Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

The problem with politicians and officials

The past week or so there has been many twists and turns in regards to the official story of the location of the plane and motive behind the plane's disappearance. The Department of Civil Aviation(Malaysia), the police, Home Minister, Defence Minister and Prime Minister have been releasing out information without any coordination and there have been denials and finger pointing.

4 stolen passports that was later amended to 2
Possible Iranian terrorists, but later amended to asylum seekers and now possibly a hijacking. A complete circle and go around.
Last known location was in the South China Sea somewhere of Vietnam and now they say its in the Andaman Sea or Indian Ocean or even up further north-west in Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan.
Engine trouble, frost buildup and now communications deliberately being turn off and a possible foul play.
A veteran pilot and now a suspect in foul play.

This is getting interesting by the minute.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/257165. 58.168.102.157 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt it's in Turkmenistan. That's based on the fact that one of the airways an unknown plane was found on, P628, happens to end there. There was a claim that an unknown aircraft was seen on airways P628 and N571. Those run parallel to each other, so it is very unlikely that the same airplane was on both of those airways. It is also very unlikely that an airplane would follow R208 to waypoint IGARI, which we know MH370 did, then fly off any airway to assume a course on P268 or N571. P268 and N571 are to the west of Malaysia. The SkyVector link will show you this (make sure you have World Hi selected).

I don't see denials or finger-pointing. I do think the Malaysian officials know more than they are saying, but I think most of the contradictions in facts are occurring in the minds of people who are making incorrect assumptions and conclusions about what little information there is. (What I mean by this in reference to this article is that we should not be saying anything about possible destinations.)Roches (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting back the to issue of reliable information, one of the foundations of Wikipedia is that it's content is based on "reliable secondary sources". As far as I can tell, all sources related to this incident have proved to be unreliable. Where does that leave Wikipedia? Do we have to redefine what a reliable source is?--Nowa (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No. This is an ever-changing story. We post information based on what is released to the press. If that later transpires to be incorrect (note, not unreliable), then it can be changed. Based on your logic, then this article shouldn't exist at all, as it's about a missing plane that you've heard about on the news. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, you are confusing "reliable" with "correct". All we can aspire to is that all the info we add can be traced back to a source that has editorial oversight, peer review or some other such process and not to a chat room, opinion column or some demented-nutjob blogger. YSSYguy (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction between “reliable” and “correct”. Can you point to a source covering this subject that has been reliable and yet not correct?--Nowa (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple. Just look at one of the many denied claims. They are probably not correct in the sense that what they claim have been subsequently denied. They are reliable in the sense that they are sufficient for us to write "<Insert the name here> claims that <insert the claim here>, but..." in this article. --Ahyangyi (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear that even though the Iranians are undoutedly being looked at closely again, as for that matter are all the passengers and crew (I doubt the investigation on them ever totally stopped though even if it wasn't a major focus), there's still zero public evidence that they were involved. They could still easily be what has been believed for many days now i.e. hapless assylum seekers caught up in whatever this was.

The fact they were using stolen passports may be slightly suspicious (but as has been pointed out by many sources, there's also reason to think hijackers will avoid them if they can) and perhaps the area the plane may have been headed. But you could just as well say the fact that the area of China the plane could have been headed to has some political instability (and there were many Chinese were on board) is suspicious. Or for that matter, that the plane had 2 Ukranians and 1 Russian at a time of very high tensions between the two countries, and was originally headed towards Beijing the capital of China (and it would be useful for both sides but particularly the Ukranians to convince China to support them). Or that it had a bunch of Freescale employees. In other words, theories are a dime a dozen, some may be more believable than others and the investigators must be investigating anything with any slight evidence but as it stands, it's not clear that the 'Iranian' theory has much more credibility than many others.

I also agree with Roches that a lot of the contradictions either don't exist, or are basically from inaccurate or misleading media reports. And while I haven't followed this article, I expect people have been too desperate to treat this as a news article rather than an encyclopaedic one. In other words, added every single possible lead the moment someone or a few reliable sources mention it rather than waiting a few hours to make sure it's actual worth being mentioned. This happens all the time in these sort of articles, it's just that this one has played out over a much longer period and I long gave up worrying about it too much.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree there has been a lot of finger pointing, especially when police saying the DCA or Customs not doing their job, meaning they did not update their database of stolen passports.

Then now comes Interpol saying that the Malaysians refused their help numerous times after they offered their assistance. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-missing-jet-interpol-probes-more-suspect-passports-1.2565773 http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-turned-down-interpol-help-to-hunt-for-mh370-abc-news-reports

Then there are denials by the Defence Minister and the police that investigators have been going to the homes of crew members even though the Home Minister that there were investigations ongoing.http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/more-contradictions-as-zahid-says-cops-visited-homes-of-mh370-crew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.144.239 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Search and rescue participants

The list of naval assets deployed stresses the magnitude of the massive international operation that is taking place. This is worth mentioning; it shows how much importance the issue is receiving from across the region. MAS is after all one of Asia's largest airlines and is a major flyer to most of these countries. There has probably not been such a large multinational effort here since the 2006 tsunami.--Bazaan (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If the search is notable it may be worth a spin of to Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 at some point. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I had expected that page to have been created by now.--Bazaan (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an edit war underway on whether the full details should be included. I submit that summary information is enough. Full details of every plane and ship is too much. Each interested country is contributing according to its means. That's all we need to know. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. There is much more important info below this section that people may never reach. At the very least, let's move "Participation" to the bottom. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the spin off article get created and the names be moved there. The search mission is notable in itself; if you can have separate articles on international reaction to events, then this should well qualify as well.--Bazaan (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's like the "international reactions" stuff that clogs up other articles. Interesting to the zealots, but a big yawn to the rest of us. Park all the overly-detailed technical detail in a separate article. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The zealots are already here with their IPs. And I'm having to face all the wrath.--Bazaan (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel that creating a ghetto is the solution. There will always be a hundred more set of eyes on this article than any spinoff about the assets, and I'd rather keep all that cruft here in one article so that it can be held in check. We will certainly see cruft explosion if the content is ejected. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably a reasonable point Ohconfucius it is hard enough keeping on top of the well meaning IP and new editors as it is. We should still consider a seperate article once things settle down. Oh and thanks to all those who are managing to keep some sort of order on on an article with a large number of edits (and more than 200,000 views a day). MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hijacking confirmed as official

