This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I’ll be getting that sorted for this accident. Might take a day or two. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 10:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe it is neccesary to link this article to other Wikipedia article as soon as possible to prevent duplicates being made by people without prior knowledge of this one's existence. Inexperienced Wikipedians may be subject to this. Please try to link this page to other articles including (already completed) Bole International Airport, Ethiopian Airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffington ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The article says that the aircraft have disappeared from radar, but underlying link points to ADS-B instead of radar. So which one is true? DarkoS ( talk) 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
the high number of nations among the casualties is due to a conference of the UN in mombasa-- 77.191.84.121 ( talk) 14:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Admanny reverted my addition of the weather conditions, saying to "define fine". The METAR quoted shows that the weather was fine, and had I been given a chance, a translation of the METAR would have been forthcoming. As we are now at the D part of WP:BRD, should the edit be reinstated? Mjroots ( talk) 10:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Bohbye removed my addition of Flight International's comment re the 737 MAX. FI is one of the most respected publications in the aviation world. It carries a lot of weight. I feel that the text should be restored. Thoughts? Mjroots ( talk) 19:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm think the crash site is very roughly near 08°42′09″N 38°57′18″E / 8.70250°N 38.95500°E, but am not confident enough to put it in the article. However, please do not put rando coords in the article, such as the coordinates of the town of Bishoftu. The plane did not crash into such a populated area. Abductive ( reasoning) 16:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Around, and thinking of, all falls WP:OR and prohibited on wikipedia. There is no need to rush to add an exact location, eventually authorities will list full GPS coordinates. -- Bohbye ( talk) 05:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Position of crash site: 8°52′36.5″N 39°15′03.9″E 79.8.203.169 ( talk) 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but putting a scoreboard of airlines that are not using the aircraft is just not encyclopedic, the grounding by some authorities is already covered in the text. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to propose this small set of changes:
In the first two sentences under "Aircraft", which are currently thus: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines.[2] The air-frame was four months old at the time of the accident."
This would give you: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines;[2] the airframe was four months old."
Thanks, 82.39.96.55 ( talk) 01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
aircraftthey didn't change it "back" to
air-craftwhich would have given me (and others I hope) conniptions. For the record I still think you were, with – seriously – the greatest respect, wrong about the
at the time of the accidentbit as it presented at
at the time of the edit request, though it was clearly never worth fisticuffs. The current version of the sentence makes it work much, much better anyway, giving me excellent grounds to stfu now, whatever that means. Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 ( talk) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I know it is not the place to write this, but as in the wikipedia is not free open articles, can anyone tell me because it has not been created an article with the crash of a DC-3 in Colombia with 14 dead that happened today? spanish wikipedia: Accidente del DC-3 de Laser Aéreo de 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.111.15 ( talk) 13:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there was only 12 deaths... and this DC-3 Crash occurred around 10+ Hours before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planefam ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys, I added the imade from commons and the summary, I did that earlier today. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A minor nitpick, the aircraft was delivered on the 17th, not the 15th, as the source states 'ferry flight 15-17th November', implying it departed Everett on the 15th and landed in Addis Ababa on the 17th, thereby being delivered at that point. -- Biponacci ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This is starting to get annoying. There is absolutely no need to have any references in the lede. If info is in the lede, it should be in the main body of the article, suitably referenced. If it's not in the main body, then it shouldn't be in the lede. Mjroots ( talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.Rosbif73 ( talk) 07:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was on the board a wife, son and daugther of member Slovak national council Anton Hrnko. Garbi93 ( talk) 20:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit was done Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the passenger and crew section, The nationality and number of passengers fatalities it says three Swedish citizens died, it's actually four.
