Talk:Boeing 737 MAX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flying Coffin?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose adding a nickname section that would include the most common nicknames of the 737 MAX series like : " The Flying Coffin", "Widowmaker" and "The Plane with the Open Doors". 203.181.48.208 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This violates multiple items on WP:NOT, including WP:FORUM. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of other planes have their nicknames on their articles - e.g. the B-52 - why should the 737 MAX be granted an exception? It's a fairly common nickname for the plane - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50225025 82.5.152.4 (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice headline-grabber, used once by Senator Richard Blumenthal? Not sure that qualifies it as "a fairly common nickname." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided is using the term "flying coffin" to describe the aircraft, not as a nickname. Only time will tell whether the 737 MAX goes down in the history books as a "Flying Coffin", but right now, its use in news headlines is not a reliable indicator that the term is or will be a lasting nickname for the type. - ZLEA T\C 21:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already one of the most cursed airplanes in modern times. I think we can start calling it the Boeing 737 MAX Flying Coffin. It only makes sense, might even save lifes. 203.181.48.208 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just, no. - ZLEA T\C 04:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? 203.181.48.208 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This attitude is exactly why I'm trying to encourage major updates to this article. The public is grossly misinformed about the 737 MAX. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:9D42:2980:6C55:A834 (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Millions are exposed each day to the dangers of the 737 MAX and decent people voicing their honest concerns are being silenced by obvious Boeing operatives covering up things here! Giovanni893 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we're all secret Boeing operatives.[sarcasm] It is not Wikipedia's place to make up nicknames for aircraft. Since this discussion is going nowhere constructive, I'm going to close it. - ZLEA T\C 15:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional lede comments[edit]

Consensus has been reached on a rewording. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apologies for bringing this up after the lede was modified, but I was not aware of the existence of [[1]] at the time of the edit. I see that the article says "Modern accident investigators avoid the words "pilot error"" but the source for that (https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/pel_air_2012/report/report.ashx) does not seem to validate that claim, and instead seems to highlight the need to explain how "pilot error" is influenced by many factors. (Also - the current link to that source on the Pilot Error article is broken, the link I posted here seems to be a good updated alternative)

I propose that this sentence in the lede "Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and inadequate pilot training." is modified to read "Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and pilot error due to inadequate training." with the appropriate link to the Pilot Error article.

Perhaps this is pedantic, but as far as I understand it is still commonplace in aviation to refer to "pilot error", and as long as the pilot error is contextualized I see no inherent negative judgement of the pilots in pointing it out.

2603:6080:5A07:C24C:698A:E3:C11E:2138 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible the verbiage is changing, I haven't seen anything to support the claim "modern accident investigators avoid the words 'pilot error'" yet. I'll try to find a source that backs it up, but I do think it should be removed from that article otherwise.
I tentatively support your lede change proposal, but can you elaborate on "...and pilot error due to inadequate training."? I agree that pilot error was a major contributing factor, but the attribution to inadequate training needs to be supported. i.e. are we saying the training itself was insufficient, or, that the pilots should have been better trained? The former blames the training or lack thereof, while the latter blames pilots inexperience in a training environment. A very small but meaningful distinction.
StalkerFishy (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point. For the Lion Air accident, there seems to be information in the official KNKT accident report that verifies the pilots' inexperience:
- Captain training record summary [ . . . ] 12 May 2015, in the assessment item of “stall on final approach”, the remark was lack of appropriate technique that resulted in a second stick shaker activation.
- First officer training record summary [ . . . ] 23 April 2017, the remark was “application exercise for stall recovery is difficult due to wrong concept of the basic principal for stall recovery in high or low level.”
[2]https://studylib.net/doc/26109698/2018---035---pk-lqp-final-report
And the NTSB's comments on the Ethiopian accident also seem to indicate that the pilots were at least partially aware of the appropriate standard procedures but failed to fully implement them. I would say that this points to your former example being the case, as the pilots were trained and evaluated multiple times but the airlines allowed them to fly the planes despite known issues with their understanding of the training. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:7DCB:6F5B:8ED0:FC63 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the KNKT details some of the mishap pilot's training records, those are not relevant unless explicitly about either a misapplication of emergency procedures or runaway stabilizer. In addition, it is not at all uncommon for pilots to have similar training remarks on their record, so I do think it's unfair to blame their past training struggles for the accident.
As a side note, on page 168/169 the KNKT does reference the previous flight which encountered the same problem. However, the pilots followed the established procedure for runaway stabilizer and were able to continue the flight without incident. Why those pilots chose to follow checklists while the 610 pilots did not is unclear, but it is important to reiterate how the malfunction was not reliant on MCAS and already had published recovery procedures.
IIRC the Ethiopian 302 pilots correctly identified the malfunction and appropriate checklist, but kept the thrust levers at takeoff power leading to CFIT.
StalkerFishy (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fair re the training records. Do you think the examples you've given provide enough support for the "inadequate training" claim? 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:7DCB:6F5B:8ED0:FC63 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind it was less inadequate training and moreso the pilots just didn't follow the established procedure. Whether that's due to inadequate training is a secondary issue.