Dear all, various reputable news source has confirmed hijacking as official by investigators. Therefore, do not remove as unsourced/unverified http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fgw-wn-malaysia-plane-hijacking-20140314,0,356436.story#axzz2w0Ev26KS http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-divert-andaman-islands-article-1.1721523 Ceecookie (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Note the key word "anonymous". That is far from "official". WWGB (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed this is not "official." You can count all the news sources you want, but you've still effectively only got one if all those news sources are just repeating what one source said. In this case, it appears to me that the ONLY source we have is the Associated Press. This source could have gone rogue and at a minimum we need another anonymous official to say something similar to another source like Reuters. And what we really need, of course, is an official saying this on the record (i.e. not anonymously). This has not been announced in a press conference. It's worth a mention somewhere because AP does carry it but a mention is all that this warrants right now. No reclassifying the article category yet. One of the reasons for objecting to putting this into the lede just yet is because we've already got most of it in the lede already in the form of "investigators have noted evidence that the aircraft headed west back across the Malay Peninsula and remained capable of flying for hours after first disappearing from radar." What's missing is making that material out to be the "well that settles it then" conclusion the reader should be left to draw him or herself. Evidently one guy in the Malaysian government reckons it is settled and that his colleagues agree. Well, that remains to be seen.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Australia's ABC, a non-sensationalist news source, is telling us that "Malaysia's prime minister will hold a press conference soon." Let's at least await that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is mentioning this as well. We should still wait a little bit, though, even after the press conference, until we're sure that it's all factual and without error. There have been all sorts of false leads in the past as well, which kind of emphasises the importance of waiting things out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a press conference ongoing now(actually 1.30pm but delayed to start 7 mins earlier instead). Watch at http://www.livestation.com/en/reuters Ceecookie (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently somebody did say at this press conference that it's a hijacking. But we still need a name and a citation.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I can guarantee that whatever is said today will not be the final word. We still have no aeroplane. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We still have to report what Malaysian investigators had to say. The national leader will generally only do this if there is a major announcement so I'm now satisfied that Malaysian investigators have called it.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Malaysian Prime Minister did not confirm terrorism or hijacking, merely that that the unusual changes (plural) of course appear to have been deliberate. He did say it could have got as far as Kazakhstan. The search operation in the South China Sea will end and now focus on the Indian Ocean. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He also confirmed it turned west from its usual course and crossed the Malaysian Peninsula, then turned north west over the Strait of Malacca. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Malaysian PM, BBC News report that "changes to the plane's course were made deliberately" - no mention of a hijacking. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words the door was left open for the possibility that it's the assigned flight crew. As it no doubt should be.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed :) ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that "Najib was briefed on the new data by investigators from two U.S. agencies". So in other words the U.S. basically told Malaysia what to say. The idea that the Malaysians are in charge and know more than anyone else is largely just for public consumption such that we should look through that as appropriate when deciding what to make of U.S. officials declining to go on the record while Malaysian officials jump on the record. In other words, it's not like, boom, Malaysian PM speaks and "rumours" are thereby transformed into fact. To a large extent either it was pretty solid before he spoke and still is or it was highly dubious before he spoke and still is.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to keep in perspective the term 'hijacking'. This tends to relate, in common understanding, to someone doing something for specific gain. If the plane was 'hijacked' then why this particular flight? What was so special about it? Did it have some specific cargo or person? If it was get their hands on a 777 (for whatever reason), there are probably other 'easier' options around the globe than targeting South-east Asia (although some logic in doing it in the middle of the night). Also, 'hijacking' a commerial flight, with the security system around it, would mean some significant degree of planning rather than a spontaneous act - and any plan will leave some sort of 'crumb-trail' (...probably too much to expect that the NSA actually got something it...). After all, you have a captive audience of suspects on a plane so they can be traced (unless someone has tried to replicate the movie 'Executive Decision'). It is also reported that the diversion is seen as a 'solo' operation - why so? And if someone/people did take over the plane, do you think the passengers would have been passive for 5+ hours? All in all, the hijacking scenario has too many 'what if' strands to it so I can understand why the Malaysian PM is therefore reluctant to use this term. Mari370 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone watched today's press conference? Any new tidbits to share? :) Ceecookie (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Experts have told Sky News that a hijacking scenario is looking "increasingly likely"." Skynews The official said that hijacking was no longer a theory. “It is conclusive.”CBS 207.119.196.4 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've read those articles and they don't really contribute anything. The people who are saying these things are speaking on condition of anonymity and/or not named. Here's another article in the same vein France 24.com. The problem is that we don't know if these ideas are only entertained by one or two investigators/officials with a vivid imagination, or this really represents the thinking of the investigators overall, and they just don't want to say it officially yet. I found something slightly more specific, with named people in the aviation industry publicly voicing concerns about possible hijacking: Missing Plane: 'Evidence Points To Hijack' (SkyNews). Alfons Åberg (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of countries involved, expanded search

Now increased to 25 but no details yet of what assets are involved from all.[1] Some countries including France being asked to assist with satellite search and both corridors being treated with equal importance.[2] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also the Royal Australian Air Force now searching the Indian Ocean north and west of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.[3] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The number of countries is now 25, but does the article benefit from the detailed (if incomplete) list of assets involved by nation? I would like to see a timeline indicating the no. of countries, and the total sea and air (and now land-based?) assets involved in the search by date, (perhaps adding total search area?) to give a more succinct view, in place of the increasingly unmanageable text list. Regards,Lynbarn (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka info?

Hello, at risk of being accused of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SPECULATION and WP:ETC, and all the other arguments that are being used to keep a lid on this talk page, I'd like to make a gentle suggestion... I'd love to see more (any?) info on how Sri Lanka and the Tamils relate to this disappearance. So far I have seen no references to Sri Lanka in the entire article, including the ridiculously exhaustive list of assets deployed to the search. Perhaps this means that there is no RS mention of Sri Lanka, in all the articles written about MH370. Perhaps not. I will see if I can find any RS that mention SL in the same breath as MH370, and I hope others do the same. I find it a bit odd that one of the few countries on the last flight track, within hypothetical range, has a history of terrorism and acts against jetliners, yet has not been even peeped about in this article. But really, five points to the first person who can post "stop speculating" as a response to this question (ten points to the first person who posts an article about Sri Lanka LOL). 72.35.149.153 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So far there has been no information about any implication or speculation of the LTTE or others in Sri Lanka being involved in MH370. In fact as reported so far there is no Sri Lankan passenger on board.--PremKudva^Talk 05:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Southern vector search zone

The search in the southern vector is now being led by Australia.[4][5] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Political mileage for the ruling party and government

Right now the Malaysian mainstream media(Berita Harian, Star) is trying to make the pilot Capt Zaharie out to be a supporter of Anwar Ibrahim and a opposition Pakatan Rakyat supporter, who supposedly hijacked the plane as revenge for Anwar's conviction in the his sodomy case.121.217.88.6 (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep politics out of this for now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed all but a brief mention. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair this seems to have been partially started by Daily Mail and reenforced by Australian media too but I agree it should be brief if mentioned at all. I find it somewhat ironic in a morbid way since when I first read this I jokingly suggested it was a BN plot to draw attention away from the Anwar conviction. All we need now is for North Korea or Russia/Ukraine to be the next theory. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There are theories flying around that the plane was hijacked to repeat September 11 in India. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So they're flying around, eh? That's more than the plane is doing now. Please keep the speculation off this page. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what I've been doing? Keeping politics and speculation off? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:33, 17 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. Again 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)