Source (in Swedish):
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/kaAm3j/svenskarna-som-omkom-i-flygkraschen
Evidence/Reference: "Fyra av de 157 som dog var svenskar"
Translated: "Four of the 157 who died were Swedish" Vicky the beast ( talk) 02:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Created the page 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis to address the aftermath of the recent two major air disasters. I invite you all to edit and improve the page. Since someone already nominated it for deletion, I will say that this will dominate the aviation industry news for a long time, similar to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems that affected that aircraft and manufacturer for a long time. The situation with the aircraft and the end result of two major air disasters cannot be properly covered in the disaster pages -- Bohbye ( talk) 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Nationalities have been partially adressed above (UN passports) but at present, the total (157) does not match the sum of the numbers listed fot the nationalities (158); also not clear whether those 4 listed as unknown are the same as the 4 UN. The sources used to support the list are conflicting, and as I did not follow the development of the article, I do want to make things more complicted by editing the list. Can editors interested in the list check it? Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
One Mexican woman was among the fatalities, but she's not listed [1] 201.165.55.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is always an issue in any air accident article,as passengers may have multiple nationalities. The initial list provided by the airline lists only the passport under which the passengers travelled. I would modify the list in the article to include two columns: one for the number of people travelling under those passports, including UN passport holders, and another for total number of passengers with that nationality. The first column (passport holders) should remain unchanged from the airline's list. The second column will initially be identical to the first, but will be appended as multiple nationality holders are identified. DigitalRevolution ( talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I originally added the Trump mention. But not because I am a "Trump apologist", I can assure you. Surely this is relevant, even if only to show it's superficiality? Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys do you think we should have list of countries by number? it's gonna be easy for every one to know how many countries
Rank | Nationality | Number of passenger fatalities |
---|---|---|
1 | Kenya | 32 |
2 | Canada | 18 |
3 | Ethiopia | 9 |
4 | China | 8 |
5 | Italy | 8 |
Khoshhat ( talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Countries with the same number of fatalities are sorted by alphabetization (alphabetical order). That is the default “tiebreaker” on Wikipedia. It is not random or arbitrary. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
As for the rankings, it’s really only appropriate where the countries are trying or achieving to have the highest total, such as in the Olympics or in some sort of election. It would be inappropriate for this, because no country is “trying” to have the most fatalities, it’s not an achievement of any kind. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
However, if you had to rank them, then countries that are tied with each other would all receive the same ranking, which would be the highest possible in that group. So for example, China, Italy, and United States all have 8 fatalities which comprises the fourth, fifth, and sixth spots, so they’d all have a fourth place ranking. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To address your concern about allowing the readers to understand the total number of countries, while also not inserting a ranking for each country, I added a piece stating the total number of countries in the preface of the table. (I counted 35 countries) Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not a contest. And by the way: How does this table deal with victims having more than one nationality? 2001:16B8:2D5E:8B00:DD86:B175:1E86:75C ( talk) 21:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Ground witness observations seem more broad and detailed at https://www.Reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-witnesses-idUSKBN1QS1LJ. If the reported observations prove consistent and credible they seem likely have considerable impact on global reactions. (I've not modified the article - apologies but I can't contribute more at this time.). -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 00:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is locked. Anyone care to add another incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings? Thanks 126.163.102.96 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There are at least two (2) acknowledged UN workers amongst the passenger list of the Malev Flight 240. There was another air incident in 1961 in Africa where UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was among the victims. The edit suggestion was to include specifically, " incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings", but if a productive editor would create a list, that would also be an improvement. 126.163.64.28 ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently there is a glitch on the Boeing that causes it to dive. Boitumelo Motlhabai ( talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"Former Boeing engineers expressed the opinion that a nose down command triggered by a sensor single point of failure is a design flaw if the crew is not prepared, and the FAA was evaluating a fix of the possible flaw and investigating whether the pilots' transition training is adequate. [1]”Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The article currently states that the Captain was 29 years old, but I don't see support for that in the cited sources. The NYT article says that he became a Captain when he was 29, but I don't see anything in it about him being 29 at the time of the crash, nor do I see anything in Ethiopian's press release about that. 8,000 hours seems like a lot for 29-year-old, even with a decade of flying experience. Vbscript2 ( talk) 15:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The following is at https://LeehamNews.com/2019/03/15/bjorns-corner-the-ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-crash/:
"The Seattle Times today wrote the horizontal stabilizer trim system, a jackscrew which pushes the horizontal stabilizer up or down, has been found at the crash site. Apparently, it was in the full nose down position. This should point to this being another MCAS accident, with the aircraft’s powerful pitch trim going to full nose down position.
