The Capitalist!!!

This is Nigeria. anything you see, you just have to take it like that…copied😀

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@afalli 👌🏿

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@beri_grizou Olodo uprising 😀

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@maxsiollun A great read any day 👌🏿

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@thecableng @DangoteGroup Staff showing Alhaji pepper 😀

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@tokunbo_wahab 😀😀😀😀😀

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@bin_gbada @_mrsmalaprop 😀😀

[ye @kanyewest]

Thank you Edi Rama and to all of Albania for building a stadium and welcoming me into your beautiful country

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@jharmo 😀😀😀

[Lagos Updates @Mylagosupdates]

I have told everyone who cares to hear that if we clean up our canals properly, no one will talk about climate change again. Na stick I go carry find climate change activist for this Lagos. 🤭If we do the basics everything else will work out.
@lagosstategovt
📹ericityproperties

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@nerdy_deb @__Shola 😀😀

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@Letter_to_Jack Who we Dey play o !!! ?

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@nerdy_deb @K_Basharr 😀😀

[Emerald 💚 هداية @Mz_Tosyn]

Alhamdulillah 🤲🏾🤲🏾🤲🏾

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@nerdy_deb 😀😀😀

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@NigeriaStories Mouth diarrhea

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@0xkitng 😀😀😀

[Elyon @0xkitng]

That video somehow got on a foreign aviation page on Instagram, and as expected, many of the comments focused on the safety implications.

I checked the profiles of some of the people commenting, and some of them are military engineers and technicians who work on the Huey platform.

Yet, some people here want you to believe that what happened was completely normal, posed no safety concerns, and was simply standard procedure.

[Elyon @0xkitng]

The problem with your argument is that it equates the existence of a protective feature with proof that the aircraft remained within its intended landing envelope.

Yes, the Bell UH 1H is fitted with a tail skid. However, the engineering purpose of a tail skid is to mitigate the consequences of an abnormal tail low attitude, not to validate that the landing profile was correct.

As aerospace engineers, we distinguish between protective design features and normal operating procedures.

Aircraft are filled with features that exist solely because engineers recognize that deviations, errors, or unforeseen conditions can occur. Landing gear has energy absorbers. Airliners have overtravel stops. Rotor systems incorporate structural margins. None of these imply that operating at or beyond those limits is considered normal simply because the protection exists.

The tail skid is a sacrificial protective component. Its primary functions are to provide limited protection for the tail boom and tail rotor, absorb minor contact loads, and alert the pilot that the helicopter has reached an undesirable pitch attitude. Those functions are intended to reduce damage if a tail low condition develops. They are not evidence that routine ground contact by the tail skid is an intended landing technique.

In fact, one of the points you listed contradicts your conclusion. You stated that the tail skid “provides a warning to the pilot.” A warning system exists because the aircraft has entered a condition requiring corrective action. It does not certify that the condition itself is desirable.

From an engineering and flight operations perspective, the objective of a properly executed landing is a controlled touchdown within the certified operating envelope, followed by a stable settling of the aircraft while maintaining adequate clearance from structural limits. If the touchdown sequence includes a significant rebound, continued forward travel before settling, or an attitude that leaves the tail skid with minimal clearance or in contact with the ground, that is not the ideal landing profile the aircraft was designed to achieve.

Whether that deviation was caused by pilot technique, environmental conditions, aircraft loading, terrain, or operational necessity can only be determined through a proper investigation. This is also why mere presence of a tail skid can not be used as proof that the landing was normal.

This is precisely why aviation organizations conduct inspections after suspected tail strikes or abnormal landings. You are also avoiding a core engineering question which is “why did the aircraft reach a condition where the tail skid was required, and were any structural loads introduced beyond what was intended during normal operations?”

A safety feature should never be interpreted as proof that the event requiring it was itself safe or intentional. It exists to reduce the consequences of a deviation, not to redefine the deviation as acceptable.

[The Capitalist!!! @pfmilan]

@HeDontMakeNoise 😀