This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boeing 737 MAX certification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Boeing 737 MAX certification. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Boeing 737 MAX certification at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I revised the lede because the following text could easily be confusing to a general reader: "Boeing used a new autonomous software, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to enable a commonality". I understand the meaning behind those words, but for a reader not familiar with the background, the idea that "new" software enabled a "commonality" does not seem logical. If the software is new, then it does not share commonality. Furthermore, the text gave the incorrect impression that MCAS alone enabled commonality between the MAX and NG. The overall design of the MAX was intended to be in common with the NG. MCAS, as we know, contributed to commonality by giving the MAX similar handling qualities. The lede should be written with the following facts in mind: 1) Boeing wanted commonality between the two aircraft generations to minimize pilot training and save customers money; 2) Boeing described MCAS to the FAA as not new, but rather, as part of the existing flight control system, reinforcing the idea of commonality; and 3) to support the idea that MCAS was not new, it was omitted from the airplane manuals. DonFB ( talk) 08:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This should probably be mentioned in the article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/19/737-max-boeing-inappropriately-coached-test-pilots-say-senators Zazpot ( talk) 06:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Is is currently certified? I appreciate the answer may vary by country/area, but I failed to see a clear statement that as of today it is or is not. But perhaps it’s not that simple a question? Springnuts ( talk) 19:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In November 2020, the FAA announced that it had cleared the aircraft to return to service-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Forkner has been indicted on charges of supplying false and incompete information to the FAA in respect of the certification of the 737 MAX ( The Guardian). Not sure were this best fits into the article. Mjroots ( talk) 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree There is more than enough information to fit on a new page and make this page more readable. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of sections talking about different investigations in the US including the DoJ, US House, US Senate, Office of Special Counsel, US Cabinet and NTSB. I propose splitting them off into a new page called Investigations of the Boeing 737 MAX in the United States (or an even better name that someone suggests). Then a brief section here combining some information on the different enquiries.
Happy to put a split suggestion but I wanted some feedback first. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)