Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Conflicting Citations

Astro Awani's Citation under the Malaysian Search Response section states that "On 9 March, the Malaysian transport minister said that the Malaysian intelligence agencies have been activated, while counter terrorism units in all relevant countries have been informed, adding that he has met with officers from the FBI in Malaysia."[1]

While Reuter's Citation under the Investigation section states that "The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has deployed technical experts and agents to investigate the disappearance. However, a senior US law enforcement official clarified that FBI agents were not sent to Malaysia."[2]

So which is true? Both cannot be true without a proper explanation. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide, where we have conflicting reports (e.g. hours flown) we just report both with sources. Should it become obvious that one is wrong, then we can lose the wrong one. Mjroots2 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Both statements can be true if the FBI officers met with are resident in Malaysia - the US Embassy's Legal Attache would be the obvious possibility, see http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-fbi2019s-legal-attache-program for a description of the Legal Attache programme. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Again with the title.

Right, there's a standard for aircraft flight names. Wikipedia:AVINAME. I used a hyphen; you can't check links in comment boxes. I also did sort of mean it with that comment. This has been fought over and fought over and I finally found that there is a clear standard somewhere. It happens to be exactly what the media use. I don't think the codeshare number is being used much in the media, but I guess that can stay.

Please don't change the capital letters or anything. Roches (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If by "comment box" you mean "edit summary", click "Show preview" and the links will show up on the preview page so you can check them. —sroc 💬 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean in commented-out (hidden) text, which doesn't show up in the preview. I think I repeated it with a hyphen in the edit summary, which you also can't check by clicking. Roches (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's what I mean. You can click on links in the edit summary if you click "Show preview" after you have entered the edit summary. —sroc 💬 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what all the issues have been with your edits and the rest of the community. As best as I can determine, the issues are 1) use of code share in lead & 2) changing tense "is" to "was" (based on this edit). In regards to Wikipedia:AVINAME, the guideline is the following (abridged for clarity):
"Where an aviation incident article...begins with the opening sentence: Airline Flight XYZ...., it should go on to immediately describe the notability of the incident in as few as words as possible. For this reason, it is not necessary in the opening line to clarify that the flight number may still be in use, or where it is normally scheduled to fly - this is because the normal flight or flight number is not the subject of the article...For example: Madeup Airway Flight 123 was a passenger flight from Somewhere to Somewhere Else, that on such and such a day, failed/crashed/blew up/was hijacked. [correct]"
I think the important part of the guideline is what I italicized. I think the code share is important, especially given the media coverage focusing on the men traveling on stolen passports. Whether or not that belongs in the lead doesn't matter to me...it could be a separate sentence or mentioned in the "incident" section. Take a look at the example given in the guideline—Air Florida Flight 90—and the recent high-profile, highly-edited article Air France flight 447. Both use two sentences, first being to state the origin/destination and the second stating the aircraft & what happened. I don't think there needs to be a reference to the men using stolen passports, as officials do not believe they have links to terrorism. It's also difficult to write about the significance of the flight without referencing it as "crashed", per Wikipedia policies. Taking into account what I said, here is a proposal for the lead:

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (abbreviated MH370) was a scheduled international flight from Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Beijing Capital International Airport in Beijing, China. On 8 March 2014, the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER operating the flight disappeared while flying over the South China Sea with 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board. A joint search and rescue effort covering an area of 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in the Gulf of Thailand, Strait of Malacca, and the South China Sea, is being conducted by ten countries which have dispatched a total of 34 aircraft and 40 ships to the effort.

If an official would just refer to the plane as "presumed crashed", then the following could be added as a second paragraph in the lead:

The loss of Flight 370 is the second fatal crash of a Boeing 777 since the aircraft's entry into service in 1995; previously, three deaths occurred when Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed on approach to San Francisco International Airport. Flight 370 is the third and deadliest accident involving fatalities for Malaysia Airlines.

Thoughts? A good compromise? AHeneen (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The bone of contention is whether to have upper case or lower case for "flight" in the Bolded part of the Lead. For the record, I support upper case per long-standing convention. YSSYguy (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The codeshare is mentioned elsewhere in the article, which is why I didn't think it needed to be at the very beginning, at least at the point when it began to look like the stolen passports weren't a link to terrorism. I can't imagine anyone having only heard of the codeshare and not MH370. The problem in this article was more with the use of "is" instead of "was" and with the insistence on the longer, more confusing text regarding the fact that we are talking about the MH370 that crashed and not the other MH370s. Before I found the guideline, we came to a consensus on "is" and the circumlocution required to indicate that MH370 was still in existence. The is/was issue was never about the missing flight's status, it was about the fact that the flight number hadn't been retired. Really.
The second paragraph you suggested is exactly what I had in mind; then the third paragraph would be the cause of the event. That's how it is for other articles.
And yes, the capitalization of "flight." I've been trying to understand why anyone would think that it shouldn't be capitalized if it's part of a flight code. It always is and it hurts to look at the word if it's not capitalized. Roches (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
All of the flight Codes are mentioned in various media reports, and all are also redirects to the article. IMO that makes a case for having them mentioned in the Lead, and it does no harm at all to do so. YSSYguy (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Two things:
  • Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 must be in bold, per MOS:BOLDTITLE and as discussed above;
  • A comma is required after "Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia," per MOS:COMMA.
Also, we shouldn't predict whether the plane will be found to be crashed or someone declares it "presumed crashed". We report what has been reported in reliable sources and we are not competing to announce the news. —sroc 💬 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I will add that we do not need "previously, three deaths occurred when Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed on approach to San Francisco International Airport" in the lede, and we certainly don't need a wikilink to San Francisco International Airport in the lede of an article about a lost plane in Asia where the link helps nobody. This information would be more appropriate in more detailed sections of the article — but only if and when the plane is declared crashed and presuming that the fatalities are sufficient to justify the claim (don't rule out the possibility of survivors). —sroc 💬 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove "a Boeing 777-200ER, registration 9M-MRO" from the lede