The aircraft can then not be held level with the pilot’s elevator control; he needs to trim against the MCAS trimming to keep pitch authority. Why the pilots didn’t use the trim cutout switches to shut down MCAS trimming, we will learn from the voice recorder read-outs."
The entire article seems well composed and credible to me, and the jackscrew evidence seems very important. So I propose adding a statement about the jackscrew evidence to the article in part to provide a reference to the Leeham News article for those who wish to keep abreast of the investigation in more detail. However the LN article suggests the full nose down position of the jackscrew hasn't been verified so I seek a reasonably swift consensus view about whether to add a statement about the jackscrew and a reference to the LH article, or perhaps the related Seattle Times article, or both. Personally I feel the information is worthy of addition. -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose renaming the section "Accident" to "Crash," with an anchor of "Accident." Crash is more specific, and in used in articles where the aircraft suddenly impacts the ground, such as United Airlines Flight 553 and Indian Airlines Flight 440. Accident is used in more complicated incidents, such as Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314, where seven survived. Comfr ( talk) 18:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I revised the following because my original thoughts were poorly considered and composed (original was posted 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)):
As a mere private pilot I incorrectly assumed the 737 Max utilizes a stabilator, and thus some terminology confused me. But https://En.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator#Airliners helped:
"Most modern airliners adjust the tailplane angle of incidence to trim during flight as fuel is burned and the center of gravity moves. These adjustments are handled by adjustable incidence horizontal stabilizers. However, such adjustable stabilizers are not the same as stabilators; a stabilator is controlled by the pilot's control yoke (or stick), whereas an adjustable stabilizer is controlled by the trim system. One example of an airliner with a genuine stabilator used for flight control is the Lockheed L-1011."
So in both cases the entire structures rotate. Evidently however:
A 'stabilator' has no elevators. Rather the pilot's yokes or sticks control the angle of attack of the entire structure. (Small trailing edge trim tabs are likely incorporated too.)
An 'adjustable stabilizer' incorporates modest sized trailing edge elevators (which likely incorporate small trailing edge trim tabs too). The pilot's yokes or sticks control only the elevators. The angle of attack of the entire adjustable stabilizer is controlled only by aircraft systems, and is evidently commonly referred to as 'trim control'.
Normally adjustment of the angle of attack of the entire adjustable stabilizer is a trimming function. But when the aircraft's systems command substantial angle of attack changes over short periods of time it's not performing a trim function, but rather a flight control function - the systems are using the adjustable stabilizer as if it were a stabilator. Thus the term 'trim function' as used in popular discussions is highly misleading since it implies minor control influence at all times, whereas in fact 737 Max systems are no longer restricted to trim duties - they're also capable of changing the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer swiftly and to its limits, and thus evidently can fully overpower the modest remaining control available from the elevators. And thus overpower the crew.
This seems key to a correct interpretation of the jackscrew evidence - readers need to understand that the jackscrew controls the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer, the more powerful pitch control surface. And that the jackscrew position is controlled by automated systems (or manual trim if the automated systems are disabled), not by the yoke or stick. And those systems are no longer limited to trimming duties - in the 737 Max they can exert swift full control over the aircraft's pitch.
