Boeing 737 MAX 10 Launches With Little Fanfare

Filed Under: Misc.

Usually an airline debuting a new plane type is big news, though that’s not the case for Boeing today.

Boeing Launches The 737 MAX 10

Boeing has today very quietly debuted the brand new 737 MAX 10 at their facility in Renton, Washington. While these kinds of events are usually full of media, in this case it seemed to be more of an employee event, intended to highlight their accomplishments and recognize the efforts of teams that went into the production of this plane.

Mark Jenks, Boeing’s VP and GM of the 737 program, had the following to say:

“Today is not just about a new airplane. It’s about the people who design, build and support it. This team’s relentless focus on safety and quality shows the commitment we have to our airline customers and every person who flies on a Boeing airplane.”

The Boeing 737 MAX 10 currently has more than 550 orders from more than 20 airlines around the globe, though go figure the plane can’t actually fly.

What Is The Boeing 737 MAX 10?

The Boeing 737 MAX 10 is the third and largest variant of the 737 MAX family, following the debut of the 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 9.

Just to compare the stats of the 737 MAX variants:

As you can see, the 737 MAX 10 is the highest capacity but also the shortest range variant of the MAX family. The plane can seat up to 230 people and has a range of up to 3,300 nautical miles. Boeing claims that the plane has the lowest seat-mile cost of any single-aisle airplane ever produced.

United is the biggest customer of the 737 MAX 10, with 100 of the planes on order. Flydubai, Lion Air, and VietJet Air, all have more than 50 of the planes on order as well.

It was created as a response to the Airbus A321neo. The catch is that unlike with the A321neo, there are no longer range versions than the MAX 10. Airbus has continued to build on the A321neo, with the introduction of the A321LR, and then in a few years the introduction of the A321XLR. There’s no such evolution expected with the 737 MAX 10.

Bottom Line

Boeing has formally launched the 737 MAX 10, which is the largest and shortest range variant of the 737 MAX 10. Unfortunately the plane can’t enter commercial service yet, and it’s anyone’s guess when that will actually happen (Boeing is aiming for early next year).

though the plane can’t actually enter commercial service for now. It’s anyone’s guess when the 737 MAX will be back in the skies (they’re aiming for early next year).

A lot of people worked very hard on this plane, though obviously it’s kind of sad to have a launch happen like this…

Comments
  1. So from the Frankenstein family of aircraft, this one is the Frankenstein-iest? After all, it’s stretched and pulled as far as one could possibly do to a 55 year old design. The Nancy Pelosi of aircraft, so to speak.

    Gee, one wonders how it is that Airbus is cleaning up right now?

  2. Boeing’s stock price has not fallen nearly as much as I would have anticipated with the continuance of the 737 MAX problems. At this point, it would seem prudent to simply destroy all of the MAX planes in existence and redesign a plane that can truly compete with the new Airbus planes and might actually stay in the sky.

  3. Just throwing it out there…the plane isn’t certified so even if there was no grounding, the plane still could not commence commercial flights. The thing hasn’t even flown yet. Your summary is a touch misleading in my opinion in that regard.

  4. I looked at the BA stock, thinking I put some money into it, hoping it is at the bottom now. Wow. It is at 371.34 and just went up about $5 today. I guess BA has many other things going well because I would think if the MAX was the only thing, no way the price would be at 371 and climbing steadily all day.

  5. The fuselage was based upon the 707 and 727 fuselage, and a Max 10 is about as long as 707-320B. It’s been at its limits based on the wingbox and landing gear configuration for a while now, but I think the fuselage itself has room – look at the 757-300.

  6. Just imagine what the order book would look like if they had adapted the 787 technologies to a new clean-sheet aircraft with composite materials and new engines. And maybe they could finally have a narrow body plane that stands at a “normal” height so they don’t have to unbalance the whole airframe with workaround engine placement.

  7. they should destroy all MAX’s, scrap the MAX plans, refund all airlines, and start from scratch on a safe, new plane.

  8. Here we go again with all of those calling for Boeing to do a “clean sheet” design of a new aircraft to replace the 737-MAX — understand that doing a “clean sheet” design currently takes minimally 6-years of elapsed time to do the design, build prototypes, test and debug the prototypes, get everything certified, and finally transition into production! During that period of time, Boeing will get shut out of the single-aisle airliner market for decades, if not forever! There are times for “clean sheet” designs and there are times where “evolving” designs must suffice, due to market/financial/timing considerations!

    Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong about continuing to use an existing airframe, if it is still up to the task, since the manufacturing tooling and supply bases can respond much more quickly and smoothly to transition the new version into production! And using software to compensate for physical requirements to accommodate newer generation jet engines is a perfectly normal concept to adopt! Even Airbus uses software to compensate for its center-of-gravity flight stability issues that recently got exposed on its A320/A321 series of aircraft, as well as to mitigate a design flaw in their brand new A350 belly gas tank feed system that could have resulted in mid-flight explosions at 35,000-feet!

    The fact that Boeing messed up with its software implementation of the MCAS system (shame of them!) does not invalidate the concept! Fortunately, since MCAS is predominantly software, and the hardware in place can most likely continue to function with the newly fixed MCAS implementation, the process to transition into re-certification can be more readily accomplished than if significant hardware revamping were to be required!

    Developing a new airliner is much much more than just advocating a “clean sheet” design!

  9. Of course it is easier and much quicker to ‘fix’ the problems with MAX than to start over but in retrospect they had plenty of time to design a new aircraft. The fact is they designed the MAX to save money and maximize profits.

    Billc – please fly on the ‘fixed’ MAX and if nothing happens for a few years, I might fly one. Until then I will never fly a MAX.

  10. Yeah a clean sheets design wasn’t possible. It would end up being so much more expensive than the A320 NEO series. It would have needed to be so much better to compete and there wasn’t any indication a clean sheets design would be that much better than the NEOs, just much more expensive.

    As for Boeing stock, it’s a safe bet due to Boeing being too big to fail. The USA just doesn’t have enough airplane building ability without Boeing. Many would say national defense requires a domestic maker to be able to build the needed planes. If Boeing went belly up we would be forced to buy Airbus/other euro builds for most airframes with the exception of some fighter jets which Lockheed makes.

  11. the max grounding had nothing to do with the little fanfare. Simple derivatives like the MAX10 don’t get much media attention compared to a brand new airplane. The MAX7 had an employee-only event and that rolled out before the MAX drama. Even the 787-10 barely had a media event for its rollout.

  12. From my understanding, the MAX has a design flaw where the engine is too large for the wings. Hence, the software is suppose to compensate for this flaw. This is why it isn’t an easy fix in the software (the airplane design isn’t like its predecessors).

    Look, it comes down to Boeing taking shortcuts and the CEO should have taken responsibility and should have been out the door since the grounding. Yes, this is hurting the company and who knows about the future. This is where the CEO needs to make hard decisions. Instead, you have a bone head in charge.

    Like Ben says, this is truly sad to see those hard working folks out like that and despite how hard they work, that will not fix the design problem. This looks more like a show by the bone head CEO!

    perspective from a SW Engr.

  13. Wow, another version based on the 60 year old design.
    Again stretching the limits. No doubt this one is unstable as well. They probably added a few lines of extra software to keep the thing from dropping out of the sky.

  14. @Alan — “… in retrospect they had plenty of time to design a new aircraft …” —

    The 737-MAX program was officially launched on August 30, 2011, following the Airbus NEO program launch on December 1, 2010. The first customer delivery of the 737-MAX was on May 22, 2017. The first customer delivery of the Airbus NEO was on January 25, 2016.

    If I did my arithmetic correctly, this means that the 737-MAX took around 5-years 9-months to finish and Airbus NEO took around 6-years 2-months to finish … and 737-MAX still got to market much later than the Airbus NEO by 1-year 4-months.

    By way of comparison, the 787 program was launched around January, 2003 and first customer delivery was on October 26, 2011, taking around 8-years 10-months to finish. The A350 program was launched around December 10, 2004 and first customer delivery was on January 15, 2015, taking around 11-years 2-months to finish. Note that 787 and A350 were brand new designs.

    So if Boeing had embarked upon a brand new design, instead of evolving the 737-MAX, you can see that the market would have “flown away” (pun intended) long before any new design could have hit the market! Note that, despite the best schedule planning, suppliers can radically disrupt that schedule, as witness the GE-9X engine delays impacting the 777-X program!

