Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings

Article contains several mistakes

Dear contributors to this wikipedia page. This article contains several mistakes. The media reports aren't a good source in order to find factual information about the 737 Max. The 737 design part is almost completely false. " (MCAS) was developed for the 737 MAX to prevent stalls " MCAS is a longitudinal stability enhancement. It is not for stall prevention (although indirectly it helps) or to make the MAX handle like the NG (although it does); it was introduced to counteract the non-linear lift of the LEAP-1B engine nacelles and give a steady increase in stick force as AoA increases. The LEAP engines are both larger and relocated slightly up and forward from the previous NG CFM56-7 engines to accommodate their larger fan diameter. This new location and size of the nacelle cause the vortex flow off the nacelle body to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a reducing stick force) which could lead the pilot to further increase the back pressure on the yoke and send the aircraft closer towards the stall. This non-linear/reducing stick force is not allowable under FAR §25.173 "Static longitudinal stability". MCAS was therefore introduced to give an automatic nose down stabilizer input during steep turns with elevated load factors (high AoA) and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.

This is a qoute from the website: http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm (and no I am not the guy running that website). In shorter words it is explained that only in a very particular situation that under normal circumstances the airplane will never get into, the stick force that the pilot feels will decrease instead of actually increase. MCAS is there to counter this decreasing stick force.

"This engine relocation and the new nacelle shape cause an upward pitching moment." This sentence in the article is misleading because on basically every Jet aircraft the engines will cause an upward pitching moment as you increase thrust. Just as an example this is a sentence from the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) of the Boeing 737 NG found in the chapter Basic Aerodynamics and Systems Knowledge :"The airplane continues to pitch up if thrust is increased and positive corrective action is not taken by re-trimming the stabilizer." This is a guidance to remind the pilots that if the elevator -which controls pitch- has become inoperative, the thrust may be used in order to control pitch attitude instead. This is true for the 737 NG the Airbus 320 etc... it is not unique to the 737 MAX, the unique characteristics of the 737 MAX are explained above.

"the system activates without notice to the pilot." This sentence is completely false! MCAS will move the horizontal stabilizer which will lead to a nose down pitching moment. When the horizontal stabilizer moves it is shown in the cockpit to the pilots by two rotating Stabilizer trim wheels (just check for a video of this on youtube). They can be seen as they rotate and also be heard. MCAS is one of several systems which will move the horizontal stabilizer = the stab trim wheels. The Speed trim system which already is installed on the 737 NG or the autopilots (the 737 has two) are examples of other systems. All 737 pilots must know the so called stabilizer trim runaway memory items found in the Quick Reference Handbook. Other examples of where the pilots need to know procedures by memory are an engine fire or an emergency descent due to a rapid decompression. Thess are time critical situations where the pilots need to perform the memory items first and then after the situation is under control, they will refer to the QRH and continue checklist items which aren't time critical. It is very important to understand that it isn't neccessary to know why the stab trim wheels are moving if the pilot doesn't want them to. It doesn't make a difference which system is causing the unwanted movement: all that matters is that the memory items are performed in order to shut down the unwanted movement. This is done by setting the stab trim cut out switches to cut out which is what the previous Lion air crew before the accident flight did. In summary the statement that the pilots are not aware of the MCAS system operating is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow50t (talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Too long to read. It's easier to edit the article with better refs. I understand you think general media refs aren't thorough technically and I agree, but the general media coverage brought many new editors here. Now it calms down, we can replace it by more precise aviation media refs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The section about MCAS is transcluded and I find it difficult to edit it, I gave up. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Arrow50t, you appear as though you may be a technical expert, but I'm not sure if you are familiar with Wikipedia's principles for writing articles, so that may be a reason for your disagreement with the way MCAS is described here. Wikipedia articles are based on sources that are reliable, published and independent of the subject matter. The source you highlighted, http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm, might well meet those requirements. However, it is in disagreement with the description of MCAS in many sources that meet Wikipedia requirements, as seen in this list:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

In cases involving disagreement among reliable sources, Wikipedia can present both (or multiple) opinions by describing the opinions, as shown in the sources. Wikipedia also defines "fringe opinion", and articles here generally give little or no space to such opinions. Based on the clear preponderance of the sources I've shown, I believe this article should use terms like "stall prevention" or "anti-stall". I would, however, support inclusion--probably in a footnote, but not in the text--of a reference to the b737.org.uk article, for the sake of including a representation of what appears to be a distinctly minority view of MCAS.

Another description you quoted, "This engine relocation and the new nacelle shape cause an upward pitching moment", could benefit from some re-wording. The article can describe that the position and larger size of the engines contribute additional lift when climbing--more than previous engines do--creating a potential hazard. References in mainstream sources support such a description.

