Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image of aircraft invoked

I’ll be getting that sorted for this accident. Might take a day or two. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Linking article

I believe it is neccesary to link this article to other Wikipedia article as soon as possible to prevent duplicates being made by people without prior knowledge of this one's existence. Inexperienced Wikipedians may be subject to this. Please try to link this page to other articles including (already completed) Bole International Airport, Ethiopian Airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffington (talk • contribs) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Radar or ADS-B ?

The article says that the aircraft have disappeared from radar, but underlying link points to ADS-B instead of radar. So which one is true? DarkoS (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

high number of nations

the high number of nations among the casualties is due to a conference of the UN in mombasa--77.191.84.121 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone has listed the United Nations as a nationality. Surely this can't be right? --JetBlast (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@JetBlast: - I added it, per the NL Times ref, four UN passport holders. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reinstated the referenced entry, with an explanitory note. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Weather

Admanny reverted my addition of the weather conditions, saying to "define fine". The METAR quoted shows that the weather was fine, and had I been given a chance, a translation of the METAR would have been forthcoming. As we are now at the D part of WP:BRD, should the edit be reinstated? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

All I ask is to find another source with a better description of the weather. Example sunny, partly cloudy or whatever. Admanny (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Admanny: - METAR HAAB 100500Z 06008KT 9999 FEW025 16/10 Q1029 = METAR for Bole International Airport, issued on the 10th day of the month (March) at 0500 Zulu Time. Winds from 060 degrees, eight knots, visibility in excess of 10km, few clouds at 2,500 feet temperature 16°C, dewpoint 10°C, QNH 1029 mb. It that clear enough? Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Few clouds" - mostly sunny conditions? Admanny (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Few clouds" is 3/8 cloud coverage or less, so yes. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Flight International

Bohbye removed my addition of Flight International's comment re the 737 MAX. FI is one of the most respected publications in the aviation world. It carries a lot of weight. I feel that the text should be restored. Thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that snippet would be a better fit in the “reactions” section and not the “accident” section. You should try it that way. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Sportsfan 1234, who reverted Mrbeastmodeallday's readding, and repinging Bohbye. Perhaps I didn't explain properly above. Editors do not add their own commentary to articles. I fully accept that. But we can add comments by people and organisations with a strong connection to the subject. Bohbye, you added the stuff about China grounding its 737 MAXs - this info would fit well with that addition. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Mjroots I stand corrected, and it makes sense to add it back at this point. Bohbye (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Bohbye. Readded, feel free to tweak. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Location

I'm think the crash site is very roughly near 08°42′09″N 38°57′18″E, but am not confident enough to put it in the article. However, please do not put rando coords in the article, such as the coordinates of the town of Bishoftu. The plane did not crash into such a populated area. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abductive: The Aviation Herald says "The last transponder data were received from position N9.027 E39.153 about 21nm east of Addis Ababa at FL086.". My edit was not "invented" and with an edit summary "the last transponder received"..―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is not the crash location. It is nowhere near Bishoftu, and the terrain doesn't match the images. Abductive (reasoning) 03:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This source says the plane crashed "around Dobi area east of Bishoftu town in Oromia region". Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Around, and thinking of, all falls WP:OR and prohibited on wikipedia. There is no need to rush to add an exact location, eventually authorities will list full GPS coordinates. --Bohbye (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you look in the article history and see who put coordinates in, and who removed them as OR, before commenting? Abductive (reasoning) 05:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Literally agreed with you, what is the issue? --Bohbye (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

Position of crash site: 8°52′36.5″N 39°15′03.9″E 79.8.203.169 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of grounded airlines

Sorry but putting a scoreboard of airlines that are not using the aircraft is just not encyclopedic, the grounding by some authorities is already covered in the text. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello. I'd like to propose this small set of changes:

In the first two sentences under "Aircraft", which are currently thus: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines.[2] The air-frame was four months old at the time of the accident."

• Please merge the two sentences to one using a semicolon;
• Please change the strange hyphenism "air-frame" into the normal word "airframe";
• Please remove the unnecessary and faintly ridiculous words "at the time of the accident" which make for a silly read and/or some rude questions!

This would give you: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines;[2] the airframe was four months old."

Thanks, 82.39.96.55 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I did the hyphen. The semi-colon, meh--the first sentence is long enough for my taste. But I can't remove the unpretty "at the time of the accident", because it seems to me that if an age is given for the airframe, it matters when you measure that age. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Drmies. I see it's all changed a fair bit now anyway, so my argument has become moot (I can never remember nowadays in which sense I mean that exactly but hey). I'm grateful for your hyphen removal and relieved that when someone later changed it to aircraft they didn't change it "back" to air-craft which would have given me (and others I hope) conniptions. For the record I still think you were, with – seriously – the greatest respect, wrong about the at the time of the accident bit as it presented at at the time of the edit request, though it was clearly never worth fisticuffs. The current version of the sentence makes it work much, much better anyway, giving me excellent grounds to stfu now, whatever that means. Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm...when I read your post I agreed with you, but in the context of that sentence it made sense to me. You can always log in and take care of these matters yourself! ;) Your moot point is interesting: thanks for that link (it was news to me, my education in British English being cut off after moving to the US). I'm sure you're familiar with our article on Janus words. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks Drmies: I have replied at my "Talking Page", whatever and wherever one of those is. Signed with grateful thanks by the IP addressee 82.39.96.55 at about 22:46, 13 March 2019 (GMT)

