Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reference to 'pilote negligence' as cause of Asiana 214 crash in 'Aircraft' section

I've just replaced the allegation that the cause of the Asiana 214 crash at SF was 'pilote negligence' (sic) with the neutral 'due to descending below the approach path'. The Asiana 214 investigation is still ongoing and while we have a reasonable understanding of why the crash happened the NTSB have not issued their final report and it is far from clear that they will lay the blame at the feet of the pilots as what happened appears to be at the intersection of pilot action, training, and detailed aircraft design. I wouldn't expect a speculative statement like this in the Asiana 214 article, and this article has enough issues with speculation without bringing it in on entirely different incidents. If anyone wants to revert it, please explain your logic and provide appropriate references. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's really obviously not, pilot error is always raised as a cause of every aircraft incident, by both the airline and the manufacturer. It's a strategic claim made in every investigation in the hope of absolving those parties. HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware that 'pilot error' is a much-abused phrase and often thrown around by all parties excepting the pilots and the accident investigators, but the official 'probable cause' of Asiana 214 won't be established until the NTSB final report, which may well be several years yet. Until that report says as much, we certainly shouldn't be claiming 'pilote negligence' (sic) here, it's analagous to declaring a suspect guilty before a trial has taken place (I'm not particularly happy with that analogy as an air accident investigation is not in general a judicial process, but it should get the message across). 82.45.87.103 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

One has to consider the context here. If someone says "The Triple 7 has a good safety record" and someone replies "3 died at SFO!" it is reasonable to note in response that preliminary indications are that the pilot(s) landing at SFO failed basic airmanship (and perhaps three teens failed to buckle up as well). Is it Boeing's fault the plane "descended below the approach path" there? Remove any reference to piloting and you're not, in fact, having the article say less, you're rather effectively supporting the line that "3 died at SFO!" is a legitimate objection, in other words you're advancing the (other) thesis that the T7 has safety issues as opposed to just removing the thesis that pilot error played a role in the San Fran crash.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely not reasonable to claim the pilots failed basic airmanship when the investigation is ongoing and the stated data from multiple reputable sources makes clear we are dealing with a complex discrepancy between pilot action and expectation (that autothrust will maintain airspeed), training, and aircraft/cockpit/human factors design (autothrust does not hold speed in that specific set of circumstances, but there is no active annunciation to the pilots that autothrust has switched into that mode), not to mention the complications of a trainee being Pilot Flying and the instructor and Pilot Not Flying being Pilot in Command. On what basis do you consider it reasonable to determine the validity of the actions of the pilots when the NTSB have not issued their final report and assigned a probable cause? Boeing have been open that they had considered having the aircraft do what the pilot expected, because that was how many pilots would expect it to work, and acknowledge that it is an area requiring special attention in training, but ultimately decided that they should go with the system as designed. Demanding we not speculate on the pilots in no ways means we automatically support there being safety issues with the aircraft. The idea that an aircrash must be A if Not B is appallingly simplistic and blaming anyone at this point is clear and indefensible speculation. We do not report guilty verdicts while a trial is still in process, we absolutely should not report a specific probable cause when the accident investigation is still in progress. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What's unreasonable is at this stage blaming Boeing, or mechanical issues generally, for that incident. We aren't here to side with some pilots' union against aircraft manufacturers/maintainers. Boeing did not run over that person lying on the ground. Remove the insinuation that the 777 is unsafe by removing everything in this article after "generally regarded by aviation experts as having an 'almost flawless' safety record" and there's no dispute here. Insist on inserting what happened at San Francisco into a discussion about the plane's safety without any reference to the crew and that will be objected to as misleading.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please point out to me where I am 'blaming Boeing', or 'mechanical issues' or 'siding with some pilot's union', or 'insinuating that the 777 is unsafe'. That's three or four separate attempts to put an opinion in my mouth that runs utterly contrary to my point, which is that the NTSB have not issued their final report or assigned probable cause for Asiana 214. Meanwhile you're telling me that it's inappropriate to blame Boeing, but insistent it's appropriate to blame the pilots? 82.45.87.103 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I have to repeat myself: Remove the insinuation that the 777 is unsafe by removing everything in this article after "generally regarded by aviation experts as having an 'almost flawless' safety record, one of the best of any commercial aircraft..." and there's no dispute here. Insist on placing what happened at San Francisco after this, which serves no purpose other than to question/qualify this "safety record" when there is no reference to contributory negligence on the part of the crew, and that will be objected to as misleading.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the 777 as unsafe, and noting two hull losses in nearly 20 years of fleet service certainly doesn't imply it, it's actually evidence showing a fantastic and enviable record. You can repeat yourself, but as I don't agree with the factual correctness of the point you're repeating, that isn't going to help. I didn't decide to put the Aircraft section there, nor to refer to the hull losses, but once someone else did I edited that to remove speculation. Asiana 214 does not yet have an assigned probable cause and it would be speculation for us to assign one. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful Article on Radar Coverage

TThere's a Reuter's piece "Malaysian plane saga highlights air defense gaps" http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/15/us-malaysia-airlines-defence-idUSBREA2E0JT20140315 that may be a useful reference to introduce if the article needs to get into radar coverage. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That article doesn't really mention but hints at a fact significant with the new last signal info. It's far harder to believe it made it to the land area because the chance it made it there without anyone noticing or realising by now seems slim to none. So either they're not saying for some reason, or it never went there but instead the ocean areas with no radar. Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of our planet's land area does not have radar coverage. I doubt there's any radar from Perth to Darwin for example. The National Radar Loop^{[http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml}} is a weather radar system. I don't think it sees aircraft.

Jindalee/JORN is an Australian Over The Horizon-Backscatter radar based at Longreach, Queensland and Laverton, Western Australia, acknowledged range is 3000km.

The other thing is - most of that area is "low threat" environment. They don't have people watching the radars at night for example as nothing ever happens happens.^[1]. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point on air defense. Has anyone asked why the military could track a plane, without a transponder, not on an approvaed flight path etc - and not send an air force plane to investigate? This is not just something for Malyasia to consider - but also Thailand and Indonesia as well. Am I missing something here? Either seems to be very lax air defence or something deeper at play here. Mari370 (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Most military planes will not be on "approved flight paths". Military radar will often cover territory that doesn't belong to the country operating the radar. It would be quite inappropriate to chase down everything seen on radar. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've read a couple articles which have brought up the subject of military radar. Basically, the countries are not saying much publicly because they either don't want to reveal/discuss the capabilities of their air defense systems or (very likely) do not want to reveal/expose the holes or lack of capability in parts of their radar/air defense systems. The reason it's highly unlikely that the plane flew along the northern corrider because, to quote the Wall Street Journal , "The track from northern Thailand to Kazakhstan crosses some of the most heavily militarized airspace in the world, including western China. According to the industry official, many of those nations 'would have MiGs up in the sky before you even knew it' to intercept any unidentified flying object." AHeneen (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no flight "track" from northern Thailand to Kazakhstan. The arcs do not represent a flight path, they represent only the possible location at a single point in time at 8:11 AM. The plane could have avoided Thailand and China completely and still ended up near Kazakhstan at 8:11 AM. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the situation for Malaysia specifically, but in much of the world there's no requirement for General Aviation (i.e. private) aircraft to have a transponder unless they fly into airspace in which a transponder is required. So the lack of a transponder alone wouldn't raise an alarm bell. It's likely that MH370 was in airspace where a transponder is required, but transponders do fail, pilots do knock the switch into the wrong mode, and so on. So even being in controlled airspace without an active transponder isn't an alarm signal, particularly if you're following an established flight corridor. Nor is not following a flight plan an alarm signal, again they aren't required unless you enter specific airspace, they often are changed at the request of ATC and beyond that it's unlikely the military will have real-time access to civilian flight plans. And then there's the cost issue. Figure on £10,000/hour to launch an interceptor, never mind tens to hundreds of man-hours of maintenance, it isn't something done on a whim, there has to be a specific reason to launch an interceptor, either a specific identified threat, or a clear indication of an aircraft in distress. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Corridors?

The article uses the word 'corridor' top describe the locus of possible last ping position. This word to my mind gives the impression that these corridors represent likely tracks of the aircraft. The aircraft could indeed have been flying along one of these these loci but it equally well could have been flying perpendicular to them.

How can we make this clearer in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point! This is a new and confusing use of the word, "corridor." In this case "corridor" means the radius to the satellite. We normally use the word, "corridor," to mean a path that you move through, not an instantaneous position. Becalmed (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we use 'locus/loci'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems clumsy, but I can't do much better. "locus/loci" works in all cases, but position, positions and probable positions might work in some cases. Becalmed (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't locus/loci be too technical? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it too much either because "corridor" seems like it means "airway". Maybe "zones" or "areas" as we aren't sure what is really meant.Roches (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I will change to locus/lici and see how it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "set of possible last known positions", to make it unambiguous. I think many people are intuitively but incorrectly thinking that the arcs represent two possible flight paths. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's air corridor. Even though that section is unsourced, the term does appear in RS. Brandmeister^talk 17:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem, it does look like an air corridor (or two, in fact) and will be confused with that term, but it isn't. it is an arc of equidistance from a satellite. Lynbarn (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We dont need to make things up what do the reliable sources call them ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Relevant info missing from article

1.Officials say that the last discussion with air traffic control was at 01:19. I think this clearly merits inclusion even if we already give the time from Subang Air Traffic Control as 01:22. 2.We may also want to include the fact that they are fairly sure the communication came from the co-pilot. 3.A statement at the 16 March press conference that the pilots had not asked to fly together also seems relevant. I realize that both 2. and 3. could be seen as potentially contributing to speculation. But both statements have been made at official briefings. Keep up the good work. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont have a problem including the last call was possibly from the co-pilot and the time, although we need to resolve what the different times mean, was the 01:19 call the same as the 01:22 loss of radio contact they would not have been talking to anybody else out in the middle of nowhere. As I have said before I cant see the significance of (3) it implies crews normally ask to fly together and none of the sources make that clear and it seems unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing information: Cell phones (Mobile telephones)

If something went wrong on board, and the passengers weren't immediately incapacitated, it would seem that one or more would have wanted to get on their Cell phones to call someone—if they were within Cell Phone Tower range. Also, if RADAR could not find them, someone's Cell phone being on could have been "triangulated" or approximated if someone had tried to do so. And when an airliner is missing, you'd think that some group (like a local country's version of the CIA) would have been contacted, and may have looked up information, but I found no reference to Cell or Mobile phones in the article. Do we have any serious reports on any of these sorts of things? Did any of the passengers contact their families, friends, or anyone? Misty MH (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fox News article discusses that. According to Ritch Blasi there, "Even if some passengers left their phones on during Flight 370, it would be tough for their phones to connect with a tower given the speeds planes travel at and the altitudes involved". However, now the aircraft should have run out of fuel and land or ditch somewhere, may be the cellphones were confiscated. I think something on it should be added to the article. Brandmeister^talk 09:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to add - all of the above is speculation. If a mobile phone signal had been detected, that would be different, but so far as we have been told, there was none. Lynbarn (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note also as I highlighted above we don't know when or if the passengers knew ecenbif they weren't incapacitated. And you're not likely to get good mobile phone coverage whatever the speed or altitude either over sea or I expect most of the Malaysia-Thai border. So it's hardly surprising there has been little RS coverage (i.e. we are not going to cover it either). Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be speculation, but that's exactly why it's worth watching the media for information so it won't be speculation. I've heard figures suggesting that an average of one phone is left on during every flight, and because mobile phones transmit periodic registration messages it is quite possible that a passenger's phone was heard, at least while they were over or near land. A very similar kind of registration message to Inmarsat seems to have given us much of our information, so this could be very important. Karn (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I once left my phone on on a flight from Bangkok to Rome. On arrival in Rome I found messages from Afghanistan and Greece welcoming me to their countries. So communication is certainly possible. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Media coverage on this: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-passengers-mobile-phones-ring-not-answered-1439560 + http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-malaysia-airlines-eerie-moment-3222919 + http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/asia/mh370-phone-theory-debunked/index.html --Trofobi (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC) See also previous discussion: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 3#Mobile Phones --Trofobi (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fire theory from former US FAA security chief

Air Traffic Management reports a theory from a former US FAA security chief that what is known about MH370 so far is more consistent with a catastrophic fire than sabotage. Don't really know if this belongs in article, yet, as it's only one source. http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/03/exclusive-mh370-crew-succumbed-to-fire-catastrophe/ Will leave to editors more experienced in topic area GeoGreg (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry just more speculation or more like a guess, fine for a news blog but not for an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Other sources have indicated that investigators have decided against further investigation of hazardous cargo theories.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of official communication

Under the above sub-heading is the following:

Responding to criticisms that information about radar signals had not been made available earlier, Malaysia Airlines said that it was critical that the raw satellite signals were verified and analysed "so that their significance could be properly understood". While this was being done, the airline was unable to publicly confirm their existence.[171]

I find that paragraph confusing and suggest it be reworded or deleted. a) The first sentence seems to say that radar and satellite signals are one and the same. Are they? Surely not all are, since we had radar before we had satellites. b) I looked at the ref. 171 and the 19th Media Statement doesn't contain the phrase in quotation marks, not does it contain anything about why the airline was unable to publicly confirm {their} existence.

I have changed "radar" to "satellite". The full para from the 19th Media statement was:This is truly an unprecedented situation, for Malaysia Airlines and for the entire aviation industry. There has never been a case in which information gleaned from satellite signals alone could potentially be used to identify the location of a missing commercial airliner. Given the nature of the situation and its extreme sensitivity, it was critical that the raw satellite signals were verified and analysed by the relevant authorities so that their significance could be properly understood. This naturally took some time, during which we were unable to publicly confirm their existence. You will see that the phrase in quotation marks does appear, which is why it is in quotation marks in the article. Roundtheworld (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Thanks and b) You are quite right.

Descent to 5,000 feet

There are some reports that the aircraft descended to below 5,000 feet. This is based on the fact that it was not observed on commercial radar. It doesn't logically follow that if the aircraft wasn't found on commercial radars, it must have been deliberately avoiding them. So, that speculation should not be included in the article.

There is no real reason why the pilot would deliberately attempt to avoid being seen on commercial radar, especially since going below 5,000 feet doesn't guarantee that military radar won't be able to track the airplane. Also, going to a lower altitude drastically reduces the airplane's true airspeed. Fuel consumption is about the same in terms of fuel spent per hour, so the endurance in hours would be roughly the same, but the distance the aircraft could travel at 5,000 feet would be very roughly two thirds the range at 35,000 feet. (It's something like 300 KTAS vs. 475 KTAS.) Roches (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Who is drawing the connection between flying "down on the deck" and radar evasion? A Wikipedia editor? Then you have a point. But if it is the sources that are drawing the connection, and it is a Wikipedia editor who is trying to separate the two, then it is the separation of the two that is most in need of challenge here.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That source is speculating, though. "MAS Airlines flight MH370 dropped to an altitude of 5,000 feet, or possibly lower, to defeat commercial (secondary) radar coverage after it turned back from its Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route on March 8. Investigators are poring over the Boeing 777-200ER's flight profile to determine if it had flown low and used "terrain masking" during most of the eight hours it was missing from the radar coverage of possibly at least three countries." It says it happened, then it says it might have happened. Then the same information is printed in every other reliable source, with some supporting quote from an expert. The connection between flying low and radar evasion is an obvious one; what I have trouble with is the idea that loss of radar contact means the aircraft was deliberately avoiding radar. The distance between transponder switchoff and the final contact on military radar might support low altitude flying, if the military radar saw it at lower altitude. A B777 needs to descend very slowly and it is not difficult to overstress it.Roches (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The people who most need to avoid conjecture is you and I, my friend. If you think the material should be qualified or expressed in a less definitive way, by all means edit accordingly. If there are any reliable sources expressing scepticism (as opposed to Wikipedia editors) those sources should certainly be included. Our options are broader and finer than just IN or OUT of the article. If it's best to give the reader just half a loaf, half a loaf is better than none.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, having reviewed all the sources I've come to agree with you, @Roches, this material is indeed dubious, not just unproven, and should be excluded for now.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Amelia Earhardt

I think a 'see also' link should be added (back in) to this airplane disappearance case, with its similarities to this case. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there are sufficient similarities. The situation in 1937 was very different. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nor me. Too many differences to be useful, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Cargo

Does anyone have knowledge as to what cargo the aircraft may have been carrying? 96.250.240.250 (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing reported. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

... um, suitcases? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The 777 often carries cargo in the below-floor cargo bay in addition to passenger luggage, the overall 777 fleet is a significant enough transport resource for the air cargo industry it's actually influenced the financial viability of at least one specific cargo conversion programme 82.45.87.103 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No reason why this information would be in the public domain? But one imagines some cargo, like explosives, would be prohibited. Or are you talking about a 777 freighter? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment was specifically in relation to passenger 777s, which carry cargo in the lower hold, though there are also 777 freighters that carry cargo on the main deck. All air freight is subject to an extensive set of rules on what can be carried freely, what must never be carried, and what may be carried, but must be in specified packaging, and so on. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it, we have the passenger manifest, why not a list of cargo? After all it might prove to be interesting for the general public and/or the investigation.96.250.240.250 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you find it? I can't. And even if I could, why should it be relevant - unless some reliable secondary source suggests that it is? What else do we need - type of rubber in the tyres? what was in the sandwiches? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a lack of snarkiness, thank you. What was in the cargo could indicate what caused the aircraft to go missing. Part of the cargo was a consignment of lithium batteries. I wonder what else was there. 96.250.240.250 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370 WAS carrying a large capacity of Lithium batteries. This was mentioned by a source from DHS - apparently 370 was over a 1000lb load limit for lithium batteries 174.0.185.123 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You got a source for that which also concludes a connection with the disappearance? I've read somewhere about live cattle traveling in the freight compartment but couldn't find a RS to back this up.TMCk (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In trying to guess at the mystery disappearance, this sort of question came to me too, along with, was someone (or something) on board that some organization/person(s) wanted to get? I mean, if someone took the plane, they must have had some reason for doing so. See also my question about Cell phones, for it might seem odd if people didn't get on theirs – especially once it was past arrival time – then why didn't they, especially IF the plane was still aloft at that time. (I haven't read the whole article.) Misty MH (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cell phones must be in range of a cell tower to connect, but over ocean there simply will be no cell towers to connect to. A few aircraft provide the facility to piggyback a cell phone onto the aircraft's satcom facility, but this is in very restricted use, and I've seen nothing to indicate MAS have adopted the technology. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the NSA are keenly watching our every suggestion here. But until we can find a reliable secondary source which even suggests the cargo is relevant - this thread is ripe for hiding under a WP:FORUM label. ..but my money's on lithium-battery-powered cattle. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC) oh, hang on... someone's at the door...

From Boeing: "Total volume 5,330 cu ft (151 cu m) includes up to six pallets, 14 LD-3 containers, plus 600 cu ft (17 cu m) bulk cargo." Roches (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, so knowing the capacity makes speculation about what was in there more relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I can think of at least 2 reasons why the cargo on a missing airline might be relevant:

1) It could cause a plane to go down, say by lithium batteries catching fire, as they have done before. However, in this case, the circumstances of the disappearance seem to indicate a human cause.

2) Valuable cargo might be a reason for hijacking a plane, which still seems like a possibility here (although the plane might have crashed during an attempted hijacking).

So, if we find a reliable source, we should list the cargo here, or perhaps a link to the list elsewhere, if it's too long for our article. StuRat (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we really shouldn't. We don't know if the cargo has anything to do with this. Listing it, as if it were, is just sheer speculation on our part. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The critical timing sequence as to whether ACARS was actually "turned off".

