Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Airline numbers

Bloomberg and CNN have conflicting numbers about who owns how many boeings: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-and-which-airlines-fly-it-quicktake Which source is better and which should be used? 192.107.156.196 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Missed the AfD by a few seconds, but …

I was going to say:

Defer — I think that a standalone article may have potential if the ongoing crisis leads to the Boeing 737 MAX being scrapped entirely. However, I am aware that the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 does not have a separate article for the battery incidents, which resulted in the Note 7 being scrapped entirely amid widespread news coverage. Therefore, I would say it is too early to make the call on whether to keep, merge or rename. --Minoa (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that an $800 phone being scrapped is in the same ballpark of a $100M airplane. There is absolutely no talk (and there won't be) of scrapping the entire aircraft. The best guess for what is wrong currently is the angle-of-attack sensor, which would be swapped for a new model not susceptible to erroneous readings. Acebulf (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There were over 200,000 of those phones. But I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Political response section

I’m not so sure if that section should stay named that way, or not. This Wikipedia article is not aimed only towards the US and Canada, so why name it that way when it is only listing internal US and Canadian politics? I understand that this is related to the only two countries that didn’t ban the MAX as of today, but it should have a better title. Suggestions? --Bohbye (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE With the latest info that the US and Canada grounded the MAX, it will make sense to removing this entire section and incorporate pieces of it in the other areas of the page. --Bohbye (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to have that separate. Acebulf (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump as a source?

Is there an official source for the US grounding? Trump's been known to say a bunch of things to the press, and him saying a regulatory agency is going to do something isn't the same as that agency putting out a statement. Every other update has been a comment from regulators. I think we should do the same here and not pull the trigger too fast. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the official order --Bohbye (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess I got an answer whether I liked it or not :). FWIW I figured in this case it was OK to remove the section since it wasn't relevant anymore and it was just me asking an unanswered question. That PDF is useful, I've added it as a citation to the article. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In my view Trump's original lukewarm response and Luddite tweet are still notable in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It was notable, the question was whether it amounted to his personal opinion or official regulatory action. But the FAA notice followed shortly afterwards, which made the distinction moot. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Grounding chronology vs Grounding

Hi, I fail to see the reason why the two lists exist.

• 1) Why not merge them? (= Probabably by adding the text from chronology to the table.) More dateiled info is needed only for China and Indonesia, who were the first. It can be contrasted with US and Canda initial response.
• 2) Why does the chronology not include all the countries in the table?
• 3) The map seems not to correspond with the text (e.g. National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil grounding X map shows airline groundings). Or is it due to the MAX8 vs all MAX difference? WikiHannibal (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this would be best as a table. If we just added sequence numbers with UTC timestamps for when each regulator or airline announced to the table it would both show the chronology, and force us to find sources for that. The timeline of when airlines pulled the trigger first v.s. their regulator is also interesting. There's not always a clear distinction though, e.g. in cases where the MAX planes in a given country were only tasked with flying to a given country where MAX's had been grounded.

With regards to Brazil the map is correct, maybe you're viewing a cached version? It was changed earlier today to red. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopia is not the first country to ground

Although Ethiopian Airlines is wholly owned by the Ethiopian government, the flag carrier should not be representing a whole country. Only government bodies can represent a country. Also, for the section "Timeline of regulatory responses", should we include both countries and airlines or countries only?

From the 2nd paragraph:

Ethiopia was the first country to ground all of its 737 MAX 8 aircraft, with China, Indonesia and other countries following suit.

—Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that someone (not me) has fixed this issue already. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

British english

British English for an American plane? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Changed. Time to fix the dating format on the article. --Bohbye (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure this should’ve been changed. The article of the crash is in British English — Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Didn’t appear as though there was broad consecous either, as per the style guide. Nullpixel (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It was grounded in Australia before the UK, so the relevant first language would be Australian, not British. If it isn't American English (American plane) then it should be Australian. It should NOT be UK English, since British English isn't related to the first instance or the plane in question. It also isn't the language of Ethiopia or Indonesia. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So do Ethiopia or Indonesia use American English or Australian English? 86.186.37.206 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess Ethiopia would use either British or probably South African English. As it's a former Italian colony (and Italy uses British English), and it's in Africa (and the only language template I've seen for this is SA English). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Although maybe no strong language ties apply, in which case it should just be whatever language it was written in originally. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The editor who created it, User:Bohbye, marked it with {{Use dmy dates|date = March 2019}}, which seems to imply British English? He might be able to elucidate his intentions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 it was a mistake both on the page itself and on the talk page. I used a saved text file on my computer from a draft I am working on for a UK related article I’m working on. This page should and is using American English and mdy because it is a US aircraft and all Boeing related articles do so as well. Mistake was corrected once it was noticed. Bohbye (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. That's pretty clear. It makes sense to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Government shutdown

Apparently the government shutdown delayed software updates: https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-make-key-change-in-max-cockpit-software-11552413489

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah well, apparently, "pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT." So couldn't they just write their own software? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Map of countries

The map of countries in this article shows that Canada has grounded the aircraft, when in fact they have not. Sharper 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

On that subject. I reverted its removal by @WikiHannibal: in this edit, but added a notice that the map may be out of date.

I think having this huge amount of "Groundings" information visualized in some way is too useful to just remove the map entirely as soon as some new development happens. Yes it's out of date, but then let's fix that. And even if it's out of date it still shows you at a glance that the 737 MAX has been banned from Europe, China etc. with the Americas being the only consistent exception. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, this is the maker of the map. I just uploaded an new version wich should be up to date at the moment. To keep the map reliable i will try to update the map at least every day. I changed the text under the map to "Remove if the information is WRONG". And added "Please tell me if it is outdated". Greetings, MartijnWo (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I swapped the map out for an SVG map template. Now anyone can update it by opening the file in a text editor, and adding or amending new country codes under the BEGIN and END comments in the file. It also has no English text in it, so it can be used by other languages. See if you can find any inaccuracies. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, You seem to have forgot Malaysia and Egypt. Both should be red. Also part of Kazakhstan is not colored. Greetings, MartijnWo (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Will add Malaysia, forgot it. Egypt isn't listed in the article. Kazakhstan seems correct to me, what part isn't colored? Perhaps you're looking at Lake Balkhash? Lakes aren't filled-in on the template map. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Egypt is now listed in the article, as is Kosovo. Sharper {talk} 14:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, new news! Canada and Iraq should be added as red. Source (CNN). And Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason also, i forgot about Kirgistan and Uzbekistan, my foult. Greetings, MartijnWo (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what does color gray signify, and why is that not part of the legend? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the color gray, in the original map made by me means they have not said they will continue to use it/ground it. Cheers MartijnWo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, so it basically means "no data". This should be part of the legend to the map. Or why not? But perhaps at present, it can mean something different - perhaps they have no max aircraft to ground... It can be confusing for the reader. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

1

2

This is the map in question, concerns have been noted by multiple users about the map being misleading and inaccurate ("Map is misleading by mixing private airline with national responses/groundings; if anything, there should only be the red/green colors"). Opinions? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 versions, a PNG version that is really outdated, and an SVG version that is more easily update-able that should be kept closer to the updating situation. I don't see why that one should be completely removed. Acebulf (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Acebulf i dont agree that mine is really outdated. It does not have all the "Released 12 minutes ago" information on it, but is quite new. MartijnWo (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have spoken more clearly, my apologies. What I was referencing is the ease with which countries can be modified in an SVG file is a bit easier (in my opinion) to modify, which will lead to it being more updatable as new information progresses. I should have said "outdatable". There was additional concerns about the "one or more" or the "all airlines" being separate categories, which lead to someone removing the map entirely. Acebulf (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the map image should be removed from this article and deleted per WP:VER as it is totally unsourced. Additionally it is not easy for any editor to update and it is not compliant with MOS:COLOR. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How is a map supposed to be sourced, exactly, if not from the article's independently provided RS? I will correct the map to fit with MOS:COLOR, and are you referring to the svg or the png version. The svg version is able to be modified with a text editor, with the instructions being provided inside the text file. Acebulf (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Acebulf: the sources for each country status need to be put in the image file meta-data. Images are not dedicated to single articles, they are available for all articles and thus need to be verifiable. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW for the SVG version my source is the text in this article, I assumed that went without saying. Thanks for adjusting the colors. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: Wikipedia isn't regarded as a reliable source for other Wikipedia documents, so the sources for each country status need to be put in the image file meta-data. Also, images are not dedicated to single articles, they are available for all articles and thus need to be verifiable in their own right. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Colorblindness accessible version using the colors of [1] and checked with color blindness emulator tool. Acebulf (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have fixed the Western Sahara situation, that now shows gray. Acebulf (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it can certainly be improved, won't have much time to do that, but hopefully others will improve the map. I'm not zealous about which version is used, but surely an SVG version is easier to charge / better (e.g. it scales indefinitely). There's the issue that "Morocco" ends up highlighting Western Sahara, maybe a different SVG template should be used.

