Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New citations, articles - May 2019[edit]

@Greenbe: Which article disappeared? There is a good chance you can find it on the Internet Archive.

For example the very good non-expert article "How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer"[1] can be found there. Highly suggested reading, regardless some factual mistakes; it was not intended to be a reference.

I think it was Mentour pilots youtube video of attempt to fly the accident profile in a real simulator. Taken down after a day or two? Not sure. "Article" probably not the right word, use "media" instead. ;-) Greenbe (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC:@DonFB:@Greenbe:

The article I would reference:

Based on the available data by May 1st, 2019 The Aviation Herald comes to the conclusion: "Neither of the three crews would have been forced to react under time pressure in order to prevent a crash, e.g. to find out what to do or identify the correct procedures to follow, without the technical malfunctions and the nose down trim inputs."[2]

It's as politically correct as it gets. I will include this, if you agree.

Note: the update also includes the 25 questions he submitted to the FAA's Flight Standardization Board (FSB). Shows how many open questions there are still.


For the timeline: articles analyzing the FDR charts with a magnifying glass:

  • Reconstruction of events: Even Without Answers, The Data Tells a Story[3]
  • Bjorn’s Corner: ET302 crash report, the first analysis[4]
  • 737: The MAX Mess[5]


Some citations for an Analysis section, separated from the Preliminary report section; work in progress:

  • Aviation experts pointed out that turning the trim wheels by hand might be impossible after disabling the electric trim motor (and Mcas along with it). [6] [7]
  • "A single erroneous AoA vane causes a large number of flight deck effects that may have been underestimated in its consequence on pilot workload."[8]
  • "MCAS failure is hard to detect as it is a slowover, and Speed Trim System (STS) applies automatic trim routinely, masking MCAS motion."[9]


Not for the page:

Aviation experts pointed out Mcas behaves differently from a simple Runaway Trim, it would confuse the pilots by stopping unexpectedly.[10]

  • "Boeing changed the cutout switches on 737MAX to PRI and B/U. In this configuration, both cutout switches are thrown in any runaway situation,

With the 737NG cutout switches, MCAS runaway is stopped by just throwing the autopilot cutout switch, leaving electric trim fully operable."[11]

  • "The expectation is that the pilot would notice the erroneous stabilizer commands, treat them as a runaway, and use the cutout switches in response. If MCAS applied a continuous AND trim command, while noting that a runaway has always been as continuous motion, the flight crew would be more likely to recognize it. Instead, the MCAS trim command would stop and "hide" from the pilots. Thus the assumption was flawed, in the context of STS motion as cover, and that the MCAS "uncommanded" motion was not continuous"[12]
  • "The failure to stop the trim by pulling back on the column would be completely unexpected and confusing. The combination of uncommanded trim (first surprise) and then failure to stop it with aft column travel (second surprise) is exponential - and in this situation response time is critical."[13]
  • "The loss of MCAS function has little bearing on any given flight, as low speed upsets are never supposed to happen. Even if MCAS fails to activate in a stall, there is still a good chance for recovery."[14]
  • - Does the loss of MCAS constitute an unsafe condition? - Only in the case where it is needed, an accelerated stall, flaps up. The combination of an event where MCAS is legitimately engaged is no more than 1/100,000 compared to all flights.[15]
  • - Is MCAS mandatory to show compliance to flight characteristics? - Yes.[16]
  • "On the question of stall demonstration. Under the flight condition mentioned, an accelerated stall, the pitch up could lead to a deep stall and recovery may be beyond the acceptable means."[17]
I agree. The article that includes this statement,
With the 737NG cutout switches, MCAS runaway is stopped by just throwing the autopilot cutout switch, leaving electric trim fully operable."[10]
should not be used as a WP:RS for Wikipedia. There is no MCAS program installed on the NG. It may be he knows that, but the article itself is so poorly written, that it is easy to think he believes the NG does have MCAS. EditorASC (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@EditorASC:@DonFB: I like the idea of adding "Analysis" section after Prelim report. For balance you should add some of the Boeing statements recently that the pilots did not follow the procedures completely (although I have not seen any specific yet of what part of what procedure was allegedly not followed). Greenbe (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I will let someone else do that. It is incredibly obvious they were not properly trained at all. If they had been, they never would have allowed the speed to get so high and they would have quickly understood that the most critical issue was to restore their own control over the pitch axis of the plane. That means they should have used their electric yoke trim switches to trim back towards the ANU position and then as soon as they got the HS trim where they wanted it, to THEN turn off both pedestal cutoff switches. Problem solved. EditorASC (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
As to the very long, but packed with good information article by Aviation Herald (dated May 1st & 2nd), parts of it should be used as WP:RS to support specific issues and statements. However, since it is so long I would personally recommend quoting the supporting statements so that anyone wanting to verify the accuracy can search the article using the actual words in the quotation. I am not an expert on the best way to reference WP:RS statements, but that seems to me to be the best way to do it. I certainly welcome any other suggestions by more experienced editors.
I am happy to see this following statement in that AH article:
"It also came to the knowledge of The Aviation Herald, that is is possible, that the manual (and even electrical) trim may require excessive forces, so that trimming becomes impossible, in case of a full elevator pull at higher speeds. Boeing even recommended a special procedure for this out-of-trim condition with full back pressure on the yoke requiring the pilots to temporarily release back pressure on the column, and while the nose is pitching downwards and altitude changes, trim as much as possible, then pitch up again and repeat until the out of trim condition is resolved."
That has been known ever since the investigation was completed on the crash of a NWA B-720, in 1963 in Florida. That is why all properly trained jet pilots (they have had extensive sim training in how to properly recover from a "jet upset") know to NEVER trim the HS to the FULL AND position.
I posted that kind of information on the Flydubai Flight 981 talk page, over three years ago. [[1]] EditorASC (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the following sentence:

"The preliminary report stated that the pilots were briefed on the new procedures Boeing put in place after the Lion Air crash and the FCOM bulletin from Boeing had been inserted in the FCOM (Flight Crew Operation Manual).[18]"

The source predates the report with 1 day, and I could not find the word "brief" in the report pdf, or anything related in section 1.5 Personnel Information.

I replaced a reuters citation with Bjorn's first analysis. Added new sections "Jammed trim wheels", "Analysis", split off "Speculations", moved the "bulletin missing from FOM..." sentence to Analysis.

Will continue in a day.

@DonFB: I think we could move statements too into a separate Section, as those aren't directly related to the report, and break the continuity of the sentences. I might find a few more worth mentioning. — Aron Manning (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Greenbe: Yes, Mentour took down the original sim video, probably his employer preferred a less dramatic image of the planes they fly :-)
So he uploaded a toned-down simulation few days later on 22nd March: Runaway Stabilizer!! How to stop MCAS[19]
Then made another one on 19th April, more realistic (goes below 3 units trim, 300+ knots): Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight sim)[20]
In this video he's hugging the column after they pass 300kts. It's not dramatized in any way, but rather relaxed, funny actually; the copilot is laughing at his own struggle to move the wheel :-) (I appreciate how he demonstrates one aspect of a serious situation without generating panic.)
A person who saw the original commented its a mix of the previous two. I've referenced the last one in the Jammed Trim Wheels section.
Aron Manning (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"The most important question then, is "WHY?" My answer is that their sim and ground school training was terribly deficient." [Reply by EditorASC]
"Another answer is that one of the primary design targets of the Max was minimal pilot training costs,..." [Another editor replying to the statement above]
That extensive reply is not "another answer." To the contrary, it is an extended commentary for the same view: Namely, that they crashed because they were not trained properly to handle that new system, when it malfunctioned.
There are many who will share blame: Boeing, FAA, EASA, the software writers, the airlines themselves, etc. But, the bottom line is that new system DID require extensive ground school and sim training, if pilots were to respond properly to malfunctions of that system. Both planes crashed in the same manner because the pilots were not properly trained to handle such a malfunction.
"The report doesn't show either the pilot or the copilot calling out speed readings or the overspeed clacker,...etc., etc., etc.,"
I am not trying to be critical, but this isn't useful speculation. If one has read a couple thousand accident reports, one would know it is very common as to what the involved pilots DID NOT SAY. It doesn't help to try and read their minds, after the fact.
That they were overwhelmed because they lacked proper training about an entirely new system, is highly likely. But, we cannot read their minds at the time, so this kind of extensive "why didn't they say this or that," questions serves no useful purpose.
"What I was trying to get at is whether the overspeed situation was a result of the plane's automation fighting with itself or the pilot's actions (or inaction)."
Laws of physics: If very powerful engines remain at MAXTO power for the entire flight, even when the plane is descending, the plane will quickly overspeed. Trying to read the pilot's mind as to why they did not reduce the thrust, doesn't change the fact that they were not properly trained. If anything, it is just more evidence that they WERE NOT properly trained to deal with possible MCAS malfunctions.EditorASC (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


"The most important question then, is "WHY?" My answer is that their sim and ground school training was terribly deficient." [Reply by EditorASC]
"Another answer is that one of the primary design targets of the Max was minimal pilot training costs,..." [Another editor replying to the statement above]
"That extensive reply is not "another answer." To the contrary, it is an extended commentary for the same view: "
... "they crashed because they were not trained properly to handle that new system, when it malfunctioned.'" [Reply by EditorASC]