StalkerFishy (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep the lede as is. I personally think it’s unfair to place the blame so squarely on the pilots. Ultimately it comes down to training, which can mean many things: the personal training of the pilots, Boeing not offering simulator training on MCAS, the airlines (Ethiopian) not offering sufficient training, or the national aviation authorities not requiring sufficient training. There’s plenty of people to point the fingers at beyond the pilots. Also, it’s important to that we remember the humanity of these four men. They were in the fight of their life, fighting for their lives. They may have made mistakes, but it certainly wasn’t by their own desire. In each case, it seems, at least to me, that the mistakes they made could have been avoided with better training, no matter who was at fault for that lack of training. No matter our intent here, the layperson will read that proposed revision and see it as a negative judgement on the pilots, a judgement that I feel is unwarranted. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think it's an encyclopedia's job to soften technical language to cater to the potentially misinformed attitudes of the layperson. In fact, I think including the specific phrase "pilot error", which is widely accepted, technically correct terminology, and ensuring that it is paired with the appropriate context could even promote a more neutral interpretation of the phrase. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:7DCB:6F5B:8ED0:FC63 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree about the very unfortunate circumstances of those pilots. Unfortunately, aviation accident investigation cannot afford to have any sentiment, but has to be rigorous. Nevertheless, I also regard the term "pilot error" as quite a blunt instrument when it comes to accurate description. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to remember a majority of aviation incidents are due to pilot error. So while you might think it has a strong, negative connotation, it exists for a reason and is the most accepted way to characterize when humans make mistakes.
StalkerFishy (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very interested to see your source(s) for that claim. As would a number of other editors here, I'm sure. Is that currently claimed at Pilot error? I'm also pretty sure that most humans don't fly aircraft. What a bizarre statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop distracting from the discussion here. Nobody said anything about "most humans fly aircraft".
Here are some sources to support the claim. I don't care to go down the rabbit hole on this one considering it's not even relevant for the edits in the article, and I won't be responding to you in this comment chain unless it's about whether or not pilot error should be included.
[3]https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19837178#:~:text=Aviation%20accidents%20are%20still%20extremely,impaired%20concentration%20and%20decision%20making.
[4]https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guohua-Li-7/publication/
[5]https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA492127.pdf
[6]https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA343598.pdf
StalkerFishy (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest you post your sources/ start a discussion at Talk:Pilot error. I would have thought that a common understanding of that term was pretty essential for meaningful discussion here. Your statement above is "... the most accepted way to characterize when humans make mistakes." However, I'm not sure that the frequency of use of that term in other accident investigation reports is necessarily a valid argument for using it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness I think the decision to use the phrase "pilot error" should be determined by 2 things:
1) Did the pilots make any errors? I think this is undeniable given the results of the official accident investigations.
2) Is the phrase commonly used within the aviation industry? I also think this is undeniable, based on the usage of the phrase throughout the history of aviation. I also think the existence of the Wikipedia article on Pilot Error is decent proof that the phrase is a widely accepted, neutral, technical way of defining something that contributed to an aviation incident. To me it is just as neutral as mentioning a "stabilizer trim runaway" or "a malfunction of MCAS". 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:455:EA9:BF46:CF59 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The only way we can know they may have made errors is via the accident investigation report.
2. If the accident investigation report uses the phrase "pilot error" it seems sensible to use it. But unless the report also says plainly that "pilot error was a main cause of... " etc., we should be wary of appearing to give that impression in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are four sources which help define the existence of pilot error in the accident flights:
[7]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/lion-air-crash-report-criticises-design-maintenance-and-pilot-error
[8]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/boeing-max-design-and-pilot-failures-faulted-in-lion-air-crash
[9]https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Cordell-Case-for-Pilot-Error.pdf
[10]https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/asr1901.pdf
The third is a report from two 737 pilots and specifically mentions that "pilot error" was "the largest contributing factor in both accidents—not the only one but the most consequential factor."
The fourth, from the NTSB, references The FAA’s Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and states: “Historically, the term ‘pilot error’ has been used to describe an accident in which an action or decision made by the pilot was the cause or a contributing factor that led to the accident. This definition also includes the pilot’s failure to make a correct decision or take proper action.”
If we look at the official accident reports, it is 100% undeniable that the pilots' actions and/or decisions were a contributing factor that led to the accident. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:455:EA9:BF46:CF59 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying pilot error was a "contributing factor"? I've never denied "the existence of pilot error in the accident flights"? I'm suggesting that the prime source for the reasons for the accident are the respective accident investigation reports. I would have that that was generally accepted. But not sure why that FAA's Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge chooses to use the word "Historically". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider the comments made by experienced professional pilots in this report to be a reputable source which analyzes the crash reports?
[11]https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Cordell-Case-for-Pilot-Error.pdf
I'm really struggling to find any good reason to not include the specific phrase "pilot error" in the article. Were they pilots? Yes. Did they make errors? Yes. Are there examples of a phrase that has been used by pilots, investigators and journalists to describe this? Yes, and the phrase is simply "pilot error". 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:455:EA9:BF46:CF59 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're struggling to include the specific phrase "pilot error" in the article, when no one is arguing it should not appear. I'm suggesting that the prime source for the reasons for the accident are the respective accident investigation reports. If you are arguing that secondary analyses, by SMEs, published in WP:RSs, might also be useful, it's hard to disagree, provided such sources were not used to unfairly weight which factors were more or less important in the causal chain of events. That leehamnews.com pdf might be useful, but I when I open it I can't see any of the diagrams or figures, so it might not be ideal. The security function on my laptop also prevents me from opening the links for the two authors - Vaughn Cordle, CFA and Don McGregor, USAF Maj Gen (Ret) - so it's hard for me to determine who they work for. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no objection to including the phrase "pilot error" in the lede then I think that makes a majority of us who would like to make the change. I believe the sources provided so far contain enough reliable, neutral, technical information regarding the errors the pilots made to include them as reputable references.
