Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Can you translate the Chinese to English？

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.84.77.22 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese article is quite long, translating it here isn't practical. I suggest you copy and paste parts or the entire article into http://translate.google.com . Overall, the article reflects the current confusion of an ongoing story, as well as some older information and some information that seems questionable.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if we translate it all, there will be a lot of duplication. Best to copy a section that isn't here in the English version (if it's important enough) and translate that for inclusion. I can look at the machine translation and make necessary changes into good English. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest NOT. The article on Chinese Wikipedia is nothing but a news collection. Poorly written. The one here on English wikipedia is much better. If someone adds information about some premier of some country expresses concerns and instructs search and rescue operations. or some foreign affairs minister acknowledges missing of their citizen, I will be bold to remove it. --Elpmoi (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

English wikipedia is not news collection？？？

Please! No machine translations. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I just looked more carefully at the zh.wp article, and I agree with Elpmoi that there's not much worth copying over. And it would potentially be a nightmare to integrate. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is discussion of crisis management appropriate in this article?

Is it appropriate for this article to contain a section about crisis management? If so, are quotations from a specific person in that field appropriate? The section is called "Officials' communication with the public." Roches (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No and clearly No. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether there was a crisis here. There obviously was and still is a great deal of "Officials' communication with the public." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From Crisis management: "Crisis management is the process by which an organization deals with a major event that threatens to harm the organization, its stakeholders, or the general public. The study of crisis management originated with the large scale industrial and environmental disasters in the 1980s." The essence of the quotation in the article is that the police and military should shut up, because they're just confusing people, and one agency should tell the world what it needs to know as the company moves through this embarrassing, expensive time.Roches (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Multiple reliable secondary sources are covering the issue and the information should be properly attributed to the cited experts.--Nowa (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that anything multiple reliable secondary sources say can be added? Because that's what I've wanted to do to this article. (angry bit redacted. "people first, things second.") Roches (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, if multiple independent reliable subjects are covering an aspect of this crisis, then it should be part of the article. I wasn't in on what you've had redacted before, but if you want to point to the original conversation or reintroduce it, I would be happy to look at it.--Nowa (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely NO. Please keep this article as much as possible about technical matters and facts about the plane's disappearance. It should not be about management styles and procedures. That would be a diversion.203.158.42.234 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is essential, but never sufficient. Try to think of what content this article will have in ten years time. Petty squabbling over how information is released before almost anything is really known will not be in the article. So it doesn't belong now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If multiple independent reliable sources cover "petty squabbling" (which by the way, is not what's happening here) then this article, or any article, should reflect that with appropriate weight. I also disagree that we should project what will be important about this subject 10 years from now. I understand what you are saying about how we should be encyclopedic, but the article will be updated to keep the proper weighting of different subjects as time progresses.--Nowa (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not aim to get it right now? HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we both agree we should get it right now.--Nowa (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No weight is not proper due weight. ;-) It's not petty squabbling, but huge contradictions and disagreements that are hampering the search. Petty squabbling doesn't result in the quadrupling of the search area. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• The key to any crisis is effective communication. When the situation is effectively managed, there is nothing to talk or write about. It's been proven that in this instance there is anything but. There are no good angles in this – its one monumental tragedy, with mistakes compounding mistakes, insult being added to injury. Personal and political conflicts abound. Critical commentary on this topic seems absolutely necessary – maybe not from Mike Smith, but certainly from some objective (external) observers. Deleting of the section won't solve the problem and won't make the story any "prettier" or happier. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

THE CRISIS MANAGEMENT IS AN EVENT OF ALL ITS OWN!! Perhaps a WIKI article can be created SOLELY for the purpose of keeping track of the MH370 quotes, redactions, mis-direction and political grand standing on part of the officials. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The crisis management does need to be mentioned, largely due to communication missteps and the coordination issues that appear to have arisen early in the incident response. That said, we don't need something so large that we could create an entire article over it. A mention of incorrect communications from different sources, incident response lack of coordination due to the multiple nations responding, etc is more than sufficient. Remember, crisis management and incident response are linked, but different fields. The actual issues that have occurred are somewhat predictable, as there are multiple sovereign states acting in concert and many have never operated together. It's also quite likely that some of the nations whose waters the search is ongoing in have never developed contingency plans for just such a massive search, especially with a multinational force. So, mention is necessary, clarification of crisis management and incident response and the scope and number of moving pieces. That is all.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One more time, this is not about "managing a crisis." Crisis management in this sense means "corporate damage control." That's what bothers me. Managing the crisis (which I guess is called "disaster management") is not the same thing. I have absolutely no objection to discussing how Malaysia Airlines has been criticized for the way it's handled the event. There's been a lack of communication and the airline has made some serious blunders, of which deciding that flying Chinese families to Malaysia was probably one of the biggest. That is relevant. So is renaming the flights. I do think that lessons are being learned in general about how airlines should deal with crashes, as well. But I don't like naming and quoting an individual. Roches (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Roches is right. As a fellow Australian I am familiar with Mike Smith and his work from his own media appearances. His job is to advise corporations and governments on how to limit damage to their images when things go bad. It's not about managing the actual problem being faced. His comments are probably primarily aimed at promoting his own business, and now we're helping him do that too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment No. As things stand neither the whole matter, nor reporting on it, is encyclopaedic, certainly not yet anyway; it is more or less tabloid-standard speculation. There is already a WP article on crisis management as such, and crisis management in this particular matter is not yet well enough characterised for us to deal with according to WP standards. I suspect the topic could justify a section, maybe even its own article, once the spray has blown away, but that might not be in another year. This is an encyclopaedia (we hope), not a gossip column. JonRichfield (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

CONSTANT CHANGE OF ARTICLE, TIME LINE

With the continuous article editing due to mismanagement of information by the Malaysian Government, I wonder if its not appropriate to create a timeline of all the released information. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. In the long term it won't matter. And please avoid terms like "mismanagement". That's a non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the long term it would help people make sense of what transpired after the flight went missing and (potentially) avoid the same situation that the Malaysians have put everyone through. AF 447 article has the search efforts in its own paragraph. I think the issues here deserve their own paragraph. The article itself talks about grave errors of protocol, communication blunders and misdirected search efforts. This is a TEXT BOOK case of event mismanagement. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting rather sick of this somewhere-centric contempt for Malaysia. It's rather insulting. You really have no idea how the search is going. And do you really think it will make any difference in the long term? HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not the only one expressing frustration at the lack of due process from the Malaysians. They dont have an idea of how the search is going. If lessons are not learned, they will be repeated. WIKI is here to show us events and how they transpired so that someone reading this might learn to avoid this situation. The political football game being played is tragic on the families involved. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How the hell do you know how much the Malaysians know? Do you realise that the Malaysian culture is different from yours? They will have different ways of handling crises. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm seeing overt racism in some of the criticisms of Malaysia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference to the Malaysian government's competency in communication does not belong here unless it specifically refers to a specific communication problem involving Malaysia Airlines flight 370. RichBryan (talk) 11:08, 15 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: [2], [3], [4], [5], 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)

ABC News confirms Wall St Journal story?

