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 28, 2019, 12:55 pm
#2701
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
My experience with CSA certification is that in practice it tends to be very arbitrary. I have on multiple situations imported equipment into Canada that was not CSA certified as the original manufacture had no desire to do CSA. You end up having to have someone come in and do a special inspection and place there sticker. There are about a dozen companies authorized to inspect against the CSA standard. The level of depths can be quite variable from one inspector another.
I would hope aircraft are more systematic.
I would hope aircraft are more systematic.
I'm sure the process for aircraft is more systematic, but as we have seen with the 737 MAX, things can slip through the cracks even with FAA.
Apr 28, 2019, 1:08 pm
#2703
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
Ad hominem arguments are not worth responding. BTW do you need a Latin translation? I am sure that my Latin is better than the Boeing's guys 
. But no, I am not going to grace you with my credentials. In this sort of forum, it is the value of the words said that are supposed to carry weight, not who the posters are or what their CV is.
. But no, I am not going to grace you with my credentials. In this sort of forum, it is the value of the words said that are supposed to carry weight, not who the posters are or what their CV is.
Apr 28, 2019, 1:12 pm
#2704
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
I think it's fair to say that a lot of people - internal at Boeing, FAA regulators, national agencies around the world, and airline purchasers - will all be reviewing their processes after the MAX fiasco. However, of that list I hold the airlines the least accountable.
I think the question comes down to one of reasonableness; just how deep into the aircraft design is it reasonable to expect for the airlines to dig, before they purchase a new plane from the manufacturer?
- Should they understand the basic operational characteristics of the plane? Of course.
- Should they follow the manufacturers guidance relating to minimum pilot training requirements? Yes.
- Should they inspect the physical plane upon delivery and ensure there are no manufacturing flaws? Absolutely
- Are they required to re-validate every single engineering decision that was made during design? No, I don't think that's feasible.
- Are they expected to conduct their own code reviews of all software running in the plane? Of course not.
If the airlines did know about the existence of the MCAS system, then it's reasonable for them to have asked why that system was there, what it did, and possibly even some of the questions we're asking now (were alternative designs considered, etc) ... but even for them to have asked "how many AOA sensors does this system use to drive activation" is a pretty deep question for them to have asked.
As I said, I think that a lot of people will all be reviewing their processes after this, but I can't think of any similar precedent for this situation (certainly not recently) that would have motivated those sorts of detailed questions, last year (aka, before the first crash).
Apr 28, 2019, 2:32 pm
#2705
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Ad hominem arguments are not worth responding. BTW do you need a Latin translation? I am sure that my Latin is better than the Boeing's guys . But no, I am not going to grace you with my credentials. In this sort of forum, it is the value of the words said that are supposed to carry weight, not who the posters are or what their CV is.
. But no, I am not going to grace you with my credentials. In this sort of forum, it is the value of the words said that are supposed to carry weight, not who the posters are or what their CV is.I have a colleague who uses CFD calculations for analyzing dynamics and efficiency of large ships. It's very complex. It takes years of experience, expensive software and detailed engineering models of the vessels, not to mention, my colleague is one of the smartest people I know. He would never make a claim equivalent to yours without analysis. To analyse one hull takes months and lots of computer time. You are asking us to take your word for it that you have the expertise to make claims that imply you know more than Boeing. Based on what little I know about CFD, the only way you could make such claims would that you have a PhD in aeronautics and either you work for Boeing (i.e., you're a whistleblower) or you work for a competitor and you possess stolen information. Either of these possibilities make no sense, because if either were true, you would not be making claims in FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada Aeroplan> Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet.
Of course, I could be wrong, but unless or until you prove me wrong, I stand by my comment that your hand-waving claims are gratuitous and unsubstantiated. Again, even though you don't like me saying this, it's not ad hom.
