Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:01 pm

A B739 taking USC football up to Washington State had a tail tip incident with people still onboard. Reg: N78448

Image
https://twitter.com/DSJR1/status/143903 ... airport%2F
 
flightwriter
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:53 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:04 pm

Cause and effect, all in one photo.
 
airlinepeanuts
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:16 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:13 pm

That’s why they have a tail stand for the 739. Very prone to tipping.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:20 pm

Is the Max 9 less likely with the engines further forward or do they still employ the tail stand?
 
alasizon
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:20 pm

My guess is they didn't ship a tail stand to PUW in advance and the ramp was a little to quick at offloading
 
User avatar
Sig56
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:25 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:23 pm

Should of been using a tailstand and/or properly download/deplane the aircraft.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10041
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:27 pm

Operator error.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:30 pm

You can see they clearly emptied the front hold and left the back completely full while deplaning. That's a no go.
 
airlinepeanuts
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:16 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:34 pm

Could’ve dual deplaned too.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1715
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:36 pm

flightwriter wrote:
Cause and effect, all in one photo.

Bags from the front unloaded before the pax. OOPS….

SB for tail stand installation inbound from the FAA? It will only end up costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars each, by the time the FAA is done with it.
 
Ossyoos
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:27 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:40 pm

Just an observation. I wonder why they used KLWS instead of KPUW which is the same city the game is being played in. I think the KPUW runway is longer too.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:40 pm

#448 -900ER, Lewiston Idaho, No one injured. Air Stairs at L1 door, Fwd Cargo Door Wide Open, No tail stand, Charter, do not regularly fly into LWS. Unloaded from the front result. SEAMX supporting on scene.
Bad offloading.
Last edited by CALTECH on Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Heinkel
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:42 pm

Question: Is there no idication / warning to the crew, when the load on the front landing gear becomes too light? Before it tips.

Are there any load sensing devices in the front landing gear?
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:51 pm

Heinkel wrote:
Question: Is there no idication / warning to the crew, when the load on the front landing gear becomes too light? Before it tips.

Are there any load sensing devices in the front landing gear?


No.

No.

Computer Load Program sends out a notice that a certain flight is at risk of being tail heavy and tail stand should be used.

Two compressed sensors are on each landing gear.
Last edited by CALTECH on Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15305
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:54 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
flightwriter wrote:
Cause and effect, all in one photo.

Bags from the front unloaded before the pax. OOPS….

SB for tail stand installation inbound from the FAA? It will only end up costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars each, by the time the FAA is done with it.


At this point, don’t all US 739 operators use tail stands at all airports that see the 739 on a regular basis? Heck, some use them on 738s.
 
User avatar
Sig56
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:25 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:57 pm

Who ground handles in PUW for UA charters like this? Either QX or an FBO.
Last edited by Sig56 on Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
BowlingShoeDC9
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:18 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:59 pm

What sort of checks does a plane have to go through after that happens? I’d imagine it has to be more than just a visual inspection…
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:03 pm

Sig56 wrote:
Who ground handles in PUW for UA charters like this? Either QX or an FBO.


Didn't happen in PUW. Skywest OO, SKW, as UAX flies into LWS from DEN for United, but it is not a mainline station.
Last edited by CALTECH on Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:04 pm

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
What sort of checks does a plane have to go through after that happens? I’d imagine it has to be more than just a visual inspection…


If the damage is minor, temp repair will be performed and it will probably be ferried back to a MX Station. There is a ongoing inspection being performed. Inspect tail area, emphasis on the pressure dome.
Last edited by CALTECH on Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:06 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
flightwriter wrote:
Cause and effect, all in one photo.

Bags from the front unloaded before the pax. OOPS….

SB for tail stand installation inbound from the FAA? It will only end up costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars each, by the time the FAA is done with it.


At this point, don’t all US 739 operators use tail stands at all airports that see the 739 on a regular basis? Heck, some use them on 738s.


Some ramp crews use them all the time, others do not. Usually there is a warning put out that a flight is at risk of tail tipping, but it's computer generated.
 
Adipocere
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:35 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm

How did the pax get off if this happened with people inside? I don’t see a slide deployed.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:13 pm

Adipocere wrote:
How did the pax get off if this happened with people inside? I don’t see a slide deployed.


