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 |
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)
@ 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.
@ 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:
Some citations for an Analysis section, separated from the Preliminary report section; work in progress:
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]
With the 737NG cutout switches, MCAS runaway is stopped by just throwing the autopilot cutout switch, leaving electric trim fully operable." [11]
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)
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)
@
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
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
To editor WikiHannibal: Thank you for your response to my edit:
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 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)
@
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)
@ Greenbe:
Agree with this. There was an Analysis section for a short while, but it got shuffled around, then got merged.
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.
"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)
"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)
@ 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)
off-topic, argumentative
|
---|
@ Aron Manning:
"It still boils down to his not knowing what the hell he is talking about." — EditorASC
|
@
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)
@
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.
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 |
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)
@ 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.
@ 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:
Some citations for an Analysis section, separated from the Preliminary report section; work in progress:
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]
With the 737NG cutout switches, MCAS runaway is stopped by just throwing the autopilot cutout switch, leaving electric trim fully operable." [11]
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)
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)
@
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
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
To editor WikiHannibal: Thank you for your response to my edit:
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 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)
@
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)
@ Greenbe:
Agree with this. There was an Analysis section for a short while, but it got shuffled around, then got merged.
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.
"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)
"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)
@ 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)
off-topic, argumentative
|
---|
@ Aron Manning:
"It still boils down to his not knowing what the hell he is talking about." — EditorASC
|
@
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)
@
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.