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
Aug 8, 2019, 11:21 am
#3061
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Programs: AC 75K
Posts: 6,361
All 12 would have already been delivered by now, so all of them would be build, not sure about painted.
Aug 8, 2019, 12:14 pm
#3062
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Putting aside the 24 they already had and parked in various spots across the country, I was curious if I could find out about the other 12.....as someone who does not work for the airline.
There are a couple of people at Paine and Renton whose photos I follow.
Looking for AC birds, I found these, with line numbers in the photos (which I found on this site https://www.abcdlist.nl/bline.html#a7000 )
Just for info purposes
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Air-Canada
And this is one of the photos often used in MAX news bits. Since it was taken July 1, these 2 AC birds would be 2 of those already painted.
Thinking about where Boeing has been parking the built ones, I looked around. I did not see any AC aircraft in any photos of those stored at Moses Lake.
But I found this little bird in San Antonio.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/busines...photo-17785994
There are quite a few parked here and I did not see any other AC ones. There are other photos in the series taken but I can't see the airlines on many of them due to distance.
Aug 8, 2019, 8:49 pm
#3064
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
I don't think the issue is that it's impossible to build robust & redundant flight control computer systems -- as you state, the 777 & 787 do it, as do all of the airbus types.
The problem is that the 737 was never designed to include a robust & redundant flight control computer system. As a result, the underlying infrastructure that is necessary to allow a computer to safely move flight controls, does not exist on the 737 MAX. Even that is not a problem, we don't see 737-800's (and prior) falling out of the sky. You don't need a computer to fly a plane, there's no reason why you can't rely on physical cables to move the control surfaces (like the 737 does, and like Cessna's do).
The problem is that Boeing chose to address the flight characteristic problem that the MAX had, with a computer based solution - on top of a computer system that was never designed to handle it.
This new approach (using multiple redundant computer systems) seems like Boeing are slowly and grudgingly retrofitting the MAX to include a modern flight control system - and my worry is that retrofitting things like that is usually harder than designing them correctly in the first place. I'm reminded of the quote by Brian Kernighan (the 'K' from K&R, for you old programmers): "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?"
None of that gives me confidence that Boeing's computer retrofit plans will solve more problems than they will introduce.
The problem is that the 737 was never designed to include a robust & redundant flight control computer system. As a result, the underlying infrastructure that is necessary to allow a computer to safely move flight controls, does not exist on the 737 MAX. Even that is not a problem, we don't see 737-800's (and prior) falling out of the sky. You don't need a computer to fly a plane, there's no reason why you can't rely on physical cables to move the control surfaces (like the 737 does, and like Cessna's do).
The problem is that Boeing chose to address the flight characteristic problem that the MAX had, with a computer based solution - on top of a computer system that was never designed to handle it.
This new approach (using multiple redundant computer systems) seems like Boeing are slowly and grudgingly retrofitting the MAX to include a modern flight control system - and my worry is that retrofitting things like that is usually harder than designing them correctly in the first place. I'm reminded of the quote by Brian Kernighan (the 'K' from K&R, for you old programmers): "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?"
None of that gives me confidence that Boeing's computer retrofit plans will solve more problems than they will introduce.
First, you are conflating Boeing's capability (or lack thereof) to re-engineer the 737 Flight Control Computers (FCCs) with Boeing's motives for for not engineering the 737 FCCs differently in the first place.
Second, you seem to be confused about the differences between fly-by-wire (FBW) and non-fly-by-wire Flight Control Systems. FBW relates to inputs and outputs, not to flight control system capability. Just because an aircraft uses cables does not mean it does not or cannot have a sophisticated and "robust and redundant" flight control system. FBW is a relatively modern development, yet there are many very sophisticated aircraft still flying without it.
The 737 has had sophisticated redundant FCCs for years. FCCs by definition process data from various sensors and instruments and control flight. What else would an FCC do?!? Refer to Flight Control Computer (FCC). Here is a quote:
The FCC is the brains of the Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) and like any other computer, its software is being improved (and debugged !) all the time. There are two identical FCC's in each aircraft and although either one is capable of managing all of the DFCS functions, both are required for Cat III autoland and autopilot go-around operation.
AFAIK, the 737 FCC has two different computers, an SDP-185 (Honeywell, derived from the AMD 2901) and a Z16C02. Here is a reference: Stabilizer Trim. Again, these computers were not designed to be used in a FCC, but rather they are general purpose and they do what they are programmed to do, like every other computer ever designed. For you to claim that the FCCs in the 737 cannot be programmed to operate differently indicates you have no clue whatsoever about software engineering. (As a computer / software engineer, I know a bit about this.)
By way of counter example, the first use of fly-by-wire was the Apollo Guidance Computer, which used discrete processor logic and core memory. This computer was capable of executing many different functions in the Apollo command module and the lunar excursion module. There is a series of videos on youtube about some engineers who restored one of these computers into operation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. For fun, one of the engineers wrote a program to mine bitcoins on this computer. Obviously it was never designed to do such a thing, but it worked, just very slowly.
Again, stop conflating Boeing's motives with Boeing's capabilities. It's pretty clear that Boeing is at the mercy of the FAA and various other similar organizations around the world to get the MAX back in the air. Whatever Boeing got away with before, the MAX is under a magnifying glass and it won't be approved for flight until it's fixed. It will be a much improved aircraft when it's back in the air. Arguably it will be the aircraft that it should have been in the first place.
Aug 8, 2019, 9:52 pm
#3065
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,161
Yeah, I only have a Masters in software engineering, so I'm pretty much lost here. Thanks for all the helpful information.
Aug 9, 2019, 12:22 am
#3066
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Aug 9, 2019, 6:23 am
#3067
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 967
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, the most egregious of which I underlined.