    So … I don’t think that Boeing had much choice in the way of any options for a brand new design!

  15. I think they just put the wing more in the back to make more aerodynamic effects on the fuselage. We all know the pitching issue. Wing in the back nose go to be more heavy an it would ” ” Keep de nose down.

  16. Wow… there’s a lot of professional business advisors in the comments tonight. Im sorry, but I think Boeing are doing fine with their own for now- just take a look at their stock price.

  17. @JB San Diego — “From my understanding, the MAX has a design flaw where the engine is too large for the wings. Hence, the software is suppose to compensate for this flaw. This is why it isn’t an easy fix in the software (the airplane design isn’t like its predecessors).” —

    The engines being too large to fit in the traditional manner under the 737 wings is not a design flaw, per se! If you read my previous posts, Boeing had no choice but to “evolve” the 737 into the 737-MAX in the way that they did (ie, using MCAS) due to many factors that arose from marketing dynamics, rather than engineering preferences! The “preferred” way to address this issue would have been to design a brand new landing gear to give the body of the 737 higher ground clearance, but that would have greatly delayed the program by creating new conditions upon its future operations and therefore would have mandated totally new pilot training and certification processes, thus further delaying entry into service!

    Note that Boeing’s mistake was trying to “hide” the transitioning from the 737-NG to the 737-MAX behind “compatible” flying characteristics, so that pilots wouldn’t need to undergo re-qualifications to fly the MAX. Such efforts have been done successfully in the past (eg, by Airbus), so it wasn’t considered “rocket science”. Boeing, however, got overly sloppy in how they implemented MCAS and thus we ended up with the problems today.

    Read my previous posts about why the Concept of including software in the aircraft operational loop is totally safe and valid, and has been used for decades in other commercial as well as military aircraft. What Boeing did was to mess that up in their Implementation with MCAS! Luckily, since the hardware can mostly function after MCAS gets fixed with proper software, the re-certification process can proceed much more quickly than otherwise!

    I guess that, unless one has worked in the Control Systems arena, this idea of using software within feedback loops in complex systems seems a bit perplexing … but this is done quite often in hardware engineering and is not considered to be any sort of “flaw”!

  18. @BillC

    Working for Boeing? ‘……..MCAS and thus WE ended…….’

    And then: ‘……..since hardware can MOSTLY function after……..’ You mean the plane will mostly make it safe to its destination but once in a while drop from the sky?
    For my own flights I definitely prefer planes that always function instead of mostly.

  19. @BillC

    Are you seriously content to fly a plane that ‘mostly’ functions? Put it to a vote and let’s see what the public thinks of that idiocy.

  20. Let´s be serious here. If Boeing wildly botched the design of the MAX, why would they be able to do another reasonable clean sheet? The same people… Get real.

  21. In retrospect, Boeing’s issues with the 737 started years before the MAX was announced. Everyone keeps talking about the NMA and it’s been 14 years since the last 757 was delivered. They should have immediately begun development on a true replacement for the entire 757/767 program. Perhaps even a narrow body equivalent to the 787 with pilot commonality. This would have negated any need for a MAX-10. Remove the stretched fuselage and added capacity out of the equation, and Boeing would have had no problem re-engineing the 737NG and keeping the same old wing and landing gear.

  22. If you want a plane that works 100% of the time, then you will never fly. Aircraft will always have failures, no matter what you do to negate it.

    Now, I am not saying that Boeing is faultless. It is important to consider the other factors, however, such as poor maintenance (Lion Air) and poor crew training and insufficient experience (Lion Air and Ethiopian). Aircraft are still safer than any other form of travel, even without 100% safety. If you want that, then you will never be flying, since no aircraft is completely foolproof.

  23. “If it is Boeing (at least any Max series , or a 787 made in CHS, or a 767 based AF tanker), I ain’t going”.

    These guys have milked their 60 yr. old designed cows too far IMHO.

