Last edit by: 24left
Jan 18 2021 TC issues Airworthiness Directive for the 737 MAX
Link to post https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32976892-post4096.html
Cabin photos
Post 976 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29534462-post976.html
Post 1300 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29780203-post1300.html
Cabin Layout
Interior Specs can be found here https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/home/fly/onboard/fleet.html
- Window seats may feel narrower to come as the armrests are placed "into" the "curvature" of the cabin.
- Seats with no windows feel even more narrower as there is no space created by the curvature of window.
- All bulkhead seats have very limited legroom.
- Seats 15A, 16A, 16F, 17A and 17F have limited windows.
- Exit rows 19 and 20 have more legroom than regular preferred seats.
Routes
The 737 MAX is designated to replace the A320-series. Based on announcements and schedule updates, the following specific routes will be operated by the 737 MAX in future:
YYZ-LAX (periodic flights)
YYZ-SNN (new route)
YUL-DUB (new route)
YYZ/YUL-KEF (replacing Rouge A319)
YYT-LHR (replacing Mainline A319)
YHZ-LHR (replacing Mainline B767)
Hawaii Routes YVR/YYC (replacing Rouge B767)
Many domestic trunk routes (YYZ, YVR, YUL, YYC) now operated by 7M8, replacing A320 family
Link to post https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32976892-post4096.html
Cabin photos
Post 976 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29534462-post976.html
Post 1300 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29780203-post1300.html
Cabin Layout
Interior Specs can be found here https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/home/fly/onboard/fleet.html
- Window seats may feel narrower to come as the armrests are placed "into" the "curvature" of the cabin.
- Seats with no windows feel even more narrower as there is no space created by the curvature of window.
- All bulkhead seats have very limited legroom.
- Seats 15A, 16A, 16F, 17A and 17F have limited windows.
- Exit rows 19 and 20 have more legroom than regular preferred seats.
Routes
The 737 MAX is designated to replace the A320-series. Based on announcements and schedule updates, the following specific routes will be operated by the 737 MAX in future:
YYZ-LAX (periodic flights)
YYZ-SNN (new route)
YUL-DUB (new route)
YYZ/YUL-KEF (replacing Rouge A319)
YYT-LHR (replacing Mainline A319)
YHZ-LHR (replacing Mainline B767)
Hawaii Routes YVR/YYC (replacing Rouge B767)
Many domestic trunk routes (YYZ, YVR, YUL, YYC) now operated by 7M8, replacing A320 family
Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet
#2327
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
@RangerNS
so I don't get in trouble with MOD for duplicate post, please see above comparing A330 & MAX - AF 447 was found to have design defect that was corrected and aircraft moved forward for delivery and continued successful operation.
So to answer your question...until the French Navy did heroic work to retrieve the black boxes deep in the Atlantic, the A330 continued to fly with what was later discovered to be a latent defect. Should the A330 have been grounded at the time of the loss given NO evident explanation for mid-flight break-up?
And I am NOT the AC Chief Pilot, so really you should direct your question in written form to AC with copy to the TC Minister with the blunt questions you are correctly asking.
I can't help you, but they should be held to account for their decisions, should they not???
so I don't get in trouble with MOD for duplicate post, please see above comparing A330 & MAX - AF 447 was found to have design defect that was corrected and aircraft moved forward for delivery and continued successful operation.
So to answer your question...until the French Navy did heroic work to retrieve the black boxes deep in the Atlantic, the A330 continued to fly with what was later discovered to be a latent defect. Should the A330 have been grounded at the time of the loss given NO evident explanation for mid-flight break-up?
And I am NOT the AC Chief Pilot, so really you should direct your question in written form to AC with copy to the TC Minister with the blunt questions you are correctly asking.
I can't help you, but they should be held to account for their decisions, should they not???
You are talking apples to oranges. The AF A330 was caused by icing, and the pilot flow the aircraft into the water under control. The Max issues are that the aircraft is unstable in flight and Boeing used a software fix. This software has many problem, but with out it, this aircraft could not be certified. Also, the pilots lost control of the aircraft.
#2329
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Delta, BC
Posts: 1,646
@skybluesea: how many crashes of a particular aircraft type would you need for that types airworthiness to be suspect? How many before you look into the type and not just however many incidents got you there? How many before you would ground the fleet?
100 crashes with 100 different root causes would be extreme but far less rationale for fleet grounding than 10 crashes with 10 similar root causes.
Aviation safety is a science and the issues with the 737MAX need to be addressed scientifically not emotionally.
#2330
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
If in the 10/10 cases were bad maintenance, and it turned out to be simply sloppy maintenance, then that is different then it turned out to be unclear maintenance manuals.
#2331
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
Sorry, but it is incomplete to say AF 447 was SOLELY icing problem, major contributory of course, but an aircraft defect did exist, as noted in link from BEA official report, and yes AF crew also lost control. For clarity, the pitot tubes needed to be replaced, but they weren't so AF 447 could have been avoided by correcting a latent defect.
Be
Be
Also, only one A330 was lost this way. Just like the MAX, the aircraft was not grounded. It was only ground after the second aircraft crash.
#2332
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
No, the AF flight crew did not loss control of the aircraft. They got false air speed reading because of icing and cut back the power to the engines to slow the aircraft down. This caused the aircraft to loss elevation and crash into the ocean. This crash should have never happened if the pilots were on the ball.
Also, only one A330 was lost this way. Just like the MAX, the aircraft was not grounded. It was only ground after the second aircraft crash.
