Third Flight This Month diverted due to “incapacitated pilot”
United Airlines Flight 2007 from Guatemala to Chicago had to be diverted on March 11th due to the pilot becoming ‘incapacitated’ due to suffering chest pains
The flight was diverted to Houston’s George Bush International Airport on Saturday evening.
An emergency was declared “for an incapacitated pilot,” stated a Houston UAL internal document given to CDM Press. (click here)
“UA Flight 2007 GUA-ORD is diverting to IAH. Declaring an emergency for an incapacitated pilot. Gated at E20. Current ETA shows 1747. Unknown if flight will clear here at this time or just re-crew and go. Will advise when information is available. Pilot reportedly taken to a hospital,” states the UAL Operation Center communication.
According to the UAL file, “Left seat Capt had chest pains. Could not get him out of the seat. Right seater landed.”
On Saturday evening, KHOU-TV Houston reported that the airport spokesperson told that news organization that the flight was diverted “due to a medical, technical emergencies”. (click here)
3rd Pilot incident this month so far…
A Virgin Australia co-pilot collapsed in-flight and had a heart attack on Airbus A320 flight from Adelaide to Perth on March 3, 2023 (click here)
See more here substack.com
Header image: Metrovaartha
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
D. Boss
| #
It’s not just the clot shots that are a threat to air travel safety… but the mandates got rid of a whole slew of experienced flight crews, and the mad rush to fill the ranks has both newbies and lowering of standards for getting more pilots behind the controls, and the same issues in ATC, mechanics, etc.
Many major incursion incidents of late are testament to these spin off issues. And now powers that be are shooting for membership in the DIE religion (“Diversity Inclusion and Equity) saying it is more important to have diverse air crews than competent and safe ones.
This both from the FAA and some airline CEO’s.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/woke-airline-policies-threaten-safety-workers-say_4652851.html
And this scathing prediction of tragedy with the continued woke nonsense:
Video is by a retired airline captain, who is on a crusade against bad piloting in general aviation, and incompetence in both the FAA and NTSB. There are structural failures in the commercial aviation system, and these are going to lead to failures.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D. Boss and PSI Readers,
Readers of this article and Boss’s comment are going endorse what Dr William Makis MD and D. Boss have written. How many observations like these are you going to ignore?
Have a good day
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out” at principia-scientific.org > i soloed in 1976 and promptly flewca Cessna 150 through 5,000 ft of cumulus clouds. You have no idea of the dynamic forces in the atmosphere and cannot discuss aviation knowledgeably without personal experience
“Flying Blind” by Peter Robinson on Boeing 737 MAX violations
Delta Whistleblower > https://karlenepetitt.blogspot.com
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Not sure what the inference of the post is, but I am a pilot, and have personal experience.
Anyone who brags about “I soloed in 1976 and promptly flew a C-150 through 5,000 feet of cumulus clouds” – is someone not to be trusted as an aviator! They are lucky to be alive performing such a foolish move as a rookie. It is hammered into your feeble brain as a newbie to never fly into cumulus or any type of clouds unless your plane is certified for IFR flight (Instrument Flight Rules), and you yourself have an IFR rating. Which rookie pilots do not have, they must operate on VFR (Visual Flight Rules) only.
Early in my flight training my (IFR rated) instructor taught me the lesson in visceral terms. It was a sunny day with small puffy cumulus clouds, scattered at 2,000 feet (AGL). He took controls and flew towards a small one and told me to look out the window of the C-150 down at the left main wheel – literally 20 seconds after entering the small puffy cloud, was visible rime ice on the leading edge of the tire! Then he asked me if I thought we were straight and level, without looking at the instruments and I replied in the affirmative. He then popped out of the small cloud and I was astonished and alarmed that we were in a 45 degree right bank. That excursion into a small puffy cloud lasted 45 seconds and the lesson hit home in my feeble brain and gut! (don’t ever do this)
You can completely loose control in under a minute if you try something stupid like fly into IMC. (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). (by the way my fist solo was also in 1976)
In fact half a dozen GA (General Aviation) pilots die every month for the past several years by doing stupid things like this.
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph and PSI Readers,
How blind are the FAA and evidently nearly everyone in the aviation industry. The horizon airfoil off at the tail of the 735 Max was totally different from the standard horizon airfoil which had a large portion of the tail airfoil was stationary with a small moveable trailing edge. The total rear airfoil of the 735 Max was moveable and a tiny movement had a large influence. Hence the need of a computer controlled system to frequently make these frequent tiny adjustments. Except as Joseph explained the air through which a plane flies can be quite turbulent (why one is asked to put on the seat belts) and the adjustments needed much large. Hence the adjustments can get out of control as it oscillates up and down wildly.
