Lord of War 🍿

As a pilot, and a lover of Boeing jets, I’ve been following the 737 MAX stories very closely. Aviation can be a difficult beat for any reporter to cover, but in times like these, it’s important that the flying public is given an accurate view of the situation.

The Department of Transportation and Justice Department have launched criminal probes of the MAX certification process. While it’s possible that there were a few bad actors in the process, it’s unlikely that there are systemic problems within the safety certification process.

The aviation community’s first priority is safety. From my first days of flight training on the airfield, a culture of safety was ingrained in me. Everything starts and ends with safety. Accidents in aviation are extremely rare, but when they do occur, we learn new lessons to improve processes and safety.

The 737 MAX was the Boeing response to the Airbus 321neo. Reports bring up the fact that the Boeing team was scrambling to get the MAX designed and certified so that they could keep up with their competition. This scramble should not necessarily be equated to cutting corners.

It’s a normal business process in aviation design to create substantially similar aircraft in order to streamline the certification process. The 757-200 was initially certified, and then Boeing created the 757-300, an elongated version. For the 737, Boeing had already created the 737 (1964), -100 (1967), -200 (1968), -300 (1980s), -400 (1980s), -500 (1980s), -600 (1990s), -700 (1990s), -800 (1990s), and -900 (1990s). The MAX is simply the next iteration on the 737. Each time, improvements were made, sometimes capacity expanded, and the FAA certified the airframe. So it would be unfair to immediately draw conclusions on this business decision alone.

Sometimes the FAA will reject a request for a streamlined certification process. The Boeing 767 features the exact same flight deck layout as the Boeing 757, but the FAA chose to require a separate pilot rating for aircrews on each airframe.

Regardless of the certification, streamlined or not, the aircraft had to prove itself. Boeing underwent a rigorous process to prove that the updated aircraft was safe to fly and ready to enter service. The plane was put through a battery of systems, ground, and flight tests. The FAA is an independent regulator and takes flight safety very seriously. They do rely on industry experts for specialized areas of expertise, but they had no incentive to approve an unsafe airframe.

While we want answers, and want them quickly, aircraft accident investigation is a lengthy and thorough process. In the United States, even in fatal accidents, it usually takes two years for a final report to be issued. The fact that these accidents occurred in foreign countries, and one in water, will make it more difficult to complete a thorough and rigorous accident investigation.

The worldwide grounding of the MAX fleet seemed to be haphazard, with the FAA garnering a negative impression by the flying public. It’s important to remember that, while these accidents are scary and certainly two of the same type in this period of time is unusual, we have to keep an evidence-based process.

We will find out what happened in these accidents, Boeing will make changes to processes, procedures, and training, and the 737 MAX will fly again. In the meantime, have confidence in the airlines, mechanics, pilots, and regulators that regardless of their personal interests, safety is always priority one.

Wahooo!!! Cardhop for iOS is out! Just a few minutes ago I went upstairs to my iMac to use Cardhop to look up a few addresses instead of using contacts on my phone. This is really great news.

I love steam in bag vegetables.

I spent all day traveling, unpacking, and cleaning the car, so I haven’t seen any of the Apple updates. So I’m going to read about them on the Apple website, which is a first for me.

The only time we ran into traffic on our entire road trip was in the last 4 miles before our house.

These kids working on this Sunday morning coffee shop team are hustling!

When it’s quieter in the Narthex before Mass than the Sanctuary, it’s time to leave.

Apple is primed and ready to announce their new paid news and television subscription(s?) next week at a media event. There have been a flurry of reports on publishers joining the service, including The Wall Street Journal and Vox. The big question surrounding the offering is the economics. For magazine publishers, sacrificing huge royalties to Apple may be worth it to increase readership. For news publishers, the upside may be harder to see.

In the Internet comments section, there’s a different discussion. We continue to transition to a subscription economy, and in an era of “free” news, many question whether or not people are willing to pay. To quote one commentator, “Why would I pay for news in 2019?”

That’s an interesting question.

For many months, I’ve used The Wall Street Journal as my sole source of news, along with two local news organizations. I don’t watch local or cable news broadcasts, but I do read reports put out by my local paper and also by my local NBC affiliate. That represents the sum total of my news consumption, about 90 minutes each day.

My wife reads from a wider range of sources, to include the BBC and Reuters. She will send me articles of interest to read from time to time. What I find remarkable is the difference in editorial standards and what news products flow from them.

In the time since I moved exclusively to the WSJ, I have rarely read articles about entertainment scandals (save for those surrounding Jeff Bezos), conspiracy stories, or anything truly bizzare. The Journal has a very specific readership, but even when reporting outside of business news, only the highest quality stories make it in front of my eyes. I pay handsomely for the service, but in a way, the editorial process recognizes that I have limited time and so only the most important, best researched stories will make it to print.

All news, paid and unpaid, is ad-supported. I know that the Journal has extensive web trackers and an internet & print ad program that targets me when I’m reading the stories. But what I’ve found is that paying for news results in a higher quality product. Gone are the clickbate headlines and salacious gossip.

So why pay for news? In a word, professionalism. It used to drive me insane that next to hard news on the Fox News website was celebrity sex scandals and bikini pictures. We want high quality, professional journalists to spend their days chasing the big stories, developing sources, and bringing to us the information that we need to function as a society. If we refuse to pay for quality journalism, we will all suffer the consequences.

A last view of 875 N Michigan Avenue

NBC Tower

Wrigley in sun

Park outside of NBC Tower

Current iPad Pro Status: Giant battery pack.

The Chicago Tribune building, by request.

Columns are awesome.

Cancer Survivor Park section of Millenium Park.