Old Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
This is an archive thread, the archive thread is https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1960195-b737max-cleared-faa-resume-passenger-flights-when-will-ua-max-flights-resume.html

Thread Topic
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.

Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
READ BEFORE POSTING

Once again many posters in this thread have forgotten the FT rules and resorted to "Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming " and other non-collegial, non-civil discourse. This is not allowed.

Posters appear to be talking at others, talking about others, not discussing the core issues. Repeating the same statements, saying the same thing LOUDER is not civil discourse. These problems are not with one poster, they are not just one point of view, ...

As useful as some discussion here has been, continuing rules violations will lead to suspensions and thread closure. Please think about that before posting.

The purpose of FT is to be an informative forum that, in this case, enables the UA flyer to enhance their travel experience. There are other forums for different types of discussions. This thread was had wide latitude but that latitude is being abused.

Bottom line, if you can not stay within the FT rules and the forum's topic areas, please do not post.
And before posting, ask if you are bringing new contributing information to the discussion -- not just repeating previous points, then please do not post.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
This thread has engendered some strongly felt opinions and a great tendency to wander into many peripherally related topics. By all normal FT moderation standards, this thread would have been permanently closed long ago ( and numerous members receiving disciplinary actions).

However, given the importance of the subject, the UA Moderators have tried to host this discussion but odd here as UA is not the top 1 or 2 or 3 for MAX among North America carriers. However, some have allowed their passion and non-UA related opinions to repeatedly disrupt this discussion.

The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.

Discussion of Boeing's culture or the impact on Boeing's future is not in scope. Nor is comments on restructuring the regulatory process. Neither is the impacts on COVID on the general air industry -- those are not UA specific and are better discussed elsewhere. And for discussion of UA's future, there is a separate thread.

Additionally repeated postings of essentially the same content should not happen nor unnecessarily inflammatory posts. And of course, the rest of FT posting rules apply including discuss the issue and not the posters.

The Moderator team feels there is a reason / need for this thread but it has been exhausting to have to repeated re-focus the discussion -- don't be the reason this thread is permanently closed ( and get yourself in disciplinary problems).

Stick to the relevant topic which is (repeating myself)
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator



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

B737MAX Recertification - Archive

Old Mar 23, 2019, 10:47 am
  #736  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by bman1002
I read on another forum that Southwest is sending their MAX planes to Victorville for storage. VCV is generally known for long term storage, so I guess WN knows they won't be flying these birds for a while.
There are MROs in VCV and aircraft in short term storage programs. Plus lots and lots of cheap parking. Itll be easier for operators to implement changes if all the aircraft are together before returning to service.

If WN wraps tires, ports and engines then theres an indication the aircraft will not be flying soon.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 10:52 am
  #737  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by kale73
Unless the plane manages to crash on your house, place of business, etc.
Youre right. We better do away with planes altogether. Or move into bunkers.

Originally Posted by DenverBrian
Not ones that kill 350 people every five months. @:-)

Unacceptable in the 21st Century. That logic works in the days before today's computers and the complex simulations we can create to test, re-test, and hazard test BEFORE we put passengers on planes. "Tombstone mentality" indeed.

And I don't want Donald Rumsfeld anywhere near the testing and certification process either. @:-)
Although before the social media age, there have been systematic issues with other aircraft that resulted in loss of life. These issue were corrected and those planes (including 737 Classic, 757 and A320) are still flying. The 737 MAX should also be able to return to service once the recommended changes and training are tested and implemented.

It is impossible to test for every scenario, especially when incidents are created by a chain of events. It is prudent to make sure testing and certification was properly executed.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 11:16 am
  #738  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Does the 737 MAX Have a Unique Tendency to Pitch Up?

If this is why a software fix with a MCAS system is required, why wasn’t the plane designed not to pitch up?

If there will always be a lifetime lingering issue, I would go with the A321neo. (plus A321neo superior comfort & public perception)
BF263533 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 11:20 am
  #739  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,138
Originally Posted by trooper
And the Airbus passengers who were killed in a flyby at an Airshow???? AF296... remember?????
We try to build perfect airplanes but have not yet been able to achieve it.

If AF447 has been a B777, instead of an A330, the accident would likely not have happened because the control forces would not have allowed the F/O to hold full nose-up control input for the majority of the descent.

If OZ214 had been an A330, instead of a B777, the accident would likely not have happened because the auto-throttle logic, and alpha-floor protection, would not have allowed them to get so slow.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Thanks for that clarification. It still seems the landing speeds will be quite high for the MAX10 considering it's going to be a heavier plane but with only four tires for braking. Tell me if I'm wrongly projecting, though.
The 737-10 MAX doesn't yet exist. I have no idea what its approach speed will be. They are making changes to the main gear design which will increase tail clearance and, possibly?, reduce approach speeds.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 11:33 am
  #740  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,110
Originally Posted by chipmaster
The 737-Max debacle will soon be forgotten
That's what people thought about the DC-10, but it never recovered.
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 12:36 pm
  #741  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by BF263533
If this is why a software fix with a MCAS system is required, why wasnt the plane designed not to pitch up?

