Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
seat1a wrote:Why is this appearing so frequently now?
LAX772LR wrote:seat1a wrote:Why is this appearing so frequently now?
It should be SOP with double-stretched aircraft, IMO.
Little cost, for knocking out a ton of potential liability.
intotheair wrote:
phlsfo wrote:intotheair wrote:
Why would that ramper walk right in between the belt loader and the cargo door opening right after the aircraft came back down? I wouldn't go anywhere near it until I knew it was secure.
slvrblt wrote:Interesting. I can understand the 737-900's possibly needing a tail stand. But the -800's? I know WN has a bunch, and AA has hundreds of them. I don't think I've ever seen one of the -800's on a tail stand.
morrisond wrote:This could be a really stupid statement but if the 739 COG is so far aft - why don't they shift some of the Fuselage length to in front of the wing so the length of the plane behind the wheels is shorter. Would this not help with Rotation angle as well?
Polot wrote:It might be AS SOP to tail stand all 738/739s so the rampers don't accidentally forget to tail stand the 739 by mistaking it for a 738. Or maybe the OP misidentified a 739 as a 738.
EA CO AS wrote:Polot wrote:It might be AS SOP to tail stand all 738/739s so the rampers don't accidentally forget to tail stand the 739 by mistaking it for a 738. Or maybe the OP misidentified a 739 as a 738.
This. It's better to make it standard for all 738/739/739ER aircraft than to just limit them to the latter two. The stand was designed by AS/UA/DL employees working in conjunction with Boeing engineers. The stand can be extended or retracted by rotating the handles around, and it includes a pair of levels to make sure it's aligned correctly. A compressed gas spring inside the pole helps keep the aircraft balanced. When fully compressed, the mechanism will prevent the tail from dropping too far. The stand weighs about 48 pounds and can be operated by one person. A rubber tip plugs into the aircraft in a designated spot where, typically, maintenance can use a jack to lift the plane.
seat1a wrote:Hello everyone. Just back from a trip (SEA-LAX-SEA) on Alaska Airlines. On the return to SEA, I noticed most of the 737-800's and -900's parked at the gate with tail stands. Honestly, I really had not noticed this until recently. Appeared they were all supported with these yellow and orange (?) stands. What are those stands made of? How do they attach to the rear of the plane? (It looked like there was a latch or something it connected to). Why is this appearing so frequently now?
Thanks!
slvrblt wrote:Interesting. I can understand the 737-900's possibly needing a tail stand. But the -800's? I know WN has a bunch, and AA has hundreds of them. I don't think I've ever seen one of the -800's on a tail stand.
kabq737 wrote:Does the tail stand travel with the aircraft or does the airline just keep one at each gate as if it was a tow bar?
WALmsp wrote:Related question: 727s and DC-9s had the rear stairs, which also acted as a stand. Is there a reason that concept was Is not continued with other aircraft? Is there a significant structural difference between those two aircraft and those engines on the wings that make rear stairs implausible?
Ignorant question, I know, but that's why I'm asking…
WALmsp wrote:Related question: 727s and DC-9s had the rear stairs, which also acted as a stand. Is there a reason that concept was Is not continued with other aircraft? Is there a significant structural difference between those two aircraft and those engines on the wings that make rear stairs implausible?
Polot wrote:WALmsp wrote:Related question: 727s and DC-9s had the rear stairs, which also acted as a stand. Is there a reason that concept was Is not continued with other aircraft? Is there a significant structural difference between those two aircraft and those engines on the wings that make rear stairs implausible?
1) Rear engined planes are typically closer to the ground than underwing engined aircraft, meaning it is easier to integrate a tail stair case.
2) Those are early jets, when commercial aviation was still young and airfields lacking jetbridges or airstairs suited for jet operations was still common. Now basically every airport out there that sees commercial service has staircases they can use for basically any narrowbody and at least a few jetways. Integrated stairs comes with a weight penalty, so nobody wants them if unneeded. Hence why, for example, the 717 lacks them.
Western727 wrote:
No wonder 737s don't have the built-in stairs under door L1 anymore, either.
WALmsp wrote:Related question: 727s and DC-9s had the rear stairs, which also acted as a stand. Is there a reason that concept was Is not continued with other aircraft? Is there a significant structural difference between those two aircraft and those engines on the wings that make rear stairs implausible?
Ignorant question, I know, but that's why I'm asking…