Now in context, I see how you meant it. Originally I understood as you find the cause in a general lack of practice, not the specific training for the malfunctioning system.
Thanks for the answers. — Aron Manning (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


HI, to all, I have tried to fix some of the issues from the point of sourcing and general wiki standards; I have not checked all the sources concerning the new wording so there are still things that need to be verified. Generally I prefer the preivious version (= before Aron Manning's changes, apart from the rmoval of badly sourced info about "brief" mentioned above etc.) where findings from the preliminary report were stated together with their analysis using several other sources. But perhaps you will think the present version is better, and chech the facts themselves. Aron Manning, thanks for the explanation of your edits, that is welcome but perhaps it would be better to offer the specific changes for discussion here first. I am sure someon would comment on them. (This is of course not a wiki policy or something but just due to the complexity of the topic. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


@WikiHannibal: I've added context to the recovery, as you suggested. In the Report section the older references are still there, except one, unless I missed something, however thorough I was reviewing the changes/diff.
The new references from aviation journalists / engineers served as the source also for those articles from popular media.
The "avherald-et302" ref pointed to the cited source, so I only removed the archive link. I could not get the webarchive to "Save" it as it gives error 400.
How to trigger wikipedia or a bot to archive it? Maybe that would work.
Aron Manning (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: Nvm, I found the IABot. It archived everything, except... the avherald. — Aron Manning (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've finished section "‎Preliminary report" directly citing 2 sources, using the grammatically most fitting version in each part. The sources have differences in the details, the outline of the story is the same. Avherald confirms the events and causes, without a well-rounded story.
Please review. — Aron Manning (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20190424114042/https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
  2. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2019-05-01. Retrieved 2019-05-04. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2019-05-03. Retrieved 2019-05-03. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2019-04-13. Retrieved 2019-04-26. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ^ "737: The MAX Mess". bit-player.
  6. ^ "Vestigial design issue clouds 737 Max crash investigations". The Air Current. 2019-04-04. Archived from the original on 2019-04-27. Retrieved 2019-04-27. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Mentour Pilot (2019-04-19), Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight sim), retrieved 2019-04-27
  8. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/taking-next-steps-while-awaiting-on.html
  9. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/regulations-around-augmentation-systems.html
  10. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/taking-next-steps-while-awaiting-on.html
  11. ^ satcom.guru/2019/04/stabilizer-trim-loads-and-range.html
  12. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/taking-next-steps-while-awaiting-on.html
  13. ^ satcom.guru/2018/11/737-mcas-failure-is-option.html
  14. ^ satcom.guru/2018/11/737-mcas-failure-is-option.html
  15. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/regulations-around-augmentation-systems.html
  16. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/regulations-around-augmentation-systems.html
  17. ^ satcom.guru/2019/03/taking-next-steps-while-awaiting-on.html
  18. ^ Fehrm, Bjorn (3 April 2019). "ET302 used the Cut-Out switches to stop MCAS". Leeham News. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  19. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xixM_cwSLcQ&t=1127
  20. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNOVlxJmow&t=734

Nationalities and numbers (again)[edit]

There is still discrepancy in the number of passagners and their nationalities. It has been addressed before but due tu to the recent attempt to change that, I am opening the issue again.

The source used for the table mentions one UN passport holder, which was removed from the table bcs it is not a nationality per se (and that is correct). Also the total, including the UN passport, would be 150, not 149 as cited, so the source (unfortunately) contradicts itself.

Recently, IP editor(s) tried to add 1 passenger from Mexico (unsourced, but there is at least this source: https://www.milenio.com/internacional/mexicana-muerta-avionazo-etiopia-trabajaba-onu-hablaba-11-idiomas). However, if we added it, the total would be 150, which is not correct. Unless other official sources are found, we have to assume that the UN passport holder has already been listed among the nationalities totaling 149 passengers and that any other nationality (i.e. Mexican) means dual nationality. I would welcome an official source which does not contradicts itself... WikiHannibal (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of related articles[edit]

Hello, @MilborneOne: I'd like to include those few external links to articles that I found the most readable and analytical among a hundred or so superficial articles, reports, and other sources I read.
I don't understand your commit with the comment "not really a dumping ground for anything that remotely mentions the accident", as these are good, detailed explanations of the accident to the layman, thus helpful in clearing up many of the confusion.
The Airbus accident report was related by The Aviation Herald as two accidents with similar technical cause, thus a valuable source for researchers., and also shows it's not only Boeing encountering these mistakes.
Please discuss your concerns.

Other than these, I agree with your commits, it was time to clean up.
Aron Manning (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If the two "explanation" external links are that good why cant the material be used in the article as a source? WP:EL suggests thay should only be external links if they have copyright issues that the material cant be used in the article. Dont really see the connection with the Airbus accident, if there was it should be in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The focus of this article should be on the fundamental reason why both planes crashed: Namely, that the pilots lost control of the pitch axis on both flights.
While there has been endless discussion of many possible factors related to why MCAS malfunctioned (in hordes of media articles), the very good (day, low altitude VFR) weather conditions for both of the MAX accidents is not comparable to the weather conditions (night, high altitude IFR) surrounding the AF447 accident. Which means the kind of improper responses of the pilots, that led to all three crashes, are also not comparable.
Other accidents should be referenced in this article ONLY WHEN there is very strong relevance, as to the fundamental core cause. That policy not only heads off the endless Wiki problem of way too much irrelevant clutter, but also makes the article crisp, clear and much less likely to confuse lay readers.EditorASC (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


@MilborneOne:

To avoid mistakenly talking about different articles, I'm talking about these:

These articles are readable, story-like, more consumable for the common reader than the technical articles referenced, and explains the accidents in a larger context, than suitable for the wiki article. "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." WP:EL There's too much detail in these articles, that's meaningful and highly relevant to the accident. Maybe the tail illustrations with the trim issue, and the FDR chart could be included as images. If you suggest that, I'll do so.

Why do you suggest these aren't good quality articles? One of them is the first technical article about the report, many media articles are based on this article, the illustrations all around the media come from another of the articles. I hope this is a misunderstanding, and we are talking about different links.

The Airbus accident Qantas Flight 72 was caused by automation acting upon erroneous AoA values, causing sudden extreme nose-down pitch.

I thought you have concern about eg. the bit-player article's title which might be unsuitable for WP, I'll change that to read "A mathematician's analysis", or similar. The Airbus accident can be included in 'See also', linking the report pdf is not that important.

I hope this answers your questions.
Aron Manning (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC: "the very good (day, low altitude VFR) weather conditions for both of the MAX accidents is not comparable to the weather conditions (night, high altitude IFR) surrounding the AF447 accident. Which means the kind of improper responses of the pilots, that led to all three crashes, are also not comparable."

Indeed. How is AF447 related to the Maxes at all, apart from the "HAL took the helm" (luckily not too significant) craze?

"Other accidents should be referenced in this article ONLY WHEN there is very strong relevance, as to the fundamental core cause. That policy not only heads off the endless Wiki problem of way too much irrelevant clutter, but also makes the article crisp, clear and much less likely to confuse lay readers." by EditorASC

"The Australian TSB investigated two accidents and released a common accident report on two A330s that were (almost) a carbon copy of the 737 MAX AoA problems (invoking the MCAS induced crashes) near Learmonth and Perth in 2008 resulting in severe upsets and injuries"[1] induced by erroneous AoA value input to the primary FCC. Qantas Flight 72

Aron Manning (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that links the Airbus and Boeing accidents? MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: Yes, source is cited right above your answer, before the reflist that should be at the end. ([1]). I'd like to mention I've a feeling my contribution is questioned without being read, and an edit being reverted without discussion, just a comment "anything that remotely mentions the accident"[2] about articles that summarize the findings regarding the ET302 accident. This is very disheartening, and feels like WP:BITE. I've spent hours upon hours to read through close to a 100 articles and reports, say 30 of which was technical, and 70 superficial media articles mostly echoing each other. The few articles I cite in the page or provide as external links are among the highest quality, in-depth writings. If you read them, you will see.
Note to EditorASC: this answer is between 2 separate commits.
Aron Manning (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Related to the "six" external links, lot of information some of it speculation and opinion, if the reader is that interested lots of stuff can be found using a search engine but we dont need to list them here or infer the quality to the readers. We are not in a rush to explain we can wait for the final report. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: From point to point:
  • In my previous answer I wrote "linking the report pdf is not that important", thus we are talking about 5 links only. Also, the official accident report being a speculation?
  • The articles are essays, summarizing facts from the prelim report, and reliable information from major media outlets, with the writer's own explanation. The technical articles express explicitly, this is a personal interpretation of the reliably available information. Not much speculation. The media article is like media articles, lacking this honesty and self-scrutiny, but it is from an established, well-reviewed major media outlet.
  • Many of the opinions presented are widely reported on in mainstream media, that is reliable sources. The opinionated parts are intentionally not cited in this wiki article to adhere by WP:NPOV.
  • The readers interested in a deeper understanding of the accident and its causes, that is more reliable than the superficial media articles echoing each other, are looking for these high-quality essays.
  • Some of these are hard to find. Finding and choosing these articles took me many hours of research, combing through a lot of superficial articles, cross-checking facts and findings with multiple sources. Presenting them here counters the superficial and sometimes extreme views and articles readily available through a search engine.
  • Indeed we are not in a rush, but making a steady progress. These articles are an accumulation and a digest to more than a month's research into the subject. I've started to introduce the sources and findings on this talk page 3 weeks ago in an effort to start a discussion about how to include these sources in the article. I'm surprised i'm the only one researching this subject to this depth, and I'm looking forward to meaningful discussions.