Surely, bills passed by Congress are only legally binding within USA jurisdiction? Likewise, the FAA is the national agency for the USA, it does not have international jurisdiction, and although it does have a lot of influence world-wide, and there does need to be a lot of international standardisation in the aviation sector, it may be (I don't know if this is the case) that ELTs are not mandated for flights between Malaya and China. If Malaysia Airlines hadn't subscribed to ACARS, which is globally available, maybe they don't fit ELRs either? Just a thought... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The applicable body for international aviation is the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which does require ELTs - requirements tend to be (mostly) harmonised multinationally, so if US law requires a piece of equipment, it's likely that ICAO regs and those of major nations have similar requirements. Additionally western airliners are developed to either the Federal Airworthinesss Requirements (FARs, US) or Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JARs, European), which are deliberately harmonised with each other, to the point that the European authorities consulted on 777 certification for FAA as they had more FBW experience at the time, and this tends to mean most airliners out there have broadly similar core equipment fits. The FAR/JAR requirements are so dominant that even countries like China are now trying to develop to FAR standards. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:10, 15 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: [6], [7], [8], [9], etc etc

We need to bring this discussion back on track

Was an ELT installed on MH370? If so, why no discussion on looking for signals from it (406MHz). If the aircraft was not equipped with an ELT, why the hell not? It is precisely for incidents like this that ELTs and the SARSAT system was put in place in early 1980s. I can't believe that a commercial jet liner with passengers does not have this when we have a global satelite search and rescue system in service now for over 30 years. If an ELT was deployed, we would have known where the damn aircraft was last week. Does anyone here have specific knowledge of the current status of ELT installations. I had assumed that they were mandatory. Maybe not? Has anyone asked Malaysian Airlines if they had an ELT on board MH370?!? (please don't make general comments here ... we should be chasing down whether or not MH370 had an ELT on board, and if so, what signals (if any) have been received.) And, if not installed ... how on earth was it possible to put this aircraft into service without an ELT on board?!? What about FAA, surely they demand ELTs to be on board and operational?

Enquire (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to crash (pun intended), but here are a few links to push the conversation in the right direction (each article has discussion of ELTs either in the main ariticle and/or reader comments) ... surely even more relevant ones to come:

MH370 Contact Lost - PPRuNe Professional Pilots Rumour Network
Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 makes it clear: we need to rethink black boxes The Guardian, 2014-03-09
Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 makes it clear: we need to rethink black boxes (theguardian.com) Hacker News, 2014-03-10
How can a plane vanish? Channel 4, 2014-03-08
Malaysia Airlines MH370 last radio, radar contacts revised to sooner Crikey, 2014-03-08
Malaysia Airlines CEO unsure if vital repairs done to MH370 Crikey, 2014-03-13

Enquire (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I have added a section "Criticism of current aviation technology". Biscuittin (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My addition has been removed on the grounds that "we cant put everbodys moan on here as we dont even know if it is relevant to the accident". I think it is obviously relevant. If we had better technology, the aircraft would have been found by now. Biscuittin (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit vague and woolly and didn't specify any technology in particular. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference includes this: "But even a little data is better than almost none, which the disappearance of flight 370 makes clear. It should be rather straightforward to install a processor connected to the black box that can select a subset of the most relevant data. A recent patent application filed by Boeing describes such a system, which specifies a limited data set including the precise location of the aircraft and the flight control inputs by the pilot or the automation system". I don't think this is vague and woolly. Biscuittin (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The above seems to be speculation about a possible future system. An ELT, on the other hand, is an existing technology and together with COSPAS/SARSAT is a well established system to detect and find downed aircraft. The system is not used at all in normal flight, it only becomes active after a crash. MH370 should have an ELT on board. If so, it should have become active on impact (with land or sea). Of course, if the aircraft was landed or made a soft landing somewhere, the ELT would not have activated. If the ELT was activated, SARSAT would have picked it up, period. Since there has been no report of an ELT transmission, it is reasonable to suppose that one of the more probable scenarios is that the aircraft landed in some fashion somewhere. If it had crashed in a conventional sense, one of the SARSAT satellites should have picked up an ELT distress signal. That, apparently, has not happened. Also, I seem to recall hearing on the news that some relatives of passengers report that if they call their loved one's mobiles, they appear to be ringing (rather than getting an error message). If this rumour is true, that also tends to suggest that the aircraft made a relatively soft landing somewhere... Anyway, this does mean that the ELT (or, rather, apparent lack of an ELT distress signal) may turn out to be a significant part of the puzzle.

Has anyone here seen any maintenance manual or have access to any Boeing 777-200ER technical information about the location and deployment mechanism for ELTs on that aircraft? Ideally, the ELT should be electable from the rear of the fuselage on impact (like airbags, except that in this case the ELT is ejected, rather than restrained). Also, I would NOT expect the ELT to be accessible within the aircraft. This is significant, because if the aircraft was hijacked by knowledgeable people, I would expect that they would (also) want to disable to ELT as well as the transponder. So, unless the ELT was disabled on the ground prior to departure, I would not expect that crew or passengers would be able to tamper with it. Does anyone have any specifics of the ELT configuration and deployment mechanism on a Boeing 777-200ER?
Enquire (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I don't know how relevant it is or if it helps at all, but this article does mention that there was no signal received from the ELT. Not sure where they are sourcing their info from though. Malaysia Airlines Plane MH370: Investigators Under Pressure to Find 'Black Box' Inside 30-Day Deadline International Business Times, 2014-03-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.188.149 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

ELTs are not 100% reliable, so the lack of an ELT signal is not proof that the aircraft landed safely. Most of the time they work well, maybe 85% of the time, I have heard. Of course, in a crash, there always remains the possibility that the ELT itself is damaged by fire or other hazard. This is why they are typically mounted at the back of the aircraft and, often on the top (crown) of the fuselage, close to the tail. If the ELT is activated, then the signal will be received immediately by a COSPAS/SARSAT satellite and a location is computed at a ground station fairly quickly - and search & rescue dispatched. So, while far from proof, the lack of an ELT signal adds considerable weight to theories that have the aircraft land or, at least, make a soft landing on land or sea.

Enquire (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

An ELT is not "deployed", in that it is securely attached to a robust part of the structure with access usually from outside the aircraft only (but I cannot say anything about the specifics of the installation on a 777). See my comments above, but it must remain connected to an antenna for its signal to be strong enough for reception, and activation is at a 9G impact or higher, and it won't work underwater. YSSYguy (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

777 aircraft was equipped with wi-fi and airphone?