The third quotation you showed, "the system activates without notice to the pilot", can also benefit from re-wording. The intention here is to describe that the cockpit offered no explicit indicator of the MCAS system: its status, its functioning or malfunctioning--there was no indicator dedicated to MCAS. I believe the text can easily be revised to make this meaning clear. DonFB (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the b737.org article is at odds with the gist of this page. I've seen it before. It's just some fine detail. The purpose of MCAS is to normalize the yoke back pressure and the purpose of that is to prevent the pilot accidentally getting too close to a stall. We need to summarize it here and leave the details for an MCAS page. It's not our biggest problem.... The real cause of these accidents and incidents are still emerging, MCAS may only be one factor in the end. Greenbe (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talking about a technical system, all those ok-with-wikipedia sources are basically crap, unless they cite a technical source for stating what MCAS is or what is not; instead, little known pages kept by people who are more into the topic (aviation in general) are likely more reliable than articles written by cover-the-story journalists. Boeing does not describe the MCAS as a stall-prevention system, see for example the update on the fix https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page and also in documents given by Boeing after the first crash, it's not about preventing stall; e.g., see appendix of the preliminary report of the second crash, http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/20435/0/Preliminary+Report+B737-800MAX+%2C(ET-AVJ).pdf where the MCAS appears in this way: "The 737-8/-9 uses a Flight Control Computer command of pitch trim to improve longitudinal handling characteristics". All these "pitch stability" and "longitudinal handling characteristics" mean the system isn't designed to prevent stall, even if it could help with it as well. Describing it as a system to prevent stall is therefore wrong, not just a simplification: the purpose of the system isn't that one. Here somebody did not the same error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System_(MCAS) -- Ittakezou0 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Orlando incident

The Orlando incident was removed from the article with the edit summary "not related to the groundings, already discussed at talk page".

1. I cannot find anywhere in the talk page, nor in the archive this issue being discussed
2. The text removed clearly stated that "The engine problems were determined to have been unrelated to the cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes that brought about the grounding of the aircraft." That does not mean that it is "not related to the grounding". In my opinion, any problems with the plane that are discovered while it is grounded is notable for inclusion — regardless if the problem was related to the crashes that brought about the grounding. It was included under a section heading titled "Additional incidents", and I think that's appropriate.

Banana Republic (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure which bit of "unrelated" is not clear. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was probably wrong about the topic being discussed here but I still recall there had been attempts to include it, and they were refused. But the fact it is unrelated to the topic of the article still holds true. I do not see why should "any problems" be included. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit was the only other refused attempt that I was able to find. That attempt at inclusion was indeed misplaced. The incident should be included in a separate section. Banana Republic (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

With public confidence in the airplane so low, I cannot fathom the grounding being lifted before the engine problems are resolved. Therefore, while the engine problems are not related to the crashes that caused the grounding, they are related to the grounding, and should be mentioned under a heading such as "additional incidents". Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that "engine issues" are part of the cause for the grounding. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The engine issues were discovered during the grounding, so they were obviously not the issues that triggered the grounding. However, that does not mean that they are unrelated to the grounding. The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved. Banana Republic (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The engine issue was found in flight so could not be related to the grounding, do you have a reliable source that the aircraft will remain grounded even if the software is fixed. Certainly the Boeing website says the grounding will be lifted when the software is released, no mention of engines. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Boeing did not issue the grounding order, so they cannot make a determination that once the software problem is fixed the grounding will be lifted (but they can certainly hope that will happen). The engine issue was discovered during the grounding of the plane, so it is related to the grounding, even though it may not be related to the events that triggered the grounding. Banana Republic (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So still no reliable source then. And the particular aircraft was not actually grounded when the engine problem was found, hence why it was flying. So without a reliable source this cannot be added to the article so perhaps we should close this now as no consensus to add, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be no dispute that the airplane was grounded. As written in the removed paragraph, Although the 737 Max was grounded for passenger flights, airlines were allowed to fly the grounded planes without passengers.

There is a Bloomberg Press article from April 17 saying that "At least three airlines have conducted inspections on the grounded Boeing Co. 737 Max". This means that the issue is broader than just Southwest Airlines. Banana Republic (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

They use the ground time to perform some maintenance. The grounding is related to the MCAS, not the engines. Somewhere there is a 737MAX flight attendant who catched the flu.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Banana Republic, you seem to be assuming there is some kind of systemic "engine problems" (your quote), but you have not provided a source which says such problems exist in the MAX fleet, which is the clear implication of your comment. Occasional engine problems happen on all types of aircraft. This problem just happened to occur on a grounded MAX during a ferry flight. The incident might be of mild or moderate interest to people following the MAX saga, but it does not seem essential to an encyclopedia article about the grounding. You make a very large undocumented, unverified leap when you claim: The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved. If another engine problem occurs during a ferry flight, then a brief mention of multiple such inflight problems or multiple unscheduled ferry landings caused by engine problems might be worthy of inclusion, but should not be linked to the grounding, unless sources explicitly say the grounding will not be ended until engine problems are fixed. DonFB (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. We'll have to wait and see what comments, if any, the FAA will make regarding this incident.

Regardless, I think it should be noted in the article that the planes are grounded only for passenger flight service, but are still allowed to fly without passengers, and show this Orlando incident as an example. Obviously, it the planes were grounded under all circumstances, this incident would not have happened. Banana Republic (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There is brief mention of ferry flights in the "In flight effect" subsection of the article. DonFB (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. The "In-flight effect" section is for planes that were in the air when the grounding took effect. I therefore moved the sentences in question to the US response within the timeline to say that although grounded for passenger service, the FAA still allowed planes to be flown without passengers. Banana Republic (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But why have you added this not notable unrelated incident again when there is no consensus to add it? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It was included in a single sentence as an example of flights that were allowed to take place in spite of the grounding of the plane. You cannot say it was not notable when there was plenty of coverage of the incident that took place during the flight. Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, coverage does not mean encyclopedic material. As it seems you edit only ocassionally (nothing wrong with that), here are a few links you might find useful in this context: see for example WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.") and WP:TOOMUCH. On what is best to include and what not in similar articles, see WP:AIRCRASH. I also found where the engine was discussed - at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Engine Issues; sorry for the initial confusion. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is for routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. I don't think engine problems are routine, and certainly not for a plane that is grounded.
2. WP:TOOMUCH is obviously subjective and is not policy. I can't see how the inclusion of a single sentence would be too much
3. I don't see how the sentence is question is not in conformance with WP:AIRCRASH. Engine failure is certainly "serious damage to the aircraft".