Aron Manning (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

With reference to the Airbus accidents the comment is related to a commentary about certification the link to this accident is a bit iffy in my opinion. Not sure I said the accident report is speculation. I appreciate the time and effort but I am still not happy with cherry picking these "in depth" analysis and providing them to the reader, I still consider that if the information is reliable and factual it should be reported in the article. I did look at the external links by the way before removing them. You seem suprised that you are the only one researching the subject in depth but i reality it is not what we do, we rely on reliable sources to come to the conclusions and report that. We obviously disagree on the value of these links to the article, perhaps wait for some other opinions on the matter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"The Australian TSB investigated two accidents and released a common accident report on two A330s that were (almost) a carbon copy of the 737 MAX AoA problems (invoking the MCAS induced crashes) near Learmonth and Perth in 2008 resulting in severe upsets and injuries"[1] induced by erroneous AoA value input to the primary FCC. Qantas Flight 72"
"Carbon Copy?" Far from it. The high altitude sudden upset was the result of a sudden down ELEVATOR input, NOT a retrimming of the HS to the full ANU position, which was deemed necessary to compensate for the failure to completely re-design a 50-year old airliner that had a CG range much different than the original model.
other accidents
That sudden AB elevator input was caused by multilple erroneous data spikes in AOA, from just one ADIRU (with three onboard), precisely 1.2 seconds apart. In spite of that "design limitation," it was still deemed a "very effective" safety algorithm since it operated those planes without incident for over "28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft." It took only a redesign of the AOA algorithm (a small part of the total required flight control software) to prevent a recurrence of that kind of erroneous response.
Failure to include every possible similarity with other accidents has never been a problem for Wikipedia. To the contrary, one of our major problems has been the endless inclusion of tons of information that is only remotely relevant; so that later on, other editors have to come in and do extensive re-writes that eliminate information that really doesn't improve the article and never should have been included in the first place.
Additionally, only a weak and not too informative prelim report has been issued for the ET302 accident. Trying to find a highly relevant, well-written article that will explain what really happened, prior to a final report being issued, by comparing any or all accidents that had suspect software algorithms as part of a toxic mixture, requires too much OR speculation on our part would ultimately boil down to "cherry picking," as MilborneOne (talk put it.
There are many other accidents/upsets that could be linked too, but again, each of their circumstances is unique enuf that I don't think it a good idea to clutter the article with all such possibilities.
As but one example: 1993, April 6. A China Eastern Airlines MD-11, suffered an inadvertent deployment of the leading edge wing slats, while in cruise flight near Shemya, Alaska. The AP disconnected and the captain attempted manual control. The plane progressed through several pitch oscillations, losing 5,000 ft. of altitude. Two passengers were fatally injured; 149 others received various injuries ranging from light to severe. Seven crewmembers were also injured, including one FA who suffered severe brain damage. The NTSB found “12 incidents of inadvertent or uncommanded in-flight slat extensions and 2 events on the ground involving MD-11 airplanes.” The NTSB probable cause was:
...the inadequate design of the flap/slat actuation handle by the Douglas Aircraft Company which allowed the handle to be inadvertently dislodged from the UP/RET position, thereby causing extension of the leading edge slats during cruise flight. The captain’s attempt to recover from the slat extension, given the reduced longitudinal stability and the associated light control force characteristics of the MD-11 in cruise flight, led to several violent pitch oscillations.
Contributing to the violence of the pitch oscillations was the lack of specific MD-11 pilot training in recovery from high altitude upsets, and the influence of the stall warning system on the captain’s control responses. Contributing to the severity of the injuries was the lack of seat restraint usage by the occupants.
The stall warning system was cited as a contributing factor because its activation told the pilot that he must push the nose down even more, but that was the wrong action for a plane with relaxed stability designed into the pitch axis. The investigation into this and the 1992 accident revealed:
There had been at least 5 other high-altitude upsets in the MD-11, including one that took place during the certification process. These previous upsets all involved the failure of the pilots to adjust their control inputs properly when the autopilot disengages. Douglas Aircraft had “...not demonstrated by flight tests, MD-11 stall recovery from abrupt high altitude, high speed upsets, nor were they required to do so as a part of the certification process.”
The FAA did not require pilots to “...receive hands-on training that demonstrated the light control forces encountered when manually flying at high altitudes and at high speeds in the MD-11.”
The design of the horizontal stabilizer (FAA approved, of course) was such that the stall buffet “...produced a dynamic load on the outboard elevators that resulted in structural overload and failure of portions of the outboard elevators.” There had been 3 other incidents where MD-11s had suffered damage to their composite elevators, following stall buffets.
1997, June. Thirteen people were seriously injured when a Japan Airlines MD-11 experienced severe pitch oscillations. One passenger went into a coma and died, 20 months later.
The pilot attempted manual recovery when the autopilot failed to detect the plane was flying too fast after an encounter with wind shear. The pilot’s repeated attempts to stabilize the altitude caused the severe oscillations that injured passengers and crew. The autopilot was blamed for the accident because it contained a programming design defect that commanded it to respond to average velocity calculations instead of actual speeds.
I can understand your frustration because we don't agree on what should be included, after you have spent so many hours reading numerous articles. But, that is why the idea of non-OR consensus is very important when so many editors, who have a wide variety of education, experience and knowledge on a given subject, can and often do, contribute to articles like this.EditorASC (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


@EditorASC: These are interesting accidents, thank you for sharing!

"two accidents ... that were (almost) a carbon copy of the 737 MAX AoA problems"

Bad grammar, or figure of speech... he's Austrian. The software engineering problem encountered is the carbon copy, not the accident itself. The possibility of erroneous input, and how to handle it. Identifying and ignoring erroneous data is a complex and interesting part of control systems. As this is one fundamental cause of, maybe the most important cause of the accident, he's right to point out that lessons are to be learned from the Airbus accidents. The connection won't be relevant to pilots, but would add value to the article for software engineers, who tend to be numerous on the internet.

"I can understand your frustration because we don't agree on what should be included, after you have spent so many hours reading numerous articles."

Thank you for understanding. Not agreeing is absolutely fine for me, only hitting a stonewall or unclear communication would stress me. We have our own POV, and this can be turned into a nice balance. As I'm passionate about the subject, other perspectives are very helpful in achieving NPOV.

Aron Manning (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Over at [ Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings#New external links ] some articles have been vetted and accepted. Those addressing generally the Max & grounding topic are there in EL. The articles specific to each accident go to the accident page. What's left for ET302 is:

We don't want the list to get out of control, so we will re-evaluate all links and cleanup if it gets over 5 links, now its 4. Any observations pro and con?  Aron M🍁 (➕)  05:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion: Analysis section[edit]

To WikiHannibal: Thank you for your response to my edit:

"Even though I agree with the quote, it is at this point another speculation (jumping to conclusions): it has not been "said" the cause was the same (it might have been the same or not); also the sentence could be applied to many accidents (= without technical malfunctions ... the crew would not have been forced to react under time pressure); but feel free do revert)"[1] — commit comment by WikiHannibal

There is a strong POV in public knowledge, and early media coverage that jumped to conclusions, solely blaming the pilots for the accidents, based on the impression that pilots in that part of the world (I'm trying to be politically, not factually correct here) are less trained than in the US. This POV is represented in the wiki article by lengthy quotes from the Boeing ceo. His view is based on two findings:

  • the pilots did not manage thrust and speed
  • the pilots presumably re-enabled the trim motor

The latter one he mischaracterizes in some of his statements as the pilots did not even turn off the trim motor.

This blaming started even before the report came out. In the article we include this partially false, speculative POV that ignores any mistakes other than the pilots'.

To not err on this side of the spectrum of opinions, we need to include different views that analyze the mistakes made along the way from design to that plane actually flying. The citation I included summarizes the currently know and confirmed facts, in a conclusion, not speculation. To compare, it's less speculative than the Ethiopian transport ministers' statement of the pilots correctly following procedure, or the ceo's statement of the pilots not following procedure. It is based on facts confirmed by other aviation experts, aviation journals, and reliable major media outlets.

He also makes a strong effort to be politically correct, not point fingers, not blame, or state the conclusion as fact. The reliable media sources now almost unanimously publish these findings as facts, and go even further, implicating Boeing with questionable practices on many levels, reporting on the Senate's investigation into the FAA.