I think editors are being too dismissive of the WSJ story. Ohconfucius has removed any reference to it in from the lede and someone has apparently added a "disputed" tag to the WSJ story citation name. Based on what? The denial of Malaysian officials? The same officials who have repeatedly struggled to get their story straight? Look at what ABC News says: "The official said there were indications that the plane flew four or five hours after disappearing from radar and that they believe it went into the water." Looks like independent confirmation of the main point of the WSJ story if you ask me. Who is this "official" that ABC heard from? "[A] senior Pentagon official [who talked to] ABC News." This is not ABC just parroting the WSJ story, it's ABC working its own U.S. government contacts. The WSJ might have gotten played by a bad source, sure. But BOTH ABC AND WSJ played? Highly unlikely.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Reuters headline is "Malaysia says no evidence missing plane flew hours after losing contact" but the Malaysian official does not necessarily say exactly this. As Reuters notes, "the Wall Street Journal said that U.S. aviation investigators and national security officials believed the Boeing 777 flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from its Rolls-Royce Trent engines as part of a standard monitoring program." What the Malaysian clearly denies is the "based on" part. The clause prior to "based on" is not necessarily fully disputed by anyone. It could be that the U.S. detected the plane with undisclosed military assets and the ACARS data (which was snapped up and decoded by the NSA without any RR involvement?) was just element of the mix, an element that was mentioned to the WSJ despite it possibly not being absolutely confirmed because it was less sensitive to disclose than the rest of the evidence that the U.S. is sitting on.

Another way to put this would be to suggest that the U.S. with its surveillance capacities knows far more than the Malaysians but for national security/diplomatic relations reasons has decided to not both directly reveal how the U.S. knows what it knows and embarrass the Malaysians by going public with the claim they are barking up the wrong tree in the Gulf of Thailand/South China Sea. The U.S. is accordingly instead looking for back-channels to drop hints that its allies should look out towards the Indian Ocean. The idea is to convince the Malaysians to take their own initiative to move their search assets out there instead of just ordering them out there (which would undermine the notion the Malaysians are in charge of the search), which would surely require having to own up on the record to just why the U.S. believes the plane got way out there.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Too funny. You mean if one tries to tell you about a mistake you're making and doesn't want to embarrass you in front of the public is thru the press? Seriously? Beats my logic as I always thought it's the other way around :) TMCk (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

.. no mention of snow crystals in the pitots yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the WaPo story, TMCk, you find "Adding to the confusion, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Pool, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Defense Department has no reason to believe that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean. He said U.S. Navy assets participating in the search are being guided by the Malaysian government’s investigation. He said he did not know what new information Carney was referring to." This particular guy is clearly spinning hard to say that Malaysia is running the show here. And you know he's spinning because he 1) contradicts the OTHER officials who told WaPo they know exactly what Carney was referring to ("Obama administration officials later said the new information was that the plane’s engines remained running for approximately four hours") and 2) contradicts the OTHER Pentagon official who told ABC "We have an indication the plane went down in the Indian Ocean." How do you get these contradictions? Because they are hewing to the public relations line to differing degrees and the PR line the "we Americans don't know nuthin, we just follow Malaysian orders" non-back-channel guy (I say non-back-channel because he's a named, designated spokesman) is advancing is obvious.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "And you know he's spinning", but then cite evidence that only tells us that three different people had three different stories. That isn't evidence for spinning, it's evidence three different people reported three different things for unknown reasons. Saying he's spinning is speculation, there could be institutional confusion, factions with different theories, and so on. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We may have a resolution of the apparent conflict between sources here: "...communications satellites picked up faint electronic pulses from Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 after it went missing... the signals gave no indication about where the stray jet was heading nor its technical condition... The "pings" equated to an indication that the aircraft’s maintenance troubleshooting systems were ready to communicate with satellites if needed, but no links were opened because Malaysia Airlines and others had not subscribed to the full troubleshooting service..." If you've got five hours of these "pings" the plane must have been in the air for five hours since if the plane had crashed the "systems [would not be] ready to communicate with satellites". But it could at the same time be true that Roll Royce and the airline received no more reports because either the airline had not subscribed to receive reports after the plane had reached cruising altitude or because whoever was controlling the aircraft turned off ACARS at about the same time the transponder was turned off. These "pings" were misreported as data reports from an online ACARS when they should more precisely be described as queries of whether the ACARS system simply exists as opposed to online and reporting.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal has now issued a correction essentially confirming this analysis:

Corrections & Amplifications

U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane’s satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems, according to people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane’s Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WSJ story writer Andy Pasztor has given a radio interview to WBUR-FM Boston that explains the above and notes the possibility the aircraft landed somewhere.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Bdell555: I removed the paragraph in the lead on the same basis I wanted to remove the previous mention of the flotsam picked up by the Chinese satellite which you apparently supported. It's just another theory that had primacy at the time but has since been supplanted by others. I've said before and I'll state again that I feel that the lead is not the place for breaking news. I'm not dismissive of anything but I'm not supportive of the latest hot theory approach. It's not up to us but those on the ground to decide what's likely and what's unlikely, but even they seem to be running around like headless chickens. If you ask me, what's becoming more likely is alien abduction. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese satellite thing was dubious from square one. Some obscure Chinese government-affiliated entity threw those photos up on their website. Inexplicably poor quality images for a satellite. Inconsistent with the fact SAR had already been over the area and hadn't found anything. The idea that the plane headed out over the Indian Ocean, however, is not "just another theory." The NTSB has confirmed the radar track showing the plane passed over the peninsula heading west. And competing news agencies have been scrambling over one other to get the story straight. The WSJ has already gone through a correction round that has provided good reason to believe what we have here is solid. If this is going to to be "supplanted by others" how is that going to happen? It's one thing to expose some guy or small group in the Chinese bureaucracy going rogue and to expose a whole string of U.S. government sources right on up to the White House Press Secretary has having bought into something bogus. Western media can dig into the backstory here unlike those Chinese satellite photos. Everybody's already had their crack at debunking this and what we're left with is most media accepting it. If all we had was a single hot off the press story from WSJ, it'd be debatable, but when we now have CBS, ABC, and the Washington Post also cited in the paragraph at issue, I say we're doing our job, which is to follow the sources when the sources check out. I'll add that I get the impression U.S. officials are pretty confident and it's the media/media's OTHER sources, not these government sources, who are running around like headless chickens. Which may well be fine with officials since it's their job simply to know, not to hand-hold the media.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Latest hot theory" would not have been a sound reason for removal of the Chinese satellite stuff. Unreliable would have been a sound reason, consistent with policy, and indeed it was unreliable. If you are going to justify removal you need to explain here what makes this material dubious. What we wait for is reliability, not simply passage of time. This material meets the reliability threshold. You cannot run away from our responsibility as editors to test for reliability by saying it's not our job "to decide what's likely and what's unlikely."--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Bdell555: That's the problem. Nothing is solid at this point, and we should not be indulging in the latest theories even if every party in the search agrees (because they are only working hypotheses), and here it's by no means obvious that they do all agree. As I said, likelihood has nothing to do with whether it, or whether it's "dubious" or not. The lead is not for posting lines of inquiry that someone support and banish all others that someone doesn't. We should leave the lead section free from any of this until something is definitive (eg positive identification of a piece of wreckage). If you keep pushing this, I'd be tempted to make a point and add all the other theories, including alien abduction.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC) ;-)

If you think any of the WSJ, ABC, CBS, or Washington Post stories cited are "dubious" then explain here why you think so. Insisting that it's not "solid" is an opinion, not an argument. You want to add alien abduction? Go ahead, but it will be removed because it's dubious. You are positing a false equivalency here with your alien abduction theory. We've got three elements here: 1) attributed statement that "aircraft... remained capable of flying for another four hours after first disappearing from radar": this has not been disputed by Malaysian authorities or indeed anyone. 2) radar records show diversion to the west: again, not disputed, and does not comes from exclusively U.S. sources. What is the motivation to put this out there if baseless? 3) search extending to the Indian Ocean. This rightly indicates to the reader that the searching of the Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea hasn't produced anything yet. This paragraph also explains why there has been searching west of Malaysia, a question the reader would have top of mind.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to critique CNN as well since they are also on board with the general thesis here (albeit with what I believe to be less precision).--Brian Dell (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: What you are once again missing is that Wikipedia is not part of the news cycle, nor does it strive to be. Yes, it's a very dynamic situation and is indeed subject to change as more information comes to light. The lead is to summarise what's in the article, and what you want to include is just the most current and apparently what you and/or the collective American press think it's the most likely scenario. It may turn out to be definitive, but so far it's just a working hypothesis. Although the reasoning is sound, nothing is proven. And the main reason there's so much confusion is because there are numerous scenarii to be evaluated and explored – from the likely to the possible to the unlikely but probable to the improbable to the impossible – but nothing is proven. I haven't tried to remove these "dubious" assertions [you're putting words into my mouth] from the body, where they belong (because they are notable and are reliably sourced). Again, that's not what I'm arguing. It's not about the credibility of the opinions or the reliability of the sources, so of course I'm also not going to argue if Scenerio A is more likely than scenario B like you seem to want me to. It's a false argumentation.