  24. As Boeing trots out the new 73 variant, news today Boeing has settled nearly half of all claims resulting from the Lion Air crash. Families of victims will/have received $1.2 mil USD each…

  25. Note that the first member of the A320 family—the A320—was launched in March 1984. So the 320 airframe design is basically 35 years old. I think the initial start of 737-100 dates back to 1964 so technically is is 20 years older. However, except stretching and shrinking and different wingtips the A320 frame is basically the same whereas B737 NG received redesigned/increased wings among other major upgrades inside. So one could argue which design is more outdated. I was on several AA B737Max flights but I did also fly LionAir and MH including their MASwings subsidiary. So I wouldn’t panic when getting on board of a re-certified B737MAX but would think twice when choosing between carries in South East Asia or Africa….

  26. #D.A.
    I concur

    Think the swing wing 300 seater supersonic, that trunced the Concorde worldwide
    Think the hinged wing tips for 777-8&9 to get the lift required. Never seems to be happening.
    Then there’s the “Dream” liner – battary fires, numerous landing problems, and now talk of insufficient oxygen for pax

    I have nightmares remembering I stepped on a 737MAX without knowing it, except for the extra door, so I knew it was some sort of stretched 737. On that occasion I’m here to tell the tale, just boarded the right flight on the right day. Nightmare? yes, it was LionAir too, but no inference to that company.

    Never again, I say

  27. @ron — “… since hardware can MOSTLY function after……..’ You mean the plane will mostly make it safe to its destination but once in a while drop from the sky? For my own flights I definitely prefer planes that always function instead of mostly.” —

    You mistook what I meant by “mostly function” — what I was referring to was whether there would be any hardware modifications needed to support an updated MCAS software fix … I’m under the impression that such changes, if any, would be minimal, if at all! Obviously I was not referring to planes falling out of the sky! Good Grief!

  28. @John — “Are you seriously content to fly a plane that ‘mostly’ functions? Put it to a vote and let’s see what the public thinks of that idiocy.” —

    See my reply to @ron above … I’m obviously not referring to planes falling out of the sky!
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    @John — “Let´s be serious here. If Boeing wildly botched the design of the MAX, why would they be able to do another reasonable clean sheet? The same people… Get real.” —

    Boeing botched the implementation of the MCAS system on the MAX … that is just one component of that complex aircraft system! Do you know how many people work at Boeing and on the entire 737-MAX development? So you’re going to indict that entire huge group just based upon the failings of just one sub-group? Really? Get real for real!
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    @TM — “… Remove the stretched fuselage and added capacity out of the equation, and Boeing would have had no problem re-engineing the 737NG and keeping the same old wing and landing gear.” —

    Well … but putting a (new) more efficient engine on the 737NG was a major benefit that led to the 737-MAX and its increased overall efficiency! The new engine had a larger air intake diameter that required its mounting to change significantly from the older engine!
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    @Justin — “… such as poor maintenance (Lion Air) and poor crew training and insufficient experience (Lion Air and Ethiopian). …” —

    1000 thumbs up to you for being 100% correct about this observation! In fact, the Final Investigation Report on the Lion Air crash, while finding faults with Boeing’s inadequate illumination about MCAS and importance of additional training for pilots, among many other issues, also laid a large part of the blame on the lack of adequate training for the co-pilot! At the time that the Lion Air pilot transferred the aircraft to his co-pilot to handle, so that the pilot could attend to another urgent matter, that co-pilot had no idea about what was going on and couldn’t respond properly! The same inadequate co-pilot training issue is also very significant in the Ethiopian Air crash! For whatever reasons, some people just will not accept that anything else, except Boeing, could possibly be at fault with those crashes!
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    @Alex_77W — “… I wouldn’t panic when getting on board of a re-certified B737MAX but would think twice when choosing between carries in South East Asia or Africa….” —

    You are absolutely correct in your multiple observations! In fact, the re-certified 737-MAX can be argued to be much safer than some of those other airliners in service, after having gone through such extraordinarily stringent reviews and tests by multiple world aviation safety agencies during its re-certification process!
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Too many in the public just do not understand the concept of “unknown unknowns” and therefore make emotional (but nonsensical) proclamations about the safety of the upcoming re-certified 737-MAX …

  29. It’s fascinating how every comment section is being flooded by trolls once the topic is ‘Boeing’. On every platform on the internet and in every newspaper…
    Hey Boeing, we recognize Your Goebbels-like propaganda efforts, constantly drawing all the attention to that Software hoping for everyone to forget abour the miserable and unfixable hardware-design.
    Please use Your energy and money to build decent aircraft instaed of acting hghly manipulatively like pure evil!

