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 |
Bloomberg and CNN have conflicting numbers about who owns how many boeings: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-and-which-airlines-fly-it-quicktake Which source is better and which should be used? 192.107.156.196 ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say:
I’m not so sure if that section should stay named that way, or not. This Wikipedia article is not aimed only towards the US and Canada, so why name it that way when it is only listing internal US and Canadian politics? I understand that this is related to the only two countries that didn’t ban the MAX as of today, but it should have a better title. Suggestions? -- Bohbye ( talk) 15:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there an official source for the US grounding? Trump's been known to say a bunch of things to the press, and him saying a regulatory agency is going to do something isn't the same as that agency putting out a statement. Every other update has been a comment from regulators. I think we should do the same here and not pull the trigger too fast. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I fail to see the reason why the two lists exist.
Although Ethiopian Airlines is wholly owned by the Ethiopian government, the flag carrier should not be representing a whole country. Only government bodies can represent a country. Also, for the section "Timeline of regulatory responses", should we include both countries and airlines or countries only?
From the 2nd paragraph:
Ethiopia was the first country to ground all of its 737 MAX 8 aircraft, with China, Indonesia and other countries following suit. [1] [2]
— Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
References
British English for an American plane? Really? -- LaserLegs ( talk) 19:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the government shutdown delayed software updates: https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-make-key-change-in-max-cockpit-software-11552413489
Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The map of countries in this article shows that Canada has grounded the aircraft, when in fact they have not. Sharper 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the map in question, concerns have been noted by multiple users about the map being misleading and inaccurate ("Map is misleading by mixing private airline with national responses/groundings; if anything, there should only be the red/green colors"). Opinions? EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Fist I appreciate your efforts however the consensus has been to use the open sourced, color blind accessible, svg map for the time being. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a new color category for Panama, seems a bit silly to have still flying be green/brown, but I picked it from that color blindness guide linked above. It's to show the distinction between no comment and flying (Panama) v.s. an explicit regulatory decision to fly (US). As far as I can tell there's no other country operating the 787 MAX now, but perhaps I've missed something. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The US just grounded the MAX, so the map becomes useless. Given it is a US manufactured aircraft, an FAA grounding becomes an effective grounding worldwide. -- Bohbye ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Grounding in Fiji was came along with an official statement made by authorities. Also, Equatorial Guinea grounded the airplane on March, 13th. -- Dr. Fist ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We've already had flags inserted and removed, in the table of groundings, numerous times in the short lifespan of this article. They serve no useful purpose, as per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Can we reach some consensus on removing these, please? Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Should we create a table listing the airlines that have grounded their aircraft with the number of aircraft in each fleet? I believe this will help show the full picture by presenting the proportions of this grounding. Any thoughts?
Chocom ( talk) 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently the text above the table says "voluntarily ordered groundings of 380 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and Max 9 aircraft in their fleets (ordered by name)". My understanding is while some airlines chose to voluntarily ground their fleets, others are only grounded due to the respective regulatory body. Do we want this table to only contain the airlines that voluntarily grounded their fleet? Or do we want it to be a list of all impacted airlines and how many planes they had affected (as it is currently)? If the second case, we should just update the text to say "Here's the number of planes grounded for each airline", and get rid of the part about it being voluntary. Iux Aeterna ( talk) 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe the map is useless at this point because the MAX series is grounded worldwide, so airline voluntary or government-mandated is no longer relevant. Also, the map itself is not up to date unless it’s all red pretty much, again what is the point. I think swapping out the image with a generic Boeing colors MAX aircraft will make more sense. Your thoughts on removing it? Bohbye ( talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There has been confusion about the exact timeline of China and Ethiopian Airlines' grounding announcement. China did it by announcement on its official website. You can check the exact time on the primary source [1].
Ethiopian did it by announcement on its official Twitter account, which was first reported by Reuters [2]. You also can see the exact time on the primary source. [3] Aceus0shrifter ( talk) 02:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
References
While I understand that this article is about the 737 MAX, the immediate canceling of the unveiling of new Boeing 777X shows that Boeing is aware that this 2nd crash has a profound consequence - even before acknowledging the questionable air worthiness of 737 MAX. Hence I'd ask for full completeness of the Boeing response to reinstate the canceled launch in the Boeing response:
Boeing deferred the new Boeing 777X airplane launch [1] planed for the 14th of March on the 11th of March. Only employees were allowed to its unveiling [2].
Thank you for the consideration. -- 88.1.240.192 ( talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 1 be
renamed and moved to
Boeing 737 MAX groundings.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 MAX groundings – ( WP:CONCISE) This is the only article on Wikipedia about the Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Therefore, this could be renamed to Boeing 737 MAX groundings until a second notable grounding event happens to adhere to the title's conciseness.
For example, see
2017 Manchester Arena bombing →
Manchester Arena bombing (
talk)
2018 YouTube headquarters shooting →
YouTube headquarters shooting (
talk)
2018 China–United States trade war → China–United States trade war (2018–present) →
China–United States trade war (
talk)
— Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Aceus0shrifter edit summary: "If you have confusion about the exact time of the groundings by China and Ethiopia, please discuss on the Talk page". No confusion. Ethiopian Airlines announced on Twitter that its grounding was effective March 10, the day of the accident. That was the first grounding anywhere, by airline or government. Next day, March 11, China government regulator announced grounding of its planes. DonFB ( talk) 02:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry I got it wrong. I first saw it on the New York Times article reporting China was the first, and Indonesia was the second, and only checked Ethiopian Airlines' twitter date. Aceus0shrifter ( talk) 02:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section on the KC-46 tanker and Bohbye reverted so I'm hoping to reach consensus here. I removed the section because it seems to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. The article is about the groundings of the 737 MAX plane series, the KC-46 is not a 737 and the section states that it's not even based on that plane (it's based on the 767). The MCAS system on the 737 is different from the one on the KC-46. The KC-46 is, to the best of my knowledge, not grounded. The only relevance I see is that this event prompted the US Air Force to make a press release. I don't see why this is a section on the same level as Boeing's response. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the trim of the table the distinction between "banned from airspace" and "Grounded all", etc., was lost. This should be reinstated, or, as "banned from airspace" was the predominant term (which is not very well reflected in the headline), other variants of the ban (Austria, Japan etc. - there are not so many) should be added as footnotes. What do you think? WikiHannibal ( talk) 09:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I have been scouring the interweb trying to find some more explanation of why the pilots were not able to easily handle the problem (if the MCAS turns out to be the culprit). Unfortunately I only have more questions than answers. I have seen a few snippets of info here and there that counter the general media torrent but wanted to see if people think the following is an appropriate source before attempting to edit the main article.