Apr 28, 2019, 3:55 pm
#2706
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
You have been repeatedly claiming that Boeing could have made design changes to the engine nacelles that would have prevented the need for MCAS. (If you feel that's not an accurate or fair representation of your argument, feel free to correct me.) Irrespective of the details, that's a very significant claim, one that I've not read anywhere else, including in such industry websites as AW&ST, which is why I've asked you several times to back it up. Your responses have been to wave your hands and for that reason, I believe your claim is gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's not ad hominem to call someone out for making gratuitous unsubstantiated claims.
I have a colleague who uses CFD calculations for analyzing dynamics and efficiency of large ships. It's very complex. It takes years of experience, expensive software and detailed engineering models of the vessels, not to mention, my colleague is one of the smartest people I know. He would never make a claim equivalent to yours without analysis. To analyse one hull takes months and lots of computer time.
I have a colleague who uses CFD calculations for analyzing dynamics and efficiency of large ships. It's very complex. It takes years of experience, expensive software and detailed engineering models of the vessels, not to mention, my colleague is one of the smartest people I know. He would never make a claim equivalent to yours without analysis. To analyse one hull takes months and lots of computer time.
So far so good, we can talk about that. Analyzing in detail the efficiency of a large ship is one thing. Likewise, the performance of an entire plane. Especially if the goal is not just to analyze but to optimize, i.e. to get that extra bit of performance. A nacelle is a relatively simple component in comparison. Of course reducing the lift would take some analysis and yes, some CFD modeling. OTOH, *reducing* the lift is more like lowering your aerodynamics performance, vs. getting that extra bit in the cases above, Which should be relatively easy. So the claim that lowering the lift should be relatively simple is not particularly hard to make. But no, I won't get into the how, which indeed might require some effort. Still, nothing like it would take years of analysis. In other words, making an airfoil better is not necessarily feasible. Making it worse should be relatively easy, hence my claim about nacelles not being terribly outlandish.
I don't imply I know more than Boeing, which you keep making snide remarks on. I am sure Boeing is aware of this sort of possibility. Which surely must have been overruled not because it's not feasible, but because of the delays it would have entailed, Which decision makers were likely not willing to live with. And surely don't want their engineers to talk about. The rest of the quote is about personalities and expertise. Which gets us back in the ad hominem line of argument. I am not aware that one has to start by establishing one's expertise before making a claim on a forum like this one, and I won't. Still, note that one does not necessarily have to work for a plane manufacturer to have a reasonable knowledge of fluid mechanics and of CFD.
You are asking us to take your word for it that you have the expertise to make claims that imply you know more than Boeing. Based on what little I know about CFD, the only way you could make such claims would that you have a PhD in aeronautics and either you work for Boeing (i.e., you're a whistleblower) or you work for a competitor and you possess stolen information. Either of these possibilities make no sense, because if either were true, you would not be making claims in FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada Aeroplan> Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet.
Of course, I could be wrong, but unless or until you prove me wrong, I stand by my comment that your hand-waving claims are gratuitous and unsubstantiated. Again, even though you don't like me saying this, it's not ad hom.
I am not asking anyone to believe what I write, and you are very free to believe I am out for lunch...... But questioning the credibility of other posters using a language that borders on personal attacks and yes, ad hominem arguments, is another matter. And BTW if one would have to "substantiate" in detail everything one writes here, one would end up posting treaties. Likewise, were I to mention my credentials, you might very well not believe me either. But again, I think I have already delineated how and why I believe *lowering* the lift on the engines should be doable.
Apr 29, 2019, 10:47 am
#2709
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,530
I'm glad to see that people are as knowledgeable on CSA practices as they are on airline manufacturing (read: not really).
In the case of CSA (at least in the industry I know of in safety equipment) 1 of 500 produced must be tested. If it fails, 10 are pulled from inventory and tested. If any of those 10 also fail then a recall must be issued. CSA audits the control practices plus has 2-3 unannounced spot checks.
