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
Jun 8, 2019, 1:03 pm
#1636
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,694
When a system(s) supporting critical flight functions fail in-flight, all souls onboard are in peril. Consider the loss of hydraulics resulting in the control surface failure suffered by UA232. The a priori critical importance of the control surfaces was reflected by them being supported up by three independent hydraulic systems. When all three systems failed due to the no. 2 engine fan blade separation, the pilots lost the ability to effectively command the control surfaces of the DC10. Only by the grace of God and the 3 + 1* pilots (* interestingly enough Capt. Finch, a passenger on UA232, was a Training Check Airman for UA AND had practiced simulations of controlling aircraft after a total loss of hydraulics with just throttles) in the cockpit to help manage the situation appears to have been a material asset in both the case of UA232 and the penultimate flight of PK-LQP, the Lion Air 737.
So to the point of "all the time, every time" I'd agree nothing is 100% foolproof/failproof, and the costs to make it so are impractical, BUT one can use foresight and common sense to ID critical aspects relating to flight where the function requires a 100% uptime record even if one of the supporting sub-systems fails...i.e. the control surfaces MUST work ALL the time, EVERY time; to ensure this three independent and redundant hydraulic systems are in place meaning as long as one remains operational, the other two can fail, without a catastrophic loss of control.
Wow! If so, it suggests the FAA has given up on trying to ram Boeing's "plan" - a few extra hours on an iPad - as additional training through.. Unless some other issues we don't know of was uncovered, hard for me to see what the additional delay would be for, other than requiring more intense, and possibly simulator, training.
Perhaps the CAAs in the countries where these crashes are happening should take a page from the FAA regarding pilot qualifications?
Jun 8, 2019, 1:14 pm
#1637
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
Your UA232 comparison completely misses the point that was a failure impacting the primary flight controls; MCAS has no affect on primary flight controls, only secondary flight controls. The third world crews crashing the MAX had more options and control authority available to them than the UA232 crew did.
I think you've completely missed the point of my reply. There were a whole series of failures during the flight leading to these MAX crashes. The assertion that everything has to work perfectly or disaster happens is what I was disagreeing with, aside from a few systems with a catastrophic impact on safety (the level A systems), a single failure doesn't bring the airplane down. Neither MCAS nor the secondary flight controls are such a system.
The delay implies no such change to training. You're just making up conjecture to suit your narrative.
Yea, but it costs a lot to get better than a 300 hour wonderkid up there.
Perhaps the CAAs in the countries where these crashes are happening should take a page from the FAA regarding pilot qualifications?
I think you've completely missed the point of my reply. There were a whole series of failures during the flight leading to these MAX crashes. The assertion that everything has to work perfectly or disaster happens is what I was disagreeing with, aside from a few systems with a catastrophic impact on safety (the level A systems), a single failure doesn't bring the airplane down. Neither MCAS nor the secondary flight controls are such a system.
The delay implies no such change to training. You're just making up conjecture to suit your narrative.
Yea, but it costs a lot to get better than a 300 hour wonderkid up there.
Perhaps the CAAs in the countries where these crashes are happening should take a page from the FAA regarding pilot qualifications?
Jun 8, 2019, 1:19 pm
#1638
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,419
At the risk of making an analogy to software (where I also have no training, experience, etc.) this strikes me as being akin to an enterprise customer who refuses to let go of their legacy software they've since outgrown...they're using excel to manage their inventory when they really need a purpose-built database. Or maybe they refuse to let go of QuickBooks when the accounting complexities of the business have grown to demand a more complex solution. This is NOT to say there's anything wrong with Excel or Quickbooks BUT it is to say there's a natural limit to what these two programs can offer and a customer demanding more than what they can offer is just setting themselves up for failure.
Thus the 737 as it was 51 years ago, and its subsequent evolutions, can only go so far. The classics and NG 737s strike me as being winners for all involved. But in designing the MAX, I fear Boeing demanded too much of the 737 leaving us the traveling public to pay the price.
Jun 8, 2019, 1:20 pm
#1639
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
Many here don’t get the value of flight experience for pilots. 300 hours is extremely, extremely low to be operating an aircraft of that size and complexity.
Last edited by clubord; Jun 8, 2019 at 1:28 pm
Jun 8, 2019, 1:26 pm
#1640
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
Skilled may not be the most appropriate word in this situation. But we do know exactly how “experienced” the ET crew was.
Many here don’t get the value of flight experience for pilots. 350 hours is extremely, extremely low to be operating an aircraft of that size and complexity.
Jun 8, 2019, 1:30 pm
#1641
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
Hours = Experience. I’m not sure how this cannot be correlated.
Last edited by clubord; Jun 8, 2019 at 1:51 pm
Jun 8, 2019, 2:04 pm
#1642
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 think that you (DB and VG) point out the problem with Newman55's reasoning. We do not look at things as just direct cause, but as a chain of events more generally.
