Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussion of related articles

Hello, @MilborneOne: I'd like to include those few external links to articles that I found the most readable and analytical among a hundred or so superficial articles, reports, and other sources I read.
I don't understand your commit with the comment "not really a dumping ground for anything that remotely mentions the accident", as these are good, detailed explanations of the accident to the layman, thus helpful in clearing up many of the confusion.
The Airbus accident report was related by The Aviation Herald as two accidents with similar technical cause, thus a valuable source for researchers., and also shows it's not only Boeing encountering these mistakes.
Please discuss your concerns.

Other than these, I agree with your commits, it was time to clean up.
— Aron Manning (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If the two "explanation" external links are that good why cant the material be used in the article as a source? WP:EL suggests thay should only be external links if they have copyright issues that the material cant be used in the article. Dont really see the connection with the Airbus accident, if there was it should be in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The focus of this article should be on the fundamental reason why both planes crashed: Namely, that the pilots lost control of the pitch axis on both flights.

While there has been endless discussion of many possible factors related to why MCAS malfunctioned (in hordes of media articles), the very good (day, low altitude VFR) weather conditions for both of the MAX accidents is not comparable to the weather conditions (night, high altitude IFR) surrounding the AF447 accident. Which means the kind of improper responses of the pilots, that led to all three crashes, are also not comparable.

Other accidents should be referenced in this article ONLY WHEN there is very strong relevance, as to the fundamental core cause. That policy not only heads off the endless Wiki problem of way too much irrelevant clutter, but also makes the article crisp, clear and much less likely to confuse lay readers.EditorASC (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne:

To avoid mistakenly talking about different articles, I'm talking about these:

• Ethiopian 302 – Even Without Answers, The Data Tells a Story
• Bjorn’s Corner: ET302 crash report, the first analysis
• Illustration of stabilizer trim - The Air Current article
• The many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max – The Verge article
• 737: The MAX Mess

These articles are readable, story-like, more consumable for the common reader than the technical articles referenced, and explains the accidents in a larger context, than suitable for the wiki article. "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." WP:EL There's too much detail in these articles, that's meaningful and highly relevant to the accident. Maybe the tail illustrations with the trim issue, and the FDR chart could be included as images. If you suggest that, I'll do so.

Why do you suggest these aren't good quality articles? One of them is the first technical article about the report, many media articles are based on this article, the illustrations all around the media come from another of the articles. I hope this is a misunderstanding, and we are talking about different links.

The Airbus accident Qantas Flight 72 was caused by automation acting upon erroneous AoA values, causing sudden extreme nose-down pitch.

I thought you have concern about eg. the bit-player article's title which might be unsuitable for WP, I'll change that to read "A mathematician's analysis", or similar. The Airbus accident can be included in 'See also', linking the report pdf is not that important.

I hope this answers your questions.
— Aron Manning (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC: "the very good (day, low altitude VFR) weather conditions for both of the MAX accidents is not comparable to the weather conditions (night, high altitude IFR) surrounding the AF447 accident. Which means the kind of improper responses of the pilots, that led to all three crashes, are also not comparable."

Indeed. How is AF447 related to the Maxes at all, apart from the "HAL took the helm" (luckily not too significant) craze?

"Other accidents should be referenced in this article ONLY WHEN there is very strong relevance, as to the fundamental core cause. That policy not only heads off the endless Wiki problem of way too much irrelevant clutter, but also makes the article crisp, clear and much less likely to confuse lay readers." by EditorASC

"The Australian TSB investigated two accidents and released a common accident report on two A330s that were (almost) a carbon copy of the 737 MAX AoA problems (invoking the MCAS induced crashes) near Learmonth and Perth in 2008 resulting in severe upsets and injuries" induced by erroneous AoA value input to the primary FCC. Qantas Flight 72

— Aron Manning (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that links the Airbus and Boeing accidents? MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Yes, source is cited right above your answer, before the reflist that should be at the end. (). I'd like to mention I've a feeling my contribution is questioned without being read, and an edit being reverted without discussion, just a comment "anything that remotely mentions the accident" about articles that summarize the findings regarding the ET302 accident. This is very disheartening, and feels like WP:BITE. I've spent hours upon hours to read through close to a 100 articles and reports, say 30 of which was technical, and 70 superficial media articles mostly echoing each other. The few articles I cite in the page or provide as external links are among the highest quality, in-depth writings. If you read them, you will see.

