Talk:China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735/Archive 1

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Altitude-airspeed-time graph.png
 * MU5735 flight path.png

Add protection to the page
Hello, since this event has just happened and many informations are circulating both in the news and social media, is it possible to protect the main article page? Thank you. 2001:448A:404B:1A87:D015:37F2:E2CA:31F5 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no need, well patrolled now. In a day, this article will calm down. In a week, it will be almost inactive. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard is always whether protecting the page would remove more disruption/vandalism than whatever other productive edits are coming from the relevant group (i.e. if protecting does more harm than good, then it is not appropriate). Given that most IP edits so far seem to be productive, there's no reason for protecting at this stage. If this gets worse before it runs out of the news cycle, may be open to reconsideration, but at this time it seems OK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Altitude recovery?
From the flight tracking data I have seen, the plane managed to gain altitude at around 7000 feet, before plummeting again a few seconds later. Will this be mentioned in the article? 500k Edits! (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? And do you have any secondary source which makes the observation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found news reports on this. Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/world/asia/china-eastern-crash-explained.html
 * However, there has not been any flight data to show this altitude gain Chong Yi Lam (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight. I was using the provided by FightRadar statistics, from https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1505863117343014916. The data is also present in other places, such as https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/world/asia/flight-path-eastern-airlines.html, but it all goes back to the original FightRadar source. 500k Edits! (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FR24 data is generally accurate (unless the sensors on the aircraft itself were giving wrong readouts, which does not appear to be the case here). The more detailed data given on FR24 clearly shows an apparent recovery and then a continued descent, and using a primary source for simple factual statements like this is ok, given there is no doubt about its accuracy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * However, according to this link (which is a recording of the flight by FR24), there was actually a gap between 06:19:59 and 06:22:16 (UTC), and during that time the altitude dropped drastically from 29,100 feet to 9,075 feet. There is no recovery seen in the graph, it only shows continuous descent. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not the whole data. As they explain on the more detailed post, they only usually maintain rather sparse data for most routine flights. The detailed, "granular" data is available here and clearly shows an initial descent to just above 7000 ft; a brief climb to 8600 ft, followed by a final plunge, contact with the aircraft lost apparently shortly before it impacted the ground. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I take it, then, that we can include the altitude recovery in the article, and use the article as a citation? Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Numbers and Figures. Alphabetical or Numerical
Isn't there a policy that one digit numbers are often written out alphabetically? E.g. shouldn't "9 crew" become "nine crew?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words Aquaphoton (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:NUMNOTES - Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, - in this case, given that we have a rather larger number (123), better for it to be all numerical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about the comparable values, thanks for reverting my edit. Aquaphoton (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Departure airport
Currently there is an ongoing confusion on which airport in Kunming the aircraft departed from (Changshui or Wujiaba). According to Wikipedia article of Wujiaba Airport, the operation of the airport was shut in 2012 and much of the airliner traffic to Kunming was transferred to newly built Changshui Airport. So, there is no doubt that the airliner departed from Kunming's Changshui Airport. Toadboy123 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw this too - and also looked at the wikipedia article saying that 2nd article is closed. I wonder who's putting the statement about the uncertainty in airport into the text? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to wonder, just check the article history. It was me. The Aviation Safety Network are usually reliable, and their page said it was a breaking story. They have a reputation for fact checking and will correct errors. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hope that they will rectify the errors soon. Toadboy123 (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this page
Too many vandalisms Hvn0413 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Some bad sources are being used in saying that there were no survivors when there is no confirmation yet. Noaaah (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * - I'm not seeing that. Imperfect editing by people who don't speak English as their first language, but made in good faith, is not vandalism. This is an article that is being highly edited and any issues are quickly resolved. Am minded to leave it open to all for the moment. Should a real problem arise then I'm amenable to a request to semi-protect. - normal for an article of this nature. For now let's insist on strong sourcing and avoiding speculation. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have observed occasional vandalism since the creation of this article, but they have been swiftly rectified. I personally stand for semi-protection, just to eradicate the possibilities of vandalism occuring. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is (intended but never completed) Baoshan > Kunming leg relevant?
Would it be relevant to include the cancelled (1 2) first leg of the flight even though it isn't part of the accident timeline? It isn't in the  Flight  section yet so I'm wondering if that's needed. Sources state that the flight intended to arrive at Kunming (Changshui) from Baoshan Yunrui Airport in the morning. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 03:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , I think you might have missed a detail? The source is dated 22 March, at least the FlightAware one. The first source is tagged unreliable; also is Feichangzhun a reliable source?  Gerald WL  07:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gerald Waldo Luis The origin source zh:春城晚报 is reliable, and Feichangzhun is similar to FlightAware. Tim Wu (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see I see., feel free to modify that paragraph as you suggested.  Gerald WL  08:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Lack of passengers.--FungTzeLong (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Image

 * I would suggest that this is the best of the six images of the accident aircraft available at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely. This has better contrast against the white fuselage and background. Current image is white on white and shrunk. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the changes, see what others think.  Gerald WL  16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: reverted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Eastern_Airlines_Flight_5735&oldid=1078502795  on grounds of lower quality.  Gerald  WL  07:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added it back because, as a thumbnail infobox image, the visible differences in quality are negligible, compared with the enhancements the better lighting/contrast offer (i.e. clearer definition of fuselage). — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave the image more clarity to (a bit) resolve the quality issue, now it's double the size.  Gerald WL  14:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't mind the new image but I subjectively thought the other photo was better only because it shows the registration of the aircraft in my opinion. But the new photo is also fine just wanted to point it out. Swagging (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean it's not really a big thing and even the most avid avgeek won't notice it. If a free, high quality photo that shows the registration can be found though it can be replaced.  Gerald WL  15:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "1791" can be clearly read on the open front landing gear doors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually did not see that lol. Swagging (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The original cropped version of the file was lossy (original image quality lost through processing), so I used the crop tool to re-crop the source version, which sort of improves the quality, without needing to edit (sharpen) or upscale. If someone else wants to crop it, since this article is likely to be the primary use, use the original uncropped file as the base. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * At infobox size on my desktop, I prefer the other image for its faint colourless background. In the current image, the plane lies right along the horizon, dividing the image into two areas. Srnec (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate of descent