Peter Lemme, who the Senate subpoenaed (for his findings I presume) pointed out that the Mcas implementation 1) was changed after the FAA reviewed it 2) it's failure was classified as "major", not "hazardous"[2] 3) the possibility of a hazardous failure necessitates redundancy

Note: as Mcas is patched onto the STS, part of the FCC, meaning the 2 FCCs would need to work in dual-channel to mitigate a hazardous failure mode, like the FCCs on Airbus, which would be a big undertaking, as these work in single-channel in the 737. It is a big challenge for Boeing now.

These mistakes made along the design are facts, confirmed by reliable media sources. I prefer to avoid the superficial, for effect reporting, and go straight to the source for the most authentic information, but from WP's perspective these media outlets are deemed more reliable, so I'll collect appropriate sources to go along with the AVHerald citation. I'm also interested if you have a suggestion in what form, wording to present it.

Sorry for the long explanation, it would be easier if it wasn't this controversial, and we all saw the same facts. Reading all this, what's your opinion, do you have any concerns about including the citation again?
Aron Manning (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To WikiHannibal: The discussion has turned to different subjects, without raising any points about the AVHerald cite. I hoped to receive an answer from you. Following your commit comment "but feel free do revert", I've re-added the citation at the end of the section now titled "Expert Analysis", after other analytical sources. A few points to justify this:
  • The Aviation Herald is the most established and reliable journal publishing about most aviation accidents and incidents.
  • The conclusion it gives is based on the facts in the prelim report, information released by Boeing, or revealed by aviation experts. All these facts are collected in that rather lengthy article.
  • A conclusion supported by facts is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL which is synonym for WP:SPECULATION.
Aron Manning (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I do not have time to read the "dynamic" discussion with the three of you, and I believe it turned into WP:NOTAFORUM long ago and I lost interest in it. I understand that you want to improve the article but most of the discussion at the talk page is OR. As for the addition, I wonder what was "the technical malfunction" during the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, how and when and by whom it was identifed etc. Please add that to the article to explain the quote. A lot of the additions from the past 2 weeks made the article more technical and more confusing, esp. from the point of view of structure and discrimination between official "facts" and "expert speculation". The excessive speed of the aircraft is not explained/put into context enough, while most of the expert analysis section delas with a tangential technique that might have help making it possibly relevant for the pilots then but not for the present article (in its present state. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I point out that the 'Preliminary Report' section of this Wikipedia article contains a lot of text that is not based on sourced reporting about the official Ethiopian preliminary report, but rather, speculation by various outside technical sources about what may have happened during the flight. Specifically, almost all the text after the 2nd paragraph (ending "operated by MCAS") should not be in this section of the article, because it does not address the actual subject of the section: the official Preliminary report. Mixing the sourced speculations with sourced reporting on the Prelim report verges on wp:Synthesis. Speculative stuff should be segregated out, and when the final official report is issued, the speculations could be appropriately updated with sourced expert opinion about the contents of that final report. DonFB (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


{rto|DonFB} I've split it to "Analysis". Maybe "Analysis by aviation experts" is better?
For wp:syn do you mean the reuters ref?
Aron Manning (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I meant the juxtaposing of offical statement with contrasting or contrary statement by outside expert, when the expert himself is not explicitly commenting on the official report or a specific conclusion in the report. Actually, in the now-separated Analysis section, the text "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this" appears to be a Wikipedia editorial analysis which is not attributed to a source. That's the kind of text which verges into OR or SYN territory. DonFB (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
"Expert analysis" could be a good (briefer) section title, to clarify that it's not Wikipedia analysis. DonFB (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@WikiHannibal:@DonFB:@Aron Manning: Thanks Aron for the split and move to Analysis section. I was going to do that myself yesterday, ran out of time, returned today and it was already done! I think we should keep a strict split: Prelim Report only talk about the facts and interim conclusions present in the report. The Analysis section are the inferences of outside experts not directly working on the investigation. Maybe call it "Analysis by outside experts" or just say that in the first sentence. Agreed only the Analysis section ever need be updated.
One problem I have just noticed: I thought that those that a party to the investigation are prohibited by law from disclosing things until official reports are issued. So how can Boeing CEO state the pilots did not fully follow the procedure when that conclusion is not in the prelim report? I thought Boeing is automatically a party to the investigation and they should decline to comment on ongoing investigation. Other experts (or non-experts) can say what they want presumably. So unknown whether to put his statements in the Report or Analysis section.
Another thing I think that ought to be mentioned is that decreasing thrust is not an obvious action, since that moves the CG forward and causes additional nose down moment. Greenbe (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know whether a law would restrict Boeing comment, but not really up to us to decide if he's violating something. So, his comments can go in most apropos place in the article. If a source says he's in violation, we could report that. DonFB (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


@DonFB: I was not satisfied with this sentence either: "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this". It's not meant to be OR, but to stay NPOV: maybe it should say "the report does not confirm such theory" (this is the important part), and ignore the reference to the FDR and CVR (this is only explanation)? The sources don't go into such detail or make this explicit, as I remember, but I will check again. I don't know if stating something is not there (which one might expect to be there) is OR. Is there a guideline for this specific case?

Also if reading the report is OR: "the FDR has no record of the state of the switches", then this as well: "Approximately one minute into the flight 238 kt (274 miles per hour) airspeed was selected. About 12 seconds later the autopilot disengaged." (I don't know the source of this, but the information is in the report) This is more questionable: "and the pilots did not agree on such action."
Where to draw the line?

"Expert analysis" sounds good. Greenbe? — Aron Manning (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would omit wording like "inconclusive about this"--that's an editorial conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. Moreover, it's not even clear what "this" refers to. The WP text could simply say that the official Prelim report does not give information about the state of the switches or whether the pilots agreed on something--and attribute those conclusions to the expert sources. In the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Analysis section, the quotations in some places are confusing or unterminated, or nested, or sequential, making it difficult to tell who is saying what, and to whom exactly the attribution belongs. I recommend going over the whole thing microscopically, sentence by sentence, and even phrase by phrase, revising as much as necessary to make all of it completely unambiguously quoted and correctly attributed. Avoid the slightest indication of Wikipedia editorial insight into what the Prelim report says or doesn't say. Any such conclusion about that should be attributed to a secondary source. More generally, and just my opinion, but I think the analysis is too granular, and need not get into matters such as, for example, the roller coaster technique and training materials dating back to the 1980s. I think a basic important point that can reasonably be brought out in the Analysis is that standard pilot training includes technique to stop runaway stabilizer, and that experts have said the intermittent nature of Mcas may have confused the pilots, so they did not treat the nose down as a standard runaway problem. The explanation of unmovable trim wheels and excessive wind-loading are worthwhile and sufficiently clear. DonFB (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Greenbe:

"Prelim Report only talk about the facts and interim conclusions present in the report. The Analysis section are the inferences of outside experts not directly working on the investigation."

Agree with this. There was an Analysis section for a short while, but it got shuffled around, then got merged.

"So unknown whether to put his statements in the Report or Analysis section."

I think it should go to "Responses". It just happened to be after the report. Not recently I moved Moges' statement there too, should have done in the opposite direction.

"party to the investigation are prohibited by law from disclosing things": That would be the moral thing, but talking about moral in this case is futile. Do you have a source for such law? A very specific search query is necessary to find this, and I did not spend the time to do so. If reported upon, then could be included.

"to be mentioned is that decreasing thrust is not an obvious action" — by Greenbe

"The throttles are left at 94% thrust for the whole flight." ... "And with Stick Shaker and IAS disagree you keep high thrust and fly a slow climb ..."[3] NPOV note: he's not a pilot to my best knowledge, other sources, Mentour Pilot did not state this, the IAS disagree checklist would disagree with him. @EditorASC: What's your opinion on this?

