B737MAX [Grounded as of 13 March 2019]

    Hide Wikipost
Old Jun 19, 19, 1:24 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: DenverBrian
Wiki Link
United does not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it does operate the 737 MAX 9.

How to tell if your flight is scheduled to be operated by the MAX 9:

View your reservation or flight status page, either on the web or on the app. United lists the entire aircraft type. Every flight that is scheduled to be on the 737 MAX will say "Boeing 737 MAX 9." If you see anything else -- for example, "Boeing 737-900," it is not scheduled to be a MAX at this time.

The same is true in search results and anywhere else on the United site.

For advanced users: UA uses the three letter IATA identifier 7M9 for the 737 MAX 9.

All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) are currently grounded.
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Mar 18, 19, 11:34 pm
  #571  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,711
I think the whole problem now is credibility - credibility of Boeing, the FAA and the airlines. It sickened me today to see Boeing Chairman Dennis Muilenburg's statement. I hope the truth comes out in whatever criminal and civil cases they are going to face around the world and fundamental changes are made (process, culture, design, etc.) so all these people did not die in vain.
username is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 19, 11:52 pm
  #572  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,853
Originally Posted by username View Post
I think the whole problem now is credibility - credibility of Boeing, the FAA and the airlines. It sickened me today to see Boeing Chairman Dennis Muilenburg's statement. I hope the truth comes out in whatever criminal and civil cases they are going to face around the world and fundamental changes are made (process, culture, design, etc.) so all these people did not die in vain.
Lock Them Up. ...... Lock Them Up!
BF263533 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 7:48 am
  #573  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: UA Gold, low tier elite at several hotel programs named w/ made-up words
Posts: 815
Originally Posted by vkng View Post
ET did not have it either.
Since this is the United thread, does anyone know if UA took the 2nd sensor option?
surram and Aussienarelle like this.
Say Vandelay is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 8:14 am
  #574  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 6,897
Originally Posted by Say Vandelay View Post
Since this is the United thread, does anyone know if UA took the 2nd sensor option?
A second AOA sensor is standard equipment, but I'm not sure whether UA took up the AOA indicator or AOA disagree annunciator. I should point out that UA does not have HUDs installed on any 737s (unlike AA/DL/WN), because low-visibility/CAT III approaches are flown autoland.
EWR764 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 8:26 am
  #575  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: SFO
Programs: UA
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by BF263533 View Post

I wonder if there are similar systems in the new versions of the 777?
Not only that, but what about the 777X folding wingtips? Makes you wonder if the same (or any) care was taken to certify that. I don't believe United has any on order, but from my understanding, not all customers have been identified.

If it's a new Boeing, I'm not going.
surram likes this.
bman1002 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 8:34 am
  #576  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington DC
Programs: Delta DM CO PE OZ GE AMTRAK
Posts: 487
Originally Posted by BF263533 View Post
The FAA should not be certifying the option situation. Blame on FAA also if it is an option situation.

Boeing wanted this plane to act like the other 737s with a common pilot rating. It should not be allowing options on fundamental safety, if that is the case.

It is the 737 mAX, where the "m" is silent.

I wonder if there are similar systems in the new versions of the 777?
i wonder if there are similar systems in the new versions of A320? folks, there are bunch of things people don't know about. don't think Boeing is unique in any of these.
amtrakusa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 8:44 am
  #577  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 6,897
Originally Posted by bman1002 View Post
Not only that, but what about the 777X folding wingtips? Makes you wonder if the same (or any) care was taken to certify that. I don't believe United has any on order, but from my understanding, not all customers have been identified.

If it's a new Boeing, I'm not going.
Among the first posts I made in this thread was to caution against stringing together disparate facts to draw deeply flawed, incorrect conclusions. This would be one of those times.
Xyzzy and ExplorerWannabe like this.
EWR764 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 8:50 am
  #578  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: SFO
Programs: UA
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by amtrakusa View Post
i wonder if there are similar systems in the new versions of A320? folks, there are bunch of things people don't know about. don't think Boeing is unique in any of these.
This is probably a good time to evaluate the certification process of all new planes, but have there been any reports of issues with the A320neo?

