Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302/Archive 3

Nationalities and numbers (again)
There is still discrepancy in the number of passagners and their nationalities. It has been addressed before but due tu to the recent attempt to change that, I am opening the issue again.

The source used for the table mentions one UN passport holder, which was removed from the table bcs it is not a nationality per se (and that is correct). Also the total, including the UN passport, would be 150, not 149 as cited, so the source (unfortunately) contradicts itself.

Recently, IP editor(s) tried to add 1 passenger from Mexico (unsourced, but there is at least this source: https://www.milenio.com/internacional/mexicana-muerta-avionazo-etiopia-trabajaba-onu-hablaba-11-idiomas). However, if we added it, the total would be 150, which is not correct. Unless other official sources are found, we have to assume that the UN passport holder has already been listed among the nationalities totaling 149 passengers and that any other nationality (i.e. Mexican) means dual nationality. I would welcome an official source which does not contradicts itself... WikiHannibal (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

New citations, articles - May 2019
Which article disappeared? There is a good chance you can find it on the Internet Archive.

For example the very good non-expert article "How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer" can be found there. Highly suggested reading, regardless some factual mistakes; it was not intended to be a reference.
 * I think it was Mentour pilots youtube video of attempt to fly the accident profile in a real simulator. Taken down after a day or two? Not sure. "Article" probably not the right word, use "media" instead. ;-) Greenbe (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The article I would reference:

Based on the available data by May 1st, 2019 The Aviation Herald comes to the conclusion: "Neither of the three crews would have been forced to react under time pressure in order to prevent a crash, e.g. to find out what to do or identify the correct procedures to follow, without the technical malfunctions and the nose down trim inputs."

It's as politically correct as it gets. I will include this, if you agree.

Note: the update also includes the 25 questions he submitted to the FAA's Flight Standardization Board (FSB). Shows how many open questions there are still.

For the timeline: articles analyzing the FDR charts with a magnifying glass:


 * Reconstruction of events: Even Without Answers, The Data Tells a Story
 * Bjorn’s Corner: ET302 crash report, the first analysis
 * 737: The MAX Mess

Some citations for an Analysis section, separated from the Preliminary report section; work in progress:


 * Aviation experts pointed out that turning the trim wheels by hand might be impossible after disabling the electric trim motor (and Mcas along with it).


 * "A single erroneous AoA vane causes a large number of flight deck effects that may have been underestimated in its consequence on pilot workload."


 * "MCAS failure is hard to detect as it is a slowover, and Speed Trim System (STS) applies automatic trim routinely, masking MCAS motion."

Not for the page:

Aviation experts pointed out Mcas behaves differently from a simple Runaway Trim, it would confuse the pilots by stopping unexpectedly.

With the 737NG cutout switches, MCAS runaway is stopped by just throwing the autopilot cutout switch, leaving electric trim fully operable."
 * "Boeing changed the cutout switches on 737MAX to PRI and B/U. In this configuration, both cutout switches are thrown in any runaway situation,


 * "The expectation is that the pilot would notice the erroneous stabilizer commands, treat them as a runaway, and use the cutout switches in response. If MCAS applied a continuous AND trim command, while noting that a runaway has always been as continuous motion, the flight crew would be more likely to recognize it. Instead, the MCAS trim command would stop and "hide" from the pilots. Thus the assumption was flawed, in the context of STS motion as cover, and that the MCAS "uncommanded" motion was not continuous"


 * "The failure to stop the trim by pulling back on the column would be completely unexpected and confusing. The combination of uncommanded trim (first surprise) and then failure to stop it with aft column travel (second surprise) is exponential - and in this situation response time is critical."


 * "The loss of MCAS function has little bearing on any given flight, as low speed upsets are never supposed to happen. Even if MCAS fails to activate in a stall, there is still a good chance for recovery."


 * - Does the loss of MCAS constitute an unsafe condition? - Only in the case where it is needed, an accelerated stall, flaps up. The combination of an event where MCAS is legitimately engaged is no more than 1/100,000 compared to all flights.


 * - Is MCAS mandatory to show compliance to flight characteristics? - Yes.


 * "On the question of stall demonstration. Under the flight condition mentioned, an accelerated stall, the pitch up could lead to a deep stall and recovery may be beyond the acceptable means."


 * I agree. The article that includes this statement,


 * With the 737NG cutout switches, MCAS runaway is stopped by just throwing the autopilot cutout switch, leaving electric trim fully operable."[10]


 * should not be used as a WP:RS for Wikipedia. There is no MCAS program installed on the NG. It may be he knows that, but the article itself is so poorly written, that it is easy to think he believes the NG does have MCAS. EditorASC (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of adding "Analysis" section after Prelim report. For balance you should add some of the Boeing statements recently that the pilots did not follow the procedures completely (although I have not seen any specific yet of what part of what procedure was allegedly not followed).  Greenbe (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I will let someone else do that. It is incredibly obvious they were not properly trained at all. If they had been, they never would have allowed the speed to get so high and they would have quickly understood that the most critical issue was to restore their own control over the pitch axis of the plane. That means they should have used their electric yoke trim switches to trim back towards the ANU position and then as soon as they got the HS trim where they wanted it, to THEN turn off both pedestal cutoff switches. Problem solved. EditorASC (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As to the very long, but packed with good information article by Aviation Herald (dated May 1st & 2nd), parts of it should be used as WP:RS to support specific issues and statements. However, since it is so long I would personally recommend quoting the supporting statements so that anyone wanting to verify the accuracy can search the article using the actual words in the quotation. I am not an expert on the best way to reference WP:RS statements, but that seems to me to be the best way to do it. I certainly welcome any other suggestions by more experienced editors.