LION AIR AND ITS PILOTS WERE AWARE OF NEW 737 FLIGHT SYSTEM
I do have some support from other blogs and pilot forums on this, as well as direct link from 737 Memory Item list, but yet to find other good sources in the clutter. Greenbe ( talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like today this is starting to come out in a New Bloomberg Report. That report says the 3rd pilot on the previous Lion Air flight correctly told them to throw both stab trim cutout switches which are part of the memory items checklist all 737 pilots are required to memorize. But I find this a bit of a mystery - the procedure is very simple (way simpler than all the things they have to memorize for an engine fire). What is different about the audio or visual cues compared to their training that the crews are not recognizing it immediately? Greenbe ( talk) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Day by day things are dripping out. It gets more mysterious. Indonesian authorities now confirm the 3rd pilot story first broken by Bloomberg (see above) but will not disclose what he said. Bloomberg's new story today says they have interviewed the 3rd pilot but they are not disclosing what he said. Bloomberg now directly asks the same question: If the two pilots on the previous Lion Air flight to Jakarta were not able to correctly diagnose the problem and run the memory item checklist, and it took a 3rd pilot to recognize that, what about this issue is different than other causes of runaway trim? Why did now at least 3 crews have trouble identifying the right procedure? There are many stories about the Lion and Ethiopian planes did not have an optional warning light and perhaps other additional features so maybe the visual and audio cues are different enough to fool pilots. The story now moves to when Boeing knew about the 3rd pilot, because I think that shifts the story line. Before now the story was two pilots on previous flight handled the problem correctly and others did not, but if it turns out it took 3 pilots it just looks a lot worse. Still need confirmation from Indonesia that the Jakarta flight had AoA problems. Why didn't Boeing ground the whole fleet (its only 200 planes) after they learned about the 3rd pilot? I think Bloomberg is getting to that basic question, when did they know about that. Why did Indonesia not disclose this until forced to by the media? To me it seems like you interview all 3 pilots in November and at least disclose some preliminary findings. Greenbe ( talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(I hope this isn't offensive/inappropriate/etc...)
Whether or NOT these crashes are/NOT (POSSIBLE?) " System accidents", is there ANY way/place to "link"?? (or simply need to wait for better sources??)
Thanks. Curious1i ( talk) 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."So, on that basis, I do not in principle oppose a See Also link to the "System Accident" article. However, as noted already, that article is not very good, and frankly, not worth linking in its present poor condition. DonFB ( talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear contributors to this wikipedia page. This article contains several mistakes. The media reports aren't a good source in order to find factual information about the 737 Max. The 737 design part is almost completely false. " (MCAS) was developed for the 737 MAX to prevent stalls " MCAS is a longitudinal stability enhancement. It is not for stall prevention (although indirectly it helps) or to make the MAX handle like the NG (although it does); it was introduced to counteract the non-linear lift of the LEAP-1B engine nacelles and give a steady increase in stick force as AoA increases. The LEAP engines are both larger and relocated slightly up and forward from the previous NG CFM56-7 engines to accommodate their larger fan diameter. This new location and size of the nacelle cause the vortex flow off the nacelle body to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a reducing stick force) which could lead the pilot to further increase the back pressure on the yoke and send the aircraft closer towards the stall. This non-linear/reducing stick force is not allowable under FAR §25.173 "Static longitudinal stability". MCAS was therefore introduced to give an automatic nose down stabilizer input during steep turns with elevated load factors (high AoA) and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.
This is a qoute from the website: http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm (and no I am not the guy running that website). In shorter words it is explained that only in a very particular situation that under normal circumstances the airplane will never get into, the stick force that the pilot feels will decrease instead of actually increase. MCAS is there to counter this decreasing stick force.
"This engine relocation and the new nacelle shape cause an upward pitching moment." This sentence in the article is misleading because on basically every Jet aircraft the engines will cause an upward pitching moment as you increase thrust. Just as an example this is a sentence from the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) of the Boeing 737 NG found in the chapter Basic Aerodynamics and Systems Knowledge :"The airplane continues to pitch up if thrust is increased and positive corrective action is not taken by re-trimming the stabilizer." This is a guidance to remind the pilots that if the elevator -which controls pitch- has become inoperative, the thrust may be used in order to control pitch attitude instead. This is true for the 737 NG the Airbus 320 etc... it is not unique to the 737 MAX, the unique characteristics of the 737 MAX are explained above.