I don't believe there is any mention of whether the passenger cabin was equipped with such technologies. If so, it should be discussed whether it was disabled or tampered with. --71.135.169.104 (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source has made reference to this plane being fitted with wi-fi and/or air phone, then it is a valid point. If not, not. I don't believe the plane was so equipped. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the SkyVector link removed?

There was a link to an aeronautical chart in the article that has been removed. This is even more important than it was before, since there are additional airway intersections being discussed now.Roches (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did the SkyVector link replace the Storify link? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Storify is one of many effectively identical news portals and because I don't believe that all the click-throughs from Wikipedia to one of the many news portals should go to one specific one. If that makes sense. The other links are specific information; Storify is a news portal. I guess you can have it back. I'm just not happy with this article making money for people other than those who have been working on it. Obviously SkyVector gets money too, but they provide information that can't be found on many other sites.Roches (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine then. I guess SkyVector can be restored. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Page notice

So, in order to combat some of the consistent things that are occurring on the page and are reverted almost immediately, would you all be interested in creating an edit notice to let people know what not to add? One issue that has been going on as long as the article has been up is the link to Air France Flight 447, and I added a hidden notice to the "See also" section, but it is only useful if the section isn't removed completely and reinstated. If we could put up something to let others know that we don't want speculation and the like, it might help combat some of the edits that go against what we are trying to moderate here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Rutherford: That's doable, what wording do you propose? Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

SOmething like: 1. Please do not add speculative information or information from a tabloid. 2. Please do not remove sourced information without consensus. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: You actually just pinged my alternative account, but in terms of language, I think it would be fair to add what Rsrikanth05 proposed, as well as what I said above. Here is the edit notice, so feel free to suggest fixes if you both have any other concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

timeline

should not there be a detailed timeline highlighting the major facts and efforts of the rescue mission?, and moreover the everchanging details and facts of malaysian airlines personnel regarding the investigations?KUMANAN KABILAN 15:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumanan84 (talk • contribs)

Please watch for technical details on Inmarsat reports

So far I have not seen any real explanation of the two geographic arcs reported by Inmarsat as the possible locations of the plane's "pings". What follows is my tenative understanding based on my own knowledge of satellite communications. If anyone comes across more authoritative details please report them; it would be very helpful.

The 777 had an Inmarsat terminal that communicated through the Inmarsat 3 F1 satellite parked at approximately 64.5 degrees east longitude over the Indian Ocean. It apparently remained active after the user data stream (e.g., from the engines) was cut off.

Inmarsat 3 F1 was launched in 1996. It has an inclination of 1.65 degrees so its stationkeeping fuel may have run out (nominal geostationary inclination is zero). This means the satellite moves +/- 1.65 degrees around the equator, and this may affect the accuracy of the position estimates if it was not taken into account. The published diagrams show the satellite directly on the equator, which seems unlikely.

An Inmarsat terminal periodically transmits registration messages through the satellite saying "I'm here if you want to call me". (Mobile phones also send "registration" messages for the same reason whenever they're powered on and idle.) My understanding is that this uses the global beam so that alone does not provide a location clue, and while registrations do not carry location information the fact that it's a TDMA system means it must precisely synchronize its transmissions to the satellite signal to avoid interference between users. By measuring the round trip speed-of-light delay the ground can estimate the distance of the terminal from the satellite, and the two arcs of possible location on the map belong to the locus of points corresponding to the measured delay at the time. (Note that they coincide with the 40 degree elevation contour of the satellite's ground footprint.) The terminal could actually be anywhere on a complete circle around the sub-satellite point except that the plane did not have the fuel to reach much of it. And I presume the gap between the two arcs corresponds to areas where the plane would have been noticed by ground radars.

Again, this is simply my understanding of how those arcs were derived. It would be very helpful to find authoritative information to either confirm or refute my understanding so they could be explained in the article using something other than OR. Thanks. Karn (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm also interested. Another reason would be to use the data & methods to create a map with a CC license (to replace the copyrighted map currently used in the article). Inmarsat statement, Inmarsat newsroom, & SITA press releases (SITA provides aviation communications & is cited in the Inmarsat statement as a partner in the search). A Wall Street Journal article has the most details of any news source, but it's still extremely limited. AHeneen (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations, Karn. Hopefully a media outlet will contact you having seen your remarks here. It should be made clear in the article the Immarsat data gives distance from the satellite, not location per se, something we can cite to this NYT article, and we should probably indicate somehow that there should be error bars around the arcs (maybe this is already suggested by "corridors"?)--Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

CNN has a good article (for journalism, not very scientific) about how the satellite interacts with the plane. Interesting to note: "Inmarsat, which is prohibited from discussing details of the Malaysia Flight 370 investigation, was able to provide CNN with a detailed explanation about how its system works." AHeneen (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Inmarsat's 6 preceding pings?

The information (and arcs given) relate to the last ping between the aircraft and IOR. What about the preceding 6 pings? Wouldn't they also contain data providing distance? Wouldn't that provide some form of ongoing longitudinal data? Dogmaphobia (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogmaphobia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Plane flew past three military radar installations undetected

The plane flew over three military radar stations in northern Peninsular Malaysia that were manned by 4 man crews at any given time yet they did not detect the plane. That's hardly surprising since there were 2,508 Malaysian airspace intrusions by the Singaporean air force between 2008 and mid 2011, though those were through a predictable route. Can we add this? http://www.smh.com.au/national/mh370-missing-plane-flew-unnoticed-past-malaysian-radar-installations-20140316-34vmn.html http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543054/20140313/malaysia-india-mh370-missing-flight-china-rumour.htm http://www.fz.com/content/air-force-caught-napping-mh370-could-have-been-saved 124.179.75.36 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor @Ohconfucius is currently edit warring to remove a statement that investigators believe the plane even travelled over "northern Peninsular Malaysia" at all so first things first here. Some people evidently still need to be convinced the plane ever went west and didn't go down in the Gulf of Thailand.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As has happened before, Brian is trying to scoop the lead by putting what he thinks is the top hot theory there. He is holding out that the statement in the lead is iron clad fact, but the lead is written with weasel words that suggest it is mere supposition and speculation, and this is borne out by a closer examination of the sources. Except for one vague comment from the White House, the press articles cited all quote unnamed US officials. Whilst some of the small details are consistent, many of the unnamed sources are contradictory. The issue, once again, is not whether these statements are reliably sourced, but that they are still speculative working theories. They are suppositions, albeit based on the facts.

