Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceecookie (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 24 March 2014 (→‎Latest announcement - change summary or wait?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why not counter?

Why there is a note not to add a counter? Like this one {{Start date and age|2002|09|23}} So it will say that it is missing for "2 weeks". --Kirov Airship (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template in the infobox: | date = {{Start date|2014|03|08|df=y}} — if there were a consensus to do so, it could be changed to {{Start date and age|2014|03|08|df=y}} , which would render: 8 March 2014; 10 years ago (2014-03-08)  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back when were were under 72 hours some editors tried to add the number of hours it has been missing (currently at 90711 hours). Other editors objected and removed that. I really like how the use of {{Start date and age}} you suggested is displayed and so added that to the infobox. Media reports these days are regularly reporting the number of days and so the adding age may have work this time. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't our readers do arithmetic? Let's see. 21 minus 8. Hmmmmmm.... HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it disappeared in the Indian Ocean, it should be measured in Paksha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: This also overlooks time zones. There is already enough confusion between UTC and MYT (the timeline of events table said for three days that the flight went missing on 8 March UTC when it was actually on 7 March UTC) and readers in other time zones (i.e., 92% of the world) have added work to do. —sroc 💬 14:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
consider WP:NOTNEWS How would it look if this event had occurred a month ago - five years ago... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered a potential compromise. If the "current" template were to be replaced with {{current|date={{Start date and age|2014|03|08|df=y}}}}, it would render as the following; and once this is no longer considered a current event and the template is removed, then the counter goes with it.  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been no objections, I'll go ahead and modify accordingly.[Nevermind]  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
object This isn't necessary, adds nothing to the article, and is messing about with a standard Wikipedia message. I wouldn't bother - Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

Infobox image
2011: said to be "clearer" (according to TheAirplaneGuy (talk · contribs) See this edit
2012: said to "lack a distracting foreground, thus permitting a more concise caption (according to 67.100.127.204 (talk · contribs) See this edit
Here is the 3rd image I promised, taken less than 5 months before the crash in USA..--Stemoc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different images of 9M-MRO have occupied the infobox recently. I thought I'd put them side-by-side to see if a consensus exists as to which image should be there.

Thanks. 67.100.127.254 (talk) (a.k.a. 67.100.127.204) 01:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2011 has a better image of the total fuselage, the brand is more distinct, and the wheels-down takeoff adds dramatic effect to the photo. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2011 - again, the quality of the 2011 image is far better, try opening them both side by side (FULL VERSION), then you will see, and also the image focuses on the name of the plane (distorted in the 2012 image) and clear view of tail number (when opened fully) and as WWGB mentioned, its in full splendor..people like seeing images of planes taking off, with the landing gear....lots of image of the same plane flying in the air, none showing it taking off.. so not really special..--Stemoc (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2011 as per reasons above and there really isn't a point in changing it, it's the same plane... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a graphic design rule that subjects should face towards the article. If the 2012 image was flopped it would have a better chance. Composition (visual arts) and Flopped image do not have citations and so instead Google for 'graphic design leading the eye'. My personal feeling is towards the 2011 image as it also shows the aircraft connected to an airport rather than floating in empty space. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"floating in empty space" < weird choice of words since the plane "probably" is currently floating in empty space...that said, i have been trying to get a better image but we will see, till i can, I feel the 2011 image is the best available ..and yes, the plane pointing toward the article is probably one of the reasons i like this image...--Stemoc (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Sub-comment) Regarding "flopping image" — That would cause the script for the airline logo to be reversed.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"floating in empty space" interesting way of looking at it indeed. More like "doing what planes are designed to do" would be more accurate. As to a flipped logo/livery, I recall one airline did that a few years back (port–starboard), but I can't remember which one... -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ohc, that was on a BA concorde. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
class. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2011 As an image, I prefer the later picture, but for the purposes of the article, the earlier version is perfectly adequate - no need to change. The caption issue is a red herring as the article is about the plane - the caption doesn't need to go into any more detail than "this is the plane". Flopping the 2012 image would meet the design guideline (it's not really a rule) of facing towards the text, but would be silly as we have a perfectly adequate view with the 2011 image. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flipped logo - NATO's AWAC's always had NATO on one side of the emblem and OTAN on the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTAN is the Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord which is the French, Spanish, and Portuguese name for NATO. The job of developing acronyms such as NATO/OTAN sounds like fun. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe somebody could make an animated GIF of the 2nd image showing the plane "fading away".    71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2011 does seem more in context (it's not a good size reference, but it's better than nothing). Please don't get tempted to start fooling with the photos - for encyclopedic purposes, it's generally preferable to have a raw image rather than one that we think looks fine. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page hits