The noise this tread generates is truly impressive. I suggest (most) people stick to being passengers...and complaining. This place certainly has experts in those fields....
In the case of CSA (at least in the industry I know of in safety equipment) 1 of 500 produced must be tested. If it fails, 10 are pulled from inventory and tested. If any of those 10 also fail then a recall must be issued. CSA audits the control practices plus has 2-3 unannounced spot checks.
The noise this tread generates is truly impressive. I suggest (most) people stick to being passengers...and complaining. This place certainly has experts in those fields....
Apr 30, 2019, 5:12 am
#2710
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,105
It's a bird. No, it's a plane! No wait, it's an Edsel, a Pinto!
LOL.
"Boeing Signals Additional Software Problem Affecting 737 MAX Airliners
Company reveals glitch can render a type of safety alert inoperable on the now-grounded plane"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-...d=hp_lead_pos1
LOL.
"Boeing Signals Additional Software Problem Affecting 737 MAX Airliners
Company reveals glitch can render a type of safety alert inoperable on the now-grounded plane"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-...d=hp_lead_pos1
Apr 30, 2019, 6:37 am
#2711
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
It's a bird. No, it's a plane! No wait, it's an Edsel, a Pinto!
LOL.
"Boeing Signals Additional Software Problem Affecting 737 MAX Airliners
Company reveals glitch can render a type of safety alert inoperable on the now-grounded plane"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-...d=hp_lead_pos1
LOL.
"Boeing Signals Additional Software Problem Affecting 737 MAX Airliners
Company reveals glitch can render a type of safety alert inoperable on the now-grounded plane"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-...d=hp_lead_pos1
Brief summary:
Boeing did not tell Southwest Airlines, its largest 737 Max customer, that a standard safety feature designed to warn pilots about malfunctioning sensors had been deactivated on the jets.
The safety feature is an alert that lights up in the cockpit if a plane’s angle-of-attack sensors transmit faulty data about the pitch of the plane’s nose. This feature is known as an angle-of-attack disagree light and was included in previous versions of the 737.
(....)
Southwest Airline’s statement:
Upon delivery (prior to the Lion Air event), the AOA Disagree lights were depicted to us by Boeing as operable on all MAX aircraft, regardless of the selection of optional AOA Indicators on the Primary Flight Display (PFD). The manual documentation presented by Boeing at Southwest’s MAX entry into service indicated the AOA Disagree Light functioned on the aircraft, similar to the Lights on our NG series. After the Lion Air event, Boeing notified us that the AOA Disagree Lights were inoperable without the optional AOA Indicators on the MAX aircraft.
The safety feature is an alert that lights up in the cockpit if a plane’s angle-of-attack sensors transmit faulty data about the pitch of the plane’s nose. This feature is known as an angle-of-attack disagree light and was included in previous versions of the 737.
(....)
Southwest Airline’s statement:
Upon delivery (prior to the Lion Air event), the AOA Disagree lights were depicted to us by Boeing as operable on all MAX aircraft, regardless of the selection of optional AOA Indicators on the Primary Flight Display (PFD). The manual documentation presented by Boeing at Southwest’s MAX entry into service indicated the AOA Disagree Light functioned on the aircraft, similar to the Lights on our NG series. After the Lion Air event, Boeing notified us that the AOA Disagree Lights were inoperable without the optional AOA Indicators on the MAX aircraft.
Boeing are now claiming that this behavior was an oversight .... which does less than nothing to reassure me about the quality of their software engineering design, testing, and review processes.
Apr 30, 2019, 7:59 am
#2712
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
CNN:Boeing CEO says 737Max was designed properly & pilots didn't 'completely' follow
Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/inves...ing/index.html
Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure
By Chris Isidore, CNN Business
Updated 5:14 AM ET, Tue April 30, 2019
New York (CNN Business)Boeing's CEO on Monday said the safety systems on its 737 Max jets were properly designed, but he added that the airline is working to make them safer following two recent deadly crashes.