Note to EditorASC: this answer is between 2 separate commits.

— Aron Manning (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Related to the "six" external links, lot of information some of it speculation and opinion, if the reader is that interested lots of stuff can be found using a search engine but we dont need to list them here or infer the quality to the readers. We are not in a rush to explain we can wait for the final report. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: From point to point:

• In my previous answer I wrote "linking the report pdf is not that important", thus we are talking about 5 links only. Also, the official accident report being a speculation?
• The articles are essays, summarizing facts from the prelim report, and reliable information from major media outlets, with the writer's own explanation. The technical articles express explicitly, this is a personal interpretation of the reliably available information. Not much speculation. The media article is like media articles, lacking this honesty and self-scrutiny, but it is from an established, well-reviewed major media outlet.
• Many of the opinions presented are widely reported on in mainstream media, that is reliable sources. The opinionated parts are intentionally not cited in this wiki article to adhere by WP:NPOV.
• The readers interested in a deeper understanding of the accident and its causes, that is more reliable than the superficial media articles echoing each other, are looking for these high-quality essays.
• Some of these are hard to find. Finding and choosing these articles took me many hours of research, combing through a lot of superficial articles, cross-checking facts and findings with multiple sources. Presenting them here counters the superficial and sometimes extreme views and articles readily available through a search engine.
• Indeed we are not in a rush, but making a steady progress. These articles are an accumulation and a digest to more than a month's research into the subject. I've started to introduce the sources and findings on this talk page 3 weeks ago in an effort to start a discussion about how to include these sources in the article. I'm surprised i'm the only one researching this subject to this depth, and I'm looking forward to meaningful discussions.

— Aron Manning (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

With reference to the Airbus accidents the comment is related to a commentary about certification the link to this accident is a bit iffy in my opinion. Not sure I said the accident report is speculation. I appreciate the time and effort but I am still not happy with cherry picking these "in depth" analysis and providing them to the reader, I still consider that if the information is reliable and factual it should be reported in the article. I did look at the external links by the way before removing them. You seem suprised that you are the only one researching the subject in depth but i reality it is not what we do, we rely on reliable sources to come to the conclusions and report that. We obviously disagree on the value of these links to the article, perhaps wait for some other opinions on the matter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Australian TSB investigated two accidents and released a common accident report on two A330s that were (almost) a carbon copy of the 737 MAX AoA problems (invoking the MCAS induced crashes) near Learmonth and Perth in 2008 resulting in severe upsets and injuries"[1] induced by erroneous AoA value input to the primary FCC. Qantas Flight 72"

"Carbon Copy?" Far from it. The high altitude sudden upset was the result of a sudden down ELEVATOR input, NOT a retrimming of the HS to the full ANU position, which was deemed necessary to compensate for the failure to completely re-design a 50-year old airliner that had a CG range much different than the original model.