Vaughn Cordle information: [12]http://www.ionospherecapital.com/vaughn-cordle-cfa/
If that site won't open for you, his qualifications are listed as:
- Vaughn has 40 years of experience as a pilot and instructor in the airline industry. A retired senior B787 captain with United Airlines, he spent 35 years (28 as captain) flying out of Washington, DC. After its purchase of Pan American World Airways in the late 80s, he flew the inaugural Paris, London, and Frankfurt flights for United Airlines.
- Vaughn is an Airline Transport Pilot with the following ratings, licenses, and awards: LRJET, CE500, A320, B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787. He is a CFII/MEI/Gold Seal Instructor and flight engineer with 36 World and National speed records certified by the National Aeronautic Association and Federation Aeronautique Internationale.
Don McGregor information: [13]https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/2/2410.html 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:455:EA9:BF46:CF59 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying over those details. Impressive pedigrees there. Do they both work for Boeing? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Unless I missed something, I don't think either of them have ever worked for Boeing. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:455:EA9:BF46:CF59 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So who do they work for? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Employment status does not matter here. I have no idea why you're asking.
StalkerFishy (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd be happy to include a review of the two accidents written by Dennis Muilenburg? How about a section just of his evidence to the Senate Commerce Committee? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to stay on topic here.
It seems like we have a majority who would like to include the phrase "pilot error". I vote that we go ahead and make that modification. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the comment that "Employment status does not matter here." I think it very much does matter. So I think it's entirely "on topic". I can't help feeling that whatever is presented in this article ought to be a summary of what is presented in Lion Air Flight 610 and in Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, particularly what is presented in the info-boxes at each of those contributory articles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are 25 replies into a thread about including a 2 word phrase in the article. Can we agree to go ahead and make the change? 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the crash articles contains the phrase "pilot error". So I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. But happy to hear the views of other editors. We might need 125 replies before a consensus is established. Not sure there's any agreed limit on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors need to reach consensus before making a controversial change. You don’t seem to have it here. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the crash articles don't mention pilot error, they also need to be updated and are not reliable references for this article. Which article needs to be the "cart" and which needs to be the "horse"? I'm sure the crash articles can be updated to reflect any changes made here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:5a07:c24c:519a:2643:10aa:1d72 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect those two articles to contain more detail about the accidents than is given here. I would expect this article to summarise the content of each of those. I'm not really sure why this article could be expected to contain more detail than both of those. I would expect those two articles to have undergone a deeper level of discussion and debate about the causes of the respective accidents. So I'd argue they were the "horse" articles and this was the "cart". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also suggesting that the way "pilot error" is treated in each of those articles should inform how it's used here. At the moment it's not used at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RickyCourtney I'm still not seeing a good reason to exclude the specific phrase "pilot error" in the article. Multiple reliable sources have been provided at this point which demonstrate both the validity of using the phrase and why it applies to these accidents. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to reach a consensus amongst the involved editors, which involves compromise. I have put in considerable effort on the changes you’ve suggested, along with making my own suggestions, and attempting to find compromise amongst the different viewpoints here. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Read all about the policy at Wikipedia:Consensus.
What I have yet to see are reliable sources that cite “pilot error” as contributing factors in these two crashes. Can you point me to sources with those exact words? My apologies if it’s been buried in all the chatter. Provide that, and I’ll reconsider my opposition to these changes. Otherwise, it’s synthesis, which isn’t allowed. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two mention it specifically:
[14]https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Cordell-Case-for-Pilot-Error.pdf
[15]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/lion-air-crash-report-criticises-design-maintenance-and-pilot-error
Is it synthesis to simply use a phrase that accurately describes something? I feel like the difference between "pilot error" and "inadequate pilot training" is small but significant, since one is a basic, accepted phrase used in aviation and the other describes a reason that pilots would have made an error. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with leaving out pilot error until we get some more eyes and opinions on it first. I do think we could find a compromise where the lede includes the failure of the pilots to follow the emergency checklists, without explicitly calling it pilot error. We have already established that we have the sources to change the lede to something akin to this:
"Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and a failure by the pilots to perform the required checklists."
StalkerFishy (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is "failure to follow the emergency checklists" not an error? The only people who could have made that error were the pilots. It wasn't "flight attendant error" or "passenger error", right? We have a simple phrase to describe this, I feel like any other wording is just a deliberate exclusion of the phrase "pilot error", which is neutral, technical terminology and perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would probably agree that neither "flight attendant error" nor "passenger error" was a contributory factor in either accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but did we agree who those two authors, Cordle and McGregor, work for? You said you might have "missed something"? I see that McGregor's CV stops in 2014. And I see that from Cordle's info (dated 2022) that he "has been an analyst and consultant to various institutional investors, money management firms, suppliers, and labor groups". So not really an aviation expert? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also had a look at the front page of leehamnews.com, which I'm not really familiar with. I assume it can be regarded as WP:RS. Is it my imagination, or does it look ever-so slightly Boeing-friendly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in starting another discussion for a different article. Pilot error is a commonly used and accepted term. I just scrolled through the List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 where it looks like a majority of the NG articles state pilot error as a contributing factor. Many of those that don't explicitly state it still convey the mistakes pilots made as contributory.