Dennis Muilenburg said the pilots did not "completely" follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined to prevent the kind of malfunction that probably caused a March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet. A Lion Air 737 Max crashed under similar circumstances in October.
The company's anti-stall software, called MCAS, was a common link in both crashes. It met Boeing's design and safety criteria, and adhered to certification protocols, Muilenburg told reporters following Boeing's annual shareholder meeting in Chicago.
"When we design these systems, understand that these airplanes are flown in the hands of pilots," he said. He added that Boeing was unable to find any "technical slip or gap" in building its MCAS software.
Ethiopian officials said earlier this month that pilots flying Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 repeatedly performed all of Boeing's procedures, but could not control the plane before it crashed.
Boeing has accepted its role in the crashes.
"It's our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we know how to do it," Muilenburg said on April 4.
On Monday, Muilenburg reiterated that Boeing can make some improvements to make the 737 Max safer to fly...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/inves...ing/index.html
Originally Posted by https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/investing/boeing-annual-meeting/index.html
Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure
By Chris Isidore, CNN Business
Updated 5:14 AM ET, Tue April 30, 2019
New York (CNN Business)Boeing's CEO on Monday said the safety systems on its 737 Max jets were properly designed, but he added that the airline is working to make them safer following two recent deadly crashes.
Dennis Muilenburg said the pilots did not "completely" follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined to prevent the kind of malfunction that probably caused a March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet. A Lion Air 737 Max crashed under similar circumstances in October.
The company's anti-stall software, called MCAS, was a common link in both crashes. It met Boeing's design and safety criteria, and adhered to certification protocols, Muilenburg told reporters following Boeing's annual shareholder meeting in Chicago.
"When we design these systems, understand that these airplanes are flown in the hands of pilots," he said. He added that Boeing was unable to find any "technical slip or gap" in building its MCAS software.
Ethiopian officials said earlier this month that pilots flying Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 repeatedly performed all of Boeing's procedures, but could not control the plane before it crashed.
Boeing has accepted its role in the crashes.
"It's our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we know how to do it," Muilenburg said on April 4.
On Monday, Muilenburg reiterated that Boeing can make some improvements to make the 737 Max safer to fly...
Apr 30, 2019, 8:02 am
#2713
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,570
And thousands of unemployed crisis management consultants cried out all at once.
I know Airbus is taking the silent high road, but their marketing campaign in 2020 could be "can be flown by mortals".
I know Airbus is taking the silent high road, but their marketing campaign in 2020 could be "can be flown by mortals".
Apr 30, 2019, 9:04 am
#2714
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
Ok then, the CEO has spoken, and he is certainly not biased at all - so I think we can all be grateful, and get the planes back in the air.
I'm sure he'll be demonstrating how much he believes the entire plane "met Boeing's design and safety criteria, and adhered to certification protocols", by flying his family in one of the pre-modified MAX's.
After all, the "737 Max was designed properly", so all he needs to do is be flown by pilots who " 'completely' follow procedure", right?
Apr 30, 2019, 9:33 am
#2715
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
Well, thank goodness for that.
Ok then, the CEO has spoken, and he is certainly not biased at all - so I think we can all be grateful, and get the planes back in the air.
I'm sure he'll be demonstrating how much he believes the entire plane "met Boeing's design and safety criteria, and adhered to certification protocols", by flying his family in one of the pre-modified MAX's.
After all, the "737 Max was designed properly", so all he needs to do is be flown by pilots who " 'completely' follow procedure", right?
Ok then, the CEO has spoken, and he is certainly not biased at all - so I think we can all be grateful, and get the planes back in the air.
I'm sure he'll be demonstrating how much he believes the entire plane "met Boeing's design and safety criteria, and adhered to certification protocols", by flying his family in one of the pre-modified MAX's.
After all, the "737 Max was designed properly", so all he needs to do is be flown by pilots who " 'completely' follow procedure", right?
