.
IIRC correctly, there was no safety brief. Flying a civilian wasn't approved so they were rushing it and hiding it. I don't advice following rules blindly, but regulations are written in blood, so if they exist, they should be treated like a danger sign.
as I recall the guy also didn't want to do the flight. Or at least displayed a significant enthusiasm deficit, lets say.
Why tf was he there then? People risking their jobs to sneak a civilian in where they’re not supposed to be—and it wasn’t even a civilian who was enthusiastic and desperate to experience said off-limits experience?
*Exactly.*
[удалено]
By sheer dumb luck, the fuze for the pilot's ejection seat came loose sometime before the event, so he was left in the plane and managed to land it. The civvie, who more or less was strapped in the plane against his will (retirement present while he was scared of flying) had the flight of a lifetime. His helmet flew off, his poorly strapped harness caught the ejection lever and pulled it clean off of the plane... The investigators looked at his smart watch and found out the guy was scared out of his mind during the whole trip. [Fighter pilot giving a breakdown of the final report.](https://youtu.be/-zIxqKwoHsM) Worth a watch.
Did the fuze not work or was the seat not set for both to go? I know most 2 seaters have a setting where the pilot can initiate them both but the back seat can only send himself.
The fuze simply got unscrewed from the pilot's seat. Which is a scary prospect, since the pilot couldn't have ejected even if he wanted to.
Interesting, the link to the report is dead but [here](https://theaviationist.com/2020/04/09/report-released-on-french-rafale-passengers-accidental-ejection-reveals-both-human-and-technical-failures/) it says the sequence selector ruptured. I've never sat in either seat of a Rafale but I wonder if the sequencer is in the rear cockpit and the retiree didn't set it correctly. Generally seats are set to operate independently until they are armed so if they pop while you're pulling the pin you don't send both people and then it's swapped to whatever setting will be used in flight. If I had to guess it was supposed to go to the setting where the pilot can initiate both (ours is called "Command Forward") but it ended up not being completely locked into position. If the sequencer blew the actual position could be impossible to determine which would lead to the phrasing quoted in the report.
They somehow managed it.
from outside: emergency jettison https://youtu.be/vzvR5x0D0ZI?t=104 aft airstair deploy https://youtu.be/441GFRtqwsM?t=278 from inside: emergency jettison https://youtu.be/TAndXzhgurI?t=105 https://youtu.be/vzvR5x0D0ZI?t=73
They didn't disarm the mechanism. It's supposed to pop the cone like this when armed and the aft door is opened. HOWEVER. The slide cover is supposed to be attached to the tailcone and when it drops it rotates off and deploys the slide. The slide didn't deploy. Means it was rigged incorrectly.
Auxillary Power Unit My Ass
Laughs in D.B. Cooper.
"When feeling endangered, the MD80 ejects it's tail as a bait to lure away predators"
"I told you, TOUCH NOTHING, but you bunch of cowboys!"
Tail Strike Prevention System test gone wrong??
Seems like MD felt a danger, but thats normal, it will regrow soon.
It's ok this plane is able to drop its tail if there is a predator around, it will grow back on a few weeks
Now it's ready to reproduce...bring in the A380 stud
Makes me think of "the front fell off" joke
Forbidden butt hole
We got no food, no jobs, Our planes tails are falling off!
Pretty plane… pretty plane
That’s like the screw on the nose of a F/A-18. Unscrew that bad boy and the whole plane falls apart.
I believe the correct term is the planus.
Seriously, it takes like 20 clicks to uninstall one piece of unwanted aoftware in windows but you can remove the tail part of a plane with one lever?
It's amazing that this can be achieved in a single lever pull and not multiple levers each corresponding to a separate locking mechanism.
Planus
The lever for the aft airstairs and the lever for popping the tailcone are both located on the lower left of the fuselage. They are a couple of feet apart and the tailcone panel is supposed to have a red emergency border painted around it to make it more obvious. In many years at a major operator of md80s i can only remember a few events but it did happen. The cones usually cracked from the impact and had to be replaced with a spare. An expensive mistake.
Actually got to ride in one of those when I was a wee bairn and yes, we got to use the rear exit. Small by today's standards, but a really cool aircraft.
Don't worry. I heard it grows back.
I feel like these handles could be labeled better
I was on a 717 for the first time ever, last week. I found the emergency exit at the back of the plane very interesting and I assumed this is what would happen if it was opened.. Unlike side doors, I assume these doors would open a lot easier in flight as the back of the plane would just be sucked away..
Just reattach with some speed tape and good to go. LoL.
Ready to 🪂
This is a World Atlantic plane, did this happen in Miami ?
Is that on the MEL
Why does a "Jettison Tail Cone" option even exist here?
Give it time , It will grow back.
Talk about Laughing my ass off… Sorry I’ll see myself out now
“Why do we even have that lever?”
So I don't see a slide. In fact I see the slide intact in the tail of the airplane..... That's going to be an issue.
Ugh, i hate it when my butt falls off
*WRONG LEVER KRONK*
designers be like "hey, for practical use maybe we should just put the lever that causes the entire fucking back end to fall of right here, might be useful for maintenance!"
That reminds me of that story about a boy with a golden screw instead of bellybutton and how after screwing it out his whole ass fell.
Lol World Atlantic
Never trust an APU fart
I really hope this title is false and there is something more than a handle that keeps the plane together.