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
Apr 4, 2019, 9:53 am
#1021
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
The reports are that it kept nosediving even with MCAS turned off so it's not the software. The engineering analysis quoted earlier indicated qualities that are contrapositive to nosediving early in flight so what caused the nosediving in the first place and kept it going while the electrics (including MCAS) were turned off?
The Lion Air Captain kept the airplane in-trim ("no nose diving" in media-speak) by using the primary electric trim to stop each MCAS activation and return the stabilizer to an in-trim condition. He did this 21 times over a period of several minutes.
When control was transferred to the First Officer, the F/O used the electric trim to stop the next four MCAS activations but he didn't continue to use it to remove the nose-down trim that the MCAS had input as had the Captain. Each subsequent MCAS activation progressively moved the stab trim farther and farther nose-down. He didn't stop the fifth, and last, MCAS activation and that allowed MCAS to run the stab trim to the full nose-down position (the state in which the stab jackscrew was found).
When you do the stabilizer runaway procedure, and flip the stab trim switches to cutout, it stops all electric stab trim inputs which stops the stabilizer in its current position. If you do this when the stab is at, or near, the full nose-down position you will have a real problem on your hands as you try to maintain control while manually trimming the stabilizer back up with the trim wheels. If you have been keeping the stabilizer close to in-trim, as the Lion Air Captain did, then when you cutout the electric trim it will be relatively easy to keep it in-trim with the manual trim.
Apr 4, 2019, 10:31 am
#1022
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,686
Some really selective reading going on here. Where in the Boeing procedure does it say to turn the electric trim back on and not command it in the direction you want?
Apr 4, 2019, 10:40 am
#1023
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SEA, SFO, PRG
Programs: UA 1k, Delta Gold
Posts: 77
Right under "two bodybuilders with four hands and a cane to block trim wheel are required to safely operate this new airplane"
Apr 4, 2019, 10:48 am
#1024
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,686
Apr 4, 2019, 11:11 am
#1025
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: EUG
Programs: UA Silver, AS
Posts: 115
1) first bring the airplane back in proper trim using the electric controls and
2) only AFTER that, turn off the electric trim controls to prevent further MCAS activation
Is that what it says?
Apr 4, 2019, 11:28 am
#1026
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
A lot of this reminds me of the "discussion" after the Apollo 1 fire. Borman's testimony seems particularly apt (recreated in "From the Earth to the Moon" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaBYoElHVg). I very much doubt Boeing or Ethiopian or even Lion Air intentionally compromised safety. IANAP but Boeing likely didn't imagine flight crews at a major airline would ignore or not know of procedures that seem to have been "standard" for decades. In my own job as a "subject matter expert" in a particularly isolated field, I am still constantly amazed at how lessons learned 25-30 years ago are "magic" today or how practices I once accepted as the norm are now abnormal (to be fair, this is sometimes a good thing).
Nevertheless, the OP's question was more strategic, should UA change aircraft? I would still say no for a variety of reasons (not even counting my own admitted bias against Airbus).
Should United Cancel Its Order for 100 – 737 MAX 10s, & Order the A321neo?
If United's 737 pilots are still confident in the 737 fleet, I'm confident.
Nevertheless, the OP's question was more strategic, should UA change aircraft? I would still say no for a variety of reasons (not even counting my own admitted bias against Airbus).
Should United Cancel Its Order for 100 – 737 MAX 10s, & Order the A321neo?
If United's 737 pilots are still confident in the 737 fleet, I'm confident.
Nothing in today's report that we didn't know yesterday and again ... WHY WAS THE PLANE NOSEDIVING?
The reports are that it kept nosediving even with MCAS turned off so it's not the software. The engineering analysis quoted earlier indicated qualities that are contrapositive to nosediving early in flight so what caused the nosediving in the first place and kept it going while the electrics (including MCAS) were turned off?
I am sure that unexlained nosediving with only 1000 feet altitude would cause panic. That's not a lot of time or altitude to come up with a solution. On the other hand, the charges that the design is deadly, that Boeing or employees are guilty of criminal conduct just are not supported by the evidence released so far. The basic 737 design and construction has been well-proven with tens of thousands of flights. The design qualities in the MAX that reportedly prompted the MCAS software should actually have mitigated this scenario when MCAS was turned off so what happened? Is it a different design defect in the aircraft? Perhaps Boeing did something else wrong in the design or construction and the furor about MCAS is hiding it. Was there an overlooked maintenance issue? (yes, I know Ethiopia brandished the recent certificate but the fact remains that very aircraft had a similar incident recently and IIRC there were other reported maintenance issues on it). Was there something else wrong in the launch configuration?
The reports are that it kept nosediving even with MCAS turned off so it's not the software. The engineering analysis quoted earlier indicated qualities that are contrapositive to nosediving early in flight so what caused the nosediving in the first place and kept it going while the electrics (including MCAS) were turned off?