Heard the passengers slowly walked forward until the nose gently came back down. No injuries reported, on the ramp or in the aircraft.
 
codc10
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:42 pm

CALTECH wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
How did the pax get off if this happened with people inside? I don’t see a slide deployed.


Heard the passengers slowly walked forward until the nose gently came back down. No injuries reported, on the ramp or in the aircraft.


That usually does the trick for a tail tip.

I assume a tail stand will be loaded as standard equipment on 739 charters to offline stations going forward…
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:02 pm

I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.

As others have already pointed out this was a charter flight, there was nothing loaded in the rear compartment of the aircraft, so for those wondering why the rear compartment door is not open there was no need to open the rear as all the bags and equipment fit in the forward compartment. The issue started when some of the team buses was late arriving to the airport. According to the report this was a nearly full flight passengers seated forward of the wing disembarked as their were some buses there to take them but the passengers from the emergency exit row 21 and back remained onboard while waiting for more buses to arrive.

The problem is this there were 95 football players seated aft of the emergency exit row and no one stop the ramp from downloading the forward compartment which had enough weight to counter the weight of the players. However once ramp downloaded enough cargo out of the forward compartment their was nothing upfront to stop the tail tip from taking place at that moment.

There are two things that could have prevented this tail tip the first indicated in the report is why wasn't a tail stand loaded in the pit when the flight left LAX? The second issue raised is this why didn't the charter representative who works for United (actual United ramp employee part of United's Charter Operation) stop the ramp for offloading the forward compartment the moment it became clear there were buses running late and 95 players would have to remain onboard until the buses showed up?

There is a huge multi layer investigation taking place at this time because the as far as United is concerned this never should have happened because we have procedures in place to prevent this type of event from happening. Looking at emails all I can say is there are quite a few people running for cover on this one trying to blame others but in my opinion there is no place these people to hide.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:33 pm

jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.

As others have already pointed out this was a charter flight, there was nothing loaded in the rear compartment of the aircraft, so for those wondering why the rear compartment door is not open there was no need to open the rear as all the bags and equipment fit in the forward compartment. The issue started when some of the team buses was late arriving to the airport. According to the report this was a nearly full flight passengers seated forward of the wing disembarked as their were some buses there to take them but the passengers from the emergency exit row 21 and back remained onboard while waiting for more buses to arrive.

The problem is this there were 95 football players seated aft of the emergency exit row and no one stop the ramp from downloading the forward compartment which had enough weight to counter the weight of the players. However once ramp downloaded enough cargo out of the forward compartment their was nothing upfront to stop the tail tip from taking place at that moment.

There are two things that could have prevented this tail tip the first indicated in the report is why wasn't a tail stand loaded in the pit when the flight left LAX? The second issue raised is this why didn't the charter representative who works for United (actual United ramp employee part of United's Charter Operation) stop the ramp for offloading the forward compartment the moment it became clear there were buses running late and 95 players would have to remain onboard until the buses showed up?

There is a huge multi layer investigation taking place at this time because the as far as United is concerned this never should have happened because we have procedures in place to prevent this type of event from happening. Looking at emails all I can say is there are quite a few people running for cover on this one trying to blame others but in my opinion there is no place these people to hide.


Nothing in the rear hold on a Football charter on a narrow body? I'm surprised to hear that with all the equipment needed.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:37 pm

Really embarrassing for United. The worst kind of advertisement for the company.
 
sagechan
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:41 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.

As others have already pointed out this was a charter flight, there was nothing loaded in the rear compartment of the aircraft, so for those wondering why the rear compartment door is not open there was no need to open the rear as all the bags and equipment fit in the forward compartment. The issue started when some of the team buses was late arriving to the airport. According to the report this was a nearly full flight passengers seated forward of the wing disembarked as their were some buses there to take them but the passengers from the emergency exit row 21 and back remained onboard while waiting for more buses to arrive.

The problem is this there were 95 football players seated aft of the emergency exit row and no one stop the ramp from downloading the forward compartment which had enough weight to counter the weight of the players. However once ramp downloaded enough cargo out of the forward compartment their was nothing upfront to stop the tail tip from taking place at that moment.

There are two things that could have prevented this tail tip the first indicated in the report is why wasn't a tail stand loaded in the pit when the flight left LAX? The second issue raised is this why didn't the charter representative who works for United (actual United ramp employee part of United's Charter Operation) stop the ramp for offloading the forward compartment the moment it became clear there were buses running late and 95 players would have to remain onboard until the buses showed up?

There is a huge multi layer investigation taking place at this time because the as far as United is concerned this never should have happened because we have procedures in place to prevent this type of event from happening. Looking at emails all I can say is there are quite a few people running for cover on this one trying to blame others but in my opinion there is no place these people to hide.


Nothing in the rear hold on a Football charter on a narrow body? I'm surprised to hear that with all the equipment needed.


It's usually just player gear, team gear is usually trucked in beforehand.
 
sprxUSA
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:17 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:43 pm

Maybe they should deplane only from the rear from now on lol.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4497
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:24 pm

CALTECH wrote:
Sig56 wrote:
Who ground handles in PUW for UA charters like this? Either QX or an FBO.


Didn't happen in PUW. Skywest OO, SKW, as UAX flies into LWS from DEN for United, but it is not a mainline station.


It's my understanding that UA does not start service to LWS until October 5th...

SkyWest COULD have ground handled it anyway but they are there on the Delta Side, not UA.

Definitely a big Oops all around! Unfortunate this happened even with procedures in place.

Alex
 
mcg
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:29 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.

As others have already pointed out this was a charter flight, there was nothing loaded in the rear compartment of the aircraft, so for those wondering why the rear compartment door is not open there was no need to open the rear as all the bags and equipment fit in the forward compartment. The issue started when some of the team buses was late arriving to the airport. According to the report this was a nearly full flight passengers seated forward of the wing disembarked as their were some buses there to take them but the passengers from the emergency exit row 21 and back remained onboard while waiting for more buses to arrive.

The problem is this there were 95 football players seated aft of the emergency exit row and no one stop the ramp from downloading the forward compartment which had enough weight to counter the weight of the players. However once ramp downloaded enough cargo out of the forward compartment their was nothing upfront to stop the tail tip from taking place at that moment.

There are two things that could have prevented this tail tip the first indicated in the report is why wasn't a tail stand loaded in the pit when the flight left LAX? The second issue raised is this why didn't the charter representative who works for United (actual United ramp employee part of United's Charter Operation) stop the ramp for offloading the forward compartment the moment it became clear there were buses running late and 95 players would have to remain onboard until the buses showed up?

There is a huge multi layer investigation taking place at this time because the as far as United is concerned this never should have happened because we have procedures in place to prevent this type of event from happening. Looking at emails all I can say is there are quite a few people running for cover on this one trying to blame others but in my opinion there is no place these people to hide.


Nothing in the rear hold on a Football charter on a narrow body? I'm surprised to hear that with all the equipment needed.


I've watched a number of football charters off load at BJC and often there is nothing in any of the luggage holds. The football equipment is trucked to the game site.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:32 pm

jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.


The damage is not really all that bad even though it looks that way. The way they shined the lighting on it makes it worse than it is. Rivets and some skin change or doublers and she should be good to go. Hearing it will be MX ferried pressurized to IAH for repair.
 
User avatar
DrPaul
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:33 pm

How much and what sort of damage could an accident such as this do to an aeroplane?
 
pdxswa
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:50 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:39 pm

Tail stands on the 738, and 739 are only necessary to tell if the plane is balanced while unloading. If indeed the bags were all up front as was mentioned. And there was a delay in getting the passengers off the plane. The bags should not have been taken off. The passengers should have gotten off then the bags should have been downloaded. If the ramp had no clue as to what was going on. The ops agent or whomever was in charge of the communication with the ramp and the crew on the plane. Should have informed the ramp to not download the plane until the passengers had gotten off. A clear breakdown in communication. This is unfortunate and could have been easily preventable.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:07 pm

jayunited wrote:
There are two things that could have prevented this tail tip the first indicated in the report is why wasn't a tail stand loaded in the pit when the flight left LAX? The second issue raised is this why didn't the charter representative who works for United (actual United ramp employee part of United's Charter Operation) stop the ramp for offloading the forward compartment the moment it became clear there were buses running late and 95 players would have to remain onboard until the buses showed up?


Isn't there a third simple solution? Ask the players in the back to move up front as the people ahead of them get off of the plane. A little foresight might have prevented this damage.
 
jacrowley48
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:20 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:14 pm

The event was obviously traumatic judging by their play on the field. :duck: And I am a USC fan! :fight:
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:11 pm

USC seems to have shaken it off. 28 unanswered points currently. Looks like more on the verge.
 
zuckie13
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:12 pm

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... taff-board

Apparently the coaches and staff were in the back The big guys were up front.
 