 * I am happy to see this following statement in that AH article:


 * "It also came to the knowledge of The Aviation Herald, that is is possible, that the manual (and even electrical) trim may require excessive forces, so that trimming becomes impossible, in case of a full elevator pull at higher speeds. Boeing even recommended a special procedure for this out-of-trim condition with full back pressure on the yoke requiring the pilots to temporarily release back pressure on the column, and while the nose is pitching downwards and altitude changes, trim as much as possible, then pitch up again and repeat until the out of trim condition is resolved."


 * That has been known ever since the investigation was completed on the crash of a NWA B-720, in 1963 in Florida. That is why all properly trained jet pilots (they have had extensive sim training in how to properly recover from a "jet upset") know to NEVER trim the HS to the FULL AND position.


 * I posted that kind of information on the Flydubai Flight 981 talk page, over three years ago. [] EditorASC (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the following sentence:

"The preliminary report stated that the pilots were briefed on the new procedures Boeing put in place after the Lion Air crash and the FCOM bulletin from Boeing had been inserted in the FCOM (Flight Crew Operation Manual). "

The source predates the report with 1 day, and I could not find the word "brief" in the report pdf, or anything related in section 1.5 Personnel Information.

I replaced a reuters citation with Bjorn's first analysis. Added new sections "Jammed trim wheels", "Analysis", split off "Speculations", moved the "bulletin missing from FOM..." sentence to Analysis.

Will continue in a day.

I think we could move statements too into a separate Section, as those aren't directly related to the report, and break the continuity of the sentences. I might find a few more worth mentioning. — Aron Manning (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Mentour took down the original sim video, probably his employer preferred a less dramatic image of the planes they fly :-) So he uploaded a toned-down simulation few days later on 22nd March: Runaway Stabilizer!! How to stop MCAS  Then made another one on 19th April, more realistic (goes below 3 units trim, 300+ knots):  Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight sim)  In this video he's hugging the column after they pass 300kts. It's not dramatized in any way, but rather relaxed, funny actually; the copilot is laughing at his own struggle to move the wheel :-) (I appreciate how he demonstrates one aspect of a serious situation without generating panic.) A person who saw the original commented its a mix of the previous two. I've referenced the last one in the Jammed Trim Wheels section. — Aron Manning (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The most important question then, is "WHY?" My answer is that their sim and ground school training was terribly deficient." [Reply by EditorASC]


 * "Another answer is that one of the primary design targets of the Max was minimal pilot training costs,..." [Another editor replying to the statement above]


 * That extensive reply is not "another answer." To the contrary, it is an extended commentary for the same view: Namely, that they crashed because they were not trained properly to handle that new system, when it malfunctioned.


 * There are many who will share blame: Boeing, FAA, EASA, the software writers, the airlines themselves, etc. But, the bottom line is that new system DID require extensive ground school and sim training, if pilots were to respond properly to malfunctions of that system. Both planes crashed in the same manner because the pilots were not properly trained to handle such a malfunction.


 * "The report doesn't show either the pilot or the copilot calling out speed readings or the overspeed clacker,...etc., etc., etc.,"


 * I am not trying to be critical, but this isn't useful speculation. If one has read a couple thousand accident reports, one would know it is very common as to what the involved pilots DID NOT SAY. It doesn't help to try and read their minds, after the fact.


 * That they were overwhelmed because they lacked proper training about an entirely new system, is highly likely. But, we cannot read their minds at the time, so this kind of extensive "why didn't they say this or that," questions serves no useful purpose.


 * "What I was trying to get at is whether the overspeed situation was a result of the plane's automation fighting with itself or the pilot's actions (or inaction)."


 * Laws of physics: If very powerful engines remain at MAXTO power for the entire flight, even when the plane is descending, the plane will quickly overspeed. Trying to read the pilot's mind as to why they did not reduce the thrust, doesn't change the fact that they were not properly trained. If anything, it is just more evidence that they WERE NOT properly trained to deal with possible MCAS malfunctions.EditorASC (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The most important question then, is "WHY?" My answer is that their sim and ground school training was terribly deficient." [Reply by EditorASC]
 * "Another answer is that one of the primary design targets of the Max was minimal pilot training costs,..." [Another editor replying to the statement above]
 * "That extensive reply is not "another answer." To the contrary, it is an extended commentary for the same view: "
 * ... "they crashed because they were not trained properly to handle that new system, when it malfunctioned.'" [Reply by EditorASC]