I said that the information isn't solid in the sense it's not definitive, like the discovery of a piece of the wreckage would be, and so it's not right to include it in the lead. That's all. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"If you've got five hours of these "pings" the plane must have been in the air for five hours" - no, this doesn't tell us anything about whether the aircraft is in-air or not, if correct (note the if), it simply tells us that the Satcom system was active for five hours, not whether the aircraft was in-air or on-ground. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty silly to say Wiki is not part of the news cycle when you're sitting around trying to document an ongoing newsworthy event. If that were the case, articles like this wouldn't exist until after the news event was finished.172.5.26.19 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not an outlandish thing to suggest. Being a wiki, all sorts of stuff exists. But preventing an article like this from being created until the affair is done and dusted would certainly reduce the conflict between editors, and between news and encyclopaedic content. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Not definitive" of what? That the plane never crashed? The material at issue is NOT claiming that. It's on the contrary suggesting that it is not definitive that it has crashed! Look, the material at issue is NOT claiming that ANYTHING has been proved. OK? Therefore your "not proven" complaint is irrelevant. At issue is whether the sourcing supports what is claimed. And whether it's notable. That's it. What's claimed here is supported by the sourcing, and there are other sources as well (the Associated Press is now reporting something similar). You still have yet to come up with anything to challenge the reliability of this. If your argument is that it is not NOTABLE enough for the lead, then state that explicitly and we can discuss that.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're conflating the issue. Notability doesn't come into it. If the information wasn't notable, it shouldn't even be in the article. The crux is all about correctly summarising the state of affairs without giving any particular aspect undue weight. Right now, all we can say definitively is that "nobody knows" or so far "neither the passengers, the plane or any wreckage has been found". NOT that the plane didn't crash. So far, it can't be proven one way or another. I'm not asking for more proof that the plan has turned westwards over the What's been happening to the article is that even a "dubious from square one" story got put in the lead, and it continues to happen with your edits. I'm saying that NONE OF IT belongs if not definitive. We shouldn't privilege the latest working hypothesis or indeed any hypothesis (working or otherwise), or any particular speculation. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"NONE OF IT belongs" but you edited to add in the oil rig worker report? If this is "dubious from square one" then show us why, like we can show why for the Chinese satellite stuff. You removed the citation to CBS News without any argument at all as for why that material is not reliably sourced or not notable. Here's a suggested guideline for notability: does it change the behaviour of the search op? No? Then's maybe it's dubious and/or not notable. If it DOES change the behaviour of the search op it is presumptively being taken seriously, no? The emphasis of the search is shifting to the west and there are reasons for that. Whether that's "proven" enough for your taste or not, it's widely reported enough by reliable sources that we follow that. The situation here is that you are far more definitive and certain about the state of affairs than either I am or the article is. You say it is absolutely settled that we have absolutely nothing at all indicating that the aircraft may have gone over the Indian Ocean. It's as likely as alien abduction in your books. Well that is simply not true. We've got information and it should be presented the reader who can make his or her own assessment of the information.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Since you refused to see it removed, I was trying to put some of these hypotheses into perspective, and provide context. I didn't mention oil rigger's report, all I wrote was "there have been false lines of enquiry such as fireballs in the sky and floating debris". The floating debris story wasn't ignored, AFAICT. They sent assets and people to investigate, but it just came to nothing. Doesn't mean it should have been in the lead then and doesn't mean your US currently most likely scenario belongs there either. I'm not making any judgement as to the relative likelihoods, but theories have come and gone. I also didn't write that there it was an alien abduction, because that would have been patently false, but it is incontrovertible that the internet is viral with such claims. I was saying there are reports, leads, speculation, and frivolity, but made no attempt to speculate myself or on the behalf of WP. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"I was trying to put some of these hypotheses into perspective" by trying a present a bogus equivalency between them and by this dodgy means undermine the U.S. government-related reports you were unable or unwilling to undermine directly. You cite "theories abound" to three different sources, none of which support "theories abound" directly, because you reckon that collectively they support "theories abound." This is classic WP:SYNTH, and it is SYNTH that is being pursued in order to drag down the reliability of what U.S. officials and investigators have said by juxtaposition with alien abduction. You are quite sure the Vietnamese "sent assets and people to investigate" in active response to the claim as opposed to just saying that they'd already been there? Then why didn't the Vietnamese announce it like we like got an announcement today from the White House? If you want Wikipedia to insinuate that what U.S. officials and investigators have said is as bogus as what has emerged before THEN FIND A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT SAYS THAT instead of SYNTHing your way into insinuating this equivalency.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a false argument and unproductive discussion to imply that I'm synthesising an innuendo to discredit the Americans. It's nothing of the sort, as I've said many times before. There are lots of theories being advanced, some outlandish some not; whilst alien abduction isn't one that's being treated seriously, some are certainly being explored out of the glare of the media. The ones that are or have been dismissed are dealt with with only two words; the current theory receiving favour can arguably justify a couple of sentences. Again, I'm not saying the latest theory is right, or that it's pie in the sky. It's not the first theory and it may not be the last. However, the existence of theories (previous or otherwise) needs to be stated if we are to posit the latest. Let's not try to scoop the lead and turn this into a news article. I suggest we take out that whole paragraph and get some much needed peace and quiet in this already hectic article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory(ies)

Where are all the conspiracy theory experts? Transponders off, blonde young women in cockpit, stolen passports, undetected by primary Radars in one of the most intensively scanned regions in the world, scanned by the military for surveillance... What better script for a all-time great movie? Jokes & jest aside, concern for human lives has been expressed in the media... Strange world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.122.233 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place for conspiracy theories. Incidentally, the radar coverage is not as good here as you might think. There is a map somewhere, a professional-quality map with ranges of primary radars, and there are gaps. There are political limitations in that, for example, the US may have detected the plane from an AEGIS ship like an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, but they may not be able to admit that they were operating off the coast of Vietnam.

Roches (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There can be a place for conspiracy theories if they are notable in and of themselves. See for example John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. But otherwise I would agree with Roches, I haven't seen anything yet about these conspiracy theories that makes them notable enough for inclusion.--Nowa (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, but I would emphasise the point with an inserted word, thus: "There can be a place for conspiracy theories only if..." JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What Richfield said + it will take some time (month at least) to see if such are of notable from a historical standpoint. Only then we might include them.TMCk (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Credibility

Wait a month and then write an article

I wouldn't dream of participating here, but Legobot randomly invited me. I've always thought that a breaking news story shouldn't have an article at all until, say, at least 2 weeks has passed without its being mentioned on the front pages of the NYT, the Times (London), or [insert select other publications of international standing]. The unavoidably low signal-to-noise ratio of WP article-building in general is an order of magnitude even lower on topics such as this, and is a complete waste of time. WP should begin an article when the dust has settled; in the meantime people wanting to know what's going on can read the papers or watch the news. EEng (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm "unfriending" this article so please don't bother arguing this with me. I just hope that my gentle advice will save at least one innocent soul from ruin.

