Some passengers on a recent Qatar Airways flight walked away with a memorable experience, upset after being forced to sit with a dead lady on their dream trip to Venice.
The innocent bystanders, a married Australian couple, were flying from Melbourne to Doha. All was well, until about 10 hours into the flight.
A Qatar Airways A350-1000 from Doha (DOH) moments from touchdown at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Passenger collapsed
According to Australian news outlet “A Current Affair,” a large female passenger was using the nearby bathroom. Lord only knows what happened in that bathroom, because when she came out she collapsed next to the couple, and died.
“It was pretty heartbreaking to watch,” said Mitchell Ring, one-half of the Australian couple who would soon be even closer to the dead passenger. “They tried to wheel her up towards business class, but she was quite a large lady and they couldn’t get her through the aisle.”
With business class not an option, the crew decided to sit the deceased next to the Australian couple.
Qatar Airways Airbus A330-300 (Reg. F-WWKF) | IMAGE: Md Shaifuzzaman Ayon via Wikimedia Commons
“They said, ‘Can you move over please?’ and I just said, ‘Yes no problem. Then they placed the lady in the chair I was in.”
The crew would not allow the couple to move
For the next 4 hours, Ring and his wife had to sit next to the dead woman, claiming the crew would not allow the couple to move elsewhere when they asked.
Photo credit: Qatar Airways
“I can’t believe they told us to stay, it wasn’t nice,” added Ring.
Qatar Airways has contacted passengers to apologize for the unexpected incident. “Our thoughts are with the family of the passenger who sadly passed away on board our flight” said Qatar in a statement.
If You Flew a Short or Medium Distance Segment Over a Nearly 50 Year Period, You Probably Flew the Douglas DC-9
The Douglas Aircraft Corporation designed and built many iconic aircraft over the company’s existence between 1921 and 1967 when they became McDonnell-Douglas. Think of any military aircraft name with Sky- as the prefix that comes to mind and you probably picked a winner. But there were more successful Douglas designs that entered production and fought wars than any other manufacturer. An argument can be made that overall Douglas was the most successful designer and builder of aircraft in general because their passenger aircraft designs stacked success upon success for decades. Douglas DC-9’s success kept this trend alive.
Delta DC-9-50. image via redlegsfan21
Copycatting?
The Douglas DC-8 was the company’s initial foray into four-engine jet transport, and it did not disappoint. But Douglas had no resume when it came to short / medium range twin-engine jetliners. Initially they took some design cues from British Aircraft Corporation’s BAC One-Eleven (111) and Sud Aviation’s SE 210 Caravelle, both similar in concept to what Douglas had in mind. Bear in mind that the DC-9 was not intended to leverage any components from the DC-8 as Boeing’s 727 leveraged components from the 707, using as many common components as possible. The DC-9 would be a clean-sheet design.
SUD Caravelle. image via douglas
Back to That Douglas Drawing Board
The Caravelle was actually the first jetliner designed for the kind of short/medium distance routes Douglas wanted to service with the DC-9. At one point Douglas intended to license the Caravelle to build a derivative of it in the United States, but when no airlines stepped up and expressed interest in the concept it was dropped and Douglas went back to that very successful and highly experienced drawing board. It took some time and a bunch of pencils, but by 1963 Douglas had a design in mind that resembled both the BAC 111 and the SE210, but ended up outperforming them both where it counted. On 8 April 1963 the design was approved and the DC-9 was conceived.
Douglas DC-9 ship one. image via boeing
The DC-9 Difference
The DC-9 would be powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofans mounted singly on either side of the rear fuselage of the jet, slightly forward of and under a tall T-tail empennage. This had several advantages.
For passengers it meant a quieter ride (unless seated in the extreme rear of the cabin). For baggage handlers it meant baggage compartments were closer to ground level which eased access- no pod-mounted engines on the wings made it possible to equip the DC-9 with shorter landing gear. The engines were also less susceptible to taxiway and ramp foreign object damage (FOD). The short-span swept wings were also more efficient with no engine pods slung under them. Full-span flaps made for greater lift at slower speeds around airpatches.
Douglas DC-9s at IAH. image via ken fielding
Taking It With You in a Douglas DC-9
Designed for those short / medium duration flights, potentially into austere airpatches, the DC-9 was equipped with built-in air stairs forward and aft under the empennage. Also mounted in the tail was a Garrett GTCP85 auxiliary power unit (APU) that provided power for the aircraft on the ground and eliminated the need for an external starter cart for departure.
Like (almost) any airliner the seating configuration of the 122.4-inch width cabin was flexible, but the standard arrangement was five across (usually two on the port side and three on the starboard side) in coach and four across in first class. There were multiple seating variations during the service life of the DC-9. Some cabins were configured four across with first-class seats only.
Douglas DC-9 interior. image via cory w watts
Ready. Set. Go!
Douglas built the first (and all subsequent) DC-9s in Building 80 at their Long Beach assembly plant. The first DC-9-10 flew for the first time on 25 February 1965. By July, the initial five DC-9s, joined by another four airframes, went through rigorous testing and received certification on 23 November 1965.
The initial certification put an 80,000 pound weight restriction on the jet because the crew was limited to pilot and copilot only, but the FAA lifted the restriction within a few months. The first DC-9 to go into passenger airline service was a Delta Airlines DC-9-14 registered as N3305L. The aircraft was received by Delta and flew its first revenue flight as flight 791 from Atlanta to Kansas City with a stop in Memphis on 29 November 1965.
Early Delta Douglas DC-9-14. image via national air and space museum
A Great Day for a Small Convertible
The first variant of the DC-9 was the 1X. Operated by more than 50 airlines over its lifespan, the initial aircraft was quite successful and left airline carrier customers wanting more. DC-9-10s were built in a couple of convertible flavors, both with strengthened floors and a port side 11.4 foot by 6.9 foot cargo door that swung up to allow palletized cargo.
