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 22, 2019, 2:47 pm
#706
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,365
That's an extreme overreaction and wholly unnecessary.
Is there a problem? Clearly, yes.
Has the root cause been identified? Yes.
Is a fix feasible and practical? Yes.
Will it be implemented quickly? Also, yes.
This is not a structural integrity issue; it's a software and wetware problem.
That said... the new MOM aircraft (i.e. 757X) can't get here quickly enough.
Is there a problem? Clearly, yes.
Has the root cause been identified? Yes.
Is a fix feasible and practical? Yes.
Will it be implemented quickly? Also, yes.
This is not a structural integrity issue; it's a software and wetware problem.
That said... the new MOM aircraft (i.e. 757X) can't get here quickly enough.
So why could Boeing not design it right in the first place? It is easy for people to just assume they made stupid mistakes, but that is very unlikely to me. I presume they made engineering decisions and tradeoffs based on issues we do not know. And if so, can they implement a system that does not push the risk elsewhere?
Do agree that the true next gen mid-size (whatever it is) is needed ASAP. Even if they fix this issue, the 737 kind of sucks.
Mar 22, 2019, 3:13 pm
#707
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
More complicated than this, The FAA required the MCAS for certification. W/o MCAS, it was deemed to unstable to be airworthy.
So why could Boeing not design it right in the first place? It is easy for people to just assume they made stupid mistakes, but that is very unlikely to me. I presume they made engineering decisions and tradeoffs based on issues we do not know. And if so, can they implement a system that does not push the risk elsewhere?
Do agree that the true next gen mid-size (whatever it is) is needed ASAP. Even if they fix this issue, the 737 kind of sucks.
So why could Boeing not design it right in the first place? It is easy for people to just assume they made stupid mistakes, but that is very unlikely to me. I presume they made engineering decisions and tradeoffs based on issues we do not know. And if so, can they implement a system that does not push the risk elsewhere?
Do agree that the true next gen mid-size (whatever it is) is needed ASAP. Even if they fix this issue, the 737 kind of sucks.
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.
It's not a matter of "moving the risk elsewhere" - it's a matter of the pilots knowing the proper procedure for responding to a runaway stabilizer. This is a situation that is trained for -- and has been trained for -- for decades. But, because of MCAS, it can occur at a different phase of flight than is usually trained for. But the response is exactly the same -- slap the stab trim cutout switches, and everything is back to normal.
Fast forward to 2:45 to see the proper procedure:
But that's all that has to happen ... and at this point, I'd guaran-freakin-tee that ANY 737 pilot would respond by hitting the stab trim cutouts right away. I'd argue that the 737MAX is plenty safe to fly as it sits; since any pilot will know what to do now.
Mar 22, 2019, 3:25 pm
#708
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,469
When you're hand-flying an airplane you are trimming frequently. Even more so in a transport jet as you are operating over a much wider range of speeds and configurations than smaller, slower airplanes. As conditions change, the nose either starts dropping below where you want it or it starts rising above it. You react by holding pressure to keep the nose in the desired position then re-trim to remove the pressure. This reaction is a normal part of hand-flying an airplane and should be an automatic response to an out-of-trim condition.
[...]
After three, maybe four, cycles the pilot should notice that everytime he trims the nose back up the airplane is trimming it back down. This is a stabilizer runaway. He can continue to counter the MCAS activations with his electric trim indefinitely or accomplish the stabilizer runaway procedure which will disable the system for the remainder of the flight.
The procedure is; 1. Grasp control wheel firmly. 2. Disconnect Autopilot (it's already off or MCAS wouldn't be operating) and autothrottle. 3. Stab Trim switches to Cutout.
AoA Disagree messages, or in-depth knowledge of MCAS , doesn't really help because you're busy controlling the airplane and don't have time for detailed thought on system interaction. That would come later when you're writing up the problem in the logbook for maintenance to fix. You fly the airplane. The key factor in identifying a stabilizer runaway is the repeated, or increasing, abnormal need to retrim.
[...]
[...]
After three, maybe four, cycles the pilot should notice that everytime he trims the nose back up the airplane is trimming it back down. This is a stabilizer runaway. He can continue to counter the MCAS activations with his electric trim indefinitely or accomplish the stabilizer runaway procedure which will disable the system for the remainder of the flight.
The procedure is; 1. Grasp control wheel firmly. 2. Disconnect Autopilot (it's already off or MCAS wouldn't be operating) and autothrottle. 3. Stab Trim switches to Cutout.
AoA Disagree messages, or in-depth knowledge of MCAS , doesn't really help because you're busy controlling the airplane and don't have time for detailed thought on system interaction. That would come later when you're writing up the problem in the logbook for maintenance to fix. You fly the airplane. The key factor in identifying a stabilizer runaway is the repeated, or increasing, abnormal need to retrim.
[...]
As a layperson, I'm wondering if there was a typo (in red): would MCAS only be operating when autopilot is on rather than off? The former makes intuitive sense to me, but if it's the latter — I am curious why would MCAS only operate when autopilot is off? From what I have understood so far, the MCAS was added to give the MAX a manoeuvring feel consistent with the non-MAX, but if it's primarily intended as a manual pilot aid, I don't understand why disconnecting the autopilot is part of the corrective action.