"The search for a missing Malaysian jetliner with 239 people onboard could expand westward into the Indian Ocean based on information that the plane may have flown for at least four hours after it dropped from civilian radar, U.S. officials said Thursday. A senior U.S. official said the information came from data sent via a satellite communications system by Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. That data has convinced U.S. officials that the plane’s engines continued to run for at least four hours after all other communication was lost."

also

"In Washington, one senior administration official said the signals came from the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), with which planes maintain contact with ground stations using radio or satellite signals. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, said Malaysian authorities shared the flight data with the administration. The fact that the signals did not reveal the plane’s location suggested that it came from the engine.... Other U.S. officials said their information did not reveal what direction the plane flew — or whether it simply circled — during those four hours." "Jay Carney said, 'It's my understanding that based on some new information that's not necessarily conclusive, but new information, an additional search area may be opened in the Indian Ocean". Washington Post

"U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines stayed in the air for up to four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky. The investigators believe the plane flew for a total of up to five hours, according to these people, based on analysis of signals sent by the Boeing 777's satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of certain onboard systems to the ground.WSJ

"Other U.S. officials said their information did not reveal what direction the plane flew — or whether it simply circled — during those four hours." ABC News

"The Wall Street Journal newspaper quoted U.S. investigators on Thursday as saying they suspected the plane remained in the air for about four hours after its last confirmed contact, citing data from the plane's engines that are automatically transmitted to the ground as part of a routine maintenance program." CBS News

Then, there's this:

"In Washington, the Malaysian announcement did little to change American investigators’ perspectives on what happened to the plane. 'It doesn’t mean anything; all it is is a theory,' one senior American official said. 'Find the plane, find the black boxes and then we can figure out what happened. It has to be based on something, and until they have something more to go on it’s all just theories.' The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the inquiry." from that impeccable source New York Times, published 15 March

The two apparent things that nobody disputes is that the communications system was manually overriden, and that information from satellites indicate that the aircraft continued to ping for several hours after its last transmission. Therefore, the lead needs to be written without the weasel words, but specifically mention only facts as facts. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Ohconfucius. Let's not behave like a sensationalist newspaper desperate for page hits. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What Ohconfucious insists on deleting, and what this thread was initiated to discuss, is investigators "believe that the aircraft headed west back across the Malay Peninsula". Nothing in what was presented above disputes this statement. The radar data is discussed at length in the article and should be mentioned in the lede. CBS News said on March 13 "U.S. radar experts have looked at the Malaysian military radar track, which seemed to show the jet flying hundreds of miles off course west of its flight path.... NTSB has VALIDATED the Malaysian military radar records". I have repeatedly invited Ohc to explain what is unreliable about this CBS News report and Ohc has failed to respond, editing warring for days now to suppress this material. The New York Times said "person who examined the data said it left LITTLE DOUBT that the airliner flew near or through the southern tip of Thailand, then BACK ACROSS PENINSULAR MALAYSIA, near the city of Penang, and out over the sea again. That is in part because the data is based on signals recorded by two radar stations, at the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s Butterworth base on the peninsula’s west coast, near Penang, and at Kota Bharu, on the northeast coast. Two radars tracking a contact can significantly increase the reliability of the readings." The NYT then says "Military radar last recorded the aircraft flying at an altitude of 29,500 feet, about 200 miles northwest of Penang and headed toward India’s Andaman Islands" without any qualifications or hedges at all. The Malaysian Prime Minister subsequently said "The primary radar data showed the aircraft proceeding on a flight path which took it to an area north of the Straits of Malacca. Given this CREDIBLE data, which was subsequently CORROBORATED with the relevant international authorities.... flew in a WESTERLY direction BACK OVER PENINSULAR MALAYSIA before turning northwest. Up until the point at which it left military primary radar coverage, these movements are consistent with deliberate action by someone on the plane.... we can CONFIRM that the aircraft shown in the primary radar data was flight MH370. AFTER MUCH FORENSIC WORK AND DELIBERATION, THE FAA, NTSB, AAIB AND THE MALAYSIAN AUTHORITIES, working separately on the same data, CONCUR." Now that that U.S., British, and Malaysian investigating agencies ALL "CONCUR" here, can we move on to substantively discuss what the original poster in this thread called attention to?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As for your deletion of investigators "believe that the aircraft... remained capable of flying for several hours", you really should be opening a new discussion thread (can you not read the title of this section? What did I talk about when I responded to the original poster and mentioned you?) if you are going to dispute that. The only rationale I can see for your objection here is that you want to push the notion that the plane had crashed YET continued to "ping" as a live theory. Readers should not be sent barking up that particular tree when there have been reports that have rejected its possibility (reportedly the pings mean the engines are running): "The last confirmed handshake was at 8.11am on Saturday, which would indicate that the aircraft continued flying for nearly seven hours after contact was lost... The seventh signal was sent but there has been no feedback. [Thus after 8:11 am] 'There are two likely possibilities -- either the plane landed somewhere and the engine was shut down or it crashed.'"--Brian Dell (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarify 14-minute gap?

Some news outlets are reporting that a reporting system was "turned off" at 1:07, 14 minutes before the transponder was turned off at 1:21. Wasn't the 1:07 transmission just part of the Rolls-Royce automated reporting, and that was the last periodic transmission received, but it may well have been working beyond 1:07? There seems to be confusion both in the press and in this article about what happened at 1:07. I'd love some clarification about specifically what systems were known to be doing what, at what times. Maybe a graphic also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Right and this is why we've been holding off on running with the claim that ACARS and the transponder were turned off at different times. Another factor that could potentially confuse the media is that supposedly it was said (but under-reported) in a Malaysian press conference a few days ago that for Malaysian Airlines aircraft their ACARS communications only work through VHF since they chose not to subscribe to the SATCOM link service. There might be further confusion about whether ACARS was shut off from the cockpit or whether it just went out of VHF range.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

However there is this: "...transponder stopped about 12 minutes before a messaging system quit, the unidentified American official said."--Brian Dell (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So they're supposedly saying a messaging system quit at 1:33? Which one? Not the ACARS ping which went on for hours. The Rolls-Royce via ACARS? Something else? Nobody is being specific about which and when, and the media generalizes and confuses facts making things worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.173.2 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rose Mary Woods called. She's offering to fill those 14 minutes, and has four-and-a-half bonus minutes to spare. TheEditrix2 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