Do I now understand the terminology and general system characteristics correctly? And do we suspect most readers are confused by the terminology, especially the 'trim function' term to describe a control which can fully overpower a crew as it forces an aircraft into a fatal dive? If so should we compose an explanation about this terminology either in the Stabilator article at https://En.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator, with a link in this article to the explanation, or in this and the Lion Air flight 610 articles? -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 08:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Except that time there was another pilot on board who knew how to fix it. It also had ongoing probs before that. Can someone write this up and add it? Or I might try later. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed
173.228.123.166 ( talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
De Telegraaf is reporting that a MAX 8 made an emergency landing in Orlando today whilst being flown to storage in the Mojave Desert. Is this worth mentioning either here, or at the aircraft's article? Mjroots ( talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
AHEM: boeing customers on 737 have NO CHOICE of engine, as per bs "anti-trust" law, they are allowed to monopoly with GE for both 737 and 777. shaking my damn head i must specify this. i am beyond flabbergasted at this ridiculous crash and what it means for the state of art of engineering at boeing. yikes. how many less critical softwares are bad at boeing?. I would like to add i don't know of ANY law saying aircraft can't be made by same company engines included. you are spreading misinformation, the reason boeing doesn't make engines is because they literally can't, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.48.61 ( talk) 09:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"Per anti-trust laws, Boeing is not allowed to manufacture engines for their planes." I have severe doubts about the accuracy of that statement. There would be no specific prohibition in any of the Statutory Anti-Trust laws of the USA. If there has been such a prohibition, it could be found only in some case law decision, which would have to be a result of Boeing being sued by the US Fed Govt to prevent them from manufacturing their own engines.
I am not aware of Boeing being sued by the Govt to force it to cease and desist manufacturing aircraft engines. However, I am open to anyone referencing that kind of history, if it exists. If so, please give us the case name, date and number. Thanks, EditorASC ( talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I have just removed a section that was almost entirely quoting a Reuters article [1] as the one and only source. I am just wondering out loud why Reuters would even state the bird strike theory when the Ethiopian authorities have denied it. [2] [3] Is it because Reuters is geared toward financial readers who might own Boeing stock? I sense an agenda because the Reuters article is written to focus the blame on pilot error and unforseen incidents like a bird strike, deviating blame from Boeing, which no other news article has done. So, one has to question Reuters' reporting/agenda. I shall never forget this reporting by Reuters.
Ethiopian authorities denied media reports that claimed a bird strike damaged one of the airplane’s angle of attack sensors. “Everything including the AOA sensors was functioning properly during take off. But a few minutes after takeoff the sensor began feeding erroneous data. We do not know what caused that,” Amdeye Ayalew Fenta, chief investigator of the Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau, told AIN [4]
There was high speed because they were trying to climb to gain altitude at full throttle, but with MCAS suddenly dipping the nose to gain more speed(!), the high throttle added to the speed gained when losing altitude. To make the plane gain more speed is entirely the function of MCAS because it believes (erroneously in this case) the plane is under stall from low speed, and uses gravity to gain speed.
Wikipedia is not the place for hypotheticals. Let us stick to facts, not agendas. Wait for the full report. WatchFan 07 22:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Here's an interesting additional bit of information from Reuters;
Apparently FAA and EASA regulators knew about 737 MAX trim control issues at high airspeeds in early 2016.
The 737 MAX EASA certification document specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s center console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke.
The EASA document said simulations showed the electric thumb switches could not keep the 737 MAX properly trimmed under certain conditions.
Is this something worth adding to the story?
-df DWmFrancis ( talk)
@ DWmFrancis: I haven't seen "electric manual trim" jam issues mentioned by any pilots or engineers or aviation journalists, but it is an open possibility for me, based on speculation: the electric trim motor can be stopped by holding the wheels by hand, so is it strong enough to move the jackscrew, when turning the wheels by hand is not possible?
Note: depending on source "manual trim" can mean "electric manual trim" (yoke switch) or "hand-cranking" the trim wheels (manually...). These are often confused, and the distinction is not clearly made even it the preliminary report.