This article has had over 2.8 million visits since it was started [1]. Keep up the good work! WWGB (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but we should aim for 280 million visits. 8-} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cell phones

The present text states According to Chinese media, the relatives heard ringing tones when calling to the passengers.[34] However, flight 370 was not equipped with a base station that some airlines offer for in-flight cellphone contact,[34] it is presumed that the passengers' low powered cellphones were not able to transmit back due to distance from a transmission tower, flight altitude and shielding by the aircraft body.[34]. This seems to me to be just speculation, particularly given the use of the word "presumed". Suggest delete. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for retaining, while the word "presumed" may be removed. The related source cites the professor emeritus of computer science, who after the 9/11 attacks tested the capability of mobile telephones to work from the air: "Without this (an on-board base station), a mobile cannot be used at an altitude of more than roughly 0.5 kilometres in the case of a commercial airliner, and must not be too far from a cell tower... No cellphone could possibly succeed from an airliner in mid-ocean, even if flying low over the water. At normal cruising altitude no cellphone could possibly succeed in making ground contact as it is completely out of reach of the network of towers, in any case". Brandmeistertalk 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that has been discussed before and didnt gain a consensus to be added. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, when there is a reliable source, addressing the issue of relatives hearing the ringing tones, why not? Especially when one is interested in the possibility of a phone communication with/from the aircraft. Brandmeistertalk 17:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only Iridium and Globalstar phones would work on an jet aircraft over a large ocean, but it needs a clear line of site. I have no sources that say any passengers carried a satellite phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why this is revelant?? :-| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant that relatives thought their loved ones were alive, regardless of the reason. If included, however, it is desirable to explain how a phone would communicate that it is really ringing if it can't communicate a message of any kind. I know my crappy phone is liable to ring and ring when it is totally battery drained. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They did not try to call until after they realised that the plane was overdue, when it had either crashed or landed somewhere. People don't normally try to call others when they know they are on a plane. So the explanation of technical reasons why the phone would ring in the plane strikes me as irrelevant. I have heard other reasons given for the phones ringing, such as that when the switching mechanism doesn't know what to do with a call it often gives the caller a ringing tone. The text strikes me as too close to speculation to be retained. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cockpit fires (not unheard of)

[2] [3]

As an unmanned aircraft w/o autopilot or anyone at the controls, as such a fire damaged cockpit could still continue to fly, but without any controls over its course, altitude or active control of most anything else. Communications and navigation would have likely been terminated, and even if some pilot control got reestablished they likely had no good idea of how far off-course or what if any options would keep functioning.

Personally, I had no idea that 777s had ever experienced such horrific issues with a potential total loss of cockpit control.

Another potential issue; if pilots had temporarily exited the cockpit in order to avoid their being burned alive, and had shut that security door behind them in order to keep that fire from spreading, there’s no easy way of their ever getting back into their burnt-out cockpit.

What sort of upgraded fire suppression system did this MH370 have?

Why would anyone intentionally remove a documented reference to a 777 related cockpit fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradguth (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or perhaps both? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the link to this kind of 777 fire issue. Are you (Martinevans123) suggesting that this cockpit fire never happened, and therefore isn't a relevant what-if issue?

Do we objectively know that MH370 had no such fire issues?

We don't do what-if issues. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a reputable media source, such as CNN does what-if 24/7, then it's fair game. Note: if Fox News or any Murdoch outfit does what-if, it does not count due to they are disreputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we objectively know that MH730 DID have fire issues? No we don't, and until we have a reliable source that states that to be the case, this point has no place in the article. Wikipedia isn't a "what-if" platform. This is pure speculation - one of many theories put forward to suggest what MIGHT have happened. If they were all given wikispace, the article would five times as long, and no use to anyone. When you find that reliable source, please let us know, and come back here to discuss it (and don't forget to sign your talk posts. ;) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft had a Halon fire suppression system. This is a fact and told in countless interviews on Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon's show. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halon fire suppression systems are useless against li-ion or li fires - ask UPS flight 6. Also, Egypt Air 777 flight MS-667 suffered a serious flight deck fire while going through pre-flight. Serious enough that the aircraft was written off. Fires are a pilots worst nightmare.174.0.185.123 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it's obviously true fires on an aircraft are a very bad problem, I don't think it's correct that halon is useless against li-ion. Extinguishing lithium ion fires can be difficult and halon may be less effective than when it's used with some other stuff but can also be somewhat effective according to most sources I've seen including the FAA [4].
Lithium metal (aka contained in most lithium primary cell types but not many secondary ones or lithium ion types) fires are another matter, all sources agree Halon is ineffective. I don't think there is anything that's particularly effective and in fact many things can make the fire worse. It's probably primarily for this reason that some authorities and airlines treated or did treat lithium metal cells rather differently in terms of carrying them.
Note that there seems to be some confusion over UPS Fight 6. The aircraft involved did not even have a halon suppression system. The cargo was lithium ion batteries not lithium metal ones. The AV Herald and perhaps report mentioned the fact that lithium metal fires (based on the FAA advisory which said the same thing) could not be extinguished with halon but for some reason some crap sources and sadly our article until I corrected it incorrectly reported this as applying to the lithium ion batteries on the flight.
I don't know if it's entirely clear whether the cells involved were lithium ion or lithium metal, some sources said lithium ion but I never confirmed if this was what was stated by Malaysian Airlines officials.
Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even those intended to be fitted can be quite a problem, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So 9M-MRO has a Halon system. What is the significance of that fact? Sorry, but at this stage, I don't see one. It is not relevant to the article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turn entered into system 12 minutes before last voice transmission