.. and of course we don't even have any dust at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:EEng, I personally like articles such as this one. There have been incidents that I have a mild interest in. I've found Wikipedia to be excellent at summarizing where the story is at the moment from from many sources while also filtering out speculation. Before Wikipedia became popular I'd need to wait until the magazines ran an article as those also would summarize the story, filter out speculation, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with EEng mainly in that I think s/he understates the case. As it stands the "article" is an unencyclopaedic disgrace to WP. It reads like a tabloid relying on second-hand reports from third-hand imaginations and with a committee in the editorial chair. I'll steer clear of it personally until as Martinevans123 might have put it, we have some dust to settle. Certainly it is a developing situation, but that is not licence for rumour mongering. JonRichfield (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely, although it doesn't quite have the copyediting of a tabloid. I've tried to contribute and I want to stress that while I have included emerging developments I have always been careful with the way these developments were worded. Just when I thought it had gotten better, yesterday's shred of information was that the airplane was in flight for four hours after it disappeared, and that is now all over the article.Roches (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL history is static?? thats a good one! if we waited until facts were "set in stone" we would lose some amazing pages like the history of north american migration or Amelia Earhart's bio page... history evolves, just like language, if you can't handle that you're using the wrong website 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's strength is that it reflects the ongoing struggle of competing interests to tell their version of the story. There is no "absolute truth" to be written. Books try and fail and get superseded by a new "truth" years later. To that extent, Wikipedia is probably not actually an encyclopedia, more an ongoing discussion about what the truth might be. Articles morph, get rewritten, take on errors, get corrected, succumb to edit wars. That's how real life is. That is Wikipedia's real strength. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting false reports

A quick look at the revision history suggests that many of the contributors here have made a series of inexcusable errors as a result of rewriting false reports by the press. Wikipedia, which is not a news website, should provide only correct information. Breaking news is not definitive information. Please, let's make way for the professional journalists to screw up the alerts. Again, Wikipedia should provide only facts. If you'd like to cover developing reports, you can generate your own sources, start your own blog, and move your own original reporting; otherwise, the contributors who continue spreading claptrap here might end up in the news themselves. 76.216.4.157 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point about this story : all the unofficial leaks, later denied, still later reconfirmed anonymously, and virtually nobody in authority to actually confirm anything. The story is that those at the top are not releasing facts. By your standards of perfectly accurate officially-confirmed statements only, this whole thing never happened, or may not have happened. I.e. all the "false reports" and total media shambles and nobody actually knowing anything eight days later are actually the real story so far and the article reflects that. Secondly, you don't understand what journalism is. It is precisely the digging up and publishing anonymous, off-the-record etc. leaks rather than just trotting out the official government news that is issued reluctantly a week after they knew it. Journalism is about finding whatever is available to be found of the truth which is often buried amongst heaps of garbage and misinformation or is only available through semi-legal means (remember the Pentagon Papers ?). Rcbutcher (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few points

Why is info in the lead that the US investigators saying the plane flew on for 4 to 5 hours? This has been denied by the Malaysian authorities and Rolls Royce. Furthermore in the lead it states that the search has been expanded to the Indian Ocean. Shouldn't that information go into another section? Also there is currently an investigation on the the state of mind of the pilots and crews, that possibly might have led to the crash. Doesn't that tie in with one of the crews letting two passengers in the cockpit which goes against MAS rules. 58.168.80.41 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be included in the article for calls(eg National Transportation Safety Board) to revamp the black box technology to include calls for live-streaming of data during the flight?58.168.80.41 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

At any one time there are 10,000 flights in progress over the USA alone. It's impractical to live-stream data from all of them. Instead, the data is sent in a burst by each aircraft every 30 minutes. When an aircraft is within radar range then it transmits a small burst of data every time it's pinged by a radar. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Malaysian authorities seem to have reversed their denial about the 4 to 5 hours part.

Six days after the plane with 239 people aboard disappeared, Malaysian authorities expanded their search westward toward India, saying the aircraft may have flown for several hours after its last contact with the ground shortly after takeoff from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing.^[6]

Earlier on same day they had denied the Wall Street Journal report. The saga is getting where USA authorities are saying things such as:

We're not out here freelancing, and it's not just something the U.S. Navy thinks and no one else," Marks said. "So this was by request of the Malaysian government. They asked the Navy to move our ship to the west into the Strait of Malacca. ... It is coordinated, but certain ships and aircraft stay in the east, and some go to the west. And we're moving to the west.^[7]

--Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolls Royce denied that the engine management/reporting system was responsible for the signals, or that the information had come from them - not that there hadn't been any signals and that it didn't fly on as mentioned. There was a later clarification from the Wall Street Journal which explains. The Malaysian authorities' reports, statements and denials have been somewhat varied over the past few days. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to quote what some anonymous person has said elsewhere to explain the situation re deriving the 4 hours of flight from comms:
- MAS [Malaysian Airlines] ACARS comms only work thru VHF since they chose not to pay for the extra fee for ACARS SATCOM link
- This 777-200 is SATCOM equipped
- What was found by US Government services (NSA, or maybe they asked Iridium directly to check the logs) is that, since the a/c ACARS system was out of VHF coverage, the system tried to connect thru SATCOM. But since MAS doesn't have a contract for that, connection was rejected, but remains a trace in their logs.
- That means that what they actually found is the log indicating every time the aircraft ACARS system tried to log in thru SATCOM and failed due to the lack of contract for that. Since the ACARS system onboard that specific aircraft tried for 4 hours after its disappearance to connect via SATCOM to the ACARS network, it means the aircraft was, at least, powered on...
Before anyone complains about speculation I am simply noting this in order to potentially help sort out on plausibility grounds what is a reliable report and what isn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia misreporting

One of you should do a section on Wikipedia's misreporting. Otherwise, remove the one-sided coverage that blasts officials and journalists for false reports. 76.216.4.157 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a new and rapidly changing subject, and has contributions from many sides, so given a little time, it will balance out. In the meantime, You, 76.216.4.157, are "one of us" - why don't you do a section on Wikipedia's misreporting? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed the IP editor's point. Everyone needs to stop trying to be first with the news. That is not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The constant cycle of new reports surfacing and being denied is an absolute mess. Connormah (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP's complaint is in fact that Malaysian authorities are being subjected to excessive criticism, not that Wikipedia is too fast out of the gate. The "timing" is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is VERIFICATION. When it's reasonably verified then if it's also notable it should go in. The people complaining about speed do not understand how Wikipedia works, which is based on the reliability of sourcing. We do not put material in quarantine for how ever many days.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make (but obviously missed out on) is that Wikipedia in itself (or collectively, if you will) isn't one-sided, but a collaboration of many contributors, some of whom will portray some bias in some regards at some time (it's natural, we all do occasionally). In time, any one-sidedness in this or any other article will be negated by the contributions and amendments of others, to produce a well-balanced, unbiased article. I certainly don't believe WP should "blast [anyone] for false reports" but if reports are made and found to be false - or even said to be false by reliable secondary sources, that is in itself notable, and can legitimately be justified within the article. If the IP editor feels the article is one-sided, then like any of us, they are entitled - and indeed encouraged - to make changes. Regards to all, Lynbarn (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe we agree that editors just need to roll up their sleeves. "I don't like this because it's too fresh," is just lazy. "This bit about something being shut off should be held back as unverified because it could be that the craft simply went out of VHF range," is, on the other hand, a sound objection. It's sound because someone has actually tried to investigate the reliability question and applied some critical thinking to it.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, right on--you get it. Bdell555, however, is "in fact" mistaken here: "The IP's complaint is in fact that Malaysian authorities are being subjected to excessive criticism, not that Wikipedia is too fast out of the gate." Who told you, Bdell555, that that was a fact? Your statement there has absolutely no merit: it only reiterates my point. 76.216.4.157 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Go back and look again at what was requested: "remove the one-sided coverage that blasts officials and journalists for false reports." That's not a complaint of recentism, that's a complaint about Wikipedia being too critical.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect. You manipulated my statement from another IP for only your benefit. You wrongfully assume that that was a single request. You failed to mention the first half of my statement. Again, who told you that that was a fact? It wasn't me. And I wrote it. Your unique perspective is laughable. (76.211.225.59) (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Putting a section on Wikipedia's coverage on Wikipedia is not going to work. The blasting of journalists and officials for false reports is up there because some editors thought it needed to be included. The problem is that anything that's considered "new and possibly not true" gets removed, so the article does not work as a news source. However, criticism of officials isn't "new and possibly not true" -- it's straight-up fact, and if it's been discussed by two newspapers it can be in Wikipedia.