Banana Republic (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to show links to improve your editing but you misinterptet them: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not only for what you think, you omitted the "for example" part of For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports..., and the general idea I quoted above also holds true; Your quote "serious damage to the aircraft" applies to accidents, not incidents (The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport); incidents should be included only if they resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry; turing off an engine overheating due to debris is not serious damage, not an accident. This is my last comment on this topic, as it seems a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

1. I don't think my omission of the words "for example" changes the meaning of the fragment that follows the two words. I can assure you that it was not my intention to change the meaning.
2. WP:AIRCRASH does not make a distinction between accidents and incidents. To quote (hopefully in full context) "Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if: (emphasis added)

However, it won't change the consensus that the inclusion of the incident in the article should only happen if and when the FAA makes a statement that the planes cannot fly again until the issues with the engines that were discovered in this incident are resolved. I just wanted to be on record that I don't think I misquoted anything.

It appears to me that the lack of consensus for inclusion of the incident is not based on policy. It is based on the opinion that because the engine issue that was the cause of the incident had nothing to do with the accidents that caused the grounding, it therefore does not belong. Banana Republic (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Time to close this and to drop the stick, clearly no consensus to mention engine failures in this article in any form, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Looks like we are slipping down the pyramid and not focusing on the issues. Per WP:TALKNO, please stay in the top 3 sections. Banana Republic (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the "Orlando incident" is not related to the groundings. I see no reason to include this information in this article. Regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As a See also

This edit, along with its edit summary "Four editors refused your addition as unrelated to the groundings, and for the third time you are trying to add it??" seems to me like a grudge. Now that the incident has been accepted as notable, I don't see any reason not to include it in the article under the "See also" section. Since the incident occurred to a grounded plane, it is obviously related to the grounding article. If no other editor agrees that it should be listed under the "See also" section, then I won't re-insert it into the section.
However, if and when the FAA declares that the resolution of the engine issues was a factor in the decision to lift the grounding (or if the FAA will decide that the resolution offered by the manufacturer is insufficient for lifting the grounding), it will be fair game to re-add the incident into the article (and in a much more prominent location than in the "See also" section). Banana Republic (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Article lead section

Shencypeter, I know that your many recent edits to the lead section of this article are all done in good faith. However, some of the phrasing needs improvement, I believe. Accordingly, I'll be making some changes that I think will make the lead better still. I hope we can come to agreement on all the changes we both make. DonFB (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

DonFB,Thanks and noted. The passenger deaths are an unfortunate consequence of the crash, so I have taken the liberty to prefer euphenisms wherever possible. The words "kill" seem a little strong to me. Shencypeter (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

i.e. 3000 people died in the 9-11 attacks, not the attacks killed 3000 people Shencypeter (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

：DonFB In the lead section no other names were mentioned; not Dennis Muillenberg or any of the FAA officials. Why must you revert the mention of Donald Trump——how is the White House not representative of his actions? Shencypeter (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I added his name, didn't revert it. However, I am fine with not mentioning his name. For the sake of accuracy, I think it is better not to characterize the matter as an "order" of the White House--technically, the "order" to the airlines is issued by the FAA, and the sources don't say the President issued an "order" to anyone. Obviously, the Pres and FAA director conferred, and the decision resulted from their discusson. I think the first time that aspect is mentioned, the sentence could simply end: "and grounded its planes on March 13." I really see no reason to repeat the "White House" wording in the very next sentence, where we say the FAA had new information. The important issue is that the U.S. government made a decision, belatedly. From your comment, I'm not sure if you want to mention Trump's name, or you don't want to. If we do give his name, I think "announced" is an accurate description. DonFB (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be great to summarise sections as advised in WP:LEAD: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I usually trim down the lead by moving every referenced statement to the relevant section, then summarise each section.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the initial resistance to your edits, DonFB, but you can see that your replacement of my synonyms for groundings (restriction, ban, prohibition) into repeated statings of groundings, had broken the flow of the paragraph and has been completely undone. Oh well! Let’s see how the article evolves as we try to mention Dennis Muillenberg in both his initial confidence to the eventual acknowledgment of the system, since all we’re doing as Wikipedians are to incorporate sourceable knowledge from the inter webs. Shencypeter (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Shencypeter - Regarding your recent edit to the lede, please see: WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms. Thanks. DonFB (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, with all due respect please explain your microedits to make the lead section "better" -- Everything has been edited to your preferred writing style. Just as you argue that died and killed are concise and to the point, why would you undo other people's work in phrasings such as "...was subject to grounding." which is PERFECTLY FINE the way it was. May I remind you that this article is written in American English, and it can use a little more sentence structure and diction than Simple English? This is a shared community space and you are taking ownership of it. My experience here has been somewhat frustrating and counterproductive. "Welcome To Wikipedia..." 13:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I made the edit you're referring to. Could provide a diff? DonFB (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