This seems to start with NBC. Is it possible that any reliable source for this exists? Is the shadowy source who provided this information any worse than the sources who claim pings to satellites? Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, that does not necessarily mean it is a significant piece of information. The B-777 FMC Alternate page [5]lists several possible alternates, giving ETA and fuel remaining. The pilots can also request the latest WX for each of those alternates, just by pushing buttons associated with each one.
Those alternate airports can be installed on that page via satellite up/downlinking, or by manual entry. If alternates were entered on that page, before the last verbal VHF communication, that doesn't necessarily say that it was the result of some nefarious plot by one or both pilots.
My experience on the 777, was that we routinely always had that page loaded with various possible alternates, in case anything suddenly went wrong. We could then select the best possible alternate (considering the nature of our emergency, the winds enroute, the WX at arrival and the fuel remaining), just by punching a couple of buttons.
My question would have to do with the source of that alternate destination information. Are they talking about what was loaded into the FMC alternate page? And, was THAT alternate page included in the routine ACARS reports to the ground stations, via satellites? Until we know for sure what they are talking about, we cannot automatically infer it is valid evidence of some nefarious plot by the cockpit crew. EditorASC (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=600246727#Sharp_left_turn_was_pre-planned
There is a link to a NBC news story. It is my understanding that yes, it was in the last ACARS report and yes, it was the alternate page. I agree that it shows no nefarious intent. Becalmed (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for that info; some discussions are getting archived so rapidly that I am missing some of it; simply don't have enough time to read before its gone. Unfortunately, NBC seems to have removed that information from that link. Kinda getting to be a habit with that so-called "RS" news source. Should put us all on alert as to relying on what NBC has to say about anything, unless we can verify from other, more reputable sources. EditorASC (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. The nytimes has the story, also. I am at 9 out of 10 uses this month, so this is all that I can link to at nytimes. Plus my link address is probably way too long: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry25%23%2Facars&_r=0
I think that they saw the plane on radar during the turn. They saw it make a gentle twenty degree turn. 20 degrees is what the autopilot would do, so maybe that is all that this story is based upon. Becalmed (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

countries unable to acquire Boeing aircraft due to economic sanctions

Tangential discussion unrelated to the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Several nations are disallowed to buy Boeing aircraft due to economic sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but irrelevant to this article. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why irrelevant? There are a handful of countries that want to acquire Boeings, but they cannot acquire them legally. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy theorist UFOABT is a really interesting read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.70 (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangosteen war

There seems to be an edit war over mangosteens. Yes, there were mangosteens in the cargo hold.  (So?)  This edit summary [6] states: ...there were fears over exploding mangosteens - google it –Okay, the only google reference that I could find relates to "mangosteens exploding in popularity" – which is unlikely to cause an airplane to disappear. Is there a consensus that until a reliable source connects mangosteens to the disappearance, that this is not relevant to the article?  ~Cheers, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the mangosteen mention with that of the batteries as an example of the way in which official information has been released in this case. Feel free to delete the magosteens if you don't like it. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. huge problems with the release of information, again. Context now supplied and cited. Hope this is satisfactory and that it ends the war. All I can say I'm sure glad it's not a durian war instead. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the data from previous satellite pings been released?

I have new maps: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-299.html#post8386973 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/satellite-locates-malaysian-flight-370-still-flyingseven-hours-after-takeoff/2014/03/15/96627a24-ac86-11e3-a06a-e3230a43d6cb_graphic.html

Note that the ocean currents will carry things on the surface towards Australia, so it is a good idea to send search airplanes to the east of the supposed crash site. Becalmed (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as counterclockwise rotation. It flows toward Austria and towards Maldives and towards Magascar and finally towards Antarc5ica. Sorry my poor mobile keybored typing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMSA MH370 Search - Media kit and Newsroom

Although they are primary sources that cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, a couple of interesting web pages are:

1. Australian Maritime Safety Authority Newsroom and 2. Australian Maritime Safety Authority Media kit Paul H. (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used. The main issue is whether you can trust what you see or whether it needs to be confirmed by another, or reported by someone else to show significance. AMSA would be expected to be reliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMSA updates and info about chartered bizjets

The AMSA updates make it clear that reports of a Gulfstream GV bizjet being used are wrong. A release says a "Gulfstream" was hired without being specific as to what type of Gulfstream it was, the info that it was a GV was a bit of original research added by an IP in this edit. A subsequent AMSA release stated this was incorrect and the aircraft used was a Global Express. Subsequent releases mention a second bizjet without saying anything about what it is. Any reports about there being a GV and a GLEX may well be based on earlier versions of this article and probably shouldn't be used. YSSYguy (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I think that the "20 March" bit under Search/Location is getting a bit blog like and could do with a trim, its beginning to look like a mini-version of "Search/International participation". MilborneOne (talk)

File:Map of satellite images of possible debris from MH370.png

Can someone add the new Chinese satellite hit onto this map? (that would be debris #4, 1 being Chinese, 2&3 Australian) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and now a French satellite image is being reported by the BBC - no other details as yet. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the coordinates? Soerfm (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Isn't it about time that the Intro mentioned the Indian Ocean satellite photos and where the search is now being concentrated? Roundtheworld (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've made a start on adding the recent developments, but it may benefit from some "fettling". Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Batteries

Just a bit of background info to archive IATA Lithium Battery Guidance Document MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's not forbidden by ICAO, to carry these in the cargo hold of a commercial airliner, provided the necessary precautionary steps are taken? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the quantity carried is also limited, note that there is a few minor exceptions "Prototype or low production" batteries that have not been tested can only be carried on cargo aircraft.MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Families

This has been in the headlines of both NBC news and CNN here in the United States all weekend. To delete this important element of this developing story is like saying there are no victims, only numbers.Prairiegrl (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to save space, stop adding three references for every statement. That is unnecessary.50.80.153.55 (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every minute detail of this event is in NBC and CNN. To report that some families of those missing seek solace in their Buddhist faith [8] is utterly non-notable. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prairiegrl, the section you inserted:

As anxious relatives in Kuala Lumpur awaited news of missing Flight 370, some found comfort from Buddhist volunteers from the Tzu Chi Foundation, based in Taiwan. While hoping their family members were still alive, families were preparing for the worst.<ref>[http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/buddhist-volunteers-comforting-mh370-families-malaysia-n59541 Buddhist Volunteers Comforting MH370 Families in Malaysia] NBC News 22 March 2014. Retrieved March 22, 2014.</ref>

is too specific, and uses some weasel words and flowery text which don't sit well in Wikipedia. You refer to one religious/belief group, but what about all the others? There may perhaps be a place for general comment perhaps, but it does need some work yet. Remember, WP is not a news medium. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable HA! What is non-notable is this incessant referencing of a tiny piece of minutia, a single and most often poorly written phrase, with three references from various news sources around the globe. In fact, this is a news article as it is, because it merely quotes news sources.Prairiegrl (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be notable only if the search and rescue operations are finally ceased, so far it may be a WP:RECENTISM. Australia, that coordinates the operation, vowed the search would go on until "further searching would be futile - and that day is not in sight". Australian Deputy PM Warren Truss specifically said that "at this stage we are planning for it to continue indefinitely, although I recognise that there will be a time at some stage if nothing is discovered where a further re-appraisal will have to be made but we are not even thinking about that at the present time". Brandmeistertalk 12:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the paragraph, which has been inserted and removed several times, isn't written in very encyclopaedic language. However, I believe we can mention Tzu Chi Foundation, which is very notable and important. In fact, we only need on sentence to the effect that the foundation is involved. KISS. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of welfare and support organisations are active in support in the different countries with passengers, to single out one over all the tens of others is undue weight, and as this is also a standard thing in incidents and accidents is not particularly noteworth, so we dont need to mention them. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that two-thirds of passengers are Chinese. The fact that the largest benevolent organisation, from Taiwan, is welcomed with open arms by the PRC catering harmoniously against the backdrop of PRC atheism and the general distrust between Taiwan and PRC. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a significant, reliable source highlighting that as a special difference? Otherwise it's pure original research. In every disaster of this scale some welfare organisation will be doing a bigger job than others, purely because there are more people it can directly help. Please stop making political observations here. HiLo48 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading something in it these last two weeks about Tzu Chi. I'm sure there's a ton in the Chinese press, as there have been items all over local TV about them. You can check out scmp.com. But I can't access it now because my quota is up. But I reiterate, merely the fact that they are there almost exclusively for TWO THIRDS of the passengers should be enough to warrant including their intervention. But tell you what, I'll try and write a sentence for the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact they are good at self-publicity doesnt make them anymore notable then any other welfare or support organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Chinese and I don't see Buddhist monks every day of the week. Therefore, I am interested in knowing what the Buddhist volunteers are doing with the families.Prairiegrl (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that cynicism is rather unwarranted.

    Do you think any of the countries is likely to have refused to help out if they were asked? They are almost certainly all out of pocket from this as each country will pay for their own participation (there's no convention about who bears the costs of such rescues, AFAIK). Any country who refuses to help in the rescue would look very bad.

    In the case at hand, we have an already very well-known, well-respected and very well-funded buddhist organisation renown for their humanity and ethic who have volunteered their services very early on and without any prompting. IMHO, their intervention is a whole lot more notable than news of the relatives' threats of hunger strike, or the offer of $5000 condolence money, yet somehow both these have managed to find prominent place in the article. You tell me who's good at self-publicity.  Ohc ¡digame! 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities table

The 15x4 grid (plus header/footer) includes two columns that, with one exception, are the same, and one that contains only one entry. Would this be improved by converting to a 15x2 (combining Malaysian crew and pax, with a footnote - see my sandbox) or 16x2 (extra Malaysia row for crew, again with a footnote) format. I'm happy to do it, but would like to see a consensus first. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have two tables, one per your sandbox but labelled passengers and a smaller one for crew. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a separate table for crew, with one having only one row (other than the header), is of value. —sroc 💬 14:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - P'raps not! :) Lynbarn (talk)
Sorry it sounded better then it looked!! back to Plan A then your original sandbox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better good work from Lynbarn and tweaks from sroc. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise altitude

The "Disappearance" section states: "It climbed to its assigned cruise altitude of 35,000 feet (10,700 m)..." This claim is unsourced, however, presumably the figure of 35,000 feet is accurate to no more than two significant figures—in fact, it could be an approximate figure of ±2,500 feet, suggesting between 32,250 to 37,500 feet. By default, the {{convert}} template represents this as {{convert|35000|ft}} → 35,000 feet (11,000 m). Why then does the article use a more precise conversion to three significant figures? —sroc 💬 15:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Presenting quantities:

Ensure that the precision of the converted quantity in the article is comparable to the precision of the quantity from the source.

—sroc 💬 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be resolved by using e.g. flight level 350 instead of actual altitudes? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been a flight level, altitude in feet is just not used above a few thousand near the ground. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "flight level" meaningful to the typical reader? Even if we give this as flight level (if it can be supported by reliable sources), wouldn't it make sense to include an equivalent (or explanation) in feet/metres for our readers anyway? —sroc 💬 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, that is the wonder of wikilinks - those who know will understand, those who don't will be able to get a good explanation by clicking on the flight level wikilink. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can add an explanation note if required, to find the exact height we would need to do some maths and know the pressure setting in the region at a specific time, all original research so we should keep away from it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting datum that is worth some explanation, so long as OR is avoided. For example, flight level points out that these levels are different depending on the heading of the aircraft. Does that mean a pilot would have changed his flight level if changing heading, even in an emergency that disrupted communications? (I'm not suggesting to mention any such thing in the article unless a source turns up, but is this something sensible to look for?) Wnt (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of the news coverage I have seen has reported the altitude in feet or meters. You only see flight levels mentioned in aviation specific media. I would not mention the flight levels in this article unless it becomes relevant to the story. There was talk long ago at Template_talk:Convert/Archive January 2012#Flight Level about adding support for flight level to {{convert}} but it was never coded. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of fuel on board

I notice that a figure and a sentence about the seven hours of fuel have been taken out of the article, though a figure still references it indirectly as the last known "possible" position. Obviously many news sources have repeated that figure, but -- where does it come from? Does anyone know the primary source? Do we have the pilots' word for it, or someone working at the fuel pump, or is there a way to audit how much they pumped with accuracy? Wnt (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pumps are metered and the aircraft operator is billed. They know to a fraction of a gallon as to how much fuel was loaded. Also, someone from the airport loads the fuel. You only see "self service fuel" at very small airports. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But is there anyone with a key to the fuel pump who could turn off the meter and keep pumping? Wnt (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with your car, the total range also depends on how much fuel there was on board before last filling up, and speed, gradients, weather conditions, temperature, etc. etc., so even knowing how much was loaded at KL only gives an approximate idea of the maximum range MH730 could have travelled (plus another 100 km or so "gliding" after the fuel gave out). YMMV Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really thinking of random variation here. One of the theories is that terrorists took over the plane, possibly with complicity in the cockpit. So could they have filled it up with all the fuel it could hold, and flown all the way to Africa or beyond? Wnt (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they could have, just as they could have loaded up a few hundred jerry cans of fuel, and re-filled the tanks mid-air - or soaked the mangosteens in aviation fuel, then squeezed them into the tank..., but such speculation is of no value to this wikipedia article! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! (That's why I began by asking after the primary sourcing for the fuel loaded) Wnt (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Airports are not tinpot operation, not even Malaysian ones. The amount of fuel taken on board is carefully calculated optimised and controlled. Too much becomes extra weight, too little means having to make an unscheduled stop. too much fuel affects safety at landing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be some aviation expert among the many in the media who can be quoted for the obvious issue about MH370. “Dry Tanks Range” is important only for managing the search. For distraught people waiting for answers, “Maximum Time Aloft” is the only information that matters. The following three factual realities, which were known in the first two hours after take-off: [1] radio communications were stopped, [2] transponder was manually turned off, and [3] ACARS was disabled – all just at the limit of ATC radar coverage. Coincidence? Not so much. The ‘stealthiness’ of the flight after that along with no ELT detection means one thing. It has been grotesquely irresponsible for officials to offer hope for survivors beyond the moment of fuel exhaustion (with or without “pinging” detected by satellites). At maximum endurance cruise power settings, the Boeing 777 can stay aloft less than 17 hours not 17 days! Paul Niquette (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. But that would be enough time (just for instance, I doubt they could avoid challenge on the way) to land at an abandoned spaceport in the Congo. I mean, from the perspective of someone just watching the news there are two explanations for hijackers ... they made a plan to take over a plane and fly it out into the middle of nowhere and run out of fuel and crash in the ocean, or they made a plan to land somewhere. Intuitively the second sounds more plausible, which is why I wish we knew how many people we have to trust to believe there was only x much fuel on board. Wnt (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting the third possibility - that they planned to land, but things went wrong... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The passengers would have had a fate worse than death for the six hours the plane continued to fly. Sitting in the cabin in increasing frenzy, without a word from the pilot; the in-flight info showing the flight heading to the south pole. The landing time long past and the last of the beverages and delicious airline food run out and knowing inevitably the fuel was on the same trajectory... -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International participation

As it was quiet, a change for this article, I have had a go at the multiple references used in International participation I have tried in good faith to check the references and removed redundant ones. Its possible I missed some and it could still do with some more work. Multiple references are OK to cover different points but not to support the same information, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sightings

Some private sightings have been reported in the media. For instance, see http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/03/21/missing-mh370-woman-reports-sighting-missing-jet.html I added this one sighting because it was reported in hundreds of news outlets. My edit was reversed by User:WWGB because "we don't report all unconfirmed sightings". I don't understand the logic here. We report a sighting via satellite of an unidentified object thousands of miles from the known flight path, but not a sighting of a downed and sinking airplane along the flight path?Narc (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sightings by satellite are confirmed by national governments, which are reliable sources. Alleged sightings by individuals, whether passengers or fisherman, remains unreliable until confirmed. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confounding subjects and sources. The person who sighted is not a WP "source". She is the subject of the report. A source is a source of the information, such as a newspaper or book. If a person told me, "I saw the plane," that would be unreliable. If a reliable news outlet vets and reports the facts of a sighting, then that is a reliable source. It is NOT up to WP editors to evaluate the information if it comes from a reliable news source. Otherwise, you are allowing your own bias (in this case, pro-government, anti-independent-media) to creep into WP. For instance, the source of the Australian sitings is not the Australian government, it is the Sidney Morning Herald. I hope others will chime in on this important topic. I agree with your original objection not to report "every" sighting, but a sighting that is credible enough to be widely reported should be included in the article.Narc (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the filter here should be the sources. For one thing, we have to avoid a "retail" perspective - we don't want to cover the event solely from the point of view of the person watching TV from home; rather we should reflect the whole range of challenges and obstacles faced by the rescue mission itself, all the false hopes and confusing reports. Wnt (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of disappearance

