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

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

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 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
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 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
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 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
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.

Archives

1

Major Updates Needed

This article is a mess and a majority of the listed sources are sensational articles from right after the crashes. In 2024 we know for a fact that:

- There were procedural failures on the part of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines pilots. - Ethiopian Airlines did not properly distribute Boeing notices regarding MCAS. - The angle of attack sensor on the Lion Air 737 was miscalibrated by Xtra Aerospace, during a repair for Lion Air. - During recertification testing after the crashes, test pilots flew 737 MAXs with and without MCAS and said they had no issues with stability whatsoever. - The information regarding the size and location of the engines affecting the stability of the plane is incorrect.

It does a disservice to thousands of readers when articles are editorialized like this. People deserve the facts and most up-to-date information so they can make informed decisions. Injecting emotions and opinions into informational articles is inappropriate.

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]