If there's no source that clearly states "pilot error" for these MAX crashes, it would be reasonable to not include it in this article. However, articulating something like "the incident pilots failed to follow the published emergency procedures" should be included at a minimum, as it is clearly states in the sources we've already referenced.
StalkerFishy (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there was pilot error in those NG accident articles, even when it wasn't described as such? Again I'm not sure that's wholly relevant here. I had just imagined your sources might be more useful at Pilot error than here. But never mind, as you don't care to go down a "rabbit hole." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the anon user here in that the "humanity" of the pilots is irrelevant. We're here to accurately document the crashes. "They were in the fight of their life" has nothing to do with the causes of the crashes.
I strongly support including "pilot error" in the lede, but not necessarily attributable to inadequate training. I have two main justifications for this change:
1. The incident aircraft were completely recoverable using the established emergency procedures these pilots were trained on. The MCAS malfunction caused a RUNAWAY STABILIZER. Following the associated immediate action items checklist would have recovered the aircraft, but neither crew performed it properly. The best source I know of for this info would be the NTSB response to the EAIB, which details the 737's emergency procedures.
2. This is backed up by the preceding Lion Air flight which encountered the MCAS malfunction and subsequent RUNAWAY STABILIZER. The crew on this flight however followed the checklist and continued the flight without issue. Why this crew chose to follow the established procedures but not the 610 crew is unknown. The KNKT report in an above comment is the source for this.
StalkerFishy (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particularly "Boeing-friendly" about the website, it seems to cover all manufacturers. In their about section:
"Leeham News and Analysis has been following key developments in aerospace, principally of the “Big Four” OEMs – Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer. We also follow the Big Three engine OEMs, GE/CFM, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce."
No one on the writing team refers to any kind of relationship with Boeing. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. So it's just the authors' allegiances, and expertise, that we'd need to check up on. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to agree who they work for? Do you have information demonstrating that they work for someone objectionable? They are included as suitable references because of their documented commercial aviation experience and comments on pilot error. You mentioned that they have "impressive pedigrees" so you must have read the information I posted regarding Cordle's experience as a pilot?2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cordle and McGregor reference appears to be an Op-ed, and is therefore not a reliable source. The Guardian reference is reporting based on an "advance copy" of a report. Earlier you dismissed a NYT source for being based on unnamed sources, how is this better? Can you provide more reliable sources? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW, Cordle is a financial analyist and McGregor is a former USAF and commercial pilot. Both do appear to have impressive pedigrees, however Op-ed pieces are not subject to the editorial rigor that require of a source to be considered reliable. Also, I would consider Leeham News to be a reliable source, but again, they appeared to have simply linked to this Op-ed. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot Error in Ethiopian 302: [16]https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/final-report-on-boeing-737-max-crash-disputed-agencies-note-pilot-error-as-a-factor/
- "Both the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and the equivalent French agency identified pilot error as a critical contributing factor."
Pilot Error in Lion Air 610: [17]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/lion-air-crash-report-criticises-design-maintenance-and-pilot-error
The very first sentence in the article says that it was an advance copy of the official final report:
- "The final report by Indonesian investigators into the crash of a Boeing 737 Max plane flown by Indonesia’s Lion Air that left 189 people dead has found that problems with Boeing’s design, the airline’s maintenance of the jet and pilot errors contributed to the disaster."
Reputable secondary source referencing the Cordle and McGregor comments on pilot error: [18]https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/how-much-was-pilot-error-a-factor-in-the-boeing-737-max-crashes/ 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd agree that changes are needed to those accident articles first? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement to update other articles before this one. The anon editor has supplied multiple sources from the NTSB and French equivalent that explicitly detail pilot error as a cause. Unless you think both of those organizations are somehow not RS, the article should reflect it.
StalkerFishy (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the body of the article should reflect any changes before the lead section does. I'd also argue that the greater degree of scrutiny afforded at the more specialised accident articles argues strongly that they should be addressed first. We'd all want to avoid nugatory effort here, wouldn't we. I take it your happy to rule out the Leeham News article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 610 article already references pilot error as causal. The 302 article details how the pilots failed to follow the appropriate checklist after the malfunction. I will work to expand both articles using the BEA, NTSB, and secondary sources we've discussed here which further detail the incident pilot's errors.
StalkerFishy (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was ready to support including this, until I read that Seattle Times article, in which the author (the Pulitzer Prize winning Dominic Gates) writes:
"Their report [Cordle and McGregor] was commissioned and paid for by institutional investors with large holdings in Boeing stock. That case for pilot error as the major cause of the crashes seems close to a surrogate for what Boeing has only hinted at, and may be a key part of the manufacturer’s legal defense in liability lawsuits. Yet two flight-simulator sessions replicating the conditions on the doomed flights contradict Graves’ contention that better trained pilots would have escaped disaster. And some Western-trained pilots criticize the report as based on unverified assumptions and minimizing the intense stress Boeing’s runaway flight-control system imposed on the two flight crews."