  30. @HereWeGo — “Hey Boeing, we recognize Your Goebbels-like propaganda efforts, constantly drawing all the attention to that Software hoping for everyone to forget abour the miserable and unfixable hardware-design.” —

    Really! You think that we’re all Boeing “trolls” and the 737-MAX has an “unfixable” hardware design?

    So what are your recognized engineering credentials to make such an ignorant and irresponsible claim? How do we know that you aren’t a paid detractor working for Airbus?

  31. @BillC

    Stop. Breathe. Take a look at how many words you’ve spilled on Boeing right here……
    Am I the only who is embarrassed on your behalf? Just relax. Go read a book. Walk the dog. Drink tea. Something. Anything other than aeroplanes! You sound unhinged and not a little obsessed.

  32. @BillC
    Got You! I didn’t mention ANY names and You jumped right in and freaked out!
    …by the way, Airbus’ production lines are at their absolte limits, there would be NO benefit for them whatever would happen to Boeing… So me working for Airbus is nonsense.
    And the rest we ALL know meanwhile: center of gravity is not where it should be and engines reaching hgher than the top of the wing ruin aerodynamics, which was tried to be covered up by electronics and is now that everyone knows officially tried to be ‘compensated’ by the same (modified) electronics – in simple terms.

  33. Boeing had a very capable single aisle aircraft in the 757, including a good range and capacity !!!

  34. Wow…Boeing PR team is on overdrive this morning. Instead of defending Boeing with long meandering rants, their shill (let’s call them “ShillC”) here in the comments should just direct everyone’s attention to Tesla’s Cybertruck. That should keep people occupied for a bit.

  35. I don’t hate or love Boeing nor Airbus.
    I’m just ordinary people who knows because something unusual in design leads to the need of MCAS, that in the end took 346 lives.
    No unusual design, no MCAS, no wasted lives.
    Tell me how much money we can save in this world, so if something wrong happens because of the effort of that money saving, we can use that money to bring back a deceased back to life?

  36. Boeing builds crap. Period. Most likely, laptop-toting Harvard-type MBA’s have infested Boeing like they have many American companies, and these MBA’s have been programmed like Pavlov’s dogs to “enrich shareholder value” (plain English: make the stockholders richer) by building cheap crap, overcharging for it, and getting the cheapest workers possible.
    Boeing is garbage. Why any airline would want to buy their planes, or why anyone would want to fly Boeing planes, is inexplicable at this point.

  37. Good Grief! Talk about sheer ignorance from people totally unqualified.

    @BillC thank you for a very clear and educated response.

    To the anti Max trolls I like the adage “keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, open it and remove all doubt”.

    Everyone now forgets the Max flew safely for years before the inability of two aircrews to actually “fly an aircraft” created the sad loss of life.

    Airbus pranged several A320 before they got their fly-by-wire working properly.

  38. @HereWeGo — “Got You! I didn’t mention ANY names and You jumped right in and freaked out! … center of gravity is not where it should be and engines reaching hgher than the top of the wing ruin aerodynamics, which was tried to be covered up by electronics and is now that everyone knows officially tried to be ‘compensated’ by the same (modified) electronics” —

    LOL! You totally mis-understand! I would have “jumped right in” even as a first-time reader of your comment! I’m just trying to inject some reason into these posts, where too many are spilling purely emotional feelings rather than reasoned engineering sense about the MAX!

    Which begs the question — what do you mean by “center of gravity is not where it should be and engines reaching hgher than the top of the wing ruin aerodynamics”? Are you suggesting that the engines are mounted above the (geometric) plane of the aircraft’s wing, like the successful private jet made by Honda (aka HondaJet), with its above-wing mounted engines?

    I thought the technical reports said that the new engines, under higher thrust levels, have a tendency to pitch the nose of the aircraft upwards above the intended flight path, so MCAS was supposed to bring the nose pitch back down to where it was intended to be … right? Classic application of control loop feedback to maintain stability — but Boeing, unfortunately, screwed up its implementation of that process (possibly by corrupting the feedback loop damping factor?) in their first production release of MCAS …

  39. @AR — “Wow…Boeing PR team is on overdrive this morning. Instead of defending Boeing with long meandering rants, their shill (let’s call them “ShillC”) here in the comments should just direct everyone’s attention to Tesla’s Cybertruck. That should keep people occupied for a bit.”