There's certainly room to change the categories, but I think it would be a loss to remove ones where airlines have voluntarily done a grounding. If there's only one such airline then in most cases the plane is de-facto 100% grounded in that country. But it is confusing in cases where e.g. there's 2x operators and only one of them has grounded it, but I don't think there's any such countries in practice. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Fist I appreciate your efforts however the consensus has been to use the open sourced, color blind accessible, svg map for the time being. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Fist: Where do you get your information about Panama and Mauritania from? I can add it to the svg version if you can provide RS. I should provably also be updated on the article. Acebulf (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the link: https://www.planespotters.net/operators/Boeing/737/737MAX?p=8 The status of the Mauritanian plane has been switched from "Active" to "Stored" around 1PM UTC today. --Dr. Fist (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I wouldn't call that a RS, we need to know where that website is sourcing its data. Looking at its about page there is a variety of official and unofficial data compiled by users. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed via [2]. Seems like Nigeria has also closed their airspace. I will make the necessary modifications. Acebulf (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a new color category for Panama, seems a bit silly to have still flying be green/brown, but I picked it from that color blindness guide linked above. It's to show the distinction between no comment and flying (Panama) v.s. an explicit regulatory decision to fly (US). As far as I can tell there's no other country operating the 787 MAX now, but perhaps I've missed something. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that what gray is for? Either way, I'd go for blue instead, that should not be easily confused, but that specific shade has problems with it being seen as undistinguishable from the green for some types of color blindness. Acebulf (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The US just grounded the MAX, so the map becomes useless. Given it is a US manufactured aircraft, an FAA grounding becomes an effective grounding worldwide. --Bohbye (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that the FAA has the authority to ground US manufactured aircraft from operation in other countries? Acebulf (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Grounding in Fiji was came along with an official statement made by authorities. Also, Equatorial Guinea grounded the airplane on March, 13th. --Dr. Fist (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The FAA has no authority to ground aircraft outside of US territories and airspace. Authority to do this is the purview of each national aviation authority as is illustrated by the earlier actions of China, Australia, the UK, etc.

However if the country-of-manufacture of the aircraft grounds the Type by suspending or revoking the aircraft's Type certificate it becomes very difficult for other nation's aviation authorities to justify continuing to allow the use of the aircraft, which is why it would have been more helpful if the US had been the first to ground the type, rather than one of the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Flags in groundings table

We've already had flags inserted and removed, in the table of groundings, numerous times in the short lifespan of this article. They serve no useful purpose, as per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Can we reach some consensus on removing these, please? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per MOS:FLAGCRUFT --Bohbye (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Remove as there is no necessity to emphasise nationality, so not needed per WP:FLAGCRUFT. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep'em I don't see anything in WP:FLAGCRUFT that states anything about removing flags besides entries referring to the countries of the governments making the grounding decisions. As they stand, it adds a bit of color for what would otherwise be a fairly bland table with a ton of text. Acebulf (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would support removal of flags, but I feel that a few extra images relating to the topic (including the aircraft involved in the crashes) could be used to offset the perceived blandness. --Minoa (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Remove: I didn't mind until earlier I was trying to search for "Argentina" to source something, couldn't find that in the article anymore, but on closer inspection it turned out the information was there, just with the word replaced by a flag. A layout that requires the reader to know TLDs or what ~200 national flags look like is bad design. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: the regulatory decisions made are per government's aviation authorities. It is different from a decision made by a particular airline. 204.88.157.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per IP above. Now that the table is of governmental authorities only the flags make sense. Someone added them back after I had removed them in the table edit, and looking at it now WP:ILIKEIT. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Table of grounding numbers

Should we create a table listing the airlines that have grounded their aircraft with the number of aircraft in each fleet? I believe this will help show the full picture by presenting the proportions of this grounding. Any thoughts?

Chocom (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a table would make this information more easily digested. Qono (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it would help, the only issue is there is a lot of conflicting data on how many are in service with each airline. --Bohbye (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently the text above the table says "voluntarily ordered groundings of 380 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and Max 9 aircraft in their fleets (ordered by name)". My understanding is while some airlines chose to voluntarily ground their fleets, others are only grounded due to the respective regulatory body. Do we want this table to only contain the airlines that voluntarily grounded their fleet? Or do we want it to be a list of all impacted airlines and how many planes they had affected (as it is currently)? If the second case, we should just update the text to say "Here's the number of planes grounded for each airline", and get rid of the part about it being voluntary. Iux Aeterna (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Map removal

I believe the map is useless at this point because the MAX series is grounded worldwide, so airline voluntary or government-mandated is no longer relevant. Also, the map itself is not up to date unless it’s all red pretty much, again what is the point. I think swapping out the image with a generic Boeing colors MAX aircraft will make more sense. Your thoughts on removing it? Bohbye (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As things have moved on it seems reasonable to remove the map. MilborneOne (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed the map --Bohbye (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we could add it back like "as of March 15" for history reference. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The map was never accurate and never will be, for example, Israel banned the MAX and it is not listed as such and so are other countries as well. It is useless and doesn't add any value to the story. --Bohbye (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Exact time of the Grounding by China and Ethiopian Airlines

There has been confusion about the exact timeline of China and Ethiopian Airlines' grounding announcement. China did it by announcement on its official website. You can check the exact time on the primary source .

Ethiopian did it by announcement on its official Twitter account, which was first reported by Reuters. You also can see the exact time on the primary source. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Update: The dates of the announcements mentioned above are accurae, but the Ethiopian Airlines' grounding took effect the day before the announcement. (BTW thanks to @DonFB: clarifying this for me) Aceus0shrifter (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

777X launch delay

While I understand that this article is about the 737 MAX, the immediate canceling of the unveiling of new Boeing 777X shows that Boeing is aware that this 2nd crash has a profound consequence - even before acknowledging the questionable air worthiness of 737 MAX. Hence I'd ask for full completeness of the Boeing response to reinstate the canceled launch in the Boeing response:

Boeing deferred the new Boeing 777X airplane launch planed for the 14th of March on the 11th of March. Only employees were allowed to its unveiling.

Thank you for the consideration. --88.1.240.192 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s not really accurate. 777X was launched in November 2013. The only thing that was delayed was the unveiling of the first completed aircraft to the press. This did not delay ANYTHING related to the 777X program or it’s schedule. So all it is a cancellation of a PR event. How much is this relevant to the story of the disasters and consequences of the MAX being grounded? Not at all. Bohbye (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence is relevant because it was an outcome of the furore surrounding the crash. With some corrections, per Bohbye, I think it should be reinstated. But the employee-only remark is not relevant and should not be restored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks to Bohbye and Steelpillow for input. --88.1.240.192 (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 18 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 MAX groundings – (WP:CONCISE) This is the only article on Wikipedia about the Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Therefore, this could be renamed to Boeing 737 MAX groundings until a second notable grounding event happens to adhere to the title's conciseness.