"the system activates without notice to the pilot." This sentence is completely false! MCAS will move the horizontal stabilizer which will lead to a nose down pitching moment. When the horizontal stabilizer moves it is shown in the cockpit to the pilots by two rotating Stabilizer trim wheels (just check for a video of this on youtube). They can be seen as they rotate and also be heard. MCAS is one of several systems which will move the horizontal stabilizer = the stab trim wheels. The Speed trim system which already is installed on the 737 NG or the autopilots (the 737 has two) are examples of other systems. All 737 pilots must know the so called stabilizer trim runaway memory items found in the Quick Reference Handbook. Other examples of where the pilots need to know procedures by memory are an engine fire or an emergency descent due to a rapid decompression. Thess are time critical situations where the pilots need to perform the memory items first and then after the situation is under control, they will refer to the QRH and continue checklist items which aren't time critical. It is very important to understand that it isn't neccessary to know why the stab trim wheels are moving if the pilot doesn't want them to. It doesn't make a difference which system is causing the unwanted movement: all that matters is that the memory items are performed in order to shut down the unwanted movement. This is done by setting the stab trim cut out switches to cut out which is what the previous Lion air crew before the accident flight did. In summary the statement that the pilots are not aware of the MCAS system operating is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow50t ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The Orlando incident was removed from the article with the edit summary "not related to the groundings, already discussed at talk page".
The engine problems were determined to have been unrelated to the cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes that brought about the grounding of the aircraft." That does not mean that it is "not related to the grounding". In my opinion, any problems with the plane that are discovered while it is grounded is notable for inclusion — regardless if the problem was related to the crashes that brought about the grounding. It was included under a section heading titled "Additional incidents", and I think that's appropriate.
Banana Republic ( talk) 12:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Although the 737 Max was grounded for passenger flights, airlines were allowed to fly the grounded planes without passengers.
At least three airlines have conducted inspections on the grounded Boeing Co. 737 Max". This means that the issue is broader than just Southwest Airlines. Banana Republic ( talk) 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved.If another engine problem occurs during a ferry flight, then a brief mention of multiple such inflight problems or multiple unscheduled ferry landings caused by engine problems might be worthy of inclusion, but should not be linked to the grounding, unless sources explicitly say the grounding will not be ended until engine problems are fixed. DonFB ( talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Didn't notice that. The "In-flight effect" section is for planes that were in the air when the grounding took effect. I therefore moved the sentences in question to the US response within the timeline to say that although grounded for passenger service, the FAA still allowed planes to be flown without passengers. Banana Republic ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. I don't think engine problems are routine, and certainly not for a plane that is grounded.
serious damage to the aircraft".
For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports..., and the general idea I quoted above also holds true; Your quote "
serious damage to the aircraft" applies to accidents, not incidents (
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport); incidents should be included only if they
resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry; turing off an engine overheating due to debris is not serious damage, not an accident. This is my last comment on this topic, as it seems a waste of time. WikiHannibal ( talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if:(emphasis added)
This edit, along with its edit summary "Four editors refused your addition as unrelated to the groundings, and for the third time you are trying to add it??
" seems to me like a grudge. Now that the incident has been accepted as notable, I don't see any reason not to include it in the article under the "See also" section. Since the incident occurred to a grounded plane, it is obviously related to the grounding article. If no other editor agrees that it should be listed under the "See also" section, then I won't re-insert it into the section.
However, if and when the FAA declares that the resolution of the engine issues was a factor in the decision to lift the grounding (or if the FAA will decide that the resolution offered by the manufacturer is insufficient for lifting the grounding), it will be fair game to re-add the incident into the article (and in a much more prominent location than in the "See also" section).
Banana Republic (
talk) 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The current text is misleading as regards the FAA grounding and Trumps announcement of it. It is a case of ignoring multiple sources that state that Boeing CEO called Trump assuring him of safety and that then the FAA delayed. This puts a different light on Trumps involvement. I am editing to improve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.231 ( talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The editors of this page seem to be overly deferential to both Boeing and Trump. The story is not good for either of them. The FAA does not come out well either since it apparently bowed to political pressure with the initial decisions not to ground and then having the grounding decided by Trump on presumably political grounds and not technical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.71 ( talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear DonFB, what you say is not supported by the record. The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th. I am undoing your deletion. Please come back to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. The record is mixed about Trump's involvement and I think that a balanced article should reflect that. Not just positive things about Trump and Boeing, but a balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.168 ( talk) 23:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
"The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th."
"Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reassured President Donald Trump Tuesday that the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft is safe, the company confirmed."
As a current event article is difficult to maintain because it took only three days to ground the aircraft. Reporters get to publish one story item at a time and this Wikipedia article would cite hundreds of them before the restrictions are lifted against the plane. I had specifically opposed mentioning any names in the lead, as it is a summary of the entire article. Just as no regulator is named in grounding the plane in China, the names of Donald Trump and Dennis Muillenberg seem less noteworthy here. I was grossly offended that Trump's tweets about complex airplane systems or his suggestion to rebrand the whole plane once appeared in the lead; we should be quoting Captain Sullenberger and not a random, unprofessional rant on Twitter. Yes, the US had flip-flopped its policy to ground the plane on Wednesday, and so did Muilenberg -- initially asserting the planes were safe, then acknowedged that MCAS playd a role. Too much information! Shencypeter ( talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Only positive things about Muilenburg and Trump are written here. DonFB is correct that the call was on Tuesday, not Monday. But it did happen. Why not mention it as many readers would find it germane. Note that there are very many reports of it in mainstream places. Also don't forget that Boeing gave $1M to Trump's inauguration. Maybe that also should be mentioned. Finally, it is also a fact that many members of congress complained about the non-grounding including public statements by Republicans. Trump is known for not giving a hoot about what members of other parties, or any one else says except for Republicans and his racist base. In this regard the fact that Republicans were complaining is significant. As you can guess from what is written here I do not care for Trump. I also guess from the deletions that some people here love him. Can't we work together to make a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.120 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Added a few details that would be of interest in relation to the article. These are about the history of the grounding and in particular the political narrative around it.
