This is the state of reporting

[rigpiggy]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadi ... -1.5449405

OMG, They ferried an airplane. Tards

An analysis reveals that Air Canada has been flying its Boeing 737 Max fleet the most often. Between March 14 and Jan. 16, Air Canada flew 121 times, in comparison to 29 times for WestJet and 12 for Sunwing.

'Designed by clowns': Boeing employees ridicule 737 Max, regulators in internal messages
Boeing 737 Max won't return to service before 2020

In at least 27 instances, Air Canada took off or landed in Marana, Ariz. In some cases, flying more than five hours straight.

"Those aircraft movements were required for maintenance purposes, including to relocate them to the southern desert where they can be stored more safely," said Air Canada in a statement to CBC News.

Air Canada also said it's using the ferry flights as an opportunity to keep pilot certifications current for those who train frontline pilots.

[Gannet167]

I'm no fan of the quality of reporting in general these days, in particular on the topic of aviation. Gone are the Bob Woodwards Carl Bernsteins, replaced by naive iditos working to build click bait garbage.

However, I think this article was fair. Is there a story? An immensely controversial and still unfolding story of airplane crashes, corporate greed and mismanagement and regulatory failure is still unfolding with an unprecedented worldwide grounding of what is now statistically the most deadly passenger jet aircraft ever built. Boeing admits, their own statistical modelling predicted about exactly what had happened, but sent it to market anyway.

However, despite this, some planes are still flying. Imagine if a Max ferry flight crashes. Imagine if it was related to the same causes. The public would be (even more) outraged. Questions like "how did we not know these were being allowed to fly?" would follow. And "Why!?" this is not a mere ferry flight with an couple MELs and a production permit. This is a pretty exceptional situation. There's definitely a story to be reported.

The news article reported the facts. These Maxs aren't merely being repositioned to Arizona. Flying them to Trois Riviers? Not exactly a desert hub for aircraft storage. It also seemed to get several perspectives. Families of victims, regulators, aviation experts, airlines. Seemed unbiased to me in presentation.

It is journalists job to report. Dig up and present facts, hopefully properly and with as little bias as possible, and allow the newly informed public to decide. Its called the fifth estate because of how important it is to an open and democratic society. Journalists often leave a lot to be desired in the quality of their work and I'm no fan of CBC - they're probably sick of me writing and calling them to criticize their awful work.

In this case, however, it think it is a story worth reporting on, fairly well delivered in an relatively unbiased way.

[PilotDAR]

If the news story started out by saying "this is not news, ferry flights with known defects happen on flight permits, but we thought you'd like to know anyway...." I could be okay with it. This is information for the interested, it is not news. Maybe it was news the first couple of flights, but a 100 something flights later, it's not news any more.

Heaven help us if we could not ferry planes with defects! All this "news" story does is delay everything else Transport Canada does for us, while they take time to answer pointless questions about this story.

[Gannet167]

This plane doesn’t have a few defects. It has a serious design flaw fleet wide, significant enough for worldwide grounding. For me it’s news, I was interested and surprised to read that a grounded plane was being allowed to fly. Maybe it’s a non issue for some, in which case read on to the next article. For those who are curious, it provided information.

Either way, I don’t believe it was sensationalized, merely reported. Your interpretation of the info is up to you. I’m just glad this information was made available, as it should be. Were it not, that could be considered a coverup.

[valleyboy]

No one even admits that the MAX will likely morph into the safest aircraft ever produced. The aerospace companies have been jumping from one incident and/or accident ever since the first large jet and even prop airliner was conceived in the 40's. Every company existing, merged or out of business can connect bodies to aircraft design issues. This has become such a big deal because of social media, news reporting and greedy people who want to keep it going for litigation.

Absolutely! we need to hold feet to the fire and improve safety but all aspects need to be acknowledged not just the issue that captures headlines. There are several holes in the swiss cheese model here but only one is being advertised.

[PilotDAR]

This plane doesn’t have a few defects. It has a serious design flaw fleet wide, significant enough for worldwide grounding.

It's a serious design flaw for certain, and an indicator of a very flawed internal certification system within Boeing, and poor if any oversight by the FAA. A flaw serious enough to justify withdrawing the type from revenue service worldwide. "Grounding" being a colloquial term, though not perfectly descriptive of the situation. And, I think that really, it's one defect. Big, and in your face fleet wide, but one defect, which, as I understand it, can be safely managed by proper pilot technique, based upon training. This design defect, which killed so many people, was concealed from the pilots, so the pilots were not only unable to manage the design defect, but totally unaware of it. An entirely informed crew, with competent manufacturer's technical support, can fly the airplane with safety adequate for a ferry flight. However, I quite agree, not with a safety margin broad enough to subject innocent passengers.

Lots of flight permits are issued for airplanes with one or more defects, and for airplanes with unproven flight characteristics. The MAX does not presently meet the conditions for issuance of a C of A, so the C of A was most likely rescinded. An airplane with no C of A may still be eligible for a flight permit. It's fine to make this fact publicly known, it should just not be made to sound unusual (it's not really "news"). The flight permit system is there for a reason, and it was correctly employed in this situation. Thus, balanced reporting would be to say that a well established Transport Canada system was applied, and all the required oversight conducted to issue the flight permits for flights with appropriate purpose, under restricted conditions.

I have found flight permits suitably available for qualifying non conforming aircraft, when the reason for the flight is justified, and impossible to get for unsafe aircraft, or no justified reason to fly.

[photofly]

Ferry flight permits are usually day VFR only. Does that mean that all those flights are in VMC, below 18,000 feet?
That's a bit of a restriction, for that kind of aircraft.

[corethatthermal]

IF the Max was developed with dual AOA sensors and a less aggressive MCAS schedule along with a an easy way to disconnect the system and allow CW trim operation, we would not see these 2 accidents BUT we would see the can kicked down the road. Less and less competence in the cockpit, more reliance on automation, manufacturers continuing to cut costs, casting a blind eye to the engineers and self regulating. Boeing got it WRONG but they are , in part, being used as too much of a scapegoat for incompetence in all the other areas especially in the cockpit ! In BOTH accidents, pilots forgot to Fly The Plane ! They also had a "runaway trim" but did not do a simple memory item like shut the trim switch off !

[iflyforpie]

In BOTH accidents, pilots forgot to Fly The Plane ! They also had a "runaway trim" but did not do a simple memory item like shut the trim switch off !

The Ethiopian crew did turn it off. They did exactly what Boeing told them to do.

They were left with jammed stabilizer that they could not physically move.

[photofly]

Thirty seven pages of four other threads isn't enough?

[Redneck_pilot86]

In BOTH accidents, pilots forgot to Fly The Plane ! They also had a "runaway trim" but did not do a simple memory item like shut the trim switch off !

The Ethiopian crew did turn it off. They did exactly what Boeing told them to do.

They were left with jammed stabilizer that they could not physically move.

Only because they left it at takeoff thrust for the duration of the flight and accelerated beyond design limits. Had they reduced throttles and reduced speed, they could have moved the stab. They forgot to fly the plane.