Another accident

I know it is not the place to write this, but as in the wikipedia is not free open articles, can anyone tell me because it has not been created an article with the crash of a DC-3 in Colombia with 14 dead that happened today? spanish wikipedia: Accidente del DC-3 de Laser Aéreo de 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.111.15 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

People probably did not pick it up. Is there any news sources on it in English?   DipperDolphin |talk  14:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source in English. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c52f8b2&opt=0 --JetBlast (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There are sources in English (BBC, Aviation Safety Network, Aviation Herald). It's listed on the List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 since 2000. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was only 12 deaths... and this DC-3 Crash occurred around 10+ Hours before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planefam (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Here you go - 2019 Colombia DC-3 crash - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As an aside to Wikipedians - this article deals with a 4 month old airplane, the Colombian crash had a plane that apparently served in the 2nd World War!! - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added the imade from commons and the summary, I did that earlier today. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Delivery

A minor nitpick, the aircraft was delivered on the 17th, not the 15th, as the source states 'ferry flight 15-17th November', implying it departed Everett on the 15th and landed in Addis Ababa on the 17th, thereby being delivered at that point. --Biponacci (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually delivery starts at the origin, "keys" are handed over at Everett once to the receiving airline pilots transporting to the airline. --Bohbye (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Right thanks for clearing that up --Biponacci (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References in lede

This is starting to get annoying. There is absolutely no need to have any references in the lede. If info is in the lede, it should be in the main body of the article, suitably referenced. If it's not in the main body, then it shouldn't be in the lede. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone removed a heading so the text that was in the body is no part of the lede.. Bohbye (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE, The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So without a specific consensus that a reference in the lead is required for a particular statement, I agree with Mjroots that references should not be placed in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

There was on the board a wife, son and daugther of member Slovak national council Anton Hrnko. Garbi93 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a memorial. funplussmart (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit was done Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I made my decision because there was no article about him when I responded to this, but it seems someone did make the page Anton Hrnko since then, so wdyk. funplussmart (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

In the passenger and crew section, The nationality and number of passengers fatalities it says three Swedish citizens died, it's actually four.

Source (in Swedish): https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/kaAm3j/svenskarna-som-omkom-i-flygkraschen

Evidence/Reference: "Fyra av de 157 som dog var svenskar"

Translated: "Four of the 157 who died were Swedish" Vicky the beast (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The numbers in the nationality section do not currently add up, as noted in the "Nationalities and numbers" talk topic above. It will be better to use official numbers from the ECAA, when released. Nullpixel (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Separate page to address the MAX 8 crisis

Created the page 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis to address the aftermath of the recent two major air disasters. I invite you all to edit and improve the page. Since someone already nominated it for deletion, I will say that this will dominate the aviation industry news for a long time, similar to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems that affected that aircraft and manufacturer for a long time. The situation with the aircraft and the end result of two major air disasters cannot be properly covered in the disaster pages --Bohbye (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No real need for the page it is clearly not a "crisis" and information is better handled on here or at the MAX article. No official connection between the two accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No "official connection" but multiple airlines and regulators are grounding the MAX, clearly citing both accidents. Not everyone buys the US confidence in the aircraft. --Bohbye (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have just nominated that page for deletion because it isn't even as crisis yet. No need for such a page. funplussmart (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, this is not yet a "crisis", and belongs here because this crash caused the groundings and reflection. For sure add a section on "Reliability Concerns" to the Boeing Max 8 page if you like.

It is unlikely ever to become a 'crisis' as there are relatively few of the affected aircraft in service, and even if all these aircraft are subsequently grounded the airlines affected will simply rush to lease substitute aircraft from the aircraft leasing companies.

The 'US confidence in the aircraft' is meaningless as what matters is the various Civil Aviation Authority's, passenger's and airline's confidence, and allowing the aircraft to continue to fly before the cause of the first seemingly-related accident has been determined is possibly less-than-wise, because if a third aircraft subsequently crashes in similar circumstances the only people to benefit will be the litigation lawyers as was the case with Turkish Airlines Flight 981.

The manufacturer, Boeing, actually has a pretty-good record of fixing problems once they are discovered, however at the moment very little is known of the cause(s) of both crashes and so some prudence on everyone's part might be a good idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it is eventually proved that both accidents were caused by dangerous Boeing software that trimmed the HS to the full Nose Down position, the word "crisis" would not be appropriate. Necessary supporting statements in the article, as always, will be added as actual events transpire in this investigation. We should leave the sensationalizing of news events with words of that ilk, to the MSM which, unfortunately, is so infested with the tabloid format type of "journalism." EditorASC (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationalities and numbers

Nationalities have been partially adressed above (UN passports) but at present, the total (157) does not match the sum of the numbers listed fot the nationalities (158); also not clear whether those 4 listed as unknown are the same as the 4 UN. The sources used to support the list are conflicting, and as I did not follow the development of the article, I do want to make things more complicted by editing the list. Can editors interested in the list check it? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: I am aware nationalities sometimes don't add up to 157. It might help to only use ET's or the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority's lists after the dust settles... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

One Mexican woman was among the fatalities, but she's not listed [1] 201.165.55.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

May have used another passport. Just an idea. Ref appears to say she was affiliated with the UN. Jmar67 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is always an issue in any air accident article,as passengers may have multiple nationalities. The initial list provided by the airline lists only the passport under which the passengers travelled. I would modify the list in the article to include two columns: one for the number of people travelling under those passports, including UN passport holders, and another for total number of passengers with that nationality. The first column (passport holders) should remain unchanged from the airline's list. The second column will initially be identical to the first, but will be appended as multiple nationality holders are identified.DigitalRevolution (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump

I originally added the Trump mention. But not because I am a "Trump apologist", I can assure you. Surely this is relevant, even if only to show it's superficiality? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I cant see it is relevant to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"On 12 March, President Donald Trump spoke to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and received assurances that the 737 MAX aircraft was safe." This was just a coincidence, something that Trump just happened to dream up when chatting to Dennis, for no particular reason? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is HIGHLY relevant in the context of the FAA not grounding the aircraft. Its very simple influence of the Boeing CEO on Trump. i would like it to be back on the page --Bohbye (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings is being kept I think the Trump mention would more more appropriate there. funplussmart (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Still not relevant, clearly the reference doesnt actually support any Trump involvement in the grounding. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bohbye, for both articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

And Trump just announced the MAX is grounded. --Bohbye (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

RANK

Hi guys do you think we should have list of countries by number? it's gonna be easy for every one to know how many countries

Rank	Nationality	Number of passenger fatalities
1	Kenya	32
2	Canada	18
3	Ethiopia	9
4	China	8
5	Italy	8

Khoshhat (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you assign a rank to the countries with the same number of fatalities? How does China rank ahead of Italy? The column header could be left blank, since it should be clear that the column represents a sequential number. However, I would just add the number of countries manually after the table. The number is not likely to change significantly (one Mexican woman seems to be unaccounted for). Jmar67 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Countries with the same number of fatalities are sorted by alphabetization (alphabetical order). That is the default “tiebreaker” on Wikipedia. It is not random or arbitrary. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As for the rankings, it’s really only appropriate where the countries are trying or achieving to have the highest total, such as in the Olympics or in some sort of election. It would be inappropriate for this, because no country is “trying” to have the most fatalities, it’s not an achievement of any kind. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

However, if you had to rank them, then countries that are tied with each other would all receive the same ranking, which would be the highest possible in that group. So for example, China, Italy, and United States all have 8 fatalities which comprises the fourth, fifth, and sixth spots, so they’d all have a fourth place ranking. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

To address your concern about allowing the readers to understand the total number of countries, while also not inserting a ranking for each country, I added a piece stating the total number of countries in the preface of the table. (I counted 35 countries) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: you did the job and you mention the number of (35) countries, thanks Khoshhat (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a contest. And by the way: How does this table deal with victims having more than one nationality? 2001:16B8:2D5E:8B00:DD86:B175:1E86:75C (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

More detailed witness accounts

Ground witness observations seem more broad and detailed at https://www.Reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-witnesses-idUSKBN1QS1LJ. If the reported observations prove consistent and credible they seem likely have considerable impact on global reactions. (I've not modified the article - apologies but I can't contribute more at this time.). --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Belongs in the article but unlikely to affect decisions or global reactions. Experts are concerned about the trim response to an aerodynamic stall and the update Boeing is ordered to provide by April due to the crash in October. If an engine failed on takeoff, it's possible the condition caused a loss of airspeed and an aerodynamic stall. Experts aren't going to separate these causes until more thorough investigations are done or the April updates are completed. ConstantPlancks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ground witness observation comments have evidently been removed from the article sans discussion here. Does anyone know why? My sense is this is relevant information which should be retained - it's of some value to readers who wish to consider early clues as to the cause of the tragedy. And the reporting of the witness accounts, and the witness comments themselves, at least in the Reuters reference above, seem sufficiently credible for inclusion. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a sentence using your reference. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

For the `See Also` list, inclusion of another crash with UN workers aboard

The article is locked. Anyone care to add another incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings? Thanks126.163.102.96 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that accident is similar enough to merit inclusion in See Also. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the deaths of `UN workers` in `air disasters` are not noteworthy, or is because the Malev flight was not full? The Aethiopia Airlines coverage in the massmedia has at least two-dozen articles with UN-staff in the title, and is mentioned in depth in the wikipedia article. Therefore, it is betterment to mention the Malev Flight UN workers in the see also section,[in the absence of a List of air disasters killing UN workers or a List of UN workers killed in air disasters].

There are at least two (2) acknowledged UN workers amongst the passenger list of the Malev Flight 240. There was another air incident in 1961 in Africa where UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was among the victims. The edit suggestion was to include specifically, "incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings", but if a productive editor would create a list, that would also be an improvement.126.163.64.28 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Boeing Plane Crash

Apparently there is a glitch on the Boeing that causes it to dive. Boitumelo Motlhabai (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating this? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't because there isn't one yet. It's certainly possible that that was the case, but it's not yet known. The FDR and CVR should give us much more information, but they're just now beginning to investigate them. Vbscript2 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Lion Air Flight 610 says this:

"Former Boeing engineers expressed the opinion that a nose down command triggered by a sensor single point of failure is a design flaw if the crew is not prepared, and the FAA was evaluating a fix of the possible flaw and investigating whether the pilots' transition training is adequate. ” Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Was the Captain really just 29?

The article currently states that the Captain was 29 years old, but I don't see support for that in the cited sources. The NYT article says that he became a Captain when he was 29, but I don't see anything in it about him being 29 at the time of the crash, nor do I see anything in Ethiopian's press release about that. 8,000 hours seems like a lot for 29-year-old, even with a decade of flying experience. Vbscript2 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, so I have trimmed that out. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Horizontal stabilizer jackscrew and related evidence.