The DC-9-15MC (Minimum Change) allowed the passenger seating to be folded up and stowed aft allowing the aircraft to be used for hauling cargo when not hauling passengers. The DC-9-15RC (Rapid Change) had passenger seats mounted on pallets that could be removed and the entire cabin used for cargo. At a length of 104 feet 5 inches the max passenger capacity for the DC-9-10 was 90 pax. Douglas built a total of 137 10 series jetliners.
Douglas DC-9-15. image via RAF_YYC
Bang NEXT PAGE below for the rest of the DC-9 story.
On 21 February 1947, United States Army Air Force (USAAF) Boeing B-29-95-BW Superfortress, 45-21768, named the Kee Bird, ran out of fuel due to a navigational error and was forced to land on a small frozen lake in a remote area of northern Greenland. The Kee Bird was a B-29 modified to the F-13 reconnaissance configuration and was assigned to the Strategic Air Command’s 46th Reconnaissance Squadron.
Official US Air Force photograph
Ditched in a Sea of Ice
The Kee Bird’s mission originated at Ladd Army Air Field (Later Ladd Air Force Base) in east central Alaska near Fairbanks. The wheels-up landing on the ice was successful and the crew was uninjured. Three days later the crew was rescued by a C-54 transport which landed on the same frozen lake and returned to the United States. After the crew had destroyed or removed all classified materials the Kee Bird was abandoned in place. And there the Kee Bird sat, more or less intact, for 47 years.
image via usaf
Would-Be Rescuers With Credentials
Unlimited racing pilot and former SR-71 test pilot Daryl Greenamyer led a team of aircraft restorers to the Greenland emergency landing site in July of 1994. Greenamyer held several speed records in a variety of racing aircraft over the years. One of his creations, an F-104 Starfighter, was pieced together from various parts obtained primarily from wrecks, hulks, and scrap piles- so if anyone was prepared for the job of restoring a crash-landed B-29 in-place on the Greenland icecap it was probably Greenamyer.
Image via USAF
Worth the Effort and Expense?
Greenamyer’s plan was to put the B-29 into flying condition on-site and fly Kee Bird out of the site to Thule Air Force Base in Greenland where additional work would be performed to make the aircraft airworthy before flying her back to the United States. The United States Air Force had long ago surrendered any claim to the Kee Bird. If Greenamyer and his team could get the Kee Bird off the ice intact for a short ferry flight to Thule she would become only the second airworthy B-29 in the world at the time.
image via usaf
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome, Tragedy
Using uncommon ingenuity and determination in the face of the austere nature of their facilities and available resources, Greenamyer’s team was able to replace the Kee Bird’s engines and propellers, mount new tires, and resurface the aircraft’s control surfaces which had succumbed to the harsh weather on Greenland’s ice cap. But as winter’s first snow began to fall Greenamyer’s chief engineer, Rick Kriege, had to be transported to a hospital in Canada where he died from a blood clot two weeks later. Greenamyer’s team had run out of time before the winter weather would make any further work on the Kee Bird impossible. Kee Bird would spend at least one more winter on the Greenland ice cap.
Greenamyer returned with additional personnel and equipment in May of 1995. Remaining repairs were completed and the aircraft was prepared for takeoff from the frozen lake on 21 May 1995. Using a small bulldozer that had been airlifted to the site, a crude runway was carved out of the packed snow on the surface of the frozen lake. After successfully starting the newly-installed Wright R-3350 engines and with everything in the “green”, the aircraft was lined up for takeoff.
Image via NOVA
Lucky to Get Out Alive
As Greenamyer taxied the aircraft onto the smoother surface of the frozen lake, the jury-rigged fuel tank for the B-29’s auxiliary power unit (APU) in the rear fuselage started leaking aviation fuel into the aircraft. A fire broke out and quickly spread to the rest of the fuselage. The cockpit crew exited the aircraft unharmed but one crew member who was located in the middle fuselage eyeballing the engines for takeoff was slightly burned and suffered from smoke inhalation.
Burned to the Ground
The fire quickly spread through the fuselage despite attempts to extinguish it from outside the plane. The Kee Bird’s fuselage was almost totally destroyed on the ground. The wings remained largely intact. It was feared that the wreckage (with nearly intact wing panels and engines) would sink to the bottom when the lake thawed in the spring. Already thinking about salvaging whatever parts he could from the Kee Bird, Greenamyer and his team were forced to watch as the Kee Bird and all of their work and sacrifice went up in flames.
Image via NASA
There She Still Sits
In 2014 a NASA Lockheed P-3 Orion was able to capture images of the remnants of the Kee Bird as it sat broken, crumpled, and burned on the Greenland ice cap. Every now and then someone will post pictures taken with what remains of the Kee Bird. When the Kee Bird took off on 21 February 1947, despite the best efforts of Greenamyer and his team, it was indeed her final flight.
You can watch a NOVA documentary on the Kee Bird. This recording of the show was uploaded to YouTube by sogostes.
TWA’s name change ushered in an era of transatlantic glamour
On 17 May 1950, Transcontinental & Western Air underwent a corporate name change. Keeping the initials TWA, the company adopted the powerful yet elegant moniker Trans World Airlines. This new corporate name and its initials would become recognized and respected around the world for excellent service.
It was also inextricably linked to its primary stockholder, the enigmatic Howard Hughes, who technically owned 78% of the company. Hughes controlled things at TWA behind the scenes, particularly the number and types of aircraft the airline purchased.
TWA had been referring to itself unofficially as the “Trans World Airline” since 1946, when scheduled service was inaugurated across the North Atlantic to Paris.