Originally Posted by EWR764 View Post
Among the first posts I made in this thread was to caution against stringing together disparate facts to draw deeply flawed, incorrect conclusions. This would be one of those times.
I have nowhere near the knowledge you do in these matters, but in the last week, this has evolved from an issue that seemed to be very hardware specific, into something where we are seeing a failure in the process and institutions around certification. I am not concluding that the 777X is unsafe, I am just saying that I am concerned given the new info that has popped up this week.
surram likes this.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 19, 19 at 12:05 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member
bman1002 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 8:56 am
  #579  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CVG/YYZ
Programs: UA Gold, AC, AA, DL, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 11,416
Originally Posted by username View Post
I think the whole problem now is credibility - credibility of Boeing, the FAA and the airlines. It sickened me today to see Boeing Chairman Dennis Muilenburg's statement. I hope the truth comes out in whatever criminal and civil cases they are going to face around the world and fundamental changes are made (process, culture, design, etc.) so all these people did not die in vain.
This.

When the ET crash occurred, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt - initial reports suggested that there were somewhat different circumstances than Lion Air. Seems like the more that comes out, there were more similar than not (though Lion Air apparently knew the sensors werenít working prior to their fatal flight, and it shouldnít have gone out). And as that happened, and the focus came in again on MCAS, and we learned that pilots not only didnít need to be trained on it, but it wasnít even listed in documentation for pilots to read. And that the FAA gave their blessing with no additional pilot training. What Iím not sure of is how much of this was Boeing failing to even mention it to FAA, vs. FAA knowing yet still rubber stamping Boeingís lackluster training recommendations, presumably made so that airlines would be able to buy the aircraft without Ďneedingí additional training for pilots. How is this even possible. And how did Boeingís CEO really think it was smart to constantly uphold the safety of the aircraft, knowing what he knows about everything behind the scenes (thatís a rhetorical question...but I get liability and not wanting exposure to additional lawsuits).

So the question is not just on this, but how long has stuff like this been going on with Boeing and the FAA? Is the fact that the 777s havenít had major issues a fluke, or is that a result of certification measures that were better at the time? Does the fact that FAA certification is considered as good as the national certification in other countries continue? And what happens to Boeing going forward? Did they really put so many lives at stake just to get an aircraft out X years faster than otherwise. Can they even survive after all the payouts to airlines, penalties, etc. if nothing else, gives Airbus a huge selling point.

Iíll admit I always preferred Airbus to Boeing aircraft, but that opinion was mostly based on the fact that to me, it felt like a more comfortable aircraft. It was never a concern over potential safety issues with Boeing. Now, Iím starting to wonder.

I think I read Lion Air has 200 MAXs in order, and since December, have considered canceling them and giving the orders to Airbus. How many other carriers are now considering this? Will these MAXs ever be allowed up in the air again, and how does that affect the airlines that bought them, particularly airlines like AC who canít really absorb the impact of this with the rest of their fleet (unlike UA who can, since itís such a small portion of the fleet). How long does will it now take to deliver an Airbus after ordering one, and how
quickly will you be able to get a Boeing. Wil Boeing even be able to get people to order their aircraft at cost?

As more and more news comes out, Iím feeling more and more dismayed, and wondering how so many basic things seemed to have been put aside in the creation and certification of this aircraft. Put me down as someone who initially wasnít worried about flying in a MAX, but now definitely am, even when if they are certified to fly again.
emcampbe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 9:02 am
  #580  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 6,897
Originally Posted by bman1002 View Post
I have nowhere near the knowledge you do in these matters, but in the last week, this has evolved from an issue that seemed to be very hardware specific, into something where we are seeing a failure in the process and institutions around certification. I am not concluding that the 777X is unsafe, I am just saying that I am concerned given the new info that has popped up this week.
It's reasonable to be concerned, but what you should know is that nothing has been disclosed that is indicative or even suggestive of any sort of trend that should undermine confidence in the certification of aircraft overseen by the FAA. The 737MAX certification was not fundamentally different from that of any derivative of an in-service type. I am not saying the process is completely infallible (it's not, and never has been), but we again must have a modicum of patience while these issues are investigated.