The following is at https://LeehamNews.com/2019/03/15/bjorns-corner-the-ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-crash/:

"The Seattle Times today wrote the horizontal stabilizer trim system, a jackscrew which pushes the horizontal stabilizer up or down, has been found at the crash site. Apparently, it was in the full nose down position. This should point to this being another MCAS accident, with the aircraft’s powerful pitch trim going to full nose down position.

The aircraft can then not be held level with the pilot’s elevator control; he needs to trim against the MCAS trimming to keep pitch authority. Why the pilots didn’t use the trim cutout switches to shut down MCAS trimming, we will learn from the voice recorder read-outs."

The entire article seems well composed and credible to me, and the jackscrew evidence seems very important. So I propose adding a statement about the jackscrew evidence to the article in part to provide a reference to the Leeham News article for those who wish to keep abreast of the investigation in more detail. However the LN article suggests the full nose down position of the jackscrew hasn't been verified so I seek a reasonably swift consensus view about whether to add a statement about the jackscrew and a reference to the LH article, or perhaps the related Seattle Times article, or both. Personally I feel the information is worthy of addition. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it is an excellent article and should be treated as WP:RS, and that new information should be included in the article, ASAP. Other sources (Reuters & NYTimes) state the same, namely that the jackscrew was found and in the full nose down position. [2]

The main issue now is WHY did Boeing engineers not see the great danger in the installation of software that could force the HS to trim to the FULL NOSE DOWN position? For what purpose would they give any software that kind of extreme authority? It has been known for many decades now, that trimming the HS to the full nose down position will cause the plane to dive at high speed towards the ground, and that the pilots will not be able to recover if they pull back on the yoke at the same time that they are attempting to re-trim the HS in the opposite direction.

In its March 12th press release, Boeing has included this statement about the changes in the MCAS software that it is currently working on:

"The enhanced flight control law incorporates angle of attack (AOA) inputs, limits stabilizer trim commands in response to an erroneous angle of attack reading, and provides a limit to the stabilizer command in order to retain elevator authority."

Hopefully there will soon be several WP:RS sources that will ask the question, "Why did Boeing not provide such a limit in the original MCAS software? How could they have failed to foresee the extreme danger of giving any software the authority to trim he HS to full nose down?" EditorASC (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rename to crash

I propose renaming the section "Accident" to "Crash," with an anchor of "Accident." Crash is more specific, and in used in articles where the aircraft suddenly impacts the ground, such as United Airlines Flight 553 and Indian Airlines Flight 440. Accident is used in more complicated incidents, such as Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314, where seven survived. Comfr (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is an encyclopedia. "Accident" is by far the better word. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Mjroots. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose no need to use tabloid wording in headers. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

'Trim function' confusion caused by its misleading standard moniker.

I revised the following because my original thoughts were poorly considered and composed (original was posted 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)):

As a mere private pilot I incorrectly assumed the 737 Max utilizes a stabilator, and thus some terminology confused me. But https://En.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator#Airliners helped:

"Most modern airliners adjust the tailplane angle of incidence to trim during flight as fuel is burned and the center of gravity moves. These adjustments are handled by adjustable incidence horizontal stabilizers. However, such adjustable stabilizers are not the same as stabilators; a stabilator is controlled by the pilot's control yoke (or stick), whereas an adjustable stabilizer is controlled by the trim system. One example of an airliner with a genuine stabilator used for flight control is the Lockheed L-1011."

So in both cases the entire structures rotate. Evidently however:

A 'stabilator' has no elevators. Rather the pilot's yokes or sticks control the angle of attack of the entire structure. (Small trailing edge trim tabs are likely incorporated too.)

An 'adjustable stabilizer' incorporates modest sized trailing edge elevators (which likely incorporate small trailing edge trim tabs too). The pilot's yokes or sticks control only the elevators. The angle of attack of the entire adjustable stabilizer is controlled only by aircraft systems, and is evidently commonly referred to as 'trim control'.

Normally adjustment of the angle of attack of the entire adjustable stabilizer is a trimming function. But when the aircraft's systems command substantial angle of attack changes over short periods of time it's not performing a trim function, but rather a flight control function - the systems are using the adjustable stabilizer as if it were a stabilator. Thus the term 'trim function' as used in popular discussions is highly misleading since it implies minor control influence at all times, whereas in fact 737 Max systems are no longer restricted to trim duties - they're also capable of changing the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer swiftly and to its limits, and thus evidently can fully overpower the modest remaining control available from the elevators. And thus overpower the crew.

This seems key to a correct interpretation of the jackscrew evidence - readers need to understand that the jackscrew controls the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer, the more powerful pitch control surface. And that the jackscrew position is controlled by automated systems (or manual trim if the automated systems are disabled), not by the yoke or stick. And those systems are no longer limited to trimming duties - in the 737 Max they can exert swift full control over the aircraft's pitch.