RR757
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:33 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
A B739 taking USC football up to Washington State had a tail tip incident with people still onboard. Reg: N78448

Image
https://twitter.com/DSJR1/status/143903 ... airport%2F


Surprised the 737-900 doesn’t have a retractable ‘on the ground’ anti-tailstrike appliance like the 727, 767, Concorde etc.
 
9252fly
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:35 pm

Well, the picture will certainly help the uninitiated appreciate the aviatoin term 'Weight & Balance' if they ever hear it mentioned on future flights.
 
User avatar
DKNEF
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 6:47 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:41 pm

Mabe all the buff football players were seated in the rear..
 
T5towbar
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:44 pm

A tail stand is standard practice on any 900 we handle. There are procedures in the RSM to handle a 900 without a tail stand though.
If we don't have a tail stand, we cannot unload the forward pit until all passengers have deplaned. This is much easier because there is no jetbridge involved, (you can see the deplaning process) and all you had to do was wait till the buses arrived. If nothing is in the back, you must not offload the forward pit. Moving the weight up forward (players) would not have worked. You have to wait until mostly everybody is off the plane, and a 900 is not the fastest airplane to deplane from. This is against policy. Before the use of the tailstands, I've seen the nose jack up like a rocketship as we tried to download front and back at the same time. Usually most places we fly have a tail stand on hand. This is a charter, so procedures should have been in place, and the handlers at that particular airport should have be notified. Also the handler or UA representative should have had access to UNIMATIC, and that would have gave a tail tip warning on the DASG (which is the offload) to have a tail stand on hand, even if they had to borrow one. Also the flight didn't needed to be scanned (bags), so you wouldn't have to have one. The scanner also have a tail tip warning also. This is one of the tools that we use to set up for an arrival.

Players football equipment (major college or professional) usually get trucked in ahead of the players. On Professional charters, there is some equipment on the flight, but not as much as you think.

Our Max 9's do not require the use of a tail stand.

Someone screwed up here..........
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:49 pm

RR757 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
A B739 taking USC football up to Washington State had a tail tip incident with people still onboard. Reg: N78448

Image
https://twitter.com/DSJR1/status/143903 ... airport%2F


Surprised the 737-900 doesn’t have a retractable ‘on the ground’ anti-tailstrike appliance like the 727, 767, Concorde etc.


There is a small tail skid.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:07 pm

CALTECH wrote:
jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.


The damage is not really all that bad even though it looks that way. The way they shined the lighting on it makes it worse than it is. Rivets and some skin change or doublers and she should be good to go. Hearing it will be MX ferried pressurized to IAH for repair.


Oh okay because from the pictures and the damage it looks like the plane hit the pavement with some force. I was telling one of my coworkers this isn't the first tail tip for United but this is the worst damage I've ever seen from a tail tip on a 739ER.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10041
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:10 pm

T5towbar wrote:
Moving the weight up forward (players) would not have worked.


Deplane by highest row number first - everyone in rows 1-20 stay seated?

Practices that don't rely on passenger behavior would be better, of course.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:30 pm

jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.

As others have already pointed out this was a charter flight, there was nothing loaded in the rear compartment of the aircraft, so for those wondering why the rear compartment door is not open there was no need to open the rear as all the bags and equipment fit in the forward compartment. The issue started when some of the team buses was late arriving to the airport. According to the report this was a nearly full flight passengers seated forward of the wing disembarked as their were some buses there to take them but the passengers from the emergency exit row 21 and back remained onboard while waiting for more buses to arrive.

The problem is this there were 95 football players seated aft of the emergency exit row and no one stop the ramp from downloading the forward compartment which had enough weight to counter the weight of the players. However once ramp downloaded enough cargo out of the forward compartment their was nothing upfront to stop the tail tip from taking place at that moment.

There are two things that could have prevented this tail tip the first indicated in the report is why wasn't a tail stand loaded in the pit when the flight left LAX? The second issue raised is this why didn't the charter representative who works for United (actual United ramp employee part of United's Charter Operation) stop the ramp for offloading the forward compartment the moment it became clear there were buses running late and 95 players would have to remain onboard until the buses showed up?

