United Airlines isn’t having a great 24 hours when it comes to its fleet. Yesterday, a United Boeing 777 lost a wheel after takeoff, and today a United Boeing 737 had its gear collapse after landing.
In this post:
United Boeing 737 MAX gear collapses after landing in Houston
This incident happened today (Friday, March 8, 2024), and involves United Airlines flight UA2477, scheduled to fly from Memphis (MEM) to Houston (IAH). The flight was operated by a four-year-old Boeing 737 MAX 8 with the registration code N27290.
The 81-minute flight was routine, and touched down in Houston on runway 27 at 7:58AM, well ahead of its scheduled 8:28AM arrival. Unfortunately things then quickly took a turn for the worse. The plane exited at the very end of the runway, but somehow ended up in the grass, with the left rear gear collapsing.
As of now, the order of events isn’t totally clear — we don’t know if the plane taxied into the grass and that caused the gear collapse, or if the gear collapsed and that caused the plane to end up in the grass.
There were no injuries, and passengers and crew ended up deplaning the aircraft by stairs. When you look at United’s flight status page for this flight, it shows as having arrived 24 minutes early, though the gate is listed as “HOLD.” Hah.
The odd part of this United Boeing 737 MAX incident
Here’s what I find so interesting about this incident. Runway 27 in Houston is 10,000 feet long, so that’s a lot more runway than a 737 needs. So at first I was curious how the plane ended up in the grass at the very end of the runway. Did the pilots just touch down way too late, did they struggle to slow down, or what?
Based on air traffic control audio shared online, you can hear the United pilots requesting to “roll it all the way to the end.” That gets approved by the air traffic controller, but the United pilots are told to “keep [their] speed up.” The reason they’d presumably want to roll to the end is because it makes for a shorter taxi to their arrival gate. Meanwhile the reason the air traffic controller wanted the pilots to keep their speed up is because there’s another plane landing behind them, so you don’t want that maneuver to interfere with another landing.
One wonders what exactly went wrong there. It doesn’t sound like there was an issue right upon landing, or else the pilots wouldn’t have been voluntarily rolling it to the end. So did they keep their speed up too much and then struggle to slow down? Did they try to make the turn off the runway at too high of a speed? Or how did they end up in the grass at the end of the runway? I’m sure this will all become clear pretty soon, after an investigation is performed.
As much as the Boeing 737 MAX gets quite a bit of blame for things, I wouldn’t immediately assume that this is related to some larger problem with the jet. Let’s wait for the investigation before drawing any conclusions.
Bottom line
A United Airlines Boeing 737 MAX suffered a landing gear collapse upon arrival in Houston. Stuff like this happens, but the circumstances are unusual. The pilots requested to roll to the end of the runway (presumably for a faster taxi to the gate), but then somehow ended up in the grass at the end of the runway.
What do you make of this United 737 MAX gear collapse incident?
United Airlines six incidents in one week
HNL to SFO - engine failure over the Pacific
IAH to RSW - engine issue with passengers recording the flames
SFO to KIX - loses a wheel on takeoff
IAH - slides off the runway with a landing gear collapsed
SFO to MEX - diverts to LAX after suspected hydraulic failure.
ORD to SLC - returns to airport after an engine oil warning light
They should of got a landing gear down and locked. A landing is designed when on the ground to be overcentered. Being over centered outwards 93 (aprox) degrees reference wing . Being overcentered , the landing is actually being pushed away from aircraft so it don't collapse. If not being overcentered, ( down and locked) the force will push landing inward and collapsed
So comforting knowing that United is committed to DEI and has vowed that 50% of its new hire Pilots will be of color or female even though there is no way the normal stack of applications would contain that percentage.Shouldnt they be focusing on experience and talent regardless of race and gender?
I’d love for you to show us the data you are looking at for what a “normal stack of applications” looks like.
Also is this the 1980s? Who prints out and stacks applications?
Jack,
United is the only airline that provides a breakdown of their workforce by gender and race on their 10K annual report to stockholders and the SEC. They are the only airline that does that.
They don't break down workgroups = so can't tell just for pilots - and they don't provide two dimensions (ie they provide the number of males vs. females and by race but not gender and race combined).
...
Jack,
United is the only airline that provides a breakdown of their workforce by gender and race on their 10K annual report to stockholders and the SEC. They are the only airline that does that.