Joseph, please ask Karlene about this significant change of design.
.
Have a good day
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Jerry:
Not sure where you got this info, but it is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect. The horizontal stabilizer of a B737 has always been moveable to control pitch. And all 737’s have small “elevator” panels at the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer airfoil. These elevator panels are the primary pitch control and respond to the pilots pulling or pushing the control yoke.
The stabilizer can also move and it pivots about an axis just rearward of the chord line of that airfoil. This affords a “pitch trim” effect. That is to say under various power, speed and attitude conditions, you do not want pilots to have to exert constant pitch forces on the control column. So you can adjust the pitch trim which rotates the entire horizontal stabilizer about it’s pivot, so as to neutralize the control column forces required to hold a particular attitude of pitch.
Pitch trim is accomplished by 3 methods: 1) via the large wheels on both sides of the throttle quadrant. 2) via electrical switches on each pilot yoke, on the left side for the captain and the right side of the yolk for the first officer. it’s a 3 way momentary toggle switch with off being the spring return position, forward for pitch trim down and back for pitch trim up. 3) automated pitch trim control via the autopilot system.
The Max made some structural changes – which caused an increased tendency to pitch up with added engine power. So they very well may have used a new airfoil on the horizontal stabilizer, but they still have elevator panels and it still pivots for pitch trim. The debacle was they added a software routine to pitch down called MCAS which they did not inform pilots and operators about or how to disable MCAS if it actuated in error – causing two crashes and the Max being grounded.
At no time are “frequent tiny adjustments” needed that can only be accomplished by computer! You can manually fly any Boeing airliner just fine, and only need minor pitch trim corrections.
If you want accurate, first hand information about this, see the following videos, and you can contact Mentour Pilot himself, who is a working Captain, flying the 737-800, and who is a line training captain and a check airman for the 737.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs10y4Uagc0 (Boeing 737MAX Cockpit Tour)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlinocVHpzk (Boeing 737 Stall Escape manoeuvre, why MAX needs MCAS!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNOVlxJmow (Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight sim))
The last video above shows precisely how the horizontal stabilizer and the elevators work on all virtually all airliners, including the Max.
Small planes like the C-150 have a fixed hor stabilizer with moveable elevator panels. Some small planes like a Piper Cherokee have a “stabilator” which the whole hor stabilizer acts as the elevator and pivots like the pitch trim on an airliner. Pitch trim on small planes is via “trim tabs” which are smaller yet surfaces that can pivot at the trailing edges of the elevator, to force the correct pitch control angle via aerodynamic forces.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D. Boss,
“Not sure where you got this info, but it is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect. The horizontal stabilizer of a B737 has always been moveable to control pitch. And all 737’s have small “elevator” panels at the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer airfoil. These elevator panels are the primary pitch control and respond to the pilots pulling or pushing the control yoke.”
I have read much about the ‘history’ of the B737 and some of which you just wrote. However, you have not described any accounts of how a pilot, or two, had prevented .the crash of his plane by shutting off the computer control and struggled to get his oscillating plane under control and to land it successfully.
And I have read that the Wright Bros observed soaring birds and observed how subtly these birds controlled the path of their soaring without any noticeable action. Hence, it was only when one bother noticed what happened when he twisted a rectangle match box that he saw how to “subtly” control the flight path of their airplane after they had studied the subtle shape of its wings needed to lift their airplane from the ground.
And I have seen how the “small “elevator” panels at the trailing edge of the horizontal wings are used to subtly control the flight path of a modern passenger airliner. There is nothing subtle about the ‘movement’ of the total “horizontal stabilizer airfoil at the tail of a large plane.”.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D.,
Watched the SIM video and now notice that you have written: “The last video above shows precisely how the horizontal stabilizer and the elevators work on all virtually all airliners, including the Max.”
You describe that virtually all airliners have two parts “horizontal stabilizer and the elevators” and I agree with this. However I ask, how many of these all airliners have a moveable horizontal stabilizer? And to my knowledge the answer is none except the first B737 which the video discloses had the problem which is reviewed in the video. Notice the fact that the simulator pilots did not use any elevator controls to FIX the problem being encountered.
You have alluded to that the controllable (movable) horizontal stylizer) was to offset the plane’s changing “enter of mass” as passengers lined up to use its rest rooms. Or, even the seating of passengers according to their weights, to achieve the maximum efficiency at cruising altitude and speed. Which design modification was introduced with the first 737. And we ere shown that the FAA should have long known about this problem with the production of the first 737.