For example, see
2017 Manchester Arena bombing → Manchester Arena bombing (talk)
2018 YouTube headquarters shooting → YouTube headquarters shooting (talk)
2018 China–United States trade war → China–United States trade war (2018–present) → China–United States trade war (talk)

—Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah I think an obviously good move. I'd say be WP:BOLD and do it unless someone anticipates there being a second one of these we need to disambiguate from. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense. Bohbye (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes. Sharper {talk} 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with the nominator's rationale. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. DonFB (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support it's the only mass grounding of these planes, so year isn't necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support It would in alignment of standard practices. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Makes total sense to me. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that the grounding is universal, should the "s" at the end be dropped, as "Boeing 737 MAX grounding"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. There are multiple groundings called by multiple governments and airlines globally, not just one. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy rename per nomination. I support the nominator's rationale. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Scorbunny (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom, until another grounding occurs there is no need for the year MegaFlyCraft (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Closing comment Though I am involved as a participant, it seems obvious how this RM would play out if we let it go the full 7 days so I applied WP:IAR and moved the page. If anyone disagrees they can revert this close and discuss it more. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Order chronology

Per Aceus0shrifter edit summary: "If you have confusion about the exact time of the groundings by China and Ethiopia, please discuss on the Talk page". No confusion. Ethiopian Airlines announced on Twitter that its grounding was effective March 10, the day of the accident. That was the first grounding anywhere, by airline or government. Next day, March 11, China government regulator announced grounding of its planes. DonFB (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry I got it wrong. I first saw it on the New York Times article reporting China was the first, and Indonesia was the second, and only checked Ethiopian Airlines' twitter date. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Time zone differences can be a bit cruel to us. ;-) --Minoa (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Section on KC-46 tanker

I removed the section on the KC-46 tanker and Bohbye reverted so I'm hoping to reach consensus here. I removed the section because it seems to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. The article is about the groundings of the 737 MAX plane series, the KC-46 is not a 737 and the section states that it's not even based on that plane (it's based on the 767). The MCAS system on the 737 is different from the one on the KC-46. The KC-46 is, to the best of my knowledge, not grounded. The only relevance I see is that this event prompted the US Air Force to make a press release. I don't see why this is a section on the same level as Boeing's response. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Done.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this called consensus? Really? I request immediate revert. I will revert within 24 hours if you will not revert it. Bohbye (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If many people support the inclusion in this discussion, the consensus could change. It is already present in KC-46. It could be relevant in a standalone Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System article, but not in the 737 MAX article. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Shorter grounding table

Hi, thanks for the trim of the table the distinction between "banned from airspace" and "Grounded all", etc., was lost. This should be reinstated, or, as "banned from airspace" was the predominant term (which is not very well reflected in the headline), other variants of the ban (Austria, Japan etc. - there are not so many) should be added as footnotes. What do you think? WikiHannibal (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it really notable? Is there a distinction or were they translation variations?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There is some distinction, at least regarding banning from airspace and grounding. Austria grounded their aircraft (= of airlines based in Austria) but those from other airlines were still able to fly to Austria (before MAX was banned from airspace in the EU). I think it is notable but not sure whether it is worth it. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ten years from now, would it be interesting? Intricate details are still in refs anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

My point was that info, which is at this point not so hard to recover (esp. compared to checking all the refs.), was lost. But if there is apparently no need, it can stay as it is. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Technical merits of the grounding

I have been scouring the interweb trying to find some more explanation of why the pilots were not able to easily handle the problem (if the MCAS turns out to be the culprit). Unfortunately I only have more questions than answers. I have seen a few snippets of info here and there that counter the general media torrent but wanted to see if people think the following is an appropriate source before attempting to edit the main article.

LION AIR AND ITS PILOTS WERE AWARE OF NEW 737 FLIGHT SYSTEM

I do have some support from other blogs and pilot forums on this, as well as direct link from 737 Memory Item list, but yet to find other good sources in the clutter. Greenbe (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like today this is starting to come out in a New Bloomberg Report. That report says the 3rd pilot on the previous Lion Air flight correctly told them to throw both stab trim cutout switches which are part of the memory items checklist all 737 pilots are required to memorize. But I find this a bit of a mystery - the procedure is very simple (way simpler than all the things they have to memorize for an engine fire). What is different about the audio or visual cues compared to their training that the crews are not recognizing it immediately? Greenbe (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Day by day things are dripping out. It gets more mysterious. Indonesian authorities now confirm the 3rd pilot story first broken by Bloomberg (see above) but will not disclose what he said. Bloomberg's new story today says they have interviewed the 3rd pilot but they are not disclosing what he said. Bloomberg now directly asks the same question: If the two pilots on the previous Lion Air flight to Jakarta were not able to correctly diagnose the problem and run the memory item checklist, and it took a 3rd pilot to recognize that, what about this issue is different than other causes of runaway trim? Why did now at least 3 crews have trouble identifying the right procedure? There are many stories about the Lion and Ethiopian planes did not have an optional warning light and perhaps other additional features so maybe the visual and audio cues are different enough to fool pilots. The story now moves to when Boeing knew about the 3rd pilot, because I think that shifts the story line. Before now the story was two pilots on previous flight handled the problem correctly and others did not, but if it turns out it took 3 pilots it just looks a lot worse. Still need confirmation from Indonesia that the Jakarta flight had AoA problems. Why didn't Boeing ground the whole fleet (its only 200 planes) after they learned about the 3rd pilot? I think Bloomberg is getting to that basic question, when did they know about that. Why did Indonesia not disclose this until forced to by the media? To me it seems like you interview all 3 pilots in November and at least disclose some preliminary findings.Greenbe (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

More info here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have since read a lot of the KNKT preliminary report of Lion Air 610 crash This is dated October 29, 2018. No mention of 3rd pilot. However there is plenty of mention and listing of the maintenance logs. One thing I have seen implied in many news reports is that the AoA problems were not repaired prior to flight 610. But that is clearly false, the AoA was replaced, as well as other maintenance on potentially faulty sensors, all according to Boeing repair manual. Simple logic would indicate that continued problems are the flight computer, or other components up stream of the physical sensor. The other interesting thing was that the stick shaker was going off at takeoff on previous flight. All these things seem not to have been highlighted in many (but not all sources). I think the main article needs some updates, need to gather enough sources on this.--Greenbe (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CNN News report that the Ethiopian Airlines pilot followed Boeing's recommended procedure for dealing with MCAS problems prior to crash, here: [4], similar CBS News report here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.15 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The prelim report is out for Ethiopian flight. It shows they flipped the cutoff switches and still could not trim manually. Also the left stick shaker went off the whole flight, just like Jakarta. It is not the AoA sensor (my view). ADIRU and FCC will be the next targets. The word MCAS is not in the report, that is notable. Greenbe (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia "anticipate" 2018-19 Boeing 737 MAX crashes??

(I hope this isn't offensive/inappropriate/etc...)

System_accident#Five-fold_increase_in_airplane_safety_since_1980s,_but_flight_systems_sometimes_switch_to_unexpected_"modes"_on_their_own

Whether or NOT these crashes are/NOT (POSSIBLE?) "System accidents", is there ANY way/place to "link"?? (or simply need to wait for better sources??)