other accidents

That sudden AB elevator input was caused by multilple erroneous data spikes in AOA, from just one ADIRU (with three onboard), precisely 1.2 seconds apart. In spite of that "design limitation," it was still deemed a "very effective" safety algorithm since it operated those planes without incident for over "28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft." It took only a redesign of the AOA algorithm (a small part of the total required flight control software) to prevent a recurrence of that kind of erroneous response. Failure to include every possible similarity with other accidents has never been a problem for Wikipedia. To the contrary, one of our major problems has been the endless inclusion of tons of information that is only remotely relevant; so that later on, other editors have to come in and do extensive re-writes that eliminate information that really doesn't improve the article and never should have been included in the first place. Additionally, only a weak and not too informative prelim report has been issued for the ET302 accident. Trying to find a highly relevant, well-written article that will explain what really happened, prior to a final report being issued, by comparing any or all accidents that had suspect software algorithms as part of a toxic mixture, requires too much OR speculation on our part would ultimately boil down to "cherry picking," as MilborneOne (talk put it. There are many other accidents/upsets that could be linked too, but again, each of their circumstances is unique enuf that I don't think it a good idea to clutter the article with all such possibilities. As but one example: 1993, April 6. A China Eastern Airlines MD-11, suffered an inadvertent deployment of the leading edge wing slats, while in cruise flight near Shemya, Alaska. The AP disconnected and the captain attempted manual control. The plane progressed through several pitch oscillations, losing 5,000 ft. of altitude. Two passengers were fatally injured; 149 others received various injuries ranging from light to severe. Seven crewmembers were also injured, including one FA who suffered severe brain damage. The NTSB found “12 incidents of inadvertent or uncommanded in-flight slat extensions and 2 events on the ground involving MD-11 airplanes.” The NTSB probable cause was: ...the inadequate design of the flap/slat actuation handle by the Douglas Aircraft Company which allowed the handle to be inadvertently dislodged from the UP/RET position, thereby causing extension of the leading edge slats during cruise flight. The captain’s attempt to recover from the slat extension, given the reduced longitudinal stability and the associated light control force characteristics of the MD-11 in cruise flight, led to several violent pitch oscillations. Contributing to the violence of the pitch oscillations was the lack of specific MD-11 pilot training in recovery from high altitude upsets, and the influence of the stall warning system on the captain’s control responses. Contributing to the severity of the injuries was the lack of seat restraint usage by the occupants. The stall warning system was cited as a contributing factor because its activation told the pilot that he must push the nose down even more, but that was the wrong action for a plane with relaxed stability designed into the pitch axis. The investigation into this and the 1992 accident revealed: There had been at least 5 other high-altitude upsets in the MD-11, including one that took place during the certification process. These previous upsets all involved the failure of the pilots to adjust their control inputs properly when the autopilot disengages. Douglas Aircraft had “...not demonstrated by flight tests, MD-11 stall recovery from abrupt high altitude, high speed upsets, nor were they required to do so as a part of the certification process.” The FAA did not require pilots to “...receive hands-on training that demonstrated the light control forces encountered when manually flying at high altitudes and at high speeds in the MD-11.” The design of the horizontal stabilizer (FAA approved, of course) was such that the stall buffet “...produced a dynamic load on the outboard elevators that resulted in structural overload and failure of portions of the outboard elevators.” There had been 3 other incidents where MD-11s had suffered damage to their composite elevators, following stall buffets. 1997, June. Thirteen people were seriously injured when a Japan Airlines MD-11 experienced severe pitch oscillations. One passenger went into a coma and died, 20 months later. The pilot attempted manual recovery when the autopilot failed to detect the plane was flying too fast after an encounter with wind shear. The pilot’s repeated attempts to stabilize the altitude caused the severe oscillations that injured passengers and crew. The autopilot was blamed for the accident because it contained a programming design defect that commanded it to respond to average velocity calculations instead of actual speeds.

I can understand your frustration because we don't agree on what should be included, after you have spent so many hours reading numerous articles. But, that is why the idea of non-OR consensus is very important when so many editors, who have a wide variety of education, experience and knowledge on a given subject, can and often do, contribute to articles like this.EditorASC (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC: These are interesting accidents, thank you for sharing!

"two accidents ... that were (almost) a carbon copy of the 737 MAX AoA problems"

Bad grammar, or figure of speech... he's Austrian. The software engineering problem encountered is the carbon copy, not the accident itself. The possibility of erroneous input, and how to handle it. Identifying and ignoring erroneous data is a complex and interesting part of control systems. As this is one fundamental cause of, maybe the most important cause of the accident, he's right to point out that lessons are to be learned from the Airbus accidents. The connection won't be relevant to pilots, but would add value to the article for software engineers, who tend to be numerous on the internet.

"I can understand your frustration because we don't agree on what should be included, after you have spent so many hours reading numerous articles."

Thank you for understanding. Not agreeing is absolutely fine for me, only hitting a stonewall or unclear communication would stress me. We have our own POV, and this can be turned into a nice balance. As I'm passionate about the subject, other perspectives are very helpful in achieving NPOV.

— Aron Manning (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Over at [ Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings#New external links ] some articles have been vetted and accepted. Those addressing generally the Max & grounding topic are there in EL. The articles specific to each accident go to the accident page. What's left for ET302 is:

• ET302 crash report, the first analysis - Bjorn Fehrm, Leeham News
• Ethiopian 302 – Even Without Answers, The Data Tells a Story

We don't want the list to get out of control, so we will re-evaluate all links and cleanup if it gets over 5 links, now its 4. Any observations pro and con?  Aron M🍁 (➕)  05:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

New addition to 6.2 Expert analysis section

It is my view that the new passage added to the 6.2 Expert analysis section, is poorly written and only adds more confusion to the article. In addition, it seems to be an obvious violation of the guidelines found in this Wiki Elements of Style: [[1]]

4 Overuse. Shortcut WP:QUOTEFARM

Main page: Non-free content

While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified, there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article.

