Sep 19, 2017, 10:25 am
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
Apr 21, 2019, 3:08 pm
#2641
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,353
I'd say that the first factor in the length of time would be the reason for the go-around. Second would be local traffic. Almost no traffic, weather related, likely back on the approach in 5 min or less. Busy traffic, but weather related.... 20min+. Emergency.... regardless of traffic levels, up to the pilot. If he says I need on the ground NOW.... less than 5 min. More often though they say that they need time to do checklists etc etc and it takes them 10-15min to be ready to go, which gets closer to the 20min mark.
That being said, today I saw multiple missed approaches at TZ, one after another after another, and they all kept saying they wanted to try again. I think the same flight missed 3 times in a row, and each one was 6-8 min apart and that's with sequencing other Q400s and dealing with their missed approaches also.
That being said, today I saw multiple missed approaches at TZ, one after another after another, and they all kept saying they wanted to try again. I think the same flight missed 3 times in a row, and each one was 6-8 min apart and that's with sequencing other Q400s and dealing with their missed approaches also.
My dad, who had been waiting for me at YTZ, was not amused.
Apr 21, 2019, 4:00 pm
#2642
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: YYZ most of the time
Programs: AC SE100K MM, Princess Elite
Posts: 3,921
You were lucky. I know 2 went to YYZ, one to YHM, one back to YOW, and when I went on break there were still 3 or 4 holding. I came back from break and the weather had improved enough that no one else was holding. I don't know where they went, but they weren't in the sky anymore.
Apr 21, 2019, 4:55 pm
#2643
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
Apr 21, 2019, 6:23 pm
#2644
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
I find it interesting that the US authorities are still sticking to the argument that the Max is the same as the other 737 and for them to return to service after the software upgrade there is no need for the pilots to have to do Max based simulator training. The Canadian authorizes disagree and are requiring MAX 8 simulator time.
Looks like Air Canada is the only North American airline that owns a Max 8 simulator. The other airlines are using NG simulators.
Perhaps this is the start of Transport Canada saying the MAX and NG are different types of aircraft and pilots just move between them. That would be quite a departure from the Boeing and FFA position.
Looks like Air Canada is the only North American airline that owns a Max 8 simulator. The other airlines are using NG simulators.
Perhaps this is the start of Transport Canada saying the MAX and NG are different types of aircraft and pilots just move between them. That would be quite a departure from the Boeing and FFA position.
Apr 21, 2019, 8:20 pm
#2645
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
I find it interesting that the US authorities are still sticking to the argument that the Max is the same as the other 737 and for them to return to service after the software upgrade there is no need for the pilots to have to do Max based simulator training. The Canadian authorizes disagree and are requiring MAX 8 simulator time.
Looks like Air Canada is the only North American airline that owns a Max 8 simulator. The other airlines are using NG simulators.
Perhaps this is the start of Transport Canada saying the MAX and NG are different types of aircraft and pilots just move between them. That would be quite a departure from the Boeing and FFA position.
Looks like Air Canada is the only North American airline that owns a Max 8 simulator. The other airlines are using NG simulators.
Perhaps this is the start of Transport Canada saying the MAX and NG are different types of aircraft and pilots just move between them. That would be quite a departure from the Boeing and FFA position.
Until the training syllabus is released, it's presumptuous to speculate what TC is thinking. Unless TC did not already require simulator training for runaway stabilizer trim (something I would find very surprising), it will be interesting to hear exactly what the new training comprises. MCAS V2.0 is pretty uneventful.
Last edited by bimmerdriver; Apr 21, 2019 at 8:30 pm
Apr 22, 2019, 10:24 am
#2646
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,005
Canada’s Transport Minister Marc Garneau is suggesting he’ll break ranks with the FAA’s handling of the Boeing MAX 8 fix and require simulator training for MAX pilots flying in Canadian airspace.
Air Canada says it owns the only one in North America besides those used by Boeing itself and there are reportedly only two airline-owned MAX simulators in Europe.