Sigh. Even things that are probably false reports can be reported on in a clear, neutral way, without too much attention. I've found that I can tell the difference between new aspects of the story and things that are likely to be false reports. It's easy to see why there are false reports: the 24-hour news cycle requires whatever content it can get, so you need hours of talking to "experts" and hypothesizing with no basis in fact.

What's meant by the craft going outside VHF range? ACARS? Even if it was pinging, we don't know what it was trying to tell the satellite because that information was not sent. The transmitter might have survived a crash and, if it had battery backup, it could have kept pinging for a while. Roches (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Theories abound"

This is simply false. The China satellite stuff and the oil rig worker sighting have been dismissed. I'd add that these reports always were dismissed by every government. Name one government whose officials supported either of these stories, be it Malaysia, Vietnam, China, or the U.S. Fact is that even the Chinese government did not support the satellite photos story. If the equivalent of any of these countries' White House spokesman has has deemed either of these reports creditable "new information" please show us where.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of suppositions or theories has no place in the article. I've said it before and I'll say it once again for reiteration, wait until these possibilities become fact come via corroboration, then they can be included in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the inclusion of theories can be a part of the article if reported by reliable sources. Once they are debunked, that too can go in. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• The "Theories abound" part has been replaced by "There have been a number of false leads" as a teaser in the lead section. Most of these are elaborated in the body. Brian is just arguing to keep his "plausible theory", the sentence which follows it, in the lead. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not notable yet... Shaman says airplane captured by elves. But getting there...Malaysia government officially disclaims any connection to shaman.

Just hang on a moment... isn't that carpet levitating? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Brian is just arguing to keep his 'plausible theory'" because I could not possibly just have a good faith desire to have reliable material get more attention than unreliable, is that it? Reuters has put its journalistic reputation on the line with a story titled "Radar data suggests missing Malaysia plane deliberately flown way off course - sources." As far Ohconfucius is concerned, this story is as bogus as a claim of alien abduction, Ohc having actually removed this radar report confirmation, then cited to CBS News, in order to make room in the lede for "alien abduction"! A refusal to separate the wheat from the chaff here is a basic refusal to do our job as editors.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"actually, the inclusion of theories can be a part of the article if reported by reliable sources"

Perhaps a WP:SPLIT seems suitable for all these theories? I mean, even CNN could joke in an article body about ridiculous theories with a one liner, is it really necessary to include a bunch of nonsensical theories in this article? I only see one right now, but I'm sure people could try and include more. Perhaps we split or be careful about what "theories" get included. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think: No Hurry. It will probably take a very few more days so that the real story would become clear. so no hurry, & I think all theories are theories till they would be one more accurate which then we call it a reality. Just No hurry, if there is any hurry it should be in searching for more clues. Hope Everything would become clear, soon. KhabarNegar ^Talk 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

But of course funny ones like the one mentioned here in this section of talk page, "the elves story" usually would not get into articles as a norm, so luckily there is no worry... KhabarNegar ^Talk 15:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, obviously like I said just be careful about what theories get inclusion in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

maybe if the crazy theories prove true you post the conspiracy theories right by then you (Wikipedia) would have no choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If a theory is proved true, it is no longer a theory, it is a fact. Known facts, there are no flying saucers with space aliens in them, there are unidentified flying objects that are more commonly misunderstood atmospheric phenomena or military experimental aircraft. The known fact at this time is that the aircraft is missing. Everything else lacks solid evidence, only reports of transponders being turned off and assorted times for when they were turned off, etc. We can write those into the article because the reports are in respected news sources, not because of some theory advanced by a blog, internet meme, Youtube video, etc. That said, we may want to consider waiting before editing in the latest and greatest report until it's confirmed in other media outlets from more than an anonymous "source", but an official statement. That would beat the hell out of edit, revert, modify, re-add, then mass deletion of erroneous reporting.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Known facts, there are no flying saucers with space aliens in them, Sorry to be pedantic (and well OT), but that is NOT a fact. Just because we have no proof that there ARE any, doesn't mean we have proof that there ARE NONE! It is an as yet unproven theory. ;) Lynbarn (talk)

Considering the many governments who studied UFO reports and found no credibility to such things, such theories must fall in the same land as miasma theory of disease. Now, if space aliens were to contact the news media and provide evidence, such as a press conference with imagery of their spacecraft, it would be an established fact. As regards this article, UFO abduction is a peer with the report of the aircraft being held by elves. The only known fact is, the aircraft is missing.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

well there's a few government reports that found "credibility to such things" too of course 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, maybe one day we'll find a flying saucer with space aliens in it. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC) ShawntheGod (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

lol too ill wait for that day and look at your faces and see what its like to be ridiculed and i assure you that day is fast approaching, ufo debunkers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

before editing in the latest and greatest report until it's confirmed in other media outlets from more than an anonymous "source", but an official statement. That would beat the hell out of edit, revert, modify, re-add, then mass deletion of erroneous reporting-hello check out this http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/us/malaysia-airline-plane-theories/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Combined map

Currently, there are two maps, File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png and File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 search area.png. In addition to combining them into a single map, I propose to add there: continuous line for the actual flight path until disappearance together with the nearby IGARI waypoint, dotted line for the expected flight path to Beijing (if known, if not - perhaps as the crow flies), add country borders and the full names of relevant features, as in normal geo maps (i.e., Andaman Sea instead of A, etc). The areas of search are retained. All other additions may go onto this map (such as projected fuel range, etc). Brandmeister^talk 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the scale show miles (or nm) as well as km? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer km, but since the US and some other countries use miles, both may be used. Brandmeister^talk 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nautical miles are the standard unit of measurement in aviation. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't mind either. Brandmeister^talk 17:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to include a circle of maximum range from the point of lost contact, to indicate the total area within which it could have flown with the fuel load onboard? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I thinks that's a good idea, as long as the result does not look too cluttered.

Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, the circle would take in most of India, possibly into Pakistan, and the North coast of Australia, so the key ares in the middle would be rather small, so maybe not such a good idea... Lynbarn (talk)

We should allow for the future possible inclusion of this. I would expect howls if that track is included now given the opposition from Ohc (anyone else?) to even suggesting any westward flight is more likely than another direction, but I'd sooner trust Reuters, where this track is coming from, than most other sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you link to something which explains/ supports that image? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See body of the article, "Location" section, paragraph beginning "On 11 March, it was reported that military radar...", last cite in that paragraph (to Reuters).--Brian Dell (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So, this one [8], yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Note that the waypoints are given in the story. Here's two possible theories I'll just throw out here just to keep an eye on for possible future sources and narrative development since interestingly everything we know so far is still consistent with them: the first is that the assigned pilot(s) decided to crash the plane but wanted to do so in a deniable way to preserve reputations. The decision was therefore made to crash it far out in the Indian Ocean so that investigators might never be able to locate the crash point and definitively say what happened. The second (much less likely) is that the destination was Coco Islands, which is rumoured to host a secret Chinese base. Most of the passengers are Chinese nationals. Rather than fly direct to a landing strip here from the point of last air traffic control contact, the aircraft followed the track it did because any military radar operators watching live are less likely take an interest in blips appearing along established commercial flight corridors.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You need your own chat-show, Brian. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fringe or (in?)-formal fallacy genre?TMCk (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

lets call it foresight genre 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

'Criticism of official communication'

The first sentence of this section is too complicated, bearing in mind the public have not been doing any of the 'talking'. I'm going to simplify it and others can then pile in if they feel it necessary. Harfarhs (talk) 17:14, 14 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)

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)

Further investigations

The pilots are being investigated

• Source: [9]

They are investigating whether it was hijacked or commandeered in some way.

• Source: [10]

Information about these should be added to investigation sections. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• The first article there contains a crucial piece of information! It says Reuters was told an unidentified aircraft seen on radar was following airways P628 and M571. I think they meant M571 because there isn't an N571 in the Indian Ocean. P628 goes southwest from Malaysia (around Phuket) to India; N571 goes from Kuala Lumpur southeast towards the Arabian Peninsula. Both airways could be used by any plane going anywhere southeast of Malaysia. However an aircraft in distress, or an aircraft that had deliberately switched off its transponder, probably would not fly along the recognized airways. The fact it was following an airway probably meant it was a routine flight other than MH570. If it was being tracked by another ATC (Chennai or Yangon) then Kuala Lumpur may not have known its transponder code and so would not have seen it on ATC radar. If MH 370 was in distress, it would have taken the most direct route to an airport. If it was diverted by some malicious event, it also would probably not flown on the jet airways with its transponder off. The possible involvement of the crew really needs to be mentioned in the article, because investigators have said since the first time I added that and got it reverted that it was a possibility they were looking at. They would never have said they were examining the crew unless they had strong reasons, based on non-public evidence, to say this. The airways have already been discussed here, and yeah, expect howls if it's included. Roches (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Communications section edits

I shortened the communications section to remove reference to Mike Smith and the Daily Beast. Three reputable news sources (New York Times, Washington Post and Xinhua News Agency) have now said exactly the same things the other sources said, so we can now have quotations about the contradictions and frustrations that come from permanent and reputable sources. Roches (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, how much fuel was on board

So those so inclined can indulge in their OR exercises, can anyone show categorically how much fuel this aircraft had on board when it left KL? No working backwards from claims of how much it might have had when it disappeared, or x divided by y etc. What was the takeoff fuel load? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct your "OR exercise" elsewhere. WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Get real and lighten up - you couldn't detect my tongue in cheek go at the original researchers. FACT. This article has a major flaw. It does not say how much fuel was on board, or how many hours the aircraft could have stayed aloft under normal flight conditions. Is that OK with you, or would you prefer we have as fully a comprehensive and informative article as is possible? Moriori (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Can anyone find sources that state how much fuel was on board, or how many hours the aircraft could have stayed aloft under normal flight conditions?" Hope that helps you out. If you ask for OR (no matter how tongue in cheek), you're going to get OR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to read up on OR. If Malaysia Airlines said somewhere the a/c was loaded with x gallons of fuel giving a max flight time of y, then it is not OR for us to include it in the article. It would improve this article which is why I mention it here on this talk page. Moriori (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They're more likely to tell you it was loaded with z litres of fuel. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you would think I would consider that OR seeing I was asking for sources stating that same thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what they're asking, they've just worded it a bit oddly. — Lfdder (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuel on aircraft is expressed by weight not volume, because a given weight of fuel can vary significantly by volume due to temperature change. It is easy to measure volume of fuel pumped aboard, but a formula taking into account the exact temperature of the fuel must be used to ascertain the precise weight - it is the weight, i.e. mass, that provides power. The pilot needs to know how many kg of fuel are available. Jet fuel volume can increase by nearly 1% for every 10 degree C temperature increase. This is highly relevant if you're pumping it at KL. Aircraft have gone down due to screwing up this calculation. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Boeing states the fuel capacity as 45,220 US gallons (171,170 L). This is about 310,000 lbs (140,000 kg) at 59°F (15°C). For KL-Beijing it was probably loaded at something like 70% capacity. You can't really say how many hours the plane could have remained aloft on that amount; the engines consume wildly different amounts of fuel at different speeds, and the altitude affects fuel use as well.Roches (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if 70% is an accurate figure for the fuel load _needed_ for a KL-Beijing flight, that doesn't allow for the possibility of the airline carrying more fuel than required for any of several reasons, fuel costs at Beijing, fuel quality at Beijing, contractual reasons, turn-around time, and so on. This isn't something we can hypothesize on given known industry practise can cause gross variation in fuel carried, we need the actual figures. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if exact fuel figures are out there, any projection we would make here based on such would be a non-expert kind of OR. Expert or not, unless a RS is giving range figures and in due weight, this discussion is not helping improve the article (w/o RSs') as nothing that comes out of it can and will be included. What is known is that the aircraft had enough fuel for reaching Beijing + some extra for maybe 1 (or 2 hours for the most) as backup. Changing route, if that is what really happened, would keep the plane flying for roughly the same time, but would much depend on the route, ceiling hight and speed. The OP got their answer already and since nothing of this thread is backed up by sources there is no sense in ongoing discussion in this kind of manner. Forum soap and OR has reached a dead end wiki-vise and should stop here. Open a new thread or subsection if you (and that means everybody) provides a RS for consideration.TMCk (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow!

I asked if anyone knew of referenced info which could improve the article. I did not say, and have not said, that we should make projections/guesses/supposition. I asked whether anyone could find sources stating how much fuel was on board, or how many hours the aircraft could have stayed aloft.

I am surprise that you would so brazenly post a ownership statement -- namely, "nothing that comes out of it (this discussion) can and will be include". If pertinent referenced material relevant to this article eventuates, it "can and will be included" despite your assumed ownership. Moriori (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Facebook malware phish

The following sites are reporting a Facebook phish claiming to be news video of the missing aircraft. Don't know if it would be notable enough to include in this article at present. http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/14/malaysia-plane-mh370-has-been-spotted-somewhere-near-bermuda-triangle-spam-spreads-on-facebook-4574876/ http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/beware-of-new-facebook-malware-claims.html http://www.ibtimes.com/new-facebook-malware-fake-video-claims-malaysia-airlines-missing-plane-mh370-has-been-spotted . Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not notable enough to include ever. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Any others? On one hand, it is using the attention of the world to this event, on the other, it's not all that an uncommon event, to use a current event to spread malware or even steal identities.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is NOT relevate to this Flight 370 article but it might fit into Facebook or some subtopic like Criticism of Facebook. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 11:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Plane climbed to 45,000 feet

This was today's news, I couldn't find it in the article, and am posting here so that regular editors can add it if required. Other links like that of the NY Times are also available. I will not be editing so that I do not disturb the current article's consistency.