I think "a Boeing 777-200ER, registration 9M-MRO" is too detailed for the lede, which should provide a more accessible overview of the subject. The details are already in the "Aircraft" section and the "aircraft type" is in the infobox. I suggest this copy be removed from the lede, but don't want to be bold and spark an edit-war over it. —sroc 💬 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • As five editors agree and none opposes, I've gone ahead and removed the registration number. I'm neutral on whether we should keep the current "Boeing 777" or go back to "Boeing 777-200ER". Madalibi (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree to remove 9M-MRO. We don't publish vehicle registration numbers for car bombs or bus crashes, why is this article different? It's in the infobox anyway. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree - although I have left the registration intact, I modified the wording to Boeing 777 while retaining the link to Boeing 777-200ER. sabine antelope 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

...please don't. This is the worst accident involving a 777 of any type, and the space you save with removing -200ER isn't really worthwhile if even 5% of people would be interested in the -200ER part. The 9M-MRO is there because of the RfC... I really would like this article to be something that people can read and come away with some idea of what's happening. But I've spent a lot of time arguing about the correct way of naming a plane crash. Roches (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Roches: I'm not sure what you mean by "The 9M-MRO is there because of the RfC". Could you clarify? Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish I could. Apparently the title of the article is not correct because "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" could refer to either the plane that crashed and killed 250 people or to the thousands of other plane trips that brought people from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing without incident. So the lede has to state very clearly that we understand the distinction between Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 serviced by Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRO on 2014-03-07 18:40 UTC and the other planes. Roches (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I saw the RfC you're talking about and made a comment supporting the usual format for title and first line. A quick survey of other pages on airlines disasters shows that the registration number usually appears in the infobox, not in the lede. See British Airways Flight 9, Air France Flight 447, El Al Flight 1862, Pan Am Flight 73, etc. I think this fact supports putting the registration number for this flight in the infobox as well. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Does the registration number also need to appear in the photo caption if it is repeated within the infobox? —sroc 💬 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm less sure about this one. This is probably more of a matter of taste. :) Note, though, that what is missing now is a specific plane, not a flight, so the registration number seems less misplaced in the image caption than in the lede. Madalibi (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sroc:, yes, because it makes it clear that its the actual aircraft, not a similar one. See other aircrash articles. Mjroots2 (talk)
RE registration in lede, not necessary, but the correct designation of "Boeing 777-2H6ER" should appear in the lede. This article has GA potential, so take a look at the lede of BOAC Flight 712, which is a Good Article. Mjroots2 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an article about what happened to 9M-MRO on 8 March 2014, operating as MH370. It isn't about some other airplane operating as MH370 on some other day. And unlike carbombings, the article isn't called X-boming on Y-day. Those articles are not solely concerned with what happened in the car either. This is solely about what happened with this plane, carbombing articles don't deal solely with the car and its suicide bomber, but with what the bomb destroyed outside the vehicle. How many aircrash articles really deal with damage to the trees or farmer's field where the plane crashed? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose My opinion is that the entire article should be named after the plane's type and registration not the flight number which is not specific to the aircraft in question. As it's not, having that info in the lede is the least we can do for specificity. 86.129.198.30 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia should follow professional practise except where necessary to simplify for understanding. Aviation industry practise is to refer to prominent incidents by Flight Number, not the aircraft registration. This is additionally the practise followed by the media and therefore determines the name under which the public will search for the article. Having said that, first thing I look for in an air-crash article is specific model - 777-200ER in this case - as that determines how much of the following information should be interpreted, and in aircraft with major equipment fit differences within the same model, as is the case for the 777-200ER, which was available with engines from three different manufacturers, the specific aircraft registration can also be valuable. In fact having scanned the article, we don't appear to identify the engine fit anywhere - RR Trent 800 according to Av Week here http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_08_2014_p0-670478.xml, quoting their fleet database. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree It'd be the outlier from the rest of Wikipedia's crashes, where this information is reliably found in the infobox - and is in the infobox here, too. Leondz (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight attendants

Is there any info on air hostesses? It seems there should be 10 of them on board, but after quick search I found nothing. Brandmeistertalk 18:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of information. If you see anything to put in the article, feel free to post here.--Nowa (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

>> Missing Malaysia airliner 'changed course' (Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

We should probably put some attention into this, as now they're saying that it was out of Vietnamese airspace, according to Malaysian radar. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Phones

A number of family members of the passengers aboard Flight 370 have called the passengers phones and the calls got connected i.e. were ringing, but no answer. Families have requested they be tracked before the batteries go dead. Worth mentioning. [3][4]. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact the phones ring is not I understand an indication that the phone at the other is actually active. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the number of false rumors so far, this one observation needs additional verification of its significance.--Nowa (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have talked with someone in the industry - this is a common problem with SE Asia phones if they are being called (or are calling) internationally. IE - NOT ANOMALOUS ... here is a direct quote:

QUOTE ------------------------- "I wouldn't put too much stock into the phone ringing thing. The Chinese passengers would've had their phones last registered on a cellular network in Malaysia. When people call their Chinese numbers the cell network tries to pass the call to the Malaysia exchange.

Transferring calls across international exchanges is imperfect. The systems often run on different standards, are different ages and are made by different manufacturers. Most of these systems are not well integrated and aside from simply dialling numbers, do not exchange much information (such as the connected status of roaming phones). When dealing with really old hardware it's not uncommon to "answer" a call and play fake ringing tones while passing it to the foreign exchange.

Sometimes you can tell when this happens because the real ringing tones of the foreign exchange are sometimes different. So you get a couple fake rings from the home exchange, and then the real rings from the foreign one. Anyone who calls people travelling in Mexico has experienced this.

The answering/hangup after a few rings is probably the foreign exchange trying to figure out how to handle the call after it can't connect it. Sometimes the foreign exchange will redirect the call back to the home exchange's voicemail system. Unfortunately with old systems the meta data is lost, such as caller id, called number, etc. that the voicemail system doesn't know what to do with the call and just hangs up.

I work with a lot of people that travel all over central america, Europe and in Asia a bit. This kind of thing is super common." END QUOTE ------------------- 174.0.185.123 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet another source mentionning the attempt to connect with ringing. This coming from a chinese televison: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_09/Family-of-Chinese-passenger-missing-on-flight-MH370-makes-contact-with-his-phone-1046/ Btw, anyone who has travelled to developing countries know that travelers switch SIM cards to local networks to avoid roaming fees. The fact the call connected is puzzling and should be in article imho.