I think this question is complementary to zdog2x's post just above; it seems like an odd pattern that both of the problem flights crashed soon after takeoff.
———
Also, NPR's All Things Considered did a pretty nice summary of the market pressures (fuel) and design constraints (frame dimensions vs. engine size) that led to the conception of MCAS.
Link to summary:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/70597...s-737-max-jets
Link to audio:
https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp...7_max_jets.mp3
(This isn't UA specific, but I'm posting here for continuity of discussion.)
Mar 22, 2019, 3:42 pm
#710
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
That’s called “taking advantage of a situation”... no way could Boeing penalize them for it if they throw the safety card right now. The optics would be awful.
Mar 22, 2019, 3:46 pm
#711
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,707
Because of the higher / farther forward mounting of the MAX's engines and their location relative to the center of gravity compared to non-MAX 737s, a nose-high attitude like that experienced during initial climb makes the engines themselves in effect lift devices (as the oncoming air pushes up at the bottoms of the engines), leading to an even more nose-high attitude and a more critical AoA that may not be responded to adequately enough by the pilots. Boeing determined during flight testing that the MCAS solution was necessary to counteract that effect.
Mar 22, 2019, 5:18 pm
#712
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
and P.S. This news really makes Boeing look slimy and ugly....
"Attorney Steve Marks, who is representing the families of 20 Lion Air crash victims, said relatives of people who died were pressured by airline employees to sign agreements shortly after the disaster. The agreements stipulated a payment of 1.3 billion rupiah ($91,600) and barred family members from suing the airline. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.6b4fbae50092
Boeing was hoping that they could force grieving families to take an ultra-cheap pay-off before the truth of Boeing's own gross negligence came out. Really a dirt-bag move in light of subsequent developments.
It says airline employees asked victims' families to waive suing the airline.
I don't see where it says Boeing employees asked that they waive the right to go after Boeing.
Mar 22, 2019, 5:40 pm
#713
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Mar 22, 2019, 5:44 pm
#714
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
And it is radio, but hopefully NPR would not show picture of front of 737 from two generations ago that still shows the "eyebrow" windows (that were used to navigate by stars IIRC) like ABC news showed for the SECOND night in a row in their video
Mar 22, 2019, 5:51 pm
#715
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
Pretty sure no one ever navigated 737 Classics by the stars.
Mar 22, 2019, 7:36 pm
#717
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
Too many people around here in love with machines and companies, finding all sorts of ways to apologize for them. Not so much with actual people.
Mar 22, 2019, 8:02 pm
#718
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Yet, the situations are not so simple. Although there are no reports, I can almost guarantee neither accident will have been caused by one or even two factors. Almost every airplane crash is caused by a chain of events, which often includes faults with equipment that may or may not have been overcome if it were not for other factors.
Unequivocally pointing the finger at the aircraft without all of the facts is not respecting the lives that were lost. Neither Boeing nor the regulators nor the operators are interested in operating an aircraft with any type of fault and you can guarantee that the 737 MAX and it’s pilots will be safer when the airplane returns to device than before it was grounded. That is the least Boeing, the regulators and operators can do for the families of the 346 people that were lost.
Mar 22, 2019, 8:12 pm
#719
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,281
More complicated than this, The FAA required the MCAS for certification. W/o MCAS, it was deemed to unstable to be airworthy.
So why could Boeing not design it right in the first place? It is easy for people to just assume they made stupid mistakes, but that is very unlikely to me. I presume they made engineering decisions and tradeoffs based on issues we do not know. And if so, can they implement a system that does not push the risk elsewhere?
Do agree that the true next gen mid-size (whatever it is) is needed ASAP. Even if they fix this issue, the 737 kind of sucks.
So why could Boeing not design it right in the first place? It is easy for people to just assume they made stupid mistakes, but that is very unlikely to me. I presume they made engineering decisions and tradeoffs based on issues we do not know. And if so, can they implement a system that does not push the risk elsewhere?
Do agree that the true next gen mid-size (whatever it is) is needed ASAP. Even if they fix this issue, the 737 kind of sucks.
Mar 22, 2019, 8:13 pm
#720
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
The loss of life is tragic. I don’t think anyone is attempting to disagree.
Yet, the situations are not so simple. Although there are no reports, I can almost guarantee neither accident will have been caused by one or even two factors. Almost every airplane crash is caused by a chain of events, which often includes faults with equipment that may or may not have been overcome if it were not for other factors.
Unequivocally pointing the finger at the aircraft without all of the facts is not respecting the lives that were lost. Neither Boeing nor the regulators nor the operators are interested in operating an aircraft with any type of fault and you can guarantee that the 737 MAX and it’s pilots will be safer when the airplane returns to device than before it was grounded. That is the least Boeing, the regulators and operators can do for the families of the 346 people that were lost.
I want my manufacturers and regulators to be absolutely ruthless about safety, and in this case, I think the foot went ever so slightly off the gas.
Absolutely, the MAXes will be safer when they return to service. They damn well ought to be. And it shouldn't have taken stalling on the part of Boeing to ground 'em on the second crash, let alone the first. Abundance. of. caution. Not abundance of profits.