Thanks. Curious1i (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style section says:

"The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." So, on that basis, I do not in principle oppose a See Also link to the "System Accident" article. However, as noted already, that article is not very good, and frankly, not worth linking in its present poor condition. DonFB (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@DonFB:@Curious1i:I second DonFB and agree you can add a link in "See Also". There is also Aviation_safety. There are lots of sources on automation surprise or similar topics and related accidents, just one random example Personally I am not too familiar with the term "system accident" but the role of automation in safety is interesting and system-wide complexity seems to be an aspect of that. The general discussion is that automation has been a two edge sword, as you say over four decades aviation safety has improved tremendously. Apparently one major category of accident used to be "controlled flight into terrain", which has been nearly eliminated by automated ground proximity warning system. Yet now there is a new category of automation-related accidents but they are less frequent statistically than prior (as best I could understand it). It would be a nice challenge to see if you could explain all that succinctly. Greenbe (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The link can be added when reliable sources describe the two crashes as a system accident. I think this means the causes of the crashes have to be firmly established first, but perhaps that is not 100% necessary. (BTW I do not understand the headline/topic of this section.) WikiHannibal (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Article contains several mistakes

Dear contributors to this wikipedia page. This article contains several mistakes. The media reports aren't a good source in order to find factual information about the 737 Max. The 737 design part is almost completely false. " (MCAS) was developed for the 737 MAX to prevent stalls " MCAS is a longitudinal stability enhancement. It is not for stall prevention (although indirectly it helps) or to make the MAX handle like the NG (although it does); it was introduced to counteract the non-linear lift of the LEAP-1B engine nacelles and give a steady increase in stick force as AoA increases. The LEAP engines are both larger and relocated slightly up and forward from the previous NG CFM56-7 engines to accommodate their larger fan diameter. This new location and size of the nacelle cause the vortex flow off the nacelle body to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a reducing stick force) which could lead the pilot to further increase the back pressure on the yoke and send the aircraft closer towards the stall. This non-linear/reducing stick force is not allowable under FAR §25.173 "Static longitudinal stability". MCAS was therefore introduced to give an automatic nose down stabilizer input during steep turns with elevated load factors (high AoA) and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.

This is a qoute from the website: http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm (and no I am not the guy running that website). In shorter words it is explained that only in a very particular situation that under normal circumstances the airplane will never get into, the stick force that the pilot feels will decrease instead of actually increase. MCAS is there to counter this decreasing stick force.

"This engine relocation and the new nacelle shape cause an upward pitching moment." This sentence in the article is misleading because on basically every Jet aircraft the engines will cause an upward pitching moment as you increase thrust. Just as an example this is a sentence from the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) of the Boeing 737 NG found in the chapter Basic Aerodynamics and Systems Knowledge :"The airplane continues to pitch up if thrust is increased and positive corrective action is not taken by re-trimming the stabilizer." This is a guidance to remind the pilots that if the elevator -which controls pitch- has become inoperative, the thrust may be used in order to control pitch attitude instead. This is true for the 737 NG the Airbus 320 etc... it is not unique to the 737 MAX, the unique characteristics of the 737 MAX are explained above.

"the system activates without notice to the pilot." This sentence is completely false! MCAS will move the horizontal stabilizer which will lead to a nose down pitching moment. When the horizontal stabilizer moves it is shown in the cockpit to the pilots by two rotating Stabilizer trim wheels (just check for a video of this on youtube). They can be seen as they rotate and also be heard. MCAS is one of several systems which will move the horizontal stabilizer = the stab trim wheels. The Speed trim system which already is installed on the 737 NG or the autopilots (the 737 has two) are examples of other systems. All 737 pilots must know the so called stabilizer trim runaway memory items found in the Quick Reference Handbook. Other examples of where the pilots need to know procedures by memory are an engine fire or an emergency descent due to a rapid decompression. Thess are time critical situations where the pilots need to perform the memory items first and then after the situation is under control, they will refer to the QRH and continue checklist items which aren't time critical. It is very important to understand that it isn't neccessary to know why the stab trim wheels are moving if the pilot doesn't want them to. It doesn't make a difference which system is causing the unwanted movement: all that matters is that the memory items are performed in order to shut down the unwanted movement. This is done by setting the stab trim cut out switches to cut out which is what the previous Lion air crew before the accident flight did. In summary the statement that the pilots are not aware of the MCAS system operating is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow50t (talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Too long to read. It's easier to edit the article with better refs. I understand you think general media refs aren't thorough technically and I agree, but the general media coverage brought many new editors here. Now it calms down, we can replace it by more precise aviation media refs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The section about MCAS is transcluded and I find it difficult to edit it, I gave up. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Arrow50t, you appear as though you may be a technical expert, but I'm not sure if you are familiar with Wikipedia's principles for writing articles, so that may be a reason for your disagreement with the way MCAS is described here. Wikipedia articles are based on sources that are reliable, published and independent of the subject matter. The source you highlighted, http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm, might well meet those requirements. However, it is in disagreement with the description of MCAS in many sources that meet Wikipedia requirements, as seen in this list:

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

In cases involving disagreement among reliable sources, Wikipedia can present both (or multiple) opinions by describing the opinions, as shown in the sources. Wikipedia also defines "fringe opinion", and articles here generally give little or no space to such opinions. Based on the clear preponderance of the sources I've shown, I believe this article should use terms like "stall prevention" or "anti-stall". I would, however, support inclusion--probably in a footnote, but not in the text--of a reference to the b737.org.uk article, for the sake of including a representation of what appears to be a distinctly minority view of MCAS.

Another description you quoted, "This engine relocation and the new nacelle shape cause an upward pitching moment", could benefit from some re-wording. The article can describe that the position and larger size of the engines contribute additional lift when climbing--more than previous engines do--creating a potential hazard. References in mainstream sources support such a description.

The third quotation you showed, "the system activates without notice to the pilot", can also benefit from re-wording. The intention here is to describe that the cockpit offered no explicit indicator of the MCAS system: its status, its functioning or malfunctioning--there was no indicator dedicated to MCAS. I believe the text can easily be revised to make this meaning clear. DonFB (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the b737.org article is at odds with the gist of this page. I've seen it before. It's just some fine detail. The purpose of MCAS is to normalize the yoke back pressure and the purpose of that is to prevent the pilot accidentally getting too close to a stall. We need to summarize it here and leave the details for an MCAS page. It's not our biggest problem.... The real cause of these accidents and incidents are still emerging, MCAS may only be one factor in the end. Greenbe (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talking about a technical system, all those ok-with-wikipedia sources are basically crap, unless they cite a technical source for stating what MCAS is or what is not; instead, little known pages kept by people who are more into the topic (aviation in general) are likely more reliable than articles written by cover-the-story journalists. Boeing does not describe the MCAS as a stall-prevention system, see for example the update on the fix https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page and also in documents given by Boeing after the first crash, it's not about preventing stall; e.g., see appendix of the preliminary report of the second crash, http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/20435/0/Preliminary+Report+B737-800MAX+%2C(ET-AVJ).pdf where the MCAS appears in this way: "The 737-8/-9 uses a Flight Control Computer command of pitch trim to improve longitudinal handling characteristics". All these "pitch stability" and "longitudinal handling characteristics" mean the system isn't designed to prevent stall, even if it could help with it as well. Describing it as a system to prevent stall is therefore wrong, not just a simplification: the purpose of the system isn't that one. Here somebody did not the same error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System_(MCAS) -- Ittakezou0 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Orlando incident

The Orlando incident was removed from the article with the edit summary "not related to the groundings, already discussed at talk page".

1. I cannot find anywhere in the talk page, nor in the archive this issue being discussed
2. The text removed clearly stated that "The engine problems were determined to have been unrelated to the cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes that brought about the grounding of the aircraft." That does not mean that it is "not related to the grounding". In my opinion, any problems with the plane that are discovered while it is grounded is notable for inclusion — regardless if the problem was related to the crashes that brought about the grounding. It was included under a section heading titled "Additional incidents", and I think that's appropriate.