From airline maintenance personnel: ACARS sends data periodically, the TRANSPONDER sends data continuously. This is why there is a 14 min gap from the last ACARS transmission to when the transponder stops. It all appears to be in line with a sudden catastrophic occurrence. Unfortunately it appears that the media is confused, or at minimum this needs to be clarified to the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.222.141 (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"However, Ahmad said Monday that while the last data transmission from ACARS -- which gives plane performance and maintenance information -- came before that, it was still unclear at what point the system was switched off. That opened the possibility that both ACARS and the plane's transponders -- which make the plane visible to civilian air traffic controllers -- were severed later and at about the same time. It also suggests that the all-clear message delivered from the cockpit could have preceded any of the severed communications." http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023150244_apxmalaysiaplane.html 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The transponder only sends data (generally 'I'm flight X at altitude Y') when interrogated by a secondary radar pulse, which isn't quite the same as 'continuously'. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The satellite "pinging" for hours AFTER loss of radio OR transponder contact with the flight does NOT fit with a "sudden catastrophic occurrence," or with the case of Air France 447, cited as an example of "disappearance without Mayday." In the case of AF 447 the ACARS transmitted scads of data during the relatively brief time-frame the plane was in distress, instead of mutely pinging the satellite for several additional hours... Sep issue, but I am the user who changed "another accident" to "an accident" in the AF 447 mention, since we do not know definitively if that is the verdict on MH 370 yet. But I must question why someone else subsequently removed the mention of the Adam Air flight. Both were sudden catastrophic events that in some key ways do NOT seem to fit the evidence on MH 370. But if one is left in the article, why not the other...? PhotoBoothe (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Undue Credulity Being Given to Media Sources

There have been a few 'it's from a major reputable source, it must be reliable' arguments advanced in discussions here. I'm personally aware (i.e. I was directly involved in the relevant projects at the time so had the actual facts to hand) of cases where leading aerospace journalists for major broadsheet newspapers have printed stories that were either gross exaggerations (ironically that one was during 777 development, and the journo in question won an award for his aerospace beat reporting that year), or outright political fabulations (the journo in that case switched over to politics and now has a reputation as an opinion for hire). Equally there may be organisational bias at the editorial level, for instance the Daily Telegraph, otherwise about as reliable as media sources get, will rarely print a story that is positive about UK defence equipment. What I'm trying to say is that we need to apply a level of skepticism even when the story is in a reputable journal, particularly if it is quoting an un-named source and/or counter to other statements, otherwise we risk reporting theorising as fact.

We've now had the Malaysian PM saying the aircraft may have been diverted, but we've had people arguing for incorporating the hijacking theory here for days, AFAICS this is the first time the 'the aircraft was deliberately diverted' theory (which still falls short of hijacking) has crossed the line to where it should form part of the article, but we've had people arguing for that, based on media sources quoting unnamed sources, for several days. It doesn't matter that those theories now have some high-level backing, they're still theories, and only now do we have the factual evidence - an attributable statement by the Malaysian PM - that they are anything more than a blue-sky theory that was bounced around for 30 seconds at a watercooler at the Department of Agriculture.

Be Skeptical 82.45.87.103 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So your standard of credibility is whether Razak says it ? Despite his government denying everything for a week until the whole world Knew it and he had to admit it ? Journalism doesn't work that way, it treats all sources equally skeptically and equally potentially truthful, including Prime ministers and Presidents. Remember Nixon ? If you always believe the "official" line you risk becoming a slave. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Remember Nixon"? I do. And Clinton and Bush II and.....--Nowa (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely not what is meant by this. Politicians lie and cover up the truth all the time. I don't think someone who gave us specific instances of biased journalists working for major news agencies believes that politicians are a reliable source of facts. What's meant is that every piece of information has to be compared with the other available information. And every detail has to be assessed to see whether it is supported by facts or is just an opinion or an interpretation.Roches (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reporting what the world's great news agencies reported. It is a published fact that e.g. "Reuters reported that an official/engineer etc. closely involved with the case, who remained anonymous because they are not authorised to speak on the record, stated that...". It is not a published fact that what was reported was true. This article never says it was, it just says "Reuters reported ...". What is fact is the the news agencies were reduced to reporting anonymous leaks (most of which were subsequently confirmed) precisely because nobody was prepared or authorised to speak on the record. That is the story. You need to make a distinction between Wikipedia's recording of the media circus, which has been accurate, and Wikipedia asserting that the anonymous leaks are true, which it never did. Some clearer thinking is needed here. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

See comment below about reassessing what a reliable source is. To your point here, what you are saying sounds a lot like original research. I'm not saying that's bad, just it appears that an incident like this may require new wiki policies on what can and cannot be included.--Nowa (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not advocating original research, I'm advocating a very detailed, very critical reading of precisely what is being said to understand whether it represents an official position, or simply someone passing on speculation occurring in the background of organisations that may be only tangentially involved. And 'unnamed sources' should set alarm bells ringing for applying that check. As I said above, we need to be very skeptical as to whether an unnamed source meets the criteria for being a credible source. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, my point was if it isn't a named spokesman stating an official position, then we need to be very cautious as to whether it meets the Wikipedia standards for being a credible source even if it is in an otherwise reliable publication. There may have been speculation about hijacking from unnamed sources for several days, but none of the people saying 'press agency X said an unnamed source said this, we must report it in the article' appear to have considered that in any aircraft loss the first thing the local anti-terrorist branch (whether police, intelligence or whatever) do is to start looking for ways it could be a terrorist incident. Look behind any aircraft incident and some unnamed source will know people are looking at this, because someone always is, but it only becomes worthy of reporting when we know that it has graduated to become the official position of one of the organisations or nations involved rather than blue-sky speculation, and for Flight 370 that only barrier was only passed with the Malaysian statement today. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point: from Wikipedia's point of view Reuters, the BBC, Washington Post (remember Watergate ?), AP etc. is our source, not the person they talked to. You're saying some of the world's great media organisations are not credible ? That is original research for you to make that call. Wikipedia reports what credible sources say. It is not there to judge how credible the source used by those news media is. For us to judge that would be original research. If another news media or politician debunks the article, we report that xyz debunked it. We don't ourselves make that call. Rcbutcher (talk)

AP etc. is usually credible in quoting (or paraphrasing) a source; But that doesn't mean that the source is just as credible. I'm saying this in a general sense.TMCk (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't judge the quality of their sources or research, that would be original research. And would be a dangerous form of self-censorship. What we can do is report when another generally accepted source such as a major media organization, professor or whatever either agrees or contradicts or adds to it. The last thing we should be doing is cherrypicking sources because we don't like Watergate-style journalism. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You completely missed my point or simply didn't really respond to it. Also, you shouldn't change your comment w/o clarifying so after it received a response.TMCk (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed my comment to clarify what may have appeared ambiguous re. which source I was referring to. In reply to your comment : it is not our job to judge the credibility of the primary sources that journalists draw on. We rely on their professional credibility, that of the organisation they represent, and competition from other informations sources to expect that what they promulgate is as factual and accurate as can be reasonably expect at that moment. Judging the quality of the sources quoted by journalists in this case is original research. If we chose to do that this article may have started yesterday Rcbutcher (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You're still not responding to my comment unless you're not commenting on what I actually said but a strange (and false) interpretation of my words; Or you simply didn't understand what I was saying at all. Let's leave it as a misunderstanding so I can go to bed and the talkpage doesn't get even more cluttered than it already is.TMCk (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A potential fallacy in the original poster's thinking is that if we don't update articles, they remain highly reliable because they don't get updated with dubious material. This makes the very large assumption that what you've got already is solid. If new information suggests old information is questionable, we should not wait for 100% confirmation that old information should be modified. Too many editors seem to think it's either God's Truth or the Devil's Lie and so should either be included or excluded. In or out is a great oversimplication of our options. We have a lot of tools at our disposal to state things with nuance, use attribution to the appropriate extent, and otherwise hedge. It makes no sense to me to refuse to include material without hedging and then, bang, suddenly it transforms from black to white and goes in without any qualification. It's a continuum.