Just to note that a new article Boeing 737 MAX crashes has been created which duplicates this article. Although a merge request to this article was started I have been WP:BOLD and redirected it here. As far as I can see it provides no new information. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I added info with references about delivery of the planes, but it was not necessarily the planes in the accidents, but rather, the first of type delivered to each airline. Previously, the article said the accident planes were less than four months old, which may well be true, but there was no referencing in the article for that statement. I'll research more by registration number or other info to find referencing for age or delivery of the actual planes. DonFB ( talk) 12:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This message was left elsewhere on the talk by user User:161.130.253.153, who now added the NPOV tag to the article: "I think that the current text contains a highly selected set of "facts" and excludes other "facts" to the extent that it does not represent the story as it is understood in mainstream sources and that it particularly is much more favorable to Boeing and Trump that the collected sources are. I nominate this article for deletion." Making a seprate section in cae some kin of discussion emerges before the tag is removed. WikiHannibal ( talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article as a whole one has the impression that Boeing and the FAA both behaved very properly throughout the process. Trump took the lead and announced the grounding in the US out of abundance of caution. A careful job is being done for improving the almost perfect aircraft. The strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement of the ground and the FAA abundance of caution. The de-emphasized story is the close relationship of Boeing and Trump, with the delayed response of the FAA. The severe criticism of the certification process used for this aircraft. The doubts about the effectiveness of the software fix. The strong doubts around Boeing's denial of defects in the aircraft. The fact that Trumps announcement followed severe criticism by people in his own party including Congress. The racist allusions that the foreign flight crews in crash planes did not follow procedures contributing the crash, which were made by Boeing (and reported here as if factual) even though other sources strongly dispute that. This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture. I am restoring the npov. Please improve the page instead of just reverting. The page as written is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.252.230 ( talk • contribs) Latest revision as of 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
it was announced that experts from nine civil aviation authorities would investigate how MCAS was approved by the FAA, if changes need to be made in the FAA's approval process and whether the design of MCAS complies with regulations."? Banana Republic ( talk) 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture.". Banana Republic ( talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Please keep a civil tone. The remark "your interpretation only" is not civil as you have no way of knowing how many or how few people share an opinion. Clearly there is a dispute about neutral point of view, which is all that npov is about. This is to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.122 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps an Airbus employee is pissed that the page is not a tabloid where rumors and non-verified data is not part of the article? If you have data to back your claims by reliable sources, sure add it, but do not claim the article is biased towards Boeing. The existence of this article itself is a big trashing of Boeing if you think about it. Bohbye ( talk) 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@ DonFB: why are you against a transclusion to avoid sync problems?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on sensor data, the MCAS automatically lowers the nose when the aircraft pitches up: a Flight envelope protection-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Can we have a discussion about the proper application of WP:MOSFLAG within what has become the truely horrendous groundings by country table WP:TOOMANY. Currently the flags appear purely decorative as per WP:ICONDECORATION with no real purpose. Andrewgprout ( talk) 07:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". I therefore think that the flags are compliant with WP:ICONDECORATION. Banana Republic ( talk) 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Marc, the conversion to prose makes the info almost unreadable and certainly unsortable. I ask you unconvert and refrain from prosifying the airline section. DonFB ( talk) 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I too prefer the table, as it is more concise and easier to scan. If the interest is saving space, we can just have the flatlist inside the table, as I have done in this edit. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marc Lacoste, I’m looking at the table now with mobile and I think each country could use a line break. Shencypeter ( talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to share a few articles that give valuable information to the accidents, going into more details than the wiki article does. These are analytical articles, or essays, that shed light on many unanswered questions:
Two popular videos as well:
I'd like to add these to WP:EL. Any opinions?
One extra news video - not for EL - that briefly summarizes the basic causes:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/faulty-sensor-led-to-horrifying-tug-of-war-in-cockpit-of-downed-boeing-plane - with transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMFMpGLa_co - non-US viewers
If anybody hasn't seen Mentour Pilot's new simulator demonstration of the trim jamming:
The difficulty to trim in a severely out-of-trim situation
— Aron Manning ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Bonus video: FAA admin Daniel Elwell stating repeatedly "the 737 Max is a fly-by-WIRE aircraft"
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eZ7kMI78g&t=979
Correct. Only those are necessary, which directly address the grounding, and the design issues that Boeing is working on to fix:
Both secondary RS, referenced by other RS articles. The two article about the ET302 crash report should go to the ET302 FR section, not here.
The illustrations from the first article could be used in the wiki article, if CR allows: it's been copied all over the media. — Aron Manning ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't want a mess, so
WSJ and Vox videos found no objection. Both are factual, no ridiculous dramatization like in the 60 Minutes video:
Both videos and the articles are very informative, neutral and accurate, thus acceptable according to WP:EL, and give great value to the wiki article. I've added both until there are better / more up-to-date videos, or a neutral consensus arises declaring these negatively impacting the page.
Can we agree on a limit of, say, 5? More really looks messy.
Aron M🍁 (➕) 03:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Political interference accusation already covered in Political section, including Sen Warren quote. No source for "FAA moved slowly...following call" from Boeing to Trump. Boeing campaign contribution and "close ties" is editorial wp:Synthesis with this article. DOT sec. Chao MAX flight already covered in Political section of article. No source saying it was "unusual move". No source FAA satellite tracking data decision was "disputed soon after". Tracking "resolution" not in cited source. Pilot complaints already covered Pilot Complaints section of article. No source for "unclear" how FAA reviewed complaints. DonFB ( talk) 14:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Good move because we already said no basis to ground before Wednesday Shencypeter ( talk) 14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It is unusual for a regulator to promote the product it is regulating. Therefore I think that no source would be needed to state the Chao's public flight on a MAX during this period was unusual. I don't know of any other similar instance. Do you need a source to state that Paris is the capital of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.232.68 ( talk · contribs)
FYI:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/boeing-faa-congress.html
" The acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration will face questions from members of the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday about the regulator’s role in approving Boeing’s now-grounded 737 Max airplane to fly. "
" “Despite what you might read in the press, I believe the F.A.A. still is the gold standard, still has the credibility around the world to make change,” said Mr. Elwell, a former aviation industry lobbyist. "
Aron M🍁
(➕) 17:24, 15 May 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 |
Bloomberg and CNN have conflicting numbers about who owns how many boeings: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-and-which-airlines-fly-it-quicktake Which source is better and which should be used? 192.107.156.196 ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say:
I’m not so sure if that section should stay named that way, or not. This Wikipedia article is not aimed only towards the US and Canada, so why name it that way when it is only listing internal US and Canadian politics? I understand that this is related to the only two countries that didn’t ban the MAX as of today, but it should have a better title. Suggestions? -- Bohbye ( talk) 15:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there an official source for the US grounding? Trump's been known to say a bunch of things to the press, and him saying a regulatory agency is going to do something isn't the same as that agency putting out a statement. Every other update has been a comment from regulators. I think we should do the same here and not pull the trigger too fast. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I fail to see the reason why the two lists exist.