Banana Republic (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure which bit of "unrelated" is not clear. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was probably wrong about the topic being discussed here but I still recall there had been attempts to include it, and they were refused. But the fact it is unrelated to the topic of the article still holds true. I do not see why should "any problems" be included. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit was the only other refused attempt that I was able to find. That attempt at inclusion was indeed misplaced. The incident should be included in a separate section. Banana Republic (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

With public confidence in the airplane so low, I cannot fathom the grounding being lifted before the engine problems are resolved. Therefore, while the engine problems are not related to the crashes that caused the grounding, they are related to the grounding, and should be mentioned under a heading such as "additional incidents". Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that "engine issues" are part of the cause for the grounding. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The engine issues were discovered during the grounding, so they were obviously not the issues that triggered the grounding. However, that does not mean that they are unrelated to the grounding. The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved. Banana Republic (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The engine issue was found in flight so could not be related to the grounding, do you have a reliable source that the aircraft will remain grounded even if the software is fixed. Certainly the Boeing website says the grounding will be lifted when the software is released, no mention of engines. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Boeing did not issue the grounding order, so they cannot make a determination that once the software problem is fixed the grounding will be lifted (but they can certainly hope that will happen). The engine issue was discovered during the grounding of the plane, so it is related to the grounding, even though it may not be related to the events that triggered the grounding. Banana Republic (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So still no reliable source then. And the particular aircraft was not actually grounded when the engine problem was found, hence why it was flying. So without a reliable source this cannot be added to the article so perhaps we should close this now as no consensus to add, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be no dispute that the airplane was grounded. As written in the removed paragraph, Although the 737 Max was grounded for passenger flights, airlines were allowed to fly the grounded planes without passengers.

There is a Bloomberg Press article from April 17 saying that "At least three airlines have conducted inspections on the grounded Boeing Co. 737 Max". This means that the issue is broader than just Southwest Airlines. Banana Republic (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

They use the ground time to perform some maintenance. The grounding is related to the MCAS, not the engines. Somewhere there is a 737MAX flight attendant who catched the flu.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Banana Republic, you seem to be assuming there is some kind of systemic "engine problems" (your quote), but you have not provided a source which says such problems exist in the MAX fleet, which is the clear implication of your comment. Occasional engine problems happen on all types of aircraft. This problem just happened to occur on a grounded MAX during a ferry flight. The incident might be of mild or moderate interest to people following the MAX saga, but it does not seem essential to an encyclopedia article about the grounding. You make a very large undocumented, unverified leap when you claim: The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved. If another engine problem occurs during a ferry flight, then a brief mention of multiple such inflight problems or multiple unscheduled ferry landings caused by engine problems might be worthy of inclusion, but should not be linked to the grounding, unless sources explicitly say the grounding will not be ended until engine problems are fixed. DonFB (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. We'll have to wait and see what comments, if any, the FAA will make regarding this incident.

Regardless, I think it should be noted in the article that the planes are grounded only for passenger flight service, but are still allowed to fly without passengers, and show this Orlando incident as an example. Obviously, it the planes were grounded under all circumstances, this incident would not have happened. Banana Republic (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There is brief mention of ferry flights in the "In flight effect" subsection of the article. DonFB (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. The "In-flight effect" section is for planes that were in the air when the grounding took effect. I therefore moved the sentences in question to the US response within the timeline to say that although grounded for passenger service, the FAA still allowed planes to be flown without passengers. Banana Republic (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But why have you added this not notable unrelated incident again when there is no consensus to add it? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It was included in a single sentence as an example of flights that were allowed to take place in spite of the grounding of the plane. You cannot say it was not notable when there was plenty of coverage of the incident that took place during the flight. Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, coverage does not mean encyclopedic material. As it seems you edit only ocassionally (nothing wrong with that), here are a few links you might find useful in this context: see for example WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.") and WP:TOOMUCH. On what is best to include and what not in similar articles, see WP:AIRCRASH. I also found where the engine was discussed - at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Engine Issues; sorry for the initial confusion. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is for routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. I don't think engine problems are routine, and certainly not for a plane that is grounded.
2. WP:TOOMUCH is obviously subjective and is not policy. I can't see how the inclusion of a single sentence would be too much
3. I don't see how the sentence is question is not in conformance with WP:AIRCRASH. Engine failure is certainly "serious damage to the aircraft".

Banana Republic (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to show links to improve your editing but you misinterptet them: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not only for what you think, you omitted the "for example" part of For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports..., and the general idea I quoted above also holds true; Your quote "serious damage to the aircraft" applies to accidents, not incidents (The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport); incidents should be included only if they resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry; turing off an engine overheating due to debris is not serious damage, not an accident. This is my last comment on this topic, as it seems a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

1. I don't think my omission of the words "for example" changes the meaning of the fragment that follows the two words. I can assure you that it was not my intention to change the meaning.
2. WP:AIRCRASH does not make a distinction between accidents and incidents. To quote (hopefully in full context) "Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if: (emphasis added)

However, it won't change the consensus that the inclusion of the incident in the article should only happen if and when the FAA makes a statement that the planes cannot fly again until the issues with the engines that were discovered in this incident are resolved. I just wanted to be on record that I don't think I misquoted anything.

It appears to me that the lack of consensus for inclusion of the incident is not based on policy. It is based on the opinion that because the engine issue that was the cause of the incident had nothing to do with the accidents that caused the grounding, it therefore does not belong. Banana Republic (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Time to close this and to drop the stick, clearly no consensus to mention engine failures in this article in any form, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Looks like we are slipping down the pyramid and not focusing on the issues. Per WP:TALKNO, please stay in the top 3 sections. Banana Republic (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the "Orlando incident" is not related to the groundings. I see no reason to include this information in this article. Regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As a See also

This edit, along with its edit summary "Four editors refused your addition as unrelated to the groundings, and for the third time you are trying to add it??" seems to me like a grudge. Now that the incident has been accepted as notable, I don't see any reason not to include it in the article under the "See also" section. Since the incident occurred to a grounded plane, it is obviously related to the grounding article. If no other editor agrees that it should be listed under the "See also" section, then I won't re-insert it into the section.
However, if and when the FAA declares that the resolution of the engine issues was a factor in the decision to lift the grounding (or if the FAA will decide that the resolution offered by the manufacturer is insufficient for lifting the grounding), it will be fair game to re-add the incident into the article (and in a much more prominent location than in the "See also" section). Banana Republic (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Political

The current text is misleading as regards the FAA grounding and Trumps announcement of it. It is a case of ignoring multiple sources that state that Boeing CEO called Trump assuring him of safety and that then the FAA delayed. This puts a different light on Trumps involvement. I am editing to improve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.231 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The editors of this page seem to be overly deferential to both Boeing and Trump. The story is not good for either of them. The FAA does not come out well either since it apparently bowed to political pressure with the initial decisions not to ground and then having the grounding decided by Trump on presumably political grounds and not technical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.71 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Article is not misleading. FAA issued "Continued Airworthiness" certification notification on March 11, day before Boeing phone call to Trump on March 12. FAA already was supporting continued flights before the call. DonFB (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear DonFB, what you say is not supported by the record. The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th. I am undoing your deletion. Please come back to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. The record is mixed about Trump's involvement and I think that a balanced article should reflect that. Not just positive things about Trump and Boeing, but a balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.168 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect.

You said: "The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th."

The source you cited is:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/12/boeing-ceo-trump-737-max-safe-1218439

The source shows:

By KATHRYN A. WOLFE
03/12/2019 03:49 PM EDT

The text of the source says,

"Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reassured President Donald Trump Tuesday that the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft is safe, the company confirmed."

"Tuesday" was March 12.