Only 10 Boeing 307 Stratoliners were built. Five of them served with TWA. Jon Proctor Collection
In the spring of 1950, TWA was operating a fleet of 41 Lockheed Constellations (models L-049 and L-749, with the first of the new 749As coming online), 16 unpressurized Douglas DC-4s, 62 unpressurized DC-3s, and 5 Boeing 307 Stratoliners.
In 1950, TWA’s fleet included 62 Douglas DC-3s. Bob Archer photo from the Jon Proctor Collection
THE MARTINS
To replace DC-3s on TWA’s short-haul routes, Hughes turned his attention to the Glenn L. Martin Company, which was offering to build a 40-passenger, pressurized airliner to be called the Martin 404. Eastern Air Lines (EAL) ordered sixty of the new ships, and TWA requested forty.
While waiting for delivery of the 404s, TWA leased twelve unpressurized, 36-passenger Martin 202As from the manufacturer as a stopgap measure. The 202As performed so well for TWA that the company exercised its option to purchase them in addition to the forty 404s. TWA referred to its 52 Martins (unpressurized 202As and pressurized 404s) as “Martin Skyliners”. TWA operated its first scheduled Martin 202A service on 1 September 1950, and its first Martin 404 scheduled flight on 15 January 1952.
TWA purchased 40 Martin 404s and 12 Martin 202As to serve short-haul routes and smaller cities on the company’s system. Martin 404 N40420 was photographed by Mel Lawrence at Chicago—Midway (MDW) in 1959.
THE CONNIES
It was Lockheed’s Constellations that would become so closely associated with Trans World Airlines. The distinctive triple-tailed, pressurized Connies would become synonymous with TWA throughout the 1950s as Hughes considered purchasing each subsequent upgrade of the type.
Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation N6909C. Jon Proctor Collection
With each new offering from Douglas, its primary competitor, Lockheed would create a stretched, more powerful, more luxurious version of its Constellation series. The L-1049 Super Constellation was Lockheed’s answer to the DC-7.
It was with an L-1049 that TWA offered the first scheduled non-stop transcontinental service in the USA (eastbound, with cooperating winds) on 19 October 1953, just over a month ahead of American Airlines’ introduction of DC-7s on the same route (Los Angeles – New York).
The L-1049G “Super G” Constellation entered service with TWA in the spring of 1955. David H. Stringer Collection
The next advance was a Constellation that could ensure non-stop coast-to-coast operation in either direction without the need for a fuel stop, regardless of weather conditions or headwinds. Christened the L-1049G, the “Super G” became the most popular version of the tri-tailed airliner ever produced. It entered service with TWA in the spring of 1955.
The L-1049 G “Super G” became the most popular model in the Lockheed Constellation series. Mel Lawrence photo from the George Hamlin Collection
FLY THE FINEST: Fly TWA
The slogan, “Fly the Finest… Fly TWA”, was introduced in 1953. This simple motto was repeated in television, radio, and print ads until it became familiar to virtually everyone. The general public believed that there was nothing finer than flying TWA.
And fly they did: More than three million passengers took to the skies with TWA in 1954. That figure increased yearly until 5,130,000 passengers “flew the finest” in 1959.
TWA was one of the four largest domestic airlines in the USA, along with American, United, and Eastern. Known as the Big Four, they outshone all other domestic carriers in terms of passenger revenue and passenger miles flown. TWA posted a profit each year between 1949 and 1955. After two years of losses, profitability returned in 1958 and ’59.
The company advertised that there was nothing finer than flying TWA.
BEHIND THE SCENES
The difficulty of running an airline with an owner who insisted on calling the shots, even though he was often unreachable, was proving to be a stressful endeavor. Ralph Damon had been TWA’s president since 1949. He was able to work with Hughes and took the owner’s idiosyncrasies in stride. Unfortunately, Damon suffered an untimely death after dedicating a big neon TWA billboard in New York’s Times Square while enduring windy, frigid winter weather in late 1955. He passed away from pneumonia on 4 January 1956.
TWA remained without a president until a year later, when Carter Burgess assumed the office on 23 January 1957. Burgess could not work with Hughes and lasted less than a year, resigning on 31 December 1957. Charles S. Thomas was next. He began his term on 2 July 1958, lasting two years until July 1960.
Lockheed’s L-1649A Starliner was the ultimate version of the Constellation series. Howard Hughes ordered 25 of them for TWA. The airline referred to the type as the Jetstream. Jon Proctor Collection
JETSTREAMS
Hughes decided to buy the ultimate version of his much-loved Constellation, the L-1649A Starliner, which TWA would call the Jetstream. Twenty-five Jetstreams were ordered, and they entered service with TWA in the spring of 1957. In October of that year, the Jetstreams were outfitted with fully reclining “Siesta seats.” Even though they were not money-makers, they were the last of the big piston-engine airliners, offering luxurious accommodations in flight across the US and the Atlantic in the short period before the dawn of the jet age.
Fly The Finest: How TWA Became a Synonym for the Best in Air Travel 29
On 2 October 1957, TWA inaugurated trans-polar service from the West Coast (Los Angeles and San Francisco) direct to London and Paris using Jetstreams. On the other side of the globe, in January 1958, TWA inaugurated service to Bangkok and Manila with Super-G Constellations as an extension of the company’s route from Europe, the Middle East, and India.
TWA’s first jet, a Boeing 707, rolls out of the Boeing hangar at Renton, Washington. Jon Proctor Collection
INTO THE JET AGE
The company’s first pure-jet service was operated by a Boeing 707-131 on 20 March 1959, between San Francisco and New York (Idlewild – now JFK). Eight months later, on 23 November 1959, TWA inaugurated international jet service with a Boeing 707-331 operating from New York to London and Frankfurt.
TWA entered the 1960s ready to tackle the jet age head-on and, on the surface, all seemed well. But there was turbulence on the horizon for Howard Hughes. The first years of the new decade would find him embroiled in litigation with TWA’s management and the airline’s other lenders. He was also in hot water with the Civil Aeronautics Board.