There is another great source though for the pilots' issue of jammed trim wheel when "hand-cranking" is not possible. The article shows the "Roller Coaster Recovery" technique as published in Boeing 737-200 training materials:
I've included this source in the page as one reference for: "the pilots were unable to counteract the high aerodynamic forces on the horizontal stabilizer by manually hand-cranking the trim wheel"
Also Peter Lemme's much more detailed article: www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stabilizer-trim-loads-and-range.html (whitelisting requested)
—
Aron Manning (
talk)
22:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I’ll be getting that sorted for this accident. Might take a day or two. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 10:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe it is neccesary to link this article to other Wikipedia article as soon as possible to prevent duplicates being made by people without prior knowledge of this one's existence. Inexperienced Wikipedians may be subject to this. Please try to link this page to other articles including (already completed) Bole International Airport, Ethiopian Airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffington ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The article says that the aircraft have disappeared from radar, but underlying link points to ADS-B instead of radar. So which one is true? DarkoS ( talk) 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
the high number of nations among the casualties is due to a conference of the UN in mombasa-- 77.191.84.121 ( talk) 14:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Admanny reverted my addition of the weather conditions, saying to "define fine". The METAR quoted shows that the weather was fine, and had I been given a chance, a translation of the METAR would have been forthcoming. As we are now at the D part of WP:BRD, should the edit be reinstated? Mjroots ( talk) 10:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Bohbye removed my addition of Flight International's comment re the 737 MAX. FI is one of the most respected publications in the aviation world. It carries a lot of weight. I feel that the text should be restored. Thoughts? Mjroots ( talk) 19:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm think the crash site is very roughly near 08°42′09″N 38°57′18″E / 8.70250°N 38.95500°E, but am not confident enough to put it in the article. However, please do not put rando coords in the article, such as the coordinates of the town of Bishoftu. The plane did not crash into such a populated area. Abductive ( reasoning) 16:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Around, and thinking of, all falls WP:OR and prohibited on wikipedia. There is no need to rush to add an exact location, eventually authorities will list full GPS coordinates. -- Bohbye ( talk) 05:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Position of crash site: 8°52′36.5″N 39°15′03.9″E 79.8.203.169 ( talk) 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but putting a scoreboard of airlines that are not using the aircraft is just not encyclopedic, the grounding by some authorities is already covered in the text. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to propose this small set of changes:
In the first two sentences under "Aircraft", which are currently thus: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines.[2] The air-frame was four months old at the time of the accident."
This would give you: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines;[2] the airframe was four months old."
Thanks, 82.39.96.55 ( talk) 01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
aircraftthey didn't change it "back" to
air-craftwhich would have given me (and others I hope) conniptions. For the record I still think you were, with – seriously – the greatest respect, wrong about the
at the time of the accidentbit as it presented at
at the time of the edit request, though it was clearly never worth fisticuffs. The current version of the sentence makes it work much, much better anyway, giving me excellent grounds to stfu now, whatever that means. Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 ( talk) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I know it is not the place to write this, but as in the wikipedia is not free open articles, can anyone tell me because it has not been created an article with the crash of a DC-3 in Colombia with 14 dead that happened today? spanish wikipedia: Accidente del DC-3 de Laser Aéreo de 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.111.15 ( talk) 13:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there was only 12 deaths... and this DC-3 Crash occurred around 10+ Hours before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planefam ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys, I added the imade from commons and the summary, I did that earlier today. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A minor nitpick, the aircraft was delivered on the 17th, not the 15th, as the source states 'ferry flight 15-17th November', implying it departed Everett on the 15th and landed in Addis Ababa on the 17th, thereby being delivered at that point. -- Biponacci ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This is starting to get annoying. There is absolutely no need to have any references in the lede. If info is in the lede, it should be in the main body of the article, suitably referenced. If it's not in the main body, then it shouldn't be in the lede. Mjroots ( talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.Rosbif73 ( talk) 07:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was on the board a wife, son and daugther of member Slovak national council Anton Hrnko. Garbi93 ( talk) 20:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit was done Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the passenger and crew section, The nationality and number of passengers fatalities it says three Swedish citizens died, it's actually four.