They don't break down workgroups = so can't tell just for pilots - and they don't provide two dimensions (ie they provide the number of males vs. females and by race but not gender and race combined).
There isn't any indication that this accident had anything to do with race or gender but the sheer number of incidents that the FAA and/or NTSB is investigating is pause for concern.
The chances that they will find some common themes between the incidents and others that have happened during the past year is actually pretty high
JackJ - seriously, go F yourself you Trump boot licking cuck.
A friend of mine works in pilot training at United. It is going to get worse before it gets better. And, once one of these incompetents gets into the system, you won't be able to get rid of them.
I only fly first class but choose it by fare and route convenience rather than alliance status chasing since all the devaluations. If the technicians are as lazy and uncaring as my first class hosts were on my last 2 United flights I took, then sadly I am not surprised. Delta and American both so much better customer service in my recent flights. And a packet of popcorn as the meal is an insult on a 2 hour first class flight.
...LOL
and there is yet another incident involving a United flight.
UA 821, an A320 operating from SFO to MEX diverted to LAX after a reported hydraulic failure.
I’ve flown that airplane many times, being a Captain for many years on the B737 and based in Houston. It’s not uncommon to ask ATC to roll to the end of runway 27. ATC will ask for you to keep your speed up, but our ops manual clearly states stabilizes approach criteria. I think this article is very speculative. The author of this article doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
no pilot is required to do anything if it jeopardizes the safety of the aircraft even if asked by ATC.
The author of this article accurately notes that a United 737 ended up off the grass. Unlike the presumption that the problem had to be Boeing's problem because the problem is a MAX, the real question is whether this accident was due to lack of control of the aircraft by United pilots.
Coupled with...
no pilot is required to do anything if it jeopardizes the safety of the aircraft even if asked by ATC.
The author of this article accurately notes that a United 737 ended up off the grass. Unlike the presumption that the problem had to be Boeing's problem because the problem is a MAX, the real question is whether this accident was due to lack of control of the aircraft by United pilots.
Coupled with other incidents which may or may not be related, UA maintenance could be under investigation.
The reason the NTSB and FAA are investigating each of these incidents is that they, not any outsiders on the internet, will be able to determine if there are concerning connections.
The article clearly states "As much as the Boeing 737 MAX gets quite a bit of blame for things, I wouldn’t immediately assume that this is related to some larger problem with the jet. Let’s wait for the investigation before drawing any conclusions."
How is that "highly speculative"?
How can you not understand what you're reading when what you're reading is so simple?
Then you know that the gear would not collapse on its own especially at the very end of the landing roll. So since it's likely not a Boeing failure what other options are there? Complete brake failure? You also know that is not possible with the different independent braking systems.
jack,
is it really that difficult for you to consider the POSSIBILITY that the cause might be pilot error which is the leading cause of accidents?
So far no one has negatively criticised the airline industry in the U.S. Where are those who comment about this stuff happening in "Third World countries"? Like those condescending "jokes" about Indonesia in the Batik Air article.
Just look in our own backyards, folks!
it is hypocritical, isn't it?
No property damage in the Indonesia incident - which has happened at other airlines including in the US.
Should we be asking about the pilots personal lives involved in this UA incident?
Nah... let's just blame Boeing.
Boeing builds airplanes. Their customer airlines - in this case United - flies them - and in the case of the 777 yesterday - United maintained that aircraft, not Boeing.
Check the bolts.
Two 737 MAX fall out of the sky. Then a 737 mAX door blows apart mid air. Now a 737 MAX crashes into a grass field.
These all occur in a highly regulated industry where any incident is rarer than being struck by lightning.
And “experts” be like “it may not be the 737 MAX fault”. Bahahahahaha. Delusional Boeing groupies.
this aircraft did not "crash" into a grass field.
It slid off of the runway and the gear collapsed.
The MAX 8 is not designed to operate on soft earth which was the case due to rains in Houston.
In fact, the aircraft was going 30 knots at the time it exited the runway and slid onto the grass.
There is far more reason to believe this is simple pilot error than...
this aircraft did not "crash" into a grass field.
It slid off of the runway and the gear collapsed.
The MAX 8 is not designed to operate on soft earth which was the case due to rains in Houston.
In fact, the aircraft was going 30 knots at the time it exited the runway and slid onto the grass.
