Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

WSPR (amateur radio software)

On 6 March 2024 the BBC documentary Why Planes Vanish: The Hunt for MH370 examined the claim that the flight path of the aircraft could be plotted by analysis of the disruption to Weak Signal Propagation Reporter signals on the day in question. Scientists at the University of Liverpool are undertaking a major new study to verify how viable the technology is, and what this could mean for locating the aircraft.
Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This should be incorporated into the article. I also found another BBC News article discussing this theory promoted by Richard Godfrey. If this is discussed in Weak Signal Propagation Reporter: MH37- theory, then it should, at the very least, be discussed in this article (with cross-link to the WSPR page). However, it should be noted on the WSPR Talk page that some folks think that this is pseudoscience. On the other hand, we have few clues, so it is prudent to discuss this in the main article, even if it is considered a controversial theory. Considering that the search has gone on for over 10 years, then it would not be responsible to dismiss potential clues.

Enquire (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This theory is presented on the University of Liverpool website.

Enquire (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Also now covered in this YouTube video on the subject. Nunchuck12 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Except pseudoscience does not constitute "potential clues." Given that Joe Taylor himself (radio amateur, physics professor, Nobel laureate in Physics, and inventor of WSPR) has called Godfrey's so-called "analysis" pseudoscience, it is pseudoscience.

Furthermore, I've been waiting with curiosity to see Liverpool mathematics professor Simon Maskell show how WSPR, with its 1:10,000 signal-to-noise ratio, can educe a meaningful result using just one sample. In March 2024, Maskell stated that his team would publish their results in September of that year; it's now November 2024, and we're still waiting for a reporting of what would potentially be Fields Medal-worthy results.

The fact that no one is rushing to conduct a search based on Godfrey's claims betrays just how little credence those claims have with the people in charge. It's very likely that the Australians spoke to several real RF-propagation experts about Godfrey's claims (possibly even Joe Taylor), and that would've been the end of that.

The search for MH370 is already the most-expensive in aviation history, having spent tens of US$Millions. The "arc" searches were most likely a red herring, and those were based on science that was, at least on the face of it, certainly more grounded in reality than Godfrey's "analysis." Going off on yet another expensive wild-goose chase with even less real physics to justify it really doesn't make any sense. Xinbad (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox (Site & Summary)

Could we change the summary and site info to what it was before 150.143.91.118 edited it yesterday. Just "unknown" for both of these is false considering that we do have a rough estimate of where it went down, as well as showing that although the cause of the disaster is inconclusive, debris have been found. Pink Floyd Fan 101 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pink Floyd Fan 101:  Done: Appears to have been in the infobox in a stable state for at least a few years, I think a better edit summary justification than "corrected" is needed to change it to "Unknown". Next time for edit requests, I would suggest going through the WP:Edit request wizard as it draws more attention to your request. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Presumed dead"

Why are we still saying that the 239 fatalities are presumed? It's been ten years since the crash, is it really a stretch to think that everyone is dead?

Anyway, I edited the article a few hours ago to change this, and I was really hoping no one would revert it. Well, only two hours after the edit, @Britmax reverted it. And you know what? Fair enough, I didn't provide much reasoning for the edit (although I was counting on common sense to prevail.)

So here's my reasoning.

The article for presumption of death states:

"A presumption of death occurs when a person is believed to be dead, despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains (e.g., a corpse or skeleton) attributable to that person. Such a presumption is typically made by an individual when a person has been missing for an extended period and in the absence of any evidence that person is still alive—or after a shorter period, but where the circumstances surrounding a person's disappearance overwhelmingly support the belief that the person is dead (e.g., an airplane crash)."

The bolded part alone should be enough to support my point, but then we have this.

"People who disappear are typically called missing, or sometimes absent. Several criteria are evaluated to determine whether a person may be declared legally dead:

• The party normally must have been missing from their home or usual residence for an extended period, most commonly seven years

• Their absence must have been continuous and inexplicable (e.g. the person did not say they had found a new job and were moving far away)

• There must have been no communication from the party with those people most likely to hear from them during the period the person has been missing

• There must have been a diligent but unsuccessful search for the person and/or diligent but unsuccessful inquiry into their whereabouts."

And there's also this.

"A person can be declared legally dead after they are exposed to "imminent peril" and fail to return—as in a plane crash, as portrayed in the movie Cast Away. In these cases courts generally assume the person was killed, even though the usual waiting time to declare someone dead has not elapsed."

These are the guidelines for declaring someone legally dead in the United States. Obviously, the crash didn't occur in the US, but it's pretty much the same for every country.

One final point, Malaysia has declared all MH370 passengers legally dead. The article doesn't say "legally" but I'm sure they have done it through the courts.

So is that enough evidence? It really should be lol Grave8890 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter? HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to change it without having an edit war. Grave8890 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If you do indeed want to change it without an edit war, I think you best course of action is to present your proof that the Malaysian Government has indeed declared to passengers dead, and that any other relevant authority has done this, with a view to initiating a discussion her as to whether this means that they are dead in a universally recognised sense. I think you should have no trouble convincing editors that this is the case. Britmax (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

SDU communications

This topic needs work- "....Although the ACARS data link on Flight 370 stopped functioning between 01:07 and 02:03 MYT (most likely around the same time the plane lost contact by secondary radar), the SDU remained operative..."

No SDU did not remain operative...it is believed that SDU lost power (probably intentionally) at the about same time (approx shortly after 1:07). Later the SDU was repowered/rebooted (probably intentionally) at 2:25. The SDU reboot is strong evidence of active pilot at 2:25, but there is a minority opinion speculation of electrical system problems automatically cycling the systems off and on. Getting into technical details, the reboot of the SDU at 2:25 shows an obvious warm-up behavior, therefore it is pretty much accepted without any dispute that SDU must have been off for a certain period of time before 2:25. It is the SDU reboot at 2:25 that provides Inmarsat Arc1 which is in close agreement with the last primary radar point at 18:22 and also confirms that the "unknown blip" on primary radar was indeed MH370 (because Inmarsat knows the aircraft ID after reboot). TBILLT (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What source(s) do you have? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The first places to look for that documentation are the Malaysian reports (Factual Information) report and the "final" Annex13 report (Safety Investigation Report). If it is not discussed therein then get back to me. Keep in mind for the flight of MH370, the ACARS was operating via SATCOM option due to flight to China (radio option too expensive). Therefore the loss of ACARS datalink probably resulted from depowering of SATCOM. When SATCOM was repowered at 1825, apparently assuming active pilot he deselected both SATCOM and radio options ACARS data link (also MH370 flight number was erased but Inmarsat knows ping source was 9M-MRO). Thus we were left only the pings and no ACARS whereas ACARS would give us exact location (if we had it). 68.100.20.191 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are suggesting any additions to the article, you also need to provide the sources to support them, not ask other editors to search. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't They Find It?

I have no idea if it's true or not, but I remember seeing something about finally finding it. If it is true it should definitely be included. Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have no idea if it's true or not, then it shouldn't be included in the article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

yeah Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

No, they didn't find it. Some people have found a few pieces of debris. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Then ignore this topic. Cheers! <3 Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)