Overuse happens when:

-- a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained.

-- anywhere quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased

-- the quotes dominate the article or section.

4.1 Specific recommendations. Shortcut: WP:LONGQUOTE

Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.

[[2]]

---

The new addition to that section [[3]], should be re-written rather quickly by some other editor, if it is to remain. If that is not done, then I recommend it be deleted in its entirety, until such time some OTHER editor finds a way to include any of that new information in a manner that clarifies and improves the article, instead of adding more confusion for the average lay reader. EditorASC (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree (reasons in my previous edit summaries) and will remove it at some point in the future. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template: Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia

There is a Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia on JT610 page:

Any comments on creating a similar Template: Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia from Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia for ET302? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont see why not it has been done for other countries, although I dont really see the aid to navigation in linking unrelated accidents just because of were they happened. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not +1. [[4]] Shencypeter (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. There seems to be 2 systematic mistakes in the categories associated with many templates in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates:

• Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Taiwan
  • [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates|Taiwan]]
  • [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Taiwan|t]] — This adds the template to the country's accidents category.
• Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_India
  • [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates|India]]
  • [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in India|t]] — Also adds the template to the country's accidents category.

Only 1 mistake in eg.:

• Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Australia
  • [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates|Australia]]
  • [[Category:Australia templates]]
• Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Ireland
  • [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates|Ireland]]
  • [[Category:Ireland templates]]

Adding the template to the country's accidents category seems to be an error. I've followed the latter categorization instead and removed the unnecessary title of the accidents category.

• For easy navigation I added to the template:   Based on [[Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia]]
• To the category page above the Portal box:   {{Right| [[Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ethiopia|Related template]] }}

This fix and adding extra navigation could be done by bot, if such change is generally accepted.
—Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   12:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: 'unable to move the trim wheels by hand' and 'Speculation' section

EditorASC unexpectedly raised concerns about two sentences that was last modified by Aron Manning (diff 1, diff 2).
The way he presented his concerns is addressed in [the message seeking dispute resolution] (diff), which was removed by user in 1 hour (diff), without reply.
This section servers to discuss the concerns, and improve said sentences, in a [civil], [consensus] seeking manner. Opinions are welcome.

The sentences:

• (Diff 1), comment: "Rm OR statement that was not found in the cited sources."

 According to simulation and analysis by aviation experts, the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.

• (Diff 2), comment: "Rm speculations section. Such speculations about the various tracings on the FDR record are controversial, premature, confusing and do not add to the needed factual clarity in this article."

 A data spike in the flight data led to speculations about a bird or other debris hitting the plane as it was taking off, shearing away the airflow sensor.  These speculations were dismissed by Ethiopian Airlines, and Chief investigator Amdye Ayalew Fanta stated there was no indication of such damage. As of March 29, 2019 the malfunctioning AoA sensor has not been located in the wreckage.

— Aron Manning (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-reply from Aron:

• (1): the reuters ref was originally after this sentence (diff 3):

 Although the crew apparently recognized the problem with MCAS and disabled it, they were not able to successfully counteract the high aerodynamic forces on the horizontal stabilizer trim jackscrew generated by the excess speed.

• Applicable parts from the article IMO:

"The first time the MCAS software kicked in, flight data shows the Ethiopian Airlines pilots reacted quickly by flicking switches under their thumbs - they had recognized the movements as the same type flight crews had been warned about after the Lion Air crash."
"But data shows they were not able to fully counteract the computer’s movements." ...
"When MCAS triggered again, the jetliner’s trim was set to push the nose down at almost the maximum level, flight data shows, while the control column noisily vibrated with another stall warning called a “stick shaker.”"
"This time, the pilots countered MCAS to greater effect, the experts said after studying the data. But when they turned off the system - as they were instructed to do by Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the wake of the Lion Air disaster - the nose was still trimmed downwards, making it harder to pull up the plane."

• The reuters source in this case seems to be a leftover from the original, while the sentence was reworded a few times. The proper source would be: which is referenced in the first part of the sentence.

• (2): I agree with ASC, the speculations section might be not necessary. The cause of the sensor failure is important to the investigators, but not much to the commoner now, the common interest and general media coverage has shifted towards the design flaws. I was not going to remove it without asking the editor, who added it, but I don't know who it was. I found this question not important enough to browse through the history.