Until and unless someone says that someone they were trying to call had done this, this should not go into the article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Distress radiobeacon

Presumably the aircraft has an ELT/Distress radiobeacon. Why has this not enabled rescuers to find it? Biscuittin (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This (a discussion of older 121.5 MHz electronic locator transmitters (ELTs) versus newer 406 MHz ELTs) could have something to do with it, if nothing else helps inform about the terminology when it comes to aircraft. Dwpaul Talk 01:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. However, I'd have thought that a commercial airliner would have the newer 406 MHz ELT. Biscuittin (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Radios don't transmit so well under water. I've asked myself this same question and have tried to find some reference for what type of EPIRBs are carried on a 777 to no avail. 24.127.38.138 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have a reference for you, but it is unlikely the aircraft was equipped with ELT(s) that operate on the old 121.5 MHz frequency. There are still many of those older units in smaller private, general aviation aircraft (e.g. Fawcett's Citabria). But any modern commercial transport category aircraft will be fitted with good ELTs that will trigger automatically in an impact from g-forces, (and are waterproof for flights that operate over water). It is curious (to me) that there have been no reports of reception of ELT signals. (Segelflieger (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC))

-- I presume the ELT is the same as on our Delta A L jets(I pilot the Boeing 767).. It is a portable unit primarily to be used in a water ditching. It must be carried to the raft where it can be turned on (if you drop it in the water it floats and activates automatically). In this case it transmits on a satellite reception frequency. There is no crash activated rescue beacon.Ozma2020 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)ozma2020

Oil slick marking on map in location section

Please remove the oil slick marking on the map as the oil slick is completely unrelated after lab results indicated it was from a ship.

Thecodingproject (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, do we have a reference supporting that the flight path would have been a straight line? Is it usually? —sroc 💬 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The shorts route from two points is a straight line. I assumed it makes a turn on to a runway. Thecodingproject (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
See Map section above regading need for flight path. The planned flight path was not straight, but almost straight from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong area, before a sharp turn left then north to Beijing. The actual route flown was a sharp turn after take-off then almost straight (especially at the scale of the map!) north to where it disappeared.AHeneen (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Not a straight line. The BBC has a map of the intended route, [5]. Leondz (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Airline aircraft almost never fly straight from A to B; they go via C, D and E which are probably not in a straight line with each other. Even if the departure runway is pointing directly at the destination, they follow standard airways which usually have at least one course change. YSSYguy (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh370#2d2d25b shows one previous track. The airplane was supposed to make a turn right when radar contact was lost. This is also clear from the SkyVector map. The BBC probably used one of the tracks from flightradar24 or another site for that map (which they paid someone to make). Many don't have full coverage. Roches (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps. From the context and their wording, their diagram seems to me to be more like a representation of the filed flight plan, than the results of any radar samples. Leondz (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


So the new map is nice, but didn't the oil slick turn out to be unrelated? And the path is wrong (per BBC, above). So can we fix these things like right now or go back to my map which is at least accurate until those problems are fixed? Pretty is good, but factually inaccurate is very very bad. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - the current map is worse than no map. If yours addresses these issues, it sounds like a good replacement. Even if it doesn't, let's remove the current map anyway. Leondz (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Origin and Destination Airports for MAH370 as well as last known position

This was my version.... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The oil slick isn't completely unrelated, in that effort was spent on it pertaining to the search. It's part of the history of the event now. Of course, it may be troublesome to communicate such nuances in a graphic. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement of racial profiling and an unsourced claim.

The passengers section contains an implicit endorsement of racial profiling:

"Malaysian immigration officials failed to question the passengers travelling on the stolen European passports, even though they were Asian in appearance."

Given the ethnic diversity of contemporary Europe it is not a neutral statement to imply that persons 'Asian in appearance' be subjected to secondary screening when travelling[sic] on a European passport. It is an endorsement of a particular ideological viewpoint, and, therefore, not appropriate for an article on the facts of flight 370.

WP:NPOV should apply and the second clause should be removed.

Further, the statement that the passengers were not questioned is not supported by the associated source material. The article makes no mention of whether the men in question were allowed to board without challenge or were challenged but allowed to board.

It is a reasonable assumption that the men were not questioned--as it seems unlikely that Malaysian authorities would miss a stolen passport during a secondary inspection--but assumptions are in violation of wp:nor and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

