boestar

What am I missing here? The flight diverted to "YUL due to weather at the destination. I get that. Why not just have the passengers informed that the flight will continue when the conditions improve and make arrangements as such. Freezing rain in eastern and central Ontario is no laughing matter. there is no way in hell I would take a bus down that stretch of the 401 in freezing rain. How does this equate to 11 days wait? These LCC guys need to learn how to handle IROPS. The response is pathetic. Weather is the one thing that is beyond airline control and does not demand compensation. However the handling of the situation by the airline should get something for the passengers.

Which they do and their governments use them to move their leaders.

When you think about it. For all the money the government gave to Bombardier / Canadair over the years, They should be giving the government 2 brand new aircraft.

UMM...NOT RVSM? The 601 or the 604 should both be certified RVSM. If there was a FL restriction to 10,000 feet then they probably should have taken another plane

As I stated before. Boeing says its just a "feel" thing. In practicality it is a stall protection thing. They parked firmly in a grey area that is becoming less and less grey as the light shines upon it. Homerun. I agree completely that is the 737 MAX was a clean slate design with FBW, We, Boeing and the FAA would not be having this discussion.

Yep thats the Boeing description. However the dynamics of it tell a different story. Left unchecked certain Thrust vectors on the engine installation will cause a pitch up of the airframe, increasing the AOA of the aircraft. (That sounds like the description of an impending stall no?) Left unchecked the aircraft will eventually stall. This is something that the NG did not do. So to make it behave more like the NG and NOT stall they added MCAS. Boeing can spin it any way they want to as can others but in the end, no matter what you call it, the end purpose was to prevent the aircraft from reaching a high enough AOA to stall.

I have seen a long in the tooth Boeing 727 refit with modern avionics and systems simply because the aircraft was still viable and the modifications were cheaper than buing a new aircraft, spares, training etc. etc. Canada manufactures some of the best Business aircraft on the market. I have see many delivered to different governments around the world. I personally think the executive fleet should represent the best Canada has to offer. Perhaps a Global 7000 or the like. Long range, large aircraft, Canadian Made. The Challenger is still a good aircraft but to represent Canada is something cutting edge would be better.

I think it is semantics. The system is designed to make the plane behave like an NG by preventing a stall which is defined as a stall prevention system. Call it anything that makes you feel good but in the most base description, the MCAS is there to prevent a Stall.

It is an excuse. the Challenger 601 is still a viable airframe. Take them oout of service and contract one of the Big MRO companies to redo the aircraft and upgrade the systems. It would cost a couple of million but thats cheap compared to 50M + for a new airframe.

By pushing the nose down in response to certain power inputs. Thus lowering the nose to a lower AOA to PREVENT A STALL.

my thinking revolves around using the elevator to lower the nose instead of moving the stab. The Stab system has a history of issues that led to its current design prior to the MAX. I am sure this would be easier to achieve on a FBW aircraft and not a steam engine like the 737 though.

Just a thought. Why would Boeing not just used something similar to a stick pusher to lower the nose in these cases. Use the Elevators rather than the trim. When the system intervenes and lowers the nose there would be visual feedback in the column and the pilot could then re trim the aircraft. Many aircraft use the system for impending stall recovery already. I suppose that would have led to more training for the pilots which is what they were trying to avoid. Just a random morning thought

if you look back to the initial reports The aircraft had several flights with air data issues and mismatches. These anomolies were apparently not addressed correctly. This does however remain to be seen in the final reports.

The 737 platform has reached the end of its usefulness. The design does not all ow for the proper use of todays high bypass engines. Unless you put it on stilts the limit has been reached. Way overdue for a clean sheet single aisle aircraft.

its only for a couple of months at least.

2 Boeing 767-200 ER WetLease

A good time for Airbus to offer discounts to Max customers if they drop the Max and get a 320-NEO. Ther eis profit in volume.

It doesnt really fly....Its just so ugly the earth repels it

I guess you need to wind up the rubber band....?

After hearing that Lancaster start pretty much every day while I was working in Hamilton, This Merlin just didnt sound like it was running right.

and the hollywood version

if you are gonna start it, use a shotun shell.

Thats more than preservation. I used to love doing the initial starts on the Global Express with brand new from the factory engines. They would smoke the place out every time. That may have been a preserved engine combined with a wet start and it sounded like he was far too early with the fuel.

in the first video he would have had less of an issue getting it going had he put dummy prop blades on it for some extra mass on the hub. it would give more inertia to what is essentially the flywheel. Would have been easier on the inertial starter as well.

I would love to see the actual cost in material and labour if it were not a government contract. likely less than 50%