Saw this yesterday. Obviously too much weight in the rear but is this something that can happen when it’s not a bunch of heavy football players? Do airlines usually balance the cargo better to prevent this?
USC Football team plane…how does this happen?
- Thread starter RhondaHonda
- Start date
Saw this yesterday. Obviously too much weight in the rear but is this something that can happen when it’s not a bunch of heavy football players? Do airlines usually balance the cargo better to prevent this?
ESPN says the ground crew didn't put a "tail stand" in place and the players in the front had already gotten off. So yeah, football players are certainly bigger than the average person but I'm still somewhat surprised this happened.... Maybe the offensive line players were the ones siting in the back ! 
unTied scAir Lines 
Last edited:
The 737-900 (and I’d assume Max 9 and 10) uses a tail stand - a metal pipe that attaches to the rear belly of the plane to prevent it from tipping. I fly the 737-900 and it’s pretty hit-and-miss that I see it used. But the ramp agents might have protocols that I’m not aware of.
My guess is it’s just a “one in a million” type combination of no tail stand, massively heavy passenger weights, unlucky timing (poorly planned?) of baggage removal and a ground crew unfamiliar with this plane.
It’s almost like the 737 should have never been made this long
From a Google Image search:
My guess is it’s just a “one in a million” type combination of no tail stand, massively heavy passenger weights, unlucky timing (poorly planned?) of baggage removal and a ground crew unfamiliar with this plane.
It’s almost like the 737 should have never been made this long
From a Google Image search:
I didnt know you could carolina squat a plane
We used to have that problem with the ATR-72 but I've never actually seen a jet liner do it. The wind caught my plane one day in Houston and changed the direction it was headed. Scary to watch.
At least it didn't happen while trying to land. Which I believe Astro has mentioned as being a concern with these.
So now how do you recover from this? Have people walk forward one at a time until it tips back down? Open the back door and take people out there?
A back heavy airplane is impossible to fly in control. If the control surfaces can't lift the back enough to stay level, it will pitch up, stall, pitch up and stall, losing altitude each time until it hits the ground. This happened to a cargo plane that had the cargo slide backwards in flight.
"I told you not to let Squatch and Bubba sit in the back!"
That's why CG is so important.
Southwest has been boarding/offloading front and rear. The rear with air stairs, although it's been at some airports without jet bridges. Of maybe have it unloaded evenly and not just front to rear.
I remember hearing about early aircraft that were extremely light in the rear and difficult to control on landing. Supposedly there would be two pilots, and one would climb to the tail to provide ballast. There was a landing field at the Presidio of San Francisco called Crissy Field after Major Dana Crissy, who was an early pioneer of flight on the west coast for the Army Air Corps. I heard a story that he and his observer died when one (possibly the observer) fell off the tail and the plane crashed on landing.
That’s what I wondered as well. Just one at a time heading up front till she starts to tip?
When I worked at the Airborne Express hub in Wilmington Oh about 20 years ago, myself and about a dozen other idiot mechanics were standing in the back of a 60 series DC-8 that was gutted and destined for the crusher that was sitting on a lonely ramp way off to the side of the hangars. I was fairly new and one of them said, "lets show him our little trick" and they counted to three and all jumped at the same time. Ka-BOOM, the nose rose up and the back of the plane went to the ground. It started to right itself but we quickly ran uphill to the front of the plane and got it level again before anyone saw it. I was sure somebody would have noticed it and we would be reconvening in the unemployment line after that little stunt, but nope apparently nobody saw it. Stupid, but fun at the time!
Yep. Ground crew unfamiliar with tail stand requirement.
You want to blame an airline for this?
Blame Southwest, whose relentless desire for bigger and longer 737s to compete in bigger markets, while keeping pilot training costs to a minimum, led to this abomination of an airplane, the -900, along with the entire 737 MAX debacle.
I‘ve been a vocal critic of the 737. This “might fall on its tail without a stick underneath it” is just the most public evidence of a design that should’ve been retired decades ago.
Boeing needed to go clean sheet 15 years ago, and build a new narrow body. Under pressure from Southwest, whose entire business model was built on the 737, they stretched and modified the 737. Now, airlines around the world have to keep a supply of sticks on hand, to put under the tail of their brand new airplanes.
You want to blame an airline for this?
Blame Southwest, whose relentless desire for bigger and longer 737s to compete in bigger markets, while keeping pilot training costs to a minimum, led to this abomination of an airplane, the -900, along with the entire 737 MAX debacle.
I‘ve been a vocal critic of the 737. This “might fall on its tail without a stick underneath it” is just the most public evidence of a design that should’ve been retired decades ago.
Boeing needed to go clean sheet 15 years ago, and build a new narrow body. Under pressure from Southwest, whose entire business model was built on the 737, they stretched and modified the 737. Now, airlines around the world have to keep a supply of sticks on hand, to put under the tail of their brand new airplanes.
Rather than blame Southwest (or United), I'd blame Boeing for building "this abomination of an airplane" and the FAA for approving it.
Scott
Scott