An edit to correct the sentence in question was summarily reverted by user:WWGB. --TheOtherEvilTwin (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Malaysia's state news agency quoted Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi as saying the passengers using the stolen European passports were of "Asian" appearance, and criticising border officials who let them through. "I am still perturbed. Can't these immigration officials think? Italian and Austrian [passport holders] but with Asian faces," he was quoted as saying late on Sunday." [6]
The statement is correct and sourced. It was made by a government minister. It is a critical statement about border security in Malaysia by the responsible minister. But you don't like it ... WWGB (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the press conference just finished, the passengers were actually not of Asian appearance. It wasn't explicitly stated what they looked like but there was an implication at least one of them may have been black. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No black people in Asia? It's bad enough the immigration minister is a bit bigoted, do we have to be as well? Leondz (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Who's we? I simply relayed what was said at the press conference. I don't see how we can discuss how to improve the article without actually discussing what was said. And what 'Immigration Minister' are we talking about? As stated by other respondents above, the statements which were discussed we made by the Minister of Home Affairs (Malaysia) who is in charge of the Department of Immigration (Malaysia) so it's unclear who you're referring to as Malaysia does not have an Immigration Minister. From what I can tell nor do China and Thailand, the other two countries most involved in this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That's evidence that the men were 'let through.' That's not the same thing as evidence they were not questioned. There's nothing abnormal about people being questioned but let through--something which, if it had happened in this case, would make Malaysian exit controls look even worse. You have a verifiable statement that the men were 'let through' but whether they were 'questioned' or not is unproven. 'Let through' ≠ 'not questioned.'
As for the minister's implication that the men should have been stopped for traveling on European passports despite being Asian, presenting that statement as fact and not as a quotation constitutes endorsing an ideological viewpoint. Reporting "the sky is green" is not the same thing as reporting "according to a senior government official, the sky is green." The former is an endorsement of the official's viewpoint; the latter is an objective reportage of fact. The source states that that the minister made the statement, but that does not make the statement itself a fact which meets wp:npov.
Most importantly, rephrasing the minister's quote into a statement which implies that European passport holders do not look like Asians does not meet wp:npov because it's racist. There are ethnically Asian citizens of both Austria and Italy and it is not neutral to suggest--as the phrasing you are valiantly defending does--that such people should be hassled by immigration authorities because of their ethnicity.
Rreports from the latest press briefing are that the men in question were black.TheOtherEvilTwin (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they looked hapa or they looked full Asian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.169.104 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by they "looked Asian in appearance". In the U.K., "looking Asian" means looking of Indian or Pakistani origin. In the U.S., "looking Asian" means looking of East Asian or Southeast Asian origin. So, the question to ask is, does Malaysia have its own definition of what being Asian looks like (i.e. the way locals look, E/SE Asian, Indian/Pakistani, or all)? --71.135.169.104 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Most major local demographic groups in Malaysia (except maybe Eurasians who may only be consider part Asian) would be considered to 'look Asian'. Which of course means those from South Asia, East Asia and South East Asia would generally be considered to 'look Asian'. BTW, according to an interview with the travel agent who allegedly sold the tickets to the passport holders, they didn't choose a particular flight but just wanted the cheapest ticket to Europe which may support the idea they were just unlucky asylum seekers or people seeking to emigrate to Europe without proper documentation. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The people had Italian and Austrian names (which I will not copy because they are real people who are still alive). While not all Europeans of Asian descent have Asian-sounding names, many do, and in the setting of an airport I think it should arouse suspicion if any details on a passport don't seem match the person presenting the document. A light-skinned European with a Chinese-sounding name should arouse the same suspicion. There may have been other details that were overlooked.Roches (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There are light-skinned Chinese people. There are light-skinned blond-haired Italians, Mexicans, and French people too. A stereotype, is just that - a stereotype. 49.50.217.182 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Many immigration officers just don't care; some of them in certain countries even solicit bribes. There would be no market for stolen passports if they were systematically and properly checked. Best is if immigration counters around the world were to install facial recognition software and have direct links to central biometric and criminal databases. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the Malaysian words and concepts for the ethnicities are? They may well have a different notion of race than people in the U.S. in this decade (after all, "Latino" was coined in 1980, and there are places where English, Scottish, Irish, and German aren't all lumped together as "white"). Wnt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed references

Why have so many references been removed from the article? Parts of the "Incident" section are now unsourced. There is also an error in one of the duplicate citations where the reference was deleted but an orphaned reference remains as an error. —sroc 💬 13:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I removed all of the cites to the MAS dark-site, being a dynamic primary source that some of the information could no longer be found because MAS have now issued 11 statements. Can't speak for the others. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say "some of the information could no longer be found"? There are links to the various statements (as page numbers) at the bottom of the page. If there is a concern about the dynamic content, why not use an archived version? —sroc 💬 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
My primary objection is the use of a primary source, as there's no reason to rely on same. I'm trying to find secondary sources to replace the bits removed. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That objection seems valid but you should find reliable secondary sources and add them as additional references to the what the primary source stated rather than mass-deleting the airline's statements and then hunting down secondary sources. The www.malaysiaairlines.com site complicated things for us in that they don't seem to have permanent URLs to their announcements. I had my hopes that:
would work but page 1 is the most recent announcement and as then add new announcements the list is shifted meaning the URL for a given page then points at another announcement. At the moment there are 13 pages with page 13 being the first/oldest announcement made.
It seems likely the airline will delete these once they close the the incident meaning the best thing for Wikipedia would be to archive the announcements. Media writers watch the talk pages like this one meaning it's likely one of the media organizations will start archiving the announcements and making permanent URLs available once they realize how the airline's incident handling system works. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Le sigh. There are already archived versions as I linked above in this section. I have reinstated the reference with a link to the first archived version which shows only the first two statements on a single page and directly provides the source relating to the claim (i.e., what the media statement said). No secondary source can say what the media statement said better than the media statement itself. —sroc 💬 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Why did you go through the article and systematically remove citations? The press releases are all still available. There are links at the bottom of the page. Please read WP:PSTS carefully. This is a press release by a flag carrier airline, so it is a reputable primary source. It's been quoted many times by the same secondary sources this article uses. None of what I said interprets the primary source, it just says what the press release says.

Roches (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Doesn't always happen, and they often get overwritten. I didn't realise until just now MAS didn't overwrite the previous statements. In which case, those citations ought to have been pointing to the appropriate urls rather than forcing the reader to go through a clearing page to access. Note that I have commented out what seems to be an attempt at interpretation. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are no appropriate URLs. There is one URL and the page uses Javascript. It is an indispensable reference, however, and it was not acceptable for you to remove it. You could have changed it if you wanted to improve the article. That is, changed it to suit your specific expectations, not changed it to another reference. I think that "attempt at interpretation" is a fairly straightforward elucidation of what the press release said. The article about the system states that messages are sent automatically, and I pointed out that the press release didn't say specifically whether or not the system had sent any messages.Roches (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • PUT THE REFERENCES BACK! We can't have "Malaysia Airlines issued a media statement at 07:24 confirming that contact had been lost at 02:40 and that search and rescue operations had begun" without citing a source. We cite reliable sources and there is no better source for what Malaysia Airline's media statement said than Malaysia Airline's media statement. —sroc 💬 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Put references back, please. They are a perfectly legitimate primary source; check WP:PSTS if you are unsure. As you are worried about their being transient, the best option to take for the article is archive them via a service like Webcitation and provide both links (to archive and to original). Removing the links makes them "go away" even quicker than the airline taking the articles down. Leondz (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have already done this with a link to an archived version on the Wayback Machine. —sroc 💬 02:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Map

{{reqmap}} Can the map look more like the one in the Air France Flight 447 article, with the dotted lines, etc? What do others think? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I think the labels should be decapitalized (the second word in them) and the names of the countries added. Brandmeistertalk 08:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a request for such a map further up the talk page with the {{reqmap}} banner. Some people are objecting to having such a map. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone archived my request, which seems a silly thing to do, since it's an open request, and unlikely to be instantly fulfilled. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
If you look below in the bit about oil slicks on the map, the reason this was not done is that the flight's intended path was not a straight line and we don't have sources which provide the intended flight path in a way we can create a map without creating a copyright violation. This is the correct routing and as you can see it goes crooked over China in a complicated fashion. Until there's a reliable source giving waypoints or lat/lons, we can't accurately depict the flight path. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the request would be left open, awaiting such a time as such information is available to create the map. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I spent a long time trying to find a freely available source for the flight path. I cannot find the flight plan published on the internet. Flightaware has a log of the flight's position and estimated locations (I assume according to the flight plan) that the plane did not reach. There was also a post in a pilots forum which had images for a flight plan for MH370 on March 9, which used waypoints.(Found: [7], but I don't know their source) However, the terms of use for these sites all claimed content was copyrighted. If the actual flight plan was released, then making a map would be easier. AHeneen (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned in a section below, the current "path" map is wrong, since it isn't using the waypoints filed in the flightplan, but just a straight line from source to destination. So... we have a map with a line on it, but it's wrong -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Radar report has been denies by the Royal Malaysian Air Force chief..