 * The article currently mentions a rate of descent of 8625 feet per minute. Other speculation online mentions figures like 30,000 feet per minute. We need a source for this if it's to be included in the article. I note Flightradar24 is mentioned, but there is no specific link for readers to verify the information. No doubt the exact nature of the descent will be an important focus of the investigation, so it's important we don't include figures prematurely if we can't source them robustly. Beorhtwulf (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was from 29100 ft on 06:19 UTC to 3225 ft on 06:22 UTC, according to Flightradar24. Hvn0413 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The link is here: You may need to subscribe to see more details. Hvn0413 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you add that reference to the article please? This is the only thing stopping it being posted at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was already added by someone😀 Hvn0413 (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to use this Flightradar 24 blog posting as a source for descent rate data that is more precise than what is available from their main website. That's where the 30,000 feet per minute figure comes from.--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss. I tagged that specific figure someone had inserted as "citation needed". I've come back to check the article to find its still there and a footnote has been added, but unless I am missing something, the Flightradar24 page linked to simply does not include that 8625 figure. Instead it has a screenshot of the flight playback, where a descent rate of 30,976 fpm is clearly shown, and a graph which shows the descent rate exceed 30,000 fpm during two stages of the aircraft's final dive into the ground. Even averaged over the entire descent (i.e. if whoever is responsible for this sentence has done some synthesising of sources to arrive at a figure not explicitly mentioned in them), the 8625 figure appears too low. According to the Flightradar24 article, the aircraft began its descent from 29,000 feet less than two minutes before it hit the ground. How then does this back up a descent rate of 8625 feet per minute? Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having read the blog post, which is by Flightradar24, a widely-used and reliable source of aircraft flight data, the issue is confusion with interpretation and wording, rather than the number. (I didn't add the number, but this is how I calculated it from the data on the article.)
 * 3 minutes before the data stopped being received/sent, the aircraft was at 29,100 ft
 * At the end of the data, it was recorded at 3,225 ft
 * (29,100 - 3,225) / 3 = 8,625 ft per minute
 * I'm going to change the specific mention, with clarification, to emphasise how rapid the descent was: "the peak rate of descent was over 21,000 ft per minute." That's calculated as follows...
 * 06:20:59 27,025 ft
 * 06:21:55 7,425 ft
 * 27,025 - 7,425 = 19,600 ft (descent in 56 seconds)
 * 19,600 / 56 * 60 = 21,000 ft per minute
 * Although it is not necessarily the fastest rate because the Flighradar24 post shows the aircraft pulled up slightly just before 06:21:55 (I'm not calculating the specifics, based on the raw data, simply the presentation of the post). With that, hopefully, cleared up, I'll also remove that it failed verification - should someone wish to dispute that, you are free to. Also, despite the banner image showing a vertical speed of -30,976 ft per minute, I don't think that's correct, but I may be wrong because I haven't checked the raw data and this is a developing situation with new information likely to gradually become clearer, because the peak altitude was 29,100 ft and it did not crash within the minute it began to descend, therefore cannot be more than 29,100 ft per minute. Everything I've semi-calculated will also probably be shown in a similar, more direct, way by news outlets, which can be added as an additional source(s). — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between the average rate of descent over a minute and the peak instantaneous rate of descent (which can be higher - like winds, which can have an average sustained speed and then suddenly gust to a much stronger intensity). And the above is clearly interpretation of a primary source (despite the fact that FR24 gives the rate of descent explicitly, so absolutely no need for any calculations or time average. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Relation to 737-MAX
"but there is no connection between the 737-800 and the safety issues which had grounded the 737 MAX"

This sentence is not well-formed, how would the 737-800 have connections to 737-MAX safety issues? I believe the sentence should be removed.

Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's there because there was speculation that 737-MAX issues had resurfaced. Different model so that scenario is impossible. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that comment should be attributed to BBC Business Correspondent Theo Leggett. But not only a different model but a different phase of flight. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence was added because of the linked article. As explained, the MCAS system which was at the root of the B73M issues is not present on the B738, so that is where the "no connections with the safety issues". This is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact. This was originally put in to prevent misinformation about that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless this comes from the manufacturer or from the result of an official investigation report, is this not still opinion? Maybe a clearer explanation should be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not opinion. The MCAS system which caused the B73M issues was not installed on the B738, so this incident cannot possibly be connected with that issue. The point was countering misinformation that these might be connected. If you can find a way to describe this which is still short and sweet, go ahead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It comes from internal Boeing memos uncovered during the 737 MAX investigation:
 * If this is "a fact", it can't be a "suggestion", so I have changed that. But then I'm not sure it should be attributed solely to the BBC. Surely other sources have clarified the same thing, and should be added if they have? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I added the clarification which was removed earlier today I searched for any news about MCAS and I still find nothing, only articles noting that it was not a MAX. Bloomberg just mentioned MCAS, but they did not explicitly state that previous versions don't have it. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that looks like a fundamental oversight by Bloomberg then. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now they said "does not have MCAS software". They should have said "does not have MCAS". Trigenibinion (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the twist from The New York Times (emphasis added):
 * "But there has been an important holdout: China, which had been expected to clear the plane to resume flying in the coming months. The fate of that approval may now be intertwined with the investigation into the crash involving the 737-800 NG, industry analysts said. Chinese government officials may feel uncomfortable approving the Max while they are investigating a crash involving its predecessor, the analysts said."
 * "Those crashes were directly tied to flight-control software known as MCAS, which the Max is the only commercial airliner to use." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MCAS is not only software, the main problem was its architecture. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , if the goal is to counter misinformation, I think starting the sentence with "Contrary to popular belief" would be useful. It sounds like a very redundant sentence right now, the unrelated status between the 800 and the MAX being very obvious that at first glance feels vague for an encyclopedia.  Gerald WL  01:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Looks like making the distinction between the different models while talking of safety records is something meaningful in any case. However, I can't find any source to support this specific type of misinformation (the only thing I've found is one about a viral tweet falsely claiming to be a video from inside the plane) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Everyone knows the 800 came first long before the MAX, and right now it just feels redundant. If "Contrary to popular belief" is put however, it puts the sentence to context, and the inclusion can be justified. However I'd like to disclaim that we're not Snopes, and we don't need to be a fact-checker for every misinformation out there unless it holds some significance in the subject.  Gerald WL  02:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how rare fatal airliner crashes are (much more crashes where the aircraft slams into the ground at high speed after diving from cruising altitude, and thus the similarity between this and those incidents involving the B73M), and that both are Boeing 737s (yes, they came long before, but people might not know that), I still think its a pertinent distinction. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I agree with you on that. However putting it into context is very important. For example in my article To Fly! I stated "Contrary to popular belief, the film is not the first in IMAX"-- it is an obvious but important claim as many spread the misinformation that it's the first, however I put it into context. Right now this article just feels like an amateur is writing whatever he finds about the crash: "Oh wow it's not related to the MAX, write it down!" By adding "Contrary to popular belief" a robust reason can be provided to back the sentence up, we may be fact-checkers in some level but we don't scatter about fact-checks.  Gerald WL  02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if the -800 came a long time before the MAX, some things go back to the original version. The MAX certification is grandfathered, it is claimed that the whole thing would not pass today. One should not expect people to assume that MCAS was not there before as well as that whatever caused this accident is not also a problem in the MAX or even every 737. Also, why is the airline only grounding the -800 and not the -700 too? Trigenibinion (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but what is wrong with adding "Contrary to popular belief"? It makes the paragraph relevant and doesn't seem like a random fact-check.  Gerald WL  03:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bluntly put, unless there's a source which says that this is a common misconception, it would be WP:OR. If you think the current paragraph is clumsily worded, nothing prevents you trying to do so better. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's currently edited to
 * I feel like this adequately and concisely gives the reader extra useful information to avoid confusion. Well done! Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like this adequately and concisely gives the reader extra useful information to avoid confusion. Well done! Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It still clunky. How about: Despite some initial confusion, this model of aircraft is not fitted with the MCAS system used on the newer 737 MAX and which was held responsible for two catastrophic accidents in 2019. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Does not look fine. Who was confused? I was never confused that the plane was a 737MAX. It was not. This is also a reaction, not part of the aircraft section. It is skating on thin ice or is a violation of OR, which is trying to convince the reader the plane is safe. Just the facts, ma'am (see Dragnet) Charliestalnaker (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no thin ice, no OR violation, no trying to convince anyone that "the plane is safe". MCAS has been mentioned in the press. Readers deserve a short, clear explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just go to the point, which is that the only thing that we know about the cause is that it was not MCAS. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted it, combining both the wording used previously and 's suggestion. If there is misinformation to this effect, then combating that would be a very good reason to include this. And if there are other sources which specifically point this out, then I don't see why we shouldn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current version (The model of aircraft involved does not include the MCAS system used on the newer 737 MAX and which was responsible for its grounding following the accidents of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019.) is much better because it doesn't sound like a brainwashing attempt or propaganda to convince people that the plane is safe. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we stop with the bollocks over brainwashing? No, planes are not 100% risk free (to be fair, nothing is), and nobody was claiming that, but as far as transport methods go, planes are rather safe, particularly in the recent past. And, in any case, entirely ignoring that this is entirely irrelevant now, even if you think it's brainwashing, if the sources agree about it and are reasonably authoritative, WP:VNT applies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You've obviously been brainwashed by Boeing. Anyone would think those 737s were made of wood. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have something against wood? Because those Mosquitoes sting quite a lot even if they're made of wood... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the state of affairs, it would seem that some airlines now wonder what the point of mandating masks is. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "two catastrophic accidents in 2019"? The Lion Air crash was in 2018. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