The slogan inviting the public to “Fly the Finest” was dropped as the 1950s came to a close. But TWA would survive!
It’s hard to believe it’s been nearly a quarter of a century since Vanguard Airlines ceased operations. The airline, which was founded in 1994, specialized in providing low-cost air travel to leisure travelers. However, it lasted only eight years. The airline never really found its perfect niche as it entered and exited a number of markets and types of service. It even tried business class for a while!
The carrier ceased operations on 29 July 2002.
Vanguard Airlines will always have a special place in the hearts of avgeeks, though, particularly those who grew up in the Midwest. Here are five reasons we miss Vanguard Airlines:
1.) Ultra-low fares with better service than the ultra-low cost carriers of today
$10 tickets with enough leg-room for a full-size adult and no bag fees? Yes, please! Vanguard was a no-frills airline, but they were affordable. These ultra-low fares were Vanguard’s bread and butter and allowed it to become a major player in the low-cost heyday of the late 1990s. While these low prices came with a few rules (no online booking and no ticket changes), they were a welcome sight to thousands of college students and families traveling on vacation. Although Frontier, Spirit, Breeze, Avelo, and Allegiant offer similar fares today, they charge you for bag fees, snacks, and even water in some cases.
2.) Full-size jets to regional-sized cities
In the late 1990s, regional jets were an emerging craze. While many would say that riding on a CRJ-200 was an improvement over a Saab 340 or Metroliner, they were still cramped. For a time, Vanguard leveraged its Kansas City hub and Chicago Midway focus city to connect smaller cities like Colorado Springs, Austin, Buffalo, and Myrtle Beach with larger markets in Florida, New York City, and the West Coast. The combination of low fares and service to these smaller markets opened up new, affordable travel options.
3.) Their classic jets were loud (Jurassic jets by today’s standards) and fun to fly on
For the first few years of Vanguard’s operations, they flew a fleet of well-maintained but second-hand Boeing 737-200s. With the classic clam-shell reversers, rumbling cabin, and sporty performance, it felt more like riding on a rocket from Kansas City to Chicago Midway. Vanguard later added a few Boeing 737-300s and attempted to ‘modernize’ their fleet with a ragtag bunch of used MD-81s, MD-82s, and MD-87s.
4.) Upstart Vanguard wasn’t afraid to challenge the big guys
As consumers, we loved that Vanguard would often enter a prime market like DFW airport and kick off a major fare war with both Delta and American. Back in 1996, Vanguard came into the Dallas/Fort Worth market with guns blazing. They announced service to Kansas City, Chicago Midway, and Wichita, Kansas.
American responded forcefully. They matched fares, added flights, and forced Vanguard to abandon Wichita service after just a few months. In retrospect, challenging the ‘bigs’ on their home turf wasn’t a very smart move. For Texans hamstrung by American’s high fares (Southwest was limited by the Wright Amendment at Love back then), Vanguard was a hero for trying.
Vanguard Airlines attempted to transition to an MD-80-based fleet in order to offer more non-stop service to the West Coast from Chicago Midway and Kansas City. Unfortunately, they ran out of money before the transition was complete. (Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
5.) Vanguard’s no-frills felt ahead of their time
In many ways, Vanguard Airlines was ahead of its time, even with its old jets. They offered e-ticketing ahead of most other low-cost carriers at the time. With all-coach Boeing 737s in just a single class configuration and mostly leisure travelers, it would have been easy to mistake Vanguard for a more modern ultra-low cost carrier like Spirit or Frontier rather than what they were: a classic no-frills airline. Vanguard was simple, but efficient and friendly. We miss them.
Icelandic carrier PLAY Airlines arranged a wedding to take place tens of thousands of feet in the air on Valentines Day. The couple was joined by over 200 other passengers on board.
This isn’t the first time a couple has gotten married during a flight. Couples have opted to get married either improvised on board a flight or pre-arranged by the crew or airline of choice.
A Match Booked in Heaven
PLAY Airlines arranged an in-flight wedding between an Icelandic groom and French bride on 14 February, 2025. The aircraft departed Keflavik International Airport in Iceland, and arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France with a new husband and wife.
Icelandic tour guide Alexander Valur Wium Brynjólfsson, 26, and his fiancé Kita were reportedly indecisive on where to get married. Ultimately, they decided to get married in the air directly in the middle of both nations.
Brynjólfsson explained the decision further with People Magazine:
“We love traveling. When we heard about the idea that it was possible to get married on board this flight, we thought, why not? It just fit perfectly with all of our adventures, to get married in the skies between Iceland and France.”
The couple tied the knot exactly halfway through the flight to Paris. At least 200 other passengers were on board during the ceremony, unaware of the wedding in advance.
PLAY reportedly assigned specific crew members for this particular flight. Both the captain and first officer were on board the flight with their mates who are also flight attendants. Two additional crew members who are in a relationship also were on the romantic flight.
History of Inflight Weddings
Inflight weddings have occurred once every few years, whether planned or unplanned, though more have made headlined recently. In February 2021, Virgin Australia hosted its first ever inflight wedding on a flight from Melbourne to Sydney. The ceremony took place five days after Valentine’s Day due to COVID-19 restrictions.
In April 2022, a couple already dressed for the occasion was looking to get married in Las Vegas, only for their connecting flight from Dallas to get cancelled. They met an ordained minister who helped arrange them a new flight, but after a discussion with the flight’s captain, they decided to hold the ceremony on the Southwest flight.
In July of the same year, Uganda Airlines held a promotion for couples who were interested in getting married in-flight. The airlines called these Sky Celebrations. The airline also accepted bookings for marriage proposals as well as anniversaries.
American Airlines would have been the launch customer of the incredibly unique quad-engine Breguet 941.