MISSING MH370: RMAF chief denies military radar report. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 06:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the article about the aircraft heading back over Malaysia?

This seems reliable and also cites "local newspaper Berita Harian quoted Malaysia's air force chief, Gen. Rodzali Daud ..." which may have more information.

It has the aircraft flying back over Malaysia at around 29,528 feet with radar contact lost at 2:40am. I'm surprised with all of the editor action on this article that this has not been added. Is it controversial? --Marc Kupper|talk 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been added. Although it isn't in the lede, it's mentioned twice in the article and featured in the map and 2nd image. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - I was trying to sort out what the "reduced altitude" may be. The article I linked to above says "29,528 feet" which is 9,000 meters. I believe the Berita Harian article is this one which is confusing to me as it implies the plane descended from 11,000 meters to 1,000 meters and then flew out of radar range. Both 9,000 and 1,000 meters are "reduced altitude..." --Marc Kupper|talk 23:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've cited the Reuters source, with regard to the "Location" section of the article. Rodzali Daud has confirmed that the aircraft has been radar tracked from the location near to Tho Chu, to Pulau Perak. Though it has been stated on the television, I haven't included that if the aircraft had continued on the same trajectory, it would've run out of fuel somewhere over the Indian Ocean. I can't yet find a citation and it's still supposition and assumption at this point. Television has also reported that a line of investigation is a massive depressurisation and crew incapacitation similar to Helios Airways Flight 522. Again, that is supposition and assumption, at this point, as far as a main article on Wikipedia is concerned. So, I won't be including either of those two latter points until we have a solid reference. Regards, EP111 (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Its necessary to avoid bringing that up or everyone will figure out that we are dealing with an extraordinary rendition to Diego Garcia.-----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ABC Television news here in Australia is now reporting that the Malaysian military is denying the claims about the a/c being picked up on primary radar heading West. YSSYguy (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Rozdali Daud has denied he ever said that military radar tracked the plane anywhere; I'm uninclined to believe anything he says, or anyone else in the Malaysian government, for that matter. Also, I wish to point out that the 777 ER is the maximum range airliner - with full fuel, it could fly anywhere. Does anyone know for certain that it didn't have full tanks?24.108.58.1 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

777 200ER is NOT the longest range model - that title belongs to the 777 200LR. Apparently the aircraft had 7.5 hours of fuel remaining after contact was lost in the Gulf of Thailand. No need to fly at max fuel cap if youre just going for a quick hop to China from Malaysia. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It now seems highly probable that the plane isn't where they were expecting it to be. Did anyone actually witness the plane take off? -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a citation is required... Hack (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Engine / ACARS data

It's late and I've been on the scrumpy, but the New Scientist is reporting that the aircraft sent engine / ACARS data during the flight. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I felt that the ACARS article indicated that the data was sent routinely, and that the airline's statement
"All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with… ACARS which transmits data automatically. Nevertheless, there were no distress calls and no information was relayed."
clearly cannot mean that no radio communications were ever received during the flight, and so therefore cannot confirm or deny whether ACARS data was sent. This was commented out. I think the viability of Wikipedia for ongoing events depends on its ability to make rational, logical, entirely fact-based conclusions like that without having to wait for some other news source to happen to make the same conclusion. Roches (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well by that standard Wikipedia is unviable, because that's one thing we mustn't do. YSSYguy (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
From WP:PSTS: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
The statement in the press release was "No information was relayed." We know the aircraft was in communication with air traffic control and its transponder was on until it reached IGARI, at which point the transponder stopped transmitting. Any educated person should know that airplane crews communicate with air traffic control. ACARS would be specialized knowledge, but this primary source briefly describes it. The article about ACARS is technical, but the basic details are accessible to an educated person, and the article is clear that routine messages as well as distress messages are sent, but the primary source is not.
Therefore, the sentence I had allows a reader to learn that ACARS sends routine messages as well as emergency messages without having to read the ACARS article, but they still have the option of reading about ACARS if they so wish.
ACARS was critical in the investigation of the Air France disappearance. Some sources, which I was aware of but did not consider reliable, stated that Malaysia Airlines did not have ACARS installed in its planes. That rumor was the reason why the airline specifically said that all of its planes had that system. The primary source does not confirm or deny whether ACARS was in operation, if it is read carefully. Any educated person would come to the same conclusion. No distress calls, no "information relayed", but definitely some communication, so therefore ACARS, which is not a distress signal, is not ruled out and not confirmed. (What would be inappropriate would be to state that the airline has at least some ACARS data but is not releasing it to the public.)
It's not that I care about the statement, it's that I want this to be an article that can give every reader all the factual information they want to obtain about this subject (either directly or through further reading). Wikipedia is the only way that can be achieved. It has to be done in accordance with a certain set of rules, but it cannot be done with blind adherence to interpretations of those rules.
That's annoyingly long, but I hope it demonstrates why I made that statement.Roches (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't take everything that Malaysian Airlines says as gospel. They have clearly been withholding information. Now, when an independent reliable source publishes something which contradicts something from a primary source, weight should be given to the former. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Translations of technical terms from English to Chinese

Would someone familiar with aviation terminology in Chinese double-check the English to Chinese translations here: en:User_talk:Kxx#File:Mah370path_labelled.png ? This is so a picture related to MH370 can be translated into Chinese for the Chinese Wikipedia Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you create a new map with just the colored dots, and no labels? Putting that on commons may allow other language Wikipedian to make maps for their own wikipedias by pasting on labels themselves. Or they could choose to mention what the different color dots mean in a caption. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It's right, don't worry. :) --Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 07:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarifiation needed on times - ATC last contact reported vs. last military radar detection

Right now, what I can glean from the article is that last ATC contact (over Gulf of Thailand) occurred at 01:24, while ATC reported this to Malaysia Airlines at 02:40. Beyond the ATC last contact of 01:24, the aircraft could still be picked up by Malaysian military radar.

