Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
B737MAX Recertification - Archive
Mar 24, 2019, 11:17 am
#781
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Mar 24, 2019, 11:50 am
#782
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,693
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
Fehrm said Boeing must have added this system on the MAX because when the angle of attack is high this model is less stable compared to prior 737 variants. That’s because the MAX has bigger, heavier engines that are also cantilevered further forward on the wing to provide more ground clearance. That changes the center of gravity.
Fehrm said Boeing must have added this system on the MAX because when the angle of attack is high this model is less stable compared to prior 737 variants. That’s because the MAX has bigger, heavier engines that are also cantilevered further forward on the wing to provide more ground clearance. That changes the center of gravity.
Mar 24, 2019, 12:16 pm
#783
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Yes, a widely quoted factoid with very little actual understanding. No doubt it's different, but the engine location is completely static throughout flight. They also made a bunch of changes to the back of the aircraft that move the CG.
MCAS has nothing to do with the CG location.
MCAS has nothing to do with the CG location.
Mar 24, 2019, 12:33 pm
#784
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: DEN/OGG
Programs: UA GS
Posts: 1,482
Ever anybody thought about that lack of proper pilot training might be a factor?
Why did only 2 3rd world airlines had a crash and all the other carriers not even near misses?
Why did only 2 3rd world airlines had a crash and all the other carriers not even near misses?
Mar 24, 2019, 12:45 pm
#785
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,693
Yes, a widely quoted factoid with very little actual understanding. No doubt it's different, but the engine location is completely static throughout flight. They also made a bunch of changes to the back of the aircraft that move the CG.
MCAS has nothing to do with the CG location.
MCAS has nothing to do with the CG location.
And why give all pilots less than 3 hours of training on the new system, via iPad, without any simulator training required, and no mention of the new system in the flight manuals of the 737MAX?
Mar 24, 2019, 1:16 pm
#786
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Because they went to great lengths to keep the aircraft similar to the prior gen, and minimize the training differences. The runaway pitch trim procedure is completely unchanged.
Mar 24, 2019, 1:37 pm
#787
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
This is not a unique consideration and the focus on commonality can be seen in every Airbus and Boeing product.
Mar 24, 2019, 2:04 pm
#788
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,693
Yes. They're not identifying a problem and following a 5 decade old procedure.
To make the handling characteristics of the MAX more like the NG.
Because they went to great lengths to keep the aircraft similar to the prior gen, and minimize the training differences. The runaway pitch trim procedure is completely unchanged.
To make the handling characteristics of the MAX more like the NG.
Because they went to great lengths to keep the aircraft similar to the prior gen, and minimize the training differences. The runaway pitch trim procedure is completely unchanged.
Mar 24, 2019, 2:56 pm
#789
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,402
You're arguing both sides of the same coin here. You've insisted, repeatedly, that the 737 MAX is too complicated, but you also want every single detail explained to the pilot.
The entire point of the MCAS is that it's not supposed to be noticeable to an experienced pilot -- it's supposed to make the MAX fly like an NG.
{Y}ou've actually hit onto a critical point here -- it's entirely possible that these crashes would have occurred if there were a stabilizer emergency in a 737NG. There isn't enough information to be sure, and there likely won't be for a long time. The MCAS may have been responsible for the emergency situation -- again, we don't yet know, although preliminary information supports that hypothesis -- but, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread by people who know much more about avionics than I do, there are many other systems that may have led to the same catastrophic result.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 25, 2019 at 2:39 pm Reason: merging posts by same member
Mar 24, 2019, 4:53 pm
#790
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
Back in the days, Mitsubishi was told to start their certification process from scratch regarding software, which involved software rewrite, because they did not correctly obeyed DO-178 requirements...
I am sure that this won't happen to Boeing. This what should happen logically - maybe not redesign, but at least go through certification from scratch since there is a strong doubt this was done properly. But it won't happen because just like Airbus 320 program the Boeing 737 program is way, way too big and way, way too critical to the world's economy. It is simply too big to fail.
So the FAA will let them get away with a patch, training, perhaps a small redesign for newly built airframes. Other jurisdictions like Europe and China will take more time as they have national champion to "help". But they will relent...
I am sure that this won't happen to Boeing. This what should happen logically - maybe not redesign, but at least go through certification from scratch since there is a strong doubt this was done properly. But it won't happen because just like Airbus 320 program the Boeing 737 program is way, way too big and way, way too critical to the world's economy. It is simply too big to fail.
So the FAA will let them get away with a patch, training, perhaps a small redesign for newly built airframes. Other jurisdictions like Europe and China will take more time as they have national champion to "help". But they will relent...
And I had a very interesting discussion at the Royal York with an ex-Boeing guy last week about issues with the MAX's center of gravity...so there's a chance this might be gossip or it might be the gift that keeps on giving.
(It's actually only the second-most interesting hotel bar chat I've had...#1 was a deep dive on medical industry pricing practices at Dragon*Con a few years back.)