DonFB the only redundancy and wordiness you accept are the ones you added. Everything in the first paragraph is implied to have happened on March 11, but you have a compulsion to begin every sentnce with "Also on March 11" as if it were missing information. You think readers need help doing the math "in the next two days" between March 11 and March 13, even though March 13 is explicitly stated later. So you kept this transition, but you decided that to reach an agreement is unnecessary in the US grounding. Paragraphs have a continious flow and is not intended to be read one sentence at a time. If it were the case you might turn this article into bullet point. Imagine the edits you would make to the September 11 attacks. You would enjoy reintroducing the date for everything that happened on that day. Shencypeter (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The info I added is not redundant, but informative. I don't agree with you that "Everything in the first paragraph [actually, the second paragraph in the section] is implied to have happened on March 11." That's a very big and unjustified assumption you're making on behalf of readers. Furthermore, as good practice, an encyclopedia article should not rely on implying important information to readers. The article should explicitly state information, not imply it. On specifics, it is important to inform readers the actual date when China grounded its planes and that it was the first government to take the action. You objected to including the date of that event "as if it were missing," but, in fact, it was missing after your edits. The date is important encyclopedic information and should not be omitted. However, I actually think the phrase "Also on March 11" is a little awkward, and I am actively considering how to make an edit to improve the text, while retaining the date. The phrase "in the next two days" gives readers clear, upfront information about the timeline of these events, on their way to reading further and learning exact dates when events occurred. Yes, good writing should have an agreeable flow, but sentences are, in fact, read one at a time. It's not possible to read multiple sentences simultaneously. The lead section now generally follows your recent revision, but you are objecting to changes that are relatively small and, I think, quite reasonable. Wikipedia edit pages used to have a reminder on them for people who participate here. You can see the reminder here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2. Note, especially, the sentence in italics. Everyone who edits here should keep it in mind. It's good we can have a discussion, but try to avoid sarcasm, as you evinced in your closing. DonFB (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, I have rearranged the "In the next two days" sentence after all mentions of March 11. Now we have three sentences in a row beginning March 11, not including the topic paragraph. Since you have a more senior status in Wikipedia editing, please suggest how we can reduce the unnecessary mentions of March 11. It's my fault for editing and little "Talking." We have the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems as a precedent guide as to how this article will evolve in the future. Shencypeter (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Political

The current text is misleading as regards the FAA grounding and Trumps announcement of it. It is a case of ignoring multiple sources that state that Boeing CEO called Trump assuring him of safety and that then the FAA delayed. This puts a different light on Trumps involvement. I am editing to improve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.231 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The editors of this page seem to be overly deferential to both Boeing and Trump. The story is not good for either of them. The FAA does not come out well either since it apparently bowed to political pressure with the initial decisions not to ground and then having the grounding decided by Trump on presumably political grounds and not technical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.71 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Article is not misleading. FAA issued "Continued Airworthiness" certification notification on March 11, day before Boeing phone call to Trump on March 12. FAA already was supporting continued flights before the call. DonFB (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear DonFB, what you say is not supported by the record. The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th. I am undoing your deletion. Please come back to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. The record is mixed about Trump's involvement and I think that a balanced article should reflect that. Not just positive things about Trump and Boeing, but a balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.168 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect.

You said: "The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th."

The source you cited is:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/12/boeing-ceo-trump-737-max-safe-1218439

The source shows:

By KATHRYN A. WOLFE
03/12/2019 03:49 PM EDT

The text of the source says,

"Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reassured President Donald Trump Tuesday that the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft is safe, the company confirmed."

"Tuesday" was March 12.

The FAA issued a "Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community" on March 11:

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/CAN_2019_03.pdf

DonFB (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As a current event article is difficult to maintain because it took only three days to ground the aircraft. Reporters get to publish one story item at a time and this Wikipedia article would cite hundreds of them before the restrictions are lifted against the plane. I had specifically opposed mentioning any names in the lead, as it is a summary of the entire article. Just as no regulator is named in grounding the plane in China, the names of Donald Trump and Dennis Muillenberg seem less noteworthy here. I was grossly offended that Trump's tweets about complex airplane systems or his suggestion to rebrand the whole plane once appeared in the lead; we should be quoting Captain Sullenberger and not a random, unprofessional rant on Twitter. Yes, the US had flip-flopped its policy to ground the plane on Wednesday, and so did Muilenberg -- initially asserting the planes were safe, then acknowedged that MCAS playd a role. Too much information! Shencypeter (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand your position regarding names; I could not tell from your previous post if you did or did not want to mention any names. It's true the article does not give names of officials in other countries. My take is this: because the plane is made and certified in the U.S., the decision by U.S. officials to ground it and eventually unground it is very influential and will basically give other countries the ok to resume flying (even though some other countries/groups will also make their judgement). Therefore, it's appropriate and encyclopedic, I believe, to give a little more detail about the decision-making in the U.S., because that's where the airplane comes from. Furthermore, of course, our personal opinions about the president (or about anybody) cannot influence our decision as editors whether to include such encyclopedic information (wp:NPOV). So, I think it's quite ok to mention Trump in the lead for those reasons, although Muilenburg does not have to be mentioned in the lead--but we can certainly name him in the body of the article, since he's the Boeing chief, and this article is all about the grounding of the plane his company makes. DonFB (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

But I don't agree it's too much information to describe the fact that U.S./FAA/Boeing at first would not ground, then decided to ground. That's a vital part of this whole story and would be wrong not to include it. DonFB (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Only positive things about Muilenburg and Trump are written here. DonFB is correct that the call was on Tuesday, not Monday. But it did happen. Why not mention it as many readers would find it germane. Note that there are very many reports of it in mainstream places. Also don't forget that Boeing gave $1M to Trump's inauguration. Maybe that also should be mentioned. Finally, it is also a fact that many members of congress complained about the non-grounding including public statements by Republicans. Trump is known for not giving a hoot about what members of other parties, or any one else says except for Republicans and his racist base. In this regard the fact that Republicans were complaining is significant. As you can guess from what is written here I do not care for Trump. I also guess from the deletions that some people here love him. Can't we work together to make a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.120 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Look more closely at my Edit Summary here, where I directed you to the information about the phone call already in the article. I don't see positive or negative things about Trump or Muilenburg; I see only neutral descriptions of their actions. If you find a reliable source that Wikipedia can use to explain a connection between campaign donations and government decision-making about 737 MAX, be sure to keep everyone informed. DonFB (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Added a few details that would be of interest in relation to the article. These are about the history of the grounding and in particular the political narrative around it.