Although Ethiopian Airlines is wholly owned by the Ethiopian government, the flag carrier should not be representing a whole country. Only government bodies can represent a country. Also, for the section "Timeline of regulatory responses", should we include both countries and airlines or countries only?
From the 2nd paragraph:
Ethiopia was the first country to ground all of its 737 MAX 8 aircraft, with China, Indonesia and other countries following suit. [1] [2]
— Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
References
British English for an American plane? Really? -- LaserLegs ( talk) 19:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the government shutdown delayed software updates: https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-make-key-change-in-max-cockpit-software-11552413489
Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The map of countries in this article shows that Canada has grounded the aircraft, when in fact they have not. Sharper 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the map in question, concerns have been noted by multiple users about the map being misleading and inaccurate ("Map is misleading by mixing private airline with national responses/groundings; if anything, there should only be the red/green colors"). Opinions? EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Fist I appreciate your efforts however the consensus has been to use the open sourced, color blind accessible, svg map for the time being. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a new color category for Panama, seems a bit silly to have still flying be green/brown, but I picked it from that color blindness guide linked above. It's to show the distinction between no comment and flying (Panama) v.s. an explicit regulatory decision to fly (US). As far as I can tell there's no other country operating the 787 MAX now, but perhaps I've missed something. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The US just grounded the MAX, so the map becomes useless. Given it is a US manufactured aircraft, an FAA grounding becomes an effective grounding worldwide. -- Bohbye ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Grounding in Fiji was came along with an official statement made by authorities. Also, Equatorial Guinea grounded the airplane on March, 13th. -- Dr. Fist ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We've already had flags inserted and removed, in the table of groundings, numerous times in the short lifespan of this article. They serve no useful purpose, as per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Can we reach some consensus on removing these, please? Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Should we create a table listing the airlines that have grounded their aircraft with the number of aircraft in each fleet? I believe this will help show the full picture by presenting the proportions of this grounding. Any thoughts?
Chocom ( talk) 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently the text above the table says "voluntarily ordered groundings of 380 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and Max 9 aircraft in their fleets (ordered by name)". My understanding is while some airlines chose to voluntarily ground their fleets, others are only grounded due to the respective regulatory body. Do we want this table to only contain the airlines that voluntarily grounded their fleet? Or do we want it to be a list of all impacted airlines and how many planes they had affected (as it is currently)? If the second case, we should just update the text to say "Here's the number of planes grounded for each airline", and get rid of the part about it being voluntary. Iux Aeterna ( talk) 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe the map is useless at this point because the MAX series is grounded worldwide, so airline voluntary or government-mandated is no longer relevant. Also, the map itself is not up to date unless it’s all red pretty much, again what is the point. I think swapping out the image with a generic Boeing colors MAX aircraft will make more sense. Your thoughts on removing it? Bohbye ( talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There has been confusion about the exact timeline of China and Ethiopian Airlines' grounding announcement. China did it by announcement on its official website. You can check the exact time on the primary source [1].
Ethiopian did it by announcement on its official Twitter account, which was first reported by Reuters [2]. You also can see the exact time on the primary source. [3] Aceus0shrifter ( talk) 02:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
References
While I understand that this article is about the 737 MAX, the immediate canceling of the unveiling of new Boeing 777X shows that Boeing is aware that this 2nd crash has a profound consequence - even before acknowledging the questionable air worthiness of 737 MAX. Hence I'd ask for full completeness of the Boeing response to reinstate the canceled launch in the Boeing response:
Boeing deferred the new Boeing 777X airplane launch [1] planed for the 14th of March on the 11th of March. Only employees were allowed to its unveiling [2].
Thank you for the consideration. -- 88.1.240.192 ( talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 1 be
renamed and moved to
Boeing 737 MAX groundings.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 MAX groundings – ( WP:CONCISE) This is the only article on Wikipedia about the Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Therefore, this could be renamed to Boeing 737 MAX groundings until a second notable grounding event happens to adhere to the title's conciseness.
For example, see
2017 Manchester Arena bombing →
Manchester Arena bombing (
talk)
2018 YouTube headquarters shooting →
YouTube headquarters shooting (
talk)
2018 China–United States trade war → China–United States trade war (2018–present) →
China–United States trade war (
talk)
— Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Aceus0shrifter edit summary: "If you have confusion about the exact time of the groundings by China and Ethiopia, please discuss on the Talk page". No confusion. Ethiopian Airlines announced on Twitter that its grounding was effective March 10, the day of the accident. That was the first grounding anywhere, by airline or government. Next day, March 11, China government regulator announced grounding of its planes. DonFB ( talk) 02:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry I got it wrong. I first saw it on the New York Times article reporting China was the first, and Indonesia was the second, and only checked Ethiopian Airlines' twitter date. Aceus0shrifter ( talk) 02:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section on the KC-46 tanker and Bohbye reverted so I'm hoping to reach consensus here. I removed the section because it seems to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. The article is about the groundings of the 737 MAX plane series, the KC-46 is not a 737 and the section states that it's not even based on that plane (it's based on the 767). The MCAS system on the 737 is different from the one on the KC-46. The KC-46 is, to the best of my knowledge, not grounded. The only relevance I see is that this event prompted the US Air Force to make a press release. I don't see why this is a section on the same level as Boeing's response. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the trim of the table the distinction between "banned from airspace" and "Grounded all", etc., was lost. This should be reinstated, or, as "banned from airspace" was the predominant term (which is not very well reflected in the headline), other variants of the ban (Austria, Japan etc. - there are not so many) should be added as footnotes. What do you think? WikiHannibal ( talk) 09:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I have been scouring the interweb trying to find some more explanation of why the pilots were not able to easily handle the problem (if the MCAS turns out to be the culprit). Unfortunately I only have more questions than answers. I have seen a few snippets of info here and there that counter the general media torrent but wanted to see if people think the following is an appropriate source before attempting to edit the main article.