I am sure that unexlained nosediving with only 1000 feet altitude would cause panic. That's not a lot of time or altitude to come up with a solution. On the other hand, the charges that the design is deadly, that Boeing or employees are guilty of criminal conduct just are not supported by the evidence released so far. The basic 737 design and construction has been well-proven with tens of thousands of flights. The design qualities in the MAX that reportedly prompted the MCAS software should actually have mitigated this scenario when MCAS was turned off so what happened? Is it a different design defect in the aircraft? Perhaps Boeing did something else wrong in the design or construction and the furor about MCAS is hiding it. Was there an overlooked maintenance issue? (yes, I know Ethiopia brandished the recent certificate but the fact remains that very aircraft had a similar incident recently and IIRC there were other reported maintenance issues on it). Was there something else wrong in the launch configuration?
Apr 4, 2019, 11:46 am
#1028
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,457
The good news is that we have a bunch of experienced pilots, safety experts, and engineers examining the problem. It will take time to resolve the issues and come to final conclusions of the cause of the accidents. Unfortunately, it wounds like the MAX aircraft will be grounded for an extended period of time -- ultimately this is a good thing as hopefully all issues will be resolved before they begin flying again. Let's try not to overreact to random pieces of news everyday.
Apr 4, 2019, 11:56 am
#1029
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area
Programs: HH, PC, SPG, MR, GP, US, UA, AA
Posts: 3,448
So if the ET pilots first used the thumb trim switch to counter the malfunctioning MCAS, then cutoff the electric trim switches, the end result might be different?
The answer can be found in the DFDR data that we have from the Lion Air accident flight.
The Lion Air Captain kept the airplane in-trim ("no nose diving" in media-speak) by using the primary electric trim to stop each MCAS activation and return the stabilizer to an in-trim condition. He did this 21 times over a period of several minutes.
When control was transferred to the First Officer, the F/O used the electric trim to stop the next four MCAS activations but he didn't continue to use it to remove the nose-down trim that the MCAS had input as had the Captain. Each subsequent MCAS activation progressively moved the stab trim farther and farther nose-down. He didn't stop the fifth, and last, MCAS activation and that allowed MCAS to run the stab trim to the full nose-down position (the state in which the stab jackscrew was found).
When you do the stabilizer runaway procedure, and flip the stab trim switches to cutout, it stops all electric stab trim inputs which stops the stabilizer in its current position. If you do this when the stab is at, or near, the full nose-down position you will have a real problem on your hands as you try to maintain control while manually trimming the stabilizer back up with the trim wheels. If you have been keeping the stabilizer close to in-trim, as the Lion Air Captain did, then when you cutout the electric trim it will be relatively easy to keep it in-trim with the manual trim.
The Lion Air Captain kept the airplane in-trim ("no nose diving" in media-speak) by using the primary electric trim to stop each MCAS activation and return the stabilizer to an in-trim condition. He did this 21 times over a period of several minutes.
When control was transferred to the First Officer, the F/O used the electric trim to stop the next four MCAS activations but he didn't continue to use it to remove the nose-down trim that the MCAS had input as had the Captain. Each subsequent MCAS activation progressively moved the stab trim farther and farther nose-down. He didn't stop the fifth, and last, MCAS activation and that allowed MCAS to run the stab trim to the full nose-down position (the state in which the stab jackscrew was found).
When you do the stabilizer runaway procedure, and flip the stab trim switches to cutout, it stops all electric stab trim inputs which stops the stabilizer in its current position. If you do this when the stab is at, or near, the full nose-down position you will have a real problem on your hands as you try to maintain control while manually trimming the stabilizer back up with the trim wheels. If you have been keeping the stabilizer close to in-trim, as the Lion Air Captain did, then when you cutout the electric trim it will be relatively easy to keep it in-trim with the manual trim.
Apr 4, 2019, 1:14 pm
#1030
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: DAY/CMH
Programs: UA MileagePlus
Posts: 2,474
That's how I understand it. The pilots can manually counteract a certain amount of trim, but when the trim becomes extreme, it takes more force than they can provide. If that's correct, then using the electric trim adjuster to move to nearly neutral trim before turning if off would be essential.
Apr 4, 2019, 3:16 pm
#1031
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
That's how I would do it and is consistent with the information contained in today's preliminary report.
Apr 4, 2019, 3:48 pm
#1032
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area
Programs: HH, PC, SPG, MR, GP, US, UA, AA
Posts: 3,448
Apr 4, 2019, 3:57 pm
#1033
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,659
Boeing finally, finally, moves in front with this apology and admission of responsibility.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/3361880002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/3361880002/
Apr 4, 2019, 5:31 pm
#1034
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DSM, BKK or anywhere with an airport
Programs: UA 2P, HH Gold
Posts: 1,018
So if you lockout the jackscrew in full nose-down orientation, how long would it take to manually adjust it to a neutral flying position ?
Apr 4, 2019, 5:53 pm
#1035
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 564
Boeing finally, finally, moves in front with this apology and admission of responsibility.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/3361880002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/3361880002/
What did you expect them to do? Disavow any responsibility? They (just like the rest of the world) were waiting for preliminary investigative findings to find out what happened to the ET flight. Once enough information was available to make it clear their systems were a major contributing factor to both accidents, they had to issue some type of statement. This is about as good as you are going to get from a corporation admitting liability. For all the upcoming lawsuits, it is not a matter of if they were responsible, but what are reasonable damages.
The interesting thing in both crashes is that the AOA sensor(s) being damaged or malfunctioning started the chain of events (included the MCAS activations) which eventually downed both planes. Such a small part of such a complex machine