Do I now understand the terminology and general system characteristics correctly? And do we suspect most readers are confused by the terminology, especially the 'trim function' term to describe a control which can fully overpower a crew as it forces an aircraft into a fatal dive? If so should we compose an explanation about this terminology either in the Stabilator article at https://En.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator, with a link in this article to the explanation, or in this and the Lion Air flight 610 articles? --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Based upon my understanding as described above the article's statement "Investigators discovered the elevator jackscrew of Flight 302, which controlled the aircraft's pitch." seems incorrect. My sense is that the jackscrew in question controls the angle of attack of the adjustable stabilizer and has no connection to the elevators. (And I doubt the elevators are controlled by jackscrews but rather electric or hydraulic actuators.) And more importantly improper automated control of the adjustable stabilizer seems far more likely to have caused these tragedies - I've seen no evidence which suggests elevator control played any harmful role. Thus I'm inclined to revise that sentence and the following one by replacing them with 'Flight 302's adjustable stabilizer jackscrew, which aircraft systems use to either trim or control the aircraft's pitch, was discovered in the wreckage in a full pitch down position, similar to Lion Air Flight 610's adjustable stabilizer jackscrew." Or whomever composed the current sentences is welcome to do so of course. But I think a correction needs to be made reasonably promptly - my sense is the current statement is factually incorrect. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I remain concerned that the article's statement "Investigators discovered the elevator jackscrew of Flight 302, which controlled the aircraft's pitch." is incorrect. Please advise if you believe I'm mistaken - otherwise I'll try to revise the article as described above within a few hours.

Also I posted a more refined description of my sense of this matter here. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This statement is not correct:

"Investigators discovered the elevator jackscrew of Flight 302, which controlled the aircraft's pitch." It should say "Investigators discovered the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew of Flight 302, which controlled the aircraft's pitch."

The reason why both airliners crashed is that their Horizontal Stabilizer (HS) was trimmed (via that jackscrew) to the full NOSE DOWN position. Properly trained pilots know they should never allow the HS to be trimmed to that extreme position, because it will ALWAYS cause the plane to immediately enter a high speed dive, which the pilots will not be able to reverse unless they have a lot of atitutde left (at least 25,000 ft., IMHO).

Once that high dive commences, the pilots cannot reverse that trajectory with the elevators alone (which are controlled by the forward and aft positions of the pilots yoke). They have to trim the HS back to a position (with the HS double trim switches on each of their yoke wheels) that will allow the nose to come back up. With a very high speed dive in progress, that takes time that they don't have unless there is a lot of altitude left.

I went ahead and changed the word "elevator" to "horizontal stabilizer." EditorASC (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The flight crew were 'properly trained'. The tailplane trim was forced to the fully nose-down position multiple times by the MCAS system, which operates independently of the pilot's trim switches, and which is not mentioned in the aircraft's flight manual, the only reference to 'MCAS' being a four-word spelling out of the acronym with no other explanation of what the MCAS system is for, or what if does.

Since the accident a temporary 'fix' was devised that required operating the two switches that disable the horizontal stabilizer trim but this was only worked out after the cause of the two accidents was suspected to be the MCAS system, the manufacturer having initially denied any possibility that the system could have been responsible for the previous Lion Air crash, this in itself making accurate diagnosis of the problem even more difficult for the Ethiopian Airlines crew when the accident flight only gave them around 30-45 seconds in which to do it.

A pilot who had been a jump seat passenger on the same Lion Air aircraft the previous day had also experienced the problem and had correctly deduced the solution unfortunately the incident was either not communicated to the other crews or on the accident flights it occurred shortly after take-off when the aircraft did not have sufficient height in which to recover from it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are not for discussion about the topic but on how to improve the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary Report

See here: http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/20435/0/Preliminary+Report+B737-800MAX+,(ET-AVJ).pdf/4c65422d-5e4f-4689-9c58-d7af1ee17f3e

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

plane had same failure previous day

Except that time there was another pilot on board who knew how to fix it. It also had ongoing probs before that. Can someone write this up and add it? Or I might try later. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed

173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read this in another source as well. The newspaper report refers to Lion Air Flight 610 rather than this flight. It may be better in that article, or the one about 737 MAX groundings rather than here. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct, there was a third pilot in the cockpit on the previous Lion Air flight to Jakarta that almost crashed (the same plane that crashed the next day) Bloomberg broke the story a few weeks ago. The interesting part is the prelim report of Lion Air (issued last November)( has no mention of the third pilot, and only about a week after Bloomberg reported this did Malaysian authorities confirm it was true. However they have yet to confirm the rest of the Bloomberg story implying that he saved the plane. This thing has gone way beyond MCAS, there were multiple errors and flight control problem cascading at the same time in all three flights. It looks like even after MCAS is disabled with cutout switches the plane may be difficult or impossible to control. New checklist will be needed (based on analysis of ET302 prelim report).Greenbe (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

MAX 8 emergency landing in Orlando today

De Telegraaf is reporting that a MAX 8 made an emergency landing in Orlando today whilst being flown to storage in the Mojave Desert. Is this worth mentioning either here, or at the aircraft's article? Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The aircraft article as it clearly has no bearing on this article at all, although the RS is saying "According to the American aircraft authority, the incident has nothing to do with the two previous accidents." so perhaps nowhere, and we should stop looking for sensation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it shouldn't be included. This incident has little to do with Boeing, as it is appears to be an engine-related event. Per anti-trust laws, Boeing is not allowed to manufacture engines for their planes. Boeing customers have a choice of engine manufactures when they purchase planes (GE, Roles Royce, etc.). 凰兰时罗 (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