Mar 24, 2019, 5:00 pm
#792
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
If the people running an airline are too stupid or too cheap to buy systems appropriate for the experience and training of their pilots, why should this be blamed on Boeing? It's not Boeing's responsibility to protect them from their own bad choices. It's not like they're selling aircraft directly to hobby pilots who wouldn't be expected to know anything about the systems. More choice should be better.
Moreover, when it comes to things like warning lights, I would argue that it is the manufacturer's responsibility. There's a difference between requiring "idiot-proofing" a plane and including some sort of clear indication when a given automated system is engaged that has the potential to, y'know, crash the plane. And even if we stipulate that it wasn't seen as necessary, given that Boeing was working out a fix after the first crash, there's a strong case that they should have raised the issue and made the "option" automatic after the first crash.
Edit: It is also worth noting that it isn't the pilots making these decisions, it is somebody in an office somewhere. So in a sense you're not protecting the airline from their own bad decision, you're protecting employees with potentially no say in the decision-making process and passengers with absolutely no ability to make an educated decision here from management making an unsafe decision. At least if (to use an example) I buy a car with a known safety issue (say, a defective airbag system) I'm probably only endangering myself and my passengers. If an airline does this, they're endangering anywhere from 50-500 pax at a go (depending on the plane).
Allowing such behavior is really only allowable (morally) in my mind if in letting them do so, you also jerk away liability protections if they want to "live dangerously".
Last edited by GrayAnderson; Mar 24, 2019 at 5:05 pm
Mar 24, 2019, 6:25 pm
#793
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,597
Mar 24, 2019, 6:38 pm
#794
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,884
To counter that position, if the manufacturer is telling me that X is very much an optional extra, why am I going to buy it? So this comes down to the sales pitch...was Boeing pushing the "extra" here or not? Of course, it feels a bit like my car manufacturer trying to tell me that my brake light or ABS system light is an optional extra.
Moreover, when it comes to things like warning lights, I would argue that it is the manufacturer's responsibility. There's a difference between requiring "idiot-proofing" a plane and including some sort of clear indication when a given automated system is engaged that has the potential to, y'know, crash the plane. And even if we stipulate that it wasn't seen as necessary, given that Boeing was working out a fix after the first crash, there's a strong case that they should have raised the issue and made the "option" automatic after the first crash.
Edit: It is also worth noting that it isn't the pilots making these decisions, it is somebody in an office somewhere. So in a sense you're not protecting the airline from their own bad decision, you're protecting employees with potentially no say in the decision-making process and passengers with absolutely no ability to make an educated decision here from management making an unsafe decision. At least if (to use an example) I buy a car with a known safety issue (say, a defective airbag system) I'm probably only endangering myself and my passengers. If an airline does this, they're endangering anywhere from 50-500 pax at a go (depending on the plane).
Allowing such behavior is really only allowable (morally) in my mind if in letting them do so, you also jerk away liability protections if they want to "live dangerously".
Moreover, when it comes to things like warning lights, I would argue that it is the manufacturer's responsibility. There's a difference between requiring "idiot-proofing" a plane and including some sort of clear indication when a given automated system is engaged that has the potential to, y'know, crash the plane. And even if we stipulate that it wasn't seen as necessary, given that Boeing was working out a fix after the first crash, there's a strong case that they should have raised the issue and made the "option" automatic after the first crash.
Edit: It is also worth noting that it isn't the pilots making these decisions, it is somebody in an office somewhere. So in a sense you're not protecting the airline from their own bad decision, you're protecting employees with potentially no say in the decision-making process and passengers with absolutely no ability to make an educated decision here from management making an unsafe decision. At least if (to use an example) I buy a car with a known safety issue (say, a defective airbag system) I'm probably only endangering myself and my passengers. If an airline does this, they're endangering anywhere from 50-500 pax at a go (depending on the plane).
Allowing such behavior is really only allowable (morally) in my mind if in letting them do so, you also jerk away liability protections if they want to "live dangerously".
Forget about warning lights, not only were they selling these things as an ‘extra’, but they also decided that airlines and pilots didn’t need to know about MCAS at all, since it was going to be working in the background. All presumably because their goal was to tell airlines that hey, you’ve already got pilots trained on 737s, and you don’t need to spend thousands of $ re-training them because this aircraft is ‘the same’. So why would you go to Airbus. They somehow got the FAA to go along with this (presumably, FAA knew about MCAS - in fact, supposedly, they required it).
Personally, I think that aside from modifying a decades old design that probably should have been a new design from scratch, hiding MCAS from the airlines and the people who needed to know about it the most - the pilots flying the damned plane - is the worst transgression, and I think Boeing is going to (and probably should) pay dearly for it.
Mar 24, 2019, 7:14 pm
#795
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 261
However, when the problems do manifest themselves, and people are trained to mitigate issues by said problem, and then don’t follow through on that training then there’s a issue.