24left

A post on the AC sub-forum on AVCanada



Air Canada -

pitz

I'm pretty sure I read about a pilot hiring freeze somewhere because of the 737Max groundings and the necessity of re-deploying those people elsewhere, lest they run the risk of losing them to overseas carriers that actually allow them to work. Perhaps AC realizes that the next chapter in cost reductions is turning towards the pilots.... Because there's not a lot of other areas to squeeze.

tcook052

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ines-1.5449405

Canada allowed grounded Boeing 737 Max jets to fly — without passengers — at least 160 times

CZAMFlyer

I was a bit disappointed in this story when I read it this morning. I understand the relatives of those lost would still be feeling a range of grief, anger and other emotions, but I think the media should endeavour to obtain the most cursory facts prior to generating another controversy where none exists. Had there been any passengers aboard any flight, the story is worth reporting. But the relatives are complaining about repositioning flights for storage purposes, and testing flights prior to recertification and training flights for the fleet instructors. None of these flights exposed the public on the ground to any undue risk.

Is it too much to expect the larger media outlets to weigh the reasonable and likely explanations for such activity prior to airing the grievances of a few understandably biased individuals, and be able to determine the absence of controversy?

pitz

How can that be said when non-systemically redundant AoA instrumentation can fail at any time for a number of causes, and there is not a credible fool-proof recovery procedure in place? If either of the two prior incidents were replicated, for any reason, there is certainly the possibility that the crash happens in a populated area, given how significantly populated the lower Mainland, or the GTA is.

Either an aircraft is airworthy, or it isn't. Airline personnel and the on-the-ground public should not be exposed to the risk of flying an unairworthy aircraft, merely for the sake of commercial convenience (such as repositioning to contract maintenance facilities to fit entertainment systems, or cheaper parking spots). The risk is low, but the consequences are severe. Perhaps they should have explored with Boeing the possibility of special training and procedures for the 737 so that MCAS could be locked out, placarded and MEL'ed to make the flights. Maybe that's already the case, hence there should be something in the TC and FAA ferry permits that requires such as a condition of operating authority.

CZAMFlyer

I can understand how, to those not immersed in an industry on a daily basis, that the decisions rendered can seem confusing. When we complain about decisions made by professionals, we usually do so without much understanding of the facts, regulations in effect or other mitigating circumstances. These could be aviation-related or judgements made by a court, parole board, government body or any other area in which we have little understanding.

The airplanes already delivered at the time of grounding last March have not lost their certificates of airworthiness*. They have simply been grounded and banned from operating revenue flights for the time being. The NOTAM banning the operation of the Boeing 737 Max currently in effect in Canada specifically allows ferry flights. As for the training/testing flights, these are conducted with the specific approval of Transport Canada for each individual flight. The regulatory agency doesn't rubber-stamp the approvals for these repositioning or testing flights; they are issued under strict conditions with defendable rationale. The safety of the general public is considered, and obviously in these cases, was determined not to be in peril.

*no new certificates of airworthiness have been issued to any of the Max aircraft not yet delivered to customers, and I understand that Boeing is currently unable to issue these, which was the existing practice prior to the grounding.

To your point about MCAS being "locked out", I'm not a Boeing expert, but I don't think this is a feature that can be disabled at will.

Jagboi

I though there was only certain conditions where it was active though, one of those being that the flaps were retracted. I read somewhere ( possibly this thread, can't remember) that there was a ferry flight from Iceland to Europe done below FL190 and with the flaps extended one notch to ensure the MCAS would not engage.

pitz

So basically 'trust us, we wear suits to work every day'.

Airworthiness is far more than just a certificate from the manufacturer at the time of manufacturing. Airworthiness encompasses an ongoing maintenance program, ongoing adherence to airworthiness directives, professional maintenance supervision including performance monitoring of certain components, supplemental type certification for any modifications that have been made outside of the scope of the manufacturers certificate of airworthiness, proper logbooks, etc. Its pretty hard to argue that any 737Max's are legally airworthy at the moment, despite the delivered ones all possessing at least a notional "certificate of airworthiness" as delivered by the manufacturer. Hence, they require special authority to operate which invariably comes with terms. The problem being, whether those terms unduly placate the commercial interests of the operator(s), or legitimately serve to protect the public from the potentially involuntary harm of an unairworthy aircraft.

Then what modifications, lock-outs, restrictions have been imposed on the aircraft to relieve it from the previously deemed to be unacceptably elevated risk of harm experienced prior? Aside from no passengers?

Its my belief that MCAS cannot activate in a gear down/flaps deployed situation (not sure if it is a combination of the conditions, or just one of the conditions), so a hypothetical restriction could be banning flights for which the landing gear and flaps are raised. Thus creating the condition where MCAS cannot deploy, even if fed with erroneous information.

CZAMFlyer

Not at all. It's perfectly legit to ask questions and to hold to account. But it's not worthwhile to criticize and make binary declarations in the absence of a real understanding of the thought processes that are fed into a decision to permit a grounded airplane to fly.

I think you believe the CofA is just a piece of paper. Technically, it is...but there's so much that goes into obtaining and maintaining one. Things like the terms you've described.

The flights have been undertaken with the knowledge of what MCAS is, how it can be overruled and the situations that can cause it to be engaged. These are nuggets of info not readily available (or even provided at all) to Max pilots prior to the crashes.

I'm stunned nobody's thought of this before.

RangerNS

They don't need a fool proof process, they need an unusually experienced and especially alert pilot process.

The MurderCAS can be turned off in a second.

WelfareHigh

I mean, doesn't it say on AC website that they're still flying the Max routinely? It does on Westjet's FAQ regarding the Max and Transport Canada gives them the OK.

bimmerdriver

It clearly is too much to expect the media to not take advantage of an opportunity to fan the flames on an incendiary topic, such as the MAX, but to their credit, they at least included a reasonable explanation for the flights, as well as the conditions under which the flights can take place.

bimmerdriver

I think the point is that there is a recovery procedure, it's just not fool-proof, which is why the airlines are mandating strict conditions:

• Only advanced pilot evaluators are allowed to fly.
• Pilots must get specialized briefings and training including on a 737 Max simulator.
• Additional crew is on board all flights and a mandatory third pilot.
• They can only fly in certain weather conditions.

canopus27

The news just gets better and better for Boeing.
source: https://komonews.com/news/nation-wor...around-737-max

CZAMFlyer

I wonder how the cumulative Max Debacle costs, penalties, compensation and other related expenditures compare to the costs of the R&D, construction and certification of a clean-sheet airplane type from the get-go, which is what many wish & believe should have occurred in the first place. The corporate 'gotta catch up to Airbus' mentality has cost them dearly, and not just monetarily.