AHEM: boeing customers on 737 have NO CHOICE of engine, as per bs "anti-trust" law, they are allowed to monopoly with GE for both 737 and 777. shaking my damn head i must specify this. i am beyond flabbergasted at this ridiculous crash and what it means for the state of art of engineering at boeing. yikes. how many less critical softwares are bad at boeing?. I would like to add i don't know of ANY law saying aircraft can't be made by same company engines included. you are spreading misinformation, the reason boeing doesn't make engines is because they literally can't, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.48.61 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's BS. Rather, it's a key part of Boeing history. Here is a brief account. Moreover, after these anti-trust decisions, Boeing family sold all their stock of Boeing company in protest. A deeper research can produce all the key details, dates, etc, but since it's off topic here, let's leave it at this. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK the engines fitted to the 737 Max are the only ones available in the required thrust range, the other engine manufacturers P&W and RR not having a suitable alternative engine available, most of their high-bypass turbofan engines being too large for the 737. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This may very well be true, at least as of this year. However, my points are:

1. It's not up to Boeing to make decisions on how many competing engines are currently available for each of their 737 series. Of course, each airframe has limitations on what engines can and cannot be used, but by law, it is up to other companies to design, to manufacture, and to quality-control the engines that fit those parameters.
2. And the key point that is relevant to this thread: since the emergency landing in Orlando appears to be an engine-related event,
   • it likely has nothing to do with MCAS — the primary suspect in this accident and in the recent Boeing troubles.
   • it likely has nothing to do with Boeing company, as the engines are not Boeing's responsibility; hence, I argued that bringing the Orlando emergency landing into this article doesn't make much sense. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that Boeing is limited in the engie options it can offer simply because there are few other suitable engines that will physically fit under the 737 wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.75 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Per anti-trust laws, Boeing is not allowed to manufacture engines for their planes." I have severe doubts about the accuracy of that statement. There would be no specific prohibition in any of the Statutory Anti-Trust laws of the USA. If there has been such a prohibition, it could be found only in some case law decision, which would have to be a result of Boeing being sued by the US Fed Govt to prevent them from manufacturing their own engines.

I am not aware of Boeing being sued by the Govt to force it to cease and desist manufacturing aircraft engines. However, I am open to anyone referencing that kind of history, if it exists. If so, please give us the case name, date and number. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure why we need to split hairs for such a side issue, but I did a brief research to add to the Quora reference that I mentioned earlier.
• The case in question was settled before trial "in view of the Government's expressed attitude" (I quote Chicago Tribune below). At the time (1934, FDR administration), US Government was fighting "verticals," whereas Boeing practice since 1925 was to manufacture airframes, to manufacture their engines, and to operate its own airline with these planes. This whole operation was performed under the umbrella of United Aircraft and Transport Corp. As the result of the government investigation, this umbrella company was split up into Boeing proper, United Airlines, and Pratt & Whitney. Hence Boeing lost ownership of its engine manufacturer for large body planes (Pratt & Whitney) and couldn't restart such production, as this would re-create a "vertical." William Boeing, CEO of United Aircraft at the time, subsequently sold all his shares of United Aircraft/Boeing.
• References:
  • Split is Planned by Aircraft Firm: United May Form 3 New Concerns // Detroit Free Press, May 25, 1934, Page 24
  • Split-up Plans of United Aero Unit Announced // The Los Angeles Times, May 24, 1934, Page 18 of Part II
  • Great Profits in Aircraft Sales: Senate Committee hears of increase... // Boston Globe, September 17, 1934, Page 6
  • Thomas Furlong, Four Air Lines Carry Bulk of Nation's Traffic // Chicago Sunday Tribune, September 1, 1935, page 9.
• It is not immediately clear what exactly was agreed upon in 1934-1935, whether it was written down and if these records are available or sealed, but Boeing gradually stopped all its engine manufacturing (including for smaller planes) by 1968. Wikipedia article on Boeing provides more details of engine manufacturing within Boeing proper prior to 1968.
• A salacious detail of this whole affair that I just found out, looking at the old newspapers: this "investigation" into Boeing of 1934 was conducted by the same Alger Hiss who turned out to be a Soviet spy. (The trial at his life time was inconclusive, but the later evidence from Vasili Mitrokhin's archive and Venona papers establish this beyond my reasonable doubt.)

凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"Not sure why we need to split hairs for such a side issue, but I did a brief research to add to the Quora reference that I mentioned earlier."

It is not a splitting hairs side issue when an editor posts inaccurate historical information. If such is left there without challenge, some other editor might take that to mean it was factual and then end up posting such in a future or amended article.

You still have not posted any valid historical information that supports your original statement. The Boeing Company has never been prohibited to manufacture aircraft engines. The fact that Mr. Boeing purchased stock in a company that manufactured Pratt-Whitney engines did not convert the Boeing company into an engine manufacturing company at that time.

The 1934 Air Mail Act was not an anti-trust Statute of the USA. What it prohibited, following the Air Mail Scandal, was that US Mail contracts could not be awarded to Conglomerate Companies, or engine manufacturing companies, or aircraft manufacturing companies. Only individual airline companies were permitted to bid for those contracts. That prohibition of airlines being part of a vertical trust was the end result of the FDR Administration's conclusion that the alleged "Spoils System" of awarding mail contracts by Post Master Brown, under the 1930 Air Mail Act, had denied competitive bidding to smaller air carriers that were not part of such trusts.