[sigh] This discussion is spiraling out of control to talks about brainwashing? The sentence is intended to combat misinformation, but a) it doesn't highlight the fact that there is misinformation surrounding this whole thing, which b) makes the sentence very awkwardly sounding. It's like saying "MH17 did not went missing as MH370 did", but "Contrary to popular belief, MH17 did not went missing as MH370 did" makes more sense. Because it's not like we're gonna put every single Boeing crashes with "Its not the MAX", unless on very specific ocassions. This whole article as of now has a very monotone reading flow, but this one just feels odd without a disclosure. So you need a citation? Cool, find that citation— until then, it'll just seem like a weird sentence, unrelated to the crash.  Gerald WL  01:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I replaced the wikilinks to the two MAX losses with the phrase "two catastrophic accidents". My reasoning is that they are well off topic for this article - we are trying to close down misinformation not feed it.  There are sufficient links for readers to follow up MCAS and the MAX if they wish to explore the topic.  Springnuts (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Aboard"
– I know you're citing other (good) articles about including the words onboard or aboard in the lead ("...killing all 123 passengers and 9 crew aboard.") but this wording has been changed by multiple users and your reverts to the article have violated WP:3RR. We should discuss the merit of the word "onboard" here. My opinion is that it adds nothing to the article; there is no reasonable assumption that "killing all 123 passengers and 9 crew" refers to anything other than those aboard. In terms of other article using the word, they do, but not in this context. American Airlines Flight 587 killed people on the ground, so "on board" or "aboard" must be used to differentiate. The wording there is different too – "All 260 people aboard the plane (251 passengers and 9 crew members) were killed, along with five people on the ground", whereas here we're ending the sentence with "on board" or "aboard". It would be totally different if we were to say something like "all 123 passengers and 9 crew aboard the aircraft were killed", but that's not the current phrasing and not the point it appears you're making. Please do comment here without any further reverts as violation of WP:3RR is blockable. Thanks, MIDI (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping of . MIDI (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So does China Airlines Flight 611, United Airlines Flight 93 (no ground fatalities, featured article) and Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (no ground fatalities, featured article) Cutlass Ciera  12:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are comparing apples and oranges. Flight 611 says "killing all 225 people on board" and Flight 93 says "All 44 people on board were killed". Those latter statements need "on board" to clarify the location of the dead. In this article, however, it says "killing all 123 passengers and 9 crew". We do not need "on board" here, as that is exactly where you would expect passengers and crew to be. WWGB (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In this context I think the word "aboard" is wholly redundant. It's not wrong; it's not devoid of meaning; it's just not needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If so, then should it be removed from the featured articles that are above linked to? Cutlass Ciera  12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, if it does not change the meaning or affect the grammar there. If and when this article becomes a Featured Article, perhaps we could re-examine that question? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The beauty of the English language (or any language, really) is that there are often multiple ways to say the same thing. In some cases, "aboard" might be necessary because there were additional casualties on the ground (ex. AFR4590). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be kept? If we decide to remove this, this contradicts what a large amount of other aviation accident related articles, even without ground fatalities, and would probably need a consensus at a request for comment. I concur, I apologize for the extremely lame edit warring, I had done that as I felt like as a large portion of the other accident articles included this word we should include it here as well, but maybe we should achieve consensus for all the other articles including the term. I feel like I deserve a trout for this. Thank you, Cutlass Ciera  18:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing it won't "contradict" anything. Other articles with redundant words exist. But feel free to give yourself a trout: I'm sure we're all aboard with that idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Fatalities
We explicitly state, in three places in the article (lead, infobox, and body), that there were no survivors. We use as the citation for this, but that reference says nothing of the sorts. Other sources say "no signs of survivors" or similar. While it's a fair assumption there aren't any survivors, has any reliable source stated there are no survivors, or are we (yet again) jumping the gun and stating something unverified? MIDI (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Analysis of available CCTV footage shows that the aircraft was in a near vertical dive at ~860 km/h moments before impact. The CCTV footage originates from a reliable source. This crash was clearly not survivable by any stretch of the imagination. 85.153.236.180 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If the ASN says "Total:	Fatalities: / Occupants: 132 " then that means all 132 people on board died. The ASN is a highly reputable and reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Until there is an official determination, this should be considered a presumption, regardless of how certain it seems. 2A02:8109:8680:65A8:F100:ACBF:2038:6A4B (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – it's not saying that. What it's showing is an unpopulated field for fatalities, and 132 occupants. Compare how the site shows other incidents – I've chosen this one at random, and it says "Total:	Fatalities: 37 / Occupants: 37". MIDI (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any argument for presuming anybody survived. Most sources are reporting that there are no survivors, and the IP's right about the CCTV footage, in this case it wouldn't even be OR, it would be reporting what the sources are saying as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If most sources are reporting that there are no survivors then this should be clear cut. However I've looked at all the sources in the article and only one states that all on board died. It is not our job to report what may or may not be patently obvious, it is our job to report what other sources have said. The common theme among the sources in the article appears to be "number of casualties was not immediately known" or something to that effect; we should stay with this until something has been verified. MIDI (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a presumption of no survivors, but that hasn't actually been confirmed by anyone yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of the sources is more "there is no official confirmation yet, but there are very likely no survivors". At least, stuff like (The airline said it deeply mourned the passengers and crew, without specifying how many people had been killed on the jet,) or  Rescue teams raced to the scene, but none of the 132 people on board – 123 passengers and nine crew members – are expected to have survived the crash, making it China’s deadliest air disaster in decades. is not particularly optimistic regarding the outcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  00:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * but most likely everyone died instantly on the impact because of the way the plane crash and i dont expect that anyone could have survived but we need to wait for more info but currently i dont think there's hope for survivors. Iyusi766 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is still better to add a "persumed" footnote to the figures, for clarity. A fierce edit war has begun in zhwiki around this issue, and we need to wait for a verified affirmation to the figure. Milky  Defer  12:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean the number is "presumed", not the fact they all died? Why is there any doubt at zh.wiki? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The plane hit the ground at over 560 km/h. All are dead. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By sticking to sources (Chinese), the only official position is "no survivors found yet". Some editors argue that by using common sense, all are already dead. Others oppose by saying that sources did not find anyone alive yet because the search and rescue process is still on-going. Thus sparking an edit war.
 * During a 2011 train accident, an infant was later found alive after the authority officially concluded the search and announced the final figure, casting shadow on definitive figures in later accidents. Milky  Defer  13:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's just do a bit of simple maths. FR24 gives the last known speed of the aircraft at 360 knots or thereabouts (about 180 m/s), less than 1 km from local ground elevation. Disregarding any additional gain in speed from the short time between then and the impact, and assuming a deceleration time of 0.1 s (very generous, the specifications for flight data recorders specify a few milliseconds, but hey, being very generous means that this is a lower bound), this comes out to an acceleration of over 180 gs. And this is an absolute lower bound. For the record, the highest ever recorded survived crash was 214 g (by a race car driver, with all the additional safety implications that implies - and the guy spend 18 months in the hospital thereafter). Basic maths (WP:CALC) tells us this was not survivable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the authority just (now) formally announced that all people are confirmed dead so this is no longer a problem. Milky  Defer  14:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Repairs?
What about the repair history of the plane? Trigenibinion (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems the plane was not involved in any previous incidesnts? Trigenibinion (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Are sources covering this?

All 132 people on board declared dead, 120 are identified via DNA sample
As announced today at a press conference. see latest article in Global Times at https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1256862.shtml L.Willms (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have also seen that article, but for some reasons, no one is adding it in the article. Not sure if anyone has a particular reason to exclude it. It is relatively new, so people may not be aware of it. I believe it should be added. Aquaphoton (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Global Times is a deprecated source. Is there any alternative? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Have now added Reuters as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I used Reuters as the source for the chemicals and the ELT, thanks for you edits. Aquaphoton (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Deprecated source"? I thought that Wikipedia strives for unpartiality, but here I discover that censorship rules. Sad. L.Willms (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories." Wikipedia can use better sources than that. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * However, what better way to get information about this incident than rely on Chinese sources? After all, they are the best at covering events in China, as foreign media might misintepret their initial reports. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not sure about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Why censor Chinese sources? Chinese sources are better at covering events inside China, they are there on the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consensus1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Chinese sources aren't being censored. Global Times has been deemed unreliable. Other Chinese sources may be used if they're considered a reliable source by the community. MIDI (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Metric altitudes?
Do we need metric values for altitudes? And if we must have metres, why should they be shown before feet? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, flight levels in China are metric, but the usual unit in aviation is feet, and due to the requirements of RVSM, aircraft actually fly altitudes in feet (even if equipped with metric altimeters) which are near equivalents (but not always exactly) to the metric values. I guess there's no harm in having both. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess China also doesn't use miles or nautical miles? (not that we have any in the article at the moment). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to contradict that guess; although, looking at the relevant section of the version of the Airway Manual I could find, lateral offsets from the planned route (Strategic lateral offset procedure) is actually done in nautical miles - although there are plenty of references to speeds or distances in meters/kilometers (RVR, for example)... For the rest, use of metric for pressure (hectopascals, like in Europe) and wind speed (meters per second, also like in plenty of other places) is not unique to China. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that source. Yes, RVSM is pretty unavoidable. By the way, UK still likes to call them millibars, even if inches of mercury does so sound so much more poetic.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Having altitudes etc in SI units, i.e. metric, is required for readers of this article. Most of the readers will not be fluent in aircraft lingo. L.Willms (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a factual correction: most of the readers (of English WP) are from English-speaking countries such as the USA, Canada or the UK, where use of non-metric units such as feet remains rather frequent. The conversions are there, in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The narrative of English wikipedia is dominated by the anglosphere, but it is unfortunately preferred by the whole world because it is the most complete. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If Chinese readers want to see altitudes in metres, they can read zh.wiki? (assuming they are allowed to even see Wikipedia, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * English-speaking people from the whole world defaulting to English wikipedia is the problem, it is not just about China. Many people do not edit their own wikipedias because English dominates. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact is that whoever wants measures in meters (because they can't divide by [more or less] 3?) already has them: At 14:22 (06:22 UTC), while approaching its top of descent into Guangzhou, the aircraft entered a sudden steep descent from 29,100 feet (8,900 m). It briefly leveled off and climbed up from 7,400 ft (2,300 m) to 8,600 ft (2,600 m), but plunged downwards again, reaching a final recorded altitude of 3,225 ft (983 m) less than two minutes after the beginning of the descent, with a maximum descent rate of nearly 31,000 feet (9,400 m) per minute.. RandomCanadian
 * I know the conversions are already there, I was objecting to the concept that English wikipedia is not the global wikipedia. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC) (talk / contribs) 16:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite parochial perspective in the replies to my statement. Please bear with me as the always first to voice the concerns of thr majority.While I rcofnise "altitude 30000 feet" as a regular flight altitude meaning roughly 10'000 meters based in a foot being roughly 30 cm, all other figures need a unit converter to translate thise medieval measures to scientific ones. So as to avoid that thousands of readers have to look up their unit converter every time they look up this en.article, make the concersion just one time, once for all..

This said, besides this article, I read newssites close to the accisent site, who do indicate measurement in internarional standard units, and I want to share with you this paragraph from the latest article in Floval Times: "Officials at the press conference said that the main impact point of the accident has been largely determined. Most of the wreckage of the crashed plane is concentrated in the core area with a radius of about 30 meters around the main impact point, and the depth extends from the surface to about 20 meters" Quite impressive, methinks. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1256762.shtml

My english is not good enough to integrate this into the article. BTW, while english is not my mother tongue, on this I go first here; if I knew I might primarity to the chinese site. Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has an issue with the use of metres for ground measurements. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that was Global Times - discussed elsewhere on this page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

First officer more experienced
It seems surprising that the captain had only 20% of the flying experience of the first officer. Is that normal? Is the reason worth noting in the article? WWGB (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It does seem strange, however that information is obtained from known sources. Until evidence that says otherwise is uncovered, we must presume that the captain is the less experienced one on this flight. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When there is a captain in training, the trainer captain sits on the right seat. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Or more likely that Zhengping as training captain was actually in the jump seat. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Safety record
Would you please stop attempting to rewrite this section? Not only was it terribly easy to find sources which support the safety record of the B738 (despite you adding "cn" multiple times), but even the stats you cite ("200 hull losses") are incorrect [as that is a number which refers to all B737 variants, including the 737-100 which made it's entry into passenger service in 1968, nearly 55 years ago...]. Please stop and take a moment to discuss this here. Otherwise it's becoming frankly disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot assume that the cause is only related to the NG. It could be something that affects every 737, so it would be fair to show the hull loss count for only the -800, the NG only, post-original (without MAX) and the whole family except MAX (MCAS not there before). Trigenibinion (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is corporate brainwashing or communist propaganda to try to say the plane is safe. Nothing is known now. It is possible that this crash is not a trend. However, it is bias to just say the plane is safe. There are 3 ways to solve this editorial problem.

1. Remove the idea that the plane is safe. Look at the TWA 800 article. It doesn't insist that the 747 is safe. The Concorde article doesn't insist the Concorde is safe. Just report the facts, ma'am.

2. Mention both sides, like nearly 200 Boeing 737 hull losses (with citation that I provided) and happy talk that the plane is safe.

3. Mention that there is concern, like Boeing stock down quite a bit because of unease due to problems with the 737 MAX and the 787.