The FAA issued a "Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community" on March 11:

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/CAN_2019_03.pdf

DonFB (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As a current event article is difficult to maintain because it took only three days to ground the aircraft. Reporters get to publish one story item at a time and this Wikipedia article would cite hundreds of them before the restrictions are lifted against the plane. I had specifically opposed mentioning any names in the lead, as it is a summary of the entire article. Just as no regulator is named in grounding the plane in China, the names of Donald Trump and Dennis Muillenberg seem less noteworthy here. I was grossly offended that Trump's tweets about complex airplane systems or his suggestion to rebrand the whole plane once appeared in the lead; we should be quoting Captain Sullenberger and not a random, unprofessional rant on Twitter. Yes, the US had flip-flopped its policy to ground the plane on Wednesday, and so did Muilenberg -- initially asserting the planes were safe, then acknowedged that MCAS playd a role. Too much information! Shencypeter (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand your position regarding names; I could not tell from your previous post if you did or did not want to mention any names. It's true the article does not give names of officials in other countries. My take is this: because the plane is made and certified in the U.S., the decision by U.S. officials to ground it and eventually unground it is very influential and will basically give other countries the ok to resume flying (even though some other countries/groups will also make their judgement). Therefore, it's appropriate and encyclopedic, I believe, to give a little more detail about the decision-making in the U.S., because that's where the airplane comes from. Furthermore, of course, our personal opinions about the president (or about anybody) cannot influence our decision as editors whether to include such encyclopedic information (wp:NPOV). So, I think it's quite ok to mention Trump in the lead for those reasons, although Muilenburg does not have to be mentioned in the lead--but we can certainly name him in the body of the article, since he's the Boeing chief, and this article is all about the grounding of the plane his company makes. DonFB (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

But I don't agree it's too much information to describe the fact that U.S./FAA/Boeing at first would not ground, then decided to ground. That's a vital part of this whole story and would be wrong not to include it. DonFB (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Only positive things about Muilenburg and Trump are written here. DonFB is correct that the call was on Tuesday, not Monday. But it did happen. Why not mention it as many readers would find it germane. Note that there are very many reports of it in mainstream places. Also don't forget that Boeing gave $1M to Trump's inauguration. Maybe that also should be mentioned. Finally, it is also a fact that many members of congress complained about the non-grounding including public statements by Republicans. Trump is known for not giving a hoot about what members of other parties, or any one else says except for Republicans and his racist base. In this regard the fact that Republicans were complaining is significant. As you can guess from what is written here I do not care for Trump. I also guess from the deletions that some people here love him. Can't we work together to make a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.253.120 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Look more closely at my Edit Summary here, where I directed you to the information about the phone call already in the article. I don't see positive or negative things about Trump or Muilenburg; I see only neutral descriptions of their actions. If you find a reliable source that Wikipedia can use to explain a connection between campaign donations and government decision-making about 737 MAX, be sure to keep everyone informed. DonFB (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Added a few details that would be of interest in relation to the article. These are about the history of the grounding and in particular the political narrative around it.

Boeing 737 MAX crashes

Just to note that a new article Boeing 737 MAX crashes has been created which duplicates this article. Although a merge request to this article was started I have been WP:BOLD and redirected it here. As far as I can see it provides no new information. MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the article's talk page, it seems like it was a class project. I don't think your redirect would be too controversial. Banana Republic (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivery of planes

I added info with references about delivery of the planes, but it was not necessarily the planes in the accidents, but rather, the first of type delivered to each airline. Previously, the article said the accident planes were less than four months old, which may well be true, but there was no referencing in the article for that statement. I'll research more by registration number or other info to find referencing for age or delivery of the actual planes. DonFB (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, delivery is in preliminary reports, and age (total time) should be there as well. It is also sourced in the respective articles on the flights. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I sure was working hard to reinvent wheel on this. DonFB (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Ethiopian plane was two months old and the Lion Air Plane was four months old. The Ethiopian Plane "left the factory" after the Lion Air crash. Shencypeter (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This message was left elsewhere on the talk by user User:161.130.253.153, who now added the NPOV tag to the article: "I think that the current text contains a highly selected set of "facts" and excludes other "facts" to the extent that it does not represent the story as it is understood in mainstream sources and that it particularly is much more favorable to Boeing and Trump that the collected sources are. I nominate this article for deletion." Making a seprate section in cae some kin of discussion emerges before the tag is removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you plaese be more specific what facts are excluded? Without that, the article cannot be improved and the non-neutral tag will be removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the template because it seems to me as unfair to tag the entire article with an NPOV template if the dispute is limited to a single section. I will let the editor who placed the template to choose which section they would like to tag with this template. Banana Republic (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading this article as a whole one has the impression that Boeing and the FAA both behaved very properly throughout the process. Trump took the lead and announced the grounding in the US out of abundance of caution. A careful job is being done for improving the almost perfect aircraft. The strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement of the ground and the FAA abundance of caution. The de-emphasized story is the close relationship of Boeing and Trump, with the delayed response of the FAA. The severe criticism of the certification process used for this aircraft. The doubts about the effectiveness of the software fix. The strong doubts around Boeing's denial of defects in the aircraft. The fact that Trumps announcement followed severe criticism by people in his own party including Congress. The racist allusions that the foreign flight crews in crash planes did not follow procedures contributing the crash, which were made by Boeing (and reported here as if factual) even though other sources strongly dispute that. This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture. I am restoring the npov. Please improve the page instead of just reverting. The page as written is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.252.230 (talk • contribs) Latest revision as of 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You lost me. The article must be written from a neutral point of view. Are you saying that the article should pass judgement against Boeing? Have you read the Certification inquiry section that says that "it was announced that experts from nine civil aviation authorities would investigate how MCAS was approved by the FAA, if changes need to be made in the FAA's approval process and whether the design of MCAS complies with regulations."? Banana Republic (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think now that the article contains criticism from Sullinberger, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that "This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture.". Banana Republic (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

161.130.252.230, Thanks for your input but I am afraid that is your interpretation only. You grossly misinterpret the article, for example there are no "racist allusions", and Boeing statements are/were not "reported here as if factual". (= "he said the pilots did not "completely" follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined.") There is no "strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement" in the article, just "Trumps announcement" etc. Removing NPOV. But I am not oposed to changes. Could you perhaps write here at the talk page how would you like to present the Boeing statement? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please keep a civil tone. The remark "your interpretation only" is not civil as you have no way of knowing how many or how few people share an opinion. Clearly there is a dispute about neutral point of view, which is all that npov is about. This is to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.122 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Please sign your posts by typing 4 tildas (~~~~)
2. Nothing uncivil about pointing out that you are the only one who thinks the article is biased. We obviously cannot count the opinions of editors who do not participate in the discussion.
3. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. The way I am seeing it, there is no consensus that the article is biased. While other editors and I are trying to work with you to address your concerns, all you do is re-insert the {{npov}} template. Please do not reinsert the template and either add more information to the article to balance things out, or keep discussing here how you think the article could be improved. Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps an Airbus employee is pissed that the page is not a tabloid where rumors and non-verified data is not part of the article? If you have data to back your claims by reliable sources, sure add it, but do not claim the article is biased towards Boeing. The existence of this article itself is a big trashing of Boeing if you think about it.Bohbye (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The unregistered editor who keeps adding the {{npov}} template is doing so from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Accusing them of having a personal grudge is not in line with WP:AGF. I do agree that they have not made a good case that the article is biased. Banana Republic (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

MCAS transclusion

@DonFB: why are you against a transclusion to avoid sync problems?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't perceive "sync problems." Transcluding forces editor to edit a different article. Editing styles and choices differ. The section is much briefer than it was and satisfies purpose of Summary style. DonFB (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I recall previous problems with transcluding MCAS in this article or Boeing 737 MAX or another related article. MCAS is a quite complicated issue now and seems to develop in time (cf. Dennis Muilenburg). Sometimes the emphasis needs to placed on different aspects in different articles. (BTW you did not transclude MCAS in Boeing 737 MAX, why?) WikiHannibal (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

DonFB: there are sync problems since the MCAS lead section is used in its main article, in 737 MAX and here. Transcluding allow to edit only one place instead of three, avoiding errors. Style and choices should not differ in different articles.