There are only two Federal Anti Trust Statutes in the USA: The 1890 Sherman Act and the 1914 Clayton Act, which was partially amended by the 1934 Robinson–Patman Act. There is no language in those Acts, nor the 1934 Air Mail Act which prohibits any aircraft manufacturing company from making its own engines. I also am not aware of any Federal lawsuit under those Anti-Trust Statutes, that sought to compel Boeing to cease and desist from manufacturing aircraft engines. Since you have produced new information about Boeing manufacturing turbine engines during the 50s/60s, I have accordingly adjusted part of my previous statement to acknowledge your additional research. That new information, however, does amount to a contradiction of the original allegation -- namely that American Anti-Trust laws prohibited Boeing from manufacturing aircraft engines. Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Reuters' Bird Strike and High Speed theory

I have just removed a section that was almost entirely quoting a Reuters article as the one and only source. I am just wondering out loud why Reuters would even state the bird strike theory when the Ethiopian authorities have denied it. Is it because Reuters is geared toward financial readers who might own Boeing stock? I sense an agenda because the Reuters article is written to focus the blame on pilot error and unforseen incidents like a bird strike, deviating blame from Boeing, which no other news article has done. So, one has to question Reuters' reporting/agenda. I shall never forget this reporting by Reuters.

Ethiopian authorities denied media reports that claimed a bird strike damaged one of the airplane’s angle of attack sensors. “Everything including the AOA sensors was functioning properly during take off. But a few minutes after takeoff the sensor began feeding erroneous data. We do not know what caused that,” Amdeye Ayalew Fenta, chief investigator of the Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau, told AIN

There was high speed because they were trying to climb to gain altitude at full throttle, but with MCAS suddenly dipping the nose to gain more speed(!), the high throttle added to the speed gained when losing altitude. To make the plane gain more speed is entirely the function of MCAS because it believes (erroneously in this case) the plane is under stall from low speed, and uses gravity to gain speed.

Wikipedia is not the place for hypotheticals. Let us stick to facts, not agendas. Wait for the full report. WatchFan 07 22:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Not agenda, the article is just poorly written mishmash in order to put "everything" in it and make it look interesting and new, also very short. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

My reading of that preliminary report indicates those news articles are not accurate. The pilots did NOT properly carry out the required emergency procedures for the "runaway stabilizer," which states that the manual cutout stab trim switches are to be moved to the "cutout" position and left there for the remainder of the flight. That the system began trimming AND again, after they initially turned off the stab trim switches, indicates they turned them back on again. And, they failed to reduce the engine thrust back to in-flight idle, once the fatal dive began. [3]EditorASC (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC:So this part is confusing. I have read what checklist I could get my hands on, the runaway trim checklist says cut-off and then trim manually and seems to end there (supporting your statement). But look at the November bulletin from Boeing I think it said if unable to trim manually you could go back to electric trim... for how long unclear. The thrust setting 75% N1 flaps up is in the unreliable airspeed checklist. Keep in mind that everything started with left-only stick shaker on rotate means it is complicated to figure out which checklists they were going through in what order. CVR will be key. But until then Max remains grounded, which is why this story is unusual and will continue to evolve.Greenbe (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the ET302 Prelim Report (pg. 33), that Boeing bulletin stated: "Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTTOUT switches to CUTTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim [means the MANUAL moving of the stab trim wheels in the cockpit, by the pilots cranking those two wheels with their hands] can be used after the STAB TRIM CUTTOUT switches are moved to CUTTOUT." I find nothing in that bulletin that says the STAB TRIM CUTTOUT switches should be turned back on again, once they have been moved to the CUTTOUT position.EditorASC (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC: It depends on interpretation. They followed the checklist, but it has no resolution for the situation when the aerodynamic force on the elevator is stronger than hand-cranking (illustrated explanation ): "At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working." The original trim runaway checklist expects this would not happen. The emergency AD adds "Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT." Their only option to fix the mistrim was to re-enable and try the electric trim. — Aron Manning (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: Yes this was the passage in the AD I referred to. However I think there is another bulletin or text from Boeing somewhere else (maybe the flight manual) that also has implications. I agree they had no choice to go back to electric, although you wish they had also throttled back. The problem with the AD is the fine detail, it really needs to say something like "hold the electric trim button nose up until you think you have a stable attitude while also keeping an eye on stabilizing airspeed, and then immediately without delay throw the cutout switches and continue to trim manually." Because if the pilots wait a few seconds to see if it is in trim before cutout then the aggressive nose down will come back. The most interesting thing is that MCAS is not mentioned in either prelim report - and I don't know why. Presumably by now Boeing has enough data to be able to prove if MCAS was driving nose down trim or not. I read the NG also has automatic nose down trim capability, so may be it is not so simple to know which piece of software was active. They will need to simulate the accident to prove it. And ultimately it may come down to why the throttle remained at 93% - did the pilots simply forget autothrottle was off (like Asiana) or did they think were fighting a different fire? It would be nice if the article could restore some balance given the volume of the MCAS drumbeat out there, this thing is more complex than that. Greenbe (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The deleted text needs to be re-instated. It is not just Reuters talking about the bird strike it is being widely reported. Reuters say they have sources, not just quoting other stories. Bloomberg has high credibility right now because they broke the story on the 3rd pilot on the Lion Air flight after it was hidden for 5 months, and a week later it was confirmed and rest of that story has not been denied. Better wording would be"reports say bird-strike or debris are being investigated" and then include the Ethiopian denial. If you believe Reuters is biased for or against Boeing you need to cite a credible source. In any event the more important part is the thrust setting, which is noted in the prelim report.Greenbe (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"Bird" is old news; it has been mentioned a month ago, for example https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-planes-grounded-for-inspections-after-ethiopian-airlines-crash/ . This is an encyclopedic article, not investigation, not news, not rumors. Please stick to that. The most recent and reliable source is the preliminary report, and perhaps expert analyses which directly put the facts from the report into context. Not reports that "a bird strike could have caused the calamity" (standardmedia) or "Investigators are also examining whether an angle-of-attack vane located near the nose of the Ethiopian plane malfunctioned or was damaged, perhaps by debris or a bird strike" (bloomberg - published before the preliminary report). Please leave speculation to the journalists recycling the story over and over again, and do not make a mess out of the talk page. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun Times reference you quoted only says "bird" exactly once "Other possible causes include engine problems, pilot error, weight load, sabotage or bird strikes, he said.". Any others to show this is old news? This could apply to any accident and is therefore meaningless in the context of B73 Max. The reason all the stories I link coincide with the prelim report release is that for the first time the FDR data has been released and shows a data spike, as noted in those stories. If your test of what gets in Wikipedia is restricted to the prelim reports, well the word "MCAS" appears in neither Lion or Ethiopian prelim reports so by that standard we should strike half of most of the articles? I think a balanced article can be written, and all of these speculations are part of the story, the response, the groundings and the political back and forth.Greenbe (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