Now in context, I see how you meant it. Originally I understood as you find the cause in a general lack of practice, not the specific training for the malfunctioning system. Thanks for the answers. — Aron Manning (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * HI, to all, I have tried to fix some of the issues from the point of sourcing and general wiki standards; I have not checked all the sources concerning the new wording so there are still things that need to be verified. Generally I prefer the preivious version (= before Aron Manning's changes, apart from the rmoval of badly sourced info about "brief" mentioned above etc.) where findings from the preliminary report were stated together with their analysis using several other sources. But perhaps you will think the present version is better, and chech the facts themselves. Aron Manning, thanks for the explanation of your edits, that is welcome but perhaps it would be better to offer the specific changes for discussion here first. I am sure someon would comment on them. (This is of course not a wiki policy or something but just due to the complexity of the topic. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added context to the recovery, as you suggested. In the Report section the older references are still there, except one, unless I missed something, however thorough I was reviewing the changes/diff. The new references from aviation journalists / engineers served as the source also for those articles from popular media. The "avherald-et302" ref pointed to the cited source, so I only removed the archive link. I could not get the webarchive to "Save" it as it gives error 400. How to trigger wikipedia or a bot to archive it? Maybe that would work. — Aron Manning (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nvm, I found the IABot. It archived everything, except... the avherald. — Aron Manning (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've finished section "‎Preliminary report" directly citing 2 sources, using the grammatically most fitting version in each part. The sources have differences in the details, the outline of the story is the same. Avherald confirms the events and causes, without a well-rounded story. Please review. — Aron Manning (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Analysis section
Thank you for your response to my edit:
 * "Even though I agree with the quote, it is at this point another speculation (jumping to conclusions): it has not been "said" the cause was the same (it might have been the same or not); also the sentence could be applied to many accidents (= without technical malfunctions ... the crew would not have been forced to react under time pressure); but feel free do revert)" — commit comment by WikiHannibal

There is a strong POV in public knowledge, and early media coverage that jumped to conclusions, solely blaming the pilots for the accidents, based on the impression that pilots in that part of the world (I'm trying to be politically, not factually correct here) are less trained than in the US. This POV is represented in the wiki article by lengthy quotes from the Boeing ceo. His view is based on two findings: The latter one he mischaracterizes in some of his statements as the pilots did not even turn off the trim motor.
 * the pilots did not manage thrust and speed
 * the pilots presumably re-enabled the trim motor

This blaming started even before the report came out. In the article we include this partially false, speculative POV that ignores any mistakes other than the pilots'.

To not err on this side of the spectrum of opinions, we need to include different views that analyze the mistakes made along the way from design to that plane actually flying. The citation I included summarizes the currently know and confirmed facts, in a conclusion, not speculation. To compare, it's less speculative than the Ethiopian transport ministers' statement of the pilots correctly following procedure, or the ceo's statement of the pilots not following procedure. It is based on facts confirmed by other aviation experts, aviation journals, and reliable major media outlets.

He also makes a strong effort to be politically correct, not point fingers, not blame, or state the conclusion as fact. The reliable media sources now almost unanimously publish these findings as facts, and go even further, implicating Boeing with questionable practices on many levels, reporting on the Senate's investigation into the FAA.

Peter Lemme, who the Senate subpoenaed (for his findings I presume) pointed out that the Mcas implementation 1) was changed after the FAA reviewed it 2) it's failure was classified as "major", not "hazardous" 3) the possibility of a hazardous failure necessitates redundancy

Note: as Mcas is patched onto the STS, part of the FCC, meaning the 2 FCCs would need to work in dual-channel to mitigate a hazardous failure mode, like the FCCs on Airbus, which would be a big undertaking, as these work in single-channel in the 737. It is a big challenge for Boeing now.

These mistakes made along the design are facts, confirmed by reliable media sources. I prefer to avoid the superficial, for effect reporting, and go straight to the source for the most authentic information, but from WP's perspective these media outlets are deemed more reliable, so I'll collect appropriate sources to go along with the AVHerald citation. I'm also interested if you have a suggestion in what form, wording to present it.

Sorry for the long explanation, it would be easier if it wasn't this controversial, and we all saw the same facts. Reading all this, what's your opinion, do you have any concerns about including the citation again? — Aron Manning (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion has turned to different subjects, without raising any points about the AVHerald cite. I hoped to receive an answer from you. Following your commit comment "but feel free do revert", I've re-added the citation at the end of the section now titled "Expert Analysis", after other analytical sources. A few points to justify this:


 * The Aviation Herald is the most established and reliable journal publishing about most aviation accidents and incidents.
 * The conclusion it gives is based on the facts in the prelim report, information released by Boeing, or revealed by aviation experts. All these facts are collected in that rather lengthy article.
 * A conclusion supported by facts is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL which is synonym for WP:SPECULATION.
 * — Aron Manning (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do not have time to read the "dynamic" discussion with the three of you, and I believe it turned into WP:NOTAFORUM long ago and I lost interest in it. I understand that you want to improve the article but most of the discussion at the talk page is OR. As for the addition, I wonder what was "the technical malfunction" during the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, how and when and by whom it was identifed etc. Please add that to the article to explain the quote. A lot of the additions from the past 2 weeks made the article more technical and more confusing, esp. from the point of view of structure and discrimination between official "facts" and "expert speculation". The excessive speed of the aircraft is not explained/put into context enough, while most of the expert analysis section delas with a tangential technique that might have help making it possibly relevant for the pilots then but not for the present article (in its present state. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I point out that the 'Preliminary Report' section of this Wikipedia article contains a lot of text that is not based on sourced reporting about the official Ethiopian preliminary report, but rather, speculation by various outside technical sources about what may have happened during the flight. Specifically, almost all the text after the 2nd paragraph (ending "operated by MCAS") should not be in this section of the article, because it does not address the actual subject of the section: the official Preliminary report. Mixing the sourced speculations with sourced reporting on the Prelim report verges on wp:Synthesis. Speculative stuff should be segregated out, and when the final official report is issued, the speculations could be appropriately updated with sourced expert opinion about the contents of that final report. DonFB (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * {rto|DonFB} I've split it to "Analysis". Maybe "Analysis by aviation experts" is better?
 * For wp:syn do you mean the reuters ref?
 * — Aron Manning (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I meant the juxtaposing of offical statement with contrasting or contrary statement by outside expert, when the expert himself is not explicitly commenting on the official report or a specific conclusion in the report. Actually, in the now-separated Analysis section, the text "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this" appears to be a Wikipedia editorial analysis which is not attributed to a source. That's the kind of text which verges into OR or SYN territory. DonFB (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Expert analysis" could be a good (briefer) section title, to clarify that it's not Wikipedia analysis. DonFB (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aron for the split and move to Analysis section. I was going to do that myself yesterday, ran out of time, returned today and it was already done!  I think we should keep a strict split: Prelim Report only talk about the facts and interim conclusions present in the report.  The Analysis section are the inferences of outside experts not directly working on the investigation.  Maybe call it "Analysis by outside experts" or just say that in the first sentence.  Agreed only the Analysis section ever need be updated.


 * One problem I have just noticed: I thought that those that a party to the investigation are prohibited by law from disclosing things until official reports are issued. So how can Boeing CEO state the pilots did not fully follow the procedure when that conclusion is not in the prelim report? I thought Boeing is automatically a party to the investigation and they should decline to comment on ongoing investigation. Other experts (or non-experts) can say what they want presumably. So unknown whether to put his statements in the Report or Analysis section.


 * Another thing I think that ought to be mentioned is that decreasing thrust is not an obvious action, since that moves the CG forward and causes additional nose down moment. Greenbe (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether a law would restrict Boeing comment, but not really up to us to decide if he's violating something. So, his comments can go in most apropos place in the article. If a source says he's in violation, we could report that. DonFB (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not satisfied with this sentence either: "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this". It's not meant to be OR, but to stay NPOV: maybe it should say "the report does not confirm such theory" (this is the important part), and ignore the reference to the FDR and CVR (this is only explanation)? The sources don't go into such detail or make this explicit, as I remember, but I will check again. I don't know if stating something is not there (which one might expect to be there) is OR. Is there a guideline for this specific case?

Also if reading the report is OR: "the FDR has no record of the state of the switches", then this as well: "Approximately one minute into the flight 238 kt (274 miles per hour) airspeed was selected. About 12 seconds later the autopilot disengaged." (I don't know the source of this, but the information is in the report) This is more questionable: "and the pilots did not agree on such action." Where to draw the line?

"Expert analysis" sounds good. Greenbe? — Aron Manning (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would omit wording like "inconclusive about this"--that's an editorial conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. Moreover, it's not even clear what "this" refers to. The WP text could simply say that the official Prelim report does not give information about the state of the switches or whether the pilots agreed on something--and attribute those conclusions to the expert sources. In the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Analysis section, the quotations in some places are confusing or unterminated, or nested, or sequential, making it difficult to tell who is saying what, and to whom exactly the attribution belongs. I recommend going over the whole thing microscopically, sentence by sentence, and even phrase by phrase, revising as much as necessary to make all of it completely unambiguously quoted and correctly attributed. Avoid the slightest indication of Wikipedia editorial insight into what the Prelim report says or doesn't say. Any such conclusion about that should be attributed to a secondary source. More generally, and just my opinion, but I think the analysis is too granular, and need not get into matters such as, for example, the roller coaster technique and training materials dating back to the 1980s. I think a basic important point that can reasonably be brought out in the Analysis is that standard pilot training includes technique to stop runaway stabilizer, and that experts have said the intermittent nature of Mcas may have confused the pilots, so they did not treat the nose down as a standard runaway problem. The explanation of unmovable trim wheels and excessive wind-loading are worthwhile and sufficiently clear. DonFB (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Prelim Report only talk about the facts and interim conclusions present in the report. The Analysis section are the inferences of outside experts not directly working on the investigation."

Agree with this. There was an Analysis section for a short while, but it got shuffled around, then got merged.


 * "So unknown whether to put his statements in the Report or Analysis section."

I think it should go to "Responses". It just happened to be after the report. Not recently I moved Moges' statement there too, should have done in the opposite direction.

"party to the investigation are prohibited by law from disclosing things": That would be the moral thing, but talking about moral in this case is futile. Do you have a source for such law? A very specific search query is necessary to find this, and I did not spend the time to do so. If reported upon, then could be included.


 * "to be mentioned is that decreasing thrust is not an obvious action" — by Greenbe

"The throttles are left at 94% thrust for the whole flight." ... "And with Stick Shaker and IAS disagree you keep high thrust and fly a slow climb ..." NPOV note: he's not a pilot to my best knowledge, other sources, Mentour Pilot did not state this, the IAS disagree checklist would disagree with him. What's your opinion on this?

— Aron Manning (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll reiterate my comment above about Muilenburg; it's a complete non-issue for this article whether he spoke inappropriately--unless and until a reliable source says he did--then, we can report such. In absence of any such report, simply put Muilenburg comments where they best fit in the narrative sequence of the article. DonFB (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Note: I did not mean to remove his statement, I mentioned it as a comparison. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Was just reviewing Boeing press statements and saw this: "As a party providing technical assistance under the direction of investigating authorities, Boeing is prevented by international protocol and NTSB regulations from disclosing any information relating to the investigation."  Whatever...my view is that quotes or paraphrases from Muilenburg can go wherever they need to in this article to best serve the narrative. DonFB (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "procedures were not completely followed"... I think that's information related to the investigation. Should we cite this too? It shows such statement is against the rules (is controversial a proper word for it?), but does not give additional information about the accident itself. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * no, unless statement is reported as violation or improper in reliable source. We should not examine primary sources (like Boeing PR statement) to look for and write about violations, discrepancies, discoveries, etc. Big no-no to "interpret" meanings of primary sources. See again wp:OR for details about this concept. DonFB (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The WP text could simply say that the official Prelim report does not give information about the state of the switches..."


 * I might be misunderstanding this comment, so my apology in advance if I am getting this one wrong. The Prelim report DOES give information on "the switches," (Both the yoke electric trim switches AND the Pedestal Cutout switches). Here is just one of several PR comments about "switches":


 * "At 05:40:41, approximately five seconds after the end of the ANU stabilizer motion, a third instance of AND automatic trim command occurred without any corresponding motion of the stabilizer, which is consistent with the stabilizer trim cutout switches were in the "cutout" position."EditorASC (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "...and early media coverage that jumped to conclusions, solely blaming the pilots for the accidents, based on the impression that pilots in that part of the world (I'm trying to be politically, not factually correct here)"


 * While I can agree that reporters do tend to "jump to conclusions" in early news reports, I think how WE respond to such unfortunate but common, deficiencies in Media coverage, be guided ONLY by what can be shown to be FACTUAL in nature. Considerations like what is "politically correct" and what isn't, shouldn't be part of what we put into the article at all, UNLESS some important official is claiming that the pilots are being "blamed," NOT because they made procedural errors, but because they were not American/European/Australian, etc. That can be a real trap for well-meaning Wiki editors since politicians/CEOs/Bureaucrats use such gambits to divert attention away from their own failures, which might end up being important contributing factors.


 * In short, if the FACTS show that a pilot responded to an emergency situation in an improper manner, then there should be no hesitation to report such, no matter what the ethnicity, gender or national origin of the pilot. The FACT that other factors might have ALSO contributed to why such errors were made, can/should be reported to the extent WP:RS sources document such news.EditorASC (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree. Note: i was trying to be "politically correct" on the talk page, in that reply, by not writing 'third-world'. It was awkward, and probably distracting, sry for that. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

'''"The throttles are left at 94% thrust for the whole flight." ... "And with Stick Shaker and IAS disagree you keep high thrust and fly a slow climb ..."[3] NPOV note: he's not a pilot to my best knowledge, other sources, Mentour Pilot did not state this, the IAS disagree checklist would disagree with him.''' @EditorASC: What's your opinion on this?"

He doesn't speak as if he has many hours of jet pilot time under his belt. In another place in that article, he says "The Pilots are thrown off their seats, hitting the cockpit roof. Look at the Pitch Attitude Disp trace and the Accel Vert trace. These are on the way to Zero G and we can see how PF loses stick pull in the process (Ctrl Column Pos L). He can barely hold on to the Yoke, let alone pull or trim against."

Those are absurd conclusions. Both pilots would have their seat belts fastened and thus could not be thrown up out of their seats, much less to hit the cockpit roof.

A highly experienced jet pilot would know the plane was going very fast. The noise level alone would tell him that. The thrust was still at MAXTO and they rate of climb was not very high. The loud noise of the overspeed clacker, in spite of ONE stick shaker, tells him they are going way too fast. For them to ignore their speed was exceeding VMO, means they were literally overwhelmed with it all. That happens ONLY WHEN pilots are not well-trained on how to quickly recover from that kind of emergency.EditorASC (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Prelim report DOES give information on "the switches,"" — EditorASC Right. The FDR does not record the cutout switch state, but the report correlates the 3rd trim input, no trim change, and the pilot's cutout protocol. The current wording on the page is factually correct: "the FDR has no record of the state of the switches", but the sentence as a whole was questioned if it is WP:OR. — Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"In another place in that article, he says "The Pilots are thrown off their seats, hitting the cockpit roof."" ... "Those are absurd conclusions. Both pilots would have their seat belts fastened and thus could not be thrown up out of their seats, much less to hit the cockpit roof." — EditorASC

I'd like it better if he wrote "the pilots are lifted up from their seats" only. -0.4g acceleration for 3 seconds (on FDR chart): -4m/s^2 * (3s)^2 / 2 = -4*9/2m = -18m The plane fell 18 meters (6 storeys) in 3 seconds in the inertial reference frame of the pilots' free-falling bodies after passing zero g.  The belts aren't tight fit, so they surely lifted up from their seats, and hit their belts pretty hard, so I understand the emotion he communicates by dramatizing the event. It's far from being as ridiculous as the new 60 Minutes video. Although not factually correct in this one case, he highlights an important aspect of the cockpit environment, that makes the difficulties in this accident more understandable to those, who think saving these planes was as simple as "flipping two switches", without looking at the details.

I believe too they were overwhelmed, I would even speculate they were stunned by fear. The CVR transcript is lacking, but there are no signs in their actions in the report that they would try to figure out which warning and instrument to trust. They also rushed with the trim cutout: it can be seen on the FDR the electric trim and the stabilizer movement stops at 05:40:37, while they do the cutout protocol: "At 05:40:35, the First-Officer called out “stab trim cut-out” two times. Captain agreed and FirstOfficer confirmed stab trim cut-out." It's possible the copilot switched the cut-out switches, while the thumb switch (either his, or the pilot's) was still pressed. Bad timing, probably caused by rush in fear of another uncommanded trim. 10 more seconds before the cutout, and they survive with trim at 4 units. The actions, and the non-reaction to warnings show me (speculation) that they lost their composure, panicked. They had all the reasons to do so: the erratic flying, the oscillations, wrestling with the yoke, the stick shaker, confusing warning lights.

No accidents happen because of one error, this was a compound of errors too. Mcas was only the second major malfunction: before it activated, the pilot was already struggling with the controls. Even if there was training for Mcas anomaly (i don't mean Trim Runaway: Mcas is intermittent and 4 times faster, and the Max has no separate switch for Automatic Trim), is there a training for Mcas anomaly + stick shaker + multiple disagree lights + oscillations causing a roller-coaster ride with 0.5-1.5g vert acceleration in 3 second periods?

— Aron Manning (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Mcas was only the second major malfunction: before it activated, the pilot was already struggling with the controls."
 * Struggling with WHAT control? That is news to me. Where did you get that kind of information?EditorASC (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the caps, what's the problem?
 * "At 05:40:50, the Captain instructed the First Officer to advise ATC that they would like to maintain 14,000 ft and they have flight control problem."
 * The report gives only a hint about the extent of it: "Six seconds after the autopilot engagement, there were small amplitude roll oscillations accompanied by lateral acceleration, rudder oscillations and slight heading changes. These oscillations continued also after the autopilot was disengaged."
 * The rest is OR: When flying straight, the Lateral Acceleration moves between +-0.03g, from 05:39:30 to 05:41:05, it fluctuates between +-0.1g in 3 second periods (FDR chart 2 ). Minor oscillations, that fully engaged the pilot imho. "At 05:40:00 shortly after the autopilot disengaged" Mcas activated. "At 05:40:44, the Captain called out three times “Pull-up” and the First-Officer acknowledged." Between 05:40:46 and 05:41:02 the left and right "Ctrl Column Pos" are exactly the same, and more stable, less fluctuating than before or after (FDR chart 1 ). This shows me the 2 pilots' common effort was necessary to stabilize the lateral axis. The longitudinal acceleration is also fluctuating in this 1.5 minutes, and stabilizes at the same time (chart 2). Roll attitude also oscillating between +-5 degrees, 0-7 degrees after Mcas, stabilizes at 6 degrees around 05:41:30.
 * Tl;dr: By struggling before Mcas I mean he was fully involved and unable to overcome the oscillations (until the copilot helped after Mcas). By struggling after Mcas I mean he had to use all his strength, possibly hugging the column, while the plane was going up and down violently (between 0.5-1.5g vert accel in 3 sec periods - FDR chart 1&2).


 * — Aron Manning (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

- In regard to position of the switches: Yes, Prelim report does give info on switch status. Point I'm trying to make is that we, as editors, must not combine facts from a primary source (the Prelim) with secondary-source statements about something related, and create a conclusion or imply something. If a reliable secondary source says something about the switches (or whatever), and makes a conclusion about something, then we, as editors, can describe what the reliable secondary source concluded or suggested. But in the article, we can conclude nothing and suggest nothing on our own account. Again, this is explained in great detail in wp:OR. DonFB (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but not how it is related to this sentence. Combining sources would be WP:SYN to my best knowledge, also I've read OR like 3 times, and I open it again when in doubt. The sentence discussed: "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this: the FDR has no record of the state of the switches, and the pilots did not agree on such action.[9: et302prelim]". This is 2 facts just from the report. I thought the "negative fact" (the lack of some information) was questioned as OR. WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." IMO interpretation would be if I had stated conclusions. The lack of the cutout switch state on the FDR chart is easily verifiable (only pitch trim state, electronic and automatic trim inputs are shown). "pilots did not agree" sounds like an interpretation, this is not intentional, it should express the lack of pilots mentioning the cutout right before the last trim inputs. This is the shortest wording I could come up with. The cutout procedure done ca. 30 sec after Mcas activation is a distinctive procedure, in short: SIC: cutout x2, PIC: agree, SIC: [turns it off], confirm. I tried to find a wording that is appropriate for the lack of this clearly identifiable communication sequence, "the pilots did not mention cutout" came up short. Any suggestions are welcome...
 * — Aron Manning (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's my take on the sentence you posted: "The preliminary report is inconclusive about this: the FDR has no record of the state of the switches, and the pilots did not agree on such action.[9: et302prelim]".
 * My concerns: "report is inconclusive" is itself a conclusion, a form of interpretation, as I see it. The word "this"--not sure exactly what the word refers to. "FDR has no record of the state of the switches"---is that conclusion from a secondary source, or editor's interpretation of FDR traces/data, as shown online? "Pilots did not agree on such action"---what is source? In your post just above, you said: "lack of the cutout switch state on the FDR chart is easily verifiable". Verifiable by whom and how....is it sourced? I know this is all nitpicky, but just offering my take on potential problems. My view is that only way to use Prelim in the article is simply to quote or paraphrase it to give factual information, but not to explicitly or implicitly compare or contrast it with anything, or to offer any observation about what it does or does not contain, which leads, I think, directly to OR or SYN. DonFB (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Aron, these are my opinions; others might see it differently, or take a more "lenient" view. If I can be bold, my sense is that you'd like the WP article to contribute to the analysis (not ok), in contrast to merely reporting what sources say about the analysis (ok). ? DonFB (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The belts aren't tight fit, so they surely lifted up from their seats, and hit their belts pretty hard, so I understand the emotion he communicates by dramatizing the event."


 * It still boils down to his not knowing what the hell he is talking about. His wild speculation that those pilots did not have their 5-point seat belts securely fastened in place, including the crotch strap and shoulder harnesses, is without any credible evidence that I have seen. Pilots are required to securely fasten those belts whenever they are at their duty stations. I have never seen a fellow pilot fasten his loosely, so that he could be tossed up to hit the ceiling in the event of turbulence or negative Gs. The very purpose of having them securely fastened is to prevent even severe turbulence from interfering with the pilot's ability to maintain control of his aircraft.


 * I have read many reports over several decades about passengers and FAs being severely injured or even killed when a flight encounters severe CAT, but I have NEVER read one where the pilots suffered injuries themselves, while at their stations. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure out why...


 * I don't know how many flight hours he has to support his absurd opinion, but I have over 25,000 hours, plus six specific Capt's type ratings on Boeing jetliners, to back up my opinion. EditorASC (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"His wild speculation that those pilots did not have their 5-point seat belts securely fastened in place, including the crotch strap and shoulder harnesses, is without any credible evidence that I have seen." He is not stating such thing about the straps. What he does write "hitting the cockpit roof" is an over-exaggerated, dramatized, clearly not factual statement. They would lose grasp of the yoke, but the FDR chart 1 shows column positions going from 8 to 5 degrees, not zero. As I demonstrated in the prev reply 0.4g accel compared to the cockpit is very violent. To reiterate: 6 storey fall in 3 seconds. If they hit the roof with their heads with 0.4g, almost half of their weight, I speculate they would be knocked out flat, if not with open skulls. Anyway, this cherry-picked editorial exaggeration is not the focus of the article. We have veered off the topic, and spent too much effort with it. I respect your expertise and your opinion, and I'm curious about your insight about the focus of the article: the timeline and causality of the events.

"It still boils down to his not knowing what the hell he is talking about." — EditorASC I'd prefer avoiding ad hominem attacks. — Aron Manning (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

""report is inconclusive" is itself a conclusion" :-D  Agree. I'll leave that out. Thank you, I wasn't looking at it from this perspective. I've just realized: by SYN do you mean this conclusion based on the two observations following it? "observation about what it does or does not contain" Exactly. I think this is the right word. Interpretation would include the editor's conclusion about the meaning of the source. I had the impression about WP in general, that the text presented in articles is the wording of the editor, thus an interpretation in itself. I'll look for examples and policies to reevaluate this impression. Result: NOR (WP:PSTS) says: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Later: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret ... PS" – the word observation is not used on the page. I'm also nitpicky, because my intention is to state a fact with source, not evaluate the PS. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I referred to this with "verifiable": by looking at the FDR chart one can confirm. Although - going with nitpicky - it might be so it was not printed on the chart, and it is so obviously crucial information, that I missed this "possibility". I'll try to find a secondary stating "the FDR has no record...", i think I read it somewhere. Alternatively, is this version more acceptable? "The FDR charts in the preliminary report have no information about the state of the switches." Fact, although negative, i think it's not interpretation/evaluation. "The Pilots did not agree..." – Interpretation in this form. I can't express the lack of communication about re-enabling trim in a "straightforward" (WP:PRIMARY) sentence. Anyway, this was to support the "report is inconclusive" statement, after removing that, it lost its significance, dropping. — Aron Manning (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Aron, these are my opinions; others might see it differently, or take a more "lenient" view. If I can be bold, my sense is that you'd like the WP article to contribute to the analysis (not ok), in contrast to merely reporting what sources say about the analysis (ok). ? DonFB" Your sense is close. I did a lot of research, to find out what's consistent between sources, and what's misinformation or unfounded. I've written some of my OR on the talk page to explain my POV, or to start a discussion. I do not include this in the article. For ex. I've written here about how hectic I believe the cockpit environment was. This is important to understand the human aspect and pilot overload. I don't include that in lack of RS. I'd say i'd like to present the available, reliable information that is useful for those who look further than the confusing / superficial / partial / mis- information in the media, not specifically to contribute to the analysis. My research creeps through in sentences like "report is inconclusive", without me noticing, so thank you for highlighting that. — Aron Manning (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * At this point, I must add that I'm not looking at the article itself during our discussion. I'm trying only to focus on the process and the WP philosophy of what is acceptable in editing. That said, you are of course correct that editors will always bring something of themselves when writing, and I suppose that might even be called 'interpretation'. One simply must be on guard to one's own potential spin when writing.
 * But, to address a specific item: Why do you want the article to say the FDR readout has no info on position of switches? What sentence that you write (or has been written) will precede or follow that statement?
 * You said you did much research to find out: "what's misinformation or unfounded." Ok, let's say you find something you believe is unfounded, but no reliable source has said 'this is unfounded'. What will you do with your discovery in relation to the WP article? Ans: You can't do anything other than describe the findings of sources. I don't know if you're aware, but once upon a time WP had a policy that said: The threshhold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". That got rewritten and is no longer in the official policy, but the phrase addresses the issue you're grappling with, I think. Verifiability simply means the information (which may not be "The Truth") has been published somewhere, and a reader could look it up, if he wants to.
 * You said you want to present: "information that is useful for those who look further than the confusing / superficial / partial / mis- information in the media." How will you do so, given that WP articles are based only on published sources, which may be just that: confusing/partial/etc? How will you present (or explain--not proper) the "real" facts, separate the mistaken from the accurate? Answer: you can't, at least, not by inserting your logic into the article. You can only describe what sources say. However, if multiple sources discredit some other analysis or theory, you can describe that situation. (But not by saying anything like, "Smith is wrong, because Jones and Johnson and Rogers say so." More along the lines of: "Jones disputes Smith's theory by saying blah-de-blah. Johnson asserts that Smith is mistaken because more blah-de-blah." Like that.)
 * Here's a little more hopefully helpful info about WP policies; I think you'll find it in wp:NPOV. What you can do, as I sort of began explaining just above, is describe "competing" or conflicting analyses, as presented in the sources. "Source A says this, and source B says that." You can introduce such sourced analyses or interpretations with an expression like: "sources differ." And then describe what they say, being careful about using words like "claim", or "however". See wp:Words to watch. You could also look at wp:FRINGE, although that policy may not have too much relevance here, but worth a look, if you haven't already. The big issue, as I see it: you want to "clear up" (my phrase) the misinfo, the misleading, etc. Again I say, I don't think you can. You can only report what they're saying. Of course, it's possible to intentionally avoid writing about a sourced analysis or interpretation that you think is poppycock. But you also have to be fair. See again NPOV and its sections about BALANCE and DUE/UNDUE. I hope some of this is helpful. DonFB (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much the great advice! wp:Words to watch I have not found yet, that will be very helpful. "Why do you want the article to say the FDR readout has no info on position of switches? What sentence that you write (or has been written) will precede or follow that statement?" Right on point. It follows a sentence to balance it: "Experts theorize "that the flight crew released the cutout, reactivated stabilizer trim"[5][6] in an effort to correct the out-of-trim configuration, but question "why not trim nose up continuously or for at least long cycles".[6][5] The FDR chart has no record of the state of the switches.[7]" (I've shortened as discussed) There's no direct evidence that it was reactivated. Intentional reactivation makes no sense, because it was not used effectively, the 2 trim inputs are more like accidentally pushing the thumb switches (just a spec). This is one example which is neither true nor false, it's one of the mysteries, so I included the theory and the fact it's not proven. For the latter I don't remember the secondary source, and have not found it yet. I'm not a "truth warrior", maybe it sounded like that. I do the research mostly for myself to get a better understanding, and it's result is not a black-and-white truth or misinformation category, more like a measure of how likely or unlikely an information is, with the possibility of being both and changing over time.