If there will always be a lifetime lingering issue, I would go with the A321neo. (plus A321neo superior comfort & public perception)
From what Ive read, the system is designed to provide a similar handling feel to the NG, not to compensate for an aerodynamic flaw.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 1:06 pm
  #742  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Programs: DL, UA
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by ani90
Maybe so but when it comes to public perception and satisfaction ''rational decisions" are not entirely based on facts of a matter, indeed some decisions are entirely not based on the facts -if they were the Max fleet would probably not be grounded at the current time. I am sure it is a major business decision being considered by any airline with big orders for this plane - and it doesn't matter what the facts turn out to be; the die has been cast and each airline has to decide today how to respond.
As weve seen time and again, however, the public has a short attention span. Boeing will do some fixes on this and the media will have moved on to the latest story to flog for hours on end...and people will forget about it.
ATLintheair is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 1:08 pm
  #743  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Originally Posted by fly18725


From what I’ve read, the system is designed to provide a similar handling feel to the NG, not to compensate for an aerodynamic flaw.
There were these statements on the internet:

“... as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this causes a pitch-up effect which could in ..”

“Specifically, the new 737 MAX showed a tendency to pitch up”

“MCAS was a band-aid to fix the pitch up problem caused by the relocated and heavier new engines”


It would seem to me that if the heavier engine's nacelle is ahead of the Center of Gravity that the plane should pitch down, not up?
BF263533 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 1:12 pm
  #744  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
No, not with the information we have now. Despite the frequent complaints about the product, United is not a third world operator. It's not like the Ethiopian MAX crash was some incredible anomaly; it was the third 737 Ethiopian has crashed in the last decade, from a fleet of only 30 or so 737 aircraft.

United has good training and pilots who will fly the airplane.

Originally Posted by BF263533
There were these statements on the internet:

“... as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this causes a pitch-up effect which could in ..”

“Specifically, the new 737 MAX showed a tendency to pitch up”

“MCAS was a band-aid to fix the pitch up problem caused by the relocated and heavier new engines”


It would seem to me that if the heavier engine's nacelle is ahead of the Center of Gravity that the plane should pitch down, not up?
Much confusion about this from media who doesn't understand the first thing about aircraft design, much less any details. The high-AoA behavior is aerodynamic from the lift off the nacelle (which is ahead of the CG). The location of the engine isn't moving in flight, so there's no associated CG shift in flight.

Originally Posted by dmurphynj
It actually is fairly straightforward.

The single-input is a huge engineering mistake - that needs to be corrected. The fix is basically done; just has to be qualified. That'll reduce the rate of occurrence to more acceptable levels.
Both I and all the various certification authorities around the world disagree with your opinion here; a DAL C system doesn't need redundant sensor inputs on every sensor. The single input at a time AoA has been standard for years on a variety of systems, including the stick shaker. It's a pilot training issue that the pilots are not recognizing runaway pitch trim and following the runaway pitch trim procedure.

Last edited by mduell; Mar 23, 2019 at 1:21 pm
mduell is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 1:28 pm
  #745  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by IADFlyer123
These are US airline pilots. If this is even remotely true, and the training doesn't cover MCAS, then it should probably put to rest the claim that US pilots are trained better than international pilots and hence know how to operate the 73MAX.
Ethiopian has crashed 10% of their 737 fleet in the last decade. I don't think there's any question the US airline pilots are better trained.
mduell is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 1:58 pm
  #746  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by mduell
I don't think there's any question the US airline pilots are better trained.
In my opinion - this is very true. I still can't get over the Ethiopian co-pilot only had 200 hours experience.

If I read it right, Southwest flew 41,000 MAX flights - and 88,000 flight hours - not a trivial matter.
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 2:13 pm
  #747  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by s0ssos
Is this not the whole point? This is a critical component, because 2 planes have literally crashed, killing hundreds of people.
How else do you define 'critical'?
The question is how critical? Clearly not DAL A. The assumption was with existing training and procedures it should be DAL C. And in both cases the crew could mitigate the failure via well established procedure and failed to.

Both crashes were at third world airlines with dismal crash records. Ethiopian has crashed 10% of their 737 fleet in the last decade. This isn't like Qantas is crashing the MAX.
mduell is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 2:21 pm
  #748  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,066
Originally Posted by mduell
No, not with the information we have now. Despite the frequent complaints about the product, United is not a third world operator. It's not like the Ethiopian MAX crash was some incredible anomaly; it was the third 737 Ethiopian has crashed in the last decade, from a fleet of only 30 or so 737 aircraft.

United has good training and pilots who will fly the airplane.

.....
Last decade... Addis Ababa, Beirut, and ?
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 2:24 pm
  #749  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,479
Originally Posted by IADFlyer123
These are US airline pilots. If this is even remotely true, and the training doesn't cover MCAS, then it should probably put to rest the claim that US pilots are trained better than international pilots and hence know how to operate the 73MAX.
Did you read the following post by one of our resident pilots?
Originally Posted by LarryJ
The procedure is not the "MCAS deactivation procedure". It is the "runaway stabilizer" procedure. A variety of systems, and failures, can result in a runaway stabilizer; MCAS is only one of them. Because an unchecked runaway stabilizer can quickly lead to a loss of control, you don't waste time trying to diagnose the reason for the runaway. If you have a runaway, you disable the electric stab trim which stops it. Let the mechanics figure out the cause of the runaway after you land. The runaway stabilizer procedure is the correct actions regardless of the underlying cause of the runaway.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019, 2:32 pm
  #750  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Last decade... Addis Ababa, Beirut, and ?
Accra
mduell is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.