Delivery of planes

I added info with references about delivery of the planes, but it was not necessarily the planes in the accidents, but rather, the first of type delivered to each airline. Previously, the article said the accident planes were less than four months old, which may well be true, but there was no referencing in the article for that statement. I'll research more by registration number or other info to find referencing for age or delivery of the actual planes. DonFB (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, delivery is in preliminary reports, and age (total time) should be there as well. It is also sourced in the respective articles on the flights. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I sure was working hard to reinvent wheel on this. DonFB (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Ethiopian plane was two months old and the Lion Air Plane was four months old. The Ethiopian Plane "left the factory" after the Lion Air crash. Shencypeter (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

MCAS failures - Hazardous or catastrophic ?

This one blurb bugs me:

MCAS failure was potentially rated incorrectly as "hazardous" rather than "catastrophic". The system relied on a single sensor, an unusual and inappropriate design for the lower rating, and certainly incorrect if failure should have been rated catastrophic.

Not trying to nit pick here, but... Numbers of sensors, levels of redundancy shouldn’t have a bearing on how severe the fault is once the fault has occurred. That text reads to me as an invalid argument for a more severe rating. Does it have a credible source or can we replace it with a statement that will hold water. 67.190.126.82 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is based on the referenced Seattle Times news article; see section "System failed on a single sensor" part of that article for details. But you are free to suggest revised wording in the Wikipedia article. DonFB (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is - lower levels of hazard need less redundancy to me that seems straightforward. The Seattle Times article goes into a lengthy discussion of whether the assessment of the level of hazard was too low but it is impossible to resolve until the accident reports are final and even then it will be debated endlessly.Greenbe (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

the statement tries to link the severity of the fault having occurred to the likelihood of the fault. Severity of a fault correlates to what impact the fault has, not how likely the fault is. More sensors does not make the fault less severe (XL Germany flight 888T - had three senors, but a fault in the sensors still caused the plane to crash. Qantas flight 72 suffered a fault related to angle of attack that injured crew and passengers, but the fault was not related to any sensor). I’m not trying to say that one sensor is a good design or a bad design. Just that the argument used here is not at face value legitimate. Bluntly, likelihood and severity are unlinked properties. 67.190.126.82 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX crashes

Just to note that a new article Boeing 737 MAX crashes has been created which duplicates this article. Although a merge request to this article was started I have been WP:BOLD and redirected it here. As far as I can see it provides no new information. MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the article's talk page, it seems like it was a class project. I don't think your redirect would be too controversial. Banana Republic (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This message was left elsewhere on the talk by user User:161.130.253.153, who now added the NPOV tag to the article: "I think that the current text contains a highly selected set of "facts" and excludes other "facts" to the extent that it does not represent the story as it is understood in mainstream sources and that it particularly is much more favorable to Boeing and Trump that the collected sources are. I nominate this article for deletion." Making a seprate section in cae some kin of discussion emerges before the tag is removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you plaese be more specific what facts are excluded? Without that, the article cannot be improved and the non-neutral tag will be removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the template because it seems to me as unfair to tag the entire article with an NPOV template if the dispute is limited to a single section. I will let the editor who placed the template to choose which section they would like to tag with this template. Banana Republic (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading this article as a whole one has the impression that Boeing and the FAA both behaved very properly throughout the process. Trump took the lead and announced the grounding in the US out of abundance of caution. A careful job is being done for improving the almost perfect aircraft. The strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement of the ground and the FAA abundance of caution. The de-emphasized story is the close relationship of Boeing and Trump, with the delayed response of the FAA. The severe criticism of the certification process used for this aircraft. The doubts about the effectiveness of the software fix. The strong doubts around Boeing's denial of defects in the aircraft. The fact that Trumps announcement followed severe criticism by people in his own party including Congress. The racist allusions that the foreign flight crews in crash planes did not follow procedures contributing the crash, which were made by Boeing (and reported here as if factual) even though other sources strongly dispute that. This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture. I am restoring the npov. Please improve the page instead of just reverting. The page as written is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.252.230 (talk • contribs) Latest revision as of 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You lost me. The article must be written from a neutral point of view. Are you saying that the article should pass judgement against Boeing? Have you read the Certification inquiry section that says that "it was announced that experts from nine civil aviation authorities would investigate how MCAS was approved by the FAA, if changes need to be made in the FAA's approval process and whether the design of MCAS complies with regulations."? Banana Republic (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think now that the article contains criticism from Sullinberger, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that "This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture.". Banana Republic (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