References

FAA and EASA Regulators knew about 737 MAX Stabilizer Trim Issues in early 2016

Here's an interesting additional bit of information from Reuters;

Apparently FAA and EASA regulators knew about 737 MAX trim control issues at high airspeeds in early 2016.

The 737 MAX EASA certification document specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s center console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke.

The EASA document said simulations showed the electric thumb switches could not keep the 737 MAX properly trimmed under certain conditions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-regulator-insight/regulators-knew-before-crashes-that-737-max-trim-control-was-confusing-in-some-conditions-document-idUSKCN1RA0DP?fbclid=IwAR2f3TrnUYGKisdwps6uPuQFKktUzEdNRQ_qL5cfPiEU9jiaUYW6k-_cbQg

Is this something worth adding to the story?

-df DWmFrancis (talk)

There are dozens of press sources for essentially the identical story; almost as if they all were printed at the same time. And, they all claim the document is online, but NONE of them provides a link. Almost sounds like orchestrated FAKE NEWS, so unless someone can come up with the actual document, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 footer.EditorASC (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not worth adding...too speculative and gets too much into NotNewspaper territory--whether or not we have access to online certification document. I think we should try to avoid adding any new theory, unless it is accompanied by some other extraordinary factor, like significant political controversy or serious charge of corruption, or the like. If this issue is shown actually to have been partly responsible for the accidents, then, certainly, it should be described in the article. But it's also not too useful to suggest Reuters or other mainstream RS are engaged in disseminating Fake News. "Fake News" is only an epithet for real news that embarrasses powerful persons, groups or institutions, or reveals their corruption or incompetence. Real Fake News is found in certain tabloid publications, social media, and the new crop of no-name online sites devoted to the practice. DonFB (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@DWmFrancis: I haven't seen "electric manual trim" jam issues mentioned by any pilots or engineers or aviation journalists, but it is an open possibility for me, based on speculation: the electric trim motor can be stopped by holding the wheels by hand, so is it strong enough to move the jackscrew, when turning the wheels by hand is not possible?

Note: depending on source "manual trim" can mean "electric manual trim" (yoke switch) or "hand-cranking" the trim wheels (manually...). These are often confused, and the distinction is not clearly made even it the preliminary report.

There is another great source though for the pilots' issue of jammed trim wheel when "hand-cranking" is not possible. The article shows the "Roller Coaster Recovery" technique as published in Boeing 737-200 training materials:

• https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/vestigal-design-issue-clouds-737-max-crash-investigations/
• "Three generations of 737s ago, pilots flying the 737-200 ... were trained that if the jet’s horizontal stabilizer tilts too far — pushing the jet’s nose downward — hand cranking the trim wheel won’t work (after flipping the cut-out switches) while at the same time pulling back on the controls, according to [Peter] Lemme"
• "Training materials from the early 1980s model 737-200 spell out the recovery maneuver directly. “If other methods fail to relieve the elevator load and control column force, use the “roller coaster” technique,” according to Boeing procedures dated February 1, 1982 for flying the 737-200."
• An excerpt from the 1982 pilot training manual for the Boeing 737-200. Courtesy of Centaurus.

I've included this source in the page as one reference for: "the pilots were unable to counteract the high aerodynamic forces on the horizontal stabilizer by manually hand-cranking the trim wheel"
Also Peter Lemme's much more detailed article: www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stabilizer-trim-loads-and-range.html (whitelisting requested) — Aron Manning (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Note: depending on source "manual trim" can mean "electric manual trim" (yoke switch) or "hand-cranking" the trim wheels (manually...)."

The only source I have seen use the phrase "electric manual trim" was the ET302 Prelim Report. They seemed to have carelessly invented that new nomenclature, which contradicted long establish Boeing nomenclature. Very disappointing since it adds confusion instead of clarification.

Hopefully, they will realize their mistake and ensure subsequent reports will revert back to non-confusing, long established Boeing nomenclature. Defining one's terms is 2/3 of the battle and incredibly important when it comes to aviation safety.

For several decades now, the development of PRECISE definitions for aviation terms/phrases has been one of the most important safety tools developed in ATC/Pilot communications, as well as in engineering designs and maintenance. EVERYONE must have precisely the same definitions as all others, if accidents which can and have been caused by language misunderstandings, are to be avoided in the future.EditorASC (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)