The media falls victim every day to what seems to be an intense, overwhelming, virtually irresistible pressure to project everything, especially related to aviation disasters, as a crisis. Taking things one step further is the apparent need to politicize the entire news cycle. And I'll admit, I can see how the process is terrifying for the average person, because it speaks to the inherent lack of control that underlies a fear of flying held by many people. Still, we don't need to be jumping to conclusions at this point, or taking things out of context to form the basis of a suspicion that any sort of malfeasance is rampant.
EWR764 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 9:10 am
  #581  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 79,791
My personal reaction is to feel even more strongly that I'm not willing to fly on a (now longer) list of airlines. I never have or would fly Lion Air, but to me it's a revelation that a respected international carrier like ET would hire a copilot with only 200 hours.

OTOH if there's a shortage of well qualified pilots, maybe the Airbus approach makes more sense as it seems to rely less on the skill and judgment of pilots.
surram likes this.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 9:52 am
  #582  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
My personal reaction is to feel even more strongly that I'm not willing to fly on a (now longer) list of airlines. I never have or would fly Lion Air, but to me it's a revelation that a respected international carrier like ET would hire a copilot with only 200 hours.

OTOH if there's a shortage of well qualified pilots, maybe the Airbus approach makes more sense as it seems to rely less on the skill and judgment of pilots.
Respectfully, skill and judgement of pilots is gained from experience. A 200 hour pilot can just as easily put an Airbus in the trees as a Boeing.

I started my career in a CRJ with around 700 flight hours. Looking back now, that was dangerous. 200 hours is unimaginable in a B737, you're just a warm body working the radios with that experience level.
EWR764 and Say Vandelay like this.
clubord is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 10:18 am
  #583  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 6,897
Originally Posted by clubord View Post
Respectfully, skill and judgement of pilots is gained from experience. A 200 hour pilot can just as easily put an Airbus in the trees as a Boeing.

I started my career in a CRJ with around 700 flight hours. Looking back now, that was dangerous. 200 hours is unimaginable in a B737, you're just a warm body working the radios with that experience level.
I'd call attention to the CI140 crash at NGO about 25 years ago, where a fairly junior FO (~1100 hours, flying with a more experienced captain, around 8k hours) was at the controls of an A300-600R on approach in an augmented manual flying mode when an undetected error caused an unscheduled horizontal stab input, only this time to nearly nose-up. The cause of that accident was related to the flight crew's failure to diagnose and correct an erroneous automated control input (nose-up trim) following an undetected human error in a critical phase of flight, although problems with the flight control logic were pretty well-documented. That crew fought with the airplane to full-forward pressure on the yoke, which was producing level flight. An attempt to go around resulted in an upset from which they were unable to recover. Ironically, a software update was in the process of being rolled out that would have corrected the issue.

http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/B1816.pdf
Reader's Digest version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_140

The precise factual scenarios differ, but fundamentally, very little of this is unprecedented.
EWR764 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 11:01 am
  #584  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WAS/ BOM
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold
Posts: 1,442
The blame here seems to be solely on Boeing's shoulders. They originally submitted FAA cert docs that mentioned the MCAS system could only manipulate the tail by 0.6 degrees. They then realized that 0.6 was not sufficient and decided to reprogram it allow for a 2.5 degree manipulation without letting the FAA know (atleast that is what the article implies). So the FAA certified the plane on an assumption that MCAS would move the plane by +/- 0.6 degrees and in reality was doing +/- 2.5 degrees. That is half the total movement and in flight terms a lot! Yes the FAA didn't double check, but looks like Boeing manipulated - maybe just like VW did with the emissions scandals to fool the inspectors and the inspection.


Article Source - https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
IADFlyer123 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 19, 11:10 am
  #585  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: SFO
Programs: UA
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by IADFlyer123 View Post
The blame here seems to be solely on Boeing's shoulders. They originally submitted FAA cert docs that mentioned the MCAS system could only manipulate the tail by 0.6 degrees. They then realized that 0.6 was not sufficient and decided to reprogram it allow for a 2.5 degree manipulation without letting the FAA know (atleast that is what the article implies). So the FAA certified the plane on an assumption that MCAS would move the plane by +/- 0.6 degrees and in reality was doing +/- 2.5 degrees. That is half the total movement and in flight terms a lot! Yes the FAA didn't double check, but looks like Boeing manipulated - maybe just like VW did with the emissions scandals to fool the inspectors and the inspection.


Article Source - https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
I think it is also worth noting that the Seattle Times started their investigation on this issue prior to the second crash.
bman1002 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread