Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc etc

We need to bring this discussion back on track

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Hijacking confirmed as official

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue Credulity Being Given to Media Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cargo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Article on Radar Coverage

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

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

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

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

The other thing is - most of that area is "low threat" environment. They don't have people watching the radars at night for example as nothing ever happens happens.^[5]. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 participants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please watch for technical details on Inmarsat reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing information: Cell phones (Mobile telephones)

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

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

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

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

Political mileage for the ruling party and government

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

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

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

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

Number of countries involved, expanded search

Now increased to 25 but no details yet of what assets are involved from all.[6] Some countries including France being asked to assist with satellite search and both corridors being treated with equal importance.[7] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also the Royal Australian Air Force now searching the Indian Ocean north and west of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.[8] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Largest disappearance

Im stating the fact and not wild rumors don't be overzealous in your factual standard that's already censorship

What are we talking about here exactly? Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

what you so blind you cant see the fact it is in your wiki pages for gods sake look it up [[9]]--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The second largest disappearance was the Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 with 107 passengers i think you should put it up so the people would realize the real gravity of the tragedy i cant believe you missed this important fact--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#UFO_abduction_rumors

Have you a reliable source that says it is the "the largest single disappearance of a group of people in history, and it is the largest single disappearance by a commercial aircraft." and please note the wikipedia article List of aerial disappearances is not a reliable source. Also note that it is probably a bit early for such statements as it is still a developing situation to declare they have disappeared rather than the fact we have just cant find the aircraft yet. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes @Replypartyreplyparty, I'm blind. I'm so blind that I'm undoing an edit that does not belong here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK well wait for several days then ill able to tell you I TOLD YOU SO--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys no problem but time is by my side better pray they find it and soon or im seeing quite a lot of respected people in here eating their own words, for your sake i hope--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey disappearance debunkers check this out [[10]] HEY Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has not disappeared it hasnt been found yet, this week biggest joke

Another one choke on it guys no need to sign in you know who i am lol [[11]]

The CNN article is interesting, but only says Flight 370 COULD be one of the greatest mysteries (among the Loch Ness Monster, the disappearance of Amelia Erhardt, the Yeti and others) - not that IT IS. The CNN journalist himself says "Answers about what happen [sic] to the Boeing 777 and the people on board must come soon" As you say, time will tell. My belief is that all will soon become very clear, and there will be no mystery at all. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Willing to bet your dollar on it i doubt they will ever be found look at the joke of searching for it in the Indian ocean now that is bull pure and simple,they are all desperate because sooner or later they will be force to face one of their biggest cover up and they will be debunked themselves big time and forced to admit a half century of lies--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

im not NOOB maybe you are--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You people are so uptight relax will you this is not a dictatorship remember the freedom of expression--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC) P.S.we my group fights censorship and cyber bullying by the way --User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ok i admit im here to observe all your behaviour in Wikipedia and assess if your really bullying would be editors its you choice if you want to ban me but it will only confirm your behaviour pattern now my group wants to wage war on your site but their waiting for my assessment and i don't care if you ban me im just letting you we are watching you all very closely and don't force us to take action you would not like it your not NATO[[12]],so im advising all of you to take it easy you don't want a full scare hack war good day im not signing my name for its doesn't matter now so ban will you lol Anonymous Philippines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

you are a left-wing conspiracy theorist, Replypartyreplyparty Dark Liberty (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrorists claiming responsibility

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

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

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

Possible landing strips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop speculating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

]>> Flight 370 Pilot Was Opposition Supporter With Love for Aviation >> Missing Malaysian Jet Said Tracked to Ocean Off Australia (Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)).

He also breathed air, and I understand he often drank water.207.119.196.4 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

7.5 hour or 7.5 hours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Disappearance "Events of the 7.5 hours flight" or "Events of the 7.5 hour flight"? Am I missing some grammar rule here? I thought it would be 7.5 hour flight. Aren't the two spellings used in this manner: "I spent 4 hours driving the 4 hour trip"? 107.199.113.209 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Last ping and fuel (maps)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diego Garcia

This speculation FYI. Regards, --YAAA (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally unreliable report.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The photo of the 2 Iranian young men released by the Malaysian authorities

I've never made a comment before, so apologies if this is the wrong place to suggest an addition to the article, and please delete it after reading. I did not note anything in the article about the odd photo of the two young Iranian men that were supposedly travelling on stolen passports. My background is in photography and it jumped out at me that the lower part of the photos released by the Malaysian authorities is the same for both men. Isn't that a bit weird? Look for yourselves. In fact, it looks as though it was photoshoped by an incompetent... Why was this photo released? D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.26.125 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The released images seem to be photographs of security camera stills (perhaps quite a distance from the subjects) then scanned and printed on a standard photocopier / inkjet or similar printer, so the definition and quality isn't great. The bottom half of both is obviously of the same photo, so perhaps there was a jam in the printer? Why were they released? that is for the Malaysian authorities to answer, not Wikipedia, and I'm not sure the quality of the images (nor even the images themselves) is really notable enough to include in the article. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was already explained that the "same legs" was due to the photocopying process, where one sheet was on top of the other when the copy was taken. Anyway, it's trivia and doesn't warrant inclusion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Page notice

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

UFO theory gaining much traction (for discussion - please do not remove)

Dear Wiki co-editors and friends,

The UFO theory is gaining much traction and I would urge that the article incorporates information such as those discussed here:

• IBI Times article
• Huffington Post article

Cheers, and thanks so much for your assistance. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this wiki article is non-fiction. Intrepid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you watch movies, you would realise that UFO's, giant lizards and Aliens will only attack USA, they have no intentions of "hijacking" a Malaysian airline..now if this plane went missing after if flew off from an airport in USA, it would have made sense...--Stemoc (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Godzilla. It was Godzila. Why won't anyone listen to me? Hold on, let me straighten my tin foil hat. JOJ ^Hutton 03:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Plane flew past three military radar installations undetected

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