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
Sep 5, 2019, 8:09 pm
#3181
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Meanwhile, EASA goes its on way, apparently beyond the FAA requirements, and wants Boeing to show the Max is stable with the MCAS turned off... Which, as is likely if Boeing cannot do it, might be the kiss of death for the Max, and disastrous for Boeing. Especially if other certification authorities follow the ESA's lead, and the FAA reluctantly feels obliged to follow. Yet, showing stability is arguably the right thing to ask.
Sep 5, 2019, 8:36 pm
#3182
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
Ref: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Control_Laws
To be clear, this is not Airbus specific - those Boeing planes that were designed for FBW from the outset, can also degrade safely.
Why isn't it a reasonable request for the 737, too?
Sep 5, 2019, 8:37 pm
#3183
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: YYT
Programs: M-Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Aeroplan 50K, DragonPass, AMEX MR, NEXUS
Posts: 1,715
Personally, I still won't feel that comfortable flying on it! But if I think that it is okay after a few months back in service, I will likely fly on it again, as I am sure many FTers will.
Sep 5, 2019, 10:36 pm
#3184
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
There used to be two there. They were hanging around E93 for a long time... not sure what happened to the other one.
And as far as WS competing with them -- I am no more likely to get on a WS one if it has business class, and considerably less likely after their Chief Technical Officer (??) was on CBC last night and came off as an insincere twat that Boeing and WS had it all figured out after Indonesia and things were safe and basically ignored Ethiopia and all subsequent findings about MCAS problems.
And as far as WS competing with them -- I am no more likely to get on a WS one if it has business class, and considerably less likely after their Chief Technical Officer (??) was on CBC last night and came off as an insincere twat that Boeing and WS had it all figured out after Indonesia and things were safe and basically ignored Ethiopia and all subsequent findings about MCAS problems.
"After the Indonesia crash, Boeing, WestJet, Sungwing, Air Canada and Transport Canada collectively reworked checklists and training and we thought we had this solved."
I think that was clearly the case, after Ethiopia of the organisations in that "we" started to have second thoughts.
I am not certain I have any more or less confidence in either Air Canada or WestJet on this issue. Both airlines are basically doing the same thing, to keep these aircraft ready to fly, periodically flying them from storage to maintenance facilities and back.
I think that was clearly the case, after Ethiopia of the organisations in that "we" started to have second thoughts.
I am not certain I have any more or less confidence in either Air Canada or WestJet on this issue. Both airlines are basically doing the same thing, to keep these aircraft ready to fly, periodically flying them from storage to maintenance facilities and back.
Sep 6, 2019, 6:46 am
#3185
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 971
The only way to do what are asking for would be to build a NEO with CEO software. I doubt such aircraft would be airworthy.
That said, if Boeing can really prove that the MAX is perfectly safe in any part of the flight envelope with MCAS off, then nobody should have a problem flying one.
Sep 6, 2019, 6:55 am
#3186
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
Sounds like we now are in agreement that absent MCAS, the Max is not stable.... :-)
Sep 6, 2019, 10:07 am
#3187
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
That's not what I said. It will be up to Boeing to prove this. My point is that if Europe is expecting the MAX to be certified with part of the FCS disabled, they are opening up the same thing for the FAA to require of Airbus, which IMO is not good for the industry.
Sep 6, 2019, 10:28 am
#3189
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,570
The problem is that with the MCAS disabled the MAX doesn't fly like a 737.
I suppose, the ferry flights could be flown by "test" pilots, or with an artificially limited flight profile, taking longer to get to altitude (or whatever).
Sep 6, 2019, 2:22 pm
#3190
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
I think the worse issue is that with the MCAS off, there are situations in which the torque about the mass center will lead to the angle of attack increasing to the point where the plane will stall. Which is how the stability issue arises. More lift applied on the engine, ahead of the mass center, which produces a torque that cannot be counterbalanced without changing the trim, which is what the MCAS does.
Sep 6, 2019, 9:34 pm
#3192
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
I think the worse issue is that with the MCAS off, there are situations in which the torque about the mass center will lead to the angle of attack increasing to the point where the plane will stall. Which is how the stability issue arises. More lift applied on the engine, ahead of the mass center, which produces a torque that cannot be counterbalanced without changing the trim, which is what the MCAS does.
Sep 6, 2019, 9:39 pm
#3193
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
All MCAS does is change the trim to maintain the same yoke force as the 737 NG. It does not "prevent stalls". No competent pilot would maintain a constant pressure of pull back on the yoke and intentionally fly an aircraft into a stall. There would be a stall warning anyway, at which point any competent pilot would take action to prevent the stall.
Or the AC pilots on my SFO-YVR where the stall warning was blasting right after takeoff. They didn't push the nose down. And I'm still here to talk about it.
Sep 7, 2019, 1:15 am
#3194
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
All MCAS does is change the trim to maintain the same yoke force as the 737 NG. It does not "prevent stalls". No competent pilot would maintain a constant pressure of pull back on the yoke and intentionally fly an aircraft into a stall. There would be a stall warning anyway, at which point any competent pilot would take action to prevent the stall.
Funny that EASA calls the MCAS an anti-stall device though... Seems like the spin doctors have been busy lately... BTW changing the trim when the torque due to lift on the engines gets too large to be counterbalance without trim change does prevent the angle of attack moving into stall territory. So ultimately the MCAS does both things, hence what EASA says abut it. In my book the latter is more crucial, no?
Sep 7, 2019, 9:26 am
#3195
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Good article on the MAX and the MCAS woes that may help clarify the issues Boeing is addressing. Interestingly the author is an engineer who writes for the financial industry. About a 10-minute read
https://seekingalpha.com/article/428...ers-view?ifp=0
His conclusions are that Boeing screwed up the design of the software but that the aircraft will be fundamentally safe once the MCAS fix is finalized and approved.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/428...ers-view?ifp=0
His conclusions are that Boeing screwed up the design of the software but that the aircraft will be fundamentally safe once the MCAS fix is finalized and approved.
Funny that EASA calls the MCAS an anti-stall device though... Seems like the spin doctors have been busy lately... BTW changing the trim when the torque due to lift on the engines gets too large to be counterbalance without trim change does prevent the angle of attack moving into stall territory. So ultimately the MCAS does both things, hence what EASA says abut it. In my book the latter is more crucial, no?