That doesn't bolster the claim that Cordle and McGregor report is a reliable source. It does backup Martin in his questioning of who they work for. In fact, the rest of the article features a lot of voices defending the actions of the pilots. Gates interviews three other pilots about the report from McGregor and Cordle who said it was "very one-sided, and all objected to what they saw as blinkered chauvinism in this view of U.S. pilots as superior."
Speaking to the Mentour pilot (of the YouTube channel):
“As in any air accident, there are going to be a combination of factors, one being mistakes by the crew. But they shouldn’t have been put in that position in the first place. The pilots were put under an enormous amount of pressure and at a very low altitude.”
Speaking to Bjorn Fehrm, a Swedish pilot and aerospace engineer and analyst for Leeham News:,
He said the report assumes the accidents could have been avoided by “a really proficient pilot … on a good day.” But he said Boeing and Airbus cannot rely on the roughly 300,000 pilots flying worldwide having a good day and being perfectly trained for every emergency. “It’s not the reality, and reality rules,” Ferhm said. “The aircraft have to be safe for these 300,000 trained pilots.”"
"And he criticized Boeing for designing an airplane in which a system triggered by a single sensor failure would present such challenges and require such a high-performance response from the pilots. “That can’t be good, I cannot believe Boeing is proud of this.”"
And speaking to an unnamed former senior executive at Boeing:
"He said it’s true that some pilots overseas lack the experience of their U.S. counterparts. He said that the universe of customer airlines that Boeing serves, once heavily skewed toward North America and Europe, has shifted dramatically over the past 25 or more years toward the rest of the world. In developing countries, “pilots don’t have the infrastructure or heritage to do the training we do.” He added that “we and Airbus should have been more on top of things” in terms of offering more pilot training support. And yet, acknowledging the key role of Boeing’s MCAS design, he did not place blame on the Indonesian and Ethiopian pilots. “We put the pilots into a bad situation, MCAS put them in a situation they were ill-prepared to handle. You wonder about the detailed systems engineering that went into that.”"
This Wikipedia article already mentions pilot error on the part of the Ethopian crew, which I think is appropiate. But still think you've yet to show a reliable source that cites pilot error in the Malaysian crash. You did however find another great article pointing the finger back at Boeing. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing is a Fortune 500 company and one of the top 100 US companies, practically every institutional investor holds Boeing stock. What is the threshold of stock holdings that invalidates the technical comments of veteran pilots? I think it would be a valid reason to doubt the input of McGregor and Cordle if the report was fawning praise of Boeing, but they specifically blame Boeing for the failures that we've discussed here at length. Their report was provided partly as support for the claim that "pilot error is a widely accepted, neutral, technical term". I find their evaluation of pilot error to be about as dry and technical as is possible.
That aside, I have already provided this reference for pilot error in the Lion Air crash: [19]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/lion-air-crash-report-criticises-design-maintenance-and-pilot-error
This is a reputable secondary source analyzing the results of the official final KNKT report on Lion Air 610 and specifically using the phrase "pilot error".
Additionally, I really think it needs to be reiterated that the control authority of MCAS, even in its original form, was not great enough that pilots could not overcome it with elevator alone, which means simply pulling back on the yoke is enough to override MCAS even at full authority and beyond. The NTSB Docket on Lion Air 610 is the reference for this. This is where a deeper understanding of airliners like the 737 is critical so we don't get into the weeds; every quote that characterizes an MCAS malfunction as some sort of catastrophe is misinformed at best and not a reliable source. It becomes a catastrophe only when the pilots fail to identify the stabilizer trim runaway and let the plane overspeed at low altitude. Otherwise known as an error on behalf of the pilots - something we already have a simple phrase for, which is "pilot error".
We need to be technically correct here, above all else. I acknowledge that some of us have a personal objection to the phrase "pilot error", which I understand, but we need to leave personal feelings out of the encyclopedia. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:519A:2643:10AA:1D72 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic Gates is a Pulitzer Prize wining journalist with extensive knowledge of and sources within Boeing. If he says that the Cordle and McGregor report was commissioned and paid for by institutional investors with large holdings in Boeing stock… he knows what he’s talking about. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your phrase "pilots fail to identify" is a somewhat contentious and debateable term, I think. Perhaps a "AOA DISAGREE" indication on the flight desk displays might have helped them identify there was a problem with one of the two AOA sensors? Was it their fault that indication wasn't available? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is, with respect. This is what I mean about knowledge of airliners being critical. Especially in planes like the 737 where flight controls are almost entirely manual, the best redundancy for any sensor is the pair of pilots in the cockpit. This is where the phrase "fly the plane" comes into play.
I genuinely believe that if you thoroughly read and digest the sources I've provided, particularly the NTSB Docket on Lion Air 610, you will understand why an AOA DISAGREE indication is not critical to the safe operation of the plane or for the recovery procedure for a stabilizer trim runaway.
But, again, that's not what we're talking about here. Did the pilots make errors? Again, at this point their errors are undeniable. Do we have a phrase to describe this? Absolutely - pilot error. Leaving that phrase out of the article feels like a personal choice at this point.