Aron Manning (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my comment above about Muilenburg; it's a complete non-issue for this article whether he spoke inappropriately--unless and until a reliable source says he did--then, we can report such. In absence of any such report, simply put Muilenburg comments where they best fit in the narrative sequence of the article. DonFB (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@DonFB: Agree. Note: I did not mean to remove his statement, I mentioned it as a comparison. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


Was just reviewing Boeing press statements and saw this: "As a party providing technical assistance under the direction of investigating authorities, Boeing is prevented by international protocol and NTSB regulations from disclosing any information relating to the investigation." [2] Whatever...my view is that quotes or paraphrases from Muilenburg can go wherever they need to in this article to best serve the narrative. DonFB (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@DonFB: "procedures were not completely followed"... I think that's information related to the investigation. Should we cite this too? It shows such statement is against the rules (is controversial a proper word for it?), but does not give additional information about the accident itself. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Aron Manning: no, unless statement is reported as violation or improper in reliable source. We should not examine primary sources (like Boeing PR statement) to look for and write about violations, discrepancies, discoveries, etc. Big no-no to "interpret" meanings of primary sources. See again wp:OR for details about this concept. DonFB (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"The WP text could simply say that the official Prelim report does not give information about the state of the switches..."
I might be misunderstanding this comment, so my apology in advance if I am getting this one wrong. The Prelim report DOES give information on "the switches," (Both the yoke electric trim switches AND the Pedestal Cutout switches). Here is just one of several PR comments about "switches":
"At 05:40:41, approximately five seconds after the end of the ANU stabilizer motion, a third instance of AND automatic trim command occurred without any corresponding motion of the stabilizer, which is consistent with the stabilizer trim cutout switches were in the "cutout" position."EditorASC (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"...and early media coverage that jumped to conclusions, solely blaming the pilots for the accidents, based on the impression that pilots in that part of the world (I'm trying to be politically, not factually correct here)"
While I can agree that reporters do tend to "jump to conclusions" in early news reports, I think how WE respond to such unfortunate but common, deficiencies in Media coverage, be guided ONLY by what can be shown to be FACTUAL in nature. Considerations like what is "politically correct" and what isn't, shouldn't be part of what we put into the article at all, UNLESS some important official is claiming that the pilots are being "blamed," NOT because they made procedural errors, but because they were not American/European/Australian, etc. That can be a real trap for well-meaning Wiki editors since politicians/CEOs/Bureaucrats use such gambits to divert attention away from their own failures, which might end up being important contributing factors.
In short, if the FACTS show that a pilot responded to an emergency situation in an improper manner, then there should be no hesitation to report such, no matter what the ethnicity, gender or national origin of the pilot. The FACT that other factors might have ALSO contributed to why such errors were made, can/should be reported to the extent WP:RS sources document such news.EditorASC (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@EditorASC: Agree. Note: i was trying to be "politically correct" on the talk page, in that reply, by not writing 'third-world'. It was awkward, and probably distracting, sry for that. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


"The throttles are left at 94% thrust for the whole flight." ... "And with Stick Shaker and IAS disagree you keep high thrust and fly a slow climb ..."[3] NPOV note: he's not a pilot to my best knowledge, other sources, Mentour Pilot did not state this, the IAS disagree checklist would disagree with him. @EditorASC: What's your opinion on this?"

He doesn't speak as if he has many hours of jet pilot time under his belt. In another place in that article, he says "The Pilots are thrown off their seats, hitting the cockpit roof. Look at the Pitch Attitude Disp trace and the Accel Vert trace. These are on the way to Zero G and we can see how PF loses stick pull in the process (Ctrl Column Pos L). He can barely hold on to the Yoke, let alone pull or trim against."

Those are absurd conclusions. Both pilots would have their seat belts fastened and thus could not be thrown up out of their seats, much less to hit the cockpit roof.

A highly experienced jet pilot would know the plane was going very fast. The noise level alone would tell him that. The thrust was still at MAXTO and they rate of climb was not very high. The loud noise of the overspeed clacker, in spite of ONE stick shaker, tells him they are going way too fast. For them to ignore their speed was exceeding VMO, means they were literally overwhelmed with it all. That happens ONLY WHEN pilots are not well-trained on how to quickly recover from that kind of emergency.EditorASC (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


@EditorASC: "The Prelim report DOES give information on "the switches,"" — EditorASC Right. The FDR does not record the cutout switch state, but the report correlates the 3rd trim input, no trim change, and the pilot's cutout protocol. The current wording on the page is factually correct: "the FDR has no record of the state of the switches", but the sentence as a whole was questioned if it is WP:OR.
Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC: "In another place in that article, he says "The Pilots are thrown off their seats, hitting the cockpit roof."" ... "Those are absurd conclusions. Both pilots would have their seat belts fastened and thus could not be thrown up out of their seats, much less to hit the cockpit roof." — EditorASC

I'd like it better if he wrote "the pilots are lifted up from their seats" only. -0.4g acceleration for 3 seconds (on FDR chart): -4m/s^2 * (3s)^2 / 2 = -4*9/2m = -18m The plane fell 18 meters (6 storeys) in 3 seconds in the inertial reference frame of the pilots' free-falling bodies after passing zero g. The belts aren't tight fit, so they surely lifted up from their seats, and hit their belts pretty hard, so I understand the emotion he communicates by dramatizing the event. It's far from being as ridiculous as the new 60 Minutes video. Although not factually correct in this one case, he highlights an important aspect of the cockpit environment, that makes the difficulties in this accident more understandable to those, who think saving these planes was as simple as "flipping two switches", without looking at the details.

opinion

I believe too they were overwhelmed, I would even speculate they were stunned by fear. The CVR transcript is lacking, but there are no signs in their actions in the report that they would try to figure out which warning and instrument to trust. They also rushed with the trim cutout: it can be seen on the FDR the electric trim and the stabilizer movement stops at 05:40:37, while they do the cutout protocol: "At 05:40:35, the First-Officer called out “stab trim cut-out” two times. Captain agreed and FirstOfficer confirmed stab trim cut-out." It's possible the copilot switched the cut-out switches, while the thumb switch (either his, or the pilot's) was still pressed. Bad timing, probably caused by rush in fear of another uncommanded trim. 10 more seconds before the cutout, and they survive with trim at 4 units. The actions, and the non-reaction to warnings show me (speculation) that they lost their composure, panicked. They had all the reasons to do so: the erratic flying, the oscillations, wrestling with the yoke, the stick shaker, confusing warning lights.

No accidents happen because of one error, this was a compound of errors too. Mcas was only the second major malfunction: before it activated, the pilot was already struggling with the controls. Even if there was training for Mcas anomaly (i don't mean Trim Runaway: Mcas is intermittent and 4 times faster, and the Max has no separate switch for Automatic Trim), is there a training for Mcas anomaly + stick shaker + multiple disagree lights + oscillations causing a roller-coaster ride with 0.5-1.5g vert acceleration in 3 second periods?

Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Mcas was only the second major malfunction: before it activated, the pilot was already struggling with the controls."
Struggling with WHAT control? That is news to me. Where did you get that kind of information?EditorASC (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@EditorASC: Why the caps, what's the problem?
"At 05:40:50, the Captain instructed the First Officer to advise ATC that they would like to maintain 14,000 ft and they have flight control problem."
The report gives only a hint about the extent of it: "Six seconds after the autopilot engagement, there were small amplitude roll oscillations accompanied by lateral acceleration, rudder oscillations and slight heading changes. These oscillations continued also after the autopilot was disengaged."
The rest is OR: When flying straight, the Lateral Acceleration moves between +-0.03g, from 05:39:30 to 05:41:05, it fluctuates between +-0.1g in 3 second periods (FDR chart 2[4]). Minor oscillations, that fully engaged the pilot imho. "At 05:40:00 shortly after the autopilot disengaged" Mcas activated. "At 05:40:44, the Captain called out three times “Pull-up” and the First-Officer acknowledged." Between 05:40:46 and 05:41:02 the left and right "Ctrl Column Pos" are exactly the same, and more stable, less fluctuating than before or after (FDR chart 1[5]). This shows me the 2 pilots' common effort was necessary to stabilize the lateral axis. The longitudinal acceleration is also fluctuating in this 1.5 minutes, and stabilizes at the same time (chart 2). Roll attitude also oscillating between +-5 degrees, 0-7 degrees after Mcas, stabilizes at 6 degrees around 05:41:30.
Tl;dr: By struggling before Mcas I mean he was fully involved and unable to overcome the oscillations (until the copilot helped after Mcas). By struggling after Mcas I mean he had to use all his strength, possibly hugging the column, while the plane was going up and down violently (between 0.5-1.5g vert accel in 3 sec periods - FDR chart 1&2).
Aron Manning (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: - In regard to position of the switches: Yes, Prelim report does give info on switch status. Point I'm trying to make is that we, as editors, must not combine facts from a primary source (the Prelim) with secondary-source statements about something related, and create a conclusion or imply something. If a reliable secondary source says something about the switches (or whatever), and makes a conclusion about something, then we, as editors, can describe what the reliable secondary source concluded or suggested. But in the article, we can conclude nothing and suggest nothing on our own account. Again, this is explained in great detail in wp:OR. DonFB (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@DonFB: I understand your point, but not how it is related to this sentence. Combining sources would be WP:SYN to my best knowledge, also I've read OR like 3 times, and I open it again when in doubt. The sentence discussed: "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this: the FDR has no record of the state of the switches, and the pilots did not agree on such action.[9: et302prelim]". This is 2 facts just from the report. I thought the "negative fact" (the lack of some information) was questioned as OR. WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." IMO interpretation would be if I had stated conclusions. The lack of the cutout switch state on the FDR chart is easily verifiable (only pitch trim state, electronic and automatic trim inputs are shown). "pilots did not agree" sounds like an interpretation, this is not intentional, it should express the lack of pilots mentioning the cutout right before the last trim inputs. This is the shortest wording I could come up with. The cutout procedure done ca. 30 sec after Mcas activation is a distinctive procedure, in short: SIC: cutout x2, PIC: agree, SIC: [turns it off], confirm. I tried to find a wording that is appropriate for the lack of this clearly identifiable communication sequence, "the pilots did not mention cutout" came up short. Any suggestions are welcome...
Aron Manning (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Aron Manning: Ok, here's my take on the sentence you posted: "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this: the FDR has no record of the state of the switches, and the pilots did not agree on such action.[9: et302prelim]".
My concerns: "report is inconclusive" is itself a conclusion, a form of interpretation, as I see it. The word "this"--not sure exactly what the word refers to. "FDR has no record of the state of the switches"---is that conclusion from a secondary source, or editor's interpretation of FDR traces/data, as shown online? "Pilots did not agree on such action"---what is source? In your post just above, you said: "lack of the cutout switch state on the FDR chart is easily verifiable". Verifiable by whom and how....is it sourced? I know this is all nitpicky, but just offering my take on potential problems. My view is that only way to use Prelim in the article is simply to quote or paraphrase it to give factual information, but not to explicitly or implicitly compare or contrast it with anything, or to offer any observation about what it does or does not contain, which leads, I think, directly to OR or SYN. DonFB (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Aron, these are my opinions; others might see it differently, or take a more "lenient" view. If I can be bold, my sense is that you'd like the WP article to contribute to the analysis (not ok), in contrast to merely reporting what sources say about the analysis (ok). ? DonFB (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
off-topic, argumentative