I might stay away from this thread.
— Aron Manning (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"...the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.[5]"

I removed that statement because it was pure OR from the editor that put it there. There is no such statement in those cited sources. It is entirely appropriate to remove statements in the article that are not actually found in the sources cited to support such statements. OR opinion of some Wiki Editor is contrary to WP:OR rules. It was entirely improper to restore such an OR statement. It is not only OR, but also false. Higher aerodynamic forces on the elevator CANNOT PUSH the HS in ANY direction. The HS can move ONLY when the jackscrew turns in one direction or another. That requires electric power to the jackscrew. High aerodynamic forces cannot cause the jackscrew to turn all by itself. Please revert your own improper revert. EditorASC (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The cited paragraph is:

  As pilots would pull on the jet’s controls to raise the nose of the aircraft, the aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator (trying to raise the nose) would create an opposing force that effectively paralyzes the jackscrew mechanism that moves the stabilizer, explained Lemme, ultimately making it extremely difficult to crank the trim wheel by hand. The condition is amplified as speed — and air flow over the stabilizer — increases. 

The sentence in the editor's own words:

  "the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction."

— Aron Manning (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"(2): I agree with ASC, the speculations section might be not necessary."

Then, Why were you so quick to revert it back? Exactly why I spent so much time trying to persuade you that you not only did not understand much about how those systems work, but that your trying to read into the "experts" opinions, what was really not there, was a big mistake no matter how well intentioned. The result has been way too much information that really is not relevant and which tends to add more and more confusion to the article, instead of clarifying it and making it fully understandable to the average lay person. EditorASC (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The bird strike speculation is not absolutely vital to understanding the overall narrative of the crash and investigation. However, I believe it is reasonable to include the well-sourced information about bird strike theorizing in the article. The information did not long remain in the headlines, but it was widely reported and is, I believe, part of encyclopedic coverage of the accident and its aftermath. I would not put the information in a Speculation section, and such section should be deleted or not added. The bird strike details can be confined to two sentences: one to describe the speculation, and another to describe refutation by Ethiopian officials. The text can be included in the 'Statements from parties' subsection of the 'Reactions to investigation' section. The bird theory arose in response to the FDR data in the publicly released Prelim Investigation, so the theory could appropriately be included in the 'Reactions' section. DonFB (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As for the speculation about the bird, there is a discusiion i nArchive 1, when it kept being added. I wanted to remove it but as more context refuting the speculation was added, I was OK with keeping it in the article so that other editors/readers do not keep adding it over and over again when they read it in media (as had happend previously with the same topic even before the discussion). So I suppose we could keep it there, perhaps change the headline "Bird strike reports" or something but I am also OK with removing it. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't plan to campaign for its inclusion, but I do support its inclusion. It needs no headline or heading. It can simply be incorporated in the text of the 'Reactions' section of the article. DonFB (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"The sentence in the editor's own words: 'the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.' — Aron Manning (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)"

That post amounts to a deliberate distortion of what I said. That statement was NOT mine! It was a quotation of the exact statement that was in the article, THAT I REMOVED, because if was false, it amounted to OR and it was not in the articles that were cited as support for that statement. I BOLDED that statement and put it within quotation marks to make it clear I was QUOTING the statement that had been in the article. This tactic, as well as claiming my proper deleting of that statement was motivated by REVENGE, is way out of bounds. Such statements violate the standards set up in WP:CIVIL EditorASC (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The highlighted statement is what you removed a few hours ago, not something you said. Next to the original citation it was supposed show to you that the statement you removed and criticize as OR is in fact a shorter rewording of the original paragraph. If in doubt, or splitting hairs, any difference is linguistic, not intended to change the meaning.

It is hard to discuss anything with the recurring misunderstandings, and the following overwhelming reactions. The whole ordeal was started by one such misunderstanding, and escalated into WP:DISRUPTive editing, revert, WP:Single-purpose accounts reverting 2nd time (WP:BRR is WP:EDITWAR). Not one action in WP:GOODFAITH.

It would be time to let go of the stress, revisit wikipedia guidelines, and reevaluate our WP:CONDUCT. I've also asked for your experience as editor to suggest a resolution to this dispute (Third message), but my messages got deleted from your talk page without reply. Can we NEGOTIATE?