I'm really not sure what you suggesting here. You seem to be saying that because there are two pilots, one of them can compensate in some way for a faulty AOA sensor? All I'm saying is that for either pilot to be aware there's a problem with an AOA sensor, there has to be some kind of warning indication, which they are fully trained to recognise and interpret, on the flight deck. I honestly believe that having such an indication provides a better and safer design. I'm not sure whether, in the case of the Lion Air accident, the airline was actually aware that it was missing. Is this topic addressed in the sources you've provided? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm saying. There have been standard procedures for identifying and managing the effects of an AOA Disagree in a 737 for decades. After the Lion Air crash, Boeing reminded operators specifically in Ops Manual Bulletin TBC-19 that "erroneous AOA can cause some or all of the following indications and effects:
- Continuous or intermittent stick shaker on the affected side only
- Minimum speed bar (red and black) on the affected side only
- Increasing nose down control forces
- Inability to engage autopilot
- Automatic disengagement of the autopilot
- IAS DISAGREE alert
- ALT DISAGREE alert
- AOA DISAGREE alert (if the AOA indicator option is installed)
- FEEL DIFF PRESS light"
That makes 8 potential indicators of erroneous AOA data, in the case of the accident flights. Both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines pilots experienced these warning indications, and did not respond appropriately. That is also known as pilot error.
All of this is contained within the official accident reports and other sources I've already provided. At this point I can't help but feel like the information I'm sharing isn't actually being read critically. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so "8 potential indicators of erroneous AOA data". Are those unambiguous indications or not? And you don't think that a dedicated and wholly unambiguous indication of this failure would be in any way beneficial? I wonder could you clarify the status of the "AOA DISAGEE" indication? Was that really a display option that the airline had deliberately chosen not to purchase? If this has been explained in any of the sources you've provided so far, and I've missed it, could you please possibly spell out exactly where it is? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are absolutely unambiguous since they are explicitly stated as indicators of erroneous AOA data in a long-published standard procedure.
Maybe we can have a separate discussion about the status of the AOA DISAGREE indicator, but I don't see how this is on topic here. We should be discussing whether or not to use the specific phrase "pilot error". I have provided multiple reliable sources referring to "pilot error" in both accidents. I feel like I've proven my point here. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. And I feel like you've proven nothing. If those are 8 are "absolutely unambiguous" indications, then why do you say "erroneous AOA can cause some or all of the following indications and effects"? And you didn't respond to my request. You just blamed me for not "thoroughly reading and digesting the sources you've provided". I'm still suggesting that the whole notion of "pilot error" can't really be understood without some appreciation and discussion of the adequacy and appropriateness of which display indications are given to the pilot. So I'm not really sure it warrants a wholly "separate discussion". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that, Boeing's Ops Manual Bulletin TBC-19 said that.
I'm opening a dispute resolution request for this. We are talking in circles over the inclusion of a simple, neutral, accepted two word technical phrase and I have already provided reliable secondary sources demonstrating both pilot error in the crashes as well as the use of the phrase in reports on the crashes.
@RickyCourtney Notifying you of the dispute resolution request 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Then you gave the very strong impression that you agreed with " Boeing's Ops Manual Bulletin TBC-19". Do you agree with it? If not, what is your view? And I'm not sure we've yet all discussed the exact wording you want to add to the article, have we? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading the information you've shared. I'll point out that final report on the Ethopian crash says:
"One second before the end of the automatic trim activation, the average force applied by the crew decreased from 100 lbs to 78 lbs in 3.5 seconds. In these 3.5 seconds, the pitch angle dropped from 0.5° nose up to -7.8° nose down and the descent rate increased from -100 ft/min to more than -5,000 ft/min. Following the last automatic trim activation and despite calculated column force of up to 110 lbs, the pitch continued decreasing."
In light of that, can you explain your assertion that "the control authority of MCAS, even in its original form, was not great enough that pilots could not overcome it with elevator alone"
To me, the need to apply 100 lbs of force to the yoke seems like a lot to overcome MCAS. Typical autopilot systems are cancelled out at 21 lbs. Also, if the pilots are being required to apply 100 lbs of combined force to their yokes, at that point, is it reasonable to expect that they would be able to reach for any other controls in the cockpit? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we have already discussed, the extraneous aerodynamic forces on the elevators (which are the smaller tabs on the larger horizontal stabilizer, and the part controlled by the yoke) were due to the plane overspeeding at low altitude and not because of MCAS. This is because the pilots failed to disengage autothrottle (which was left at takeoff/climbout settings), which is part of the standard procedure for dealing with a stabilizer trim runaway.
My assertion is almost a direct quote from the NTSB Docket on Lion Air 610 [20]https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=11369094&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=CERTIFICATION%20SPECIALIST%E2%80%99S%20REPORT-Rel.pdf
- (Page 8) When assessing unintended MCAS activation in the simulator for the Functional Hazard Assessments, the function was allowed to perform to its authority and beyond before pilot action was taken to recover. Failures were able to be countered by using elevator alone. Stabilizer trim was available to offload column forces, and stabilizer cutouts were available but not required to counter failures. This was true both for the preliminary FHAs performed in 2012 and for the reassessment of the FHAs in 2016.
