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
Nov 23, 2019, 1:09 pm
#3481
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
I think part of the problem is the salesmen and marketers that make up the executive in Boeing's HQ, far removed from Engineering in Seattle, still believe their own hype and BS that it's just a software tweak and everything will be great again. Unfortunately, they seem to A) know nothing about engineering, and B) seemed to count on being able to push anything past the FAA, which isn't the case anymore.
Nov 23, 2019, 2:52 pm
#3482
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
So that annoying Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) report: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attac...A_Oct_2019.pdf
Which includes the suggestion that the original 737 MAX certification be re-reviewed .... we can just ignore all of that?
Which includes the suggestion that the original 737 MAX certification be re-reviewed .... we can just ignore all of that?
Nov 23, 2019, 2:56 pm
#3483
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
You beat me to it. Indeed if Boeing thought the "bare airframe" were stable, as the JATR report asks for, surely by now they would have agreed and shown that it is the case. Then there would be no need for the MCAS. But no the issue of the lift due to the flow over the engines and associated pitch up torque won't go away that easy. BTW I continue claiming that a redesign of the engine cover shape might fix the issue; but even that seems to be more than Boeing is willing to deal with... Anyway I suspect all this recent noise is actually reverse PR in answer to the Boeing BS whereby the Max would be cleared before the end of the year. All dancing around that very issue it appears.
Nov 23, 2019, 3:15 pm
#3484
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
You've made the gratuitous claim that redesigning the nacelles would alleviate the problem multiple times before, but you've never once substantiated this claim. Also, I have yet to hear of anyone with actual aeronautical engineering credentials claiming this is possible or that it is even a valid approach. However, since you continue to make the claim, present it to Boeing and if they don't acknowledge and either accept or refute it, escalate it to the media. I have a pretty good idea that you will do neither...
Nov 23, 2019, 4:06 pm
#3485
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,166
Recommendation R3.4: The FAA should review the natural (bare airframe) stalling characteristics of the B737 MAX to determine if unsafe characteristics exist. If unsafe characteristics exist, the design of the speed trim system (STS)/MCAS/elevator feel shift (EFS) should be reviewed for acceptability.
Recommendation R3.5: The FAA should review 14 CFR 25.201 (Stall Demonstration)compliance for the B737 MAX and determine if the flight control augmentation functions provided by STS/MCAS/EFS constitute a stall identification system.
Recommendation R3.6: The FAA should review the use of non-standard flight test techniques, such as freezing column position at EFS actuation, when showing compliance with 14 CFR 25.201 (Stall Demonstration). The use of non-standard flight test techniques may not meet the associated regulatory requirements.
Recommendation R3.7: The FAA should review how compliance was shown for the stall identification system on the B737 MAX with respect to inadvertent operation due to single failures.
Recommendation R3.5: The FAA should review 14 CFR 25.201 (Stall Demonstration)compliance for the B737 MAX and determine if the flight control augmentation functions provided by STS/MCAS/EFS constitute a stall identification system.
Recommendation R3.6: The FAA should review the use of non-standard flight test techniques, such as freezing column position at EFS actuation, when showing compliance with 14 CFR 25.201 (Stall Demonstration). The use of non-standard flight test techniques may not meet the associated regulatory requirements.
Recommendation R3.7: The FAA should review how compliance was shown for the stall identification system on the B737 MAX with respect to inadvertent operation due to single failures.
Nov 26, 2019, 6:56 pm
#3486
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
November 26 2019
Article: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/faa-...ification.html
Article: FAA says it will be the sole issuer of new 737 MAX ...
Article: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/faa-...ification.html
Article: FAA says it will be the sole issuer of new 737 MAX ...
Dec 6, 2019, 7:48 pm
#3487
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
FAA released the release 2 draft Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for the MAX. Several revised sections are noted, Autoflight, Flight Controls and Oxygen.