• Radar suggests missing Malaysian jet changed its course more than once
• U.S. says missing Malaysian jet could be 'act of PIRACY'

--PremKudva^Talk 04:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There are problems with the 45000 feet claim, starting with timing. Experts have taken issue with it, not least because of how long it would take to get up there. NYT itself admits that the altitude data is iffy, and while the numbers over land may be pretty accurate, this 45K number was supposedly out at sea and at the far end of radar detectability (and therefore accuracy). Readers can follow up by reading the NYT story themselves (the article already calls attention to the altitude changes the NYT writes about).

To quote a pilot:

Being familiar with the type, at the 230-240 tons that the aircraft weighed one hour into flight the performance limited altitude would have been between 38,000 and 39,000 ft...

Normal takeoff fuel would have been in the range of 44-47 tons...

To be able to climb to 45,000 ft (which is 2,000 ft above the certified ceiling of this 777) the weight would have to be reduced to approx. 165 tons; in other words the weight of the aircraft, payload and virtually no fuel.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should take it upon themselves to update the information on a timely basis. For example, it has been suggested that the flight was hijacked in an update posted at 1505 ADST on an Australian webpage. 124.176.78.135 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Ros Pratch.

Wikipedia has no deadline. (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to concur with HiLo48. As I mentioned above, we should slow down and ensure that information is accurate, not as something is reported, then revert, restore, change, finally revert again. Especially with more exceptional claims, as WP:EXCEPTIONAL states quite well.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:22, 15 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)

New search area

From the Malaysian PM: "Based on this new data the aviation authorities of Malaysia and their international counterparts have determined that the plane's last communication with the satellite was in one of two possible corridors. The northern corridor stretching approximately from the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to southern Thailand or the southern corridor stretching across from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean."[11] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• With Razack's announcement, it seems like I may still be on track with my contention that Zaharie may have joined the Taliban in Afghanistan. Rupert Murdoch also thinks the plane could be on the Pakistani border... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop speculating! HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

First, speculation on the part of a news media company owner is not a valid source. Respected sources, with official statements are what is required. Second, it's beyond unlikely that the area near a war zone and approaches to Pakistan would not be observed on radar, making the claim quite exceptional, unless one implies that Pakistan, India and the US all have the worst radar in world history. So, let's not speculate, nor include the speculations of news organization owners, who know less than nothing about the matter.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring take two

Two days ago, I stated that the level of edit warring at this article was too high. In the last few hours, there has been another surge of edit warring. By my count, there are at least three major contributors to this article who are on the wrong side of WP:3RR at this point. (Not counting the relative newbie who has already been blocked for edit warring.) Loath as I am to use protection against a high profile article like this, that seems to be a likely outcome if people continue to edit war. Please use this talk page for discussion and resolve issue via consensus rather than reverting text back and forth. Dragons flight (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

i am watching this article like a hawk right now, 99% of it is completely stable... news is progressing about as fast as the edits are getting made. i think the 3rr threat can wait for a couple more days 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Arrogant clods who just want their own way have no intention of discussing anything on a talk page. Sometimes a forced 3RR block is a reasonable outcome for such "contributors". The matter has been handled, the newbie dispatched and editing goes on. No-one else who participated in the recent debacle has any reason to feel concerned at their actions. WWGB (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That post from 72.... is telling. REAL news ISN'T progressing very fast at all, Sensational nonsense is. We have no deadline. We don't have to post the latest unlikely crap as soon as it appears. No great kudos goes to the editor who is "first with the news". My advice. Wait. Always. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't have a deadline, we do have a responsibility to be concise and accurate. As fast breaking stories tend to be incorrect stories, we have a responsibility to *not* include them until the veracity of claims can be confirmed by reputable sources. Political leaders are cautious in their choice of wording, they are cautious in their claims, so it's not notable for a political leader to speak to the world press and neither confirm nor deny that which has been "supposed" by many. The only thing known for certain still is that the aircraft is missing and that essentially a large fleet is looking for it.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

the flood of RS reporting be damned 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A flood of reporting on what was reported by one source is not confirmation, it is reporting on reporting of what has quite frequently been aether. Our responsibility is not to be first to a deadline, but to be concise and accurate, if that means we're "last to the byline", so be it. Wikipedia is not a news source, it is an encyclopedia.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

one source??? that simply isn't the case, sorry... and as others keep writing, yes even encyclopedias change as the facts change (GASP!)... a goal of concise accuracy, is no justification for sucking more than neccessary 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least acknowledge that a lot of idiotic bullshit has been posted in this article, and then correctly reverted, all because of the haste of some editors to be first with the news, whether it made any sense or not? HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

i've seen a lot of poorly-written stuff that generally had RS support in one sense or another, get reverted, instead of CE-ed into proper english and WP standards. I always get a little aggravated when people use the undo button as a substitute for the edit button. I've also seen articles where the translation standards were MUCH lower than this one. So lets take a quick moment to count our blessings 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a lot of moments, and just slow down. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

although I'd have to say, the amount of hard data showing up in RS media outlets, seems to be increasing. thats why i'm finally here, for example 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of poorly-written stuff, yes. If I broke the revert rule, it's because I find it unacceptable that the article mentions a PR consultant. I've also been really, really careful about what I consider appropriate changes and additions to the story, and I wish those changes didn't get reverted just because they're new. Every little detail about the plane's course or whatever should not be added. However, some things were of obvious significance, such as the identification a few days ago of the stolen passport holders.

The article is unacceptable in various other ways. Lots of other ways.Roches (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Crap is crap regardless of how recent or aged it is. Old material that is dubious/unverified should not go in and new material that is solidly sourced and verified (and notable, see Wikipedia:Recentism) should not be kept out for the sole reason that it's new. --Brian Dell (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pilot

NEW: POLICE SEARCHING HOUSE OF PILOT OF MISSING FLIGHT MH370 - SENIOR MALAYSIAN POLICE OFFICIAL - REUTERS. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not unusual for that to occur when an aircraft disappears. Every facet of the personnel on the flight crew, the flight itself, suspect passengers, even mechanics will be investigated to be sure that if a criminal act did occur, evidence is not lost.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing unusual, quite typical for investigations. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some people have thought it was odd he had a flight simulator; someone asked the airline about that and they said their employees were free to pursue their own hobbies. I don't think it's terribly unusual; many pilots really, really, really like flying, which is a good thing. I know a former pilot and engineer who restored a F-86 Sabre simulator. If it turns out that he liked making simulated planes crash in his spare time, no one should jump to any conclusions about that, either. In training, pilots are given all kinds of failure scenarios and they don't always succeed in recovering from them. Basically, if any stories come out about that flight simulator, they're not significant to the article.Roches (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some guff about what the pilot and his simulator hobbies, as Roches says not really significant at this time./ MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few assertions

The Prime Minister of Malaysia stated:

1. The flight deliberately changed course
2. The airplane's communication system was turn off
3. But he refused to confirmed that the plan was hijacked
4. New search areas will introduced with the search phase around the South China Sea being ended.124.183.145.94 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He didn't refuse to confirm anything. That is tabloid journalistic language that was not part of his speech, and completely useless for the purposes of our goal of creating a quality encyclopaedic article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Saw this report in Malaysiakini that points to a hijacking. http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/257152124.183.145.94 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read more than the headline? Perhaps the bit that begins "Despite media reports that the plane was hijacked..." HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Or the PM's speech, "...these movements are consistent with deliberate action by someone on the plane." The word hijacking was not used, only that the flight pattern was consistent with human control of the aircraft.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png

File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png What's the point of this map? There's nothing on it, it's completely blank. Why do we have a blank map at "File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png" when we could just use a normal blank map? The name of this image is highly misleading as it doesn't map anything concerning MH370. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This map is used as the background image on the article. Interactive points of interest are added by additional code in the article.