@Aron Manning:

"The belts aren't tight fit, so they surely lifted up from their seats, and hit their belts pretty hard, so I understand the emotion he communicates by dramatizing the event."
It still boils down to his not knowing what the hell he is talking about. His wild speculation that those pilots did not have their 5-point seat belts securely fastened in place, including the crotch strap and shoulder harnesses, is without any credible evidence that I have seen. Pilots are required to securely fasten those belts whenever they are at their duty stations. I have never seen a fellow pilot fasten his loosely, so that he could be tossed up to hit the ceiling in the event of turbulence or negative Gs. The very purpose of having them securely fastened is to prevent even severe turbulence from interfering with the pilot's ability to maintain control of his aircraft.
I have read many reports over several decades about passengers and FAs being severely injured or even killed when a flight encounters severe CAT, but I have NEVER read one where the pilots suffered injuries themselves, while at their stations. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure out why...
I don't know how many flight hours he has to support his absurd opinion, but I have over 25,000 hours, plus six specific Capt's type ratings on Boeing jetliners, to back up my opinion. EditorASC (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


@EditorASC: "His wild speculation that those pilots did not have their 5-point seat belts securely fastened in place, including the crotch strap and shoulder harnesses, is without any credible evidence that I have seen."
He is not stating such thing about the straps. What he does write "hitting the cockpit roof" is an over-exaggerated, dramatized, clearly not factual statement. They would lose grasp of the yoke, but the FDR chart 1 shows column positions going from 8 to 5 degrees, not zero. As I demonstrated in the prev reply 0.4g accel compared to the cockpit is very violent. To reiterate: 6 storey fall in 3 seconds. If they hit the roof with their heads with 0.4g, almost half of their weight, I speculate they would be knocked out flat, if not with open skulls.
Anyway, this cherry-picked editorial exaggeration is not the focus of the article. We have veered off the topic, and spent too much effort with it. I respect your expertise and your opinion, and I'm curious about your insight about the focus of the article: the timeline and causality of the events.

"It still boils down to his not knowing what the hell he is talking about." — EditorASC
I'd prefer avoiding ad hominem attacks.
Aron Manning (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


@DonFB: ""report is inconclusive" is itself a conclusion" :-D Agree. I'll leave that out. Thank you, I wasn't looking at it from this perspective. I've just realized: by SYN do you mean this conclusion based on the two observations following it?
"observation about what it does or does not contain" Exactly. I think this is the right word. Interpretation would include the editor's conclusion about the meaning of the source.
I had the impression about WP in general, that the text presented in articles is the wording of the editor, thus an interpretation in itself. I'll look for examples and policies to reevaluate this impression.
Result: NOR (WP:PSTS) says: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Later: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret ... PS" – the word observation is not used on the page. I'm also nitpicky, because my intention is to state a fact with source, not evaluate the PS. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I referred to this with "verifiable": by looking at the FDR chart one can confirm. Although - going with nitpicky - it might be so it was not printed on the chart, and it is so obviously crucial information, that I missed this "possibility". I'll try to find a secondary stating "the FDR has no record...", i think I read it somewhere. Alternatively, is this version more acceptable? "The FDR charts in the preliminary report have no information about the state of the switches." Fact, although negative, i think it's not interpretation/evaluation.
"The Pilots did not agree..." – Interpretation in this form. I can't express the lack of communication about re-enabling trim in a "straightforward" (WP:PRIMARY) sentence. Anyway, this was to support the "report is inconclusive" statement, after removing that, it lost its significance, dropping.
Aron Manning (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Aron, these are my opinions; others might see it differently, or take a more "lenient" view. If I can be bold, my sense is that you'd like the WP article to contribute to the analysis (not ok), in contrast to merely reporting what sources say about the analysis (ok). ? DonFB"
@DonFB: Your sense is close. I did a lot of research, to find out what's consistent between sources, and what's misinformation or unfounded. I've written some of my OR on the talk page to explain my POV, or to start a discussion. I do not include this in the article. For ex. I've written here about how hectic I believe the cockpit environment was. This is important to understand the human aspect and pilot overload. I don't include that in lack of RS.
I'd say i'd like to present the available, reliable information that is useful for those who look further than the confusing / superficial / partial / mis- information in the media, not specifically to contribute to the analysis. My research creeps through in sentences like "report is inconclusive", without me noticing, so thank you for highlighting that.
Aron Manning (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: At this point, I must add that I'm not looking at the article itself during our discussion. I'm trying only to focus on the process and the WP philosophy of what is acceptable in editing. That said, you are of course correct that editors will always bring something of themselves when writing, and I suppose that might even be called 'interpretation'. One simply must be on guard to one's own potential spin when writing.
But, to address a specific item: Why do you want the article to say the FDR readout has no info on position of switches? What sentence that you write (or has been written) will precede or follow that statement?
You said you did much research to find out: "what's misinformation or unfounded." Ok, let's say you find something you believe is unfounded, but no reliable source has said 'this is unfounded'. What will you do with your discovery in relation to the WP article? Ans: You can't do anything other than describe the findings of sources. I don't know if you're aware, but once upon a time WP had a policy that said: The threshhold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". That got rewritten and is no longer in the official policy, but the phrase addresses the issue you're grappling with, I think. Verifiability simply means the information (which may not be "The Truth") has been published somewhere, and a reader could look it up, if he wants to.
You said you want to present: "information that is useful for those who look further than the confusing / superficial / partial / mis- information in the media." How will you do so, given that WP articles are based only on published sources, which may be just that: confusing/partial/etc? How will you present (or explain--not proper) the "real" facts, separate the mistaken from the accurate? Answer: you can't, at least, not by inserting your logic into the article. You can only describe what sources say. However, if multiple sources discredit some other analysis or theory, you can describe that situation. (But not by saying anything like, "Smith is wrong, because Jones and Johnson and Rogers say so." More along the lines of: "Jones disputes Smith's theory by saying blah-de-blah. Johnson asserts that Smith is mistaken because more blah-de-blah." Like that.)
Here's a little more hopefully helpful info about WP policies; I think you'll find it in wp:NPOV. What you can do, as I sort of began explaining just above, is describe "competing" or conflicting analyses, as presented in the sources. "Source A says this, and source B says that." You can introduce such sourced analyses or interpretations with an expression like: "sources differ." And then describe what they say, being careful about using words like "claim", or "however". See wp:Words to watch. You could also look at wp:FRINGE, although that policy may not have too much relevance here, but worth a look, if you haven't already. The big issue, as I see it: you want to "clear up" (my phrase) the misinfo, the misleading, etc. Again I say, I don't think you can. You can only report what they're saying. Of course, it's possible to intentionally avoid writing about a sourced analysis or interpretation that you think is poppycock. But you also have to be fair. See again NPOV and its sections about BALANCE and DUE/UNDUE. I hope some of this is helpful. DonFB (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


@DonFB: Thank you very much the great advice! wp:Words to watch I have not found yet, that will be very helpful.
"Why do you want the article to say the FDR readout has no info on position of switches? What sentence that you write (or has been written) will precede or follow that statement?"
Right on point. It follows a sentence to balance it: "Experts theorize "that the flight crew released the cutout, reactivated stabilizer trim"[5][6] in an effort to correct the out-of-trim configuration, but question "why not trim nose up continuously or for at least long cycles".[6][5] The FDR chart has no record of the state of the switches.[7]" (I've shortened as discussed) There's no direct evidence that it was reactivated. Intentional reactivation makes no sense, because it was not used effectively, the 2 trim inputs are more like accidentally pushing the thumb switches (just a spec). This is one example which is neither true nor false, it's one of the mysteries, so I included the theory and the fact it's not proven. For the latter I don't remember the secondary source, and have not found it yet.
I'm not a "truth warrior", maybe it sounded like that. I do the research mostly for myself to get a better understanding, and it's result is not a black-and-white truth or misinformation category, more like a measure of how likely or unlikely an information is, with the possibility of being both and changing over time.