The Timeline of disappearance chart needs to have some date (or dates) listed within. As it now stands, it is merely a list of times, which is not all that helpful. I understand that one can discern the correct date(s), by reading the table in the context of the full article. However, since this is a table/chart, it should also be able to stand on its own (i.e., be read as a separate and independent unit). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, I suggest the following:
Duration (HH:MM) Time[a] Event
MYT UTC
00:00 00:41 16:41 Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
00:20 01:01 17:01 MH370 confirms altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m)[1]
00:26 01:07 17:07 Last ACARS data transmission received;[2] MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet[1]
00:38 01:19 17:19 Last Malaysian ATC voice contact[3]
00:40 01:21 17:21 Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
00:41 01:22 17:22 Transponder and ADS-B now off
00:49 01:30 17:30 Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible[4]
00:56 01:37 17:37 Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission[2]
01:30 02:11 18:11 First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
01:34 02:15 18:15 Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang
05:49 06:30 22:30 Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
07:30 08:11 00:11 Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite[5][6]
07:49 08:30 00:30 Reported missing[7]
   Friday, March 7      Saturday, March 8 – 2014...Soerfm (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this change really necessary? There is an elapsed time from take off which sets the timeframe neatly, the wikilinks to MYT and UTC give any background timezone info readers may require, and anyone who can tell the time knows that after 23:59, 00:00 is the next day, plus the colours/key makes it look less tidy. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

Duration (HH:MM) Time Event
MYT UTC
00:00 8 March
00:41		 7 March
16:41		 Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
00:20 01:01 17:01 MH370 confirms altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m)[1]
00:26 01:07 17:07 Last ACARS data transmission received;[2] MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet[1]
00:38 01:19 17:19 Last Malaysian ATC voice contact[3]
00:40 01:21 17:21 Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
00:41 01:22 17:22 Transponder and ADS-B now off
00:49 01:30 17:30 Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible[4]
00:56 01:37 17:37 Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission[2]
01:30 02:11 18:11 First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
01:34 02:15 18:15 Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang
05:49 06:30 22:30 Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
07:30 08:11 8 March
00:11		 Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite[8][6]
07:49 08:30 00:30 Reported missing[7]

—sroc 💬 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, this:

Duration (HH:MM) Time Event
MYT UTC
00:00 8 March
00:41		 7 March
16:41		 Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
00:20 01:01 17:01 MH370 confirms altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m)[1]
00:26 01:07 17:07 Last ACARS data transmission received;[2] MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet[1]
00:38 01:19 17:19 Last Malaysian ATC voice contact[3]
00:40 01:21 17:21 Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
00:41 01:22 17:22 Transponder and ADS-B now off
00:49 01:30 17:30 Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible[4]
00:56 01:37 17:37 Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission[2]
01:30 02:11 18:11 First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
01:34 02:15 18:15 Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang
05:49 06:30 22:30 Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
07:30 08:11 8 March
00:11		 Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite[9][6]
07:49 08:30 00:30 Reported missing[7]

—sroc 💬 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more simple

Duration (HH:MM) Time Event
MYT UTC
00:00 00:41 16:41 Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
00:20 01:01 17:01 MH370 confirms altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m)[1]
00:26 01:07 17:07 Last ACARS data transmission received;[2] MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet[1]
00:38 01:19 17:19 Last Malaysian ATC voice contact[3]
00:40 01:21 17:21 Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
00:41 01:22 17:22 Transponder and ADS-B now off
00:49 01:30 17:30 Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible[4]
00:56 01:37 17:37 Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission[2]
01:30 02:11 18:11 First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
01:34 02:15 18:15 Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang
05:49 06:30 22:30 Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
07:30 08:11 00:11 Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite[10][6]
07:49 08:30 00:30 Reported missing[7]
Time in Italics: 7 March, time in regular: 8 March, 2014...Soerfm (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not a great idea considering the "Timeline of response" table is only in UTC. —sroc 💬 15:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be better to keep UTC:

Duration (HH:MM) Time Event
00:00 16:41 Friday 7 March (UTC): Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
00:20 17:01 MH370 confirms altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m)[1]
00:26 17:07 Last ACARS data transmission received;[2] MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet[1]
00:38 17:19 Last Malaysian ATC voice contact[3]
00:40 17:21 Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
00:41 17:22 Transponder and ADS-B now off
00:49 17:30 Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible[4]
00:56 17:37 Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission[2]
01:30 18:11 First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
01:34 18:15 Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang
05:49 22:30 Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
07:30 00:11 8 March: Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite[11][6]
07:49 00:30 Reported missing[7]

...Soerfm (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pings?