The article also states that the last military radar detection (over Strait of Malacca, near Pulau Perak) was at 02:40.

While the last ATC contact time (01:24) seems clear, the real question here is whether the last military radar detection coincidentally occur the very same minute (02:40) that ATC reported the 01:24 loss of contact to Malaysian Airlines, or if that information is convoluted and a third time is missing from the picture. Right now either the article has times mixed up, the information from sources just isn't clear, or there is simply a coincidence that both of those events occurred at 02:40. Regardless, clarification is needed here.

As a sidenote, once this is clarified, maybe the image here could be modified to show the times next to the markers as well. --CrunchySkies (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: The aside. I'm happy to add timestamps, but for now I'm gonna wait until more sources start agreeing on stuff. I've tried to accommodate some of the uncertainty by providing maps both with and without the alleged radar contact over Pulau Perak. You can ping me on my talk page when an update looks sensible... Sailsbystars (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
one thing that would make the timescale clearer is the addition of UTC times wherever a local time is mentioned. For example, there is an hour difference between local time in Malaysia and that in Vietnam. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Which year was this aircraft built?

Which year was this aircraft built? Would it not be of interest to find out what year this model was built and some of it's service history / previous owners and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.218.40 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any sources that state the year this flight (370) was built. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Read the relevant section of the article and all will be revealed. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That says the year it first flew, not the exact year it was manufactured. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Airframe Details For Malaysia Airlines MH370 WWGB (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Close enough for me. Which year was it? 84.208.218.40 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the source WWGB just posted, April 2002. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not really the right question. It might take months to build one; the first flight date is more relevant, like the launch date of a ship. It first flew in May 2002, 142 months old; flying an average of just over 12 hours a day, every day of its life; and averaging a bit more than 7 hours per flight. YSSYguy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Communications and crisis management

I do not think this should be in the article. It is almost entirely made up of opinions of people who are not otherwise involved. Roches (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "The out of controls rumors and theory of conspiracy that has been spread worldwide make it even worse" seems to be unsupported opinion. But everything else seems to be perfectly valid and adequately sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you read any media lately? Most major sources are reporting on the inconsistencies and bumbling incompetence of various Malaysian agencies. Almost all sources in the article are written by "people who are not otherwise involved". Commentary and criticism are a valid aspect of any issue. The opinions expressed are from experts in their field, not some random person in the street. WWGB (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw maybe one sentence that could have not been NPOV and it has been removed. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This person is the CEO of a public relations firm, evidently. It's not really about whether or not the paragraph follows the rules of Wikipedia.Roches (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, which person? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Mike Smith. Roches (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, he's a "crisis management expert" [8], so who could be better qualified to provide expert comment here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If it were somebody complaining or spouting rhetoric, I wouldn't have put it in. This seemed valid to me, as Smith was merely crystallising what other news sources have noticed about the contradictions. As to that NPOV-violating sentence, it must have been put there by some drive-by vandal. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
... or rival CEO, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Is that a joke? I'm not sure, because this is about a plane crash that millions of people around the world want information about. WWGB and Ohc, do you know each other, any other editors on here, or Mike Smith? Most of the people I've talked to about this think I should stop caring and stop trying, and a few of you have already been enormously successful at making me waste time on this talk page.Roches (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Did I sound as if I was making a joke? Did you see that little smiley? You speak as if you're the only one finding editing here a frustrating experience. Well, let me disabuse you of that notion. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you think that my appraisal of Mike Smith's professional credentials was a joke? Are you suggesting that his reported comments are inclued in this article only because one or more wikipedia editors know him? Do you think other editors are "wasting your time" by repeatedly reinstating a whole section of the article that only you want to remove? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What are his professional credentials? In my understanding of the world, "communications and crisis management" is not a profession or a field, although there are a handful of scholarly journals. Other people that are quoted in this article are involved somehow in the disaster, as investigators, as officials, and so on. They may not always be right, but they are involved. Experts are something different; they fill up space on 24-hour TV news.
Also, once people said they wanted the section to stay on the talk page, I left it alone. That is not a waste of time. Typing on here rather than in the article is a waste of time.Roches (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It certainly is not a waste of time, as we are driven by concensus. If you can't accept this, you should stop editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Roches: If you can't stand the heat, you ought to stay out of the kitchen. Neither Mike Smith nor his company are even mentioned in the article by name, and the source seems to qualify as a reliable source – if it isn't I'd happily pull the section myself. I don't see what grounds you have for accusing several editors for being in conflict of interest and being in cahoots with each other for making this section stick against your wishes. You've been doing great work cleaning up the article up until yesterday, and something/someone – possibly me ;-) – seems to have unhinged you. Please take time to cool off, have a drink or a few hours sleep before you come back. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Crisis management is a well recognized profession.--Nowa (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"Australian crisis management expert Mike Smith" is in the article. Crisis management is not a profession, it's a business. He is one of hundreds of experts who have given "expert opinions" (for money) to news agencies (as filler), and there is no reason why the article should do that, because it's free promotion for him and his business. Asking if there's a COI isn't an offensive accusation; I'm sure you're aware that things like that do happen. Likewise WP:CABAL; I have no grounds to think you know each other, but this internet has trolls and always will. I want to know I can assume good faith.Roches (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You're saying that professions and businesses can never overlap? You're saying that you know Mr Smith was paid? (.. although I think a mention in a Wikipedia article might be worth a lot more!) Doesn't AGF work both ways? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I let the genie out of the bottle by naming Mike Smith, now someone reverted me when I tried to remove it. The internet is a funny place. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so that's him! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
<chuckles> -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There are many CEOs of many PR firms in the world. I'm not sure why this guy's opinion is any more important than any other. HiLo48 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Because several reliable sources have cited him. If there are other crisis management experts cited, we can include them as well.--Nowa (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There might be some op-eds that offer similar analysis. The may be useful. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
So. Professions are things like medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, law, science, and flying commercial airliners. Professionals have a code of ethics and require special knowledge to practice because they work with matters of life-and-death importance.
  • RfC. No harsh feelings, I suppose, but the more I think about it, the more I don't like it. I think a broader group of people need to consider it. Roches (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Public Relations Society of America has member certifications and a code of ethics. And their work can be life and death particularly when an organization, like an airline, needs to expertly provide communication in a crisis. Perhaps that's why Malaysia Airlines has just hired a crisis consultant to make sure it properly communicates with the families of the passengers.--Nowa (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think they should have needed that to figure out that they shouldn't fly them all over the site where the plane disappeared, to another country, to wait until they find out what happened. If there's a society with member certifications then it might be "semiprofessional," as there are many fields of business that require certifications (like chartered accountancy). Professions go beyond just what I've said, though. And yes, many of them require you to run a business. Scientists have a research plan, a budget and do probably more marketing than they realize. I'm a chemist, although I'm not working as one now; I don't recommend it to others. I don't think many young people decide they want to, no, need to, be a crisis management person when they grow up, but it's a much better plan, I'm sure.Roches (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Roches - do you think that most professionals don't make money by means of a business? They can certainly still have a code of ethics and special knowledge. If they didn't, they'd go broke. Many of them may also have a business plan and maybe some marketing too. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
See above. I hope the RfC comments aren't too angry. I won't comment on any more because it's not really fair to the process to 'reply' to them all. And of course I won't object to the RfC consensus. This is the first time I've edited in a contentious article. I signed up for RfCing too (for science, mostly).Roches (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Roches, for your courtesy and calmer approach here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stolen passports