Canada May Require MAX Sim Training - AVweb flash Article
Air Canada says it owns the only one in North America besides those used by Boeing itself and there are reportedly only two airline-owned MAX simulators in Europe.
Canada May Require MAX Sim Training - AVweb flash Article
Apr 22, 2019, 2:54 pm
#2648
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
I appreciate the political aspect to this story given the latest linked news however let's try and refrain from wandering too far afield into political commentary lest the thread get even more unwieldy and off topic than it already is.
tcook052
AC forum mod.
tcook052
AC forum mod.
Apr 24, 2019, 5:43 am
#2649
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
CBC: Passengers are afraid of this airplane': How Boeing is handling its 737 Max prob
CBC: Passengers are afraid of this airplane': How Boeing is handling its 737 Max problem
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the...eing-1.5107529
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the...eing-1.5107529
Originally Posted by https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the-national-737-max-boeing-1.5107529
CBC: Passengers are afraid of this airplane': How Boeing is handling its 737 Max problem
Jet's maker has a technical fix, now comes the hard part: getting passengers on board again
David Common · CBC News · Posted: Apr 24, 2019 4:00 AM ET
Boeing has made changes to its 737 Max airliner and conducted more than 100 test flights to show that apparent problems have been fixed in the wake of two deadly crashes. Convincing passengers will be much harder.
"Passengers are afraid of this airplane," aviation industry analyst Henry Harteveldt says.
"I haven't seen anything like this in decades, in terms of consumer fear and desire to avoid flying on the 737 Max."
Little wonder, given all the media coverage showing that a system designed for safety may have been a factor in the crashes involving both Lion Air last October and Ethiopian Airlines in March. The airliners both struggled at low altitude, then plummeted nose-first into the ground while the pilots frantically tried to figure out why their aircraft weren't responding to the controls...
Jet's maker has a technical fix, now comes the hard part: getting passengers on board again
David Common · CBC News · Posted: Apr 24, 2019 4:00 AM ET
Boeing has made changes to its 737 Max airliner and conducted more than 100 test flights to show that apparent problems have been fixed in the wake of two deadly crashes. Convincing passengers will be much harder.
"Passengers are afraid of this airplane," aviation industry analyst Henry Harteveldt says.
"I haven't seen anything like this in decades, in terms of consumer fear and desire to avoid flying on the 737 Max."
Little wonder, given all the media coverage showing that a system designed for safety may have been a factor in the crashes involving both Lion Air last October and Ethiopian Airlines in March. The airliners both struggled at low altitude, then plummeted nose-first into the ground while the pilots frantically tried to figure out why their aircraft weren't responding to the controls...
Apr 24, 2019, 7:30 am
#2650
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,999
CBC: Passengers are afraid of this airplane': How Boeing is handling its 737 Max problem
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the...eing-1.5107529
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the...eing-1.5107529
Apr 24, 2019, 10:02 am
#2652
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC 50k 1MM, Marriott LT Titanium Elite
Posts: 3,402
I am also having problem understanding how software could fix this.
So the software post fix turns off MCAS more easily? So it isn't really needed in the first place? The obvious inference is that it will be turned off by the software when it is actually needed. In which case the pilot training should not only be for how to shut it off when it activates incorrectly, but how to fly the plane when it didn't activate but should have? Is that type of training being done by AC? Mandated by CTA? FAA? And if the latter is the case, how on earth does this pass the sniff test in terms of being the same plane as the 737 was previously in terms of training and certification?
It seems pretty clear that *IF* MCAS solves a real issue, then it is needed. And if it is needed, the current sensor model (2 sensors only, if they disagree MCAS is turned off--I believe that is what is described as the "fix" in what is know publicly) is insufficient. Therefore software fix alone is not sufficient. Not really sure that Boeing is really trying to do anything other than get their planes back in the air as fast as possible.
Of course, with no complete public disclosure of what the fix is, this post is speculative.