Source (in Swedish):
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/kaAm3j/svenskarna-som-omkom-i-flygkraschen
Evidence/Reference: "Fyra av de 157 som dog var svenskar"
Translated: "Four of the 157 who died were Swedish" Vicky the beast ( talk) 02:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Created the page 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis to address the aftermath of the recent two major air disasters. I invite you all to edit and improve the page. Since someone already nominated it for deletion, I will say that this will dominate the aviation industry news for a long time, similar to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems that affected that aircraft and manufacturer for a long time. The situation with the aircraft and the end result of two major air disasters cannot be properly covered in the disaster pages -- Bohbye ( talk) 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Nationalities have been partially adressed above (UN passports) but at present, the total (157) does not match the sum of the numbers listed fot the nationalities (158); also not clear whether those 4 listed as unknown are the same as the 4 UN. The sources used to support the list are conflicting, and as I did not follow the development of the article, I do want to make things more complicted by editing the list. Can editors interested in the list check it? Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
One Mexican woman was among the fatalities, but she's not listed [1] 201.165.55.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is always an issue in any air accident article,as passengers may have multiple nationalities. The initial list provided by the airline lists only the passport under which the passengers travelled. I would modify the list in the article to include two columns: one for the number of people travelling under those passports, including UN passport holders, and another for total number of passengers with that nationality. The first column (passport holders) should remain unchanged from the airline's list. The second column will initially be identical to the first, but will be appended as multiple nationality holders are identified. DigitalRevolution ( talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I originally added the Trump mention. But not because I am a "Trump apologist", I can assure you. Surely this is relevant, even if only to show it's superficiality? Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys do you think we should have list of countries by number? it's gonna be easy for every one to know how many countries
Rank | Nationality | Number of passenger fatalities |
---|---|---|
1 | Kenya | 32 |
2 | Canada | 18 |
3 | Ethiopia | 9 |
4 | China | 8 |
5 | Italy | 8 |
Khoshhat ( talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Countries with the same number of fatalities are sorted by alphabetization (alphabetical order). That is the default “tiebreaker” on Wikipedia. It is not random or arbitrary. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
As for the rankings, it’s really only appropriate where the countries are trying or achieving to have the highest total, such as in the Olympics or in some sort of election. It would be inappropriate for this, because no country is “trying” to have the most fatalities, it’s not an achievement of any kind. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
However, if you had to rank them, then countries that are tied with each other would all receive the same ranking, which would be the highest possible in that group. So for example, China, Italy, and United States all have 8 fatalities which comprises the fourth, fifth, and sixth spots, so they’d all have a fourth place ranking. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To address your concern about allowing the readers to understand the total number of countries, while also not inserting a ranking for each country, I added a piece stating the total number of countries in the preface of the table. (I counted 35 countries) Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 06:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not a contest. And by the way: How does this table deal with victims having more than one nationality? 2001:16B8:2D5E:8B00:DD86:B175:1E86:75C ( talk) 21:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Ground witness observations seem more broad and detailed at https://www.Reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-witnesses-idUSKBN1QS1LJ. If the reported observations prove consistent and credible they seem likely have considerable impact on global reactions. (I've not modified the article - apologies but I can't contribute more at this time.). -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 00:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is locked. Anyone care to add another incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings? Thanks 126.163.102.96 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There are at least two (2) acknowledged UN workers amongst the passenger list of the Malev Flight 240. There was another air incident in 1961 in Africa where UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was among the victims. The edit suggestion was to include specifically, " incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings", but if a productive editor would create a list, that would also be an improvement. 126.163.64.28 ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently there is a glitch on the Boeing that causes it to dive. Boitumelo Motlhabai ( talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"Former Boeing engineers expressed the opinion that a nose down command triggered by a sensor single point of failure is a design flaw if the crew is not prepared, and the FAA was evaluating a fix of the possible flaw and investigating whether the pilots' transition training is adequate. [1]”Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The article currently states that the Captain was 29 years old, but I don't see support for that in the cited sources. The NYT article says that he became a Captain when he was 29, but I don't see anything in it about him being 29 at the time of the crash, nor do I see anything in Ethiopian's press release about that. 8,000 hours seems like a lot for 29-year-old, even with a decade of flying experience. Vbscript2 ( talk) 15:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The following is at https://LeehamNews.com/2019/03/15/bjorns-corner-the-ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-crash/:
"The Seattle Times today wrote the horizontal stabilizer trim system, a jackscrew which pushes the horizontal stabilizer up or down, has been found at the crash site. Apparently, it was in the full nose down position. This should point to this being another MCAS accident, with the aircraft’s powerful pitch trim going to full nose down position.