In the McGregor and Cordle report, it is pointed out (through an analysis of the final accident report) that the First Officer of ET302 mistakenly moved the stabilizer trim in the wrong direction (nose down), which further exacerbated the issue. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RickyCourtney I don't doubt the claim from Gates, I simply don't think it invalidates the comments of McGregor and Cordle. His Pulitzer Prize was awarded for stories he wrote about the 737 MAX crashes, a majority of which were published before the release of the official final Accident Report from the KNKT, the NTSB Docket on Lion Air 610, The NTSB's comments on the reports from the EAIB, and the Deferred Prosecution Agreement from USA v. The Boeing Company. I think it's a huge mistake to rely on reports that were published before any official investigations were concluded, as there's no way that those journalists could have actually known the facts of the accidents. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means that we should be applying additional skepticism to their report. They were being paid by people who had a financial incentive to paint Boeing in the best possible light. Also, that report was published long before the release of the official final reports on the Ethopian flight.
Additionally, Gates continues to cover Boeing to this day. Can you point me to more recent works of his that cite pilot error in connection to Lion Air 610? The official final Accident Report from the KNKT never once says "pilot error" except to say that they conducted "an assessment of the effects of potential pilot errors". -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not an acceptable secondary source that specifically refers to pilot error in Lion Air 610? I have offered it multiple times:
[21]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/lion-air-crash-report-criticises-design-maintenance-and-pilot-error
- The final report by Indonesian investigators into the crash of a Boeing 737 Max plane flown by Indonesia’s Lion Air that left 189 people dead has found that problems with Boeing’s design, the airline’s maintenance of the jet and pilot errors contributed to the disaster. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that pilot error should be mentioned in the lede and the body. The phrase is adequately and reliably sourced: for Lion Air in the Guardian article cited just above: (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/lion-air-crash-report-criticises-design-maintenance-and-pilot-error) and for Ethiopian in: (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/final-report-on-boeing-737-max-crash-disputed-agencies-note-pilot-error-as-a-factor/), which I have previously cited in the "Major Updates Needed" section of this Talk page. No reliable sources I'm aware of dispute what these cited sources say on the matter. However, in wording the text, we should reflect the emphasis the sources give to faulty Boeing design as more heavily weighted among the contributing factors to the accidents. Such wording should also be deployed in each of the accident articles. DonFB (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DonFB. I assume you are aware that there is now a dispute resolution request open. I'm not sure whether you should be named as a party there, or whether discussion is supposed to continue here while that request remains open. To make a very brief reply to your comment above, I'd be very wary of using that Seattle Times source, as it very clearly explains that there was dispute/disagreement over the use of the term. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have wavered on the issue. But the sources I mentioned just above are unequivocal. However, it would be entirely appropriate--essential, really--for our text to explain who said what. Namely, that the findings by the governments responsible for doing the official investigations laid heavy blame on Boeing and downplayed pilot actions, while U.S. NTSB agreed with Boeing's culpability, but also placed significant blame on the pilots. I believe that even in the relatively limited space of the lede, such a distinction can be described in reasonably few words. I was going to make similar comments at the DR page, but forgot about it. I hadn't really considered myself part of the dispute; I just wanted to offer my insight, such as it is, in this discussion. DonFB (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite alarmed that you are asking that question. Would you be prepared to use that article as a source here if you knew that the authors had been paid by Boeing to write it? I was looking for some kind of legal disclosure of the authors' interests, but I failed to find one. Perhaps you can spot one somewhere on the small print? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the subject of this thread is "Additional lede comments". I hope we're all agreed that the lead section should simply be a summary of the entire article. If you are proposing new sources, to support some change to the wording, they should first be fully agreed as additions to the main body of the article before any changes were made to the lead section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, and after reviewing all the sources while rewriting the main body of the article, I'm going to retract my opposition to the inclusion of pilot error in the intro. I would like to suggest this phrasing: Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data and remained active because of pilot error due to inadequate training. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a decent change, but I still take issue with the "due to inadequate training" attribution. I mentioned this to the anon editor in one of the first comments in this section that we need to be unambiguous in what it means. I'm going to copy my comment below.
...the attribution to inadequate training needs to be supported. i.e. are we saying the training itself was insufficient, or, that the pilots should have been better trained? The former blames the training or lack thereof, while the latter blames pilots inexperience in a training environment. A very small but meaningful distinction.
Perhaps this phrasing would solve that? "Contributing to the accidents was inadequate training on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data and remained active due to pilot error."
Although now that I read my phrasing, it doesn't entirely resolve the ambiguity issues and implies that aircraft recovery was dependent on MCAS training, which we know it's not. Will need to hear more input on this one.
StalkerFishy (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think it’s all of the above: the training the pilots received (or didn’t receive) in flight school, the training offered (and not offered) by their airline, and the training offered (and not offered) by Boeing. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reasonable take, and I support your proposed changes.
StalkerFishy (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this proposal. Thank you @RickyCourtney for your consideration and @StalkerFishy for your input. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:B430:C623:2BCB:6882 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revision to "Grounding and recertification" section[edit]

Consensus below is in favor of this proposal. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here's my proposed revision:

In the twenty months the aircraft was grounded, Boeing redesigned the computer architecture that supported the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). As initially designed, data from just one of the aircraft's two angle-of-attack (AoA) sensors was fed into MCAS. When erroneous data from that sensor was fed into flight computers, it caused repeated uncommanded activation of MCAS, which applied nose-down trim to the horizontal stabilizer. The accident investigations revealed that the AoA sensor on Lion Air Flight 610 was miscalibrated, and the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 sensor was likely damaged by a bird strike during takeoff.[1] Boeing was criticized for using data from just one of the two sensors, representing a single point of failure on a critical flight control system.[2]
Before the crash of Lion Air Flight 610, pilots were not informed by Boeing of the existence of MCAS and were not required to undergo simulator training on the difference between the 737 MAX.[1] The FAA would later require simulator training to demonstrate an MCAS activation to pilots.