Is an unnamed source a credible source? We can't tell. As I said in the first post in this section, it could be a watercooler rumour in the Department of Agriculture, but the way it is reported removes our ability to tell. It's only today that we've had the deliberate diversion repeated by an identifiable, credible source, and in such a way as to make clear that it is now the official position of an involved agency. That was the point at which it became something the article should report (unless we want to include a Rumours section). 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So a Malaysian politician is totally "credible"? He's in fact got a lot more reason to spin than an anonymous U.S. investigator who has seen the evidence and isn't running for re-election. We may not know the details about that anonymous U.S. investigator or whether he's really in a position to know but Reuters, or whoever is citing him as a source, does and we rely on the Reuters reporter/editor to have the experience and critical sense to not let themselves get spun. Sometimes they get spun anyway but that means having a discussion here on the Talk page about whether we are dealing with one of those circumstances, it doesn't mean throwing all that reporting in the trash just because the state hasn't given its stamp of approval.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"an anonymous U.S. investigator who has seen the evidence" How do you know he has seen the evidence? If he has seen the evidence, why is he unnamed? An unnamed source has zero credibility. Even if he has access the fact his position is not the official position of his agency (whatever that may be - how do we know it isn't Department of Agriculture?) should raise huge alarm bells. And that's precisely what I'm asking people to be aware of. There have been incidents (TWA 800, Pierre Salinger) of award-winning reporters supporting outright conspiracy theory loons whose theories could be dissected by anyone with a modicum of background knowledge, and claiming those loons had official positions. When a named official states something, he is a credible source that that is the position of his organisation at that time, and that is what we are documenting. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"How do you know he has seen the evidence?" Because Reuters wouldn't cite him if he were just some guy off the street with an opinion. If the reporter is routinely being snowed and what he thinks is a NTSB source is actually someone from Agriculture who is in no position to know, that reporter's journalism career will be a short one."If he has seen the evidence, why is he unnamed?" Because not every government or government department in the world hands out medals to its civil servants who leak what's really going on to the press. And Wikipedia is not just interested in the "official view". If we were, we'd call them up and say, here, write our article for us.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It crossed the line into meriting inclusion when investigative journalists investigated and reported and editors approved publication and this was done by organizations with a reputation like WSJ/NYT/AP/Reuters. There is an enormous difference between this process, where investigators try to track down people who are in a position to know and find out what they know, and people coming forward to just volunteer what they say they know and media outlets just rebroadcasting that. Our job here involves assessing which reports are dubious and which are not and to inform the reader accordingly.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Major press organisations regularly report backchannel or speculative information without attached identifying information. Often that is because the information is in fact spin, not fact, from spin-doctors who do not want it identified as such, in other cases it is information which falls short of being the actual position of the involved agencies. There were reports from mid-week of unnamed sources reporting hypotheses of deliberate diversion, but it was also absolutely clear that those reports did not represent the official position of the agencies involved at that time - because their official spokespeople were not willing to agree with them (nor were the unnamed sources willing to identify their agencies). Until it became the openly attested position of an agency with direct involvement it did not meet the grounds for being considered a credible source. As a secondary point, editors are very rarely aerospace specialists, there are only a few identified aviation specialists working within the general press. Unless a story appears under the byline of an aviation specialist (and even then there can be issues), the editorial process does not add any specific credibility and tells us nothing about how credible that source is. If it isn't being reported as the official position of an involved agency, ask yourself why that is. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So you believe everything an elected official says, because he's an identified, on-the-record figure with ultimate responsibility for his Ministry or whatever, but dismiss all "leaks" as dubious? I dare say some believe, not without reason, that it ought to be the other way around in terms of what should be believed and who's more likely to try and spin the media. You think when the White House spokesman gets up in front of the media he's going to tell you the whole truth without any regard for whether it makes his boss look bad?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree that what officials and particularly politicians say needs to be treated with care. To some extent we reduce that problem but relying on secondary reporting (preferably discussing any supporting information which may include confirmation by other people off the record) of these comments. I do think the OP is correct that we need to always treat anything supported only by anonymous/off the record sources with care. (As I said below, I also feel it's best if we wait rather than trying to emulate the media in having everything up to the minute since we are an encylopaedia but managing that is difficult.)

The media are of course frequently just as want to spin, they want to sell their content in some way. And worse they generally want to be first and don't want to be seen as out of touch in this social media age so even good sources are want to report stuff without a lot of fact checking or even a look over from someone who can assess the credibility and logic (and even when they do, the person who does this may not have heard what the actual source said let alone got to ask questions). This can happen with officials and politicians as well but they're frequently more cautious.

So in a case like this with very high interest played out over many days but with very little actual new information (until recently), the media do their best to make news where none exists.