There has been lots of discussion that the ACARS was turned off 14 minutes before the lost of contact with the aircraft (i.e. when the time the transponder went 'offline'). However, in a BCC article, it states the following:

Officials say the sign-off to air traffic controllers came at 01:19 as it left Malaysian airspace. The last transmission from the plane's Aircraft and Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was received at 01:07. "We don't know when the ACARS was switched off after that," Mr Ahmad Jauhari said. "It was supposed to transmit 30 minutes from there, but that transmission did not come through." It disappeared off air traffic controllers' screens at 01:21, when it was over the South China Sea.[2]

Clearly if the last message was received at 1.07, this quite different than the ACARS system being turned off at 1.07 (an understatement). Considering the next time a message was due from ACARS would have been at 1.37 - and the plane disappeared at 1.21 - it is totally within reason that they ACARS was never turned off at all. And that the ACARS and the transponder went down that the same time - e.g. there being some kind of electrical or mechanical failure at a specific point on the plane.

If the BCC report is true, then in places into deep question the sequence of events that has been portrayed by the Malaysian PM. And the most important of these being that it places in question whether there was a hijack at all. Based on the information provided, that scenario can't be conclusively proven - especially if there is no evidence that the ACARS and transponder were actually turned off at different times. It could be, within reason, that there was a massive system failure at a single point in time and the change of directions were due to the pilots trying to get the crippled jet back 'home' - just that, in the end, for whatever reason, they didn't make it. Mari370 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a conflict here between "We don't know when the ACARS was switched off after that" and the definitiveness of earlier Malaysian official statements that ACARS was turned off at 1:07. It is difficult to reconcile what the Malaysian Airlines CEO and the Malaysian transport minister said in particular. My take is that we perhaps shouldn't be totally definitive on ACARS being turned off at 1:07 given the lack of clarity/consistency in what the Malaysians have said. The WSJ has tried to resolve what the WSJ calls the "discrepancy" by saying that that Jauhari has presented a "new timeline."--Brian Dell (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any source for the 30 minute interval between ACARS reports? The only source seems to be the original (and badly wrong) WSJ report which was actually talking about Satcom keep alive pings (which it seems are hourly anyway!). The next engine data would be a cruise report which would be 3hrs or so later. Maybe some other aircraft (position update?) report? Cebderby (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The news media were going on and on about a lack of timing between disconnection events for the systems. Other, less studious news sources have also been going on about using satellite pings for location, ignoring that a satellite ping won't give a location, only information of a received ping.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Is or was?

Lynbarn changed the Intro to "was a scheduled international passenger flight" but someone changed it back to "is a scheduled....". I think Lynbarn is right. It is no longer a scheduled international flight. If we keep using "is" when will we change it to was? In two years time? Roundtheworld (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Its scheduled arrival time has already passed, so "was", even if they ultimately find it. Brandmeister^talk 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it back to was, although as there is still the potential (somewhat slim, I know) for the aircraft, it's passengers and crew to eventually arrive at Beijing, after a protracted, unscheduled stop-over somewhere, it is perhaps still en route, so neither can really be said to be wrong. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, there's no longer a MH370 (the route has been renumbered), so we can safely use the past tense for that. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

China searching its own territory

China is searching its own territory in the northern locus.[3] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing of search

Coverage from a reliable source on the Tomnod crowdsourced search of satellite images.[4] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian search area

Some more specific details about the Australian search.[5] Search area map:[6]. Should we add details about what is being deployed where, not just aggregate numbers of assets? Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) have been very specific about where their aircraft have been based and and the areas they were/are searching. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page FAQ?

I'm not sure if it would help much but perhaps a FAQ for the talk page would be useful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Flagu

I added the {{flagu}} templates under the participation part of the article. If you do not like it, you can revert, or talk at the talk page. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think flags would be a good idea. That section is already too busy as it is, and I think using flags would be a violation of MOS:FLAG. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculation: valuable cargo

Just to bring attention to another possible explanation which has been circulating for a while now and which personally seems sufficiently plausible as to merit a mention: a heist. The plane is said to have carried valuables (according to one source) or 10 metric tons of gold (acc. to another).

• http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-15/missing-malaysian-flight-mystery-deepens-pilot-investigated-foul-play-suspected
• http://fakty.interia.pl/raport-katastrofa-samolotu-malaysia-airlines/aktualnosci/news-zaginiony-boeing-przewozil-zloto,nId,1358598 (In Polish, an interview with an airline pilot; an earlier version mentioned specifically that this is the information that is spreading among airline pilots worldwide).

kashmiri ^TALK 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(see earlier discussion thread). Can these two sources be considered WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Pure speculation and not reliable sources. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Pure speculation. Suggest nothing speculative, even from reliable sources be added. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Commercial aircraft routinely carry valuables, be it cash, gemstones, coins, antiquities or anything else. This is pure, distilled speculation.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to confirm whether 10 tonnes of gold was on the plane. Just check whether any Names at Lloyd's of London have had a heart attack in the last couple of days. Athomeinkobe (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be trivial to confirm it, as it would be on the manifest. Airlines and pilots tend to rather like knowing what amount of mass is where on an aircraft.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Somebody in cargo scheduling and logistics would have details of that, and the weight, for fuel calculation. The captain would certainly have access to the manifest, but not long enough before the event to plan and organise a disappearance to make off with it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

evidence that plane could be used in a similar way as 9/11?

Could Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have slipped by radar? http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Are any investigators or governments considering that the plane could be used in a similar way as 9/11 that can be added to the article?

Igottheconch (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Speculation, and one of the wilder ones. India denies. So far, no buildings have been crashed into. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• You're suggesting not just "could have been used"? We generally don't add things unless they've actually happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The best theory I've seen so far: http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68 FortCharles (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Shame that's not a WP:RS, as it is WP:UGC. GiantSnowman 15:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

definitely an interesting theory - sounds plausible, and if that were the case, anybody (well any pilot with a plane) could fly to anywhere undetected... :( Lynbarn (talk)

longest disappearance in "modern commercial aviation history,"

On 17 March, the flight became the longest disappearance in "modern commercial aviation history," eclipsing the ten-day mark of Adam Air Flight 574 in 2007.Malaysian Disappearance Joins Longest in Modern Aviation, By David Fickling, Alan Levin and Thomas Black 17 March 2014.

This is being edit-warred off the page, but it seems to go to the notability of the subject. Thoughts? Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable addition, assuming the text being added is concise. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really the "in modern commercial aviation history" is ill defined and lots of other commercial aircraft are still missing some from the 1940s and 1950s. It may be correct to say it is the longest search since KI574 and that could go into the search section. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the longest disappearance before KI574? How many decades are we going back, and why not educate readers since this is being reported as … the longest disappearance in modern commercial aviation history. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised we're meant to rebut every article on the topic out there. — Lfdder (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And you would need to define what the source thinks "modern commercial aviation history" is first and with a bit of original research at List of aerial disappearances you will find lots of missing aircraft. So as I have already said longest search since KI574 is about as far as we can go. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart was/is a "modern woman", if that counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of official communication 2

Am I the only one who thinks that the following statement is not appropriate in this article? No one has removed it.Slate magazine said: the reaction from the Malaysian authorities is hardly responsible, and their inability to communicate underlines the serious neglect of a regime that has ruled for more than half a century and whose monopoly of political power has long depended on intimidation, strict media control and strong economic growth".Roundtheworld (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a bias opinion, it is right to criticise the way the information flow has been handled but agree this can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The handling is becoming a serious international political matter. They are just not used to being so open. Look already at the politicking going on: search area widened without reason, Air Force Chief said plane changed direction, then strangely did a u-turn, then the whole country did a U-turn and PM later had to acknowledge maybe the US evidence was more than convincing. Scathing criticism earned from China for their lack of transparency – strange for a country not known for its own transparency; Malaysian politicians contradicting each other, every day; then the attempt at smearing Zaharie, Anwar etc... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that. But this is meant to be a factual article not an excuse to attack the Malaysian Government. Roundtheworld (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

New Information

I found something new but I need a consensus to have somebody other than myself to place the information about Malaysian Airline being hampered by Indonesia for refusal to fly over their territory. My Suggestion before a consensus is if there are more sources to be able to reference back to this information first. Azndrumsticks (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Something similar (not Malaysian assets specifically) was mentioned on the BBC news earlier. I'll try to find a source. Lynbarn (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC > Missing Malaysia MH370: Search planes grounded by 'red tape' MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The link above does not really provide much on this. But there should be a noted difference between saying a commercial airliner is not allowed to cross the sovereign territory of another country and military or intelligence assets are not being allowed over another country. Lets take for an extreme hypothetical example, that North Korea is denying their airspace to USA spy planes searching for flight 370. Of course its not related and would be an excuse to be actually spying (better than they already do). Indonesia shares a large land border with Malaysia and the two countries are adjacent to each other across water. There might even be existing historical territorial disputes, the two countries being carved out of colonized lands after World War II. I doubt Indonesia would be too happy having Malaysian military flying all over their land, exploring military installations and the like on the pretext of looking for the missing plane and the the same would ring true in the other direction. Trackinfo (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Subang

Since the Subang Air Traffic Control is mentioned, could someone clarify which Subang in Malaysia it is? Brandmeister^talk 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in Subang Jaya. Someone tried to create Subang Air Traffic Control Centre but it was deleted 9 March 2014.

http://www.dca.gov.my/policy/FAQ_ATC.html says "Air traffic controllers are stationed at the control tower in airports or the control centre located in Subang, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu."

http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/AD/AD2/WMSA/WMSA-Subang%20Sultan%20Abdul%20Aziz%20Shah%20Airport.pdf gives us the address

Department of Civil Aviation Malaysia

Block B, Air Traffic Control Complex

Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport <-- click for wikipedia article

47200 Subang"

The article lead says "It later emerged that Subang Air Traffic Control had lost contact with the aircraft at 01:22 and notified Malaysia Airlines at 02:40." I don't see a clean way to add mention that it's in Subang Jaya or at the Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport. The airport's article does not mention that one of the three ATC Centres in Malaysia is at this airport.

Ideally, the lead summarizes the body of the article. In this case the Subang ATC's role is never mentioned in the body.

--Marc Kupper|talk 00:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Estimated Route

On the article page it says "The MH 370 crash may be due to large turbulence intermittency at equatorial latitudes. Please see journalofcosmology.com volume 21 for the mechanism. A closely analogous crash was Air France 447. The two cases are compared." I do not want to edit it because it says do not edit it until discussing on Talk. But the plane may have landed, we do not know it crashed. So I do not think ut is is correct to say "The MH 370 crash....". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.237.127 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The notice to editors asks that we not "add speculative information." I agree, just the use of the phrase "MH 370 crash" is a red flag. I removed that paragraph. If reliable sources pick up the story, perhaps some oblique reference in this article would be appropriate. NameIsRon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Journal of Cosmology is not a reliable source. Charitably it would be labelled as WP:FRINGE. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible landing strips

10 miles north of Istaravshan, in Tadzhikistan on the border with Uzbekistan is a 1.5 mile landing strip. Perfect spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.163.112 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated the link to the map of runways within range and large enough to take the aircraft. It seems reasonable to assume that if the aircraft landed safely, it is at one of these. Olddemdike (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

stop your daydream pal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 March 2014

But why not a link to a map with all areas of flat ground where an emergency landing might have been attempted? Possibly more likely? Either way, all complete speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Olddemdike, an aircraft can land on the water or anywhere on land where you have about 3000 feet without obstructions. Landing on water prevents you from later flying to another location but also makes it easy to conceal the aircraft.

I saw that you added a link to the map in the article. It'll be interesting to see if other editors remove the link. The map was created by someone at a radio station and so in a sense is a media generated map. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The BBC is now saying the search area - over land and sea - is now 28 Million square miles. Lynbarn (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

But I'm sure they're not saying anything about possible runways within that huge area. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, but it does perhaps make the map link less relevent. Lynbarn (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Before an edit war ensues over this link. Could some consensus be established here for its inclusion or otherwise? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the link. It IS important. If this aircraft has been hijacked, it was for use for a specific purpose - and its not been used for that purpose yet. Its on the ground somewhere being prepared for use - and thats going to be carried out at one of those airstrips.Olddemdike (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop speculating

What does it add to the accuracy of the article? The map highlights about 700 places where the plane MAY have put down. But what of this list? is it of active airfields only? does it include civil and military strips? does it include abandoned airfields (i.e. from WW2) what about long, straight lengths of highway, grass fields, etc. etc. There are many, many other places where it COULD have been put down. I don't believe it adds enough. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link once as it cleary as Lynbarn said it is just speculating, and not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I too am very sceptical of its value here. For me, it adds only to a general climate of speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence the plane has landed anywhere. Speculation about potential landing sites should not be included in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When someone finds a crash site then I'll accept its removal. Until then, the link is valid in that it shows possible locations. Existing evidence tends to suggest the aircraft was hijacked for future re-use and not crashed. Otherwise why the obfuscation of the route and the interference with the comms system, and turning off of the squawk. Olddemdike (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think consensus may be against you here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Stop speculating! (That's the link you should be paying attention to.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Plane is on the ground in China and nobody can look there except the Chinese: Being briefed by Malaysia officials they believe most likely location for MH370 is on land somewhere near Chinese/Kyrgyz border.— Jonah Fisher (@JonahFisher) March 15, 2014 LINK207.119.196.4 (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, the headline for that piece is: "Media Speculates On Whether Missing Plane Landed Safely" ...?? Martinevans123 (talk)

The admonition to 'stop speculating' is okay with me as long as there is understanding of what is and is not 'speculation'. But I think there is blurring of the distinction in this discussion. If for example, the article included a radius within which a 777 airliner that took off from Malaysia must have landed or crashed (because it could not carry enough fuel to fly further and is not equipped for mid-air refueling), that is a factual statement (assuming it is properly sourced). It is not IMO speculation. For another example, if the article included a list of airports within that radius with long enough airstrips that a Boeing 777 could land and take off, that also (assuming properly sourced information) is a factual statement, not a speculative one.

Those are examples of factual information that I came to the article to find. Thanks, CBHA (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The runway requirements are on page 54 of Boeing's technical information. Note that the runway must be almost 2,000 ft longer if it's wet. 6,500 feet is sufficient even under wet conditions for an altitude of 4,000 ft ASL, which is about the highest it gets in NW China. The number of possible airports is quite large. However, I doubt that you could just hide an airliner at a civilian airport. I live near an airport and it's very easy to hear and see airplanes coming in. Someone would probably have seen something. Roches (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of those sneaky ATC chaps might even (need to) see something, don't you think? (... even the very quiet ones?)Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sharp left turn was pre-planned

NBC News is reporting that the ACARS data burst at 1:07 contained a new path entered into the autopilot. This new new path contained the turn to the West that was executed after the last voice transmission. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jets-u-turn-programmed-signoff-sources-say-n56151 Becalmed (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: The new path was an alternate route. It is not unusual for pilots to enter an alternate route for a return to base in case of an emergency. It makes me wonder: If the plane did nothing but follow the alternate route, where would it be now? Becalmed (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The one person who is named in the article (Greg Feith) cautions that even if true, this doesn't necessarily indicate the intention of diverting the airplane. It could be an alternate route in case of emergency. All claims to the contrary dubiously come from "authorities" or "sources".Seban678 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Becalmed (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the plane was flying on its own and following the alternate route, it would have ended up orbiting the last waypoint entered into the FMS Seban678 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ledgerwood analysis

http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

This is getting serious attention in reliable sources.

It also lends itself to rapid testing. See if the ACARS pings from both planes lie on the same timing. When they diverge, that's when MH370 left its place following the other 777. If, indeed, they are at all similar.Keith Henson (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pure speculation, and therefore doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on speculation. Also, military and law enforcement radars run at a high enough frequency that they should be able to distinguish the two aircraft. Trailing a commercial flight is already a well known insertion vector for smugglers and drug runners meaning inbound commercial flights are watched. Even so, I'm certain the tapes of radar scans are being double checked to see if MH370 could have tagged onto an existing flight. For example, Thailand apparently reviewed their tapes and reported today that they may have seen MH370 early on. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ledgerwood is just one of many theories being advanced in the media (Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: flight theory tracker). WWGB (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's quite a good one, and investigators would probably be cross-checking the flight paths against known information, like the several ACAR pings. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pilot wears anti-government slogan t-shirt

Yesterday's news was about the Captain being a supporter of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. However the story was broken by British tabloid Daily Mail, others are simply quoting the Daily Mail. Is there any other credible source on this news event?--PremKudva^Talk 05:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Daily Mail is a sufficient source for what seems to be a simple matter of fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to fake a picture like that? Martinevans123 (talk)

This has no place in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not going to comment on whether or not this deserves to be in the article unless it has been proven that this had something to do with the entire event, I'd say remove it if the source is a tabloid. A tabloid only acts as a gossip column/rumour monger, not something reliable here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In general I would agree with you, although how can a photograph of someone wearing a t-shirt be a rumour? Daily Mail pictutres tend to be quite good (usually much better than the accompanying text). But the most distasteful aspect of this for me is that the pilot himself is not around to defend or explain himself. In fact, I guess, WP:BLP still applies to all passengers and crew? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but what does the pilot's wearing of a political tee have anything to so with this crash right now? That is the point I'm making. Until and unless this picture is proven to be linked with the aircraft vanishing off the face of the earth due it's mysterious polymers having extra-terrestrial powers disappearance, let us keep it out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And I, in turn, fully agree with your point. It's about as relevant as a picture of the pilot wearing a wig. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess the issue has been resolved? Let's wait for user:Premkudva to get back on this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be kept out if it has been proven to be irrelevant. It does not have to be proven to be relevant for something to be considered for inclusion, if it is potentially relevant it can be considered.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It is being kept out because it has no relevance. If it has relevance, say the plane got hijacked by political opponents for political gain,and it has been confirmed by official sources, only and only then should it be included in this article. As martinevans23 said, as relevant as the pilot wearing a wig. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean to say that according to your speculation about what is and is not relevant it has no relevance. We defer to the sources here, and if sources find it relevant, we don't substitute our own judgement. Show me a reliable source that says it has no relevance. Until then, it remains potentially relevant. That certainly doesn't mean it necessarily has to go in, but it does mean editors should get off their high horses about what can even be discussed for possible inclusion. We do not, in fact, know yet whether this incident has anything to do with someone's political views or not, contrary to your apparently unshakeable conviction that that scenario can be definitively ruled out.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not according to MY SPECULATION, but because there is no evidence as of now to suggest that him wearing that tee has anything to do with this incident at all. Please stop attacking me personally because I don't share your viewpoint. You yourself have admitted that you do not know if it has anything to do with the incident or not, all I said was that till there are sources that say that there is a connection, STOP SPECULATING, and keep it out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I cant see any clear consensus that this is relevant so should not be added to the article, I note your comments Bdell555 but that is not how it works, if other editors dont agree whatever the sources say then it doesnt get included. Remember that other factors are also at play such as weight and relevance. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Then editors should cite those other factors like WP:WEIGHT. What's objectionable here is the insinuation that anything on the pilots is off limits until a court of law has handed down a conviction. I am not objecting to the connection being questioned, I am objecting to the assertion that there is "no evidence" when in fact there IS evidence, the question being whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant recognition of it or is still too trivial. Editors are misusing the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy by linking to it with WP:SPECULATION when that policy is clearly primarily concerned with forward looking material. The material at issue here is not "what if" material about the pilot, it's material that cannot reasonably characterized as false as there is no reason to believe the photograph is faked. It may be too trivial, to note, in other words, but this is most definitely NOT SPECULATION as it is entirely backwards looking. It is the people insisting they KNOW this material is not related who are speculating as to what the future verdict will be.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does a pilot wearing a t-shirt prove? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does noting that the subject of a biography self-describes as Republican prove? You can't have any information about a person's politics on Wikipedia unless it "proves" some theory about the subject? Wikipedia includes facts, that's it, with the criteria being are the facts notable and are they reliable. Readers then can decide what to make of them. Again, I object to EDITORS deciding what to make of this with such finality that they are certain this could not possibly be of interest to any potential reader. Too many editors seem to see themselves as like cops at a crime or accident scene: "Nothing to see here, folks! Move along now!" Our job is actually the exact opposite: present "the scene" so readers can look at it and feel satisfied they've been fully informed. Presenting the scene is NOT the same as telling the reader who did or didn't do it.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So this pilot has his own article already? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In the 2012 Benghazi attack article we've got bios of Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods. In the Doherty section we learn "Doherty was a member of... an organization that opposes proselytizing by religious groups..." That bit does not "prove" some sort of theory about Doherty's role in Benghazi and Doherty does not have his own article. It's info about Doherty and readers can make of it whatever they'd like. This is simply an example of what's POSSIBLE here. We do not need to play father figure to our readers and say "oh, baby will not digest that properly, I am certain of that." Maybe baby will manage the morsel just fine. If the argument is rather that we've put too much on baby's plate, that's an entirely different, and far less patronizing, argument.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You see 2012 Benghazi attack article as somehow analogous or comparable to this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. what if baby's developing a fatal wiki-intolerance?