I believe #1 is best but #3 is ok. #2 is not good because one side wants to remove the bad info and keep the rosy info. Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The state-owned airline grounded the -800, I see no evidence of Chinese propaganda one way or the other. Trigenibinion (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not Chinese propaganda but Wikipedia cheerleading (propaganda). Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem that you have introduced is one where, apparently, planes are unsafe [a claim which is at best ridiculous] and Boeing has credibility problems [something which I cannot find a source for, and unless you can quote me the paywalled NYT article, not something that can be taken on faith], supposedly due to incidents with a specific system on a plane which simply does not exist on this one [which misleads the reader into thinking those accidents are somehow related]. None of your 3 options are accurate. 1 is the least worst of them, but in the interest of noting the difference between this and the more recent planes, it literally doesn't fly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, particularly regarding number 2, "hull loss" is a misleading measure, as that would be comparing apples and oranges (on top of already comparing apples and oranges given the significant changes in the aviation industry and the planes themselves in the 55 years since the 737 was first introduced). As a quick look at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737, there is a big difference between a hull loss and a no survivor incident like this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The NG was developed before the Boeing/MDD merger so it would not have suffered from the same management problems as the MAX and 787. Now, the plane was about 6 years old, but it was not made in a new plant like the 787. The KC-46 is made in Everett, but it is a new development. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The NG suffered from a single point of failure for the autothrottle, this kind of design flaw was not new with MCAS. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI
 * Boeing Faces New Upheaval After Crash of Chinese Airliner - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
 * Boeing Faces New Upheaval After Crash of Chinese Airliner
 * No fault has been found, but the company, which has been trying to overcome a recent legacy of design and production troubles, is likely to get scrutinized.
 * By Niraj Chokshi
 * March 21, 2022
 * The crash of a Boeing jet in China on Monday is the latest crisis for the American plane manufacturer, raising the prospect of renewed regulatory scrutiny and confronting the company with another catastrophe involving its planes.
 * It could be weeks or even months before investigators identify what caused the Boeing 737-800 NG operated by China Eastern Airlines to plunge from the sky with more than 130 people aboard. But the outcome of the investigation could weigh heavily on Boeing, which recently overcame years of troubles involving a newer variant of the single-aisle 737, the Max, and has had long delays in producing and delivering the twin-aisle 787 Dreamliner.
 * “I think it’s going to be very important to see what actually happened with this particular incident because there’s a credibility concern,” said Rob Spingarn, a managing director at Melius Research, a financial analysis firm. “I think the investment community will pause to some extent on Boeing until that information is out.”
 * Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, according to one "managing director at Melius Research, a financial analysis firm", Boeing has credibility problems. Yet you put that directly in the article text, without attribution, and have a problem with putting text because it is, quote unquote, "is not in the official report" (despite being quoted almost verbatim from a reliable source [the BBC, in this instance], and actually also being an uncontroversial fact [nobody disputes that the airplane involved was not a 737 MAX, and nobody disputes that the MCAS system was not installed on B738s anyways]) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this model was not super outsourced like the 787. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this model was not super outsourced like the 787. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article gave the impression of "this is a 737-800, not a 737 MAX, so it's safe". Be very careful. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues In the 1980's there were sudden crashes of 737-200's (737 Original). One could say "the 737 Classic series, -300/400/500" are safe since they are not the 737 Original series -100/200." Not true. The rudder problem was found in both the Original series and the Classic series. Likewise, it cannot be said that "this China Eastern crash is a 737NG, not a 737MAX, which is a totally different plane". It is not totally different. The most conservative thing to do is to just wait until there is more information and not bring up the MAX yet. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the version you replaced it with gave off the impression that these planes were very unsafe and compared apples to oranges. The cause of the 737 MAX incidents is a system which is not installed on the 737-800, so not like you need to be Einstein to figure out that something which was not installed cannot possibly be the reason of the crash. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the text currently in the article is simply There is no connection between the airplane model involved in the accident and the safety issues which had grounded the 737 MAX (a more recent design) following the accidents of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019.[17]. This simply states the matter of fact without going into any apples-and-oranges comparison or the limited previous incident history of the B738. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't like the current text, some people might confuse it with "this problem cannot happen on the MAX" instead of "NG has no MCAS so it cannot be the cause" as I had originally written. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Better? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft type
I've seen some news outlets call the plane a 737-89P and some call it a 737-800. 737-800 seems to be far more common. Shouldn't we use that terminology? Dakane2 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of these are the same (the ICAO code is B738 in either case). "9P" is probably the specific customer code for CES. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For accuracy, it's a 737-89P. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is true that there could be some significant customization (eg.:cabling of an entertainment system) Trigenibinion (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Precedent from similar articles use the customer code, which, as RandomCanadian said, is interchangeable with the generic -800. Including it also adds specific detail, to this flight/aircraft. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then this should be explained, since we are writing for a general audience, who cannot be expected to know this nomenclature process, especially since there have been other modifications to the series model number of various types for different reasons, right? —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 04:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's already a footnote specifically to this effect the first placed it's mentioned in the body of the article (right in the first sentence of the #Aircraft section). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Bamboo
Bamboo is not a tree, so this may be some kind of translation error; I have removed the word "trees". Even so, I'm guessing there is a lot of bamboo in China and some of it probably catches fire, especially if it's hit by the exploding remains of a burning passenger jet. Without some further explanation, e.g. that burning bamboo is particularly difficult to extinguish, or that it especially hampered the efforts of the emergency responders, I was wondering why this was notable. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the word would be "bamboo shoots", but maybe that refers only to very young "shoots". Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those poor shoots. Is that from your reading of the original Chinese source? Seems somehow even less notable. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. The plane impacted the ground and caused fire in the surrounding vegetation. Whether the vegetation was pine trees, bamboo, the jungle, or whatever else, that's about all that really needs to be said, unless there are further considerations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian.... here you go: 竹筍 "zhúsǔn". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since bamboo is basically a grass, the individual pole would be a blade, halm, stalk, culm or spire, as I learn from my German-English dictionary. Since I'm no native english speaker, I don't know what would be used for bamboos. --L.Willms (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my levity with RandomCanadian. Bamboo shoots has a particular culinary meaning and it's very unlikely they would ever "catch fire" in a forest. In the UK, for the more mature stems, RHS tends to call them "canes". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had the same feeling after I read it − that there was something important about it being bamboo. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 05:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Investigation
Please do not remove that MCAS is not present according to Boeing. If a system is not present it cannot be a cause, it is not original research. Some people are blaming the software. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But no source is making the connection between that and this incident. And it is far too early for us to be even reporting about potential causes. If you can find a source which explicitly talks about MCAS and how it was not present, then it could go back in, but until then, WP:V and WP:OR mean it shouldn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The media is emphasizing that this is not a MAX so that people do not conflate the accidents. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to that effect after looking for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * all version of 737 has autotrim, MCAS is an extension of that system, it is possible that autotrim is responsible but not likely, because the plane appear to fell sideway, it is not pitching down, it was falling because it lost lift. anyway i am only making this comment to add that both black box are found and being sent to beijing which will be worth updating soon. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But that is not MCAS. The point is that MCAS is irrelevant regarding this accident. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record - possible cause(s)
MilborneOne removed this text with the edit summary "removed speculation, not really the job of an encyclopedia": "Sonya Brown, a senior lecturer in aerospace design at the University of New South Wales, suggested that catastrophic failure of the tailplane (for example, a stabilizer problem) and sabotage (such as a pilot intentionally crashing) were two of the possibilities regarding the cause of the crash." I tend to agree with that removal, but I think we should agree that Sonya Brown, even if not notable, should probably be considered a subject matter expert. Should the speculation of all other experts also not be considered? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. here is her University Staff page
 * I think this should be included. It is not mere speculation, it is the informed opinion of a recognised expert in the area. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy for it to be included if the opinion of an expert; if reliably sourced; and with appropriate caveat ref it is speculation … but there should be some policy somewhere I think? Springnuts (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with the removal. WP:NORUSH and WP:NOTNEWS mean there's not really any hurry to include this. Speculation is still speculation, even if it comes from an expert, and if people want speculation well an encyclopedia is the wrong place for that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that article has many issues... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I expect you'll want to make yourself busy over there. However, as a concept, anything and everything in that article will be essentially speculation. Maybe you'll consider raising an AfD? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I, also, am minded that it should be included. We obviously don't want the article to be overburdened with speculation on the subject, but a single sentence on the topic is hardly undue weight. I'd also argue that an article about an aviation accident that includes no information at all on the cause, even if it is too early to know for certain yet, doesn't feel complete. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No overriding objection to restoring the sentence quoting Brown, although a more notable expert might be better. Reading her CV, it seems that Brown has been involved in numerous accident investigations. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Livery
I added back some text mentioning that the plane had the airline's livery painted on it, with the reason that there were two sources I read - one from the BBC, which I'll try to find - which mention that some of the parts of the plane found miles away from the impact crater (parts presumed to have broken off mid-air) are being matched to the plane body based on the design. Other pieces of wreckage also being identified by the recognisable pattern. We can't know yet if there will be any major significance to needing to use the design to identify wreckage, but for now, I felt that there was enough significance to keep this mention. Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"solid safety record"
The point of removing this phrase was not that TK1951 was not recoverable, rather that the autothrottle malfunctioned due to a single point of failure (reliance on a single radio altimeter), similar to how MCAS relied on a single AoA sensor. If the MCAS design was unacceptable in the MAX, so was the autothrolle's on the NG. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an obvious instance of WP:SYNTH. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No such thing as it was not claimed that the NG has a poor safety record, only removed that it has a good one. You want to claim that the aircraft is safe while denying to express that the country and airline were rated as safe. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to claim anything. What I want to do is report what sources say. No source makes the link between the MCAS design flaws and the radio altimeter/autothrottle flaw. What they do say is that the B738 has a solid record (and considering how most of the accidents are obvious and preventable pilot error, for example AXB1344 [too high, too fast on final with added factors of wet runway and tailwind...], that seems an accurate summary). If the sources are wrong, well, too bad, WP:VNT and WP:RGW both apply.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some sources do make a connection between the MAX and TK1951, eg: ,
 * If emphasis had been put on the autothrottle single channel mode single point of failure maybe the MAX disasters would not have happened Trigenibinion (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the airlines had until 2017 to upgrade the autothrottle computers in Europe, for one of the two vendors it was not available until 2014. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

“Solid” as an adjective
“Solid” seems an oddly vague adjective to use to modify “safety record”. Do we mean “good”? If so, let’s say so. Or does it imply merely “at or above average” … or even “not significantly below average” … in which case let’s say that. Springnuts (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is what the Times of India wrote. Note that India has several airlines flying the 737. Some American sources write "good", "stellar", or "one of the best". CGTN is full of American experts on different subjects and China is full of 737 airlines. Al Jazeera writes "generally known for having a strong safety record". No airlines from Qatar operate the 737, but Qatar Airways is a big Boeing customer. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Helpful.  I suspect “good” is a better word here to convey those sources.  But I’m 1RR-img myself on it!   Springnuts (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the NYT called it "good" without the nuance of Al Jazeera. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed the Associated Press says it has a 'well-established' safety record. The Scotsman though is neutral in its description of the safety record & does not assign adjectives. CNN has also mentioned safety concerns with the 737 NG back in 2019. Either way, I don't really care how US news outlets praise their own aircrafts, but I do think it'd be better to keep what's said in the source. For any confusion about 'solid' as an adjective, I initially edited to 'with just 11 previous fatal accidents', but 'just' was removed by someone else b/c it was seen as editorialising. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Well-established" is not actually saying whether it's good or bad. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

IASA, IOSA, EU ban lists
While the EU ban lists could be considered irrelevant because the subsidiary never flew to the EU, IOSA is an IATA airline certification, and IASA is a rating given by the FAA to any country that wants to fly to the US, so this information should not have been removed. This is not original research, these are facts. Trigenibinion (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was removed by an admin because you placed each sentence in a new section. Find a way to incorporate the information into existing sections. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are the correct sections. It is not my fault if there's no other information in them yet. You first buried it in the wrong section (Aircraft) and now removed it completely. Trigenibinion (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * All of this is trivial information which has no bearing here whatsoever. It can be covered in the respective articles (the airline article, "Aviation in China" or however that article is called, ...), but here it's just WP:COATRACK and not pertinent. We don't have the IATA and IASA ratings for stuff like AFR4590 or BAW38, no need for that here either since they are not material to the crash. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That no one thought before about including more safety information in other articles is irrelevant. The information matters in the same way that noting no MCAS on board matters: nothing pointing to software, airline or country. Trigenibinion (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter, because it is routine information and not encyclopedically interesting (can you name one airline which is not IATA rated? and how many major countries have an IASA rating that is not top level [excluding Russia, naturally, due to the current situation]?). An encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge, not an indiscriminate listing of every tangential fact related to a given topic. Ordinary details which do not significantly add to the understanding of the topic can be skipped. Hell, even most accident investigation reports (which are much more detailed than what we should be striving for) don't mention this, no need for us to do it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  05:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IATA is not a rating. Many airlines are not IATA members. IOSA is a certification for IATA airlines (it was not required before).
 * The FAA will conduct an audit of the civil aviation in a country that wants to fly to the US (not specific airlines) and give a rating. When some problems then manifest themselves in this country, the FAA may downgrade it and it will have to be audited again to recover Cat 1 (as it recently happened to Mexico). Trigenibinion (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And does any of this have any significance whatsoever as to the events that unfolded last weekend? If the answer is anything but "certainly, yes" (and unless there is a source which makes this connection explicit), then it doesn't go in. And given that is just a collection of random facts, the answer is "no". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The country and the airline were considered safe according to the media. This corroborates that. They are not random facts. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah but they are not pertinent. They are "obvious information which might be true but is entirely irrelevant". We wouldn't include this kind of trivial and obvious information if this had happened in the USA or in Europe, so there's no point including it here: China isn't exactly the middle of nowhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not trivial and obvious. Most people don't know about these things so don't take them into account when buying tickets. Low-cost airlines tend not to be IOSA certified so one has to rely on their previous history. Some non-IOSA airlines never crashed and some IOSA airlines (like this one) did crash. So one would gravitate towards IOSA airlines that never crashed that fly to the EU from IASA Cat 1 countries (or the US) that have no airlines on an EU ban list. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a customer guide. Unless there is a source which explicitly points out how the airline's or the country's status are relevant factors for this specific incident, they remain WP:COATRACK and should not be included. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not guiding future purchases. According to this information, the passengers should not have had doubts about boarding this plane. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, the airline did crash in 2004, but that is a long time ago. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nigeria and Suriname are both IASA Category 1 but have one airline banned by the EU each. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are questions you'd ask for an aviation-themed trivia challenge, not something that gets included in an encyclopedia article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the information about Nigeria and Suriname should be included, rather that no EU bans for China would be actually pertinent as opposed to no EU ban for the subsidiary (which never flew the EU). No red flags raised. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia is also IASA Category 1 with one airline in an EU ban list since some months ago. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

“High speed” in the lede
Sources I’ve seen said it hit the ground at 350 MPH. While hitting the ground at any speed over 10 miles per hour is too much for me, relative to similar airline crashes (nose dives are rare and usually are associated with foul play) like Germanwings Flight 9525 (435 MPH) and United Airlines Flight 93 (563 MPH), it’s not high. The reason I bring this up is that the black boxes were recovered in both of those incidents, while for this plane, the black boxes are being described as possibly unrecoverable, and really badly damaged. I’ll just say that China has an extremely poor record with transparency when it involves its national interests, and an inconconclusive investigation due to purported lack of evidence would damage Boeing’s reputation, to the benefit of Beijing’s aerospace aspirations, while a pilot murder-suicide, operating error, or terrorism would be more damaging to Beijing. Obviously we say what RS say, but I don’t see where the “high speed” claim comes from, and think this is an issue with the article. COI disclosure: I own Boeing stock. 2600:1012:B05C:E6B3:941D:B38E:4999:C3EE (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I imagine the comparator is other aircraft crashes in general rather than similar crashes. But as to whether this was a powered dive or free fall … I guess there is only speculation at this stage.  Springnuts (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from any cunning stage-setting by the Chinese authorities, and apart from any speculation as to the cause of the accident, if the phrase "struck the ground at high speed" is used in the lead, one might reasonably expect to see that phrase, with one or more reliable English-language sources to support it, in the article main body? But yes, I agree, it's probably being used as a comparator to "other aircraft crashes in general", (although what the average speed is, or whether anyone has ever tried to calculate that value, I really don't know). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can state with confidence that the 350 mph figure is almost certainly wrong. FR24 has a reported groundspeed (at last point of contact) of 360 knots (which is a bit over 660 kph / 410 mph) and a vertical speed of 31000 ft/min (which taken on its own would be 560 kph / 350 mph, but obviously it should not). If those two add up (not sure, but my guess would be yes), Pythagoras tells us that's about 860 kph (that's very close to UAL93, and even if you prefer a more conservative estimate and only take the groundspeed, that's still very close to the Germanwings flight). The plane certainly accelerated a bit more in the few seconds between then and the moment it hit the ground. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't trust any of those Greek airlines. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Condolences necessary?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude but is the condolences part necessary? If we do agree to include it, then maybe for future air crashes articles we should start including them as well for consistency sake. Other articles do not seem to have them. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They are inevitably nothing more than predictable platitudes, but some editors think they are important. I don't think we need any more than "a number of nations expressed condolences through their leader" or similar. No names, no lists. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its a non-issue
 * Perfecnot (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made my view about this perfectly clear elsewhere, and it turns out, I agree with the OP here, so I've gone ahead. Platitudes belong in newspapers and in diplomatic events, not in encyclopedias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We could make a seperate reactions article. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there is no quoted statement by President Xi Jinping, whether this is just "predictable platitudes" or not. If this happened in the UK, I'm sure we'd expect to see at least some quoted statement by Boris Johnson. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is Chinese premier Li Keqiang called for all-out efforts to search for survivors and treat the injured and emphasized the need to reassure and serve the families of the victims. Chinese leader Xi Jinping called for investigators to determine the cause of the crash as soon as possible and to ensure "absolute" aviation safety. Not really sure "quoted statements" are necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess those statements, or summaries, are more practical. All politicians abhor a statement vacuum, don't they, even the psychopathically deranged ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was decided during the Obama administration that Wikipedia does list condolences including that of then-President Obama. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that enshrined in policy somewhere? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It very much isn't and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS are but two of the reasons why it shouldn't be. Maybe one in a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but that's worth nothing. Air France Flight 4590 has absolutely no mention of this kind of stuff, and US Airways Flight 1549 only mentions by name a few US government officials (like here, where we mention Chinese officials for a plane crash in China). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's the same issue we have when someone dies and editors from every country want to add the surprising fact that their dear leader sent condolences. I'm with WWGB (as well as others that edit these types of things I think) on this one. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 05:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

All reactions should be deleted since some are per above. Charliestalnaker (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be disruptive or are you just entirely missing the point of the above? The above discussion was about removing the name-listing of every (non-chinese) national leader who expressed their condolences (as a simple list of names without further details is not encyclopedic - a short summary that they expressed condolences is enough to show this accident generated global attention - on the contrary, listing the precise reactions of the domestic leaders, who are at least directly involved in the aftermath, is totally justifiable) not removing the whole of the reactions section. If you wish to do so, you should start a new discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022
change the crash site from

Shentangbiao, Molang village, Teng County, Wuzhou, Guangxi, China

to Molang village, Teng County, Wuzhou, Guangxi, China

Because Shentangbiao is a different place. Fengharvey (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Video clip of vertical nosedive
The current source for the video clip is an archived link to Daily Express. Seems to not play easily for me. Are there any better ones? Perhaps like this one which has a slowed down version? Provided everyone believes it's genuine, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus Daily Express is listed on WP:RSP as a generally unreliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please double-check if the link you provided matches the context in which the original citation was placed. If yes, feel free to modify. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The newstalkzb.co.nz source makes no mention of bamboo catching fire. But I'm really not sure that's the most salient detail about this crash. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the authenticity of the video now verified? Are the wings still attached? Trigenibinion (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen no official comment on the video. Something large seems to rip off. It's a very short and very low quality video. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to USAToday, the viral video clip of the nose-dive is false. It's actually a clip from an animation simulation of the SilkAir Flight 182 crash that happened in 1997 and not MU5735. RandomEarth (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, I believe that's about a different video? The SilkAir flight sim is definitely not MU5735, but I think we're talking about the CCTV footage from a nearby mine that shows the nose dive. The original post was deleted, and the person who posted it tweeted this afterwards. It was verified as legitimate footage from the CCTV cameras at least. I think while it's almost definitely the plane, he cannot make that claim without absolute evidence, which I assume is why he deleted the tweet. PoetaCorvi (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

MU5735 or MU5375?
"MU5375" also appears in the media: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3174696/china-eastern-flight-mu5375-early-report-deadly-crash-unlikely https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/03/27/asia-pacific/second-black-box-china-eastern-recovered/ and many others in various countries.

Maybe a typo as both codes appear at https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2022/04/19/china-eastern-flight-mu5375-early-report-into-deadly-crash-unlikely-to-offer-many-answers-analysts-believe but still surprising. Syced (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I looks to be a typo, but it's really strange to see it made multiple times. The SCMP article and the article from The Star you linked are I think the same article, written by Jack Lau. Even so, in that article it says "MU5375" once in the headline, but "MU5735" all three times in the body of the article and links to a topic about "MU5735" on the top left. In those articles the error appears in the headline and the image caption, both of which are often not written by the journalist who wrote the actual article, so I suppose there is more room for error there. Googling it, most of the news reports i see of "MU5375" are from the last couple days, so perhaps one journalist made a typo and others are copying them. Endwise (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Investigation Results
What were the official conclusions? kencf0618 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Too soon for that yet; those usually take months. The report one month after the accident was basically just a summary of what was already known. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Examination of the black boxes revealed that it was very likely intentionally done by the pilot... https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-eastern-black-box-points-to-intentional-nosedive-11652805097 Monstarules (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)