[QUOTE=Jsmth321;12655974]Rides to very greatly by state, some states do a better job vs others.

Go to Disneyland in California and every ride somewhere usually near the entrance has a sign that says "documents related to the certificate of compliance of this attraction may be viewed at city hall."

Seems to be quite a few regulations in California regarding amusement park rides.

One thing I notice there vs in BC is elevators, all the elevators in California have a license posted inside each elevator that shows last inspection date, when it expires and various other details about the elevator, where in BC I have never noticed such a thing.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure?? I've often seen permits, date of last inspection, etc etc. It's one of the things I look for!

[QUOTE=scilly;12655995] I have never seen one inside the elevator, our current building has 2 elevators neither have permits inside the elevators and our last building didn't either and can't say I have noticed one in any elevator, maybe its not required to be kept inside but some places do?

I'll try and get a photo later today of the inside of the elevators.

Must be in a conspicuous place in the cab in BC (Elevating Devices Safety Regulation)

All the ones I saw on display in Manitoba were expired, which might be why they've gotten rid of their requirement to display them ( )

AC is planning on no MAX until 7/1.

They plan to retain the A320s that were to return to the leasing company for 2 additional months.

A321s coming from WOW the conversion will be sped up.

Air Canada will charter an Air Transat A321 during April as well as part of March.

Aircraft from Rouge being used on mainline routes.

Calgary- Palm Springs route suspended.
Halifax/St. Johns to London suspended.
YVR to Kona and Lihue suspended.

If its required to be conspicuous seems places are not following the rules then.

Our buildings elevators nothing visible, and I can't say I can recall ever seeing anything in the cab of any elevator I use, which is what led me to believe it was not required. Guess some places don't follow the rules? Guess it is required.

US Dept of Justice is investigating now.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/u-s-...N0xAl_aTPYTz5g

Garuda Indonesia seeks to cancel it's MAX order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/w...oeing-737.html

Boeing has the software fix, time to see how long it takes to test and such.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5102728/b...Kx1-golSudxXEY

Boeing has a credibility issue that's of Trumpian proportions.
As I understand the issue, this MAX evolution of the 737 series has generated some strange flight characteristics, among which is a tendency for the nose to lift. It's clear that this happens under normal flight conditions otherwise there would have been no need to have conceived a 'fix' to prevent the nose rising to a level that could induce a stall. This would have been encountered during flight envelope testing but admitting that the aircraft could under some circumstances not behave predictably probably persuaded the management to order a 'fix' and then subsequently decide to not admit the existence of the resulting MCAS system in order to mask the existence of the problem.
Compound this with a bean counter mentality that places a value on provision of essential safety equipment and you have an enterprise that has lost it's way.
Imagine driving a car, a brand new Bongo, only to discover later that the airbag has been disabled under heavy braking because it had been discovered that this could operate the airbag so a little bit of code has been inserted to disable the airbag under heavy braking and when you need to brake hard you hit a truck, hard.
If a Uber driver arrives to take you to an important appointment and he's driving a Bongo, will you get in?

Perfect analogy!

The 737 was designed back in the mid 60s…….in simplified terms the 737 Max is 60s legacy design with major modificatIons to parts of it it to improve fuel efficiency, add in a stretched body and “cobble it all together” its no surprise its doing strange things like a tendency for the nose to lift during flight,..….

Problem is as you say, Boeing never wanted to disclose that problem especially for the fact it was being covered with a software fix. Technology nowadays is great in many ways….but this aircraft would never have made it past the design stage if it were the days before software could be written to make up for a mechanical shortfall.

The history of a scandal and and background of why two airplanes fell out of the sky.
https://www.vox.com/business-and-fin...ndal-explained

https://globalnews.ca/news/5109603/b...ZvWgo7MIfBsOIA

"U.S. and European regulators knew at least two years before a Lion Air crash that the usual method for controlling the Boeing 737 MAX‘s nose angle might not work in conditions similar to those in two recent disasters, a document shows."

Hmmm...the fact they certified the plane safe "in part" but didn't hi light or even list this corrective action in the flght manual is either gross negligence or a cover up.... if I had lost a loved one in either of those disasters I would be furious, as it sounds like both of these disasters could have been easily prevented.

It's all becoming a little political isn't it?
The expected preliminary report on the recent crash is being delayed.
The expected fix for the aircraft will take 'weeks'.
Nobody is saying anything that'll raise the prospect of the death of the Max and the crippling of Boeing.
Will we be encouraged to accept re-certification of an aircraft who, like the odd bank, may be 'too big to fail'?