There is far more reason to believe this is simple pilot error than that the MAX had anything to do with it.
Boeing is facing alot of scrutiny for lots of reasons but none of the string of incidents at United this week appear to be Boeing's fault.
Three of the incidents didn't even involve MAXs
The United in the grass incident was the lead story on ABC World News Tonight with repeat footage of the 777 wheel loss story and the engine fire incident.
The 777 story was in the first block last night.
No mention of any foreign airline incidents.
Maybe mainstream media is the great equalizer with what takes place with the bias on aviation-related social media.
comment should have gone here rather than as a reply to another comment.
3 of the 4 United incidents this week did not involve the MAX.
A 757-300 shut down an engine enroute from Hawaii to SFO
A 737-900 had an inflight engine stall
A 777-200ER lost a wheel on takeoff.
Even with the latest MAX incident, it is far from clear that there was a problem w/ the aircraft.
Only the...
comment should have gone here rather than as a reply to another comment.
3 of the 4 United incidents this week did not involve the MAX.
A 757-300 shut down an engine enroute from Hawaii to SFO
A 737-900 had an inflight engine stall
A 777-200ER lost a wheel on takeoff.
Even with the latest MAX incident, it is far from clear that there was a problem w/ the aircraft.
Only the landing incident on the MAX 8 at EWR in Feb is a POSSIBLE MAX issue - and then from a supplier, Collins Aerospace - not the aircraft itself - and the Collins Aerospace issue appears to be related to modifications to the servo that UA specifically has chosen.
The trend is much suggests maintenance and pilot issues than any thing to do with the MAX
Finally, a normal 737 Max incident!
We boarded an American Airlines B737 out of Dallas recently. In the welcome aboard PA, the Senior FA said, "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard this 737 flight to Tampa. This is NOT A MAX!"
@OMAAT
Anything on the stuck MAX rudder issues.
Maybe time for FAA to downgrade USA to IASA category 2?
What but the system is rigged.
The NTSB says
On February 28, 2024, the NTSB Systems group met at the Collins Aerospace facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to examine and test the SVO-730 rollout guidance servo removed from the incident airplane. The testing was conducted to evaluate the effects that temperature “cold soaking” of the servo might have on the torque required to move the servo’s output crank arm. Testing at room temperature found that the torque to rotate the...
The NTSB says
On February 28, 2024, the NTSB Systems group met at the Collins Aerospace facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to examine and test the SVO-730 rollout guidance servo removed from the incident airplane. The testing was conducted to evaluate the effects that temperature “cold soaking” of the servo might have on the torque required to move the servo’s output crank arm. Testing at room temperature found that the torque to rotate the servo’s output crank arm was within design specifications. The unit was then “cold soaked” for 1 hour and the test was repeated. That testing found that the torque to move the servo’s output crank arm was significantly beyond the specified design limits. Because the servo output crank arm is mechanically connected to the rudder input torque tube, the restricted movement of the servo’s output crank arm would prevent the rudder pedals from moving as observed during flight 1539 and the test flight. Further examination of the SVO-730 rollout guidance servo will be conducted as the investigation continues.
NOT a MAX.
One common denominator: hurry-up, gotta turn (multiple meanings of that word) these planes FAST, cut corners, increase profits, keep prices down, keep labor costs down, hurry up, cut every corner you can, the bean-counters are on us to get our numbers for the quarter...
It's all about the benjamins. Not about safety.
it's a MAX N27290
Could have been pilot error so it likely would not matter if this was a Max.
Wonder where UA does it maintenance ? Maybe these are related - but I aint getting on ANY United flight -- period - until they get their planes in order.
Looks obvious the pilot drove it off road and weight of plane caused it to sink instantly into the soaked houston grass
this isn't a MAX
WRONG.
You don't even need the registration to know that, just look at the engines:
twisted fan blades + nacelle whose topline is above the wing.
Very much a MAX. That, and we *do* have the reg: N27290... a MAX.
The number of incidents that UA has experienced in such a short period of time is unprecedented and that is not lost on the FAA or NTSB. They could all be unrelated but it is regulators' jobs to determine that.
It is certain that at least some of these - and perhaps all - are airline controllable. the 777 was delivered to United years ago, long before Boeing was accused of manufacturing or design...
