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 29, 2019, 4:27 pm
#886
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
A number of posts over at pprune.org indicate that the MAX could not have been certified without MCAS. Below is one. Seems legit, but I obviously couldn't say for sure: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...Y#post10415847
Mar 29, 2019, 4:57 pm
#887
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
A number of posts over at pprune.org indicate that the MAX could not have been certified without MCAS. Below is one. Seems legit, but I obviously couldn't say for sure: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...Y#post10415847
Having flown the 737-200 for many years with those long tubular engines proportionately balanced under the wings I was surprised in the mid 1980s to see those large engines on the 737-300. And when US Air 427 flipped out of the sky in September, 1994, it .heightened my concern that those big engines caused some unstable characteristics. Just a gut feeling. With all the intense focus on MAX, after thousands of hours of actual future flights we should have a good understanding of MAX"s stability characteristics.
Mar 29, 2019, 6:54 pm
#888
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: IAH
Posts: 488
One thing I haven't seen posted in this thread yet, is that the MCAS was apparently active in the ET crash. A number of people were saying it couldn't be because of flap settings but it appears it was.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...ian-737-crash/
https://arstechnica.com/information-...ian-737-crash/
Mar 29, 2019, 7:53 pm
#889
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
What we don't know is if the flaps were retracted at an unusually low altitude, if the MCAS flap inhibit also failed, if they took off with flaps retracted (unlikely due to the takeoff warning horn), or some other possibility.
The good news from today's information is that if ET302 was also an unscheduled MCAS activation then the software fix that Boeing is close to releasing should fix the problem from both flights.
Mar 30, 2019, 11:32 am
#890
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,965
I have a stupid question - why is it so hard to determine from the FDR data if the MCAS did anything? Shouldn't it be logging to it?
Mar 30, 2019, 11:57 am
#891
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,448
Yes. And those who blindly supported Boeing and FAA's inexcusable inaction were clearly wrong. The single point of failure is a design defect, compounded by Boeing's lack of transparency, leading to a lack of training.
Mar 30, 2019, 12:02 pm
#892
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,965
Then the fact that it is taking so long to even figure out what MCAS did/did not do from the FDR data...was the whole design philosophy "let's hide it totally - not on the manual, not on the FDR, etc."?
How can this be if it is not some higher level business decision to conceal?
Mar 30, 2019, 12:09 pm
#893
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,448
I am not a conspiracy kind of guy - I tend to trust the system. HOWEVER, what I really don't understand is how can Boeing engineers develop an undocumented system that is so critical to the handling of the plane with a single point of failure. It absolutely makes no sense to me.
Mar 30, 2019, 1:03 pm
#894
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
I am sure BA is in on all the data, hopefully they see the wisdom of coming clean versus doing like they did with the plane, just enough upon just enough. The company is at a crisis and inflection point, funny how that is, product lead times and billions upon billions of orders yet all could go poof with any small or wrong indecision.
Better to be open, honest, and have humility and start rebuilding the image and company's image.
Better to be open, honest, and have humility and start rebuilding the image and company's image.
Mar 30, 2019, 1:31 pm
#895
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
First I have heard this, but if so then bad for Boeing. It seems to be a perfectly valid rule to have (inputs required to maintain a position should remain stable, not go up or down) if the Boeing does not do with w/o adjustment to trim by a computer it suggests the plane is not aerodynamically stable, which is not good...
No single input caused the failure in these crashes; as usual, it took a whole series of inputs to bring the aircraft down.
If you really think this single input is a single point of failure, and any single point of failure is a design defect, you shouldn't be getting on any airliner ever. They're everywhere.
Mar 30, 2019, 1:42 pm
#896
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,965
Can you explain this? Yes, most of these things (airplane crashes, car crashes, etc.) are "one thing lead to another" type of scenario. However, as far as MCAS is concerned, doesn't the system take only 1 AoA sensor input and repeats/increases its corrective actions based on that?
Mar 30, 2019, 1:57 pm
#897
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
Can you explain this? Yes, most of these things (airplane crashes, car crashes, etc.) are "one thing lead to another" type of scenario. However, as far as MCAS is concerned, doesn't the system take only 1 AoA sensor input and repeats/increases its corrective actions based on that?
Mar 30, 2019, 2:27 pm
#898
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,839
I’d still like to see the “meeting minutes” documenting the decision to use only one AoA Sensor even though the aircraft has two.
Mar 30, 2019, 3:52 pm
#899
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
I am sure that plaintiffs counsel will be obtaining all that information in discovery.
Mar 30, 2019, 6:30 pm
#900
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NYC/WAS
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, DL '90s PM, now FK (Flying Kettle)
Posts: 541
Just to throw my unnecessary two cents in... Here's what I don't understand, and it reflects poorly on Boeing's response to the first incident, and would seem to indicate that a simple software fix might not cut it.
I thought I understood the Lion Air crash: minimally-retrained NG pilots had not been really informed about MCAS; the cockpit didn't know what was going on; and Boeing said the pilots should have realized what was happening and disabled MCAS. I figured that at that point, every MAX pilot would now be laser-focused on the possibility of a runaway MCAS and what to do about it. Then ET, with a very experienced captain, seems to have suffered the same fate, with everyone in the cockpit having full knowledge of what had reportedly happened to Lion Air, yet unable to do anything about it. I find that far scarier than the first incident.
I thought I understood the Lion Air crash: minimally-retrained NG pilots had not been really informed about MCAS; the cockpit didn't know what was going on; and Boeing said the pilots should have realized what was happening and disabled MCAS. I figured that at that point, every MAX pilot would now be laser-focused on the possibility of a runaway MCAS and what to do about it. Then ET, with a very experienced captain, seems to have suffered the same fate, with everyone in the cockpit having full knowledge of what had reportedly happened to Lion Air, yet unable to do anything about it. I find that far scarier than the first incident.