There is a huge multi layer investigation taking place at this time because the as far as United is concerned this never should have happened because we have procedures in place to prevent this type of event from happening. Looking at emails all I can say is there are quite a few people running for cover on this one trying to blame others but in my opinion there is no place these people to hide.


Thanks for the explanation. 90 large men behind the window exits and no one in the front explains it. Looks like bad luck combined with a ground crew that isn’t familiar with the airplane.

At least it isn’t as bad as when United tipped a 747 on its tail a while back



Neither event compares to Frontier who perfectly balanced an A320 with the nose gear up off the ground but without having the tail hit the ground

Image

Source
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/fron ... -stepping/
 
debonair
Posts: 4310
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:50 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:44 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Patroni1 wrote:
No tail stand on the MAX.At least on the -8.


I'm not sure if you were just making an observation, but this is a -900ER, not a MAX.


But curious to know, if this is a common problem only on the -900?
What about the FR B737MAX200 and MAX9/10, do these planes need a tail stand as well?!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10818
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:46 pm

debonair wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Patroni1 wrote:
No tail stand on the MAX.At least on the -8.


I'm not sure if you were just making an observation, but this is a -900ER, not a MAX.


But curious to know, if this is a common problem only on the -900?
What about the FR B737MAX200 and MAX9/10, do these planes need a tail stand as well?!


I believe that no tail stand is required for the MAX9. Dunno about the 10. Sometimes also an issue on the -800.
 
Natflyer
Posts: 660
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:06 am

Patroni1 wrote:
No tail stand on the MAX.At least on the -8.


I don’t fly the MAX, but my airline has warned that tail tipping is a possibility on both MAX 8 and 9.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:36 am

atrude777 wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
Sig56 wrote:
Who ground handles in PUW for UA charters like this? Either QX or an FBO.


Didn't happen in PUW. Skywest OO, SKW, as UAX flies into LWS from DEN for United, but it is not a mainline station.


It's my understanding that UA does not start service to LWS until October 5th...

SkyWest COULD have ground handled it anyway but they are there on the Delta Side, not UA.

Definitely a big Oops all around! Unfortunate this happened even with procedures in place.

Alex


And this happened in Lewiston which Horizon Air , QX, no longer serves (?)

Went by

"Find Your Flights to Lewiston LWS
Cheap flights to Lewiston (LWS)
Airlines that fly to Lewiston (LWS)
You have several options for which airline you choose to travel with to Lewiston. There are 10 airlines flying into LWS: Alaska Airlines, United, Delta......."

"United Cheap Flights to Lewiston from $310 | United Airlines
Search domain united.comhttps://www.united.com/en-us/flights-to-lewiston
Book cheap flights to Lewiston (LWS) with United Airlines. Enjoy all the in-flight perks on your Lewiston flight, including speed Wi-Fi. "

Didn't go any further with UAX...
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA B739 tail tip incident

Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:04 am

Patroni1 wrote:
No tail stand on the MAX.At least on the -8.


Haven't seen one used on the MAX8 MAX9s coming to MCO.

zuckie13 wrote:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32230018/usc-trojans-team-plane-tips-backward-tarmac-coaches-staff-board

Apparently the coaches and staff were in the back The big guys were up front.


Preliminary reports say the big guys were in back behind the emergency exits, about 95 of them. Usually have seen the coaches and staff up front along with some MVPs.

jayunited wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
jayunited wrote:
I've been able to get some information on this incident, the aircraft involved was tail number N78448, it is still grounded at LWS and from the pictures seen internally the external damage is pretty severe.


The damage is not really all that bad even though it looks that way. The way they shined the lighting on it makes it worse than it is. Rivets and some skin change or doublers and she should be good to go. Hearing it will be MX ferried pressurized to IAH for repair.


Oh okay because from the pictures and the damage it looks like the plane hit the pavement with some force. I was telling one of my coworkers this isn't the first tail tip for United but this is the worst damage I've ever seen from a tail tip on a 739ER.


It is one of the worst ones I have seen also. Last I heard it was going to MX ferry at noon tomorrow.

Natflyer wrote:
Patroni1 wrote:
No tail stand on the MAX.At least on the -8.

I don’t fly the MAX, but my airline has warned that tail tipping is a possibility on both MAX 8 and 9.


If one really tries, any airliner could be tipped back on it's tail.....

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos