https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/world/ethiopian-airlines-crash-preliminary-report-intl/index.html
2019-04-04 16:33:00Z
52780258060060
Kaleyesus Bekel contributed reporting from Addis Ababa
The view of Labour members seems clear.
Polling for a project on party membership - led by Prof Tim Bale of Queen Mary University - was published at the turn of the year.
It suggested more than 70% of Labour's members backed a second referendum.
And if it were held, nearly nine out of 10 would vote to remain in the EU.
But this wasn't a poll of shadow cabinet members.
Nine of Jeremy Corbyn's top team are very, very sceptical of - or opposed to - another referendum.
And most of these are his political allies.
The man he installed as Labour Party chairman - Ian Lavery - is reported to have offered his resignation twice because he broke the party whip and failed to back a referendum in the recent indicative votes. Twice Mr Corbyn refused to accept it.
From a Leave-supporting area in north east England, Mr Lavery is convinced Labour would pay a high political price if it is seen to be disrespecting the result of the 2016 referendum.
It's interesting that the elections co-ordinator, Andrew Gwynne, who is not as close to Mr Corbyn, takes a similar view.
So far, a formulation around the question of a second referendum has just about maintained a show of unity from senior figures in public - though this is now fraying.
The form of words deployed is that Labour would support a "public vote" in order to avoid "a hard Tory Brexit" or "no deal".
But these caveats now worry supporters of a referendum in the party - including some who sit at Mr Corbyn's top table.
The fears are fuelled by the current cross-party talks.
Because if Mr Corbyn was to reach a deal with Theresa May which avoids "a hard Tory Brexit", would the referendum commitment melt away?
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry was so concerned she wrote to shadow cabinet colleagues last night to argue that ditching a public vote on any deal - including one hammered out with the prime minister - would breach party policy and would require a vote of the whole shadow cabinet.
At last night's special meeting of shadow ministers, I am told Ms Thornberry's possible leadership ambitions were aired. (She couldn't be there for family reasons).
Key figures in Mr Corbyn's office were furious at her intervention.
But the party's deputy leader Tom Watson - who doesn't always see eye to eye with the shadow foreign secretary - took to the airwaves to insist: "Our position is we want a confirmatory ballot.
"It's very difficult for us to move off that because I don't think our party would forgive us if we signed off on Tory Brexit without that kind of concession."
Even more uncomfortably for the Labour leader, left-wing allies have written to him to push for a referendum commitment in talks with the prime minister.
The eleven signatories include shadow ministers Clive Lewis and Rachael Maskell.
They wrote: "We - your supporters - urge you to make a confirmatory public vote your bottom line in negotiations with Theresa May and to fight to bring this government down."
Mr Corbyn has said he did raise the "option" of a public vote with Mrs May yesterday and shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said today that a "confirmatory vote" would be discussed at what are being billed as technical discussions between Labour and Conservative frontbenchers.
Behind the scenes there is what to outsiders will look like a "dance on the head of a pin" argument going on as to what Labour's policy actually is on a public vote - but the interpretation could determine how hard, or otherwise, the referendum is pushed in talks.
The motion agreed last autumn at Labour's conference says "should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal, or the talks end in no deal" then there should be a general election.
If that doesn't happen, then "Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote".
Supporters of a referendum say that Mrs May's "Tory Brexit deal" - as represented by two meaningful votes - has been voted down.
So Labour should now be calling unequivocally for a "public vote" on any deal.
Sceptics and opponents stress, on the other hand, that it should still be a last resort to prevent no deal, or another attempt to get Mrs May's unrevised deal over the line.
So a group of 25 Labour MPs from Leave areas has written to Mr Corbyn urging him to "compromise" in talks with Mrs May.
The group includes the shadow minister Gloria De Piero, and former shadow minister Melanie Onn, who resigned because she voted against the referendum option rather than abstain on an indicative vote.
More familiar supporters of Mrs May's current deal - such as Caroline Flint and Sir Kevin Barron - have added their names too - as has Lisa Nandy, the former frontbencher who has so far held out against the prime minister's deal, but who could be persuaded if it were combined with a customs union.
The signatories say: "Our policy… seeks a deal that protects jobs and rights at work. It does not require a confirmatory ballot on any deal that meets those conditions."
But sources close to the Labour leader think the fuss over a referendum is over-blown, as government and opposition are unlikely to agree a joint motion on Brexit in any case.
It's far more likely there will be a series of votes on a range of options - including a referendum - next week.
Peter Kyle, who drafted a motion on the option of a referendum during the phase of indicative votes, is hopeful of success.
His formulation garnered more votes - though not a majority - from MPs than any other option.
But some close to the Labour leadership believe it will, once again, be rejected.
That outcome would get both the prime minister and the opposition leader off a potentially painful political hook.
But it doesn't bring a Brexit deal any closer.
CNN's Richard Quest and Helen Regan contributed to this report.
Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardBen Folds recounts performance with Buttigieg: 'He's a fine player' The Hill's Morning Report - GOP balks at Trump border closure Opposition to PACs puts 2020 Democrats in a bind MORE (D-Hawaii), a 2020 presidential candidate, is accusing CNN's Fareed Zakaria of trying to "goad" President TrumpDonald John TrumpTim Ryan expected to announce bid for presidency this week: report Kushner's security clearance was denied due to concerns of foreign influence: report Morgan Ortagus named as new State Dept spokeswoman MORE "into going to war" with Russia.
