Talk:Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems C‑class Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Boeing 737 MAX was copied or moved into Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

As an automated corrective measure, the MCAS was given full authority to bring the aircraft nose down, and could not be overridden by pilot resistance against the trim wheel as on previous versions of the motorized trim.

The footnote is Sullenberger's testimony. Sullenberger uses "control wheel" in the same sense as "control column" or "control yoke." Sullenberger is pointing out that on previous 737 versions, pulling back on the control column would activate a switch that would stop stabilizer nose down commands.

That switch is called "column cutout switch." https://www.satcom.guru/2018/11/stabilizer-trim.html

Sullenberger does not refer to the stabilizer trim handwheel.

Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "trim wheel" to Sullenberger's "control wheel," but "control column" would fit other usages in the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements section

"In particular, there have been no public statements regarding reverting the functionality of the stabilizer trim cutout switches to pre-MAX configuration."

Boeing procedures on previous models called for turning off both switches at once, so as is explained elsewhere in the article by the company president, there is no reason to "revert."

"A veteran software engineer and experienced pilot suggested that software changes may not be enough to counter the 737 MAX's engine placement."

I'm not understanding why this software engineer who has time in simulators is someone worth quoting about engine placement.

"Seattle Times notes that while the new software fix Boeing has proposed 'will likely prevent this situation recurring, if the preliminary investigation confirms that the Ethiopian pilots did cut off the automatic flight-control system, this is still a nightmarish outcome for Boeing and the FAA. It would suggest the emergency procedure laid out by Boeing and passed along by the FAA after the Lion Air crash is wholly inadequate and failed the Ethiopian flight crew.'"

This may have been true before the preliminary report appeared, but is it relevant to the "Improvements" section? Fotoguzzi (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is underdeveloped compared to the main groundings article as it pertains to the whole aircraft... Shencypeter (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is but, taking the long-term view, the groundings will soon be a thing of the past. Admittedly, some of the content here is more related to the groundings and the inquiry and is largely duplicated in the groundings article. Conversely, there's a fair bit of content in the groundings article that could usefully be moved to this article. In the long term (no doubt once the groundings are over), though, I suspect that this article will end up being merged back into the main 737 MAX article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Corporations

The MCAS page doesn't address how the US Government responds when the public is aware of a corporation that murders people. This is appropriate here because MCAS as a system in the 737 Max product is how Boeing murdered people.

Moreover, the MCAS page should refer to a 737 Max page that is rewritten to describe the US Government as largely impotent by political choice, indifferent or protective of corporations like Boeing who create murderous products. US citizens respectively have little to no power to address criminal corporate behavior because their representation is typically corrupt.

As an example, Ralph Nader's complaints (a form of controlled opposition that protects the company by carefully controlling and creating protest against it) are not the equivalent of obtaining justice that would presumably require the Federal Government to "pursue" Boeing management for mass murder.

Recent corporate behavior has included damaging the economy (Wall Street fraud), homicidal behavior in distributing opioids (pharma) with zero prosecutions in the first instance, and primarily other-than-federal lawsuits in the second instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.141.146 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors

Looks like this article is trying to share a lot of content with the Boeing 737 MAX groundings article. The sharing is poorly executed and there are numerous referencing errors -- lots of undefined references and a couple of undefined references, too. I'll try to straighten these out, but it's quite a tangle. In at least one instance, it seems like the groundings article is referencing this article, but then that text is included back into this article leaving readers wandering in a circle. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch fix

When shortening the lead, I had edit conflict with tag Bot. I copied the entire article, including my shortened version of the lead, and replaced the upper text with my text and published. Somehow, I over-duplicated the whole article; that's why byte numbers were so large. Went back and deleted the extra copy or copies. DonFB (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DailyBeast not being Aviation

@Marc Lacoste:: If you are rejecting a citation based solely on the domain name and not the content, I hardly find the recent revert convincing.

It's not a WP:cite, it's a WP:EL.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS INPUT

Current costly aircrafts have MULTIPLE Systems of Sensors to determine their speed, position and attitude. The original MCAS used ONLY ONE AoA sensor input. This FAIL-SURE logic could only be developed and approved by Retards (in rank and file and also in power/top jobs) 123.201.65.73 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Your opinion does not matter here.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EASA

This article repeatedly uses the acronym EASA without anywhere defining what it means. Similarly, although the Federal Aviation Administration is mentioned by name in the second paragraph, the acronym FAA is used throughout also without definition. 130.246.57.110 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See my diff 1 and diff 2. Thank you for drawing that to our attention. Dolphin (t) 11:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an updated link 145

Link 145 is sort of broken it no longer points to the referenced document as the FAA document system was revised. I noticed this while looking for info to supplement a documentary on the 737 MAX I was watching.I do not know how to properly add a citation. Here is the link

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FB91ABC41EF06432862586260051E5DF.0001 Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]