LION AIR AND ITS PILOTS WERE AWARE OF NEW 737 FLIGHT SYSTEM
I do have some support from other blogs and pilot forums on this, as well as direct link from 737 Memory Item list, but yet to find other good sources in the clutter. Greenbe ( talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like today this is starting to come out in a New Bloomberg Report. That report says the 3rd pilot on the previous Lion Air flight correctly told them to throw both stab trim cutout switches which are part of the memory items checklist all 737 pilots are required to memorize. But I find this a bit of a mystery - the procedure is very simple (way simpler than all the things they have to memorize for an engine fire). What is different about the audio or visual cues compared to their training that the crews are not recognizing it immediately? Greenbe ( talk) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Day by day things are dripping out. It gets more mysterious. Indonesian authorities now confirm the 3rd pilot story first broken by Bloomberg (see above) but will not disclose what he said. Bloomberg's new story today says they have interviewed the 3rd pilot but they are not disclosing what he said. Bloomberg now directly asks the same question: If the two pilots on the previous Lion Air flight to Jakarta were not able to correctly diagnose the problem and run the memory item checklist, and it took a 3rd pilot to recognize that, what about this issue is different than other causes of runaway trim? Why did now at least 3 crews have trouble identifying the right procedure? There are many stories about the Lion and Ethiopian planes did not have an optional warning light and perhaps other additional features so maybe the visual and audio cues are different enough to fool pilots. The story now moves to when Boeing knew about the 3rd pilot, because I think that shifts the story line. Before now the story was two pilots on previous flight handled the problem correctly and others did not, but if it turns out it took 3 pilots it just looks a lot worse. Still need confirmation from Indonesia that the Jakarta flight had AoA problems. Why didn't Boeing ground the whole fleet (its only 200 planes) after they learned about the 3rd pilot? I think Bloomberg is getting to that basic question, when did they know about that. Why did Indonesia not disclose this until forced to by the media? To me it seems like you interview all 3 pilots in November and at least disclose some preliminary findings. Greenbe ( talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(I hope this isn't offensive/inappropriate/etc...)
Whether or NOT these crashes are/NOT (POSSIBLE?) " System accidents", is there ANY way/place to "link"?? (or simply need to wait for better sources??)
Thanks. Curious1i ( talk) 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."So, on that basis, I do not in principle oppose a See Also link to the "System Accident" article. However, as noted already, that article is not very good, and frankly, not worth linking in its present poor condition. DonFB ( talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear contributors to this wikipedia page. This article contains several mistakes. The media reports aren't a good source in order to find factual information about the 737 Max. The 737 design part is almost completely false. " (MCAS) was developed for the 737 MAX to prevent stalls " MCAS is a longitudinal stability enhancement. It is not for stall prevention (although indirectly it helps) or to make the MAX handle like the NG (although it does); it was introduced to counteract the non-linear lift of the LEAP-1B engine nacelles and give a steady increase in stick force as AoA increases. The LEAP engines are both larger and relocated slightly up and forward from the previous NG CFM56-7 engines to accommodate their larger fan diameter. This new location and size of the nacelle cause the vortex flow off the nacelle body to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a reducing stick force) which could lead the pilot to further increase the back pressure on the yoke and send the aircraft closer towards the stall. This non-linear/reducing stick force is not allowable under FAR §25.173 "Static longitudinal stability". MCAS was therefore introduced to give an automatic nose down stabilizer input during steep turns with elevated load factors (high AoA) and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.
This is a qoute from the website: http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm (and no I am not the guy running that website). In shorter words it is explained that only in a very particular situation that under normal circumstances the airplane will never get into, the stick force that the pilot feels will decrease instead of actually increase. MCAS is there to counter this decreasing stick force.
"This engine relocation and the new nacelle shape cause an upward pitching moment." This sentence in the article is misleading because on basically every Jet aircraft the engines will cause an upward pitching moment as you increase thrust. Just as an example this is a sentence from the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) of the Boeing 737 NG found in the chapter Basic Aerodynamics and Systems Knowledge :"The airplane continues to pitch up if thrust is increased and positive corrective action is not taken by re-trimming the stabilizer." This is a guidance to remind the pilots that if the elevator -which controls pitch- has become inoperative, the thrust may be used in order to control pitch attitude instead. This is true for the 737 NG the Airbus 320 etc... it is not unique to the 737 MAX, the unique characteristics of the 737 MAX are explained above.