The 1950s and 1960s were truly a marvelous era for AvGeeks. It was a transition from the graceful lines of the Lockheed Connie and Convairs to the first generation of screaming turbojets (what’s a fan?) pouring out obscene contrails of black smoke.
The pilots were dashing, the flight attendants classy. It was also an era of experimentation and ideas. One such idea was how to reach passengers in rural or austere areas of the country which could not otherwise be supported with the current fleet of aircraft. And that is where this story begins…
The Problem
In 1968, the population of the entire United states was 201.2 million. For context, the current population is approximately 342.1 million, which represents a 70.1% increase. The population density and demographics were considerably different in 1969 than they are now, with much of the population living a more rural existence.
A lot of the major suburbs that we see know were still farm communities in the 1960s. Also, the Vietnam War was in full swing at the time, and air travel was not readily available in a lot of communities on the outer reaches of the U.S. The Breguet could potentially connect communities like Joliet and Bloomington or even Meigs in downtown to Chicago O’Hare or connecting Westchester and Connecticut suburbs to JFK.
Since the late 60’s, airports which would have been target markets have since grown considerably in infrastructure and capacity. In fact, towered GA operations in 1970 were less than half of what they would be in 1979, a remarkable feat considering the oil crisis was smack dab in the middle of that decade.
This is an indicator of the self-reliant, uncontrolled nature of aviation that defined an era. But these airports lacked the characteristics to support even the most robust prop-driven commuters of the time.
Along with vast expanses of rural America, American Airlines also sought out to reach the downtown districts of America. The idea being that commuting passengers could be picked up and delivered much closer to their destinations in airports which had much smaller footprints.
In the era 1960s, jet airliners needed enormous distances for takeoff and rollout; there being no such thing as a CRJ-200s (thank God); no B737-800 operating on sub-6,000’ runways either.
A Short Takeoff and Landing concept was imagined, one where very short and marginally improved runways could be put into service for commercial air travel. And by short, we are talking 1,500’.
Since turbojets were still quite new in their evolutionary development, the aircraft would be propeller driven, have a wing with a lot of lift, lots and lots of flaps, and a rugged landing gear system.
The Prototype Breguet 941
Photo: San Diego Air and Space Museum
In collaboration with McDonnell Douglas American decided on the obscure Breguet 941, a defunct design from the French aircraft company Breguet. The 941 was a quad-engine, high-wing monoplane with a relatively short range of around 500nm, depending on configuration. Seating would have been just shy of 60 passengers.
On the surface, it honestly looks like a slightly smaller C-130…but looks can be deceiving because the appearance is only skin deep; the 941 held some seriously interesting design features.
How the Breguet 941 was powered
First and foremost were the engines. The 941 was powered by four Turbomeca Turmo III turboprop engines, rated at 1,500shp each. Okay, no big deal right? Well, the Turbomeca engines were originally designed for helicopter use and employed a common method among helicopters of power going through a transmission box rather than going directly to the rotor, for obvious reasons; power must be split in a helo to either a second tandem blade or more commonly to the tail rotor. However, fixed wing turboprop engines run more or less directly to a prop (for simplicity sake I am omitting talking about reduction drives, etc).
Breguet was keenly aware of an issue which has plagued traditional multi-engine aircraft since their inception which is the imbalance of power and torque when you lose an engine. In a four engine aircraft, you essentially are losing an additional engine to the one which is already out to compensate, making for a potentially dangerous situation.
The 941 employed a radical system to address this issue: run all power through a central gearbox and run all of the propellers off of a central driveshaft. That’s right folks. In the event of a single engine failure, the aircraft still had 75% of it’s available power and all four props would still produce equal thrust.
Breguet 941 had other innovations too
One other design characteristic of the 941 that is noteworthy are the flaps. This design just blows my mind. To say that they barn doors is a tragic understatement; the 941 was designed in the deflected-slipstream technique to optimize lift. The flaps were full wingspan and double-slotted, and had a maximum deflection of 98° for the interior flaps, and 65°for the outer flap sections.
With so much surface area devoted to flaps, the 941 adopted a common control surface technique in utilizing four spoilers for roll control.
Downsides to the Breguet 941
As truly interesting and unique as the Breguet 941 was, American Airlines ultimately scrapped the joint venture with McDonnell Douglas and only four of the aircraft were ever built. The interconnected propeller system is a great idea which is a considerable safety feature, but it also added a lot of weight to the aircraft in regard to the central gearbox and drive shafts.
These added considerable complexity to the aircraft as well, and as we all know, complexity equals cost. The design just did not solve enough problems to implement it, but it is certainly a totally unique design for AvGeeks to ponder and admire.
Cessna’s 150/152 Series Was the First Airplane Many of Us Ever Flew
Cessna’s impact upon general aviation is impossible to ignore. Hundreds of thousands of student pilots took the controls of an aircraft for the first time in a Cessna single-engine high-winged tricycle-gear aircraft. Many of those first-time yoke-turners were flying 150s or 152s. You could, and still can, find them in hangars and on parking aprons at just about any air patch you care to visit. The 152 is the most produced two-place aircraft on the planet and the third most produced general aviation aircraft ever. So if you haven’t already done so, go for a ride in a 152 Aerobat via the film ‘Flying Fun’ uploaded to YouTube by Periscope Film.