I didn't respond to this as I didn't think the idea would get much traction. Instead, this has turned into its own little controversy. FWIW, this article contains a lot of (maybe too many) facts that have been generated because people have too many theories as to what has happened. Brian obviously thinks it's relevant enough to include, and objected to me removing innuendo about the pilot that he first inserted. His an explanation to me on his talk. Also Brian uses the double negative a lot, and I think that's a bit disingenuous. Something that's not proven to be irrelevant isn't automatically relevant, as Brian seems to be implying. Two wrongs don't make a right either. We're here to write an encyclopaedia about an event, not to be armchair experts in potential aircraft hijacking.

Yes, the pilot's political beliefs are potentially relevant, so are a lot of things because nothing has been ruled out, as Najib has said. But that doesn't mean we need to rule it in, either. To take up a point Brian made on his talk page, it's not WP's job to use this article to show up what a repressive state Malaysia is. Millions of people support democracy. That Zaharie wore a tee with "democracy" on it in itself only means he may have democratic ideals, not that he's a subversive. There are plenty of dots to be joined, but there are also plenty of false dots along the way that could lead to the wrong conclusion. There are also quite a few testimonies as to what a kind and home-loving guy he is. Make of that what you will. Even if he was pictured wearing a tee with the likeness of Anwar, I'd day "so what?". Zaharie wasn't wearing a tee endorsing a banned religious sect in a country that smashes such dissent with a sledgehammer. There is no evidence that he's the sort of reactionary dissident who would take direct action to potentially harm people placed in his care, especially if he subscribed to Western democratic ideals.

It might be a whole lot more relevant if there were revelations that he travelled frequently to Sudan or Afghanistan to visit the Taliban or al Qaeda, but there are none. Anyway, his role in this "deliberate action" resulting in the plane's disappearance is by no means proven, and the Daily Mail is a jingoistic right-wing tabloid that I wouldn't cite anything to if my life depended on it. Don't get me wrong – I frequently read the Mail. Most importantly though, I think it should be excluded as BLP says we must assume he is innocent until proven guilty when all the info seems to be good for one thing – smearing. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• We can safely disregard that news item. I have not found any other credible source. Also the Daily Mail did not attribute the allegations to any source even unnamed for that matter in their article. I mentioned it here since if there was a credible source a mention would surely be required since it speaks of the pilots well being at the time, like this one from Yahoo.news which too cites no credible source. The T-Shirt is not important, I only copied the news item headline and pasted it here as a subject headline.--PremKudva^Talk 05:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Slate reaction. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah I have read that one too :) --PremKudva^Talk 10:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally one gives the background of leading individuals in a story. It's appropriate to mention that he has three daughters. [7] [8] Jason from nyc (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ownership of a t-shirt hardly qualifies as background information. Putting undeserved emphasis on this seems biased. Seban678 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a general practice to give a short bio of leading figures. In many news reports, wiki articles, and academic books, general background is often provided. The nationality, religion, and even personal habits are added in the introduction. For example, many biographies of Immanuel Kant mention his family background, where he lived, and that he was so rigorous in his routine that you could set your clock by the time he left his home for work. We don't have biographies of the pilot or co-pilot so having a mini-bio is this article is appropriate. Mentioning family and children is legitimate. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This sort of information doesn't seem relevant to the subject of the article, even if it can be considered 'fair game'. This article is about the disappearance of an aircraft, not a biography of the crew members. If the fact that he has three daughters is implicated somehow in the event, then it may be worth mentioning. There is no reason to believe that it is, though. Seban678 (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is covered by WP:NPF, which states: Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible sighting by eyewitnesses in Maldives

If that sighting is confirmed to be true then it would mean the search in the north-western areas such China, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan is one of futility. The search for the plane in the Indian Ocean will be intensified, especially the efforts of Australia, US and India. But what I read is that India said that their radar installations in the Nicobar and Andaman islands have not detected the aircraft. http://www.news.com.au/world/maldives-reports-sighting-of-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-as-search-effort-criticised/story-fndir2ev-1226858579129 http://www.smh.com.au/world/possible-mh370-sighting-as-maldives-residents-report-lowflying-jumbo-20140319-hvkb0.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Missing-Malaysian-jetliner-Maldives-islanders-saw-low-flying-plane/articleshow/32251148.cms 58.168.101.216 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Any post that begins with words like "If...then..." is speculation and doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Especially when the first link offered in that post contains official confirmation that it isn't true. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility...

Not for inclusion in the article, but as another good reason not to hastily speculate about terrorism and the pilot's intentions, and perhaps as a lead for finding reliable sources (eventually):

• Chris Goodfellow (18 March 2014). "A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet". Wired.

Goodfellow believes that the MH370 pilot veered toward the southwest to reach the nearest air strip – Palau Langkawi, right on the southwestward "corridor" the plane was flying in after turning – because an electrical fire that disabled the communication systems was raging on board. Keep up the good work, guys! Madalibi (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculation. Plus Palau Langkawi was not the "closest appropriate airport" capable of handling an emergency landing by a 777. There are at least 2 commercial airports and an air force base around 100 miles closer than Palau Langkawi. At the point where it turned west it could have reached Sultan Mahmud Airport, Sultan Ismail Petra Airport or RMAF Gong Kedak within 15-20 minutes. Even Sultan Abdul Halim Airport and RMAF Butterworth on the western side of the peninsula were closer than Palau Langkawi. 203.9.185.136 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Debunked... http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mapping earlier ping arcs?

I just saw a CNN anchor talk about the Northern arc as a "track" where they supposedly would have "had to" fly through China -- a total misunderstanding of what that arc represents. That got me to thinking... there were hourly ACARS pings received every hour up until that last 8:11 ping that the arcs were generated from, correct? Surely they've applied the same process to those earlier pings, and generated corresponding location arcs for each of those pings also? Why haven't those been released? If they generated those and placed them all on the same map, you should see a gradual shift of the arcs, which would give at least some general insight into what the plane did in the several hours from the time it left local military radar until it stopped sending pings. It would give a "cloud" of possible routes. Something to be followed up on, IMHO. FortCharles (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood what was pinging. ACARS was shut down, then the only data was from military radar for a time and after, engine telemetry pings to a satellite. Engine telemetry data typically wouldn't include location data, such as GPS, only the engine and aircraft identifier and engine performance data. That can very slightly narrow down a position, but only by approximating satellite location and aircraft transmitter range information. So, you're still stuck with a needle in an insanely large haystack, nearly a continent in size.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but no, I didn't misunderstand anything. Are you suggesting that applying the same process to the 3:11 ping as they did to the 8:11 ping would produce exactly the same arcs? If so, what is your technical basis for stating that? Can someone who actually understands what I wrote chime in? In fact, further thought on this makes me think they could cross-reference each set of arcs against where it could possibly be, given time elapsed since prior, with the first couple being fairly narrow, and expanding as time went on, so a sort of cone shape of possible routes ending in the wide arcs we already know. FortCharles (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FortCharles. The plane was responding to pings at one-hour intervals. Where is the distance to the satellite from the earlier pings? Becalmed (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the question that needs to be answered. Has this information been confirmed to exist, and if so, why has it not been released? 71.224.113.125 (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• The arc is generated from a single data point – the very last telemetry ping at 08:11, and represents all the possible locations of the transmitter at that point in time. It seems that it was only detected by one of the two possible Inmarsat orbiting vehicles. If the ping had been 'heard' by both that supposedly covered the area (and nothing has been released to that effect), another arc could be drawn, and we would have a more precise location. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You also apparently misunderstood my comments. I'm speaking of the earlier hourly pings, and the arcs that would be produced from those using the same method. FortCharles (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, picture it this way. Satellite flying overhead. It's moving rather fast, a lot faster than an aircraft, as it's in LEO. Aircraft flying rather fast, but a lot slower than the satellite. Hourly detections at different orbital locations, different satellites, different orbits. It isn't a case of triangulation of a location based upon a fixed signal, you have multiple receivers, receiving different times, different orbital locations and a moving aircraft transmitting. It's actually be easier if the aircraft were continuously transmitting, as signal would be picked up by the next bird in the constellation and a rough path could be estimated. This leaves it down to a CEP of about the size of Australia.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments aren't responsive to mine. And there's no reason to believe the same geosynchronus satellite wouldn't have been involved each time. It has nothing to do with changing variables, either. Apply the same process to each hourly ping, accounting for whatever variables are in play at that time. We know (roughly) where the plane started out, just NW of Malaysia. We know it ended up on the well-known arcs. Using the intermediate arcs as well as beginning with knowledge of it's approximate location, an approximate cone should be able to drawn. Not that it would help find anything, but it might offer some minimal insight into what countries were likely overflown, etc. Please, if you're going to respond, at least take the time to comprehend my comments and respond directly to them instead of red herrings about orbital locations etc. FortCharles (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Inmarsat is not in LEO. It is geostationary, so its position on the map never changes. Becalmed (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@FortCharles: I'm sure they have analysed them. These pings might just give an insight by which one might be able to deduce from the rate of change (closeness of the different hourly arcs) a more precise estimate as to the direction the plane may have taken, but that would be probably be subject to the assumption that the plane was flying in a straight line and at a constant speed, which might be difficult to assume if we are to posit a hijacking of some sort. It's still wouldn't be as definitive as a two-dimensional triangulation. I'd say it's most likely that the aircraft never left the area where IOR had sole coverage (not covered by AOR or POR), otherwise they would be very close to finding the plane. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Becalmed. Didn't notice which bird was receiving. That actually makes the situation wider, unless signal strength is logged and even then, it's of questionable. Such things are what the NSA quite enjoys working on, as that is one of their jobs. Satellite reception capabilities, atmospheric effects, GM conditions, etc complicate what some think of as simple. The region where each bird can receive is quite large.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We discuss this quite a bit in the "Last ping and fuel (maps)" section above. The satellite sends a message to the plane and then the plane responds. If you take the total elapsed time and divide by two and then multiply by the speed of light you will have the distance from the plane to the satellite. Becalmed (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Grossly oversimplified, as geosynchronous orbits are not circular, indeed, once a satellite reaches a certain fuel level, a figure eight orbit is used to maintain it for a while longer, then it's pushed into a parked orbit above geosynchronous orbit. Add in the math, which is found in Geostationary_orbit#Communications, it is a bit more complex. I'm not certain that ping times are precisely measured, if you have a citation on that, it would be appreciated. Also, from what I've been reading, the satellite pings of concern weren't ACARS, but engine data, which would not be part of ACARS.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

ACARS is the system, not the type of data. All sorts of data can be sent via ACARS. Both Rolls-Royce used it for engine data as well as Boeing for performance data, and the airline used it as well. And in fact, the pings in question didn't contain data at all. At any rate, your satellite orbit ramblings aren't relevant to my question at all. If it could be done for the final ping, it could be done for the others, though the variables may be different each time. It would be interesting to see the results, and it makes me wonder why we haven't. FortCharles (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An error in a geostationary orbit will result in the shadow of the satellite on the globe tracing out a figure eight. It is a small figure eight and it still allows you to know the position of the satellite with great accuracy. The pings do not include engine data or anything else. It is a simple "are you there?" No I do not have any verification of the method of measuring the distance. It was arrived at in the section above as the only way that they could possibly have generated the position map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becalmed (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the data from the previous pings would tell you much about the plane's position. It would tell you a lot about the plane's heading, though. We would have two measurements of the plane's distance to the satellite at two different times. (I haven't worked with vectors in ages, so please bear with me.) What we want to calculate is the vector of the plane's average velocity between the two pings. A vector has magnitude and direction. The magnitude is the ground speed of the aircraft. We can make a reasonable guess about that. (You could plug in the average cruising speed of the aircraft, or its last observed speed on radar, etc.) We know the portion of the vector that points towards the satellite. We can use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the portion of the vector at a right angle to the satellite direction. Then we have the whole velocity vector. The problem is, since there are two directions at right angles to the satellite, we would get two solutions. Maybe there is some way to rule one out.

I still have to ask why the data from the previous pings has not been released to the public? Becalmed (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• "What we want to calculate is the vector of the plane's average velocity between the two pings" and differential calculus. We need to find the rate of change across the various pings. I imagine it could be done. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Maybe there is some way to rule one out." Yes, a second sensor (satellite), if there were any overflying the area and set up to record the ping. Then we could have triangulation. Maybe US defence satellites... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "I still have to ask why the data from the previous pings has not been released to the public?" I think it's clearly of primary importance to locate the plane, the last plot approximates the last known location. Where it was heading could give a clue as to motives. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my question too. It would seem that superimposing the preceding pings' data onto a map would give a much clearer idea of where the aircraft was heading, and might actually rule out one of the arcs – or so it appears. It's strange that no mainstream media ever questioned the Malaysian authorities on those pings. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the map issued by AMSA http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/australia-takes-charge-of-multinational-search/5328904 has possible routes on it. Presumably these came from analysis of the earlier pings, the maximum speed of the plane at various altitudes etc. For example if two pings returned the same arc then the plane has basically been flying along the arc, if they are 500 miles apart then it has been flying perpendicular to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.183.132 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b777-28420.htm nowhere sqays that the flight was the 404th boeing 777 produced. the edit has been made solely for the purpose of trolling-404 page not found to 404 plane not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.81.186 (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See "LN:404". WWGB (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed some content from Aircraft section

Here, I've boldly removed some content from the Aircraft section. This seems to have originally appeared with this <> edit, and has been modified a since appearing, most recently here.

It appears to me that this is gives undue weight to this particular bit of information and/or it might be synthesys by juxtaposition (SBJ). SBJ doesn't seem to have been explicitly described in WP:OR, but it has been discussed and applied as justification for removal on a number of occasions (see this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored the removed text. The argument against undue weight doesn't really seem to me to apply here. This doesn't advance a particular minority position or a particular theory, it simply cites a fact about a catastrophic event (a cockpit fire) involving the same type of aircraft which may or may not provide to be relevant but is significant enough to report. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pure speculation. It doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's no indication of how a stationary plane that catches fire is related to this flight. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article currently states "only two serious accidents", which is incorrect. A hull loss is a serious event, and the fire should be mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jumbo Jet being sited in Kudahuvadhoo

Why is someone removing this valid information, that is referenced to the NY Post and then to a Malaysain newspaper (through the NY Post)? I don't understand. Pls explin. Thank you!

Here is the information: On March 19, it was reported that residents of Kudahuvadhoo reported having seen a "jumbo jet" matching the description of the missing flight. The sighting occurred on March 8 at around 6:20 a.m.

As you have been told repeatedly, the claim has been refuted (Missing Malaysian Airlines flight latest update: Malaysia rejects reports of possible MH370 sighting in Maldives). 124.168.47.229 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

New link about it being found

Apparently; it hath been found: Read here, The Hindu, Hyderabad. Apparently, it has been found in Andaman. Another hoax I guess. Last night there were rumours of it catching fire. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on your link just now, and eyeballed the article. I don't see any mention of the guy who found an old satellite image of plane flying low over jungle of Andaman islands. Maybe that Web site recognized it as hoax and deleted the bogus info after you posted your link here/above. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

After posting my above comment, I clicked on your link again, and this time I got 404 Not Found. This is almost funny how they erase the evidence after making a goof and then realizing it was a goof. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Looks like the Hindu realised that it was a hoax and deleted it. Rather shameful considering it is one of India's most reputable papers. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. The shameful thing would be not deleting it. The LA Times website still has mistakes I corrected for them last June. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Theories

With theories being discussed by the BBC, among other reliable sources, I see no problem with including a well-sourced section, similar to Mary Celeste#Speculation and theories or Amelia Earhart#Theories on Earhart's disappearance. GiantSnowman 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How about Sultan Al Katbi? But I agree, if they are being discussed in the mainstream media, they may deserve a place, in that limited form at least. In fact, there are now so many outlandish/ impossible theories flying around the internet maybe that is, in itself, newsworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to say that the media is making lots of stuff up with some wild theories due to the lack of any real information but the slippery slope would be to mention of any of the speculative theories themselves to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not if we use something as simple as "Numerous theories regarding the disappearance have been proposed by the media", without going into specific details ourselves. GiantSnowman 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Where are the alien abduction theories?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

don't worry, we've had them - and elves - and yeti... ;-) Lynbarn (talk)

• • I'm leaning toward the Godzilla theory, or at least Mothra.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sure both have been proposed by someone, somewhere... GiantSnowman 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cops find five Indian Ocean practice runways in MH370 pilot’s simulator http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/cops-find-five-indian-ocean-practice-runways-in-mh370-pilots-simulator-bh-r 74.116.173.2 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the simulator programs use a database referencing a huge number of runways in massive detail from all over the world. I suspect this is simply an example of selective reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah so, unlike Mohamed Atta, he was keen to practice his landings? And here's your massive, sizzlin', pop-pickin', chart-toppin' Top Ten countdown, folks!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If he was going to crash the plane, he wouldn't need any simulator practice but some kamikaze video game. They will probably announce at some stage they found a twerking video Miley Cyrus on his computer and then accuse Zaharie of being a pronographer. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Theory: Plane Was Shot Down by Another Country's Military & BBC Video 207.119.196.4 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• We are not here to speculate on the outcome ourselves, we merely need to make it clear that many people are specualting - and this will continue the longer it remains unknown. GiantSnowman 12:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thai radar may have seen it (reputable newsTVweb source)

Original ariticle here: http: // english.astroawani.com /news/show/mh370-thai-radar-saw-unknown-aircraft-after-plane-vanished-32102

Tweet with link to that article, which how I discovered it: https: // mobile.twitter.com /501Awani/status/446183037689405440

     @501Awani
     #MH370: Thai radar saw 'unknown aircraft' after plane vanished ow.ly /uJEg6 = http: // t.co/ZT5wZFPe7z #MAS #prayforMH370
     12:15 a.m. Wed, Mar 19
  MH370: Thai radar saw unknown aircraft after plane vanished The information was not shared with Malaysia earlier because it wasnt specifically asked for it.

My Twitter reply, summarizing the news article: https: // mobile.twitter.com /CalRobert/status/446191343509835776

  Robert Maas @CalRobert
  #MH370 Thai radar picked up unknown aircraft 1:28 Malaysian time, moving southwest ... then later swinging north to Andaman Sea. @501Awani

I never heard of Astro Awani before, so after posting my Twitter reply I did a search, and found this WikiPedia article about it: http: // en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Astro_Awani It seems to be a legitimate television service/network, so I presume the article on their official Web site qualifies as a "reputable source" for mention in WikiPedia. They also have an article about an Indian person finding a satellite image of the plane flying over the Andeman islands, but the text of the article says the report is a hoax based on older satellite images.

WikiPedia won't let me post links, so I've broken each URL into pieces. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

The Indian finding is what I posted just above your post. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if they're extremely reliable, they claim the Thai radar saw an unknown aircraft, not may have seen the relevant aircraft. I see unknown aircraft all the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

CTV unsurprisingly didn't mind jumping to that conclusion, though. Still, is "maybe" really important? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

NOPE. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrorists claiming responsibility

Initial reports from a Chinese Uyghur/Muslim separatist group claiming responsibility here and here and here. The same group responsible for a recent knife attack killing 29 Chinese 1 and truck bomb on Tiananmen Square.207.119.196.4 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not unusual for terrorist groups or any group of nutters to claim responsibility, its clear from the statements they dont actually know any more than we do about the missing aircraft, so not notable at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's probably the work of terrorists; flights don't disappear from radar and there is no history of flight disappearing other from terrorism. Also, hijacked planes always are carried out by Muslim extremists, so those who say that Islam is a peaceful religion have little credibility. However, there is no reason to attribute it to any group. Dark Liberty (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Last attempted hijacking prior to this was attributed to a drunk Ukrainian, probably not a 'Muslim extremist' for any of several reasons. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Uyghurs or Tukmenistan Movement have hijacked domestic Chinese planes before, and even shot one down. The CCP are less than interested in dealing with the problem. (they may even manufacture sea debris to claim it crashed instead)207.119.196.4 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Taliban say we wish... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting a bit to establish consensus here but, regardless of DL or others' bigotry, the single group who has claimed responsibility for the possible hijacking is very much notable and your opinion about the knowledge revealed by their press statement has very little bearing on that point.

You're somewhat on point that we should have a (sourced) disclaimer explaining why (sourced) officials discount that group's claim. — LlywelynII 13:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline would be helpful

I suggest the known facts be laid on a timeline. It seems to be all there in the article, but not presented in a helpful timeline fashion. --B2C 16:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Timeline of events & discoveries post disappearance, I agree. Like the great work done at Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal#Timeline.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Information on the current timeline the seems rather sparse.

We should have: last voice contact, last ACARS contact, last secondary radar contact, last primary radar contact, last satellite ping at least, there are plenty of sources for these. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed this would be useful. GiantSnowman 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we have a section on last contacts?

As far as I can see we have

Last ACARS data transmission 1:07 (next due at 1:37)
Last ADS-B transmission? ?:??
Last ATC voice contact 1:19
Transponders off/ last secondary radar contact 1:21
Last (unsuccessful) voice contact from other aircraft 1:30
Last radar contact 2:15
Last ping 8:11

Was the aircraft definitely fitted with and using ADS-B? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• It strikes me that we already have a timeline, within the graphic in the 'Disappearance' section. There are no exact time markers on it, but I reckon this could be remedied. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It was my original suggestion to add more contact details to the existing timeline but I wondered if a section of text might also be useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I too would like to see the time line as text but also that it include missed events on their own lines. For example:

• 1:07 a.m. ACARS transmission
• 1:19 a.m. Last ATC voice contact "All right, good night."
• 1:37 a.m. Missed ACARS transmission

--Marc Kupper|talk 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline and need help reading English

I was figuring out the timeline as reported in this CNN article and then got puzzled. This part seems clearly stated:

1. 1:07 a.m or earlier - Aircraft's program updated to not follow the planned path to Beijing.
2. 1:07 a.m, ACARS transmission
3. 1:19 a.m. Co-pilot says "All right, good night"
4. 1:37 a.m. Missed ACARS transmission

I put down #1 above based on this statement in the article:

a law enforcement official told CNN that the plane's programmed change in direction was entered at least 12 minutes before the plane's verbal sign-off.

Immediately after that official's statement is a paragraph that puzzles me.

Thus, it appears the plane's ACARS would have transmitted the information that the flight path was reprogrammed.

Is this CNN or the enforcement official speculating about how ACARS may work? I'm trying to understand why that line is in the CNN article and what it means. Unfortunately, the quoted "law enforcement official" could be anyone on the planet that has a theory and it may be a theory with little or basis known facts. That may be why I'm confused. Has someone seen an article that explains this aspect better so that we can have a fact, rather than speculation, based time line in the article? --Marc Kupper|talk 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the key is the passage from the CNN article, "A U.S. official told CNN that somebody programmed Flight 370 to fly off course. But it's unclear if that happened during the flight or before takeoff." The reason they know it was before 1:07 though, is that it was ACARS that told them about it in its 1:07 transmission. The previous half-hourly ACARS transmission would have been at 12:37, just before take-off, so it could have happened anytime between 12:37 and 1:07. The only way officials would know it was a programmed change and not a manual deviation was from ACARS. This is my understanding from reading multiple articles, but I don't have a source that spells it out quite that explicitly. The press has reported the technical aspects of this terribly. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The implication then is that the ACARS transmission includes the list of planned waypoints, that the 1:07 transmission included this list, and it showed that the diversion programmed in. If that's the case then investigators would also have the entire list of waypoints programmed in. Did the aircraft follow some, or all of them? --Marc Kupper|talk 18:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ACARS can send very simple or complex message depending on what the airline has set up, so unless you have a reliable source on how Malaysian use ACARS it is all speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. It's important not to make unwarranted assumptions, as the press so often does. My understanding is that ACARS will alert to any change or unusual status of any system, even weather, but the level of detail of the alert about the programmed flight change is something I haven't seen discussed, and we can't really be guessing at whether it included the future waypoints specifically. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A useful article discussing ACARS is here. Good discussion of the subtleties of ACARS being "turned off" vs. going into standby (i.e., the 8:11 ping return was via ACARS during standby, even though ACARS was "turned off" prior to 1:07), as well as ACARS via VHF vs. via Satellite. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See table in section above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading/wrong green/purple sections of events-graphic

In the section titled "Disappearance", there is a graphic titled "Events of the 7.5 to 8.5-hour flight", about which I have two complaints/questions:

The graphic shows (without any citation) "On radar" (green) continuously from take-off to nearly the two-hour mark. This contradicts my understanding from television reports, that primary military radar didn't begin until after the plane had reached the Malaysia/VietNam boundary then turned back and approached the coast of Malaysia again, heading West. This military radar observation continued as the plane crossed the peninsula into the Malacca strait, still heading West, then turned to a NW heading for a while. The ending of this radar contact agrees with the end of the green part of the graph. So, regarding the portion of the flight from take-off until the plane approached the Malaysian coast heading West, was the plane "on radar" during this entire part of the flight or not? If it was "on radar", it must NOT have been the military radar that observed it only later, so what radar was it? My belief is the graphic is plum wrong about radar contact during the entire first hour of the flight. Am I mistaken? So where is there a reference for any radar contact whatsoever, and who created that graphic showing continuous radar observations for first hour?

The same graphic shows (purple) continuous pinging from end of radar contact (just before the 2-hour mark) until just after the 7.5-hour mark. But the info I've gleaned from multiple sources (TV, news articles linked from Twitter) says pings were just once per hour, not continuously. If my understanding is correct, then the purple part of the graph is GROSSLY wrong. There should purple lines at the MOMENTS of time when each ping occurred, not a solidly-purple region. Again, who created this (AFAIK) definitely-wrong graphic?

The purple part of a graphic links to a footnote that links to a CNN article that says the pings lasted hours, but doesn't say whether pings were once per hour or virtually continously or at some repetition-interval shorter than hourly. Accordingly drawing a solid (continous) purple section on the graph might be correct (but not AFAIK) but in any case isn't fully supported by the CNN article. Is there a better source that specifies the gap between adjacent pings? 66.81.212.224 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

I think you are misinterpreting what the solid purple part of the graphic was intended to mean. To me this is simply the period that "pings only" happened. Nothing is intended to imply ping frequency. I also don't understand your comments on radar - the primary radar and secondary military radar are not mutually exclusive as you are implying.Andrewgprout (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

SwiftBroadband system and AF447

There is now this statement in the information flow section: "The Washington Post reported that Malaysia Airlines had also declined an upgrade for a system called Swift that would have provided critical information about the aircraft even after the ACARS system and the transponder went dead, a key element that helped significantly during the search for Air France 447 previously."

I cannot find any information linking this Swift system with the search for AF447. It is not mentioned in the BEA report. Can anyone confirm that this system was indeed a "key element"? Seban678 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Online Digital Bathymetric Model / Data for Making Bathymetric Figures of Flight 370 Search Areas

People can construct custom bathymetric maps and profiles of Flight 370 search areas using GIS software, i.e. Global Mapper or GRASS, and the data from "Gridded bathymetry data" at GEBCO, Gridded bathymetry data. There is a viewer for this data at GEBCO Grid display software. There are also free PDF and Geotiff files of the GEBCO world map, which shows the bathymetry of the oceans ans seas, including the various search areas at useful detail, in GEBCO world map. Paul H. (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Other online GIS bathymetric datasets for making figures and maps for this article can be found in ETOPO5 5-minute gridded elevation data, ETOPO1 Global Relief Model, and and Interactive Map Interface to Bathymetry Data. Related datasets can be found in World Ocean Database, World Ocean Atlas 2009, and Access Data, Paul H. (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Countries participation after South China Sea, Malacca Straits search called-off

There has been a huge change of participation level between countries after the South China Sea and Malacca Strait Search-and-Locate was called-off. For example Singapore halted all operations with its naval and air force assets, and now only activates its Information Fusion Centre or IFC. I edited the Singapore section with relevant information and proper sources but the sentence about SAF stopping all operations was removed today. The current paragraph would tell readers that SAF still operates those naval and aerial assets in the Indian Ocean search effort, which is totally wrong. I think with so many changes of participating assets after the SCS, MS SaL was called off, necessary changes and/or appropriate clarifications needs to be made. TL T 07:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was me. I didn't think it belonged there as it's only a list and I'm keeping it without prose. I think the change in parameterisation doesn't affect the assets that the various countries contributed to the search effort. Information such as that, if it belongs, may perhaps be warranted in another section about the changing effort. Let's work something out. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if things are to be kept this way, somewhere in the title or heading it should be told that this list summarizes participations of each countries so far, not the current assets involved in the new search area. But the other side of the coin this article should also reflect up-to-date developments, so readers can find out which countries is participating with what assets in the new area. And in one of your recent simplifying edit you removed the information about the scope of Singapore's IFC. I can understand this simplification to avoid too much wordings. But IFC with 13 military navies, 51 shipping companies became air force after edit? Nowhere in the official source stated IFC was operated under the Singaporean airforce. TL T 07:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

IC, I kind of assumed that Singapore didn't have 13 military navies, 51 shipping companies, and that SGP would only be coordinating. The change in scope seems to be centred in the 'Location' section, so maybe it could be mentioned there? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the two section is different. 'Location' doesn't tell involvement and what's not involved anymore, so imo the change of participation still needs to be displayed in 'International Participation' section. I'd propose my idea of how this should work, splitting each countries, moving information in-between. Adding an additional dedicated section may result in repetitive information.

Singapore: South China Sea/Malacca Strait: air force C-130 Hercules; navy Formidable-class frigate with one Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk helicopter; and a submarine rescue ship with divers; Victory-class corvette; an air force Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft. Indian Ocean: Deactivates all previous assets. Activates Information Fusion Centre. TL T 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• That could work. Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Peace. TL T 08:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• As to the mention of Singapore's participation here, you wrote "Activates SAF's Information Fusion Centre comprising...", which I took to mean the Information Fusion Centre pertaining to Singapore Air Force. I didn't actually check the source. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Does this topic be discussed further? I've made some respective updates to the 'International Participation' section but User:WWGB kept undoing them without given reasons. It was given by me in the edit summary that the clarification of participations was discussed in the talk here here but the said editor chose to skip discussion and commit on with what could transpire into edit war. What are wikipedia's rules on this? TL T 13:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was otherwise occupied at the time, but littering the section with labels like Post 13 March: is awkward and unencyclopedic. WWGB (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need a breakdown of which countries are/were searching which area and when. For example Australia, New Zealand and the United States have now moved all their search assets to the southern Indian Ocean. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad there are more members discussing now. How do everyone propose we do the breakdown? Instead of a section of ambiguous information. TL T 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuel claim

This edit by 175.143.47.217 (talk · contribs) added the unsourced claim: "When the last contact was made, it had fuel that could fly 8 more hours." This has since been edited to read: "When the last contact was made over the Gulf of Thailand, the plane had enough fuel for 8 more hours of flight." The claim remains unsourced and contradicts initial reports that the plane had 7.5 hours of fuel. Does anyone have a source for this claim? —sroc 💬 12:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed I checked and someone has removed the addition about "When the last contact was made, it had fuel that could fly 8 more hours." --Marc Kupper|talk 18:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Last contacts

This is a continuation of the 'Timeline' section above.

There seems agreement that we should show all confirmed last contacts made with the plane. These are:

Last ACARS data transmission 1:07 (next due at 1:37)
Last ADS-B transmission? ?:??
Last Malaysian ATC voice contact 1:19
Transponders off/ last secondary radar contact 1:21
Last (unsuccessful) voice contact from other aircraft 1:30
Last radar contact 2:15
Last ping 8:11

I tried to add these to the existing timeline but it would need to be greatly expanded to allow this. I therefore suggest that we have a text section on 'Contacts' showing information and times of all confirmed last contacts.

Was the aircraft definitely fitted with and using ADS-B? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ADS-B is mandatory equipment for operations above FL290 in several parts of the world including Singapore and Australia, so yes, it was fitted - it would be too hard to operate without it. Switching off the transponder disables ADS-B. YSSYguy (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it might be a good idea to make this info into a chronological table instead, and include all contacts instead of just last of each type, and then have 4 columns that include:
  
  

Time (local Malay)

Mode (primary radar [and note military or civilian]/secondary [transponder]/ACARS/ADS-B/VHF/radio/satellite)

Content/data of the contact (if any)

Receiving/Transmitting entity (Rolls Royce/Boeing/Malaysia Airlines/ATC/Military/other plane).

Maybe the table could be embedded here and filled out, then moved to the article when ready? I'd start it, but not familiar with all the wiki formatting markup. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I will give that a go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a start: Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Time into flight	Event	Time (MYT)	Time (UTC)
0:00	Takeoff from Kuala Lumpur	0:41	16:41
0:26	Last ACARS data transmission (next was due at 1:37 Malay time)	1:07	17:07
0:38	Last Malaysian ATC voice contact, "All right. Good night." [9]	1:19	17:19
0:40	Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E.	1:21	17:21
0:41	Transponder and ADS-B now off.	1:22	17:22
0:49	Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible [10]	1:30	17:30
0:56	Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission	1:37	17:37
1:34	Last primary radar contact by Malay military, 200 miles NW of Penang	2:15	18:15
5:49	Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing	6:30	22:30
7:30	Last automated hourly ACARS handshake with Inmarsat satellite [11]	8:11	00:11

Should we add this to the article now ? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

I'm not sure if it's worth adding to external links but http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/ and http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/mh370-search.asp are relevant and a WP:RS. The web site reports "Copyright © Australian Maritime Safety Authority." I have not looked into if products of the Australian government are automatic public-domain the way U.S. government created material is. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian government publications are under crown copyright for 50 years if not otherwise licensed. Some are now giving cc-by-3.0, but you have to check each site. I don't think the link needs to be added unless they have a large amount of relevant content on their web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, if you link, why does copyright matter?CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue if we link. At the time, it seemed these may well be related to MH370 meaning someone would likely upload the images to Wikipedia. That's why I brought up the copyright. Thank you for finding the crown copyright for 50 years part. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The locations of the objects spotted by the Australian Defence Department are provided on the images AMSA have released at https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_01_14.jpg and https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_02_14.jpg. The co-ordinates for the first are 43 58' 34"S 90 57' 37"E and for the second 44 03' 02"S 91 13' 27"E. These co-ordinates are not provided in media coverage, but I believe WP should publish them. Any thoughts?? And how do we get a degrees symbol in HTML? Craigallan.za (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The degree symbol is &deg; which displays as 123°. I noticed those coordinates on the images too and wondered why the general media was not at least putting a dot on the maps. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this count as speculative information?

This story is a few days old, but could be useful in the part about the search.--RM (Be my friend) 09:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You used the word "could". The article headline uses the word "could". That's double speculation. So, no. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

COULD be nice if the speculation police could try being polite for once 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

'See also' list

For an inarticulated reason, the following was removed from the 'See also' section by WWGB (talk | contribs)‎. The edit summary of "c'mon" suggests a lack of due diligence by the editor. If the Tomnod link had been actually been checked prior to summarily being deleted, the relevance to this article would be obvious; it is certainly "related", and has an entire section devoted to this article, see: Tomnod#Malaysia Flight 370.

• Tomnod — a crowdsource search program using satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe

Please see (and read) WP:See also: List of "... internal links to related Wikipedia articles ... one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I have no desire to get into an edit war with WWGB (talk | contribs)‎ or anyone else; if there is a consensus to do so, please return Tomnod to the 'See also' list. ~Thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it adds greatly to the article, so I'd leave it out. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:See also — The purpose of 'See also' is not to "add greatly to the article". Also note that the Tomnod program is far from being "fringe" or even "controversial"; if one can argue that this in somehow not related to this article, please do so. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor, and suggest having a See also entry for Tomnod#Malaysia Flight 370 JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A see also should add to the article, and the link doesnt add anything. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to change policy guidelines for Wikipedia's Manual of Style, this is not the place for that. If you wish to discuss how the current guidelines support your position, please do. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC):[update timestamp]:05:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a good extract of WP:See also above. The edit in question fits those criteria. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The "See also" section has been removed on 2014-03-20 by TheAirplaneGuy, his reason being: "not needed at this stage". I disagree. On WP:See also one can read: "[...] one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." There is a number of accidents involving a similar class commercial aircraft and navigational problems. I believe that this section should be returned, as there is no other straightforward way to find previous accidents involving navigational problems. Here are some:

• 1979: Air New Zealand Flight 901
• 1983: Korean Air Lines Flight 007
• 2007: Adam Air Flight 574
• 2009: Air France Flight 447

Anyone agreeing with my reasons please feel free to reinstate the section and use these entries. --Borut (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I reckon it's a load of rubbish to add an See Also section as the plane hasn't even been found yet! A fair few of the editors I've talk to, WWGB, YSSY Guy agree that a see also section isn't needed just YET. Interesting how the IP editor is talking like that, would of thought he/she would of created an account by now... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Premature. We need to be patient and wait until the dust has settled. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, far to early TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat tangential to the 'See also' issue, but relevant to the original 'Tomnod' posting: certainly, satellite images provided by DigitalGlobe has "added greatly" to the search effort; and, readers might want to find out more about the subject, therefore (I believe) a link would be a useful addition to this article. See: Reuters , BBC , [etc.]  ~"IP editor [who] is talking like that":71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

• Where's Wally. Bloody hard to find too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

According to the Prime Minister of Australia, pieces of the aircraft may have just been found. There is nothing online about this yet, but it was just announced on the news, so this is just a heads up just in case a flurry of edits suddenly appear on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah saw it on Al Jazeera, maybe some truth to it or just another Abbott propaganda..--Stemoc (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, it is now in the article, so I guess we can moderate it accordingly. Also, I doubt he would pull a stunt like this, especially since this would be one of the worst calls a politician could do. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources.[12][13] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

More info needs to be added to the lead. thanks.

Thecodingproject (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• It would be premature to add it anywhere as it's not confirmed, according to Abbott. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A mention shouldn't be made until the objects are confirmed to be from the plane. As an aside, images released by the Australian government are not in the public domain and could only be added to the article under fair use (per Commons). AHeneen (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tend to disagree - world news and the only really credible possible "breakthrough" that appears to have been made so far. But we certainly would not want an image at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The sighting is so far unconfirmed, although obviously promising enough for a country's leader to go public about it; but then he may just be playing the "transparency" card. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be jumping from one hypothesis to another. It's only a working theory that is already included in the body. I think it can wait a few hours (or may be until morning, because it'll be nightfall in Australia) before we need to decide to include it in the lead – if it turns out to be a true sighting, it will of course go in; and if it isn't, it never belonged in the first place. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not jumping from any particular theory to any other theory. To me it's just a set of relevant and notable facts. Australian PM + image + RS = worthy of mention. Even if it proves to be mistaken, I suspect it will still remain worthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

My insert of the info into the Intro was reverted on the grounds that it was just a "hot theory". It's not a hot theory if several planes and a ship have been dispatched to the area. We are not saying that this is the plane but just reporting on major actions taken to find it. If people go to the page and see no reference in the Intro to this search they will believe that the article is out of date. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Young, the Amsa chief, said after Abbott’s announcement that the objects were “relatively indistinct” on the satellite imagery but were of “reasonable size and probably awash with water … bobbing up and down in the water. We have been in this business of doing search and rescue and using satellite images before,” Young said. “They do not always turn out to be related to the search even if they look good, so we will hold our views on that until they are sighted.” quoted from The Guardian. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've included a shortened summary of the current search. The fact it was announced by the Australian PM is itself, and will remain, notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're right that PM's announcements have been quite rare up to now. But you know, actually it's a lot less than a hot theory if you read the Guardian article above. It's a good report, but all indications are that it's only a lead. Maybe the only promising lead. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course it is notable. But the search will take a while to confirm because of the distance.--PremKudva^Talk 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• How long do 777 body panels stay afloat - for ever? Is anyone going to start listening for the ULB? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• ULB's are good for 30 days from time of impact, so they items found are proved to be that of MH370 they would start listening for it. The tail of AF447 was found floating since it was composite, likewise the 777's tail. Anyway until ships read this area it is still hope and speculation.--PremKudva^Talk 11:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like  Ohc  is on his own here. Can we agree to include something in the Intro? Roundtheworld (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'd stay cautious. That satellite is a long way up and those fragments are relatively tiny. I think the ships have to get there first - even if it will be night-time before they do. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (... and why 1,600 miles SW of Perth, i.e. approx due south of Kuala Lumpur?!)
• Me too. An Australian P-3 just returned without finding the wreckage.--PremKudva^Talk 11:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the images and see a lot of detail that is nearly identical between the Mar.14 and Mar.16 images, which is virtually impossible if it's all floating in the open ocean. Could we be seeing coral reefs, with a large shipping container wedged on one of the coral ridges? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

It is certainly not up to us to guess whether there is debris from the plane or not. It certainly is up to us to report, prominently, that the search has become focused on possible debris. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by Mar.14 and Mar.16 images? Those I've seen such as at [14] are both dated Mar 16 - one version of each has been enhanced/sharpened to aid clarity, but they were taken at the same time. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The pair of images I was viewing was linked from this tweet: https:// mobile.twitter.com /newscomauHQ/status/446541102321897472 The text-frames overlaying the upper-left corner of each image are so tiny they are difficult to read, but it looked like 16 ... in one and 14 ... in the other. But looking back at it now, maybe they are both 16 ..., in which case nevermind my remark about stuff remaining in place over two days. In any case, I haven't seen any image of the smaller object, alleged to be about 14 km away from this largest object. Is there any Web site where somebody is volunteering to collect links to ALL the various images and maps that have been proposed as possibly related to this missing plane, with annotations if and when we know whether they are correctly the plane or correctly something else or hoax/mistake etc.? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

The Guardian says http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/20/mh370-poor-conditions-hamper-search-debris-indian-ocean the search area is centred on the 250x400km Naturalist Plateau, average depth 3500m, with surrounding waters at 5000m, that would tend to rule out coral reefs unless there are any significant seamounts on the plateau. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think Abbott's announcement is very significant, but perhaps not in the way you may think.

  I think it will be seen tomorrow as an exemplary way to communicate. There has been a lot of confusion and many communications mishaps. Now that the search is on Aussie turf, they are showing the world how it's done. Here, however, the importance is not in the information itself, but the process by which it is delivered.

  The communication takes place at the highest possible level, yet extremely cautious. It sends a clear message that Australian is taking the search effort very seriously and that the head of state is personally involved and "on the pulse". The Malaysian PM "has been notified", so he's not trying to upstage anyone, yet making the declaration in parliament (probably within minutes of having informed Najib) means he's very much in charge at home. Abbott demonstrates that he is in control and open. There is information, yet the parameters of uncertainty are clearly laid out, and a more detailed

• brief is provided by the head of AMRS in secondary briefings. The progress is couched in terms that while there is hope, expectations are not unduly raised.

  I urge you once again not to jump the gun. I sincerely hope that they have found the plane, but as already said, the Aussie revelations may not come to anything – even they have said so categorically. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update The aircraft has now returned after an extensive search and has confirmed no objects found at all. That area now "ruled out" (even if it was wreckage and has sunk). Have not yet heard if the ships have been recalled. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What I heard on TV is they found nothing Thursday during 2-hr search window, mostly because of clouds and rain, but will go out again Friday at daybreak to try again, hoping for better weather making search easier. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

I think you are right, although the reporter (the only press to be briefed directly by the pilot) who spoke on today's The World at One on BBC Radio 4, sounded pretty definite that the search had been both extensive and thorough. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The search area is over 2000 km from land. By the time an Orion gets there it has around two hours of searching time before it has to return, due to fuel requirements. It was in very stormy conditions. Not ideal for a search. It also got dark! Sunrise in the area is soon, and searching will resume, but do understand the limitations here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's nearer to Antarctica than it is to Australia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a map: [15] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Last ping and fuel (maps)

According to the German Wiki the position of last ping is an intersection between two circles where one (with center in last known position) is fuel range. Soerfm (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting... what is their source for that? The released map didn't show complete circles, and in fact included a gap between the northern and southern arcs that still would have been within fuel range. How do you explain the gap? The 'official' released map has been described as arrived at by determining the direction the satellite antenna was (or could have been) pointing, explaining why it doesn't include full circles.

That would be the case IF the last ping coincided with the plane running out of fuel, and in which case, there would only be two places to look. The altitude and airspeed of the aircraft will have had a determining impact on the actual range, so there are still a number of unknowns, plus the ping didn't give any indication of direction - only two possible position at the time. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How about given the lecturing and finger wagging a break, since that's been done enough times already. The German map is sufficiently consistent with the totality of reliable sources to be a legitimate point of discussion for possible inclusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Without any basis the German map seems to create full circles instead of the known arcs that have been released, and the overlay of remaining fuel is somewhat speculative. The NYT map that Soerfm linked is at least more accurate.

The basis is that the sat data only gives you distance, not location. The NYT makes that point explicitly. Unless there are sources I'm not aware of, there is no basis to not have circles over Africa EXCEPT the fuel range, which is reasonably sourced. You don't need a source for saying less, you need a source for saying more, and German map says less than the NYT map.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What about: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/15/world/asia/satellite-contact-map.html. It seems to sum up the discussion. Soerfm (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly all speculation, its a journalist jobs to fill newspapers with speculation it is not wikipedias. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why people read the New York Times? Because it is full of unfounded garbage? Maybe you're being sarcastic? The NYT map is more or less the same as the German one except the German one has the added benefit of explaining why no one is searching the other side of the satellite in Africa (out of fuel range).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the official source for assuming Africa etc would be viable if not for being out of fuel range? My understanding was the two arcs were delimited by antenna position, not fuel range considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

All I have seen from the sources is that you only get distance from the satellite, nothing else. If you've got a source that says it can be further narrowed by "antenna position," that'd be an important source.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

NYT... "The satellite can “see” in an arc that stretches to the north and south of its fixed position..." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?hpw&rref=world

WaPo.. "...the only thing the satellite can tell is how much it would need to adjust its antenna to get the strongest signal from the plane." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/15/possible-paths-for-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight/

The satellite needs to adjust to "point" in the optimal direction. This is where the arcs come from, antenna directions. If it was just fuel remaining, there would be no gap between the arcs. The NYT graphic had it right, start with the arcs and then add potential remaining fuel. The German map misunderstands the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's convincing enough. It'd be nice to get this into the article. For what it's worth though, I don't think the German map "misunderstands" this, it just doesn't include it.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Soerfm: That NYT graphic is showing the 2 light red "bubbles" around each red arc as speculations on remaining fuel of 20 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively (fuel remaining after last ping). That's not the same thing as saying the red arcs themselves are dependent on total fuel range from takeoff, or anything like that. If it were, there would be no gap between the arcs. This is why I reverted your caption change on the graphic here where you indicated it was partly dependent on fuel range. And perhaps the NYT graphic is "better", but it's also copyrighted, and partly speculative about the remaining fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So the dimensions of the bubbles surrounding the arcs are based on "remaining fuel" but the arcs themselves cannot be "dependent on the total fuel range"? How does that work when the bubbles seem to be clearly related to and based upon the arcs?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. The arcs are what was officially released, with no mention of fuel considerations. One clue to you should be that if fuel was considered, there would be no gap between the arcs. You continue to ignore this point. The arcs are based on position data only. The NYT has a graphic that goes further, taking the arcs (WITH gap) and adding estimated fuel left at 8:11 AM, which is valid though speculative. The German map, on the other hand, completely misunderstands and corrupts the officially supplied satellite data by making assumptions about full circles that are unfounded.2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What editor @Karn said earlier on this page made a lot of sense to me. But see my "convincing enough" remark above where I basically concede the point to you. I would just say that the German map does not "corrupt" the data, it simply does not include further information that says the arcs can be shortened.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you posted that after. The German map essentially ADDS (i.e. corrupts) data... no data has been officially released showing full circles. It's not that the circles "can be shortened" to arcs, it's that they never should have enlarged them beyond the data to make them full circles in the first place. It's misleading and just plain incorrect. Also, Karn's guess about the gap is obviously off the mark: the gap covers open water where there is no radar coverage and yet ends before China where there is. It doesn't represent known radar coverage, and nothing official has suggested it did. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This no longer matters in terms of content but for the sake of understanding what needs more sourcing and what doesn't, I stand by my contention that the German map does NOT "add" data because it assumed there was no data that ruled out certain parts of the arcs. The original "officially released" map actually DID have some "full circles" including a curve over Somalia but that's really beside the point as the issue here is where is the plane. If the article is going to say it is NOT between Malaysia and Vietnam, that needs a source. You don't need a source for leaving a question of fact open. You've provided sourcing here which further explains and supports the original officially released map by explaining that we can rule more out because the last ping that the sat detected would have had to have been within its limited antenna arc. The original officially released map is still too definitive in that it has no error range (it just has thin red lines instead of corridors) but we agree that its arc ranges are sound.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the German map -- it's that "assumption" you note that I'm saying resulted in the creation of unsourced data (circles) on their map. I'd be interested to see any officially released map that included full circles including one over Somalia. Where did that appear?! 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Right here in the article the "70 degree" circle is a full circle that crosses Somalia! The German map does show more of Africa (and the Pacific). That's not "creating sourced data". There's no "data" in these circles. "Data" is needed to say where the plane IS, not where it is NOT. If you are going to insist on preferring a copyright image over a free one, you need a better reason than just that the free one is bigger than the copyrighted one. Anyway, like I say I've accepted your other reason, namely that we can be more specific than the German map because we have further data about the satellite's orientation. This doesn't mean that the copyright map doesn't itself have the problem of going to the other extreme and being too specific (last known location is absolutely right on one of those thin red lines, is it, no error bars (corridors) should be given?)--Brian Dell (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course there's a 70 degree circle going through Somalia on the current "official" map, similar to a line of latitude on a conventional map -- but they aren't highlighting that 70 degree marker as significant, it's just one of multiple rings showing the progressive angles from the satellite. It doesn't mean anything, and they don't claim it does. It's only the red arcs that are significant. The German map, on the other hand, shows full circles in red as being a "korridor", which there's no justification for in the released official map. My understanding has always been that satellites are directional, just as you have to angle your satellite TV dish to get best reception, so does the INMARSAT satellite have to angle to get optimal communication. As far as the copyright image vs. the "free" German one, I wasn't making a claim for inclusion of the NY graphic here, in fact I noted above that it's copyrighted and at least partly speculative about possible remaining fuel so not really a candidate. I do think it's much "better" than the German map though, and that the German map should not be used in any case, which is what started this topic to begin with. The German map offers nothing new, doesn't cite known sources underlying its many circles, and in fact is less well labeled. At this point, sticking with the official map that we have is the thing to do, since it's (1) officially sourced (2) no copyright issue and (3) doesn't include those unsupportable red rings of "korridor". I also wonder about +- error, which the official (and also NYT) maps seem to not discuss. It seems to be saying it runs precisely along the 40-degre line, which seems too convenient -- it may be rounding to the closest 5 degrees, in which the error would be +- 2.5 degrees, but we don't know that, and we can't create some kind of arbitrary "korridor" just because we think it should be wider to allow for error. By the way, when I used the shorthand "data", I meant the implied data from the satellite underlying the two arcs. So when discussing full circles and wider "korridors", that's the implied "data" created out of thin air by the German editor. As far as the gap, I have my own guess about what that represents having to do with limitations of the satellite, but since I'm unsure I won't elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The copyright map I was referring to is the one currently in the article. That's the "official map" since it is the one Malaysian authorities handed out and you are not correct that there is "no copyright issue" with it. By the way, everybody (except perhaps you) knows that the corridors over Africa in the German map don't actually mean anything either since there's no way the plane could have gotten out that far without refueling. You seem to keep missing the point, which is WHERE IS THE PLANE?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware a government press release maintained copyright! In the U.S. at least, anything produced by the government press release or not, is automatically public domain, and I would assume that's true under international copyright law also, but I don't know that for sure. In any case, the official map was specifically *released to the press for dissemination*, so apparently no issues with including it in Wikipedia, as redistribution was its *intended purpose*... again, if there's some arcane Wiki rule why that's not the case, please let me know. I see it's been marked as "Non-Free" by the uploader, but I believe that's likely incorrect. My problem with the German map doesn't stem from any misunderstanding on my part thanks, but rather that it sucks as a useful infographic by including extraneous garbage that is unsupported. Also bad form, because bad info tends to be taken as fact and then added to incrementally by others and the problem grows. If it's bad data, or based on bad data, it shouldn't be there, even if we can deduce that the Africa portion etc. isn't meaningful. We have the arcs as defined by INMARSAT. Until/if they say more, expanding on those (including closing the gap) is irresponsible. Yes, where is the plane is of course the real question. But as far as this proposed inclusion of the German creation, the answer is no. Maybe someone could come up with a passable public domain version of what the NYT did, which would be an acceptable compromise. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here the fuel estimation stuff is mind-breaking to me: how exactly the fuel range is calculated in this case? And what criteria does Boeing use to calculate the fuel range of its aircraft (what altitude, speed)? I presume that the best starting point would be the fuel amount at the moment of disappearance, but even then some parameters would be arbitrary (i.e. the altitude, for example, would apparently be taken as the most fuel-efficient one, which looks like the worst scenario here). Brandmeister^talk 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what makes any fuel estimation speculative. It all depends how the plane was flying during those 7 hours, at what altitude and speed, what sort of maneuvers it may have done that burned fuel, if there was fuselage damage that would create drag, etc. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that in a case like this there's also the question of what you count as the "moment of disappearance". It sounds like the UFO is now being treated as almost definitely MH370 but it's obviously possible to assume it's not and use the time and location when the transponder was disabled. There's also the fact there were likely multiple pings each with their own possible location. I presume investigator are integrating this data but I haven't seen it made public. Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the above discussion in entirety but while Hilo48 is correct we should not spectulate, the fact of the matter is we do have the map in the article with the gap between the northern and southern. The first time I saw the map (not here) I wondered what the gap was and from this discussion so do others. The only things I could think of were either it would have contacted a diff satellite which still seems most likely or that these areas have already been searched (but the gap seems too big for that) or that there's something I'm not understanding about how they determine distance from tge satellite. Obviously my speculation is irrelevant but we should try to find any RS discussion of the gap as its likely people reading this article would be just as unsure. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Whilst the map may not be based on raw data only available to the authorities, I think that it is close enough approximation for our purposes and can be used. The investigators will be defining the search area by eliminating outlying data, so locations outside of where the fuel can take it will have been removed as extraneous – in-flight fuelling can only be provided by air forces. The maximum distance that can be travelled is factual (because the plane's fuel is finite), as is the distance of the ping from the satellite (because light speed is a constant as is the position of the satellite relative to the earth).

  It's unfortunate that there was only one satellite to hear the pings, because it's impossible to establish the position of an object in 3 dimensions when you have data on one dimension – the surface of the earth is the only delimitation for this data, and the dots on the arc are the distance at which the satellite ping intersects with the earth's (or ocean's) surface. The arc will have been so described by the 4 or 5 pings it received. If the data were continuous, it wouldn't be just a series of dots but the full arc. The margin of error in the distances in the range calculation is probably of the order of 300 miles, adjusting for possible variations in altitude and fuel use etc. The satellite distance may have a margin of error of maybe 3 miles, being the range in possible altitudes adopted by the plane's pilot. It may be possible for investigators to make further interpolations of data, but we do not have this data. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So what additional data is it based on? What is the source? We already have the released map which is clear and concise. The German map is a mess in a few ways already discussed above. As far as the surface of the earth being the only delimiter, I don't believe that's true. The variable look-angle of the satellite and the width/arc of its antenna coverage are also delimiters. You also say "The arc will have been so described by the 4 or 5 pings it received. If the data were continuous, it wouldn't be just a series of dots but the full arc." This is just wrong, according to the description accompanying the officially released arcs. Those arcs do not represent extrapolation or interpolation of multiple pings over time. They specifically state that they relate to the 8:11 AM final ping only. And the arcs represent uncertainty as to a point source at that single point in time, not movement over the time when other pings were received. If you have an authoritative source to the contrary, please provide it.

The German circle map is more scientific than the arc map from the NY Times and therefore should be included in this article.

There is no justification for the gap in the semi-circle in the map released by the Malaysian government. (That is where the NYT map came from) You will also notice that the Malaysian map cuts off the far southern end of the arc for no apparent reason.

The satellite only knows the distance to the airplane. There is no way that it could know the direction. The satellite does not have individual directional antennas that it points at every signal source. Satellites are as no-maintenance as possible which means that they have few if any moving parts.

I know that the last paragraph is in contradiction to the WaPo article. I have an amateur radio license and I have bounced radio signals off of satellites, so I put my experience above that of the WaPo reporters.

Secondly, whatever I am wrong about will not justify the gap in coverage between Viet Nam and Malaysia. I assert that this is wishful thinking by Malaysian officials and has nothing to do with satellite data. (Why would you build a satellite that has strange gaps in its coverage?)

The only way that the satellite could know the distance to the airplane is if the satellite sent a query to the airplane and then the airplane replied. So I am assuming that this communication protocol is how the system works until somebody tells me otherwise. The German map has two circles for error in position. That alone tells me that it is a more accurate map than the NYT map. One basis for the error (distance between circles) could be uncertainties in the time that it would take the aircraft system to process the message and reply. Another basis would be the shadow of the sphere on the Earth. (The satellite does not know the altitude of the plane. The inner circle would be its max altitude.)

The NYT map should still be included in the article. It is the one that has been most viewed in the news. {I am going to call the arcs in the map, sausages.} The outer skin/limit of the sausages is not based on predicted remaining fuel. The plane was being queried every 60 minutes, so after the last query it could only have traveled for 60 minutes at most, so they used the maximum airplane speed to draw the boundary. 20 minutes is just a random reference time period.