    Uh … I’m not Boeing’s PR, as I’ve criticized their failed Implementation of MCAS … besides — why would I want to relate the MAX to Tesla’s CyberTruck — two totally different animals with totally different issues! Tesla should have tested out their bullet-proof claims before doing a public demonstration that failed, whereas Boeing’s MAX had already flown revenue service for almost 2 years before 2 unfortunate fatal crashes occurred …
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    @Agus — “No unusual design, no MCAS, no wasted lives.” —

    I guess you’re not that familiar with how aircraft are designed nowadays? Using software in an aircraft’s control system to “coerce” stability is nothing unusual at all! This method has been standard operations on both commercial and military aircraft for decades! Both Airbus and Boeing have long used it in their modern airliners! It’s just that, under “normal” situations, this detail is totally transparent to everyone (as it should be)!
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    @ROBERT J MACKAY — “Boeing is garbage. Why any airline would want to buy their planes, or why anyone would want to fly Boeing planes, is inexplicable at this point.” —

    So you’re indicting over 64,000 employees at Boeing Commercial Airplanes division in one fell swoop on account of the MAX? I guess the 747, 757, 767, 777, and 787 are all “crap” to you?
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    @Alan — “Good Grief! Talk about sheer ignorance from people totally unqualified” —

    Thanks for your observation! It’s encouraging to know that there are still some in this world who do realize that Facts can still trump Emotions! 🙂

  40. @ John

    +1

    I’m embarrassed for him too. I also wish he’d never again use the exclamation mark on his keyboard: he clearly doesn’t know its proper purpose and he’s subtracting further credibility from his posts. It’s a bit sad.

  41. @The nice Paul — “… he clearly doesn’t know its proper purpose and he’s subtracting further credibility from his posts …” —

    Observation about “overuse of exclamation marks” noted … besides criticizing my writing “style,” do you have any substantive counters to my “contents”? That’s more important to me than my “style” (which is subjective, anyway).

  42. My goodness. Those for-boeing comments don’t add to any confidence; rather unleash their devious mentality attempting to cover up an awful misdemeanor done by Boeing! How do you guys have the nerve to blame the airlines when they weren’t properly notified of MAX’s new software implementation? So yall instead target their geopolitics of the not being part of the 1st-world being Southeast Asia and Africa? Guess what, many countires there still fly much older planes than the MAX with absolutely no problem. You guys have no shame its utterly disgusting.

  43. @BillC: Lemme see if I get this correct:
    All I need to do is highlight certain words and put others in bold and that makes me an expert?

  44. Lucky must have realized that the Boeing topic works well for the clicks.

    It is clear this whole 737Max disaster would not have happened if Boeing had started working 20 to 30 years ago on a fresh design for a narrow body. That would have prevented them from right now still having to work with the same 60 year old airframe, mount too big and heavy engines on it that don’t really fit because the body never got a proper landing gear in the first place that in the end makes the plane so unstable that corrective and failure sensitive software is needed to keep the thing level during flight. I do not know many other examples of companies who can milk a 60 year old design without any further innovation.
    It at least explains why the 737 is so extremely uncomfortable and noisy compared to the 319/20/21.
    While the 787 is reasonably comfortable in terms of noise levels, and certainly a few steps up from the again very noisy 777, even the 787 does not come close to the A330 in terms of comfort and noise, let alone the A350 and A380 who are comfort wise and esp with regards to noise levels a class in their own.
    For me the 787 and 747 are OK in terms of comfort; the 777 is still bearable but far below best in class. The 737 I actively try to avoid as much as possible.

    It remains a mystery to me why Boeing cannot get their planes at the same comfort and noise levels as Airbus, but maybe this is greed driven and they do not invest and innovate enough. Obviously this is apart from building well designed safe airplanes which is a 100% no compromise that Boeing has violated by producing the 737Max, just hobbying along on an already very outdated design.

  45. IHMO the reason there isn’t a 737 replacement is simple engine technology isn’t there yet. You do the best with what you have at the time.