The number of incidents that UA has experienced in such a short period of time is unprecedented and that is not lost on the FAA or NTSB. They could all be unrelated but it is regulators' jobs to determine that.
It is certain that at least some of these - and perhaps all - are airline controllable. the 777 was delivered to United years ago, long before Boeing was accused of manufacturing or design problems.
There isn't any evidence that the 777 has a landing gear problem but there have been incidents involving landing gear collapses and failures that are related to maintenance. Even with the Pratt engine blade failures, there was evidence that it had happened before.
Let's also not forget that United had a landing accident at IAH involving a 767 that suffered major damage.
It isn't hard to determine if an airliner was operated according to design specs and, if it was not, then the responsibility is the airline's and not the manufacturer.
And you can be assured behind closed doors that Boeing is going to make certain that it doesn't get pinned with failures that are not its fault. BA is in a big enough hole but the airlines that operate their planes have to be held accountable for problems they cause and not automatically assume the problem is Boeings just because an airline operates an all or predominantly Boeing fleet.
An Alaska jet arrived at Portland with an open cargo door. Was that a design or manufacturing error or simply airline human error in using the equipment?
Unless we hear of systematic groundings involving these fleet types - as happened with the Pratt powered 777s due to the engine problems - the reason is very likely airline related.
An excess number of airline controllable incidents at the same airline in a short period of time will raise red flags
Is it actually confirmed to be a gear collapse, or just internet speculation at this point? It looks more like the left gear exited the taxiway into a drainage area, dug itself in, and not visible in the photos. A single main gear collapsing wouldn’t cause the plane to stand on its tail like that.
Honestly, the 737 MAX can't catch a break.
This is not a comment on the MAX's airworthiness or anything else having to do with MAX safety (or lack thereof), but from a perception issue, this is just going to add more fuel to the negative publicity fire.
And to be honest, it's probably good that a spotlight be kept on such a wayward program.
As we learned during legal discovery: there were Boeing engineers internally writing to each other that (1) they'd have reservations about putting their family on the 737MAX, because (2) it was designed "by monkeys, who were supervised by clowns."
Not exactly confidence-building descriptors, and made by the people who'd know it best.
Like the DC10, I'm fairly certain...
And to be honest, it's probably good that a spotlight be kept on such a wayward program.
As we learned during legal discovery: there were Boeing engineers internally writing to each other that (1) they'd have reservations about putting their family on the 737MAX, because (2) it was designed "by monkeys, who were supervised by clowns."
Not exactly confidence-building descriptors, and made by the people who'd know it best.
Like the DC10, I'm fairly certain that the 737MAX eventually get most of the kinks out, and serve as a decently functional aircraft...... ya know, AFTER having killed a few hundred people.
But until then, I'd say it's great that this thing's always being viewed with an air of suspicion, even on incidents that don't immediately seem like its inherent fault.
Actually, after the initial incidents with the DC-10 it had a pretty good safety record.
3 of the 4 United incidents this week did not involve the MAX.
A 757-300 shut down an engine enroute from Hawaii to SFO
A 737-900 had an inflight engine stall
A 777-200ER lost a wheel on takeoff.
Even with the latest MAX incident, it is far from clear that there was a problem w/ the aircraft.
The trend is much suggests maintenance and pilot issues than any thing to do with the MAX
You also didnt mention the 737 engine surge for United yesterday out of IAH.
Yeah I was just about to say it’s a bad week for UA with Mondays engine surge (fire) over the Gulf of Mexico UA1118 another 737max.
Wasn’t a max. Just a regular NG (-900ER). Max is off the hook… this time haha
it's a MAX N27290
The runway excursion today was a max, yes. The other poster was referencing the engine surge/fire the other day and said it was a max as well. That’s what I was responding to. That wasn’t a max.
UA 1539 also had a stuck rudder on Feb 6 on a max.
That incident turned out to be caused by ingesting bubble wrap that was in the airfield
It’s entirely possible the pilot kept his speed too high into the turn and caused the gear collapse. Would make sense in right turn. Trying it hurry of a runway and turning with too high of speed can cause extreme stress on landing gear
Yeah and when you have hot brakes the braking bite or stopping power its not there.
Seems even more likely given the linked audio that they were just going a bit too fast and that caused them to take the turn wide, ending up with wheels in the grass and causing the gear collapse that way. Seems like the simplest answer.