Discussion: 'unable to move the trim wheels by hand' and 'Speculation' section[edit]

EditorASC unexpectedly raised concerns about two sentences that was last modified by Aron Manning (diff 1, diff 2).
The way he presented his concerns is addressed in [the message seeking dispute resolution] (diff), which was removed by user in 1 hour (diff), without reply.
This section servers to discuss the concerns, and improve said sentences, in a [civil], [consensus] seeking manner. Opinions are welcome.

The sentences:

  • (Diff 1), comment: "Rm OR statement that was not found in the cited sources."
 According to simulation[6][7] and analysis[8][9] by aviation experts, the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.[10]
  • (Diff 2), comment: "Rm speculations section. Such speculations about the various tracings on the FDR record are controversial, premature, confusing and do not add to the needed factual clarity in this article."
 A data spike in the flight data[11] led to speculations about a bird or other debris hitting the plane as it was taking off, shearing away the airflow sensor.[10]  These speculations were dismissed by Ethiopian Airlines, and Chief investigator Amdye Ayalew Fanta stated there was no indication of such damage.[10][12][13] As of March 29, 2019 the malfunctioning AoA sensor has not been located in the wreckage.[14]

Aron Manning (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Self-reply from Aron:

  • (1): the reuters ref was originally after this sentence (diff 3):
 Although the crew apparently recognized the problem with MCAS and disabled it, they were not able to successfully counteract the high aerodynamic forces on the horizontal stabilizer trim jackscrew generated by the excess speed.[10]
  • Applicable parts from the article IMO:
"The first time the MCAS software kicked in, flight data shows the Ethiopian Airlines pilots reacted quickly by flicking switches under their thumbs - they had recognized the movements as the same type flight crews had been warned about after the Lion Air crash."
"But data shows they were not able to fully counteract the computer’s movements." ...
"When MCAS triggered again, the jetliner’s trim was set to push the nose down at almost the maximum level, flight data shows, while the control column noisily vibrated with another stall warning called a “stick shaker.”"
"This time, the pilots countered MCAS to greater effect, the experts said after studying the data. But when they turned off the system - as they were instructed to do by Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the wake of the Lion Air disaster - the nose was still trimmed downwards, making it harder to pull up the plane."
  • The reuters source in this case seems to be a leftover from the original, while the sentence was reworded a few times. The proper source would be: [8] which is referenced in the first part of the sentence.
  • (2): I agree with ASC, the speculations section might be not necessary. The cause of the sensor failure is important to the investigators, but not much to the commoner now, the common interest and general media coverage has shifted towards the design flaws. I was not going to remove it without asking the editor, who added it, but I don't know who it was. I found this question not important enough to browse through the history.

I might stay away from this thread.
Aron Manning (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


"...the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.[5]"
I removed that statement because it was pure OR from the editor that put it there. There is no such statement in those cited sources. It is entirely appropriate to remove statements in the article that are not actually found in the sources cited to support such statements. OR opinion of some Wiki Editor is contrary to WP:OR rules. It was entirely improper to restore such an OR statement. It is not only OR, but also false. Higher aerodynamic forces on the elevator CANNOT PUSH the HS in ANY direction. The HS can move ONLY when the jackscrew turns in one direction or another. That requires electric power to the jackscrew. High aerodynamic forces cannot cause the jackscrew to turn all by itself. Please revert your own improper revert. EditorASC (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


The cited paragraph is:
  As pilots would pull on the jet’s controls to raise the nose of the aircraft, the aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator (trying to raise the nose) would create an opposing force that effectively paralyzes the jackscrew mechanism that moves the stabilizer, explained Lemme, ultimately making it extremely difficult to crank the trim wheel by hand. The condition is amplified as speed — and air flow over the stabilizer — increases.[8] 
The sentence in the editor's own words:
  "the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction."

Aron Manning (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


"(2): I agree with ASC, the speculations section might be not necessary."
Then, Why were you so quick to revert it back? Exactly why I spent so much time trying to persuade you that you not only did not understand much about how those systems work, but that your trying to read into the "experts" opinions, what was really not there, was a big mistake no matter how well intentioned. The result has been way too much information that really is not relevant and which tends to add more and more confusion to the article, instead of clarifying it and making it fully understandable to the average lay person. EditorASC (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The bird strike speculation is not absolutely vital to understanding the overall narrative of the crash and investigation. However, I believe it is reasonable to include the well-sourced information about bird strike theorizing in the article. The information did not long remain in the headlines, but it was widely reported and is, I believe, part of encyclopedic coverage of the accident and its aftermath. I would not put the information in a Speculation section, and such section should be deleted or not added. The bird strike details can be confined to two sentences: one to describe the speculation, and another to describe refutation by Ethiopian officials. The text can be included in the 'Statements from parties' subsection of the 'Reactions to investigation' section. The bird theory arose in response to the FDR data in the publicly released Prelim Investigation, so the theory could appropriately be included in the 'Reactions' section. DonFB (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
As for the speculation about the bird, there is a discusiion i nArchive 1, when it kept being added. I wanted to remove it but as more context refuting the speculation was added, I was OK with keeping it in the article so that other editors/readers do not keep adding it over and over again when they read it in media (as had happend previously with the same topic even before the discussion). So I suppose we could keep it there, perhaps change the headline "Bird strike reports" or something but I am also OK with removing it. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't plan to campaign for its inclusion, but I do support its inclusion. It needs no headline or heading. It can simply be incorporated in the text of the 'Reactions' section of the article. DonFB (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
"The sentence in the editor's own words: 'the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.' — Aron Manning (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)"

That post amounts to a deliberate distortion of what I said. That statement was NOT mine! It was a quotation of the exact statement that was in the article, THAT I REMOVED, because if was false, it amounted to OR and it was not in the articles that were cited as support for that statement. I BOLDED that statement and put it within quotation marks to make it clear I was QUOTING the statement that had been in the article. This tactic, as well as claiming my proper deleting of that statement was motivated by REVENGE, is way out of bounds. Such statements violate the standards set up in WP:CIVIL EditorASC (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The highlighted statement is what you removed a few hours ago, not something you said. Next to the original citation it was supposed show to you that the statement you removed and criticize as OR is in fact a shorter rewording of the original paragraph. If in doubt, or splitting hairs, any difference is linguistic, not intended to change the meaning.
It is hard to discuss anything with the recurring misunderstandings, and the following overwhelming reactions. The whole ordeal was started by one such misunderstanding, and escalated into WP:DISRUPTive editing, revert, WP:Single-purpose accounts reverting 2nd time (WP:BRR is WP:EDITWAR). Not one action in WP:GOODFAITH.
It would be time to let go of the stress, revisit wikipedia guidelines, and reevaluate our WP:CONDUCT. I've also asked for your experience as editor to suggest a resolution to this dispute (Third message), but my messages got deleted from your talk page without reply. Can we NEGOTIATE?
Aron Manning (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


"I would not put the information in a Speculation section, and such section should be deleted or not added. The bird strike details can be confined to two sentences: one to describe the speculation, and another to describe refutation by Ethiopian officials. The text can be included in the 'Statements from parties' subsection of the 'Reactions to investigation' section." DonFB (talk

I fully agree; that is an excellent solution. EditorASC (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that both diff1 and diff2 texts can go in the Reactions section as-is. I feel they are supported by enough sources and there has been quite a bit of reporting about them (like it or not). I am neutral on whether there should be subsection or main-section called Speculations (I think all analysis has an element of speculation until we have more data such as full CVR transcript and maybe find that AoA sensor and/or ADIRU.) So it is redundant but if it reads better with/without should be fine.Greenbe (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


@EditorASC: "you are failing to see the crucial difference between stalling or "paralysing" the jackscrew and forcing it to move in the OPPOSITE direction (which is what the false OR statement said and was the reason why I labeled it "OR" and removed it"(source) — EditorASC

The sentence labeled OR: "the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction."
This explains your misunderstanding. "pushed the stabilizer" is not the same as "moved the stabilizer".
If it can be misunderstood, then the following rewording might be better: "the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator created an opposing force on the stabilizer trim jackscrew."
Suggesting a rewording is the civil solution for this, even if misunderstood as a false statement.
Aron Manning (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


Additional source for the jammed trim, with illustrations: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/Aron Manning🍁 [➕] 11:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: I've resurrected the Expert Analysis section, reworded the misunderstood "pushed the stabilizer" as presented 3 days ago. To Greenbe and DonFB: It seems we all agree on the reintegration of Speculations into Reactions. Will you do it, so it's not only me editing the article? :-)  Aron M🍁 (➕)  04:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion poll: Was it easy to misunderstand the unfortunately worded sentence? Anybody else misunderstood?  Aron M🍁 (➕)  04:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


To Greenbe, DonFB, Marc Lacoste and Shencypeter: I rewrote most of the "Expert Analysis" section that digests the timeline of the prelim report in 4 experts interpretation (They confirm each other). I removed the technical mumbo-jumbo, and added TheSeattleTimes article as source. That's a long and meticulous article, but worthy to read. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/