"TV talking heads love trying to goad Trump into going to war w/ Russia. Here’s just one example: Fareed Zakaria is trying to get Trump to prove he's not guilty of appeasement by going to war with Russia over Venezuela," Gabbard wrote Wednesday in an Instagram post.
ADVERTISEMENT
Gabbard shared a video of Zakaria saying a "real puzzle remains" while asking why Trump has not been willing to "confront" Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Why has Trump been unwilling to confront Putin in any way on any issue? And will Venezuela finally be the moment when Trump ends his appeasement?" Zakaria asks in the clip.
Russia and the Trump administration are at odds in Venezuela, where Russia has backed embattled President Nicolás Maduro. Russia has also introduced a military presence in Venezuela, inflaming tensions when it sent about 100 troops to the country last month.
The U.S., meanwhile, is among a number of western countries that have recognized Venezuela opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country's legitimate leader.
Trump last week warned Russia against keeping its military personnel in Venezuela.
"Russia has to get out," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office while meeting with Fabiana Rosales, Guaidó's wife.
Pilots of an airliner that crashed last month in Ethiopia initially followed Boeing's emergency steps by disconnecting a system that can force the nose of the plane down, but they could not regain control.
Data from the plane indicates that the pilots then broke from Boeing recommendations by reconnecting power to the system, according to an official familiar with the crash investigation.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because a preliminary report on the March 10 crash has not yet been made public. Ethiopian investigators are expected to release the report on Thursday.
News that pilots of the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max turned off a critical flight-control system suspected of playing a role in an earlier crash of the same model was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper said the pilots' actions are still being evaluated by investigators but could raise questions about assertions by Boeing and U.S. regulators last year that pilots could regain control in some emergencies by following steps that include turning off an anti-stall system designed specifically for the Max.
In a statement, Boeing urged against speculating before the preliminary report and flight data from the plane are released.
Investigators are examining the crashes that killed all 346 people aboard the two Max 8 jets, which were operated by Lion Air, an Indonesia carrier, and Ethiopian Airlines. They are looking into the role of a flight-control system known by its acronym, MCAS, which under some circumstances can automatically lower the plane's nose to prevent an aerodynamic stall.
The Max has been grounded worldwide pending a software fix that Boeing is rolling out, which must still receive approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and other regulators.
20 PHOTOS
Deadly Ethiopian Airlines crash kills all passengers thought to be onboard
See Gallery
See Gallery
HIDE CAPTION
SHOW CAPTION
of
SEE ALL
BACK TO SLIDE
The official who discussed the matter with The Associated Press said that data downloaded from the plane's so-called black boxes indicates that the pilots of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 followed recommendations by flipping two switches that disconnected power to the system. Sources told the Journal that despite that step, the pilots could not make the plane climb.
The pilots then reversed the power switches that they had turned off — a step not included in Boeing-approved recovery procedures — which reactivated MCAS and pushed the plane's nose down, the official told the AP. Boeing's procedures instruct pilots to leave the MCAS system disconnected and continue flying manually for the rest of the flight.
Boeing developed MCAS for the Max because the plane has larger engines that sit higher and more forward under the wings than the engines on previous 737s, which gives the new model a greater tendency for the nose to tip upward in some situations.
John Goglia, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said MCAS was designed largely to reduce the nose-up effect during takeoff and avoid a dangerous aerodynamic stall, or loss of lift from air flowing over the wings.
Pilots can turn off MCAS by pressing a button on their control column, although the system can resume if pressure is released. If pilots opt instead to disable the system by flipping a pair of toggle switches, it cuts power to part of the tail called a horizontal stabilizer used to point the plane up or down. Flipping the switches requires pilots to manually turn a wheel to operate the stabilizer.
"The pilot not flying should be cranking that wheel," Goglia said.
If the Ethiopian pilots followed all of Boeing's procedures and disengaged the MCAS but the plane still crashed, the company has some explaining to do, he said. But, he added, restoring power to the system "is not in the procedure."
Boeing is the focus of investigations by the Justice Department, the Transportation Department's inspector general, and congressional committees. Investigations are also looking at the role of the Federal Aviation Administration, which certified the Max in 2017 and declined to ground it after the first deadly crash in October.
More from Aol.com:
Teenager dies of tapeworm egg infestation in his brain
Dutch police arrest Turkish man suspected of killing three in tram shooting
New Zealand shooting survivor forgives wife's killer: 'I love him'
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 repeatedly nosedived despite the pilots following proper procedures, Ethiopia’s minister of transport said in the initial news briefing for the crash investigation Thursday, according to reports.
The Boeing 737 Max 8 jet crashed March 10 just after takeoff en route from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to Nairobi, Kenya, killing all 157 passengers and crew aboard.
FINAL MOMENTS OF ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES BOEING 737 MAX REVEALED: PILOT RECORDED SAYING 'PITCH UP, PITCH UP'
“The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft,” Dagmawit Moges said at the news conference in Addis Ababa.
The investigation has also found the plane was in good condition and airworthy before the doomed flight.
Based on flight data and cockpit voice recordings, Moges said they cannot yet determine if there is a structural problem with the Max 8.
She said they are recommending that U.S.-based Boeing review the jet’s air flight control system for controllability issues.
“Despite their hard work and full compliance with the emergency procedures,” Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement Thursday, “it was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving.”
The similarities between the crash and the previous crash of a Lion Air Max 8 plane led to the U.S. joining several other countries in grounding the planes pending further investigation.
An international team of 18 agencies is helping with the investigation. American participants include the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, according to Reuters.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Moges said she expects the investigation to conclude within a year.