see: the edit screen for

<div style="float:right; position:relative; width:265px; font-size:11px; margin:0 1.0em;">
<!-- Route map -->
[[File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png|thumb|265px|<span style="font-size:11px;">Route (hover letters for explanation)</span>]]
{{Image label|x=0.385 |y=0.870 |scale=265|text=[[File:City locator 23.svg|10px]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.435 |y=0.875 |scale=265|text=<span style="background:#f9f9f9;">[[Kuala Lumpur]] (start)</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.420 |y=0.790 |scale=265|text=[[File:Airplane silhouette.svg|10px]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.470 |y=0.800 |scale=265|text=Last contact}}
{{Image label|x=0.720 |y=0.080 |scale=265|text=[[File:City locator 23.svg|10px]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.620 |y=0.135 |scale=265|text=<span style="background:#f9f9f9;">Beijing (destination)</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.060 |y=0.910 |scale=265|text=1000 km}}
{{Image label|x=0.265 |y=0.755 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Andaman Sea|A]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.340 |y=0.860 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Strait of Malacca|M]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.390 |y=0.740 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Gulf of Thailand|G]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.670 |y=0.690 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[South China Sea|S]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.120 |y=0.755 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Indian Ocean|I]]</span>}}
</div>

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's my point. There's no reason for this map file to exist, you could just use one of the standard blank map files. Or this file shouldn't be called "Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map", because it is nothing of the sort, it's just a regular map, there's no MH370 information on the map file at all. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:33, 16 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)

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)

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 operations by Day

The search operations by day needs to be documented by day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.188.53 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Ceecookie (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to document such things. Wikipedia is not a live news feed; there are better websites out there to suit such a function. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree completely. First, every day the search operations have changed. Second, this article needs to document the story as it happened. Third, I agree wikipedia is not a feed. Fourth, Wikipedia has the best article on MH370, let's keep it this way. Cheers!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.188.53 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a news service, once the search has been completed the actually notable encyclopedic content may only take a few paragraphs. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A Likely Scenario?

Speculation not intended for article improvement

The scenario of Ocenaic Flight 815 in the television seires "Lost" is shaping up to mimic the recent (and I mean just over a week ago now, as of this posting) of the now mysteriously lost Malaysian Flight HC003 777 jetliner. To wit: In the TV series "Lost", several unaccounted for people board a passenger jet bound for the US from Korea. Less than mid-way en-route, the plane experiences mechanical and allegdly telemetry and navigational problems. The plane inexplicably veers off course. It flies for several hours (and presumingly thousands of miles)off course, and out of all radar scrutiny and reckoning. With the Maylasioan flight, all the bullet-points bear out, almost exactly to the fictious TV show, including the unaacounted for "passengers". This is eeriely like the "Lost" scenario. What's amazing about this real-life horror is that with all the sophisticated satelitte and computer tracking- even "smartphones" with the "Google Earth" application-this airplane disappeared from all of the most powerful nations' scrutiny. As in the TV's scenario, the passenger and plane were initially presumed dead, with scant evidence presented (in the Maylasian situation, an oil slick in the ocean was discovered last week, leading experts to believe that the plane crashed in the Pacific. This was somehow disputed and dismissed, as computer messaging evidence concluded that the plane traveled thousands of miles further away from the fuel slick). A congruent scnario of action is played out in the novel "Three Days of the Condor". --65.88.88.73 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

Interesting comparison with LOST. You wrote "this airplane disappeared from all of the most powerful nations' scrutiny." Which nations do you mean? As to "smartphones", see my new section below. I didn't follow LOST, so I don't know the basic premise of what was really going on (dead?), but already some have suggested a connection with UFOs :) though this is seeming unlikely at the point—unless someone is lying about the turning of the plane (which was stated by one authority, then refuted by another, then...); disabling of electronics is consistent with several report UFO encounters, even encounters with military and civilian aircraft. But then this is usually the last possibility on people's minds, lol. Misty MH (talk) 09:05, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

Add "Alright, Good Night"

The pilot's last words were "Alright, good night". I think this should be included in the timeline since a lot of major news corporations are reporting this as significant. [Soffredo] 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are certain that's not the HIJACKER'S words? Only if the hijacker is the assigned pilot should we just suggest that this was the "pilot" without qualification, since authorities now agree that the chronology is 1:07 ACARS turned off, 1:21 transponder turned off [so somebody must have entered the cockpit prior to this time to apply duress to the pilots or otherwise take control], 1:22 this remark, then at 1:30 ""We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked them if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace. The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie or Fariq but I was sure it was the co-pilot."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"[so somebody must have entered the cockpit prior to this time to apply duress to the pilots or otherwise take control]" And the evidence for this is? I also notice the Malaysian PM said ACARS was 'disabled', not 'turned off'. Unless we have an official source saying 'turned off' we probably should stick with 'disabled', which implies a wider range of possibilities than simply someone flicking a switch. Equally the transponder is externally triggered by receipt of a secondary radar pulse, there's a significant gap between 'last response to a secondary radar pulse' and 'turned off' (including malfunction, electrical failure and a host of other failure modes). The investigation may now be assuming a deliberate turn off course, but that doesn't mean we should leap straight onto the assumption everything was the action of a putative hijacker. We need to make clear that this is currently the working hypothesis, not established fact, and that everything we say reflects that. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If it was "mumbling" how can he know whose voice it was? :O Harfarhs (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Other news agencies say it was All right, roger that so again we can wait for a reliable references, wikipedia is not in a rush to add everything the news agencies report. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Cargo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get it

Each day that pass, more confusing and disturbing this case becomes. 31.209.149.53 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

...is that one of the suitcases? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's file it under lost luggage.TMCk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers

I've been wondering this since before the Inmarsat stuff and maybe now it's covered in RS and time to consider for our article. I know it's now been discussed in the media the 2 main possibilities, namely either someone forced the pilots to fly somewhere or one or both did so willingly. (The 3rd possibility namely it was someone besides the pilots has also been mentioned but doesn't seem to get that much attention probably because we have no public evidence of any with the skills after all this time.)

But has anyone seen any RS discussion of what the passengers and other crew knew presuming they were alive? In the 1st case it's difficult to imagine no one besides the pilots knew (which raises the question of how to control such a large group).

In the second case, it's possible to imagine up to it dissappearing (I believe it was only slightly past arrival time) no one knew. Considering the time, it may be difficult to recognise the terrain was wrong except even if it was visible. However I think MAS planes are generally capable of showing the current location (and related details) on the in flight system and even at the time some may have noticed it was way of course. But I presume this could easily be deactivated and waved off as a system problem. (There is the slight risk someone used their own GPS, but given the time and possiblity the person would dismiss it as their GPS not working, it's probably not significant.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That reads like speculation. We need sources. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful Article on Radar Coverage

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

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

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

The other thing is - most of that area is "low threat" environment. They don't have people watching the radars at night for example as nothing ever happens happens.^[12]. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

See also

This section has been deleted multiple times since I created it (someone may have so before, though it was gone before I had a chance to notice). As most Major air disasters have comparable incidents included in such a section, can a see also article be maintained as a legitimate part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf Nirvana (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't actually finally know what kind of event this is, so identifying relevant "See also" events is difficult without it becoming a POV exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Without mentioning the "H" word, it was also a flight taken on an unauthorised path. WWGB (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Can you kindly link to the "see also" articles so one doesn't have to search for it in this fast pace changing subject? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WWGB - That would allow inclusion of every flight ever hijacked, and we don't want that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

True, though the 1977 incident happened to be from the same airline, so it deserves inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf Nirvana (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Search and rescue assets deployed

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)

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)

Missing information: Cell phones (Mobile telephones)

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

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

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)