  46. @Loungeabuser — “All I need to do is highlight certain words and put others in bold and that makes me an expert?” —

    What are you talking about? Do you offer anything significant to offer to counter my contents? Or are you going to just pile on with inanities about my writing style? Are you all about “Form” over “Substance”? Is that all that this society has been reduced to? I recognize that I’m not a follower of that cult of Political Correctness with respect to use of bold/italics/exclamations, and I’ve already agreed to try and moderate that, based on comments from others!

    With respect to being an “expert” — about 95%+ of what I’m seeing posted on various forums about this topic have been emotional crap that have no bearing on reality! I”ve never claimed to be “perfect,” or an “expert,” but what I know comes from 40+ years in the high tech engineering industry and through some eight successful startups (including IPOs and M&As) … I’ve done trench-level engineering designs of very complex systems as well as high level management (including CEO) of startups that have transformed the lives of literally Billions on Earth … so do you think that I just “might” have some grounding to make the comments that I did about this topic? Or is my engineering degree from the acknowledged #1 engineering university in the entire world still not good enough, in your eyes?

    If you offer something substantive to counter my posted contents, then that’s great — I always welcome discussions about substance! But if you do not have anything substantive to contribute, then making such a snide remark about my writing style just demeans your character!

  47. @BillC
    “I’m not a follower of that cult of Political Correctness with respect to use of bold/italics/exclamations”

    What in God’s holy name are you blathering about? What does your habitually hysterical writing style and extravagant punctuation have to do with so-called “Political Correctness”, or can you really not help yourself?

    You sound like a crazy person with American ideological Tourette’s Syndrome.

  48. @EBWaa — “What does your habitually hysterical writing style and extravagant punctuation have to do with so-called ‘Political Correctness’, …” —

    In my decades of high tech experiences in broad capacities, I’ve not had to deal with so much emotionally driven attitudes as when on online public forums … high tech engineers tend to pretty much always be rational about their thoughts, whereas the vast majority of the public-at-large just can’t help themselves. As a result, I’ve had to resort to those “emphasis” methods to get my points across … and still too many still can’t comprehend anything … I’ve tried all CAPS, *asterisks*, Bold, Italics, etc. And then there are now apparently socially “correct” ways to express oneself (which I ascribe to origins from Political Correctness that want to dictate only certain “approved” ways and methods for self-expressions) … if only the vast majority of the public-at-large were able to think rationally, and not react so totally emotionally, then I think that this world will exhibit a lot more sanity and less emotional nonsense …

    So you see? I can’t even exercise my own 1st Amendment “writes” anymore, but must be compelled to “conform”! 🙁

  49. @BillC

    “… Political Correctness that want to dictate only certain “approved” ways and methods for self-expressions) … if only the vast majority of the public-at-large were able to think rationally, and not react so totally emotionally”

    So let me see if I have understood. You are whining at huge length about people who apparently insist you only communicate in one way.

    And then you complain that nobody else is using what you insist is the only correct way to communicate — unemotionally (despite hundreds of people now dead), like some sort of desiccated automaton?

    If you can’t even see the ludicrous contradictions at the heart of your position, maybe you’re not as rational as you’d like to think?

    “… use of … exclamations, and I’ve already agreed to try and moderate that, based on comments from others!”

    !!!!!!

    You just can’t resist them, can you? In what world was that sentence an exclamation? It makes no sense. Er…!

  50. @The nice Paul — “If you can’t even see the ludicrous contradictions at the heart of your position, maybe you’re not as rational as you’d like to think?” —

    Sigh! You just might be one example of what I’m referring to, as you take one context and then conflate it with something else entirely — when I refer to all of the obsession over punctuation usages, that’s what I see as adopting something out of Political Correctness about “how” everyone should conform to some “social standard” of expression … the part about rationality of thought has absolutely NOTHING to do with punctuation bashing! What I’m referring to, there, concerns rationality of thought as it relates to events, NOT “forms” of expression!

    As for your continuing criticism of my using exclamation points, I’ve now decided that you can use those the way that YOU want to, and I’m going to just use them the way that I want to! I now see NO POINT to conforming on that, anymore! It’s MY right to express however I want to, anyway! Last I checked, there is STILL the 1st Amendment and Free Will on that!