Just curious as to what avionics box provided the 'pings' after the main devices were turned off or failed? Not mentioned in the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure (I'm not an aviator), but my understanding is that after ACARS stopped transmitting data from the plane, the system still responded to periodic polling from the INMARSAT satellite, even though no data was transferred other than basic ID handshaking. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The SATCOM system does it. It is much like a ping between routers on the Internet. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-379.html#post8396229 Becalmed (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful. We do have a DAB page on SATCOM. I guess it is the transceiver part of the ACARS system. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objects spotted

A Chinese military aircraft spotted several "suspicious" floating objects in the Indian Ocean. The Guardian Irish Times. Worth mentioning? I didn't add this to the article myself as I noticed the wooden pallets and strapping belts were not already included. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate objects have been spotted by the Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion. There were two objects spotted by the Orion – the first a grey or green circular object and the second an orange rectangular object. HMAS Success is on scene and is attempting to locate the objects. Australian Maritime Safety Authority ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually more and more sightings are being reported now, except that by the time another aircraft goes to the location it isn't there. Right now everything is a wild goose chase. Until a ship on location and retrieves an item connecting it to MH370 it will not be of any use.--PremKudvaTalk 11:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude conversions

Whoever uses metres for altitude (or even for height above ground, for that matter)? I could understand using Flight Levels as well as feet, but metres?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia: "China, Mongolia, Russia and many CIS countries have used flight levels specified in metres for years." Most of the world uses metric measurements in day-to-day use, so it isn't unreasonable to include conversions and the convert template generally does this well, but does perhaps need to be detuned to allow less accurate comparisons. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what happens at metres/feet Flight Level boundaries exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems aircraft have to ascend/decend slightly when passing, for example, into Russian airspace. You'd have thought that of all the standards to be adopted worldwide, flight levels would have been one of them! Lynbarn (talk)
I wonder how RVSM works? I can't even imagine how Russian and Chinese pilots describe Flight Levels in terms of metres. But sorry to digress here.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (... like this, apparently).[reply]

New announcement announced

BBC has just reported that the Malaysian PM is due to make an announcement at 22:00 MYT 14:00 UTC. with an update on recent developments. Lynbarn (talk)

Northern route ruled out. Flight ended at end of southern arc. Hcobb (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that image needs to be amended or removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, because it is useful in that it shows the theories that occurred over the past week. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest announcement - change summary or wait?

According to today's announcement[9], "all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean." It is "beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived". Should we change the summary and state the deaths as 239 (all)? Or should we wait until the discovered debris has been verified as belonging to MH370? Heymid (contribs) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No plane=No fatalities. Unless the plane is found I would not advise you too change it.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ohc ¡digame! 14:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't we found the plane then. I think anything you edit regrading the plane should be reverted until we have proof of it's location--76.107.252.227 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting which evidence exactly. AFAIK, the search and rescue operation is still in full swing and no announcement of its cessation has been issued so far. Brandmeistertalk 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There will be (already is) a firestorm of minor edits for a while. I guess the task is to keep any changes under control as much as possible. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysian Airlines has sent text messages to the families of passengers and crew advising of no survivors.[10] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Official statement by Mayalsia Airlines.[11] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, the statement says: "...the 226 passengers and of our 13 friends and colleagues..." Officially, there were 227 passengers and 12 crew members. When did one of the passengers become a friend of Malaysian Airlines? —sroc 💬 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How very strange. Surely they couldn't get this wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they may be referring to Mohd Khairul Amri Selamat, who could be considered an industry colleague. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly. One might immediately think of an off-duty employee. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change to Presumed Crashed ? Ojy 97 (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think while the announcement is important, the sentiment of the folks above is correct -- quote and work with the Malaysian PM's comments, but until there is proof from ID of plane parts or human remains, treat them as assumptions and announcements, and not proof of a crash or all lives lost. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Presenting that as a fact until the debris and/or bodies are found isn't a good idea. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should not say for a fact it crashed, but saying "presumed crashed" is entirely sourced and neutral, and objections to the contrary are WP:OR. The sources say presumed crashed. That is what wiki policy demands we reflect. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all on board officially presumed dead, this is the worst fatality and 4th hull loss to occur on the 777. This has been added into the article Ceecookie (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j The Telegraph, "Revealed: the final 54 minutes of communication from MH370"
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Out of Control Videos, "Timing of ACARS deactivation unclear. Last ACARS message at 01:07 was not necessarily point at which system was turned off"
  3. ^ a b c d e Daily Mail, "Was Malaysian co-pilot's last message to base a secret distress signal? Officials investigate possibility unusual sign-off may have indicated something was wrong"
  4. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference nst-pilot was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ The New Yorker, "The Story of Flight 370 Changes Again"
  6. ^ a b c d e Pearlman, Jonathan; Wu, Adam (21 March 2014). "Revealed: the final 54 minutes of communication from MH370". The Daily Telegraph.
  7. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ The New Yorker, "The Story of Flight 370 Changes Again"
  9. ^ The New Yorker, "The Story of Flight 370 Changes Again"
  10. ^ The New Yorker, "The Story of Flight 370 Changes Again"
  11. ^ The New Yorker, "The Story of Flight 370 Changes Again"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=601056974"