To WikiHannibal: The most recent temp version was based on a version picked out from the chaos of deletes (pointing at you ;-). I've made it non-technical as much as possible without skipping the stabilizer and the elevator. It's time to get chewing on it! Feedback is welcome.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  08:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To WikiHannibal: While reviewing my commit I noticed you've been also working on it and in the end the first sentence became split between two realities. I personally cannot decide, both has its positive and negative features. Let's ask the others too, and make a consensus:

@80.2.41.198: Proposed a paraphrased alternative version for the AVHerald citation:

Based on the preliminary report The Aviation Herald comes to the conclusion that, because of the technical malfunctions, the crews of JT-43, JT-610 and ET-302 would have been forced to react under time pressure to prevent a crash.[15]

The original, copied:

Based on the preliminary report The Aviation Herald comes to the conclusion: "Neither of the three crews" (JT-43, JT-610, ET-302) "would have been forced to react under time pressure in order to prevent a crash, e.g. to find out what to do or identify the correct procedures to follow, without the technical malfunctions and the nose down trim inputs."[15]
  • Imho the double negation here is "Boeing ceo" language, not the same as the direct version. It's not his role to make judgments, so he steers very clear of it, and writes this "politically correct" statement. I think this suit WP, so I just copied the whole sentence.
  • That being said, I find the original hard to read and too long, and would prefer a shorter, simpler wording. I'll remove the middle part (e.g. ...) for the time being, and then we fine-tune it if anybody comes up with a better one.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning:@WikiHannibal: Aron I do like your proposed edit above the language is simpler and more succinct than the quotes. However, I would say I am generally neutral either way surprisingly leaning 60-40 to keeping the quotes (current version). I re-read the whole expert section and I like it better every day - there is reference now to the high speed as well. I think the sum of all the sections shows a reader this situation is not nearly as simple as "MCAS malfunctioned, plane went down" mantra that was the takeaway for casual internet surfers. I like the quotes simply because it is a counter-quote to the Boeing CEO quote. I feel strongly that particular Boeing quote has to stay in - as an encyclopedia that will become part of the record long term whether he is proven right or wrong. And it is certainly not the only Boeing statement, I just think that one sums up about 6 months of their general thread on it. The counter quote shows that there are voices saying otherwise, and that quote (as shortened) sums up much of the counter-thread and then we expand into more technicals. But if you want to make the change I am fine - either way we have the sources to back it up. Other opinions please??? I am happy to make the edit either way if you still want me to.Greenbe (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Greenbe: Thank you for the thoughtful post! I highlighted the questionable morality of the ceo quote, but per NPOV and as encyclopedic content I also prefer to have it included. I think my questioning of the morality might have been misunderstood as an opposition to include, but that's not the case.

You and DonFB have a better understanding of the content and accepted fate of the Speculations section, therefore it would be more appropriate if you would make the edits. That does not mean i specifically want you to do so :-D  Aron M🍁 (➕)  02:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To WikiHannibal: We respect and expect your feedback, thus it has been asked for 2 days before. Would you like to share with us on an occasion other than those when you swiftly remove? — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

HI, it is quite difficult to follow your discussion (and I do not have much time to delve into this, making only simple edits elsewhere). If what this part is now about is the wording of the quote, I recall I raised two issues (I usually comment in the edit summary as it is quicekr for anyone even later to match the edit and the reasoning behind it): 1) What are "the technical malfunctions" of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and how do we (=the average reader unfamiliar with the topic or the discussion here) know that? (My tag was removed perhaps twice? without any change and I still believe that part is crucial for the whole sentence. ); 2) The grammar of "because of the technical malfunctions, the crews .... would have been forced to react" seemed wrong (what is the Tense–aspect–mood meaning of that sentence? because of the technical malfunctions, the crews were or were not forced to react|? Or might have been forced? But that is perhaps just my lack of insight. I am sorry I cannot help more at present ! WikiHannibal (talk)
@WikiHannibal: Reading recent messages is part of the editing process, and other editors find the time for it. What happened with the tag was you removed it with the whole section (diff 09:50, 11 May 2019), and I had to restore a previous version without the tag, as unfortunately the section delete got intertwined with some other questionable deletes that resulted in this [SPI report]. It would have helped to seek consensus before, or at least mention the complete deletion on the talk page along with the feedback on the 'Speculation' section (diff 09:58, 11 May). It takes less time to just delete, but that's not the purpose of wikipedia, so while you added the tag a 2nd time, I rewrote the whole section to be more consumable. This mess is fixed now and we can move on. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I still miss the answer to my question: What are "the technical malfunctions" of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and how do we (=the average reader unfamiliar with the topic or the discussion here) know that? It should be explained in the article ("THE technical malfunctions" seems to refer to something not mentioned in the article). Without context, the quote is meaningless. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you suggest should be written? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In lack of a input from you, I've done it: diff. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895745050&oldid=895744864&title=Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302
  2. ^ www.satcom.guru/2018/11/737-mcas-failure-is-option.html
  3. ^ https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/05/bjorns-corner-et302-crash-report-the-first-analysis/
  4. ^ https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ET302-FDR-general-trace.png
  5. ^ https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ET302-FDR-trace-specifics.png
  6. ^ Mentour Pilot (2019-04-19), Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight sim), retrieved 2019-04-27
  7. ^ Bjorn, Fehrm (2019-04-03). "ET302 used the Cut-Out switches to stop MCAS". Leeham News and Analysis. Retrieved 2019-05-09.
  8. ^ a b c "Vestigial design issue clouds 737 Max crash investigations". The Air Current. 4 April 2019. Archived from the original on 27 April 2019. Retrieved 27 April 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Lemme, Peter (April 2, 2019). "Trim Cutout with Severe Out-of-Trim Stabilizer can be difficult to recover". Satcom Guru: www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stabilizer-trim-loads-and-range.html.
  10. ^ a b c d Hepher, Tim; Johnson, Eric; Freed, Jamie (4 April 2019). "How excess speed, hasty commands and flawed software doomed an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX". Reuters. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help) Cite error: The named reference "reu20190404" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference et302prelimreport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Levin, Alan; Johnsson, Julie; Schlangenstein, Mary (3 April 2019). "Ethiopia Crash Mystery Deepens: Pilots Initiated Boeing Protocol". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  13. ^ "British newspaper Mirror reports Ethiopian jet crash caused by bird-strike". 4 April 2019. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  14. ^ "Missing 737 Sensor Becomes Focus of Ethiopian Crash Probe". Archived from the original on 3 May 2019. Retrieved 26 April 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  15. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference avherald-et302 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Expert analysis, again[edit]

To WikiHannibal: Regarding your recent removals of content: the content you removed was accepted by consensus, we worked for weeks to reach this point. We have discussed already, in the context of your previous non-consensus removals, that if you think something should be removed, then it is better to discuss with the editors, who worked on the article, how to address your concerns, instead of removing content on your own. I am restoring the removed content now. You are welcome to discuss your opinions written in the comments. Please remember, we are here to improve this encyclopedia, therefore it would be beneficial if you made suggestions for the new content. As most of your edits on this article were only deletions, I ask you to contribute instead, this is why we are here. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New addition to 6.2 Expert analysis section[edit]

It is my view that the new passage added to the 6.2 Expert analysis section, is poorly written and only adds more confusion to the article. In addition, it seems to be an obvious violation of the guidelines found in this Wiki Elements of Style: [[3]]

4 Overuse. Shortcut WP:QUOTEFARM
Main page: Non-free content
While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified, there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article.
Overuse happens when:
-- a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained.
-- anywhere quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased
-- the quotes dominate the article or section.
4.1 Specific recommendations. Shortcut: WP:LONGQUOTE
Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.

[[4]]


The new addition to that section [[5]], should be re-written rather quickly by some other editor, if it is to remain. If that is not done, then I recommend it be deleted in its entirety, until such time some OTHER editor finds a way to include any of that new information in a manner that clarifies and improves the article, instead of adding more confusion for the average lay reader. EditorASC (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree (reasons in my previous edit summaries) and will remove it at some point in the future. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template: Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia[edit]

There is a Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia on JT610 page:

Any comments on creating a similar Template: Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia from Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia for ET302? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont see why not it has been done for other countries, although I dont really see the aid to navigation in linking unrelated accidents just because of were they happened. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why not +1. [[6]] Shencypeter (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 Done. There seems to be 2 systematic mistakes in the categories associated with many templates in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates:

Only 1 mistake in eg.:

Adding the template to the country's accidents category seems to be an error. I've followed the latter categorization instead and removed the unnecessary title of the accidents category.

This fix and adding extra navigation could be done by bot, if such change is generally accepted.
Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   12:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Language and info ordinary folk can use + commentary[edit]

I've just added referenced comments by high prestige pilots to the technical jargon which characterizes the article. I've used a Fox News article because it was accurate, despite the vicious, slanted title so characteristic of the unspeakable scumbags at Fox. Tapered (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Political influences[edit]

I don't have the time to dig through the article or this recent article I stumbled across, but a scan of the following appears to indicate significant political influence on the investigations of both 737 Max crashes. Perhaps someone can. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/what-really-brought-down-the-boeing-737-max/ar-AAHFc5H? Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)