— Aron Manning (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"I would not put the information in a Speculation section, and such section should be deleted or not added. The bird strike details can be confined to two sentences: one to describe the speculation, and another to describe refutation by Ethiopian officials. The text can be included in the 'Statements from parties' subsection of the 'Reactions to investigation' section." DonFB (talk

I fully agree; that is an excellent solution. EditorASC (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that both diff1 and diff2 texts can go in the Reactions section as-is. I feel they are supported by enough sources and there has been quite a bit of reporting about them (like it or not). I am neutral on whether there should be subsection or main-section called Speculations (I think all analysis has an element of speculation until we have more data such as full CVR transcript and maybe find that AoA sensor and/or ADIRU.) So it is redundant but if it reads better with/without should be fine.Greenbe (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@EditorASC: "you are failing to see the crucial difference between stalling or "paralysing" the jackscrew and forcing it to move in the OPPOSITE direction (which is what the false OR statement said and was the reason why I labeled it "OR" and removed it"(source) — EditorASC

The sentence labeled OR: "the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction."

This explains your misunderstanding. "pushed the stabilizer" is not the same as "moved the stabilizer".

If it can be misunderstood, then the following rewording might be better: "the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator created an opposing force on the stabilizer trim jackscrew."

Suggesting a rewording is the civil solution for this, even if misunderstood as a false statement.

— Aron Manning (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional source for the jammed trim, with illustrations: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/ — Aron Manning🍁 [➕] 11:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: I've resurrected the Expert Analysis section, reworded the misunderstood "pushed the stabilizer" as presented 3 days ago. To editors Greenbe and DonFB: It seems we all agree on the reintegration of Speculations into Reactions. Will you do it, so it's not only me editing the article? :-)  Aron M🍁 (➕)  04:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion poll: Was it easy to misunderstand the unfortunately worded sentence? Anybody else misunderstood?  Aron M🍁 (➕)  04:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To editors Greenbe, DonFB, Marc Lacoste and Shencypeter: I rewrote most of the "Expert Analysis" section that digests the timeline of the prelim report in 4 experts interpretation (They confirm each other). I removed the technical mumbo-jumbo, and added TheSeattleTimes article as source. That's a long and meticulous article, but worthy to read. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/

To editor WikiHannibal: The most recent temp version was based on a version picked out from the chaos of deletes (pointing at you ;-). I've made it non-technical as much as possible without skipping the stabilizer and the elevator. It's time to get chewing on it! Feedback is welcome.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  08:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To editor WikiHannibal: While reviewing my commit I noticed you've been also working on it and in the end the first sentence became split between two realities. I personally cannot decide, both has its positive and negative features. Let's ask the others too, and make a consensus:

@80.2.41.198: Proposed a paraphrased alternative version for the AVHerald citation:

Based on the preliminary report The Aviation Herald comes to the conclusion that, because of the technical malfunctions, the crews of JT-43, JT-610 and ET-302 would have been forced to react under time pressure to prevent a crash.

The original, copied:

Based on the preliminary report The Aviation Herald comes to the conclusion: "Neither of the three crews" (JT-43, JT-610, ET-302) "would have been forced to react under time pressure in order to prevent a crash, e.g. to find out what to do or identify the correct procedures to follow, without the technical malfunctions and the nose down trim inputs."

• Imho the double negation here is "Boeing ceo" language, not the same as the direct version. It's not his role to make judgments, so he steers very clear of it, and writes this "politically correct" statement. I think this suit WP, so I just copied the whole sentence.
• That being said, I find the original hard to read and too long, and would prefer a shorter, simpler wording. I'll remove the middle part (e.g. ...) for the time being, and then we fine-tune it if anybody comes up with a better one.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning:@WikiHannibal: Aron I do like your proposed edit above the language is simpler and more succinct than the quotes. However, I would say I am generally neutral either way surprisingly leaning 60-40 to keeping the quotes (current version). I re-read the whole expert section and I like it better every day - there is reference now to the high speed as well. I think the sum of all the sections shows a reader this situation is not nearly as simple as "MCAS malfunctioned, plane went down" mantra that was the takeaway for casual internet surfers. I like the quotes simply because it is a counter-quote to the Boeing CEO quote. I feel strongly that particular Boeing quote has to stay in - as an encyclopedia that will become part of the record long term whether he is proven right or wrong. And it is certainly not the only Boeing statement, I just think that one sums up about 6 months of their general thread on it. The counter quote shows that there are voices saying otherwise, and that quote (as shortened) sums up much of the counter-thread and then we expand into more technicals. But if you want to make the change I am fine - either way we have the sources to back it up. Other opinions please??? I am happy to make the edit either way if you still want me to.Greenbe (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Greenbe: Thank you for the thoughtful post! I highlighted the questionable morality of the ceo quote, but per NPOV and as encyclopedic content I also prefer to have it included. I think my questioning of the morality might have been misunderstood as an opposition to include, but that's not the case.