In the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and France’s Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety identified pilot error and inadequate training by Ethiopian Airlines as critical contributing factors to the crashes.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c Gates, Dominic (January 6, 2023). "Final report on Boeing 737 MAX crash sparks dispute over pilot error". The Seattle Times. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
  2. ^ Nicas, Jack; Kitroeff, Natalie; Gelles, David; Glanz, James (June 1, 2019). "Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions Into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change". The New York Times.

Some thoughts...

  1. We need a reference for the miscalibrated AoA sensor on JT610
  2. I think we need to mention that the single AoA sensor represented a single point of failure on a critical flight control system. Boeing later made a change to rely on both, which is a tacit acknowledgement that it should have been included from the start.
  3. Pilots were not informed by Boeing of the existence of MCAS. That's a fact that needs to be included.
  4. Pilots were later required to have sim training on an MCAS activation, which is a tacit acknowledgement that it should have been included from the start.
  5. In addition to calling out pilot error, we need to point out and inadequate training by Ethiopian Airlines.

Open to any suggested revisions on my revision before I publish the changes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for the miscalibrated AoA sensor on JT610: [22]https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-shuts-down-revokes-certificate-of-florida-repair-firm-that-supplied-faulty-lion-air-sensor/
I think this is also a good improvement. One thing I might change is the characterization of MCAS as a "critical flight control system". With or without MCAS, the 737 MAX is apparently stable and predictable enough that test pilots have a hard time telling any difference, which is backed up by the comments from the EASA pilots during recertification testing.
Perhaps it can read something like "Boeing was criticized for using data from just one of the two sensors, representing a single point of failure on a flight control system that has the ability to change the configuration of the aircraft without pilot input." 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:9D42:2980:6C55:A834 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just make it simply: "Boeing was criticized for using data from just one of the two sensors, representing a single point of failure on a flight control system." RickyCourtney (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:9D42:2980:6C55:A834 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with 2 and 4 that changes made were a "tactic acknowledgement". It's not our job as editors to hypothesize the underlying motives. However, I don't think it's an issue as you have it articulated well in your revision.
I'll probably get pushback for this since there's no good WP:RS that goes into this much detail, but if we're going to include 3, it should be noted that the existence of MCAS does not affect the existing recovery procedures for runaway stab.
StalkerFishy (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points on 2 and 4, I'm trying to be neutral in my writing in the article and transparent in my thinking on the talk page notes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Boeing manufacturing issues into Boeing 737 MAX[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This request was withdrawn by the nominator. The article in question has been expanded into Boeing manufacturing and design issues and the scope has been expanded to other Boeing types. - ZLEA T\C 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing manufacturing issues currently solely covers issues with the 737 MAX, most of which are already covered in Boeing 737 MAX. If no content on other Boeing types is added, I see no reason to have a separate article at this time. Perhaps a section could be added to Boeing 737 MAX to cover the manufacturing issues instead. - ZLEA T\C 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) ZLEA T\C 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per rationale. Coverage of manufacturing issues on the part of Boeing before the 2020s does exist but is very sporadic and dwarfed in severity compared to the issues with the 737 MAX. Information is better suited at Boeing 737 MAX under a dedicate subheading. DigitalIceAge (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the content is about Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, not Boeing as a whole. This is the kind of article that should have been developed elsewhere and split when needed, not started as a standalone page. Reywas92Talk 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Not the scope of the page. Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with Boeing history, so I would not be qualified to write about it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you intended the scope to be, the article currently does not contain any content that could not be merged into a section of this article. I will withdraw this merge proposal if someone expands Boeing manufacturing issues to cover more Boeing types, but until then, I see no reason to not merge. - ZLEA T\C 19:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree, unless someone has significant information to expand the page, the Boeing manufacturing issues page should be merged. It is not ready at this time to be a stand alone page. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sections Response and Investigations only/majoritarily talk about Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I currently have no determination if I believe this should be merged into the 737 MAX section or be on its own. However, we need to look into more previous retrospective with Boeing and its manufacturing problems. I think the best examples we need to look into is how there was rudder issues with the previous 737s and how Boeing grounded 787s due to electrical system problems from its batteries. I know there's a lot covered on the 737 but I would like to see more topics being discussed than just on the 737 MAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20chances (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either issue would belong in the article. Like the MAX's MCAS issues, both the 737 rudder and 787 battery issues were primarily due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing issue. - ZLEA T\C 02:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if there were other issues with the older 737 (from classic to NG), I don't want them to be thrown away into oblivion and they have important value to understanding the problems these planes had in terms of manufacturing issues and such. I know the older ones are important and if we had found some that might be crucial, it can help. I feel like its a difficult decision to consider either merging or keeping the article because yes, while I understand there's stuff that can work with the 737 MAX, it also ignores that more important ones that aren't related to the MAX. 20chances (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose New information about 777 and 787 fuselage gaps are available. The contents of this article has expanded beyond the scope of 737 MAX Zjin1 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_737_MAX&oldid=1225166340"