Here is a link: Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)
Here are the definitions of the Repair Category used in the document:
These definitions are from MMEL Policy Letter (PL) 25, Revision 18 GC
The only item that is not repair category B, C or D is the Altitude Alerting System:
Here is a link: Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)
Here are the definitions of the Repair Category used in the document:
24. Repair Category . All users of an MEL approved under parts 91K, 121, 125, 129, 135 and 142 must effect repairs of inoperative instrument and equipment items, deferred in accordance with the MEL, at or prior to the repair times established by the following letter designators. Part 91 MEL users (D095/D195 LOAs) are not required to comply with the repair categories, but will comply with any provisos defining a repair interval (flights, flight legs, cycles, hours, etc):
A. Repair Category A. This category item must be repaired within the time interval specified in the “Remarks or Exceptions” column of the aircraft operator’s approved MEL. For time intervals specified in “calendar days” or “flight days”, the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook is excluded. For all other time intervals (i.e., flights, flight legs, cycles, hors, etc.), repair tracking begins at the point when the malfunction is deferred in accordance with the operator’s approved MEL.
B. Repair Category B. This category item must be repaired within 3 consecutive calendar-days (72 hours) excluding the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook. For example, if it were recorded at 10 a.m. on January 26th, the 3-day interval would begin at midnight the 26th and end at midnight the 29th.
C. Repair Category C. This category item must be repaired within 10 consecutive calendar-days (240 hours) excluding the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook. For example, if it were recorded at 10 a.m. on January 26th, the 10-day interval would begin at midnight the 26th and end at midnight February 5th.
D. Repair Category D. This category item must be repaired within 120 consecutive calendar-days (2880 hours) excluding the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook.
A. Repair Category A. This category item must be repaired within the time interval specified in the “Remarks or Exceptions” column of the aircraft operator’s approved MEL. For time intervals specified in “calendar days” or “flight days”, the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook is excluded. For all other time intervals (i.e., flights, flight legs, cycles, hors, etc.), repair tracking begins at the point when the malfunction is deferred in accordance with the operator’s approved MEL.
B. Repair Category B. This category item must be repaired within 3 consecutive calendar-days (72 hours) excluding the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook. For example, if it were recorded at 10 a.m. on January 26th, the 3-day interval would begin at midnight the 26th and end at midnight the 29th.
C. Repair Category C. This category item must be repaired within 10 consecutive calendar-days (240 hours) excluding the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook. For example, if it were recorded at 10 a.m. on January 26th, the 10-day interval would begin at midnight the 26th and end at midnight February 5th.
D. Repair Category D. This category item must be repaired within 120 consecutive calendar-days (2880 hours) excluding the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook.
The only item that is not repair category B, C or D is the Altitude Alerting System:
(O) May be inoperative provided:
a) Autopilot with altitude hold and altitude capture operates normally,
b) Enroute operations (i.e., RVSM) do not require its use,
c) Airplane does not depart from a designated airport (as listed in the operator’s MEL) where repair or replacement can be made, and
d) Repairs are made within 3 flight-days.
Dec 6, 2019, 8:27 pm
#3489
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
B) the crux of the problem. Boeing was lazy, allowed (if not demanded) by airlines wanting to be lazy. Engineering professionals should have stepped up and said no, but bean counters won.
Last edited by RangerNS; Dec 6, 2019 at 9:10 pm
Dec 6, 2019, 8:39 pm
#3490
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,916
Boeing was lazy, allowed (if not demanded) by airlines wanting to be lazy.
Dec 6, 2019, 8:49 pm
#3491
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
It's a pretty safe bet that when (not if) MAXes are certified to fly, there will be pilots and flight attendants on board.
Dec 6, 2019, 9:41 pm
#3492
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Meanwhile, Boeing continues looking like they are not trustworthy...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...at-tra-462746/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...at-tra-462746/
Dec 9, 2019, 4:37 pm
#3494
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,104
I'm pushing out my estimate to next July at the earliest (if at all, and I still believe that is a real possibility)
https://davidlearmount.com/2019/12/0...onal-decision/
https://davidlearmount.com/2019/12/0...onal-decision/
Muilenberg: Returning Max to service ‘will be an international decision’
Dec 10, 2019, 6:33 pm
#3495
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...M0Dm2k98EOQouY
Former Boeing manager says he warned company of problems prior to 737 crashes; "For the first time in my life, I’m sorry to say that I’m hesitant about putting my family on a Boeing airplane," Ed Pierson wrote to a company executive before the first tragedy.
Former Boeing manager says he warned company of problems prior to 737 crashes; "For the first time in my life, I’m sorry to say that I’m hesitant about putting my family on a Boeing airplane," Ed Pierson wrote to a company executive before the first tragedy.