Consolidated "Channel 9 Availability" Discussion Thread [ARCHIVE]
 

UA 294 from SFO to BWI was nearly three hours late due to weather yesterday (2/15). As the 2:37 departure time slipped to 5:15, I got an email update that my upgrade had cleared, and shortly thereafter I took the last seat in first on the A319, 2D. I settled in, got the welcome OJ, and asked the purser about channel 9 availability. Nope, he said, its in the Captain's discretion and that was the first point he had mentioned in the preflight briefing. I said I was disappointed, but understood the captain makes the call, and settled in for the flight.
A few minutes later, the captain appeared to welcome and brief the fc cabin on the flight expectations: a bumpy climb out expected, strong tail-winds should cut time out of the flight etc, and thanked us for flying. I asked him why no channel 9, and he explained that it wasn't worth the hassle to him: a passenger had made a report to the FAA about a missed approach and go -around due to wind shear when a buddy was piloting, and although everything had been done by the book, the hassle of the investigation was not worth it. I understand that, but... I explained that I had many times learned more by listening to channel 9 and understood what was going on better, and had been very impressed with how a number of UA pilots had worked with ATC to go around weather and expedite routings. After a short discussion, he asked whether I was trying to make a case for turning channel 9 on. You got it, I said, and with that, he agreed. Channel 9 was with us from push-back to the gate at BWI. The climb out (and the entire flight) was smoother than promised.
Kudos to the captain.
Ed

I was flying through DEN last week listening to ch9 when we had a go around due to wind shear. No more than 5 sec after the engines spooled up chan 9 went silent. I understand why but is sure is annoying that it goes off just when it get fun.

Yeah sigh. Not to mention I don't really like the idea that pilots are thinking about "need to turn off chan 9 to avoid any complaints" right in the middle of a procedure like a go-around, or split flaps, or any other irregular event. Would be nice if pilots were prohibited from fiddling with such silly details when they are not at cruise. (I am no pilot, and I mean no insult to the skill and multitasking ability of pilots, and no doubt the ability to turn off chan 9 is a single switch and pilots are so professional they would never do anything thinking it would be a distraction etc. But lets not forget experienced pilots have crashed planes while trying to change a lightbulb before.)

Edit: Forgot to mention big ^^ to OP for his persuasive reasoning and the pilot for being so responsive to valuable customers!

I'll do the same. I am normall one of the first on the plane, I identify myself as a GS and politely ask the crew about Ch. 9. If the Capt. comes back, if I haven't got an answer, or one that I liked, I'll ask again...it has worked.

Skip the GS mention and make your request directly ... sometimes explaining why it's of interest can provide a different response. Just don't throw a fit if they say no ;)

Funny this came up, because I've heard this several times as well. I've spoken with several current and former FAA employees of varying levels that have worked on the United certificate and I've asked them if they've heard of people writing FAA to complain about things they've heard on Channel 9. While each claimed they try to respond and take all customer complains seriously, only one had ever heard of a complaint based on something that was heard on Channel 9, and they said it was taken with a grain of salt. The FAA appears to be smart enough to know that some idiot listening to Channel 9 after eating cold nuts and pounding some recirculated champagne isn't exactly a qualified expert on go arounds, missed approaches, etc. I think this "my buddy got a call from the FAA" stuff is either an urban legend that spiraled out of control or just a convenient excuse.

Maybe there is this wild "the FAA cracked down on me because some idiot wrote a letter" instance out there but I'm skeptical. Keep in mind this is the same FAA that allowed the Southwest and AA incidents.

I no longer buy this crap when UA pilots circulate it. :td:

The "armchair critic" - I've always loved this approach :td: :rolleyes:

I know this will make absolutely no impact on someone who seems to know better than anyone, but my experience was not second or third hand discussions, but someone who had just gone through the review process due to a ch 9 sourced complaint (its been a few years now). We started talking after the flight when I indicated I was curious why ch 9 was not available. It was clearly real with the open discussion we had regarding the process, etc. but I know, I was mistaken, sure - right :p

Agreed here. I think its urban legend or excuses.

You do realize that if that were the case then most pilots would turn on Ch 9 only while at cruise, don't you?

The switch is not turned off by the guy flying the go-around, it's turned off by the other guy who's doing all of the switch flipping, checklist reading and radio talking.

+2

A few years ago, I chatted with a UA pilot who said that he had to go through the hassle of an investigation when a pax reported him to WHQ for "insubordination" and "reckless" flying because he had responded to an ATC request to turn x degrees with "Unable."

Of course, the fact that there were towering thunderstorms in that direction didn't make a difference to the passenger; to him, the pilot was "insubordinate."

The pilot told me that while it was eventually dismissed of course, the PITA factor was huge.

Maybe United makes it a big deal -- I don't know United's internal policies on wackos writing in about Channel 9 -- but I've heard the story as "The FAA came after me" from two pilots and a few times on here and I'm 99% sure that the FAA doesn't do this. That's all I'm saying. I'd rather get a better excuse like the 75 Captain that told me he didn't want to end up on YouTube. :(

Again - armchair critic .... you were told, but you're "sure" so don't believe.

They don't have to give you a reason - and personally, I'd prefer to be just told no (as I've heard more than once) than be told a lie, e.g. this plane doesn't have channel 9. I do NOT, however, have an issue or think I'm being lied to when they bring up the hassle of the idjits in the back misunderstanding something and causing problems for them, an associate or just as hearsay among the ranks. It happens, no doubt about it and turns the pilots off for sharing ch 9 -- as does the b*tching when its not available based on THEIR discretion per the rules.

Sometimes you just can't win and I've now spoken with more than one Pilot who would prefer to have it off - period and to be honest, after reading many of the posts on this forum, I really don't blame 'em!!

Yeah, I've definitely had it turned off more than a few times during maintenance issues. Mostly as we're jussssssssssst about to get to the runway. :mad:

Yea, I don't quite understand the mindset of the person who is sitting in the back and feels they have the wherewithal to decide what is right and wrong as heard on ch9. UA should just crumple such complaints and toss them into the loony bin. The switch for Ch9 should be soldered into the on position.

Are other airlines less safe because they don't have passengers policing their pilots ATC comm? No

One of my most memorable ch9 experiences was a PS flight exSFO and right as we were down to about 12,000 ft into JFK on a rainy wild night, the pilot comes on to tell everyone that JFK had been shut down and that we would be landing at EWR. At that point I turned on ch9 and listened for the next 15 or so minutes as we change course for EWR. Needless to say the diverted landing was making lots of unhappy fliers. About five minute before we were suppose to land at EWR on ch9 our flight gets cleared "direct JFK." I lean across the aisle to tell the people I am traveling with and a few others in earshot that we are going to land at JFK again. They don't believe me as the captain hasn't yet made an announcement, my guess was he was just too busy. Finally about five minutes later the captain comes on to say we got rerouted at the last minute and will be a JFK momentarily as originally planned.

i had a recent flight where i asked the pilot directly about channel 9 and he--and the co-pilot--basically said 'as long as it doesn't end up on youtube or that thing my daughter spends all her time on, facebook.' i agreed, obviously, and channel 9 was on for the duration. ^

they also made a joke about wanting to see my 'i am not a lawyer' card. i'm with GoingAway in that i can see why some pilots would rather avoid the hassle altogether, although it's one of my favorite things about flying united.