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
May 15, 2019, 3:52 pm
#1426
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
"the probable causes of the accident were the flight crew's mismanagement of the aircraft's speed, altitude, headings and attitude through inconsistent flight control inputs resulting in a loss of control and their failure to abide by CRM [Crew Resource Management] principles of mutual support and calling deviations"
Their training is not delivering basic airmanship and CRM.
May 15, 2019, 4:40 pm
#1427
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,181
May 15, 2019, 5:38 pm
#1428
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
Question: Did 350 people have to die for us to realize all pilots -- not just US mainline ones -- should be trained and familiar with basic procedures and that the FO is and should be a co-pilot, with all that entails? Could we have seen the potential dangers, identified and remedied them earlier in the process? If you're going to avoid the 737MAX (as is your right to do) over misunderstanding what MCAS is or isn't, I presume you are also going to avoid airlines that use co-pilots with flight experience measured in the low hundreds rather than thousands of hours?
May 15, 2019, 6:30 pm
#1429
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
Question: Did 350 people have to die for us to realize all pilots -- not just US mainline ones -- should be trained and familiar with basic procedures and that the FO is and should be a co-pilot, with all that entails? Could we have seen the potential dangers, identified and remedied them earlier in the process? If you're going to avoid the 737MAX (as is your right to do) over misunderstanding what MCAS is or isn't, I presume you are also going to avoid airlines that use co-pilots with flight experience measured in the low hundreds rather than thousands of hours?
This is a pretty good documentary including interviews with well experienced flight crews who also have no confidence in this aircraft:
May 15, 2019, 7:02 pm
#1430
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
May 15, 2019, 7:17 pm
#1431
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,821
This thread has once again turned "personal", especially some recent posts (now deleted).
If you are thinking about commenting about other posters, don't -- stay to the issues and stay away from commenting on posters (even in a third party way - that is not fooling anyone.). We can disagree but the rules are clear
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
If you are thinking about commenting about other posters, don't -- stay to the issues and stay away from commenting on posters (even in a third party way - that is not fooling anyone.). We can disagree but the rules are clear
12.2 Avoid Getting Personal
If you have a difference of opinion with another member, challenge the idea — NOT the person. Getting personal with another member is not allowed. Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming will not be tolerated.
If you have a difference of opinion with another member, challenge the idea — NOT the person. Getting personal with another member is not allowed. Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming will not be tolerated.
UA coModerator
May 15, 2019, 8:05 pm
#1432
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
Dennis Tajer is a pilot I can trust.
May 15, 2019, 11:36 pm
#1433
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
This thread has once again turned "personal", especially some recent posts (now deleted).
If you are thinking about commenting about other posters, don't -- stay to the issues and stay away from commenting on posters (even in a third party way - that is not fooling anyone.). We can disagree but the rules are clear
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
If you are thinking about commenting about other posters, don't -- stay to the issues and stay away from commenting on posters (even in a third party way - that is not fooling anyone.). We can disagree but the rules are clear
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
“8th May 2019, 09:23 Post #5130 Thread closed until there is actual news
Abrasive posturing and in fighting has become the dominant feature of the thread. We'll wait until there is substantive news.
Rob”
May 16, 2019, 3:24 am
#1434
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,291
May 16, 2019, 4:38 am
#1435
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
May 16, 2019, 9:06 am
#1436
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,386
See, this is why the discussions keep getting personal. That statement is utter nonsense.
The 737 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft. It cannot fly itself into the ground. It's simply not possible. So, when people keep repeating this kind of thing, it gets extremely frustrating to anyone who's trying to have a reasoned, nuanced discussion of the aircraft.
When the final reports come out -- which won't be for at least a year on the ET crash -- some of the blame will almost certainly be ascribed to the pilots for failing to recognize and correct the emergency situation. I have no wish to speak ill of the dead, and I don't mean to exonerate the aircraft entirely, but framing it as though the pilots had no control at all is inaccurate. In a 737, the pilots are in control.