WikiHannibal: indeed, I did that to avoid those problems! I want the reader to have a clear view of the MCAS and having short summaries here and in 737 MAX should help to consolidate all info and news there. (did not had the time yet!) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WikiHannibal's view that "Sometimes the emphasis needs to be placed on different aspects in different articles." Transcluding puts a straight jacket on editors. Yes, editors should avoid errors, but the idea that one-size-fits-all does not work in a dynamic editing environment with different articles emphasizing different aspects of the story. Styles and choices do differ among editors. For example, the phrase "flight envelope protection system" is, in my opinion, an absurdly jargonized expression that should be replaced by ordinary English, so I did in the Grounding article. I don't know about you, but I'm writing for general readers, not for engineers or bureaucrats. That's what I mean about style and choices. DonFB (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What would be the different emphasis here, in 737 MAX and in MCAS intro? Transclusion is more dynamic as every article is updated simultaneously, no one is forgotten. Flight envelope protection is explained in its own article and is the perfect description for the MCAS. WP:jargon is useful for precisely describing a feature, and describing it as an "anti-stall system" is equally specialised as it needs an article to explain (and is about a very complex phenomenon, not: "do not pull too much, you'll lose speed and lift!") Anyway, this discussion is relevant but should be better had in talk:MCAS than here and should apply equally in all three copies.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For one thing, if text is added to the master article, that runs the risk of expanding the transcluded Summary elsewhere, beyond its appropriate length. So, in effect the editor is constrained in what he can write, because expanding in one place will produce unwanted expansion in the other, and the editor is forced to make a compromise he otherwise might not make. In the Grounding article, Mcas is repeatedly mentioned; it is crucial to the subject of the article. It therefore deserves more than a cursory introduction, and should not be confined to an arbitrary length. Your drastic reduction of that section was not entirely unjustified, but attempting to now confine that section to a bare minimum is a disservice to the rest of the article. DonFB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty to split the discussion in 2 themes. For the first, "is a transclusion appropriate?": It would be neat to have a great WP:LEAD section in MCAS, itself needing great body sections to summarize. I'm pretty confident it would fit perfectly here as an MCAS explainer, but if not, it would be easy to split the transclusion between here and a specific MCAS intro. Wikipedia is a work in progress!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am also opposed to the use of section transclusion for a lot of the reasons already stated. I think it causes more problems than it solves and winds up making both pages worse as it gets tweaked to fit two completely different articles. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now there is no transclusion, so we can't know.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it on general principle not this particular instance. The same content in two places isn't necessarily a benefit to readers so unless there's a more substantial benefit that outweighs all the negatives already listed I am generally opposed to article content being transcluded from other pages. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The benefit of having the most informative and updated summary possible outweighs the tradeoff of maybe not being tailored for each use, not demonstrated yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Flight envelope protection is the perfect description for an engineer or pilot, not for a general reader. And yes, it has its own article, which also launches with a laughably jargonized opening: "a human machine interface extension". It should not be necessary to make readers hover, or click, to find out what an opaque expression means, when it's entirely possible to use plain English for the description. Yes, some very technical terms or phrases cannot be reduced to simple English, but many if not most expressions can be made understandable to the general reader without resort to, in effect, telling them to go look it up. You said "WP:jargon is useful for precisely describing a feature." I'm not sure if you mean that Guideline is useful, or if you actually mean jargon is useful. If the latter, we disagree profoundly. Jargon is only useful among experts who are already knowledgeable in the subject--for everyone else, it's a pain in the a$$. DonFB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For the 2d theme (the content of the MCAS summary), i added a link to Flight envelope protection because it was much more appropriate than the previously used control law which had Fly-by-wire in mind, but the 737 is still not FBW, and links to an entirely different Mathematical optimization article. And indeed the article is not very intelligible, but as you said it is "the perfect description" for specialised readers. A good way to have the best of both worlds would be to write it plainly and then link to the specific article: Based on sensor data, the MCAS automatically lowers the nose when the aircraft pitches up: a Flight envelope protection--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS flag

Can we have a discussion about the proper application of WP:MOSFLAG within what has become the truely horrendous groundings by country table WP:TOOMANY. Currently the flags appear purely decorative as per WP:ICONDECORATION with no real purpose. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur: they are decorative, not informative.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, they need to be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Given the obvious consensus here I changed it back to how it was but it was reverted so I'll just note I'm also against the change. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the flags help separate the countries so that the list of countries is not presented as a wall of text. It also helps quickly find the country of interest. Banana Republic (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To quote from WP:ICONDECORATION, icons "should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". I therefore think that the flags are compliant with WP:ICONDECORATION. Banana Republic (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are the flags better than normal established punctuation to seperate the listed countries? Andrewgprout (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They are used in addition to the "punctuation" (I think you're talking about the bullets). The problem with the bullets is that they are small and not quite as easy to see as the flags. Banana Republic (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that the table has changed recently, it is now even more obvious that the flag icons are simply decorative, as they do not now seperate elements.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Tables to prose

Marc, the conversion to prose makes the info almost unreadable and certainly unsortable. I ask you unconvert and refrain from prosifying the airline section. DonFB (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The information does not need sorting, and is not tabulated data. It's been a few weeks since I added the prose template and nobody was against it, so I went ahead. I won't do the same for the airlines yet, but the sorting feature is of very little interest either.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right; I should've voiced my objection then. I've already used both the date and alpha sorting functions; they're quite convenient. Aside from inconvenience due to loss of sorting functionality, it looks awful. DonFB (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks awful but saves space so no opinion on this; however, the airlines section would be worse, so please do not do that. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetic sorting does not convey interest. There is a point to sort by date (the chronology order) or by number (to sort by size), but sorting by the random letter placement of the alphabet is meaningless. For the countries, only the date sort had a purpose. It looks ugly, but takes less space than a long table. The ugliest thing are the endless references for non controversial facts. I would be OK with removing most, at least non-english refs. And even removing all European countries after the EASA ban, and to stop listing countries after the FAA ban as the aircraft was forbidden to flight anywhere since.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetic sorting by country name in both tables is of interest to me, whether or not it is of interest to you. I had a feeling you might have disliked the space it took, and collapsible is acceptable to me. I am going to edit the header portion of the country table, so it will have some visibility/color when collapsed. It definitely would not be proper to remove countries that acted after FAA & EASA bans; that is encyclopedic information and provides noteworthy details about which countries were very late in taking official action, regardless of the existing bans. DonFB (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it took too much space. It is still sorted alphabetically for each date, so finding a country is still easy, and you can find any one with your browser find function anyway. Keeping each late country is not crucial and may give it too much WP:Weight, especially with the references size.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is very hard to read in prose form; a table allows much easier scanning. Thanks for the great tip about using the browser Find function, but I prefer an instantly sortable format to find single or multiple countries by name. A lot fewer key strokes and clicks, I'm sure you'll agree. I strongly disagree with you that keeping late countries is unimportant; I see no undue weight doing so. On the contrary, as I've stated, it is encyclopedic information. For example, a mainstream published source said the FAA was last regulator to act, and Wikipedia has sourced information to show that's not so. I find it incomprehensible you would want to eliminate that information from the encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is even harder to read in a table, and for easier scanning, everything is on a single screen! (To avoid manipulations, use ctrl-F. Works everywhere) I understand if you want to keep late regulators. A good way to have a better list would be to have a single reliable source for every inclusion. To look better and to have a more semantically correct html, I used Template:flatlist.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks just as bad as before. You know, we have three people in this discussion, and all three say it looks ugly, including the editor who made it look that way. A sortable table that includes parameters like name and date will always be more reader-friendly than the jumble we now have. DonFB (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, but I wanted to make my opinion clear. DonFB (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For me, it's less ugly than the single column table (just a list then) of before. WikiHannibal have "no opinion". For now there is no consensus, we need more views.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiHannibal may have no opinion on whether to restore table, but he does have an opinion about existing prose that "It looks awful". DonFB (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

he said "but saves space so no opinion on this" --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I too prefer the table, as it is more concise and easier to scan. If the interest is saving space, we can just have the flatlist inside the table, as I have done in this edit. Banana Republic (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To all: I'm not going to revert, but will just point out: the new flatlists are sort of an enjoyable, jumbled riot of color with all the flags, but less useful for readers, because: If you're looking for a particular country, you now have to look at each group separately, because each group is separately alphabetized, whereas the orig sortable table allowed you to instantly alphabetize the entire list, and you could quickly eyeball it and maybe even exercise your index finger on the scroll wheel, but very quickly find what you wanted, multiple times, no muss, no fuss. With the prose, you have to re-eyeball and maybe hunt through all of the groups, each time, to find your quarry. And of course, as has been said, if space was a concern, the collapsible function for the table made that a non-issue. So, in exchange for colorfulness, we've lost ease of use. DonFB (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Could we add a Countries column to the Airlines table below? It would combine the purpose of two tables, albeit some tedious work grouping the airlines by country and applying the rowspan. The reader is free to sort the WikiTable; the grouped rows become single again. Shencypeter (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC) However, prose is readable on mobile devices.