The differences between the original 150 and the 152 were minimal. 152s had a higher useful load thanks to a gross weight increase to 1,670 pounds. The basic design characteristics of both aircraft were the same, but the 152 benefited from a slightly more powerful engine. All Cessna 152s were powered by a Lycoming O-235 horizontally-opposed four-cylinder engine- essentially the same powerplant found in general aviation aircraft since 1942. The O-235 had a few more available horsepower and ran better while burning that newfangled 100 octane low-lead (100LL) fuel.
image via cessna
Powerplant Comparison
From 1977 until 1982, 152s rolled out of Cessna’s Wichita, Kansas, plant equipped with Lycoming O-235-L2C engines capable of 110 horsepower at 2,550 RPM. Beginning in 1983, Cessna switched to the O-235-N2C engine to avoid lead-fouling problems experienced with the -L2C engine. The -N2C was slightly less spritely, putting out 108 horsepower at 2,550 RPM. Piston design differences, along with redesigned cylinder heads, resulted in the engine Cessna would bolt on 152 firewalls until production of the airplane ceased in 1985.
image via western australian aviation college
The Aerobat
The 152 Aerobat’s airframe was beefed up to accommodate a +6g/-3g flight maneuvering envelope. Cessna built 315 of them beginning in the second year of production (1978), offering four-point harnesses, skylights, and jettisonable doors as standard equipment, along with a checkerboard paint scheme and removable seat cushions to allow parachutes to be worn by the crew. Approved maneuvers included barrel rolls, snap rolls, loops, lazy eights, spins, aileron rolls, Immelmann turns, Cuban eights, and stalls (except whip stalls).
Trump Administration Renames NOTAMs Back To Original Name
Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has released a flurry of executive orders. Most of these changes have rolled back changes made by the Biden Administration while some additional EOs have introduced new policy for the nation.
The order also mandates the “FAA Administrator to review the past performance and performance standards of all FAA employees in critical safety positions and make clear that any individual who fails to demonstrate adequate capability is replaced by someone who will ensure Americans’ flight safety and efficiency.”
An Air Canada Airbus A220-300 and an American Airlines Airbus A319 rest at the new international terminal at BNA | IMAGE: Nashville International Airport on Facebook
Back To The Original NOTAMs
During the Biden administration, Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigeig changed the NOTAM acronym from Notices to Airmen to Notices to Air Missions. At the time, the decision was said to make the term more “inclusive of all aviators and missions.” That change was made in 2022 as part of a larger effort to make the aviation term more gender neutral.
NOTAMs: Notices to AIRMEN Are Back 37
Now just three years later, the FAA has reverted back to the original term, Notices to Airmen. While some mocked the change back in 2021, the term was never really a pressing issue for many others in the industry. From the Air Force to FAA pilot certificates, the term airman was seen as defining a human aviator, not necessarily a male or female aviator.
In line with my commitment to restoring sanity to @USDOT, the FAA will resume using the term “Notice to Airmen” instead of “Notice to Air Missions.”
Also, pilot charts will now reference the Gulf of America and Mt. McKinley. Thanks to President Trump, we are taking back our… pic.twitter.com/kUXcszogg3
The NOTAM system itself went down in 2023, grounding all flights for part of a day. A recent outage affected the primary NOTAM system. Only a backup system kept NOTAMs from causing additional delays.
Companies Pursue Space Advertising While Scientists Object
The idea of billboards in space may seem like a logical step forward from planes dragging banners along beaches, skywriting, and lighted signs on the sides of blimps. Several companies are working on technologies to display huge messages across the sky and reach more people than ever before. This, however, may be a rare example of a technological innovation that scientists and politicians almost universally reject.
Avant Space promises to reach one billion people
Several companies are developing ways to display messages from space that people can see with the naked eye. One of these is the Russian company Avant Space. Their plan is to launch constellations of small satellites, CubeSats, that will move in orbit and shine lasers to make logos or other images for advertisers.
Avant Space launched a single CubeSat in April 2024 to test their technology and reported that it was successful. The company website describes how it will provide customizable personal constellations to its customers. Company advertisements claim its images will be able to reach one billion people.
CubeSats moving into position to display space advertising message. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
StartRocket to launch hundreds of CubeSats
Another Russian company, StartRocket, says it will deploy its own fleets of hundreds of CubeSats. The satellites will reflect sunlight from Mylar sails to form logos and other images visible from the ground. The company plans to launch the satellites to a low-earth orbit at an altitude of about 310 miles. It also plans to charge about $200,000 for every eight hours of advertising.
This hasn’t been only a Russian effort. In 2019, StartRocket announced it was working with PepsiCo on an “orbital advertising campaign” to market a new energy drink called Adrenaline Rush.
Artist image of space advertising message in orbit. | Image: Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
Space advertising illegal in the United States
There may be a simple reason why Americans are not pursuing space advertising; it’s illegal in the United States. 51 U.S. Code 50911 – Space Advertising clearly states, “No holder of a license under this chapter may launch a payload containing any material to be used for purposes of obtrusive space advertising.”
The law went into effect in 2000. It includes a note stating that the US president should negotiate with foreign countries to create agreements supporting US law.
The definition of “obtrusive space advertising” is “advertising in outer space that is capable of being recognized by a human being on the surface of the Earth without the aid of a telescope or other technological device.”
Artist image of message over San Francisco. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
Scientific community firmly against space advertising
This idea of obstruction leads to the reason why the scientific community appears united against space advertising. In fact, many are pushing for a global ban on it. Their primary objection is that they believe constellations of satellites will interfere with ground-based astronomy.
In October 2024, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) issued a statement against space advertising. It includes the following lines concerning its position: “Increasing humanity’s scientific understanding of the universe depends on clear and unobstructed views of the cosmos,” and, “That enterprise is currently under threat from activities in space, including the proliferation of large satellite constellations,” and, “This kind of use of outer space represents a presently unknown, but potentially serious, threat to the pursuit of astronomical discovery using ground-based facilities.”
They released this message: “We can confirm StartRocket performed an exploratory test for stratosphere advertisements using the Adrenaline GameChangers logo. This was a one-time event; we have no further plans to test or commercially use this technology at this time.”
It will be interesting to see if other companies and countries continue developing space advertising technology.
“The lure of it is so great that I can’t imagine that no one will try,” said John Barentine of Dark Sky Consulting, and a member of AAS’s Committee for the Protection of Astronomy and the Space Environment. “I think the commercial value will prompt somebody to do it.”