"the system activates without notice to the pilot." This sentence is completely false! MCAS will move the horizontal stabilizer which will lead to a nose down pitching moment. When the horizontal stabilizer moves it is shown in the cockpit to the pilots by two rotating Stabilizer trim wheels (just check for a video of this on youtube). They can be seen as they rotate and also be heard. MCAS is one of several systems which will move the horizontal stabilizer = the stab trim wheels. The Speed trim system which already is installed on the 737 NG or the autopilots (the 737 has two) are examples of other systems. All 737 pilots must know the so called stabilizer trim runaway memory items found in the Quick Reference Handbook. Other examples of where the pilots need to know procedures by memory are an engine fire or an emergency descent due to a rapid decompression. Thess are time critical situations where the pilots need to perform the memory items first and then after the situation is under control, they will refer to the QRH and continue checklist items which aren't time critical. It is very important to understand that it isn't neccessary to know why the stab trim wheels are moving if the pilot doesn't want them to. It doesn't make a difference which system is causing the unwanted movement: all that matters is that the memory items are performed in order to shut down the unwanted movement. This is done by setting the stab trim cut out switches to cut out which is what the previous Lion air crew before the accident flight did. In summary the statement that the pilots are not aware of the MCAS system operating is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow50t ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The Orlando incident was removed from the article with the edit summary "not related to the groundings, already discussed at talk page".
The engine problems were determined to have been unrelated to the cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes that brought about the grounding of the aircraft." That does not mean that it is "not related to the grounding". In my opinion, any problems with the plane that are discovered while it is grounded is notable for inclusion — regardless if the problem was related to the crashes that brought about the grounding. It was included under a section heading titled "Additional incidents", and I think that's appropriate.
Banana Republic ( talk) 12:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Although the 737 Max was grounded for passenger flights, airlines were allowed to fly the grounded planes without passengers.
At least three airlines have conducted inspections on the grounded Boeing Co. 737 Max". This means that the issue is broader than just Southwest Airlines. Banana Republic ( talk) 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved.If another engine problem occurs during a ferry flight, then a brief mention of multiple such inflight problems or multiple unscheduled ferry landings caused by engine problems might be worthy of inclusion, but should not be linked to the grounding, unless sources explicitly say the grounding will not be ended until engine problems are fixed. DonFB ( talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Didn't notice that. The "In-flight effect" section is for planes that were in the air when the grounding took effect. I therefore moved the sentences in question to the US response within the timeline to say that although grounded for passenger service, the FAA still allowed planes to be flown without passengers. Banana Republic ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. I don't think engine problems are routine, and certainly not for a plane that is grounded.
serious damage to the aircraft".
For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports..., and the general idea I quoted above also holds true; Your quote "
serious damage to the aircraft" applies to accidents, not incidents (
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport); incidents should be included only if they
resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry; turing off an engine overheating due to debris is not serious damage, not an accident. This is my last comment on this topic, as it seems a waste of time. WikiHannibal ( talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if:(emphasis added)
This edit, along with its edit summary "Four editors refused your addition as unrelated to the groundings, and for the third time you are trying to add it??
" seems to me like a grudge. Now that the incident has been accepted as notable, I don't see any reason not to include it in the article under the "See also" section. Since the incident occurred to a grounded plane, it is obviously related to the grounding article. If no other editor agrees that it should be listed under the "See also" section, then I won't re-insert it into the section.
However, if and when the FAA declares that the resolution of the engine issues was a factor in the decision to lift the grounding (or if the FAA will decide that the resolution offered by the manufacturer is insufficient for lifting the grounding), it will be fair game to re-add the incident into the article (and in a much more prominent location than in the "See also" section).
Banana Republic (
talk) 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The current text is misleading as regards the FAA grounding and Trumps announcement of it. It is a case of ignoring multiple sources that state that Boeing CEO called Trump assuring him of safety and that then the FAA delayed. This puts a different light on Trumps involvement. I am editing to improve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.231 ( talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The editors of this page seem to be overly deferential to both Boeing and Trump. The story is not good for either of them. The FAA does not come out well either since it apparently bowed to political pressure with the initial decisions not to ground and then having the grounding decided by Trump on presumably political grounds and not technical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.71 ( talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear DonFB, what you say is not supported by the record. The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th. I am undoing your deletion. Please come back to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. The record is mixed about Trump's involvement and I think that a balanced article should reflect that. Not just positive things about Trump and Boeing, but a balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.168 ( talk) 23:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
"The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th."
"Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reassured President Donald Trump Tuesday that the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft is safe, the company confirmed."
As a current event article is difficult to maintain because it took only three days to ground the aircraft. Reporters get to publish one story item at a time and this Wikipedia article would cite hundreds of them before the restrictions are lifted against the plane. I had specifically opposed mentioning any names in the lead, as it is a summary of the entire article. Just as no regulator is named in grounding the plane in China, the names of Donald Trump and Dennis Muillenberg seem less noteworthy here. I was grossly offended that Trump's tweets about complex airplane systems or his suggestion to rebrand the whole plane once appeared in the lead; we should be quoting Captain Sullenberger and not a random, unprofessional rant on Twitter. Yes, the US had flip-flopped its policy to ground the plane on Wednesday, and so did Muilenberg -- initially asserting the planes were safe, then acknowedged that MCAS playd a role. Too much information! Shencypeter ( talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Only positive things about Muilenburg and Trump are written here. DonFB is correct that the call was on Tuesday, not Monday. But it did happen. Why not mention it as many readers would find it germane. Note that there are very many reports of it in mainstream places. Also don't forget that Boeing gave $1M to Trump's inauguration. Maybe that also should be mentioned. Finally, it is also a fact that many members of congress complained about the non-grounding including public statements by Republicans. Trump is known for not giving a hoot about what members of other parties, or any one else says except for Republicans and his racist base. In this regard the fact that Republicans were complaining is significant. As you can guess from what is written here I do not care for Trump. I also guess from the deletions that some people here love him. Can't we work together to make a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.120 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Added a few details that would be of interest in relation to the article. These are about the history of the grounding and in particular the political narrative around it.