The ages of the Austrian and Italian are not supported by the two references following the second sentence. I guess they are based on the Passenger Manifest. However, at least the age of the Austrian is wrongly given with 30 years. Correct are 61 [sic]. "Auf Flug MH370 gebuchter Österreicher im Gespräch". Der Standard (in German). 2014-03-11. Retrieved 2014-03-12. Shall we keep wrong ages? It might be reasonable to assume that a young Iranian manipulated the DOB (1953) in the passport – but since I don’t have a reference, that’s pure speculation. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible to add debris images?

Notably this:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73541000/png/_73541784_303252.png Thecodingproject (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Brunei assets..

I think one of the Brunei ship has been listed here by Xinhua, the Darussalam class. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the Royal Brunei Navy article, a Darussalam-class Offshore patrol vessel. Mjroots (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why two maps?

At the moment, the article has two maps showing very much the same information. The second, captioned "search area" doesn't show the published delineated search areas - it is just zoomed in from the first. As it stands, does the second map add anything to the article? Can it be deleted - or made more informative? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the second one adds nothing, I've removed it. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

???Location

It says in the 3rd paragraph of the section Location that it flew west for "70 minutes." Was this a mistake and it was actually "7 minutes" or was it true? If it was true, can I please see the source? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Right now it currently says: On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft turned west and continued flying for 70 minutes before disappearing near Pulau Perak;[27][28] it "changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait". This last location is approximately 500 km (311 mi) from its last position in contact with air traffic control.[29] However, the next day Rodzali Daud denied making the statements as reported in the media, requesting that the misreporting be "amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretations of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report".[30][31] Vietnam has scaled back its search operations to await clarification from Malaysia due to the conflicting reports.[32]

But, shouldn't it say On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft turned west and continued flying for 7 minutes before disappearing near Pulau Perak;[27][28] it "changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait". This last location is approximately 500 km (311 mi) from its last position in contact with air traffic control.[29] However, the next day Rodzali Daud denied making the statements as reported in the media, requesting that the misreporting be "amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretations of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report".[30][31] Vietnam has scaled back its search operations to await clarification from Malaysia due to the conflicting reports.[32]

WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention of transponder in lead?

In the in-depth reports of the unfolding case thatI've seen, they all mention the transponder having to be turned off, likely manually. This may have been debunked already, but the omission seems like an oversight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The transponder getting turned off is just one of the theories. I don't think we can have every theory in the lead. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If we get confirmation that the plane appeared on the west side of Malaysia the transponder becomes a very notable matter. Why did the plane overfly Kota Bharu (never mind Penang) where it could have made an emergency landing if there was a problem that knocked out the transponder (and ACARS and all communications capacity)? I think it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the controller of the aircraft wanted to take it to a remote area in the Indian Ocean where it would probably never be found.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese may have found debris

3 satellite images -- breaking news Thecodingproject (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.216.2 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • We have no idea, from how chaotic this is and the large number of parties involved, whether this will be another wild goose chase. The whole S&R seems to be very badly managed, we don't even know if there is effective coordination between the search parties to make the search systematic and effective. Here we have an apparent Chinese information scoop. Credit will be all theirs if this turns out to be true. But then, we all know that there are huge garbage patches all over the oceans that also harm wildlife and will impede any search.

    Then there's a person not authorised to communicate who is doing just what they are not authorised to do. It's irresponsible. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I removed a sentence from the lead about the Chinese satellite discovery on the basis that it's breaking news that has no business in the lead. However, I've been reverted twice. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so I'm bringing it here. Somebody other than me can remove it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It has every right to be in the intro of an article which has the following notice just above it -- "This article documents a current event." The Chinese announcement seems not to be a kneejerk reaction like most of the others, they are talking about possible wreckage near the scheduled route the aircraft was to take, they have provided a location and they have provided images. It is adequately referenced and is a significant event in a rapidly changing scenario. Should it turn out to be hokey pokey then ok, we ditch it. Your novel method of avoiding 3rr by asking someone else to remove it is noted. Moriori (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be in the lead. The Associated Press says that Malaysian authorities insist there's in fact nothing at the location where these images are supposed to indicate there is something. And the Vietnamese say they've gone over it as well. The Chinese may have just thrown these out to basically say, "see we're doing something, adding value here." As the Washington Post notes, "China has been eager to present a proactive image to its citizens and has released a steady stream of propaganda-like images and news about its efforts".--Brian Dell (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Response section

Do we really need to list each a/c and ship by type and (sometimes) name? — Lfdder (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. It is becoming clumsy. Perhaps just a list of countries involved would be best, but even that runs the risk of us missing one or more. It would be nice to find a single source or two that consolidated all the information in one place, rather than our editors doing their own original research in this area. HiLo48 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess, with the Air France Flight 447 in mind, and with the clock ticking on the black box beacon, everyone is waiting for a deep water submersible? That would, of course, put the unsuccessful efforts of all the aircraft and surface vessels into a sad perspective. I would be tempted to keep the current infomation but perhaps tabulate it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Or, as with AF447: a rusty needle, in a very wet haystack, crushed flat, at the bottom of the sea, using a camera, on the end of a very long rope (kind of!) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The beacon's only got a short range (2 or 3 km), so unless they can track down the debris field (if there's a field to speak of) they'd be looking for a needle in a haystack in a needle in a haystack. — Lfdder (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
But I see no ranges are currently given in Underwater locator beacon. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I might've pulled that one out of my arse, but this is from the AF447 2nd interim report, p. 77:

The distance first estimated for detecting the ULBs by the submarine was of the order of 2,000 metres.