Artist image of space advertising over a European city. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
China Airlines is bringing the love with a special sale for North American markets. Those looking for a romantic getaway can take advantage of a Valentine’s Day promotion happening now until 23 February.
Love is in the Air
China Airlines issued a press release on Monday kicking off a special Valentine’s Day sale for North American travelers. The airline is offering a 12% discount on fares from North America to Asian destinations.
The promotion lasts until Sunday 23 February. The list of eligible departure cities include New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, and Vancouver.
China Airlines’ statement indicates ‘all online destinations’ are applicable in the promotion. Though a few romantic destinations the airline gives include Kyoto, Japan, Hanoi, Vietnam, Bangkok, Thailand, Penghu County, Taiwan, and Seoul, South Korea.
The furthest flight date one can book to claim the promotion is 15 May, 2025. This gives couples and families three months to book a relaxing spring getaway.
For those uncertain about what to expect when flying with China Airlines, here’s a rundown of the in-flight experience.
Aboard many flights from China Airlines, in-flight entertainment is available. Travelers can stream content, play games, or listen to music from their screens. The airline also introduces the ‘Fantasy Sky’ Wi-Fi, allowing you to stream and play from your own mobile devices.
For premium economy travelers, China Airlines has collaborated with MOSCHINO and Roots to present in-flight travel kits featuring one of many collectable colors.
Business and premium business class travelers will also receive a complimentary set of noise-canceling headphones that are lightweight and can be worn for hours at a time.
In terms of delectables, travelers can enjoy a taste of some of the best food and drink Taiwan has to offer.
“Passengers departing from Taiwan to North America can savor Michelin three-star cuisine curated by Le Palais, Taiwan’s most acclaimed restaurant. The airline has also partnered with Wu-Tong Hao, a renowned Taiwanese tea brand, to offer exclusive drinks and desserts onboard,“ stated by a recent press release.
Airplanes and ice have always had an adversarial relationship. Ice can prevent airplanes from getting airborne and should they be airborne, ice will do its best to facilitate an airplane’s hasty return to Earth, willingly or not.
From the earliest days of aviation, airframe icing has been recognized as a significant threat to flight safety. Icing will cause problems for aircraft in two ways. The first is the simple weight that icing can add to an aircraft. Adding thousands of pounds of weight from icing on an airframe can increase stall speeds and prevent an airplane from climbing out of icing conditions.
U.S. Air Force photo by Alejandro Peña
The second pernicious effect of airframe icing is the addition of drag and the destruction of a wing’s ability to create lift. As you’ll recall, lift is generated due to the Bernoulli effect with regards to the flow of air over the wing. Faster moving airflow over the wing has lower dynamic pressure than the air passing beneath. This pressure differential generates the lift that keeps airplanes in the sky.
One requirement though is that this airflow must be laminar, or smooth, to work its magic. A coating of ice will destroy the smooth flow of air and result in what is known as boundary layer separation. When this happens, the wing stops producing lift and the airplane drops. As ice progressively coats a wing in icing conditions, the wing’s lifting ability decreases and its drag increases to the point where flight is no longer possible.
Even a layer of frost over the top of a wing can have devastating effects on lift. Roughness approximating a piece of #40 grit sandpaper will reportedly reduce lift by 30 to 40%. This loss of lift can produce disastrous results, especially during takeoff, which is why icing must be taken seriously.
Ice Can Kill On the Ground
Over the years, numerous accidents and incidents have been attributed to airframe icing. One of the most famous ones was Air Florida 90, which crashed into the Potomac River moments after takeoff in a snowstorm in 1982. While the ultimate cause was determined to be pilot error, the series of errors that led to the crash was caused by the pilots’ lack of understanding of the effects of ice on their aircraft.
Specifically, the crew inexplicably failed to use engine anti-icing and also allowed a dangerous buildup of snow to accumulate on the aircraft prior to takeoff. The failure to use engine anti-icing, which heats sensors that determine thrust settings, allowed a false reading from clogged sensors to show that the engines were at full thrust while they were actually set much lower.
The lower thrust, combined with the added weight and increased drag from accumulated snow, prevented the aircraft from remaining airborne. It hit the 14th St bridge 30 seconds after takeoff, killing 69 of the 74 passengers and crew.
And is Also Deadly in the Air
Ice accumulation while airborne has been a well-documented hazard to aviation over the years and also a staple of aviation film drama. Should an airplane fly into what is known as “icing conditions”, supercooled rain droplets will freeze on the surface of an aircraft, leaving a coating of ice. This coating starts at the leading edge of the wing and slowly travels back over the wing, destroying the wing’s ability to create lift as it progresses.
A simpler word for “icing conditions” would be cloud. Any time visible moisture is present and the temperature is below freezing, icing conditions are present, and airframe icing is possible. Airframe icing is categorized as either “rime” or “clear”. Rime icing is opaque in color and easily visible on the aircraft, while clear ice is much harder to see and therefore more difficult to detect.
One of the more recent casualties of airborne ice accumulation was American Eagle 4184, which crashed due to icing-induced loss of control in 1994. The aircraft, an ATR 72 en route from Indianapolis to Chicago, had held in freezing rain conditions while awaiting further clearance to O’Hare. While descending to enter a second holding pattern, the pilots retracted the flaps, which had been extended for the first holding pattern.
Upon flap retraction, the aircraft became uncontrollable, rolling completely at least twice before crashing in a field near Roselawn, Indiana, killing all 64 passengers and four crew. The cause of the accident was attributed to a buildup of ice on the wing, which only became critical after the flaps were retracted.
Many aircraft now have restrictions against holding in icing conditions with flaps extended as a result.