There are many examples of stuff I mentioned in this case, e.g. the engine data claim.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I make a comment that includes a reference to "spin, not fact" and you allege I assume everything a politician says is truth? Do you see the problem here? Outside of this venue I'm a reasonably prominent activist on several issues, which has involved me in pointing out government spin on multiple occasions (occasionally on national media), most recently just this week; here on wiki, and in this article in particular, I confine myself to trying to limit speculation and to trying to inform the discussion as I have 20 years in the industry and a background on the aircraft type in question (the only actual edit I've made I've specifically identified, with reasons). Comments from 'unnamed sources' do not allow us to assess their credibility, and there has been a persistent failure to distinguish between reporting of official positions and reporting of in-house speculation. On the other hand, comments from named individuals representing their organisation or government clearly meet the criteria for being credible sources. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily truthful or complete, simply that they are in a position to represent the official position of their organisation and to be recorded as such. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia our mandate is not just to inform the reader of what some Grand Poobah thinks. We're here to inform, period, and in pursuing that we are solely interested in whether the source is reliable, not whether the source is State Sanctioned. Assessing credibility is primarily the job of the reporting outlet. We're frankly not getting paid enough to re-do the work of the investigative reporter and "assess the credibility" of the reporter's sources, we generally limit ourselves to assessing the credibility of the reporter. Hence my view that once the Associated Press and the Washington Post independently generate something from their own insider source networks (for example) we've got something that should be considered for inclusion. There are times when there is reason to take issue with a serious reporter's methods or specific details here on Wikipedia but that's usually just when we discover issues integrating the material into a coherent narrative, the most obvious incoherency arising when the sources conflict. The presumption is that the story has substance, a presumption that I'll grant can be rebutted on an article Talk page. Note which side I was on last night in the battle to keep "hijacking" out of the lede when all we had was an anonymous Malaysian official, I wanted it OUT but explained why (it was more like this official just giving an opinion on existing evidence than new evidence in itself). You evidently think that the presumption should be that the story does not have substance unless the Grand Poobah has weighed in on it or originated it. A source in the NTSB not authorized to speak officially is often a better source in my books than, say, a Kremlin-connected "official" whose full time job is managing public opinion.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Poobah, huh? I've deliberately refrained from edits except in one specific case, which I identified in a talk section I created for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Reference_to_.27pilote_negligence.27_as_cause_of_Asiana_214_crash_in_.27Aircraft.27_section and noted my reasons for, specifically to avoid such problems. I'm open about my background on the aircraft so that people can decide whether to pay attention to what I have to say or to exclude it because of that background. Would concealing it make you happier? I mentioned my off-wiki activism solely to counter your repeated allegation that I was giving undue credibility to any official source. On wiki, our mandate is to limit ourselves to quoting credible sources, and as I have noted, there are particular problems around the credibility of unnamed sources, including a past history of respected journalists citing them in conspiracy theories on air crashes where the cause remains unclear. You're free to dismiss me as a 'Grand Poobah', but please consider the point I'm trying to make, and whether it's one a 'Grand Poobah' would make. I'm not saying 'don't quote unnamed source X', certainly not 'talk to me first', but 'stop for a minute and think about X, if he's unnamed, how do we know he is credible?' Is it really so hard to wait for an official spokesman to repeat the point when we have no deadlines? Particularly when the situation has been so confused. Nor have I ever, despite your repeated allegations, claimed government officials are automatically truthful, merely that when speaking on the record they represent an official position, which clears the reputable source hurdle for identifying what said official position is. If that is problematical, please explain how. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Our hypothetical Grand Poobah here is our hypothetical "official". You kicked off this thread by making a big deal out of "an attributable statement by the Malaysian PM." I presume from your expressed view that you think that in the development of the EgyptAir Flight 990 article Wikipedia should have continually given considerable deference to the views of Egyptian officials. These people have a rather obvious conflict of interest, however, as the pilot suicide scenario did not reflect well on Egypt's national airline, and they could have quite well been resisting the scenario because of that, not because of the evidence. Wikipedia defers to authorities, yes, but because they are authoritative in the sense that they have expertise and knowledge.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're very keen at putting opinions in my mouth, apparently to try and score points (WP:WIN) and still batting zero. I've drawn a specific distinction, between attributed official sources speaking on the record and unnamed sources speaking off the record, and pointed out that we have no guarantee that an unnamed source is also a creditable source and we need to question why they are unnamed. As I've now told you several times, that says nothing about the reliability of what the attributed source is saying, simply that it meets the standard for being a Reputable Source on the official position of his organisation at that point in time. To take your Egyptair 990 accusation, an encyclopaedia should report both the NTSB conclusion that the probable cause was pilot suicide, and the Egyptian government's dissent, because both are the attributed positions of directly involved organisations. And if we can find a reputable source for saying Egypt was a lone dissenting voice, then we should also report that. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And a GPB who operates like this : "Before the prime minister spoke Saturday, the emcee announced that there would be a statement only — no questions allowed until a separate briefing by other officials at 5:30. But the 5:30 news conference was cancelled soon thereafter on grounds that the prime minister had said all that needed to be said. “Go watch a movie,” the emcee told reporters.". I'm a Westerner used to a free media constantly exposing crooked politicians, who takes the word of a journalist from Reuters, AP, BBC, Washington Post before the word of a politician. I expect politians to be prepared to face intense interrogation and admire people prepared to appear e.g. on BBC's Hardta;lk, where they can be torn apart if they aren't prepared. So report this : Razak avoided questions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-search-expands-amid-focus-on-criminal-act/2014/03/15/66cf570c-ac52-11e3-a06a-e3230a43d6cb_story.html Rcbutcher (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are seeing cultural differences. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Leave the sarcasm. But I think what's what I was wondering. Do myself and a lot of western-style English media have a misconception about how business is done in Malaysia and the region ? Is a natural reticence, secrecy or whatever being misinterpreted as obfuscation, incompetence or something more sinister ? Is this kind of tell-nothing ask-nothing "press conference" just the normal way things are done there ? Rcbutcher (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia has a very compliant press, generally owned by the ruling coalition or its cronies. There are few exceptions (such as Malaysiakini) but the press are used to acting at the government's behest. The government has also shown that it is not hesitant to use the Printing Presses and Publications Act to shut down any media that steps out of line. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to quote former National Transportation Safety Board vice-chairman Bob Frances with respect to Andy Pasztor's WSJ story, which was first with the remained capable of flying for hours story:
"Andy Pasztor is a very reputable journalist who knows his stuff in aviation as much as anyone. For him to create this article out of whole cloth for me stretches credulity. . . . So you don’t know where to go. I would go with what Andy said because I have great faith in him and he doesn’t have any political ax to grind, as do the Malaysians."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That article confirms the original story was disputed by an official source (and we now understand why - difference between time of last active ACARs report and last reported satcom contact with the system), so in fact backs that we needed to consider it carefully. I'm surprised Bob Frances didn't recall the case of Pierre Salinger and TWA800 (given Frances was directly involved in the TWA800 investigation), reputable journalists have been known to occasionally report outright fruitloopery and attribute it to unnamed official sources, particularly in relation to aircrash cases.

Ultimately the point remains, if no officially involved organisation has adopted this as their official position (and that was true in the US, not just Malaysia, until Saturday), particularly if an official organisation has differed with it, then we need to consider why that is, and whether it therefore passes the criteria for being a reputable source. In a rumour intense situation, it behoves us to be particularly careful of which stories we report, and which stories we hold off on for a day or two to see if they either gain sufficient backing from involved organisations to be clarified as a theory that is being seriously investigated, or are now being reported from multiple sources, [10], or whether they just blow away like all the other rumours. Is stopping for a second and asking why we aren't yet hearing this from within the investigation, or from multiple sources, really so hard? It isn't as if we have a deadline to meet. In this case there are multiply-sourced reports by Friday, and official acknowledgement by Saturday, would waiting have hurt? 82.45.87.103 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)