161.130.252.230, Thanks for your input but I am afraid that is your interpretation only. You grossly misinterpret the article, for example there are no "racist allusions", and Boeing statements are/were not "reported here as if factual". (= "he said the pilots did not "completely" follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined.") There is no "strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement" in the article, just "Trumps announcement" etc. Removing NPOV. But I am not oposed to changes. Could you perhaps write here at the talk page how would you like to present the Boeing statement? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please keep a civil tone. The remark "your interpretation only" is not civil as you have no way of knowing how many or how few people share an opinion. Clearly there is a dispute about neutral point of view, which is all that npov is about. This is to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.122 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Please sign your posts by typing 4 tildas (~~~~)
2. Nothing uncivil about pointing out that you are the only one who thinks the article is biased. We obviously cannot count the opinions of editors who do not participate in the discussion.
3. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. The way I am seeing it, there is no consensus that the article is biased. While other editors and I are trying to work with you to address your concerns, all you do is re-insert the {{npov}} template. Please do not reinsert the template and either add more information to the article to balance things out, or keep discussing here how you think the article could be improved. Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps an Airbus employee is pissed that the page is not a tabloid where rumors and non-verified data is not part of the article? If you have data to back your claims by reliable sources, sure add it, but do not claim the article is biased towards Boeing. The existence of this article itself is a big trashing of Boeing if you think about it.Bohbye (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The unregistered editor who keeps adding the {{npov}} template is doing so from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Accusing them of having a personal grudge is not in line with WP:AGF. I do agree that they have not made a good case that the article is biased. Banana Republic (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Tables to prose

Marc, the conversion to prose makes the info almost unreadable and certainly unsortable. I ask you unconvert and refrain from prosifying the airline section. DonFB (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The information does not need sorting, and is not tabulated data. It's been a few weeks since I added the prose template and nobody was against it, so I went ahead. I won't do the same for the airlines yet, but the sorting feature is of very little interest either.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right; I should've voiced my objection then. I've already used both the date and alpha sorting functions; they're quite convenient. Aside from inconvenience due to loss of sorting functionality, it looks awful. DonFB (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks awful but saves space so no opinion on this; however, the airlines section would be worse, so please do not do that. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetic sorting does not convey interest. There is a point to sort by date (the chronology order) or by number (to sort by size), but sorting by the random letter placement of the alphabet is meaningless. For the countries, only the date sort had a purpose. It looks ugly, but takes less space than a long table. The ugliest thing are the endless references for non controversial facts. I would be OK with removing most, at least non-english refs. And even removing all European countries after the EASA ban, and to stop listing countries after the FAA ban as the aircraft was forbidden to flight anywhere since.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetic sorting by country name in both tables is of interest to me, whether or not it is of interest to you. I had a feeling you might have disliked the space it took, and collapsible is acceptable to me. I am going to edit the header portion of the country table, so it will have some visibility/color when collapsed. It definitely would not be proper to remove countries that acted after FAA & EASA bans; that is encyclopedic information and provides noteworthy details about which countries were very late in taking official action, regardless of the existing bans. DonFB (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it took too much space. It is still sorted alphabetically for each date, so finding a country is still easy, and you can find any one with your browser find function anyway. Keeping each late country is not crucial and may give it too much WP:Weight, especially with the references size.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is very hard to read in prose form; a table allows much easier scanning. Thanks for the great tip about using the browser Find function, but I prefer an instantly sortable format to find single or multiple countries by name. A lot fewer key strokes and clicks, I'm sure you'll agree. I strongly disagree with you that keeping late countries is unimportant; I see no undue weight doing so. On the contrary, as I've stated, it is encyclopedic information. For example, a mainstream published source said the FAA was last regulator to act, and Wikipedia has sourced information to show that's not so. I find it incomprehensible you would want to eliminate that information from the encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is even harder to read in a table, and for easier scanning, everything is on a single screen! (To avoid manipulations, use ctrl-F. Works everywhere) I understand if you want to keep late regulators. A good way to have a better list would be to have a single reliable source for every inclusion. To look better and to have a more semantically correct html, I used Template:flatlist.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks just as bad as before. You know, we have three people in this discussion, and all three say it looks ugly, including the editor who made it look that way. A sortable table that includes parameters like name and date will always be more reader-friendly than the jumble we now have. DonFB (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, but I wanted to make my opinion clear. DonFB (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For me, it's less ugly than the single column table (just a list then) of before. WikiHannibal have "no opinion". For now there is no consensus, we need more views.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiHannibal may have no opinion on whether to restore table, but he does have an opinion about existing prose that "It looks awful". DonFB (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

he said "but saves space so no opinion on this" --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I too prefer the table, as it is more concise and easier to scan. If the interest is saving space, we can just have the flatlist inside the table, as I have done in this edit. Banana Republic (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To all: I'm not going to revert, but will just point out: the new flatlists are sort of an enjoyable, jumbled riot of color with all the flags, but less useful for readers, because: If you're looking for a particular country, you now have to look at each group separately, because each group is separately alphabetized, whereas the orig sortable table allowed you to instantly alphabetize the entire list, and you could quickly eyeball it and maybe even exercise your index finger on the scroll wheel, but very quickly find what you wanted, multiple times, no muss, no fuss. With the prose, you have to re-eyeball and maybe hunt through all of the groups, each time, to find your quarry. And of course, as has been said, if space was a concern, the collapsible function for the table made that a non-issue. So, in exchange for colorfulness, we've lost ease of use. DonFB (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Could we add a Countries column to the Airlines table below? It would combine the purpose of two tables, albeit some tedious work grouping the airlines by country and applying the rowspan. The reader is free to sort the WikiTable; the grouped rows become single again. Shencypeter (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC) However, prose is readable on mobile devices.

DonFB: using ctrl-F is faster than scanning a list, be it horizontal or vertical.