The aircraft can then not be held level with the pilot’s elevator control; he needs to trim against the MCAS trimming to keep pitch authority. Why the pilots didn’t use the trim cutout switches to shut down MCAS trimming, we will learn from the voice recorder read-outs."
The entire article seems well composed and credible to me, and the jackscrew evidence seems very important. So I propose adding a statement about the jackscrew evidence to the article in part to provide a reference to the Leeham News article for those who wish to keep abreast of the investigation in more detail. However the LN article suggests the full nose down position of the jackscrew hasn't been verified so I seek a reasonably swift consensus view about whether to add a statement about the jackscrew and a reference to the LH article, or perhaps the related Seattle Times article, or both. Personally I feel the information is worthy of addition. -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose renaming the section "Accident" to "Crash," with an anchor of "Accident." Crash is more specific, and in used in articles where the aircraft suddenly impacts the ground, such as United Airlines Flight 553 and Indian Airlines Flight 440. Accident is used in more complicated incidents, such as Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314, where seven survived. Comfr ( talk) 18:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I revised the following because my original thoughts were poorly considered and composed (original was posted 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)):
As a mere private pilot I incorrectly assumed the 737 Max utilizes a stabilator, and thus some terminology confused me. But https://En.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator#Airliners helped:
"Most modern airliners adjust the tailplane angle of incidence to trim during flight as fuel is burned and the center of gravity moves. These adjustments are handled by adjustable incidence horizontal stabilizers. However, such adjustable stabilizers are not the same as stabilators; a stabilator is controlled by the pilot's control yoke (or stick), whereas an adjustable stabilizer is controlled by the trim system. One example of an airliner with a genuine stabilator used for flight control is the Lockheed L-1011."
So in both cases the entire structures rotate. Evidently however:
A 'stabilator' has no elevators. Rather the pilot's yokes or sticks control the angle of attack of the entire structure. (Small trailing edge trim tabs are likely incorporated too.)
An 'adjustable stabilizer' incorporates modest sized trailing edge elevators (which likely incorporate small trailing edge trim tabs too). The pilot's yokes or sticks control only the elevators. The angle of attack of the entire adjustable stabilizer is controlled only by aircraft systems, and is evidently commonly referred to as 'trim control'.
Normally adjustment of the angle of attack of the entire adjustable stabilizer is a trimming function. But when the aircraft's systems command substantial angle of attack changes over short periods of time it's not performing a trim function, but rather a flight control function - the systems are using the adjustable stabilizer as if it were a stabilator. Thus the term 'trim function' as used in popular discussions is highly misleading since it implies minor control influence at all times, whereas in fact 737 Max systems are no longer restricted to trim duties - they're also capable of changing the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer swiftly and to its limits, and thus evidently can fully overpower the modest remaining control available from the elevators. And thus overpower the crew.
This seems key to a correct interpretation of the jackscrew evidence - readers need to understand that the jackscrew controls the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer, the more powerful pitch control surface. And that the jackscrew position is controlled by automated systems (or manual trim if the automated systems are disabled), not by the yoke or stick. And those systems are no longer limited to trimming duties - in the 737 Max they can exert swift full control over the aircraft's pitch.