Clean Aircraft Concept
The mitigation of dangers posed by icing before takeoff and while airborne are two very different problems requiring different solutions, but the end objective is the same: to keep ice off the aircraft. And short of keeping an airplane safely in a warm hangar, solutions to icing have become ever more exotic as the dangers of icing have become better understood.
By Nicholas Hartmann (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
After many years of trying to come up with a regulatory framework which could be universally and simply applied, the FAA came up with the Clean Aircraft Concept. This formulation left no wiggle room as to how much freezing precipitation could be adhering to an aircraft readying for takeoff:
The “clean-airplane” concept is derived from U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.629, which states, “No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section. Takeoffs with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks may be authorized by the Administrator.”
The FAR also prohibits dispatch or takeoff any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the airplane, unless the certificate holder has an approved ground deicing/anti-icing program in its operations specifications that includes holdover time (HOT) tables.
The aim of this simple regulation was to put an end to the guessing game of how much snow and ice can safely be on the aircraft for a takeoff. The short answer is none (with occasional frost, but only on the underside of the wing). No one would be able to say “oh, it’ll blow off during takeoff”, or ” the exhaust from the plane taxiing ahead of us will melt the snow”. The airplane had to be clean. Period.
Don’t Drink the Deicing Fluid
Dating to the 1950s and earlier, deicing fluid for use on aircraft was based on ethylene glycol, commonly used as an automotive antifreeze solution, or sometimes even ethyl alcohol (the drinking kind). Due to its toxicity to animals, ethylene glycol was mostly replaced by propylene glycol in the 1980s. Ethyl alcohol fell out of favor as a deicer after World War II due to its popularity as a jaw lubricant with ground crews in Russia and other places. New fluids have been introduced over the years that not only remove ice but also inhibit further accumulation.
It is important to make the distinction between the terms “deice” and “anti-ice” because they mean different things, and the fluids used in each application are also different. The term deicing refers to removing existing snow and ice from an aircraft, while anti-icing means applying a fluid that inhibits continuing frozen precipitation from adhering to aircraft surfaces.
Specialty fluids have been developed over the years for these two separate functions. For most applications, fluids used to deice aircraft are known as “Type I” fluids, while anti-ice fluids are “Types II, III, and IV”. They function differently.
While Type I fluids are used mainly for deicing, Types II, III, and IV have thickeners included and are designed to adhere to the wing and absorb moisture from additional snowfall or ice accumulations and then shear off the wing during takeoff. This gives extra time between the application and taking off.
This extra time is known as “holdover time” and differs depending on the type of fluid used, its concentration, the type and intensity of the snow or ice coming down, and the outside temperature. We have lots of very complicated charts to figure it all out. If holdover time is exceeded, we go back to the gate and get sprayed again.
A typical Type I fluid will be based on propylene glycol (PG) and will include other ingredients such as corrosion inhibitors, surfactants, wetting agents, and dye. It will usually be diluted with water and heated in the truck to be sprayed on the aircraft.
So, as you sit in your window seat, you might see the trucks make two passes during deicing. The first pass will be with Type I fluid to deice, while the second pass will be to spray Type IV fluid as an anti-icer. Type IV fluid is green in color and sticks to the wing but is designed to shear off.
Deicing Ain’t Cheap
With a quick web search, I found a vendor selling DOW UCAR PG Type 1 fluid in a handy 230-gallon pack for $4250. This will typically be diluted 70/30 with water, making the solution about $13 per gallon. Keep in mind that it may take up to 500 gallons to properly deice a 737 or A320, two common airliners, so you can see that the process is expensive.
Another facet to consider is what happens to all that deice fluid after it hits the ground. Many environmental jurisdictions are starting to require capture and recycling systems for used fluid, which further drives up the costs. Given the thin profit margins of most airlines, it’s likely that flights that have been deiced are marginally profitable or unprofitable.
This begs the question of why airlines even fly in snow. Well, for one, the airline has no sure way to tell when snow will fall, but the more likely answer is that canceling flights prematurely is expensive and kills customer loyalty if the competition is still flying. Plus, aircraft and crews may also be needed elsewhere.
The tarmac delay law, with its substantial penalties for long delays, also contributes to the cancellation equation.
Clean or “Cell Phone Clean”
After many years of ambiguity regarding the question of when and how to deice, everyone from the FAA, the airlines, unions, safety administrators, and aircraft manufacturers is really on the same page concerning pre-takeoff deicing. The airplane has to be clean to take off. On this, everyone agrees.
Photo by: Newkai~commonswiki (CC 2.0)
But in tearing a page from medicine, a new phenomenon of “defensive deicing” is making itself slowly apparent. Airlines managements, while fully onboard with the need to properly deice an aircraft, also don’t want pilots to be spraying thousands of dollars worth of fluids unnecessarily. Thus pilots are routinely bombarded with memos to this effect.
Here is where a pilot’s and the airlines’ incentives may be somewhat misaligned. There are plenty of instances say where flurries may be coming down in windy conditions, where no snow may be sticking to the aircraft. In this case, it is perfectly appropriate, safe, and legal to depart without deicing.
Pilots also know, however, that in the back of the airplane are several hundred cell phone cameras with some owners only too eager to snap a picture of a snow flurry for forwarding to the FAA (believe me, I’ve seen it happen). And the FAA, being the ever loyal guardians of aviation safety, will dutifully send a letter of investigation to a pilot who thought he was doing the right thing, advising him to retain a lawyer and to explain his actions.
Having one’s livelihood potentially threatened does wonders to concentrate the mind and has resulted in a type of bunker mentality. If one airplane is getting sprayed, they all seem to end up getting sprayed if there’s even a flurry still in the air.
And should the hourly weather observation list frozen precipitation at an airport, deicing seems to always continue regardless of whether snow is actually still coming down 45 minutes later or not. And so it goes.
But there’s no doubt that a certain measure of over-caution, while an inconvenience, never ended with an airplane in the Potomac.