Shencypeter: mixing airlines and countries would be mixing apples and oranges, they do not compare.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You must be a fast typist. Repeated keyboard input and name-typing not likely faster than eyeballing a relatively short alphabetized list. DonFB (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marc Lacoste, I’m looking at the table now with mobile and I think each country could use a line break. Shencypeter (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a list so it could be made as a vertical list (one just need to remove the Template:flatlist header and footer) but it would be too long again, perhaps by collapsing it by default it would be OK but then it would carry less information than an horizontal list.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have completed pivoting the colums as a best compromise for vertical list and screen space, "Calendar style" Shencypeter (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work, but Marc has finally seen the light. DonFB (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it boiled down to how the resultant table looked on my mobile screen, so the thin list is better. Shencypeter (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MCAS transclusion

@DonFB: why are you against a transclusion to avoid sync problems?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't perceive "sync problems." Transcluding forces editor to edit a different article. Editing styles and choices differ. The section is much briefer than it was and satisfies purpose of Summary style. DonFB (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I recall previous problems with transcluding MCAS in this article or Boeing 737 MAX or another related article. MCAS is a quite complicated issue now and seems to develop in time (cf. Dennis Muilenburg). Sometimes the emphasis needs to placed on different aspects in different articles. (BTW you did not transclude MCAS in Boeing 737 MAX, why?) WikiHannibal (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

DonFB: there are sync problems since the MCAS lead section is used in its main article, in 737 MAX and here. Transcluding allow to edit only one place instead of three, avoiding errors. Style and choices should not differ in different articles.

WikiHannibal: indeed, I did that to avoid those problems! I want the reader to have a clear view of the MCAS and having short summaries here and in 737 MAX should help to consolidate all info and news there. (did not had the time yet!) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WikiHannibal's view that "Sometimes the emphasis needs to be placed on different aspects in different articles." Transcluding puts a straight jacket on editors. Yes, editors should avoid errors, but the idea that one-size-fits-all does not work in a dynamic editing environment with different articles emphasizing different aspects of the story. Styles and choices do differ among editors. For example, the phrase "flight envelope protection system" is, in my opinion, an absurdly jargonized expression that should be replaced by ordinary English, so I did in the Grounding article. I don't know about you, but I'm writing for general readers, not for engineers or bureaucrats. That's what I mean about style and choices. DonFB (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What would be the different emphasis here, in 737 MAX and in MCAS intro? Transclusion is more dynamic as every article is updated simultaneously, no one is forgotten. Flight envelope protection is explained in its own article and is the perfect description for the MCAS. WP:jargon is useful for precisely describing a feature, and describing it as an "anti-stall system" is equally specialised as it needs an article to explain (and is about a very complex phenomenon, not: "do not pull too much, you'll lose speed and lift!") Anyway, this discussion is relevant but should be better had in talk:MCAS than here and should apply equally in all three copies.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For one thing, if text is added to the master article, that runs the risk of expanding the transcluded Summary elsewhere, beyond its appropriate length. So, in effect the editor is constrained in what he can write, because expanding in one place will produce unwanted expansion in the other, and the editor is forced to make a compromise he otherwise might not make. In the Grounding article, Mcas is repeatedly mentioned; it is crucial to the subject of the article. It therefore deserves more than a cursory introduction, and should not be confined to an arbitrary length. Your drastic reduction of that section was not entirely unjustified, but attempting to now confine that section to a bare minimum is a disservice to the rest of the article. DonFB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty to split the discussion in 2 themes. For the first, "is a transclusion appropriate?": It would be neat to have a great WP:LEAD section in MCAS, itself needing great body sections to summarize. I'm pretty confident it would fit perfectly here as an MCAS explainer, but if not, it would be easy to split the transclusion between here and a specific MCAS intro. Wikipedia is a work in progress!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am also opposed to the use of section transclusion for a lot of the reasons already stated. I think it causes more problems than it solves and winds up making both pages worse as it gets tweaked to fit two completely different articles. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now there is no transclusion, so we can't know.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it on general principle not this particular instance. The same content in two places isn't necessarily a benefit to readers so unless there's a more substantial benefit that outweighs all the negatives already listed I am generally opposed to article content being transcluded from other pages. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The benefit of having the most informative and updated summary possible outweighs the tradeoff of maybe not being tailored for each use, not demonstrated yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Flight envelope protection is the perfect description for an engineer or pilot, not for a general reader. And yes, it has its own article, which also launches with a laughably jargonized opening: "a human machine interface extension". It should not be necessary to make readers hover, or click, to find out what an opaque expression means, when it's entirely possible to use plain English for the description. Yes, some very technical terms or phrases cannot be reduced to simple English, but many if not most expressions can be made understandable to the general reader without resort to, in effect, telling them to go look it up. You said "WP:jargon is useful for precisely describing a feature." I'm not sure if you mean that Guideline is useful, or if you actually mean jargon is useful. If the latter, we disagree profoundly. Jargon is only useful among experts who are already knowledgeable in the subject--for everyone else, it's a pain in the a$$. DonFB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For the 2d theme (the content of the MCAS summary), i added a link to Flight envelope protection because it was much more appropriate than the previously used control law which had Fly-by-wire in mind, but the 737 is still not FBW, and links to an entirely different Mathematical optimization article. And indeed the article is not very intelligible, but as you said it is "the perfect description" for specialised readers. A good way to have the best of both worlds would be to write it plainly and then link to the specific article: Based on sensor data, the MCAS automatically lowers the nose when the aircraft pitches up: a Flight envelope protection--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS flag