You and DonFB have a better understanding of the content and accepted fate of the Speculations section, therefore it would be more appropriate if you would make the edits. That does not mean i specifically want you to do so :-D  Aron M🍁 (➕)  02:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To editor WikiHannibal: We respect and expect your feedback, thus it has been asked for 2 days before. Would you like to share with us on an occasion other than those when you swiftly remove? — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

HI, it is quite difficult to follow your discussion (and I do not have much time to delve into this, making only simple edits elsewhere). If what this part is now about is the wording of the quote, I recall I raised two issues (I usually comment in the edit summary as it is quicekr for anyone even later to match the edit and the reasoning behind it): 1) What are "the technical malfunctions" of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and how do we (=the average reader unfamiliar with the topic or the discussion here) know that? (My tag was removed perhaps twice? without any change and I still believe that part is crucial for the whole sentence. ); 2) The grammar of "because of the technical malfunctions, the crews .... would have been forced to react" seemed wrong (what is the Tense–aspect–mood meaning of that sentence? because of the technical malfunctions, the crews were or were not forced to react|? Or might have been forced? But that is perhaps just my lack of insight. I am sorry I cannot help more at present ! WikiHannibal (talk)

@WikiHannibal: Reading recent messages is part of the editing process, and other editors find the time for it. What happened with the tag was you removed it with the whole section (diff 09:50, 11 May 2019), and I had to restore a previous version without the tag, as unfortunately the section delete got intertwined with some other questionable deletes that resulted in this [SPI report]. It would have helped to seek consensus before, or at least mention the complete deletion on the talk page along with the feedback on the 'Speculation' section (diff 09:58, 11 May). It takes less time to just delete, but that's not the purpose of wikipedia, so while you added the tag a 2nd time, I rewrote the whole section to be more consumable. This mess is fixed now and we can move on. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I still miss the answer to my question: What are "the technical malfunctions" of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and how do we (=the average reader unfamiliar with the topic or the discussion here) know that? It should be explained in the article ("THE technical malfunctions" seems to refer to something not mentioned in the article). Without context, the quote is meaningless. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be written? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In lack of a input from you, I've done it: diff. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Expert analysis, again

To editor WikiHannibal: Regarding your recent removals of content: the content you removed was accepted by consensus, we worked for weeks to reach this point. We have discussed already, in the context of your previous non-consensus removals, that if you think something should be removed, then it is better to discuss with the editors, who worked on the article, how to address your concerns, instead of removing content on your own. I am restoring the removed content now. You are welcome to discuss your opinions written in the comments. Please remember, we are here to improve this encyclopedia, therefore it would be beneficial if you made suggestions for the new content. As most of your edits on this article were only deletions, I ask you to contribute instead, this is why we are here. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Language and info ordinary folk can use + commentary

I've just added referenced comments by high prestige pilots to the technical jargon which characterizes the article. I've used a Fox News article because it was accurate, despite the vicious, slanted title so characteristic of the unspeakable scumbags at Fox. Tapered (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Political influences

I don't have the time to dig through the article or this recent article I stumbled across, but a scan of the following appears to indicate significant political influence on the investigations of both 737 Max crashes. Perhaps someone can. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/what-really-brought-down-the-boeing-737-max/ar-AAHFc5H? Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible source

• "Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system". The Seattle Times. 17 March 2019.

Was added as an EL; might be useful. Keeping here in case anybody interested. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Still under investigation

Yes we know that MCAS caused this aircraft to crash, but this accident is still under investigation because the final report has not been published. The final report will have additional details. We can keep the "MCAS design flaw" part in the summary, but we also need to keep the "under investigation" part there as well, until the final report is released. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Accident section

Much of the first paragraph of this section is in conflict with what is reported in the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau Interim report within the graph in Appendix 2 and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Preliminary Report, Appendix 1. Much is drawn from the inaccurate and sensationalist reporting in the Intelligencer. Overall it does not reflect the FDR (flight data recorder) sequence and repeats the article's speculation about the pilot motivations. Three d dave (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)