— Lfdder (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You are revealing hidden depths here, Lfdder. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There was a graphic from the NST that we could draw inspiration from. I've been trying to keep tabs on its style, but yes, it needs to loosen up and be less exhaustive. I was hoping people would be less obsessed with including every known asset that gets cited in the press, but I guess I should stop dreaming. It's the risk we took when we permitted such a section to take root. I'm not averse to simplifying it or even nuking it and replacing with something lower-key and more manageable. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, that all looks very exciting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody braver than me wanna try sorting it out then? — Lfdder (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

crowd sourcing

thanks for informative article, not sure where crowd sourcing search of satellite images should go but should be mentioned. [[9]] is one of a few web references. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Suggestion: put it after the list of countries involved in the search, either with or without a bullet point. Call it "Online" or "International", then talk about the search of satellite images. Roches (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks seems sensible enough. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Digital Imagery "Wreckage" Photos available?

Spotted this over at http://wordswithmeaning.org/the-search-for-mh370-boeing-777-continues-as-satellite-imagery-discovers-potential-wreckage/

Is this notable enough to include? It doesn't state it's definite, but it does contain the images

--The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The images themselves are likely copyright. I personally doubt they will amount to much. The objects are described in the original announcement as being 13 m × 18 m, 14 m × 19 m, and 24 m × 22 m. A Boeing 777-200ER has a 6.19 m diameter with the wings and stabilizers being smaller.[10] I just don't see multiple pieces the sizes of the ones reported by the Chinese breaking off a 777.
Since the objects spotted are only 20km from the center of the search area I imagine the area will get inspected closely to see if the objects can be located. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter)

Aircraft should have ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) that deploy in case of an accident. Conventionally, these are stowed at the rear of the aircraft, where damage is likely to be least and to provide greater time for deployment in case of impact (assumed to be at the front of the aircraft). Originally, ELTs allowed search aircraft to find crashed aircraft, if within range. However, the Cospas-Sarsat satellites & ground stations allow these signals to be picked-up automatically since the early 1980's, generating an initial fix of the signal. Currently, aircraft should be installed with 406 MHz ELTs.

I am puzzled why this system has not been mentioned at all so far. I cannot imagine that passenger jets today do not have them installed. Of course, its possible that it failed to transmit (if installed); but the existence of this International satellite based search and rescue system should at least acknowledged. If it were installed and working, we should (at least) have a fix of the aircraft at point of impact or disintegration. If not, why was it not installed?!? If it was installed, there should at least be some discussion as to why it (apparently) did not work.
Enquire (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean one of these? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's installed. It didn't work. No radio calls, no transponder, no radar, no ELT, no nothing. It's really weird and we right now don't really have any information to discuss why it didn't work. F (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
A ULB is not an ELT, a ULB is purely to find the FDR and CVR underwater. If the aircraft is underwater, the ELT will not work. If the aircraft caught fire and burnt it, it will not work. If the antenna coaxial cable was severed in a crash or the antenna was destroyed, its transmission range would be measured in metres. If it is inside a hangar in North Korea, it will not work either. YSSYguy (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Are ELTs triggered by a given level of impact? On sea, as well as on land? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, typically 9G IIRC. Dismantled light aircraft being transported by road have been known to have ELT activations. The system has to survive intact (ELT, coax and antenna) for it to work, which is its big drawback. YSSYguy (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
So a "gentle impact" will not trigger it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct, but such an impact is likely to be survivable and there is a remote switch in the cockpit as well that the crew can use. Aagain though, the wiring between the cockpit and the ELT has to survive intact, as does at least one crewmember. YSSYguy (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
According to our CVR article, Cockpit voice recorder#Future devices says the several bills came to the floor of Congress and never passed. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(... or one of the two Iranian hijackers, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The hijackers who were cleared by Malaysian authorities?Wzrd1 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Will it work in the mountains of Afghanistan? My wild guess is that Zaharie is a secret Taliban, and the plane is now somewhere near the Pakistan–Afgan border. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I started the ELT thread on 10 March 2014 under the heading Distress radiobeacon but my contribution seems to have disappeared like the aircraft. Biscuittin (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Guess you didn't crash hard enough. But am still a bit surprised no mention at all in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) ...despite a quite few media mentions: [11], [12], [13], [14], etc etc

Indian Dornier aircraft

According to this article at Indianexpress.com and this one at Reuters.com (among many other reliable sources), the two Dornier Do 228 aircraft that have recently been dispatched to the area by India, belong to the Indian Coast Guard and not to the Air Force, as is incorrectly mentioned in our article. There are several sites around that mention this fact. Is anyone willing to correct this little mistake or should I do it myself? Thanks in advance. − Sandip90 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Be bold, make the edit!. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done You are right! Hopefully it is better (i.e., more accurate) now. − Sandip90 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting theory

wp:NOTAFORUM and wtfs with casually blaming the pilot? 2nd time I see it now — Lfdder (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anyone want to give credence to this idea? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"considered studying Aerospace engineering". Sorry, no points given for "consideration". Check back when the Associated Press cites this kid as an expert.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this hoax could find a mention: Facebook Survey Scam - 'Malaysian MH370 Plane Found In Bermuda Triangle' from Hoax Slayer. --Auric talk 03:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think they MIGHT be in Iran?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MIGHT. Got this idea from Facebook by another person. Agree? IDK. And, remember. MIGHT. --Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 04:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370/Archive_3&oldid=1136983603"