Can we have a discussion about the proper application of WP:MOSFLAG within what has become the truely horrendous groundings by country table WP:TOOMANY. Currently the flags appear purely decorative as per WP:ICONDECORATION with no real purpose. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur: they are decorative, not informative.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, they need to be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Given the obvious consensus here I changed it back to how it was but it was reverted so I'll just note I'm also against the change. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the flags help separate the countries so that the list of countries is not presented as a wall of text. It also helps quickly find the country of interest. Banana Republic (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To quote from WP:ICONDECORATION, icons "should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". I therefore think that the flags are compliant with WP:ICONDECORATION. Banana Republic (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are the flags better than normal established punctuation to seperate the listed countries? Andrewgprout (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They are used in addition to the "punctuation" (I think you're talking about the bullets). The problem with the bullets is that they are small and not quite as easy to see as the flags. Banana Republic (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that the table has changed recently, it is now even more obvious that the flag icons are simply decorative, as they do not now seperate elements.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

New external links

I'd like to share a few articles that give valuable information to the accidents, going into more details than the wiki article does. These are analytical articles, or essays, that shed light on many unanswered questions:

• Ethiopian 302 – Even Without Answers, The Data Tells a Story

Long essay reconstructing the timeline, the cockpit environment, taking the human factor into account. Self-published aviation journal of Courtney Miller.

• ET302 crash report, the first analysis - Bjorn Fehrm, Leeham News

Explains a few basic aspects of the FDR chart, giving a timeline of the accident. Aviation journal.

• Illustration of stabilizer trim - The Air Current article

Explains and illustrates the elevator generated forces on the stabilizer, in a suitable format for the layman. The illustrations were copied by many mainstream articles. Aviation journal.

• The many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max – The Verge article

Long essay mostly about the development of the Max. Mainstream media, a bit superficial.

• Mathematician's analysis of the accidents

Reconstruction of the timeline. Self-published.

Two popular videos as well:

• The reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice - Vox Videos

This lacks any over-exaggerated dramatization (like the 60 Minutes video...)

• The FAA and Boeing’s Close Relationship Explained - Wall Street Journal

Similar tone as the Vox video, different topic. Just released.

I'd like to add these to WP:EL. Any opinions?

One extra news video - not for EL - that briefly summarizes the basic causes:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/faulty-sensor-led-to-horrifying-tug-of-war-in-cockpit-of-downed-boeing-plane - with transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMFMpGLa_co - non-US viewers

If anybody hasn't seen Mentour Pilot's new simulator demonstration of the trim jamming:
The difficulty to trim in a severely out-of-trim situation

— Aron Manning (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A (new) "Further Reading" section might be best location. I've read most or all of these, and truth to tell, I'm not sure in which article they can best be used. This article focuses on the grounding and its after effects, but not strictly on the investigation. We also have the two accident articles, the airplane article and the Mcas article. In any case, we don't want to overload External Links, per wp:EXT. DonFB (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@DonFB: I prefer 5 EL, no more. "Further Reading" maybe 10 max? Or that's more lax?

"ET302 crash report, the first analysis" can go to ET302 page.

The 2 videos FR "Further Reading" or EL?

— Aron Manning (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

no self published sources please, and prefer aviation media to general media.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bonus video: FAA admin Daniel Elwell stating repeatedly "the 737 Max is a fly-by-WIRE aircraft" – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eZ7kMI78g&t=979

Most of these are not really needed in external links wikipedia is not a replacement for Google. If the source is that good it should be used to add to the article and be used as a source. We may likely have to cull some of the external links already in use so please no more it just makes more work when the article gets cleaned up latter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Groundings

Political interference accusation already covered in Political section, including Sen Warren quote. No source for "FAA moved slowly...following call" from Boeing to Trump. Boeing campaign contribution and "close ties" is editorial wp:Synthesis with this article. DOT sec. Chao MAX flight already covered in Political section of article. No source saying it was "unusual move". No source FAA satellite tracking data decision was "disputed soon after". Tracking "resolution" not in cited source. Pilot complaints already covered Pilot Complaints section of article. No source for "unclear" how FAA reviewed complaints. DonFB (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Good move because we already said no basis to ground before Wednesday Shencypeter (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unusual for a regulator to promote the product it is regulating. Therefore I think that no source would be needed to state the Chao's public flight on a MAX during this period was unusual. I don't know of any other similar instance. Do you need a source to state that Paris is the capital of France?

Removal of information provided by 38 year Boeing controls Engineer

Information provided by a 38 year Boeing control engineer has been repeatedly removed with false reasons being given, including that it was speculation. The information the engineer provided included company logs proving the change was made to the aircraft, as well as manuals, diagrams, and black box information. This is clearly not speculation. Please refrain from making disruptive edits and removing information using known false premises. This is against wikipedia guidelines. (unsigned message)

I added a supporting source, note that your information falls under the investigation subheading. Shencypeter (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone think the resulting investigations would eventually all become part of the MCAS main article? Shencypeter (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Another source. Since Peter Lemme retired from Boeing 20 years ago, maybe this would end up with the Sullenberger remarks under public.

So really the Engineers opinion is no more valid than your "mate in the pub" who knows stuff. Did he really retain or acquire proprietary company documents and data illegally since he retired or just an armchair detective using public documents like hundreds of others are doing. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Apology about his use of proprietary documents it is clear from his various blogs and such like he has just used public documents like everybody else. Also interested to note he was not as claimed by the OP a "Controls" engineer as he worked at Boeing as an avionics engineer mainly on satcoms before becoming a consultant and blogger. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What's a "control engineer"? Thanks. 86.187.171.30 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumably a term being used by User:2600:100A:B01C:2427:60DC:1324:C3E7:D5DD and those that support the addition of the information to make it look like the information came from an expert rather than a blogger. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps they'll get called to give evidence if there's a criminal trial. 86.187.171.30 (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References