Second, you seem to be confused about the differences between fly-by-wire (FBW) and non-fly-by-wire Flight Control Systems. FBW relates to inputs and outputs, not to flight control system capability. Just because an aircraft uses cables does not mean it does not or cannot have a sophisticated and "robust and redundant" flight control system. FBW is a relatively modern development, yet there are many very sophisticated aircraft still flying without it.
Second, you seem to be confused about the differences between fly-by-wire (FBW) and non-fly-by-wire Flight Control Systems. FBW relates to inputs and outputs, not to flight control system capability. Just because an aircraft uses cables does not mean it does not or cannot have a sophisticated and "robust and redundant" flight control system. FBW is a relatively modern development, yet there are many very sophisticated aircraft still flying without it.
BTW, MCAS was and still is an attempt to solve aerodynamic problems with software. But you don't have to believe me as I do not have a degree in computer engineering and my aviation training is limited to military training at the university.
Aug 9, 2019, 11:49 am
#3069
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Every flight control system is engineered to solve aerodynamic problems. Airbus 320 neo aircraft have to deal with exactly the same issue as the MAX due to their larger than originally designed engines. Spend some time reading Bjorn's Corner...
Aug 9, 2019, 12:25 pm
#3070
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 967
https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/19/bj...itch-up-issue/
Last edited by tcook052; Aug 9, 2019 at 1:14 pm
Aug 9, 2019, 12:31 pm
#3071
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,568
Could Boeing design, build, ship and support a 21st century aircraft in the 150~200 PAX, 3500mi range? Maybe, probably. But they did not try to do that, doing that would have cost too much and taken too long.
Can they contort and retrofit a 50 year old design to those specifications? In a finite amount of time? At a competitive price? Well, they mostly did, until the result started flying themselves into the ground. Can they accomplish the task with a second try? Looking less and less so.
Aug 9, 2019, 1:19 pm
#3072
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
tcook052
AC forum mod.
Aug 9, 2019, 2:07 pm
#3073
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
Yes, but the entire 320 design, from day 1, assumed a flight control system in the mix. 320 pilots are trained on the not just possibility, but likelyhood that the computer will override exact controls.
Could Boeing design, build, ship and support a 21st century aircraft in the 150~200 PAX, 3500mi range? Maybe, probably. But they did not try to do that, doing that would have cost too much and taken too long.
Can they contort and retrofit a 50 year old design to those specifications? In a finite amount of time? At a competitive price? Well, they mostly did, until the result started flying themselves into the ground. Can they accomplish the task with a second try? Looking less and less so.
Could Boeing design, build, ship and support a 21st century aircraft in the 150~200 PAX, 3500mi range? Maybe, probably. But they did not try to do that, doing that would have cost too much and taken too long.
Can they contort and retrofit a 50 year old design to those specifications? In a finite amount of time? At a competitive price? Well, they mostly did, until the result started flying themselves into the ground. Can they accomplish the task with a second try? Looking less and less so.
These should be designs that have incremental improvements over time. Could this have been a complete fly by wire cockpit even if the rest of the aircraft design remained unchanged? Yes.
The reality is they wanted to minimize the training cost so they kept the user interface as close to the NGs as possible.
The also did not want to change the landing gear high so they had to something odd when installing a bigger engine.
Both of those two constrains are pointless for AC since they don't have an existing 737 fleet. They are major requirements for the SouthWests of the world.
Aug 9, 2019, 5:58 pm
#3074
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,803
The fact they have been selling called a 737 for 50 years does not imply that a 737-100 and a 737 MAX have all that much in common with each other.
These should be designs that have incremental improvements over time. Could this have been a complete fly by wire cockpit even if the rest of the aircraft design remained unchanged? Yes.
The reality is they wanted to minimize the training cost so they kept the user interface as close to the NGs as possible.
The also did not want to change the landing gear high so they had to something odd when installing a bigger engine.
Both of those two constrains are pointless for AC since they don't have an existing 737 fleet. They are major requirements for the SouthWests of the world.
These should be designs that have incremental improvements over time. Could this have been a complete fly by wire cockpit even if the rest of the aircraft design remained unchanged? Yes.
The reality is they wanted to minimize the training cost so they kept the user interface as close to the NGs as possible.
The also did not want to change the landing gear high so they had to something odd when installing a bigger engine.
Both of those two constrains are pointless for AC since they don't have an existing 737 fleet. They are major requirements for the SouthWests of the world.
What is relevant, though, is that the Max is certified as minor changes to the 50 years old 737-100. And that this lead to design compromises necessary to retain consistency. Which is a big contribution to the current mess. That the 737 is an obolescent design is becoming more obvious by the day. Which may end up having a significant impact on its future, even if not too many current orders get cancelled. But what about new orders? Also, consider that airlines including AC have by and large found ways to handle to current mess that possibly may even have had a positive effect on the bottom line. Plus, AC will start getting their A223 later this year, which will again reduce the pressure. Quite possibly before the Max flies again. We are moving toward a situation whereby the world no longer really needs to Max, only Boeing does.
Aug 9, 2019, 8:58 pm
#3075
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
What is relevant, though, is that the Max is certified as minor changes to the 50 years old 737-100. And that this lead to design compromises necessary to retain consistency. Which is a big contribution to the current mess. That the 737 is an obolescent design is becoming more obvious by the day. Which may end up having a significant impact on its future, even if not too many current orders get cancelled. But what about new orders? Also, consider that airlines including AC have by and large found ways to handle to current mess that possibly may even have had a positive effect on the bottom line. Plus, AC will start getting their A223 later this year, which will again reduce the pressure. Quite possibly before the Max flies again. We are moving toward a situation whereby the world no longer really needs to Max, only Boeing does.