Apr 24, 2019, 10:09 am
#2654
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,353
No kidding.
I am also having problem understanding how software could fix this.
So the software post fix turns off MCAS more easily? So it isn't really needed in the first place? The obvious inference is that it will be turned off by the software when it is actually needed. In which case the pilot training should not only be for how to shut it off when it activates incorrectly, but how to fly the plane when it didn't activate but should have? Is that type of training being done by AC? Mandated by CTA? FAA? And if the latter is the case, how on earth does this pass the sniff test in terms of being the same plane as the 737 was previously in terms of training and certification?
It seems pretty clear that *IF* MCAS solves a real issue, then it is needed. And if it is needed, the current sensor model (2 sensors only, if they disagree MCAS is turned off--I believe that is what is described as the "fix" in what is know publicly) is insufficient. Therefore software fix alone is not sufficient. Not really sure that Boeing is really trying to do anything other than get their planes back in the air as fast as possible.
Of course, with no complete public disclosure of what the fix is, this post is speculative.
I am also having problem understanding how software could fix this.
So the software post fix turns off MCAS more easily? So it isn't really needed in the first place? The obvious inference is that it will be turned off by the software when it is actually needed. In which case the pilot training should not only be for how to shut it off when it activates incorrectly, but how to fly the plane when it didn't activate but should have? Is that type of training being done by AC? Mandated by CTA? FAA? And if the latter is the case, how on earth does this pass the sniff test in terms of being the same plane as the 737 was previously in terms of training and certification?
It seems pretty clear that *IF* MCAS solves a real issue, then it is needed. And if it is needed, the current sensor model (2 sensors only, if they disagree MCAS is turned off--I believe that is what is described as the "fix" in what is know publicly) is insufficient. Therefore software fix alone is not sufficient. Not really sure that Boeing is really trying to do anything other than get their planes back in the air as fast as possible.
Of course, with no complete public disclosure of what the fix is, this post is speculative.
Every modern twin engine aircraft is perfectly capable of taking off, flying, and landing with one engine.
That doesn't mean the second engine is optional, or that it isn't crucial for safety.
Any system can fail, just like MCAS. And in the event of a failure, flight becomes more difficult. If MCAS/AOA failures are as rare as they appear, a means to easily disable it while maintaining control of the aircraft may be all that's needed.
Apr 24, 2019, 10:20 am
#2655
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC 50k 1MM, Marriott LT Titanium Elite
Posts: 3,402
That isn't how it works.
Every modern twin engine aircraft is perfectly capable of taking off, flying, and landing with one engine.
That doesn't mean the second engine is optional, or that it isn't crucial for safety.
Any system can fail, just like MCAS. And in the event of a failure, flight becomes more difficult. If MCAS/AOA failures are as rare as they appear, a means to easily disable it while maintaining control of the aircraft may be all that's needed.
Every modern twin engine aircraft is perfectly capable of taking off, flying, and landing with one engine.
That doesn't mean the second engine is optional, or that it isn't crucial for safety.
Any system can fail, just like MCAS. And in the event of a failure, flight becomes more difficult. If MCAS/AOA failures are as rare as they appear, a means to easily disable it while maintaining control of the aircraft may be all that's needed.
I get that it isn't a binary condition. The plane can be flown without it. However, my point (perhaps poorly phrased) was that it is off and needed, and if it is more likely to be off and needed than prior to the fix, then shouldn't training also be covering the off and needed scenario. In addition to the on and trying to force the plane to crash scenario.
If we really wanted to be precise, it would be interesting to know what percentage of problem scenarios are addressed by the "off and needed"? Because if it is only 1%, and the other 99% are "activated and not needed (and trying to cause a crash)" then I would ask: is it worth the risk? What is the likelihood that even with good training it will still result in a problem? OTOH, if "off and needed" is 95% of the scenarios, doesn't it seem like a good hardware fix is a better idea than just a software fix? (And yes I know that strays in the Boeing vs. Airbus control philosophy...)