I don't understand why this seems so controversial: blame is going to end up being shared. Boeing needs to correct the tendency of the MAX to create emergency situations at a rate greater than the NG, and the airlines need to make sure that the pilots are trained to deal with the emergencies that do arise. Air travel, on all commercial aircraft, is extremely safe, but the only plane that is immune to emergencies is one that's parked out at Vacaville.
The 737 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft. It cannot fly itself into the ground. It's simply not possible. So, when people keep repeating this kind of thing, it gets extremely frustrating to anyone who's trying to have a reasoned, nuanced discussion of the aircraft.
When the final reports come out -- which won't be for at least a year on the ET crash -- some of the blame will almost certainly be ascribed to the pilots for failing to recognize and correct the emergency situation. I have no wish to speak ill of the dead, and I don't mean to exonerate the aircraft entirely, but framing it as though the pilots had no control at all is inaccurate. In a 737, the pilots are in control.
I don't understand why this seems so controversial: blame is going to end up being shared. Boeing needs to correct the tendency of the MAX to create emergency situations at a rate greater than the NG, and the airlines need to make sure that the pilots are trained to deal with the emergencies that do arise. Air travel, on all commercial aircraft, is extremely safe, but the only plane that is immune to emergencies is one that's parked out at Vacaville.
May 16, 2019, 9:27 am
#1437
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
Watch the 60 Minutes Australia video. From a layman's point of view, those planes flew themselves into the ground, because a computer system continually nosed down the aircraft, and the pilots were never provided the proper training because they were never even informed that such a computer system had been added to the MAX.
When the final reports come out -- which won't be for at least a year on the ET crash -- some of the blame will almost certainly be ascribed to the pilots for failing to recognize and correct the emergency situation.
In a 737, the pilots are in control.
May 16, 2019, 9:44 am
#1438
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,386
The title card alone was enough to convince me that it was sensationalism and not a serious attempt at journalism.
The reason that this procedure was documented in 1967 is that it was possible to have a runaway stabilizer in 1967. The MCAS appears to make that more likely, and that's something that should be fixed. But if the steps to resolve the situation are exactly the same, why would you change the procedure? The fewer things pilots have to remember, the better.
May 16, 2019, 9:53 am
#1439
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
May 16, 2019, 10:01 am
#1440
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,386
Consider driving a car. If the car stalls, do you immediately wonder if there's a problem with the air intake, fuel injection system, or maybe you got some low-quality gas? Or do you attempt to clear the car from the road and get to safety before you start trying to diagnose the problem?
The same thing is true for a pilot. With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say that Boeing should have included specific training on this system. But what would the training have consisted of? "If the aircraft keeps nosing down, disengage the automatic stabilizer." But that's exactly what you're supposed to do if you can't control the pitch of the aircraft in the first place.
There is no time, in an emergency situation, to diagnose the cause of a failure. There's plenty of time to do that after the plane has landed. The entire focus should be upon resolving the situation.
Now, to be clear -- if there were some special MCAS failure mode that needed to be differentiated from other runaway stabilizer situations, then, of course it should have bene included. "If you notice the plane nose down, and, after 15 seconds, it noses down again, do X, Y, Z, but if it only happens once, do A, B, C." As far as we know, there is no such thing.
The same thing is true for a pilot. With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say that Boeing should have included specific training on this system. But what would the training have consisted of? "If the aircraft keeps nosing down, disengage the automatic stabilizer." But that's exactly what you're supposed to do if you can't control the pitch of the aircraft in the first place.
There is no time, in an emergency situation, to diagnose the cause of a failure. There's plenty of time to do that after the plane has landed. The entire focus should be upon resolving the situation.
Now, to be clear -- if there were some special MCAS failure mode that needed to be differentiated from other runaway stabilizer situations, then, of course it should have bene included. "If you notice the plane nose down, and, after 15 seconds, it noses down again, do X, Y, Z, but if it only happens once, do A, B, C." As far as we know, there is no such thing.