Do I now understand the terminology and general system characteristics correctly? And do we suspect most readers are confused by the terminology, especially the 'trim function' term to describe a control which can fully overpower a crew as it forces an aircraft into a fatal dive? If so should we compose an explanation about this terminology either in the Stabilator article at https://En.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator, with a link in this article to the explanation, or in this and the Lion Air flight 610 articles? -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 08:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Except that time there was another pilot on board who knew how to fix it. It also had ongoing probs before that. Can someone write this up and add it? Or I might try later. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed
173.228.123.166 ( talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
De Telegraaf is reporting that a MAX 8 made an emergency landing in Orlando today whilst being flown to storage in the Mojave Desert. Is this worth mentioning either here, or at the aircraft's article? Mjroots ( talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
AHEM: boeing customers on 737 have NO CHOICE of engine, as per bs "anti-trust" law, they are allowed to monopoly with GE for both 737 and 777. shaking my damn head i must specify this. i am beyond flabbergasted at this ridiculous crash and what it means for the state of art of engineering at boeing. yikes. how many less critical softwares are bad at boeing?. I would like to add i don't know of ANY law saying aircraft can't be made by same company engines included. you are spreading misinformation, the reason boeing doesn't make engines is because they literally can't, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.48.61 ( talk) 09:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"Per anti-trust laws, Boeing is not allowed to manufacture engines for their planes." I have severe doubts about the accuracy of that statement. There would be no specific prohibition in any of the Statutory Anti-Trust laws of the USA. If there has been such a prohibition, it could be found only in some case law decision, which would have to be a result of Boeing being sued by the US Fed Govt to prevent them from manufacturing their own engines.
I am not aware of Boeing being sued by the Govt to force it to cease and desist manufacturing aircraft engines. However, I am open to anyone referencing that kind of history, if it exists. If so, please give us the case name, date and number. Thanks, EditorASC ( talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I have just removed a section that was almost entirely quoting a Reuters article [1] as the one and only source. I am just wondering out loud why Reuters would even state the bird strike theory when the Ethiopian authorities have denied it. [2] [3] Is it because Reuters is geared toward financial readers who might own Boeing stock? I sense an agenda because the Reuters article is written to focus the blame on pilot error and unforseen incidents like a bird strike, deviating blame from Boeing, which no other news article has done. So, one has to question Reuters' reporting/agenda. I shall never forget this reporting by Reuters.
Ethiopian authorities denied media reports that claimed a bird strike damaged one of the airplane’s angle of attack sensors. “Everything including the AOA sensors was functioning properly during take off. But a few minutes after takeoff the sensor began feeding erroneous data. We do not know what caused that,” Amdeye Ayalew Fenta, chief investigator of the Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau, told AIN [4]
There was high speed because they were trying to climb to gain altitude at full throttle, but with MCAS suddenly dipping the nose to gain more speed(!), the high throttle added to the speed gained when losing altitude. To make the plane gain more speed is entirely the function of MCAS because it believes (erroneously in this case) the plane is under stall from low speed, and uses gravity to gain speed.
Wikipedia is not the place for hypotheticals. Let us stick to facts, not agendas. Wait for the full report. WatchFan 07 22:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Here's an interesting additional bit of information from Reuters;
Apparently FAA and EASA regulators knew about 737 MAX trim control issues at high airspeeds in early 2016.
The 737 MAX EASA certification document specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s center console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke.
The EASA document said simulations showed the electric thumb switches could not keep the 737 MAX properly trimmed under certain conditions.
Is this something worth adding to the story?
-df DWmFrancis ( talk)
@ DWmFrancis: I haven't seen "electric manual trim" jam issues mentioned by any pilots or engineers or aviation journalists, but it is an open possibility for me, based on speculation: the electric trim motor can be stopped by holding the wheels by hand, so is it strong enough to move the jackscrew, when turning the wheels by hand is not possible?
Note: depending on source "manual trim" can mean "electric manual trim" (yoke switch) or "hand-cranking" the trim wheels (manually...). These are often confused, and the distinction is not clearly made even it the preliminary report.
There is another great source though for the pilots' issue of jammed trim wheel when "hand-cranking" is not possible. The article shows the "Roller Coaster Recovery" technique as published in Boeing 737-200 training materials:
I've included this source in the page as one reference for: "the pilots were unable to counteract the high aerodynamic forces on the horizontal stabilizer by manually hand-cranking the trim wheel"
Also Peter Lemme's much more detailed article: www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stabilizer-trim-loads-and-range.html (whitelisting requested)
—
Aron Manning (
talk)
22:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)