DonFB: using ctrl-F is faster than scanning a list, be it horizontal or vertical.

Shencypeter: mixing airlines and countries would be mixing apples and oranges, they do not compare.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You must be a fast typist. Repeated keyboard input and name-typing not likely faster than eyeballing a relatively short alphabetized list. DonFB (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marc Lacoste, I’m looking at the table now with mobile and I think each country could use a line break. Shencypeter (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a list so it could be made as a vertical list (one just need to remove the Template:flatlist header and footer) but it would be too long again, perhaps by collapsing it by default it would be OK but then it would carry less information than an horizontal list.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have completed pivoting the colums as a best compromise for vertical list and screen space, "Calendar style" Shencypeter (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work, but Marc has finally seen the light. DonFB (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it boiled down to how the resultant table looked on my mobile screen, so the thin list is better. Shencypeter (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

New external links

I'd like to share a few articles that give valuable information to the accidents, going into more details than the wiki article does. These are analytical articles, or essays, that shed light on many unanswered questions:

• Ethiopian 302 – Even Without Answers, The Data Tells a Story

Long essay reconstructing the timeline, the cockpit environment, taking the human factor into account. Self-published aviation journal of Courtney Miller.

• ET302 crash report, the first analysis - Bjorn Fehrm, Leeham News

Explains a few basic aspects of the FDR chart, giving a timeline of the accident. Aviation journal.

• Illustration of stabilizer trim - The Air Current article

Explains and illustrates the elevator generated forces on the stabilizer, in a suitable format for the layman. The illustrations were copied by many mainstream articles. Aviation journal.

• The many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max – The Verge article

Long essay mostly about the development of the Max. Mainstream media, a bit superficial.

• Mathematician's analysis of the accidents

Reconstruction of the timeline. Self-published.

Two popular videos as well:

• The reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice - Vox Videos

This lacks any over-exaggerated dramatization (like the 60 Minutes video...)

• The FAA and Boeing’s Close Relationship Explained - Wall Street Journal

Similar tone as the Vox video, different topic. Just released.

I'd like to add these to WP:EL. Any opinions?

One extra news video - not for EL - that briefly summarizes the basic causes:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/faulty-sensor-led-to-horrifying-tug-of-war-in-cockpit-of-downed-boeing-plane - with transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMFMpGLa_co - non-US viewers

If anybody hasn't seen Mentour Pilot's new simulator demonstration of the trim jamming:
The difficulty to trim in a severely out-of-trim situation

— Aron Manning (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A (new) "Further Reading" section might be best location. I've read most or all of these, and truth to tell, I'm not sure in which article they can best be used. This article focuses on the grounding and its after effects, but not strictly on the investigation. We also have the two accident articles, the airplane article and the Mcas article. In any case, we don't want to overload External Links, per wp:EXT. DonFB (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@DonFB: I prefer 5 EL, no more. "Further Reading" maybe 10 max? Or that's more lax?

"ET302 crash report, the first analysis" can go to ET302 page.

The 2 videos FR "Further Reading" or EL?

— Aron Manning (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

no self published sources please, and prefer aviation media to general media.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bonus video: FAA admin Daniel Elwell stating repeatedly "the 737 Max is a fly-by-WIRE aircraft" – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eZ7kMI78g&t=979

Most of these are not really needed in external links wikipedia is not a replacement for Google. If the source is that good it should be used to add to the article and be used as a source. We may likely have to cull some of the external links already in use so please no more it just makes more work when the article gets cleaned up latter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Only those are necessary, which directly address the grounding, and the design issues that Boeing is working on to fix:

• Illustration of stabilizer trim - The Air Current article
• The many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max – The Verge

Both secondary RS, referenced by other RS articles. The two article about the ET302 crash report should go to the ET302 FR section, not here.

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

The illustrations from the first article could be used in the wiki article, if CR allows: it's been copied all over the media. — Aron Manning (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Theverge is a generalist media and this article is the only one from this author, with no bio. While it may be well written and well documented, I'm not sure it could bring something new like aviation media or the Seattle Times' Dominic Gates could. visualapproach.io seems to be a single-man work, again with no bio, and may fall under self-published, while it does looks like interesting. The Air Current and Leeham News are reliable aviation media and could be added to EL, before being used as references hopefully.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: I see. What do you mean by "generalist media"? — Aron Manning🍁 [➕] 22:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Trade publications (here, Category:Aviation media) dives deeper in details than general public news media and are more useful as interesting sources for new content.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As it is now turning into a dumping ground I have removed the external links, no objection to links being added but they really need to geta consensus here so we can make sure they add to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't want a mess, so

• I've removed the prelim report, it's related to ET302 page, not specifically to the groundings. Similarly JT610 has the the other report.
• TheAirCurrent, TheVerge articles has been agreed upon above, added.

WSJ and Vox videos found no objection. Both are factual, no ridiculous dramatization like in the 60 Minutes video:

• WSJ video is a digest of the DER system, how the FAA certification works, how the Max will get re-certified.
• Vox video summarizes the design process and constraints of the Max that contributed to the unfortunate chain of events that grounded the Max.

Both videos and the articles are very informative, neutral and accurate, thus acceptable according to WP:EL, and give great value to the wiki article. I've added both until there are better / more up-to-date videos, or a neutral consensus arises declaring these negatively impacting the page.

Can we agree on a limit of, say, 5? More really looks messy.

 Aron M🍁 (➕)  03:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The verge is not agreed on, neither the videos, see #Disputed WP:EL below. No limit should be stated.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Groundings

Political interference accusation already covered in Political section, including Sen Warren quote. No source for "FAA moved slowly...following call" from Boeing to Trump. Boeing campaign contribution and "close ties" is editorial wp:Synthesis with this article. DOT sec. Chao MAX flight already covered in Political section of article. No source saying it was "unusual move". No source FAA satellite tracking data decision was "disputed soon after". Tracking "resolution" not in cited source. Pilot complaints already covered Pilot Complaints section of article. No source for "unclear" how FAA reviewed complaints. DonFB (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Good move because we already said no basis to ground before Wednesday Shencypeter (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unusual for a regulator to promote the product it is regulating. Therefore I think that no source would be needed to state the Chao's public flight on a MAX during this period was unusual. I don't know of any other similar instance. Do you need a source to state that Paris is the capital of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.232.68 (talk · contribs)

Do you mean it's WP:Common knowledge#Acceptable examples of common knowledge? That's not the case, if it can be challenged. WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue in this case. To meditate on the difficulty of this question, the opposite WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is a great reading.

Albeit in this case I think you reach a "conclusion" or with other word "interpret" a fact: "[his] flight [...] was unusual", based on your experience of what is usual. Thus it would be deemed as WP:OR.

Writing "Chao and her staff flew on a Southwest Airlines 737 MAX 8" will get the attention of the reader. The "unusual" comment has to come from the media, or more accurately some WP:RS, and need to be attributed to that source.

— Aron Manning (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/boeing-faa-congress.html
" The acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration will face questions from members of the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday about the regulator’s role in approving Boeing’s now-grounded 737 Max airplane to fly. "
" “Despite what you might read in the press, I believe the F.A.A. still is the gold standard, still has the credibility around the world to make change,” said Mr. Elwell, a former aviation industry lobbyist. "
 Aron M🍁 (➕)  17:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)