Had Boeing done an updated design (back in the late 2000s when the Board decided not to) neither of these crashes would have occurred. Instead, Boeing moved late, compromised the plane's aerodynamics out of need due to the limits of the low stance of the 737 and then (either to make it certifiable, or just needing them fixed) MCAS was the "fix". Lots of design issues with the "fix" (single sensor, taking the disagree system off-line absent a special add on instrument package). At a whole host of decision points, had Boeing gone a different way, these accidents would not have happened.
So a chain of errors, which lead to earlier decisions, but (a) not doing a new clean sheet design, and (b) then having to move the engine's forward and up so they could fit under the wing, are good places to look as the initiation of a series of events leading to these crashes.
Had Boeing done an updated design (back in the late 2000s when the Board decided not to) neither of these crashes would have occurred. Instead, Boeing moved late, compromised the plane's aerodynamics out of need due to the limits of the low stance of the 737 and then (either to make it certifiable, or just needing them fixed) MCAS was the "fix". Lots of design issues with the "fix" (single sensor, taking the disagree system off-line absent a special add on instrument package). At a whole host of decision points, had Boeing gone a different way, these accidents would not have happened.
So a chain of errors, which lead to earlier decisions, but (a) not doing a new clean sheet design, and (b) then having to move the engine's forward and up so they could fit under the wing, are good places to look as the initiation of a series of events leading to these crashes.
In the end it is a failure of comprehensive program management at BA, the FAA simply isn't in a position to see and be at every decision point and understand the complexity made in a plane, software, etc. etc. Boeing and its management team bear full responsibility for this and the lives lost, hopefully no more and lessons learned for both airbus and BA going forward.
Jun 8, 2019, 2:05 pm
#1643
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SRQ, PDX
Programs: UA 1 MM, AA, DL
Posts: 930
Jun 8, 2019, 2:09 pm
#1644
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
I think that you (DB and VG) point out the problem with Newman55's reasoning. We do not look at things as just direct cause, but as a chain of events more generally.
Had Boeing done an updated design (back in the late 2000s when the Board decided not to) neither of these crashes would have occurred. Instead, Boeing moved late, compromised the plane's aerodynamics out of need due to the limits of the low stance of the 737 and then (either to make it certifiable, or just needing them fixed) MCAS was the "fix". Lots of design issues with the "fix" (single sensor, taking the disagree system off-line absent a special add on instrument package). At a whole host of decision points, had Boeing gone a different way, these accidents would not have happened.
So a chain of errors, which lead to earlier decisions, but (a) not doing a new clean sheet design, and (b) then having to move the engine's forward and up so they could fit under the wing, are good places to look as the initiation of a series of events leading to these crashes.
Had Boeing done an updated design (back in the late 2000s when the Board decided not to) neither of these crashes would have occurred. Instead, Boeing moved late, compromised the plane's aerodynamics out of need due to the limits of the low stance of the 737 and then (either to make it certifiable, or just needing them fixed) MCAS was the "fix". Lots of design issues with the "fix" (single sensor, taking the disagree system off-line absent a special add on instrument package). At a whole host of decision points, had Boeing gone a different way, these accidents would not have happened.
So a chain of errors, which lead to earlier decisions, but (a) not doing a new clean sheet design, and (b) then having to move the engine's forward and up so they could fit under the wing, are good places to look as the initiation of a series of events leading to these crashes.
Jun 8, 2019, 2:50 pm
#1645
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,708
So how then does a pilot get "experience" if hours=experience? What's the magic number? And how does a pilot get hours if not by sitting in an aircraft of that type, taking off, landing, and flying the airplane?
Jun 8, 2019, 2:56 pm
#1646
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Points Guy summed it up....
https://thepointsguy.com/news/how-mu...o-pilots-need/
Jun 8, 2019, 3:54 pm
#1647
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
In the US, the minimum is 1,500 hours. The magic minimum.
Points Guy summed it up....
https://thepointsguy.com/news/how-mu...o-pilots-need/
Points Guy summed it up....
https://thepointsguy.com/news/how-mu...o-pilots-need/
Jun 8, 2019, 4:04 pm
#1648
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
However, I'd still prefer not to fly on a plane where it's so easy to get into an unrecoverable situation. Other planes have pilots with the same experience requirements and the were not being crashed at the same rate.
It is mathematically possible that this plane is no more likely to crash than any other, and 2 crashes so close together were nothing more than coincidence. But that's not something that I'd like to risk my life on. If I'm wrong and I go out of my way to avoid the plane for no good reason, it costs me very little.
Jun 8, 2019, 4:10 pm
#1649
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,365
They also should be telling pilots to get hours in the gym as the force required to jack the stabalizer back up (which is what the hand crank does) can be extreme and is not simulated properly in training.
Training does matter of course. But the FAA emergency notice after Lion made it clear the recovery procedure is NOT the same on the MAX, and pilots were never trained on that.
EDIT: By the way, would that false light be of any value for pilots diagnosing the issue quickly if it actually worked?
Last edited by exwannabe; Jun 8, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Jun 8, 2019, 5:13 pm
#1650
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,694
And some very qualified pilots here have pointed out that no amount of disclosure on MCAS is going to change their response when they have a trim runaway, regardless of triggering mechanism.