Becalmed (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You say the German map is more "scientific", yet it doesn't label the circles, doesn't state the width of the corridor or how it was even derived, and elaborates/extends on the INMARSAT-sourced arcs without explanation. And just because the German map includes a "band"/corridor does not make it more accurate, unless it specifies how it arrived at that error band. It just has the *appearance* of accuracy... "truthiness" as Colbert would say. Until INMARSAT or another authoritative source elaborates, we have no basis for changing the released map. I think it's revealing that INMARSAT hasn't issued a statement detailing any discrepancies in the map released by the Malaysian government. As far as the southern arc being cut off, you don't know that, it could be that it only runs to the map edge, but because it's only open ocean no margin was deemed helpful there. Lots of assumptions being made. Too many. The existing map is not ideal, but the best and best-sourced that we have at the moment. You say the NYT graphic should be included, but I don't believe it can be used due to copyright? 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The German map is more scientific because it is based on the speed of light being a constant. That is my only assumption. Every other argument has all sorts of crazy assumptions. (You are probably right about copyright. I have no opinion on that.) Becalmed (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The plane positions are the same in both maps. (Same radius) I am just saying that some parts of the circle were excluded for non-scientific purposes in one map. Becalmed (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Further mention of directionality: "Inmarsat executives told the media that the signals did not include altitude and location, but the DIRECTION and timing could be used to approximate the plane’s position." http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/15/airc-m15.html This is in line with the NYT and WaPo statements. Trying to remember where I've seen others, but it's hard finding amid all the various stories on this right now. It's been discussed that the satellite adjusts its look-angle until reception/transmission is optimized. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority is a common logical fallacy [16] The number of journalists that you have found copying each other doesn't prove anything. You are not required to take a single science class to get a journalism degree, so why do you think that they know anything about the operation of satellites? Becalmed (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority? No, not at all. I'm citing sources, something Wikipedia encourages. From the guidelines, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I'm not claiming it's *necessarily* correct, I'm claiming it's from credible published sources, as opposed to a German wiki editor's unsubstantiated beliefs. I realize journalists are fallible, but note that it's attributed to Inmarsat executives directly, not just a journalist's belief. Other journalists published similar explanations independently. Multiple publications based on Inmarsat executive comments establishes verifiability. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are no quotes attributed to Inmarsat executives in the article that you quoted. Everything is just the journalist's belief. This is not science. It is the usual uneducated journalist making thing up. Becalmed (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said there was a direct quote, I said it was attributed to Inmarsat execs, which it was. It wasn't "made up", it was a paraphrase of their statements. Could a mistake have crept in? Sure, bit it's attributed nonetheless, and is consistent with other journalists' stories. Likewise, your empty claims and the German map are not "science" either. If you doubt the journalism, produce your own established verifiable sources that contradict them. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The other thing that you have to swallow is that the satellite company is saying that "We know where you are, except for that whole North/South thing." How does the satellite point an antenna, then? "And if you are are near the equator, we can't see you at all." Becalmed (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Who's making things up now? You've created direct quotes out of thin air based on your assumptions and limited knowledge. That's about as far from science as you can get. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, found it much more explicitly worded here, now the 4th source: "Based on the hourly connections with the plane, described by a U.S. official as a "handshake," the satellite knows at what angle to tilt its antenna to be ready to receive a message from the plane should one be sent. Using that antenna angle, along with radar data, investigators have been able to draw two vast arcs, or "corridors" ..." http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3364021.shtml 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This page shows the Inmarsat coverage. The gap in the arc that had been published is where Inmarsat IOR and POR overlap. For the first couple of hours or so MH370 was inside that area and it's likely both IOR and POR could see the ACARS pings. After that, only IOR saw them. MH370 had enough fuel for eight hours. The flight was planned for 6.5 hours and they had a 1.5 hour safety margin. The last ping was received eight hours into the flight. This picture shows Australia's radar coverage. Australia has said they have not seen MH370. That picture also shows the possible range of MH370 but it seems to include a safety margin for decent and landing. If you remove that margin then MH370 may well have flown south-southwest skirting the edge of Australia's radar coverage and intersected IOR's 40 degree circle to the south shortly before it ran out of fuel. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If IOR and POR can see the same spot on Earth, shouldn't that area be double strong and not ever eliminated from the map? If your theory was correct about the IOR and POR overlap being eliminated from the NYT map, a much larger area would be missing from the arc on the Malaysian map. No, the Malaysians drew the map haphazardly and the radius to IOR is the only part that you should pay attention to. (Your satellite map should be included in the article, though) Becalmed (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wait! I see what you are saying. You are saying that they cut off the East end of the circle on the assumption that if the airplane was there, it would have been picked up by both satellites and not just IOR. I don't know. That seems like an assumption that I would not be willing to bet the farm on. It still doesn't explain why they cut off the southwest end of the arc and extended the northwest part past the service range of the airplane. Becalmed (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It was previously asserted in this thread that "the arcs come from antenna directions". I now believe that is not in fact true, the satellite's "antenna" is effectively 360 degrees, and Marc Kupper is on the right track here. I believe "The cutoff due east of the sub-satellite point is likely due the fact that the transmissions would also potentially be received by Inmarsat’s Pacific Ocean Region satellite at that point, and if they weren’t, then that region would be ruled out." In other words, the cutoff has nothing to do with the "antenna position" of the Inmarsat 3F1 satellite located over the Indian Ocean, it has to do with the fact the Pacific satellite could also see that area and because it didn't see anything that area has been cut off. As for the other side, while "It's possible that the boundaries to the north and south have been established similarly by the boundaries of Inmarsat’s Atlantic Ocean Region satellite coverage... they may instead be based on available fuel, rather than the satellite measurements per se." I've invited the Germans to add the range of the Pacific satellite as this neatly explains the cut-off of Vietnam, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The rationale for the gap makes sense, if a Pacific satellite's coverage intersected and it was known that no signal was received by it. Though that's still speculative. Likewise the furthest north and south limits could be delimited by an Atlantic satellite coverage intersection, but that's also speculation. The author at your link suggests they could be delimited by available fuel also. This part is not only speculative, but the northern and southern tips are not equidistant from the center as they would be if delimited by available fuel. In fact, the map he includes overlays an estimated fuel range circle, with the northern arc extending well beyond it. Whatever the reasoning might be, the known arcs of locus are limited at both ends, I think that's the main takeaway. I've seen several different overlays of estimated fuel ranges with different diameters. Any attempt at that should source Boeing data on maximum range with the documented fuel load, less estimated fuel use up to point of last countact. Which is not for amateurs. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's important to note that the Inmarsat 3F1 has several directional "wide spot" beams it can use, not just a single global beam. If you go to the following link that shows that particular satellite's beam coverage areas, and choose "EastHemi" at top, that approximates the footprint the arcs fall into. I think this is key to understanding. As far as the Germans adding a Pacific satellite range, that's guessing and groping in the dark by amateurs, not sufficient for Wikipedia. May be true, may not. http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?norad=27513 74.116.173.2 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

While the analysis you just presented here was developed in the brightest of sunshine? Isn't the Wikipedia community in general largely "amateur"? If you want an encyclopedia written by professionals you may be in the wrong place. The Germans are trying to the same job we're supposed to be doing: write an encyclopaedia. Unless there is a demonstrable problem with their work, and I don't see one yet, I say fine effort, Wikipedians.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a stunningly obtuse interpretation of my comments. Edited by amateurs, yes, but original research by amateurs acceptable in articles here, no, absolutely not. The various incarnations of the German map is a series of amateurs grasping at straws based on guesses later informed by reality, but still not completely so. The comments I've made have been on the talk page, and never did I suggest inclusion of them in the article, as the German map has been. It's interesting that you fail to comment on the Inmarsat 3F1 directional beams documented at the site I linked, after your claim of no directionality. The silence is deafening. The preceding being offered in support of the existing officially released map being fine and correct as-is, not in an attempt to edit anything regarding this into the article itself. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It is true that "the Inmarsat 3F1 has several directional 'wide spot' beams it can use, not just a single global beam." However, in this case evidently Immarsat only uses the global beam for these “pings” since otherwise we would have seen more areas ruled out of consideration (e.g. "1000 miles west of Perth" would not be bandied about as the most likely spot). At issue is whether our Germans compatriots are so clueless their work cannot be used and we have to use copyrighted material, material I further believe is too exact since it presents a thin red line as if the "corridor" of possibility is only mile wide.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The "most likely" west of Perth spot conjecture you mention is completely separate from the hard map data that's been released. The EastHemi directional beam matches up quite well with the limits of the published arcs, and coincides with comments about direction from Inmarsat at the time of release of the map. There is no actual evidence that you've cited that "only" the global beam was used. None. It's wishful thinking at this point. And what is the source of the supposed copyright claim on something that was released for general distribution? The endless revisions of the German map have only more and more closely resembled the official one, eliminating the need for it at all. The fuel-range circle on it is still completely undocumented/unsourced/unlabeled, and coming up with something that does not involve original research will be a challenge. Also, the "corridor" verbiage has been substituted with "locus" in the article here for greater clarity. And, of course, their map is still in German. As far as the width of the arcs, you may be on to something, but what you state as your belief is not adequate for inclusion. Only verifiable info on actual error range from a reliable source (not opinion or conjecture) would allow showing a specified width. So... far, far from any basis for inclusion in this article as preferable over the existing one. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the south and east ends of the position arcs line up with the limits of the Inmarsat beam antenna map that you linked to. We would have to assume that the satellite knows which antenna it received the signal on. That is not that big of a leap. Thanks for providing the link. Becalmed (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that. Yes, it sounds like the satellite uses the directional beam that provides the optimal signal, and that's what allows them to get a direction, or at least a directional swath. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The satellites use their global antenna for the pings. Consider dropping a pebble into a pond. You see an expanding ring. If there's a rock sticking out of the pond it will reflect part of that ring back. If you measure how long it takes from the pebble hitting the water to the reflecting getting back to where the pebble hit then you know how far away the rock is but not in which direction it is.

Inmarsat pings are similar. The satellite sends a ping on the global antenna. All terminals that receive the ping reply back with their ID code. When a reply is received by the Inmarsat satellite knows how far away that terminal is based on the time delay. The quickest replies come from terminals directly under the satellite and the slowest are from terminals at the horizon (from the satellite's perspective). Once they know how quickly a terminal that's easily converted into the distance from the satellite. The distance is converted into a circle or ring that's centered at a spot directly underneath the satellite.

Some pictures shown in the news have degree marks for the rings with MH370 somewhere on the 40 degree line. That's misleading. From the Inmarsat's perspective, the horizon is just 8.59 degrees from straight down. (8.59 degrees is computed by 6371 km radius for Earth, 35786 km altitude for Geostationary orbit. Add 6371+35786 shows the orbit is 42157 km above the center of the Earth. That gives you a right triangle with the right angle at Earth center. The resulting hypotenuse is 42636 km. The sine of (6371 divided by 42636) is 0.148873313 radians which gets converted to 8.53 degrees (rounded to 100ths).

To put 8.59 degrees into perspective, hold your arm straight out with the fingers relaxed but also pointing out. The width of your hand is roughly ten degrees. Thus, from an Inmarsat satellite's perspective, the Earth is just under two handwidths wide.

Now that we have gotten the math out of the way, :-), the Inmarsat system tries to keep track of where all of their terminals are so that when there's a request to talk to a terminal they know which satellite, and possibly which beam antenna on the satellite, has the best chance of talking with the terminal. As it is, I believe I read that all ACARS traffic is done on the global antenna as it's both cheaper and they don't need the bandwidth that the beam and narrow beam antenna give you.^[17] See Inmarsat#Coverage about the beams though unfortunately, that section does not have any citations. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't really put the 40° on the map into perspective, thanks. Just an idea I had about why the arcs may end where they do: what we know is that the satellite over the Indian Ocean obtained an angle (from perpendicular to earth) for the signal and the time was used to calculate distance. Since the earth isn't a perfect sphere, plotting the same angle & distance from the known point the locations would be at different altitudes. It's possible that the arcs correspond to points in space (mathematically-speaking) that are within a reasonable altitude (0ft-40000ft/12000m) above earth's surface for a passenger aircraft. Of course this is just a plausible idea and (like most of this conversation) is just speculation, thanks to the lack of info about MH370 released by investigators. AHeneen (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the angle referenced in the map given by authorities (40°) is the elevation angle from the Earth location. Directly beneath the satellite is 90° straight above. However, the elevation angle is given from the earth location relative to vertical at that point. The elevation angle is not the angle from the satellite's perspective nor is it a right angle from any point on the earth's surface. Rather it is derived from the satellite's location relative to a tangent line at the location on the earth's surface. The arc also corresponds to the "East Hemi beam" ([18]) for the satellite, so maybe that's the beam that received the signal, not the global beam. AHeneen (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree everything seems to point to it being sourced from the EastHemi beam. Marc has a guess about it being global instead, but no reliable source for that. Marc, how to you reconcile the apparent comments regarding directionality from the Inmarsat execs that have been cited in the press? 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia's Transport Minister is showing a map of the northern position arc and it extends all the way to the Caspian Sea! http://huff.to/1idJKnN Becalmed (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What I have been trying to find out is, Where are the circuit breakers for ACARS. Pilot/consultants on news reports give two answers: (1) a panel located immediately behind the captain’s seat and (2) an equipment rack located at a level below the cockpit, accessible by a trap door observable from passenger compartment (really?). Another question: Is there a separate circuit breaker for the “ping” transmitters? Paul Niquette (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the other hourly pings can be of help. Everyone is focussing on the final ping but the earlier pings could be of use. They could create an arc for each ping and then put them all together to give the possible location for the plane each hour after it disappeared from radar. That knowledge together with an estimate of the speed of the plane could narrow down it's flight path. Which might give a heads up to where it ended up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.124.10 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is banging on about "the last ping" and happy to accept the unnamed "experts" red arcs. Who made the red arcs? What were their methods? Where is the raw data? Where are the missing pings? There are many people apart from those officially assigned to investigate with knowledge of wave propagation who would like access to the raw ping data. Calculating possible locations based on ping data is complicated and involves consideration of satellite location, height, wavelength, speed of radio waves through various mediums such as rain and wind, signal strength, doppler effect. Each ping should produce it's own arc and an estimate of plane speed would narrow down possible directions of travel. What if the last ping was sent just after the plane crashed in open water and was in the process of being inundated but still powered? Radio waves travel much slower through water. This would bring the red arcs much closer to the satellite. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So what are the chances of an aircraft pinging as it's being inundated? (... and you think doppler makes a significant contribution here?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The last ping tells where and when the plane last heard from - where it was earlier is less important. As the satellite is some 22,500 miles high, I doubt a short depth of water would have slowed the radio signal down all that much, and the signal would not have travelled far through water before being very much degraded (the satellites aren't fitted for sonar). The arcs were produced by Inmarsat - the satellite operators. Just because the other pings haven't been released publicly, doesn't mean those calculations aren't available to the investigations. Besides, that doesn't really help Wikipedia - WP only requires and uses information published from reliable sources, not what-ifs or OR. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the other ping data should be released, not just the final one. Lynbarn, you say other pings are less important, but actually they would give hints about direction of travel that, taken together, would narrow the possible end points. All data should be released so "crowd-sourced" analysis can be done, just as is being done with satellite shots. I'm not sure how much of that is due to security concerns about capabilities, but in general, the more info that is released, the more the billions of creative minds of the world can be applied to it, and the more likelihood of a breakthrough. I'm assuming the arcs come from analysis by Inmarsat, but nobody has ever said, nor how the ends of the arcs were delimited. And all sorts of variations on those arcs have appeared in news media graphics without explaining why they differ. The NTSB needs a PIO to discuss these issues, and release whatever can be released. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the source for range of the plane with 7-8 hours of flight time? Currently the fuel range shown is 4800 km, but the Boeing 777 specifications claim typical cruise speed to be 905 km/h, which would make the range about 6800 km, maybe more to west as with trade winds. The plane maximum range is 14 000 km as it is Extended Range model, so the range depends on the available fuel. Puuska (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Search for Malaysian jet: Pentagon spends $2.5 million; India deploys Super Hercules aircraft>> New satellite images show possible debris(Lihaas (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).

Present / Past Tense of Passengers / Crew

Hello - I am simply wondering whether the tenses of the status of passengers and crew should agree. Thank you. KarenBelton (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Karen Belton 3/21/14

Do you have any examples? it depends on context, they were the crew and passengers of Flight 370 rather are as the Flight has clearly ended somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Image gallery

Hi someone deleted the image gallery I made of the jet, and linked to a WP non-policy page as justification! Please help! 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Image dos and don'ts, please justify your reason to include the image gallery TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, you've already been informed that guidance page is not policy (it says so right at the top FYI)...so please point to some policy that says galleries aren't allowed (if you can)... anyways more to the point you're deleting images of the aircraft in question, that have proper CC licenses- I guess I shouldn't be surprised you've already been reported once for editing errors on the MH370 page, I'm happy to reopen that if you think it will help 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, when I replaced the image of the cockpit with the image of the cabin, you reverted it and didn't bother to replace the cockpit image... so in your zeal to revert all of my edits you're actually making the page worse, and not just maintaining status quo, I hope you realize that 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you were talking about there, but is says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

wow another non-policy source you've found so far... I guess you must really hate image galleries huh? Anyways until you can find someone else to agree with you on principle I think I'm going to continue being bold, its interesting that your edit summaries act like you're dealing with vandalism, when in fact you're making editorial judgments (and you've been called on this before within the last week). So from now on I'd like to see some policy-based edit summaries, or its off to the admin noticeboard with you (again)72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, why does this article need an image gallery? It's about a single plane. In my view, the images that we do have are better placed in the individual relevant sections. I can't see how multiple images of the aircraft itself would have any value. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah I tried adding inline images originally, but those all got reverted too, I'll see what i can figure out going forward72.35.149.153 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What a conceited person you are, it's about a single plane as per above.... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

72.35.149.153, whilst i appreciate your efforts, ask yourself "What does a gallery of old images of the missing plane actually ADD to this article?" Other than one in the infobox (and even that isn't necessary, although custom suggests it is useful), I don't see how they would add anything of value. There are many sites where galleries of aircraft types - and even particular aircraft - are encouraged, but not Wikipedia. This article has already restricted the number of images of the search fleet to two, to avoid the article getting too cluttered. Now, if you had some of the plane SINCE it went missing... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I wish... anyways I can generally agree with you, especially on the cleanup of the search vehicle section, which was very out of control for a while with images and terrible formatting. However keep in mind, we've always had in fact, TWO pictures of the aircraft, one was just of the interior (cockpit). Like I said before, this other editor who is spending all their time reverting my edits, has in fact removed the cockpit image and is now deleting it when I try to restore it (this is due to me moving it around and them not realizing I didn't originate it, which says a lot about some folks understanding of good faith editing). I'm probably going to be blocked for this whole fiasco but I hope the rest of you guys whose edits are of a "higher caliber" can at least get things back to status quo, with the cockpit image included.

And now to get on my high horse for a second, I hope people check out the commons pages for the search as well as 9M-MRO... there are tons of interesting images on those pages, like images of the actual search plane crews etc... also some great shots of 9M-MRO. Its a little weird that we spend all this time updating the maps for this article, but we are not willing to update or change the pictures. Anyways I guess I think that images of the actual airframe are more notable than the anonymous shots of P-3s and various frigates, and first priority should always be to have pictures of the plane itself, before we use anything else, but I'm willing to accept i'm in the minority on that one 72.35.149.153 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points. Thanks for discussing. Everyone needs to follow the edit warring guidelines and discuss until WP:CONSENSUS is reached. There's no rush, so take the time to discuss and don't revert. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We dont need an image gallery as we already have a commons link in the article for readers to follow. I am sure if the aircraft is found then we can add some free post-missing images, somebody needs to find 9M-MRO first. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tomnod!