Just to note that a new article Boeing 737 MAX crashes has been created which duplicates this article. Although a merge request to this article was started I have been WP:BOLD and redirected it here. As far as I can see it provides no new information. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I added info with references about delivery of the planes, but it was not necessarily the planes in the accidents, but rather, the first of type delivered to each airline. Previously, the article said the accident planes were less than four months old, which may well be true, but there was no referencing in the article for that statement. I'll research more by registration number or other info to find referencing for age or delivery of the actual planes. DonFB ( talk) 12:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This message was left elsewhere on the talk by user User:161.130.253.153, who now added the NPOV tag to the article: "I think that the current text contains a highly selected set of "facts" and excludes other "facts" to the extent that it does not represent the story as it is understood in mainstream sources and that it particularly is much more favorable to Boeing and Trump that the collected sources are. I nominate this article for deletion." Making a seprate section in cae some kin of discussion emerges before the tag is removed. WikiHannibal ( talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article as a whole one has the impression that Boeing and the FAA both behaved very properly throughout the process. Trump took the lead and announced the grounding in the US out of abundance of caution. A careful job is being done for improving the almost perfect aircraft. The strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement of the ground and the FAA abundance of caution. The de-emphasized story is the close relationship of Boeing and Trump, with the delayed response of the FAA. The severe criticism of the certification process used for this aircraft. The doubts about the effectiveness of the software fix. The strong doubts around Boeing's denial of defects in the aircraft. The fact that Trumps announcement followed severe criticism by people in his own party including Congress. The racist allusions that the foreign flight crews in crash planes did not follow procedures contributing the crash, which were made by Boeing (and reported here as if factual) even though other sources strongly dispute that. This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture. I am restoring the npov. Please improve the page instead of just reverting. The page as written is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.252.230 ( talk • contribs) Latest revision as of 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
it was announced that experts from nine civil aviation authorities would investigate how MCAS was approved by the FAA, if changes need to be made in the FAA's approval process and whether the design of MCAS complies with regulations."? Banana Republic ( talk) 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture.". Banana Republic ( talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Please keep a civil tone. The remark "your interpretation only" is not civil as you have no way of knowing how many or how few people share an opinion. Clearly there is a dispute about neutral point of view, which is all that npov is about. This is to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.122 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps an Airbus employee is pissed that the page is not a tabloid where rumors and non-verified data is not part of the article? If you have data to back your claims by reliable sources, sure add it, but do not claim the article is biased towards Boeing. The existence of this article itself is a big trashing of Boeing if you think about it. Bohbye ( talk) 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@ DonFB: why are you against a transclusion to avoid sync problems?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on sensor data, the MCAS automatically lowers the nose when the aircraft pitches up: a Flight envelope protection-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Can we have a discussion about the proper application of WP:MOSFLAG within what has become the truely horrendous groundings by country table WP:TOOMANY. Currently the flags appear purely decorative as per WP:ICONDECORATION with no real purpose. Andrewgprout ( talk) 07:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". I therefore think that the flags are compliant with WP:ICONDECORATION. Banana Republic ( talk) 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Marc, the conversion to prose makes the info almost unreadable and certainly unsortable. I ask you unconvert and refrain from prosifying the airline section. DonFB ( talk) 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I too prefer the table, as it is more concise and easier to scan. If the interest is saving space, we can just have the flatlist inside the table, as I have done in this edit. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marc Lacoste, I’m looking at the table now with mobile and I think each country could use a line break. Shencypeter ( talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to share a few articles that give valuable information to the accidents, going into more details than the wiki article does. These are analytical articles, or essays, that shed light on many unanswered questions:
Two popular videos as well:
I'd like to add these to WP:EL. Any opinions?
One extra news video - not for EL - that briefly summarizes the basic causes:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/faulty-sensor-led-to-horrifying-tug-of-war-in-cockpit-of-downed-boeing-plane - with transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMFMpGLa_co - non-US viewers
If anybody hasn't seen Mentour Pilot's new simulator demonstration of the trim jamming:
The difficulty to trim in a severely out-of-trim situation
— Aron Manning ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Bonus video: FAA admin Daniel Elwell stating repeatedly "the 737 Max is a fly-by-WIRE aircraft"
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eZ7kMI78g&t=979
Correct. Only those are necessary, which directly address the grounding, and the design issues that Boeing is working on to fix:
Both secondary RS, referenced by other RS articles. The two article about the ET302 crash report should go to the ET302 FR section, not here.
The illustrations from the first article could be used in the wiki article, if CR allows: it's been copied all over the media. — Aron Manning ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't want a mess, so
WSJ and Vox videos found no objection. Both are factual, no ridiculous dramatization like in the 60 Minutes video:
Both videos and the articles are very informative, neutral and accurate, thus acceptable according to WP:EL, and give great value to the wiki article. I've added both until there are better / more up-to-date videos, or a neutral consensus arises declaring these negatively impacting the page.
Can we agree on a limit of, say, 5? More really looks messy.
Aron M🍁 (➕) 03:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Political interference accusation already covered in Political section, including Sen Warren quote. No source for "FAA moved slowly...following call" from Boeing to Trump. Boeing campaign contribution and "close ties" is editorial wp:Synthesis with this article. DOT sec. Chao MAX flight already covered in Political section of article. No source saying it was "unusual move". No source FAA satellite tracking data decision was "disputed soon after". Tracking "resolution" not in cited source. Pilot complaints already covered Pilot Complaints section of article. No source for "unclear" how FAA reviewed complaints. DonFB ( talk) 14:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Good move because we already said no basis to ground before Wednesday Shencypeter ( talk) 14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It is unusual for a regulator to promote the product it is regulating. Therefore I think that no source would be needed to state the Chao's public flight on a MAX during this period was unusual. I don't know of any other similar instance. Do you need a source to state that Paris is the capital of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.232.68 ( talk · contribs)
FYI:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/boeing-faa-congress.html
" The acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration will face questions from members of the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday about the regulator’s role in approving Boeing’s now-grounded 737 Max airplane to fly. "
" “Despite what you might read in the press, I believe the F.A.A. still is the gold standard, still has the credibility around the world to make change,” said Mr. Elwell, a former aviation industry lobbyist. "
Aron M🍁
(➕) 17:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)