Also, only one A330 was lost this way. Just like the MAX, the aircraft was not grounded. It was only ground after the second aircraft crash.
More info and the investigation report can be found here: https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20090601-0
#2333
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Programs: AC SE100K, F9 100k, NK Gold, UA *S, Hyatt Glob, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 5,195
Boeing stripped out MCAS from the user/training manuals, and got FAA certification for only 0.6 degrees of MCAS trim but later setting it to a value of 2.5 degrees (repeats quickly to become 5 degrees).
A little bit like Dieselgate where Volkswagen and Bosch engineers colluded and hid code within millions of lines. (researchers later found they named it acoustic mode when it really sensed if the car was being emission tested and was only compliant during that one scenario instead of regular driving.)
If my car analogies are no good here is someone else's They posted in light of the frightening news that ET pilots actually DID disable the cutoff switches per Boeing's tech bulletin.
from pprune user @memberberry
It's like Porsche launching a new 911 model, that automatically opens the throttle when you are climbing a steep hill, and the engine is close to stalling, controlled partly by the RPM sensor. And if the RPM sensor fails, the car will suddenly accelerate for no reason, with no way of turning that off, except by turning off the ignition. Except you now have to brake and get the car under control, and that may be difficult because the power steering and power brakes stop working when the engine is turned off. And imagine having to do that on a winding downhill road.
I think that's a close enough analogy to the 737 MAX problems. What would people then think of Porsche if they would come with a press release saying: "our car is perfectly fine, any driver should know to turn off the engine in that situation"?
I think that's a close enough analogy to the 737 MAX problems. What would people then think of Porsche if they would come with a press release saying: "our car is perfectly fine, any driver should know to turn off the engine in that situation"?
This throws the notion that Western pilots would not have crashed, or that Air Canada 737 pilots would not have crashed because they were trained only on the MAX (not the 737NG) out the window.
I suspect that if one of the ~100 North American MAX planes had an AOA sensor fail, they would have crashed as well. In fact, some have questioned if the FAA's approval of repositioning / ferry permits were an unreasonable risk.
Last edited by expert7700; Apr 3, 2019 at 12:51 pm
#2334
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ideally YOW, but probably not
Programs: AC SE*MM
Posts: 1,827
For ET we know MCAS was engaged, what combination of issues caused the crash isn't known by anyone. There isn't even a preliminary report issued yet, let alone a final report. Every single bit of this is baseless speculation. But go ahead and keep running around like chickens with your heads cut off.
#2335
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
There's some interesting speculation on pprune that the problem could be electronic signal interference of some kind; there's an early (and thus unverified) report that the Ethiopian flight had a very similar failure mode in the AOA sensor - both sensors were off by "about 22 degrees". ref: https://www.satcom.guru/2019/03/ethi...s-to-lion.html
If that turns out to be true, and there is a systemic cause to the AOA failure, then it will require even more work to correct (in addition to the MCAS s/w fix) -- and it would be indicative of at least two distinct design flaws that escaped into production.
One design flaw escape is an unfortunate occurrence. Two is indicative of a systemic testing failure, and opens the door to there being other flaws in the plane which are as yet undiscovered.
Yes, there's a lot of "ifs" and speculation involved here .... but it may well be the case that MCAS is not the only problem with the MAX.
#2336
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
One design flaw escape is an unfortunate occurrence. Two is indicative of a systemic testing failure, and opens the door to there being other flaws in the plane which are as yet undiscovered.
Yes, there's a lot of "ifs" and speculation involved here .... but it may well be the case that MCAS is not the only problem with the MAX.
Yes, there's a lot of "ifs" and speculation involved here .... but it may well be the case that MCAS is not the only problem with the MAX.
#2337
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
But what we learned yesterday is ET flight crew actually followed MCAS procedure, but failed to control aircraft anyway. So is this NOT part of the ET Chief Pilot responsibility to ensure the crews are ready before being dispatched?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopi...em-11554263276 e
As for AC chief pilots and safety and whatnot, a good many years passed between the pilot fatigue incident on AC 878 and the SFO incident. Pilots said many things in the interim. Didn't count for much.
#2338
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
Sorry, what? The crew reportedly did what Boeing told them to do and it didn't work as advertised. How is that the responsibility of the ET Chief Pilot? Or are you arguing that a former NG pilot with 8000 hours was only trained in te MCAS procedure, and not how to fly planes.
As for AC chief pilots and safety and whatnot, a good many years passed between the pilot fatigue incident on AC 878 and the SFO incident. Pilots said many things in the interim. Didn't count for much.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et...-to-stop-mcas/
#2339
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Well, according to Bjorn Fehrm they didn't really have a chance to save the day. They were fast due to completed checklist, they shut off the electric trim after MCAS kicked in and trimmed the aircraft down. Apparently hand trimming is very difficult at high speeds.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et...-to-stop-mcas/
https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et...-to-stop-mcas/
But I'm sure many here believe that AC pilots could and would have saved the day. Because Canada.
#2340
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
[
the Seattle times does a good job of explaining what Bjorn Fehrm is getting at in layman's terms...
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...iopian-flight/
Well, according to Bjorn Fehrm they didn't really have a chance to save the day. They were fast due to completed checklist, they shut off the electric trim after MCAS kicked in and trimmed the aircraft down. Apparently hand trimming is very difficult at high speeds.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et...-to-stop-mcas/
https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et...-to-stop-mcas/
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...iopian-flight/