Hello Everyone! Is it a good idea to add information about Tomnod in the Search paragraph, because I think Tomnod is the "public search" while the ships and fighter jets are the "private search" WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above and I dont think it gained a consensus to be added. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tomnod must be added because it did contributed to new leads currently being investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.93.63 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Milborne! Were you talking about the See Also post? If so, they were talking about Tomnod in the See also.... section. However, I was talking about including the info in the article itself. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, tomnod must be added in the search paragraph. This artikel today is labeled "This article documents a current event.", so it not "far to early" to add this information. And it is an ongoing, worldwide crowdsouce effort in this search. Tomnod does not need to actually find the plane to make it into wikipedia, it IS part of the search right now. Even the official international search of at least 20.3.and 21.3 is aimed at "two objects...had been spotted by a satellite". The images in the news that show the two objects IS imagery from Digitalglobe. The same images that are online on tomnod. I qoute 71.20.250.51 from the "See Also"-Talk: "if one can argue that this in somehow not related to this article, please do so"79.241.175.207 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We cant list very agency or organisation or volunteers that are part of the search particularly unofficial amateurs, in the unlikely event they find something then that would be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

File:MH370 last ping corridors.jpg

File:MH370 last ping corridors.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That map was released for distribution, and that's how it's being used. Fair Use. I also haven't seen any evidence that it was authored by the Malaysian Government, only that it was released by them at one of their press conferences - it may have been authored by Inmarsat or the NTSB. Also, the proposed substitute map is not a duplicate of the info in the original, but rather makes new assumptions without a reliable source, as has been discussed elsewhere here. The copyright-disputed map should not be deleted. See my further comments on the image's Talk page. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In a statement just released by the Malaysian Transport Minister, the map has been confirmed as a product of the U.S. Government and so therefore public domain:

"Upon receiving the raw data, the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used. Initial results were received on Thursday 13th March at approximately 13:30, but it was agreed by the US team and the investigations team that further refinement was needed, so the data was again sent back to the US. The results were received at approximately 14:30 on Friday 14th March, and presented to the investigations team at a high-level meeting at 21:00 on Friday." [19] 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to mention the image or that the image was part of the American presentation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As if they would present a screen full of digits? Of course it was presented in map form. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you know the Americans presented a map its not mentioned in the quote and "data" could be anything, also if they did use a map how do we know the image in question was the same one or has been produced by the Americans. All we need is a reliable source that the map in question was produced by an American government agency. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox photograph

It looks like there is a slow edit war over the photograph. Can we please stick with the original for the time being and discuss any change on this talk page? Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I actually prefer the 2012 image without the landing gear, as it's larger, clearer, and has less distracting detail in the background. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Agree  Also, the (current 2011) photo requires adding extraneous detail to caption: ... at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport. —71.20.250.51 07:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC) [Now that the caption has changed, it doesn't matter to me either way.]—71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree You don't need to put at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport. It also looks clearer and there is no need to change. I would like to encourage the IP user to create a Wikipedia account because it looks like he is experienced... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

there's no reason we have to name the airport in the infobox caption, and anyways I like the original more for what its worth. I think the gear down almost looks better, and that image definitely looks "more like" a 777, whatever that means... I don't think planform views are that valuable in most cases and the new image really pushes in that direction, although I think it would be great to add to the body 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Starting to get a little opinionated, lets leave it as it is TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt an agree, two disagrees, and a comment counts as consensus... anyways on a side note, imagine how awesome WP would be if the "experienced" editors were the IPs and not the other way around...! 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not saying that the image can't be changed. If pushed, I'd say that the other image is probably the better one. So, let's stop warring and talk about the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - To be honest this really isn't a big issue compared to the other issues on this page. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

then please stop reverting my edits trying to fix the problem by using both images!!! if we have two images and empty text blocks, there is literally no reason to only use one 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should have both images. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• comment I have a slight preference for the 2012 image, but not enough to change it back. The shorter caption is my preference though. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Using both?

Please stop removing the alternate image of the aircraft until there is consensus. Reading above it seems like this has been controversial in the past, so the easiest way to solve it is to use both. Arguments that "we don't need both" are inapplicable for properly sourced and notable works, using existing formatting, which of course any image of this plane qualifies. Furthermore having multiple views of the airplane in question is far more encyclopedic than images of aircraft types involved in the search. If there is room for it, there is no reason to reduce the amount of encyclopedic info we present. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thu current infobox image was the first one used, so it should remain displayed until there is consensus to change it. Remember, it's WP:BRD, not BREWEWEWFPPBPD! Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I've always advocated for keeping that one too in the infobox, what I'm talking about is adding additional images in-line, like the one that was causing the earlier mentioned edit war. Anyways I crawled my dumb ass over to commons and realized there are like two dozen 9M-MRO already existant, so I took some of the gems and made a gallery for us, hopefully that will make everyone happy 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude, Wikipedia isn't a museum. And I have never seen an airplane crash article with a gallery... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Past vs. present tense (generally speaking) and Capt Zaharie Shah and First Lt. Fariq Hamid

I added that pilots did not request to fly together: [20]

But I need to find source if they like[d] or dislike[d] each other? Do [did] they get along? Do [did] they respect each other? Also, what tense should I use? I think past-tense should be used, since they are presumed deceased by now. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is the rostering policy for Malaysia Airlines? Are pilots and co-pilots usually permitted such requests? Why is that in any way relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can close this it was raised before and without information on the rostering policy of the airline is not notable or relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If they didn't want to fly with each other, then there could have been cockpit tension and a problem with the third variable: aviate, navigate, communicate --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So you have a reliable source that crews always pick each other ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reference to the relevance of Crew resource management in general, to aviation incidents and accidents, in general, may be perfectly valid. But without any actual evidence whatsoever, or even expert opinion from a reliable source, that this was a relevant factor here, it is simply speculation and so cannot be considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

True, in the absence of: I am seeking a source for: "I don't not like to be paired with this crewmember" list. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If you find one you are welcome to share it here, but it's significance may still be open to question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Online Source of Information About MA370

Out of all of the seemingly infinite online discussions about this tragedy, the messageboard that is most well either following or checking on periodically is the Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost thread on the PPRuNe Web Page's Rumours & News section. Despite the noise that typifies Internet discussion groups, there is a lot of useful information, ideas, links, figures, and other background information to be found by wading through the posts. Paul H. (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Paul H.: Pprune is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia, however, it is a useful research tool, as often there are links from Pprune to reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that Pprune is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia. I was just suggesting it can be a useful research tool as the discussions on Pprune often contain links to and citations for reliable sources that people can consult. Although Pprune is not a WP:RS, it can help interested parties find reliable sources and understand their limitations. It also highlights the complexity and controversial aspects of the subject of this article. Paul H. (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese satellite spots wreckage??

[21] Very interesting, was spotted apparently 2 days after the Australian find... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the ABC website now. That's two excellent sources. Definitely worth adding. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I will try to find it TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also been on BBC. The object looks very similar (and similar size) to the larger of the two seen before. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Radio transcript

I have removed the recent addition of an alleged transcript from the Daily Telegraph, it is probably misleading to add what has been said by other sources to be a not very accurate translation from English to Mandarin and back to English, we are not in a hurry in my opinion we can wait for an accurate English transcript as the Telegraph one is possibly misleading, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Communication table

Presumably the original communication would have been in English; we have an English translation of a Mandarin translation. Does that tell us anything useful? The original conversation would most likely have said things like 'Hold at ...', 'Cleared takeoff...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Gone already! Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Map of locations

This seems inaccurate. (3) was reported to be 120km SW of (2) but here it appears due west. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The pilots didn't ask to fly together

This has just reappeared in the article, and is referenced, but on it's own is unsupported within the article. It should be removed or extended to explain why this comment is significant. Me? I'd remove it. There is as yet no evidence to suggest which, if either, of the crew had anything to do with planning the incident.Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove. I think it should be added he was engaged to marry Air Asia Captain Nadira Ramli: [22] --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Do we need a list of all his previous liaisons? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP needs to be considered - even if it is in the public domain through published sources, it may not be appropriate for WP. Lynbarn (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So it seems that we have agreed it is wholly irrelevant. I'd suggest that any further discussion over the physical attractiveness, or otherwise, of any passengers or crew, should see this entire thread hastily binned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

His life was going places and he will have married a wide-body captain. This makes him an unlikely less likely candidate for sabotage. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no place in this article for any speculation about the pilot's marital plans, unless these has been raised as being in some way relevant to the disappearance of the aircraft by a WP:RS. This is not a discussion forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Pprune is over there! Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this forum a reliable one with good discussion and good sources? --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

if you wish to improve the encyclopedia, you are most welcome. but i'm sorry that we don't indulge speculation. Not much, anyway. I'm sure there are sites and discussion boards out there where u can discuss theories, suppositions and speculation to your heart's content, and would wish you the best of luck in finding your joy. rgds, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find that the Pilot was on one schedule and the co-pilot on another that happened to coincide at that particular week or month depending how the airline rostered its crews. The same applies to the cabin crew. One roster ascends and the other descends so the crew do not work together for long periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If true, this sounds very ordinary and wholly conventional. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline for search

I suggest the following over-all timeline. In case you like it, for how long do we want to update it? Soerfm (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Date	Search	Investigation	Public response
March (UTC)
8	Saturday: Malaysia Airlines confirmed they lost contact with flight MH370 at 2:40 am local time (later corrected to 1:30 am). An international search and rescue mission was mobilized.
9	The search area for the rescue mission was expanded as the aircraft might have turned back.	Four suspect passengers were investigated in a terror link.
10	Test reveals that an oil slick on the South China Sea did not come from Flight 370. Ten Chinese satellites were now utilized in the search.		Malaysia Airlines announced it will give 31,000 yuan (app. $5,000 US) to the relatives of each passenger.
11		Terror link grew cold after Malaysian police found that two of the men, who travelled on stolen passports, were probably not terrorists.
12	Chinese satellite images showed possible debris from Flight 370 in the South China Sea		Beijing criticized Malaysia for inadequate answers regarding Flight 370.
13	Search was expanded to the Indian Ocean.
14		Investigation concluded that Flight 370 was still under the control of a pilot after it lost contact with ground control.
15	The last satellite transmission from Flight 370 was traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia.	Malaysian police searched the homes of both of the plane's pilots in an inside-plot link.
16	The number of countries involved in the search and rescue operation reached 25.
17
18	China started a search operation in a northern region of its own territory.		Relatives of Chinese passengers are threatening to hunger strike for lack of information from Malaysian authorities.
19		Files deleted from the home flight simulator of the captain were tried restored.	People came together for an interfaith ceremony for the flight.
20	Aircraft and ships were dispatched to locate two objects seen by satellite floating in the southern Indian Ocean. Number of countries in search reached 26
21	Search focused on an area 3,000 km southwest of Perth, Australia.

Color-code: alternating weeks. Source.

While I like the idea things like March 15 having "The last satellite transmission from missing Flight 370 has been traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia" without mentioning the northern arc are of a concern.

The table would be a bit more compact if the first column was a "Day" column rather than the full date. "Day" may introduce confusion because on Day 10 for example the plane would have been missing for 9 days. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added color-code for every week and name of the month. Soerfm (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That is looking good - I think it should be maintained daily until such time as they find it or call off the search. Need to update the entries to make sure tenses are consistent though - they are all over the place - which is preferred - unlsess there is a wiki style preference, I would go for past tense, Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

another false lead just a container flotsam dont get excited yet --Evensacornevensacorn|talk 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evensacornevensacorn (talk • contribs)

I do support the inclusion of this timeline, very well done! It will explain the efforts by day, and for my documentary on MH370 is also helpfull. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.93.63 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One more support for the search effort timeline! It makes things clear!! 177.42.54.107 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

One problem with this timeline: it could take years for this search to be concluded. Perhaps this timeline should be spun-off as a separate article (eventually; it's fine for now).  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with the guy above on this one. It should either be scraped or put into a separate article TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this article title Dead ends in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Only the last search, the one that actually locates the aircraft, if it occurs, merits appearance in this encyclopedia. The unsuccessful searches are interesting and properly belong in web news sites, not listed here. patsw (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It has already been suggested that a Search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 be created where all this stuff can go, probably a bit early yet as it is hard enough keeping this article in order never mind two. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of images from spy satellites - plane was still flying at sunrise (around 6 am)

not helpful

Sunrise occurred between 5:50 am and 6:20 am at the presumed latitude [23][24] of the crash landing. Since the plane disappeared at 1:30, the plane's last few hours were in daylight. After daybreak, spy satellites should have compiled thousands of gigapixel/terapixel images that could be stitched together to identify every wide-body plane above the Indian Ocean. By a process of elimination, MH-370 could be identified. I am looking for a source that discusses this. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC) UFOABT - you seem to be in the habit of inventing outlandish or controversial theories and then announcing to us all that you are looking for a source. Most editors here, and on Wikipedia in general, go completely the other way - find what the sources say and then construct a theory, or at least a summary (no matter now conventional), that is supported by the most sources. It seems to be much more productive. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) UFOABT - Can you give me an idea which countries would WANT to watch the desolate areas of the Southern Indian ocean, that border Antartica, with their 10cm pixel resolution Quickbirds? The military has satellite-borne wake sensors that pickup ocean vessels with a specific water signature over vast area - but aircraft tracking in this, and many other areas - is completely redundant - no one flies there. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Desirability of table of communications

On 21 March, ″The Daily Telegraph″ published an English translation of a Mandarin translation of the final 54 minutes of communication between the aircraft and the control tower. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10714907/Revealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html

Radio Transcript

Time (hh:mm:ss) Communication Notes Kuala Lumpur Control Tower 00:36:30 MH370: ATC, this is MH370, good morning MH370 makes contact with the control tower, which typically directs planes by sight from the tower 00:36:30 ATC: Good morning, MH370, This is KL control tower, please remain in A10 32R MH370 directed by air traffic control to stay in a holding position on the airfield before moving on to the runway 00:36:50 MH370: A10, MH370 copies that 00:38:43 ATC: MH370, please get on the runway from 32R A10 MH370 given permission to take its runway starting position from the runway’s “32R A10” entry point before flying 00:38:43 MH370: runway from 32R A10, copy that 00:40:38 ATC: MH370, position 32R, runway ready, permitted to take off. Good night 00:40:38 MH370: position 32R, runway ready, permitted to take off. MH370 copies that. Thank you, goodbye. Cockpit acknowledges clearance to take off and farewells the ground tower before making contact with the next air traffic controller, who uses radar to control the broader air space Kuala Lumpur Airport 00:42:05 MH370: MH370 has left the port 00:42:15 ATC: MH370 position confirmed, flight altitude 180, follow the command and turn right, target IGARI waypoint. The plane’s altitude of 18,000 feet and routing is confirmed and it is instructed to turn toward “Igari”, a navigational waypoint above the sea almost halfway between Malaysia and Vietnam 00:42:40 MH370: Alright, altitude 180, direction IGARI waypoint, MH370 copies that 00:42:52 ATC: MH370, you’ve entered KL Radar 132.6, good night The cockpit is told that it has left the area covered by the Kuala Lumpur Airport tower controllers and is instructed to change to the frequency to that of the succeeding Malaysian air traffic controller 00:42:52 MH370: 132.6, MH370 copies that Kuala Lumpur Radar 00:46:51 MH370: KL ATC, This is MH370 00:46:51 ATC: MH370, please climb to flight altitude 250 Air traffic control gives the plane clearance to ascend to 25,000 feet 00:46:54 MH370: MH370 is climbing to flight altitude 250 00:50:06 ATC: MH370, climbing to flight altitude 350 The cockpit is given clearance to ascend to 35,000 feet 00:50:09 MH370: This is MH370, flight altitude 350 MH370 advises it has now reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet 01:01:14 MH370: MH370 remaining in flight altitude 350 01:01:19 ATC: MH370 01:07:55 MH370: MH370 remaining in flight altitude 350 The cockpit advises it is remaining at 35,000 feet – this is unnecessary but not especially unusual 01:08:00 ATC: MH370 01:19:24 ATC: MH370, please contact Hu Chi Minh City 120.9, good night As the plane approaches Vietnam, Malaysian air traffic controllers advise that the plane should switch to a new frequency controlled by Vietnamese air traffic controllers 01:19:29 MH370: All right, good night In its final known communication, the cockpit – apparently the co-pilot - acknowledges the instruction in relaxed terms rather than with a formal call Transcript based on Mandarin version of English language transcript. Some wording may not be exact.

---

I've just pulled the text above from the article for I feel such a radical change needs to be discussed. I'm off to bed so will comment in due course. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I've already included that in the external links section before. May go to Wikisource, especially considering the article's big size. Brandmeister^talk 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

agree The voracity of the translation has been brought into question by the Malysian authorities and other media too, so we should perhaps hang back until an official transcript is released. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I already mention above in "Radio transcript" that I deleted and challenged the addition of this mainly because it is not accurate and could be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And as an aside commentators are saying that nothing unusual or non-standard appears to have been said, so even if we had the official transcript it may not be notable or relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment:  The relevant information per-square-inch of page space is quite low.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'd suggest that the only notable aspect of this material is it's ordinariness (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As has been said nothing is really relevant from an inacurate transcript with no notable content MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, like in KAL 007 TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mangosteen war

There seems to be an edit war over mangosteens. Yes, there were mangosteens in the cargo hold.  (So?)  This edit summary [25] states: ...there were fears over exploding mangosteens - google it –Okay, the only google reference that I could find relates to "mangosteens exploding in popularity" – which is unlikely to cause an airplane to disappear. Is there a consensus that until a reliable source connects mangosteens to the disappearance, that this is not relevant to the article?  ~Cheers, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've merged the mangosteen mention with that of the batteries as an example of the way in which official information has been released in this case. Feel free to delete the magosteens if you don't like it. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. huge problems with the release of information, again. Context now supplied and cited. Hope this is satisfactory and that it ends the war. All I can say I'm sure glad it's not a durian war instead. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

countries unable to acquire Boeing aircraft due to economic sanctions

Tangential discussion unrelated to the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several nations are disallowed to buy Boeing aircraft due to economic sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Interesting, but irrelevant to this article. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Why irrelevant? There are a handful of countries that want to acquire Boeings, but they cannot acquire them legally. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorist UFOABT is a really interesting read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Page hits

This article has had over 2.8 million visits since it was started [26]. Keep up the good work! WWGB (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, but we should aim for 280 million visits. 8-} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Has the data from previous satellite pings been released?

I have new maps: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-299.html#post8386973 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/satellite-locates-malaysian-flight-370-still-flyingseven-hours-after-takeoff/2014/03/15/96627a24-ac86-11e3-a06a-e3230a43d6cb_graphic.html

Note that the ocean currents will carry things on the surface towards Australia, so it is a good idea to send search airplanes to the east of the supposed crash site. Becalmed (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is known as counterclockwise rotation. It flows toward Austria and towards Maldives and towards Magascar and finally towards Antarc5ica. Sorry my poor mobile keybored typing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Turn entered into system 12 minutes before last voice transmission

This seems to start with NBC. Is it possible that any reliable source for this exists? Is the shadowy source who provided this information any worse than the sources who claim pings to satellites? Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if true, that does not necessarily mean it is a significant piece of information. The B-777 FMC Alternate page [27]lists several possible alternates, giving ETA and fuel remaining. The pilots can also request the latest WX for each of those alternates, just by pushing buttons associated with each one.

Those alternate airports can be installed on that page via satellite up/downlinking, or by manual entry. If alternates were entered on that page, before the last verbal VHF communication, that doesn't necessarily say that it was the result of some nefarious plot by one or both pilots.

My experience on the 777, was that we routinely always had that page loaded with various possible alternates, in case anything suddenly went wrong. We could then select the best possible alternate (considering the nature of our emergency, the winds enroute, the WX at arrival and the fuel remaining), just by punching a couple of buttons.