    BTW — at least I don’t put multiple exclamation points in a row!

  51. I am a big aviation fan and would love to ensure this Max issues is adequately resolved. One my key questions is how many MCAS failures have occured but have not resulted in serious crash risks?

  52. @Owen — “So yall instead target their geopolitics of the not being part of the 1st-world being Southeast Asia and Africa?” —

    Who ever said that Boeing did not share any blame? In its initial production version of MCAS, Boeing screwed up the Implementation of a long validated and practiced Concept of using software within the aircraft system’s control feedback loop … Boeing also neglected to use the full hardware potentials present in the product (eg, relying on just one AOA sensor at a time when two were available, etc) … these are all well-known issues and are being “fixed” in order for re-certification to take place …

    Additionally, Boeing did make a bad presumption about requiring MCAS to be exposed to pilots, since it was trying to forego requirements to re-qualify pilots for the MAX beyond the NG series. Airbus had successfully accomplished this “common cockpit” concept, but Boeing screwed up their efforts on the MAX …

    As for the cockpit crews, did you read my prior post about this? The Final Investigation Report on the Lion Air crash dished out plenty of blame to go around (Boeing and FAA included) — but it also focused on the fact that the co-pilot had inadequate flight experience to properly help the pilot handle such an anomalous situation that resulted in a (very unfortunate) crash … it reported that, when the pilot handed control of the aircraft to the co-pilot, in order to attend to another matter, the co-pilot had no idea of what to do in order to properly sustain the anomalous flight behavior on his own … furthermore, the same issue of training and experience was also found with the co-pilot on the Ethiopian Air crash …

    It turns out that SE Asia and Africa suffer from shortages of sufficiently experienced airline pilots and some airlines, therefore, will put co-pilots into revenue flights with inadequate training and experience, unlike in other regions such as Australia, North Asia, North America, Europe, etc. Just compare the minimum number of flying hours’ experience required to qualify as co-pilot in SE Asia and Africa vs. those other regions to see the contrasts!

    Just from an operational standpoint, while there have been several anomalous behavior with MCAS over its almost two years of revenue operations before the two crashes, all previous incidents were able to successfully recover, presumably because those co-pilots were able to properly assist in their recovery efforts (among many other reasons)!

    So it’s not that anyone is intentionally stereotyping SE Asia and Africa, but the past circumstances were what they were …

  53. @BillC

    I have enjoyed reading through all your posts. I am personally in the party that won’t be happy flying the new MAX until they have been flying a decent number of frames for 1-2 years.

    I find your comments interesting. However in order to give credibility to your posts I would like to know which university you went to (the best in the world one), and the names of the 8 high tech engineering companies you set up.

  54. @Pogonation — “I find your comments interesting. However in order to give credibility to your posts I would like to know which university you went to (the best in the world one), and the names of the 8 high tech engineering companies you set up.” —

    Well … you can Google what the top engineering school in the world has been for decades running (hint — it’s located in the eastern half of USA) … as for your statement about my having “set up” 8 high tech engineering companies, please go back and read my post again, as to what I actually said … unfortunately, I’m not at liberty to discuss most of those startups (some of which I did found), but just to give you an idea, one of those where I was a key player participated in the IBM-compatible PC arena …

    I’m not really interested to self-doxx here, so this is all that I can reveal!

  55. …and Boeing did not think it appropriate to alert all MAX operators about the MCAS malfunction incidences?

    Maybe their engineers overestimated their abilities?

  56. @Jupiter — “…and Boeing did not think it appropriate to alert all MAX operators about the MCAS malfunction incidences? Maybe their engineers overestimated their abilities?” —

    I think that the entire Boeing internal blame goes toward the 737-MAX program management chain, since there were many instances where Engineering did alert and complain about how certain aspects of the MCAS system architecture and implementation were inadequately considerate of failure/recovery scenarios … but program management over-ruled those complaints, and that ultimately resulted in the unfortunate crashes.

    Apparently this type of situation happens much too often — when GE designed the nuclear reactors for Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant, something like 5 design engineers actually quit in protest over how their management was disregarding safety concerns with the design that ended up failing and creating the nuclear crises at Fukushima after their huge earthquake and ensuing tsunami flooding!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *