Boeing B 737 MAX Controversy

We are beginning to discover that there is more to the Boeing B 737 MAX controversy than was originally believed.  I say believed because, now, it is known that many facets of the development were not known by all concerned … and, even at the time of writing, new aspects are coming into focus.

Grounded Southwest Boeing 737 MAX in California

Boeing has always believed that Airbus was a thorn in its’ side, ever since the European consortium was created.  Therefore, it is essential that we start this very brief blog with an Airbus introduction, as it relates to the subject.

Grounded Boeing 737 MAX at remote location

Noting the success of the Boeing 737. it goes without saying that the Airbus A320 family was designed in direct competition to the Boeing 737.  Specifically, the A320neo (New Engine Option) and the Boeing 737 MAX derived from the 737NG (Next Generation) in 2010 (Into service in 2016).  That, Airbus was able to get a ‘jumpstart’ on Boeing with a innovative, very successful, propfan technology engine for a modern airframe, caused Boeing to rush into developing a new version of their own, the Boeing 737 MAX (Into service in 2017 … an amazingly short design period).  This was going to open a Pandora’s box … to say the least.

In order to fit the large CFB LEAP-!B engines, it was necessary to modify the original attachments further forward on the wing due to the increased height required above the ground (Not required for the newer A320neo).  This, no doubt affecting the CG (Centre of Gravity) and writing new software related to AOA (Angle of Attack) signals.  The wing roots also required strengthening with fork-shaped metal plates (These, recently, have cracks reported).  Notwithstanding, the mixed messages between the FAA and Boeing, the lack of communication between test pilots and design engineers, and the apparent belief that maintenance manuals do not need to have every piece of information, we can only hope that the human race will soon grow wings.

It has been reported that Boeing is studying a new design to replace the Boeing 737 family all together based on a composite design used in the ‘Dreamliner’ aircraft.  The least said about that problem-plagued aircraft the better, I believe.

Hopefully, you will enhance this brief blog with your additional wisdom.

English As We Don’t Know It

Jagmeet Singh, (Canada’s NDP leader) switches seamlessly from formality to so-called ‘multicultural Toronto English,’ sounding educated and down-to-earth at the same time, writes Prajakta Dhopade in Maclean’s magazine. 

"Not only does Singh use an informal register here, but he seems to be influenced by something U of T Mississauga linguist Derek Denis refers to as “multicultural Toronto English.”  Multicultural Toronto English is a “multiethnolect”— a variation of language that is influenced by multiple ethnic groups”.

“Denis says a characteristic of this particular multiethnolect is noticeable in the “o” vowel sound in Singh’s “yo.”  Rather than moving his jaw to turn two vowel sounds into one (a diphthong—that would sound like “yuh-oh”),  Singh uses a monophthong, where the jaw is still while making that “o” sound, so more like “y-OH.”  Toronto slang and multicultural Toronto English are heard a lot in the suburbs of Toronto, including in Brampton, where Singh was an MPP and where Denis happened to have collected some of his research.  This type of pronunciation is also common in Jamaican patois, Nigerian English and Indian English, to name a few, says Denis”.

“That might appeal to multiple demographics;  to university students in downtown Toronto who appreciate his use of slang and multicultural Toronto English, but also to those in rural Ontario, where informal language is everyday-speak. His ability to have both a distinct “work voice” and a “talking to friends” voice is something every Canadian can relate to — he just does it on a public stage”.

I have always been concerned by the impact on changes to the English language as represented by the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.) by such linguistic developments.  The O.E.D. (or whichever dictionary you may be unfortunate to use) is affected by so-called ‘common usage’ and should not be dismissed lightly.  Like it or not, we are bound to accept the authority of edited dictionaries, as long as terms, i.e., common usage and slang, are highlighted.  

Personally, I believe that such words be described in a separate addendum, and left for a reasonable period of time, until included in the main content.  Otherwise, obsolescent editions become a problem ... have you checked yours recently ?

Please, add your comment here.