marke190

RatherBeInYOW

I didn't say your post was irrelevant, not in the slightest. Try reading again: I said the comparison of the ET 737 MAX grounding and the Dreamliner battery grounding are irrelevant (to my point), because you are dealing with an issue or issues in the former that are (admittedly by the regulatory agencies) completely unknown and in the latter you are dealing with an issue that was well known. The FAA could make a decision on Dreamliner batteries based on actual evidence, and the evidence made the grounding decision quite defensible.

But thanks for turning my point in to an ad-homenim attack though, nice netiquette.

cairo604

Just got an email from a concierge about this... in my case it will be cheaper to do a SDC since my change fee is $1600.00 HKD ($275 CAD).

"We will waive the charges for any fare difference, however any applicable regular change fee will still apply."
"please understand that Air Canada has total confidence in the safety of its Boeing 737 Max operations. "

mellon

deleted.

24left

Air Canada flight attendants’ union says crew don’t want to be forced to fly on Boeing 737 MAX 8

March 12, 2019 6:05 pm

https://globalnews.ca/news/5049502/a...ing-737-max-8/

sunzi

I rarely post on flyertalk, mostly just follow the threads that interest me.

I have been following this thread and a couple of others concerning the 737 Max these past couple of days and see that there is a vast array of opinions.

I don't do much flying these days because my wife and I added two youngs one the past couple of years but my take on the matter is I won't or allow my family on the 737 Max. The reasons that many have already articulated with two accidents within 5 months from preliminary examination that share some similarities, I think it is prudent to ground these planes especially since these are new planes.

I don't think anybody is saying to ground planes after every accident but the given the circumstances here, I think it is prudent to do so.

If it is found out to be case, nothing wrong with the planes, great. At most some inconveniences to the passengers. If it is found something is wrong with the plane, didn't the regulators who didn't ground just risk the lives of passengers by allowing them to fly and god forbid if there was another accident.

D582

skybluesea

delete

eigenvector

The evidence is that two planes have crashed with the loss of all aboard in very short succession. Is this the outcome regulators anticipated when they certified this aircraft? Did regulators rely too much on the manufacturer's assertions in the certification process?

They can always revisit their work, not applying a different standard but looking at things they did not anticipate and with the benefit of knowledge of incidents that hadn't occurred yet when the aircraft was certified. Call it continuous improvement if you want.

Revisiting the approval of a device that has catastrophically failed with hundreds of lives lost not once but twice is not only reasonable, it's the only responsible action to take.

When there are life safety implications, it's reasonable to suspend the approval pending review.

sunzi

Yes, these planes were purchased through a certification process but that doesn't mean things can't be missed. Also, often decisions have to be made without all the evidence.

With the nature of air travel such that when an accident like this occurs is highly fatal, I think it is good to er on the side of caution. Again, i am not proposing after every single accident to ground planes just in this case, it will be prudent to do so.

Yes, somebody will pay if the planes are grounded but i think it is better than the alternative of another possibility of hull loss.

Finally, regardless what decision Garneau makes, I am not going to ask him to step down. His decision will most likely based on his risk profile. It is not right or wrong, just different people have different risk profiles just like maybe you might be fine to fly the 737 Max and I am not.

P.S. Being at home now with two young ones for the time being, I highly suspect this will be my form of entertainment as I am nursing them to sleep.

Jebby_ca

RCyyz

The FAA statement, on the surface at least, is fair. Given the popularity of the 7M8, there have been near countless flights since Lion air and likely hundreds of flights since ET. So statistically, the 7M8 could still be considered "safe".

That said, it seems reasonably clear (at least in the case of Lion), the software and associated systems controlling the 7M8 stabilizer are deeply flawed. I think a potential added challenge is that MCAS may be at fault during takeoff - a period of time which is rather busy for the guys sitting in the pointy end of the plane. One is supposed to aviate, navigate and communicate but when you're only a few thousand feet up and hauling back on the yoke, do you immediately flick the switch and spin the stabilizer wheel or do you keep hauling back, adjust the throttle and do other "normal" stuff? Until and unless it becomes SOP to adjust the stabilizer by disabling MCAS as a first and primary step, I suspect many pilots will continue to try and aviate, only getting around to stabilizer adjustments a little later on which, in the case of the 7M8, may actually be too late.

Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, I think it's fair to ground the 7M8 until the software fix is in, and until it's reasonably demonstrated the software fix works and until 7M8 crews have some more fun in the sims before doing it for real.

The worst case scenario here is another 100+ dead pax. I don't think it's worth it.

RCyyz

Addendum - Lion crashed into the sea and ET crashed in a field. The next 7M8 that goes down may not have lots of nothing to crash into.

FreedomIsntFree

meagicano