My question would have to do with the source of that alternate destination information. Are they talking about what was loaded into the FMC alternate page? And, was THAT alternate page included in the routine ACARS reports to the ground stations, via satellites? Until we know for sure what they are talking about, we cannot automatically infer it is valid evidence of some nefarious plot by the cockpit crew. EditorASC (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This was previously discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=600246727#Sharp_left_turn_was_pre-planned

There is a link to a NBC news story. It is my understanding that yes, it was in the last ACARS report and yes, it was the alternate page. I agree that it shows no nefarious intent. Becalmed (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for that info; some discussions are getting archived so rapidly that I am missing some of it; simply don't have enough time to read before its gone. Unfortunately, NBC seems to have removed that information from that link. Kinda getting to be a habit with that so-called "RS" news source. Should put us all on alert as to relying on what NBC has to say about anything, unless we can verify from other, more reputable sources. EditorASC (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's weird. The nytimes has the story, also. I am at 9 out of 10 uses this month, so this is all that I can link to at nytimes. Plus my link address is probably way too long: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry25%23%2Facars&_r=0

I think that they saw the plane on radar during the turn. They saw it make a gentle twenty degree turn. 20 degrees is what the autopilot would do, so maybe that is all that this story is based upon. Becalmed (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

AMSA MH370 Search - Media kit and Newsroom

Although they are primary sources that cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, a couple of interesting web pages are:

1. Australian Maritime Safety Authority Newsroom and 2. Australian Maritime Safety Authority Media kit Paul H. (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used. The main issue is whether you can trust what you see or whether it needs to be confirmed by another, or reported by someone else to show significance. AMSA would be expected to be reliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

AMSA updates and info about chartered bizjets

The AMSA updates make it clear that reports of a Gulfstream GV bizjet being used are wrong. A release says a "Gulfstream" was hired without being specific as to what type of Gulfstream it was, the info that it was a GV was a bit of original research added by an IP in this edit. A subsequent AMSA release stated this was incorrect and the aircraft used was a Global Express. Subsequent releases mention a second bizjet without saying anything about what it is. Any reports about there being a GV and a GLEX may well be based on earlier versions of this article and probably shouldn't be used. YSSYguy (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and I think that the "20 March" bit under Search/Location is getting a bit blog like and could do with a trim, its beginning to look like a mini-version of "Search/International participation". MilborneOne (talk)

Introduction

Isn't it about time that the Intro mentioned the Indian Ocean satellite photos and where the search is now being concentrated? Roundtheworld (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've made a start on adding the recent developments, but it may benefit from some "fettling". Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Map of satellite images of possible debris from MH370.png

Can someone add the new Chinese satellite hit onto this map? (that would be debris #4, 1 being Chinese, 2&3 Australian) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

... and now a French satellite image is being reported by the BBC - no other details as yet. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

[28] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the coordinates? Soerfm (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Batteries

Just a bit of background info to archive IATA Lithium Battery Guidance Document MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So, it's not forbidden by ICAO, to carry these in the cargo hold of a commercial airliner, provided the necessary precautionary steps are taken? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And the quantity carried is also limited, note that there is a few minor exceptions "Prototype or low production" batteries that have not been tested can only be carried on cargo aircraft.MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationalities table

The 15x4 grid (plus header/footer) includes two columns that, with one exception, are the same, and one that contains only one entry. Would this be improved by converting to a 15x2 (combining Malaysian crew and pax, with a footnote - see my sandbox) or 16x2 (extra Malaysia row for crew, again with a footnote) format. I'm happy to do it, but would like to see a consensus first. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You could have two tables, one per your sandbox but labelled passengers and a smaller one for crew. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a separate table for crew, with one having only one row (other than the header), is of value. —sroc 💬 14:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm - P'raps not! :) Lynbarn (talk)

Sorry it sounded better then it looked!! back to Plan A then your original sandbox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks better good work from Lynbarn and tweaks from sroc. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of Families

This has been in the headlines of both NBC news and CNN here in the United States all weekend. To delete this important element of this developing story is like saying there are no victims, only numbers.Prairiegrl (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you want to save space, stop adding three references for every statement. That is unnecessary.50.80.153.55 (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Every minute detail of this event is in NBC and CNN. To report that some families of those missing seek solace in their Buddhist faith [29] is utterly non-notable. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Prairiegrl, the section you inserted:

As anxious relatives in Kuala Lumpur awaited news of missing Flight 370, some found comfort from Buddhist volunteers from the Tzu Chi Foundation, based in Taiwan. While hoping their family members were still alive, families were preparing for the worst.<ref>[http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/buddhist-volunteers-comforting-mh370-families-malaysia-n59541 Buddhist Volunteers Comforting MH370 Families in Malaysia] NBC News 22 March 2014. Retrieved March 22, 2014.</ref>

is too specific, and uses some weasel words and flowery text which don't sit well in Wikipedia. You refer to one religious/belief group, but what about all the others? There may perhaps be a place for general comment perhaps, but it does need some work yet. Remember, WP is not a news medium. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-Notable HA! What is non-notable is this incessant referencing of a tiny piece of minutia, a single and most often poorly written phrase, with three references from various news sources around the globe. In fact, this is a news article as it is, because it merely quotes news sources.Prairiegrl (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it will be notable only if the search and rescue operations are finally ceased, so far it may be a WP:RECENTISM. Australia, that coordinates the operation, vowed the search would go on until "further searching would be futile - and that day is not in sight". Australian Deputy PM Warren Truss specifically said that "at this stage we are planning for it to continue indefinitely, although I recognise that there will be a time at some stage if nothing is discovered where a further re-appraisal will have to be made but we are not even thinking about that at the present time". Brandmeister^talk 12:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the paragraph, which has been inserted and removed several times, isn't written in very encyclopaedic language. However, I believe we can mention Tzu Chi Foundation, which is very notable and important. In fact, we only need on sentence to the effect that the foundation is involved. KISS. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Lots of welfare and support organisations are active in support in the different countries with passengers, to single out one over all the tens of others is undue weight, and as this is also a standard thing in incidents and accidents is not particularly noteworth, so we dont need to mention them. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that two-thirds of passengers are Chinese. The fact that the largest benevolent organisation, from Taiwan, is welcomed with open arms by the PRC catering harmoniously against the backdrop of PRC atheism and the general distrust between Taiwan and PRC. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a significant, reliable source highlighting that as a special difference? Otherwise it's pure original research. In every disaster of this scale some welfare organisation will be doing a bigger job than others, purely because there are more people it can directly help. Please stop making political observations here. HiLo48 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading something in it these last two weeks about Tzu Chi. I'm sure there's a ton in the Chinese press, as there have been items all over local TV about them. You can check out scmp.com. But I can't access it now because my quota is up. But I reiterate, merely the fact that they are there almost exclusively for TWO THIRDS of the passengers should be enough to warrant including their intervention. But tell you what, I'll try and write a sentence for the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact they are good at self-publicity doesnt make them anymore notable then any other welfare or support organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not Chinese and I don't see Buddhist monks every day of the week. Therefore, I am interested in knowing what the Buddhist volunteers are doing with the families.Prairiegrl (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that cynicism is rather unwarranted.

  Do you think any of the countries is likely to have refused to help out if they were asked? They are almost certainly all out of pocket from this as each country will pay for their own participation (there's no convention about who bears the costs of such rescues, AFAIK). Any country who refuses to help in the rescue would look very bad.

  In the case at hand, we have an already very well-known, well-respected and very well-funded buddhist organisation renown for their humanity and ethic who have volunteered their services very early on and without any prompting. IMHO, their intervention is a whole lot more notable than news of the relatives' threats of hunger strike, or the offer of $5000 condolence money, yet somehow both these have managed to find prominent place in the article. You tell me who's good at self-publicity.  Ohc ^¡digame! 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cell phones

The present text states According to Chinese media, the relatives heard ringing tones when calling to the passengers.[34] However, flight 370 was not equipped with a base station that some airlines offer for in-flight cellphone contact,[34] it is presumed that the passengers' low powered cellphones were not able to transmit back due to distance from a transmission tower, flight altitude and shielding by the aircraft body.[34]. This seems to me to be just speculation, particularly given the use of the word "presumed". Suggest delete. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm for retaining, while the word "presumed" may be removed. The related source cites the professor emeritus of computer science, who after the 9/11 attacks tested the capability of mobile telephones to work from the air: "Without this (an on-board base station), a mobile cannot be used at an altitude of more than roughly 0.5 kilometres in the case of a commercial airliner, and must not be too far from a cell tower... No cellphone could possibly succeed from an airliner in mid-ocean, even if flying low over the water. At normal cruising altitude no cellphone could possibly succeed in making ground contact as it is completely out of reach of the network of towers, in any case". Brandmeister^talk 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Something else that has been discussed before and didnt gain a consensus to be added. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, when there is a reliable source, addressing the issue of relatives hearing the ringing tones, why not? Especially when one is interested in the possibility of a phone communication with/from the aircraft. Brandmeister^talk 17:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Only Iridium and Globalstar phones would work on an jet aircraft over a large ocean, but it needs a clear line of site. I have no sources that say any passengers carried a satellite phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why this is revelant?? :-| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant that relatives thought their loved ones were alive, regardless of the reason. If included, however, it is desirable to explain how a phone would communicate that it is really ringing if it can't communicate a message of any kind. I know my crappy phone is liable to ring and ring when it is totally battery drained. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

They did not try to call until after they realised that the plane was overdue, when it had either crashed or landed somewhere. People don't normally try to call others when they know they are on a plane. So the explanation of technical reasons why the phone would ring in the plane strikes me as irrelevant. I have heard other reasons given for the phones ringing, such as that when the switching mechanism doesn't know what to do with a call it often gives the caller a ringing tone. The text strikes me as too close to speculation to be retained. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cruise altitude

The "Disappearance" section states: "It climbed to its assigned cruise altitude of 35,000 feet (10,700 m)..." This claim is unsourced, however, presumably the figure of 35,000 feet is accurate to no more than two significant figures—in fact, it could be an approximate figure of ±2,500 feet, suggesting between 32,250 to 37,500 feet. By default, the {{convert}} template represents this as {{convert|35000|ft}} → 35,000 feet (11,000 m). Why then does the article use a more precise conversion to three significant figures? —sroc 💬 15:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Presenting quantities:

Ensure that the precision of the converted quantity in the article is comparable to the precision of the quantity from the source.

—sroc 💬 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Could this be resolved by using e.g. flight level 350 instead of actual altitudes? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It would have been a flight level, altitude in feet is just not used above a few thousand near the ground. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is "flight level" meaningful to the typical reader? Even if we give this as flight level (if it can be supported by reliable sources), wouldn't it make sense to include an equivalent (or explanation) in feet/metres for our readers anyway? —sroc 💬 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely, that is the wonder of wikilinks - those who know will understand, those who don't will be able to get a good explanation by clicking on the flight level wikilink. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We can add an explanation note if required, to find the exact height we would need to do some maths and know the pressure setting in the region at a specific time, all original research so we should keep away from it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting datum that is worth some explanation, so long as OR is avoided. For example, flight level points out that these levels are different depending on the heading of the aircraft. Does that mean a pilot would have changed his flight level if changing heading, even in an emergency that disrupted communications? (I'm not suggesting to mention any such thing in the article unless a source turns up, but is this something sensible to look for?) Wnt (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - all of the news coverage I have seen has reported the altitude in feet or meters. You only see flight levels mentioned in aviation specific media. I would not mention the flight levels in this article unless it becomes relevant to the story. There was talk long ago at Template_talk:Convert/Archive January 2012#Flight Level about adding support for flight level to {{convert}} but it was never coded. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

International participation

As it was quiet, a change for this article, I have had a go at the multiple references used in International participation I have tried in good faith to check the references and removed redundant ones. Its possible I missed some and it could still do with some more work. Multiple references are OK to cover different points but not to support the same information, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sightings

Some private sightings have been reported in the media. For instance, see http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/03/21/missing-mh370-woman-reports-sighting-missing-jet.html I added this one sighting because it was reported in hundreds of news outlets. My edit was reversed by User:WWGB because "we don't report all unconfirmed sightings". I don't understand the logic here. We report a sighting via satellite of an unidentified object thousands of miles from the known flight path, but not a sighting of a downed and sinking airplane along the flight path?Narc (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sightings by satellite are confirmed by national governments, which are reliable sources. Alleged sightings by individuals, whether passengers or fisherman, remains unreliable until confirmed. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You are confounding subjects and sources. The person who sighted is not a WP "source". She is the subject of the report. A source is a source of the information, such as a newspaper or book. If a person told me, "I saw the plane," that would be unreliable. If a reliable news outlet vets and reports the facts of a sighting, then that is a reliable source. It is NOT up to WP editors to evaluate the information if it comes from a reliable news source. Otherwise, you are allowing your own bias (in this case, pro-government, anti-independent-media) to creep into WP. For instance, the source of the Australian sitings is not the Australian government, it is the Sidney Morning Herald. I hope others will chime in on this important topic. I agree with your original objection not to report "every" sighting, but a sighting that is credible enough to be widely reported should be included in the article.Narc (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree: the filter here should be the sources. For one thing, we have to avoid a "retail" perspective - we don't want to cover the event solely from the point of view of the person watching TV from home; rather we should reflect the whole range of challenges and obstacles faced by the rescue mission itself, all the false hopes and confusing reports. Wnt (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Objects spotted

A Chinese military aircraft spotted several "suspicious" floating objects in the Indian Ocean. The Guardian Irish Times. Worth mentioning? I didn't add this to the article myself as I noticed the wooden pallets and strapping belts were not already included. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Separate objects have been spotted by the Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion. There were two objects spotted by the Orion – the first a grey or green circular object and the second an orange rectangular object. HMAS Success is on scene and is attempting to locate the objects. Australian Maritime Safety Authority ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually more and more sightings are being reported now, except that by the time another aircraft goes to the location it isn't there. Right now everything is a wild goose chase. Until a ship on location and retrieves an item connecting it to MH370 it will not be of any use.--PremKudva^Talk 11:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not counter?

Why there is a note not to add a counter? Like this one {{Start date and age|2002|09|23}} So it will say that it is missing for "2 weeks". --Kirov Airship (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a template in the infobox: | date = {{Start date|2014|03|08|df=y}} — if there were a consensus to do so, it could be changed to {{Start date and age|2014|03|08|df=y}} , which would render: 8 March 2014 (2014-03-08)  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Back when were were under 72 hours some editors tried to add the number of hours it has been missing (currently at 88519 hours). Other editors objected and removed that. I really like how the use of {{Start date and age}} you suggested is displayed and so added that to the infobox. Media reports these days are regularly reporting the number of days and so the adding age may have work this time. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't our readers do arithmetic? Let's see. 21 minus 8. Hmmmmmm.... HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it disappeared in the Indian Ocean, it should be measured in Paksha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: This also overlooks time zones. There is already enough confusion between UTC and MYT (the timeline of events table said for three days that the flight went missing on 8 March UTC when it was actually on 7 March UTC) and readers in other time zones (i.e., 92% of the world) have added work to do. —sroc 💬 14:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

consider WP:NOTNEWS How would it look if this event had occurred a month ago - five years ago... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I discovered a potential compromise. If the "current" template were to be replaced with {{current|date={{Start date and age|2014|03|08|df=y}}}}, it would render as the following; and once this is no longer considered a current event and the template is removed, then the counter goes with it.  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I'll go ahead and modify accordingly.[Nevermind]  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

object This isn't necessary, adds nothing to the article, and is messing about with a standard Wikipedia message. I wouldn't bother - Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

New announcement announced

BBC has just reported that the Malaysian PM is due to make an announcement at 22:00 MYT 14:00 UTC. with an update on recent developments. Lynbarn (talk)

Northern route ruled out. Flight ended at end of southern arc. Hcobb (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So that image needs to be amended or removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep it, because it is useful in that it shows the theories that occurred over the past week. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Cockpit fires (not unheard of)

[30] [31]

As an unmanned aircraft w/o autopilot or anyone at the controls, as such a fire damaged cockpit could still continue to fly, but without any controls over its course, altitude or active control of most anything else. Communications and navigation would have likely been terminated, and even if some pilot control got reestablished they likely had no good idea of how far off-course or what if any options would keep functioning.

Personally, I had no idea that 777s had ever experienced such horrific issues with a potential total loss of cockpit control.

Another potential issue; if pilots had temporarily exited the cockpit in order to avoid their being burned alive, and had shut that security door behind them in order to keep that fire from spreading, there’s no easy way of their ever getting back into their burnt-out cockpit.

What sort of upgraded fire suppression system did this MH370 have?

Why would anyone intentionally remove a documented reference to a 777 related cockpit fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradguth (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or perhaps both? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why remove the link to this kind of 777 fire issue. Are you (Martinevans123) suggesting that this cockpit fire never happened, and therefore isn't a relevant what-if issue?

Do we objectively know that MH370 had no such fire issues?

We don't do what-if issues. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If a reputable media source, such as CNN does what-if 24/7, then it's fair game. Note: if Fox News or any Murdoch outfit does what-if, it does not count due to they are disreputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we objectively know that MH730 DID have fire issues? No we don't, and until we have a reliable source that states that to be the case, this point has no place in the article. Wikipedia isn't a "what-if" platform. This is pure speculation - one of many theories put forward to suggest what MIGHT have happened. If they were all given wikispace, the article would five times as long, and no use to anyone. When you find that reliable source, please let us know, and come back here to discuss it (and don't forget to sign your talk posts. ;) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The aircraft had a Halon fire suppression system. This is a fact and told in countless interviews on Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon's show. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Halon fire suppression systems are useless against li-ion or li fires - ask UPS flight 6. Also, Egypt Air 777 flight MS-667 suffered a serious flight deck fire while going through pre-flight. Serious enough that the aircraft was written off. Fires are a pilots worst nightmare.174.0.185.123 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

While it's obviously true fires on an aircraft are a very bad problem, I don't think it's correct that halon is useless against li-ion. Extinguishing lithium ion fires can be difficult and halon may be less effective than when it's used with some other stuff but can also be somewhat effective according to most sources I've seen including the FAA [32].

Lithium metal (aka contained in most lithium primary cell types but not many secondary ones or lithium ion types) fires are another matter, all sources agree Halon is ineffective. I don't think there is anything that's particularly effective and in fact many things can make the fire worse. It's probably primarily for this reason that some authorities and airlines treated or did treat lithium metal cells rather differently in terms of carrying them.

Note that there seems to be some confusion over UPS Fight 6. The aircraft involved did not even have a halon suppression system. The cargo was lithium ion batteries not lithium metal ones. The AV Herald and perhaps report mentioned the fact that lithium metal fires (based on the FAA advisory which said the same thing) could not be extinguished with halon but for some reason some crap sources and sadly our article until I corrected it incorrectly reported this as applying to the lithium ion batteries on the flight.

I don't know if it's entirely clear whether the cells involved were lithium ion or lithium metal, some sources said lithium ion but I never confirmed if this was what was stated by Malaysian Airlines officials.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even those intended to be fitted can be quite a problem, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So 9M-MRO has a Halon system. What is the significance of that fact? Sorry, but at this stage, I don't see one. It is not relevant to the article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Altitude conversions

Whoever uses metres for altitude (or even for height above ground, for that matter)? I could understand using Flight Levels as well as feet, but metres?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: "China, Mongolia, Russia and many CIS countries have used flight levels specified in metres for years." Most of the world uses metric measurements in day-to-day use, so it isn't unreasonable to include conversions and the convert template generally does this well, but does perhaps need to be detuned to allow less accurate comparisons. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what happens at metres/feet Flight Level boundaries exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems aircraft have to ascend/decend slightly when passing, for example, into Russian airspace. You'd have thought that of all the standards to be adopted worldwide, flight levels would have been one of them! Lynbarn (talk)

I wonder how RVSM works? I can't even imagine how Russian and Chinese pilots describe Flight Levels in terms of metres. But sorry to digress here.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (... like this, apparently).

Evenso, it was a Malaysia Airlines flight and was not in Chinese airspace? The vast majority of the world's airspace is described in terms of Flight levels? The pilot clearly talks about "flight altitudes". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)