You initially wrote: “These elevator panels are the primary pitch control and respond to the pilots pulling or pushing the control yoke.” In the video we see that the pilot is having great difficulty moving these small elevators panels which are the primary pitch control. This, because he trying to move the large “horizontal stabilizer” which is the primary pitch control, I assume.
Have a good day
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Jerry:
I find your position almost not worthy of a response, due to the blatant ignorance you admit to. You admit to not reading all of my post, and clearly did not watch or comprehend that the last video I selected is an example of the difference between pitch trim and normal elevator control.
The last video describes how to deal with runaway or broken pitch trim system. Hence why “Mentour Pilot” has to use both arms pulling back on the control column while the 1st officer is attempting to crank the pitch trim wheel – which on the 737-800 still has a physical cable connection to the jack screw which actuates the horizontal stabilizer.
Yes, the moveable horizontal stabilizer has enormously more potential force affecting pitch than do the smaller elevator surfaces. Which is why the stabilizer is actuated by a jack screw (acme screw thread and nut). The pitch trim has enormous mechanical advantage, such that one turn of the pitch trim wheels might produce a tiny fraction of a degree of angular stabilizer movement, whereas the 15 degree swing fore and aft of the control column can move the elevators up and down by +30/-20 degrees.
The elevators are the primary pitch control, and the moveable stabilizer is the pitch trim system. And why we use moveable stabilizers for faster and swept wing aircraft has to do with lower drag for a trim system and mach effects approaching speed of sound, which airliners fly at 0.8 to 0.85 mach. Which I did not mention as that level of detail was not relevant to the topic.
As to whether or not most airliners use a moveable horizontal stabilizer, here are some links:
https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/trimmable-horizontal-stabiliser
https://www.satcom.guru/2019/07/movable-stabilizer.html
And from this I quote:
“The first jet Air Transport, the Comet, used a fixed stabilizer. All jet transport following used a trimmable/flyable stabilizer.”
This quote being from D. P. Davies, Handling the Big Jets, third edition.
All Boeing planes have moveable stablizers, as do all Airbus planes. So do most turboprops and small regional jets. An infamous crash of an Alaska Airlines MD83 near San Diego was a result of the jackscrew failure in the nose down position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261
Even Gulfstream business jets use a moveable stabilizer and there is a gearbox and driveshaft between the wing flaps and the stabilizer to compensate for the pitch up that occurs when deploying flaps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiWEmkiJKoo (Gulfstream Aft Equipment Area)
At time 2:50 we see the driveshaft between the flaps and horizontal stabilizer, with a gearbox inline to move the entire stabilizer in response to flap position. And yes it has trim wheels precisely as the 737, which move the stabilizer for pitch trim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh4ZZ4QINu0 (Gulfstream G-IV Trim (The Black and White Wheels)
In the above video at time 2:29, if you pause the video and look just to the left of the control yoke on the instrument panel, you will clearly see a round dial with two needles. This is the flap and stabilizer position indicator. As the flaps are deployed to 10, 20 and 39 degrees, that driveshaft and dwell gearbox moves the stabilizer to corresponding positions and in flight part of the checklist is to verify that both flaps and stabilizer positions agree after you select a flap position.
Whatever gibberish you were going on about is false, and your taking positions that are not supported by evidence or real knowledge and then pressing your ignorant viewpoint is frankly akin to looking at a cloudless midday sky and claiming that the sky color is brown!
Reply
Howdy
| #
“you have not described any accounts of how a pilot, or two, had prevented .the crash of his plane by shutting off the computer control and struggled to get his oscillating plane under control and to land it successfully.”
Switching to manual trim recovered a plane in such circumstances.
https://youtu.be/_T5xhHzZjPQ?t=673
Reply
Howdy
| #
The max was a bodge up of the 737 NG, which also has a movable horizontal stabilizer. http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Pitch.
A pdf: https://www.737ng.co.uk/B_NG-Flight_Controls.pdf
Regarding computers to operate the control surfaces, computers won’t prevent the tailplane from being ripped off due to hard input from pilots.
Reply
eagle eye
| #
In Australia public companies listed on the Stock Exchange operate under continuous disclosure rules which require those entities to keep the market informed of matters which may materially affect the share price. I would have thought that the sudden occurrence of serious pilot health issues coinciding with receipt of the clot shots would have been something the marketvwould like to be informed about. After all an airline without pilots is pretty much fucked.
What would I know, I am.only a farm boy.
Reply