This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Astro Awani's Citation under the Malaysian Search Response section states that "On 9 March, the Malaysian transport minister said that the Malaysian intelligence agencies have been activated, while counter terrorism units in all relevant countries have been informed, adding that he has met with officers from the FBI in Malaysia." [1]
While Reuter's Citation under the Investigation section states that "The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has deployed technical experts and agents to investigate the disappearance. However, a senior US law enforcement official clarified that FBI agents were not sent to Malaysia." [2]
So which is true? Both cannot be true without a proper explanation. -- (,・∀・)ノシ(BZ) ( talk) 03:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, there's a standard for aircraft flight names. Wikipedia:AVINAME. I used a hyphen; you can't check links in comment boxes. I also did sort of mean it with that comment. This has been fought over and fought over and I finally found that there is a clear standard somewhere. It happens to be exactly what the media use. I don't think the codeshare number is being used much in the media, but I guess that can stay.
Please don't change the capital letters or anything. Roches ( talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (abbreviated MH370) was a scheduled international flight from Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Beijing Capital International Airport in Beijing, China. On 8 March 2014, the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER operating the flight disappeared while flying over the South China Sea with 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board. A joint search and rescue effort covering an area of 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in the Gulf of Thailand, Strait of Malacca, and the South China Sea, is being conducted by ten countries which have dispatched a total of 34 aircraft and 40 ships to the effort.
The loss of Flight 370 is the second fatal crash of a Boeing 777 since the aircraft's entry into service in 1995; previously, three deaths occurred when Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed on approach to San Francisco International Airport. Flight 370 is the third and deadliest accident involving fatalities for Malaysia Airlines.
I think "a Boeing 777-200ER, registration 9M-MRO" is too detailed for the lede, which should provide a more accessible overview of the subject. The details are already in the "Aircraft" section and the "aircraft type" is in the infobox. I suggest this copy be removed from the lede, but don't want to be bold and spark an edit-war over it. — sroc 💬 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
...please don't. This is the worst accident involving a 777 of any type, and the space you save with removing -200ER isn't really worthwhile if even 5% of people would be interested in the -200ER part. The 9M-MRO is there because of the RfC... I really would like this article to be something that people can read and come away with some idea of what's happening. But I've spent a lot of time arguing about the correct way of naming a plane crash. Roches ( talk) 03:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The 9M-MRO is there because of the RfC". Could you clarify? Thanks! Madalibi ( talk) 03:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any info on air hostesses? It seems there should be 10 of them on board, but after quick search I found nothing. Brandmeister talk 18:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Missing Malaysia airliner 'changed course' ( Lihaas ( talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).
A number of family members of the passengers aboard Flight 370 have called the passengers phones and the calls got connected i.e. were ringing, but no answer. Families have requested they be tracked before the batteries go dead. Worth mentioning. [3] [4]. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE ------------------------- "I wouldn't put too much stock into the phone ringing thing. The Chinese passengers would've had their phones last registered on a cellular network in Malaysia. When people call their Chinese numbers the cell network tries to pass the call to the Malaysia exchange.
Transferring calls across international exchanges is imperfect. The systems often run on different standards, are different ages and are made by different manufacturers. Most of these systems are not well integrated and aside from simply dialling numbers, do not exchange much information (such as the connected status of roaming phones). When dealing with really old hardware it's not uncommon to "answer" a call and play fake ringing tones while passing it to the foreign exchange.
Sometimes you can tell when this happens because the real ringing tones of the foreign exchange are sometimes different. So you get a couple fake rings from the home exchange, and then the real rings from the foreign one. Anyone who calls people travelling in Mexico has experienced this.
The answering/hangup after a few rings is probably the foreign exchange trying to figure out how to handle the call after it can't connect it. Sometimes the foreign exchange will redirect the call back to the home exchange's voicemail system. Unfortunately with old systems the meta data is lost, such as caller id, called number, etc. that the voicemail system doesn't know what to do with the call and just hangs up.
I work with a lot of people that travel all over central america, Europe and in Asia a bit. This kind of thing is super common." END QUOTE ------------------- 174.0.185.123 ( talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet another source mentionning the attempt to connect with ringing. This coming from a chinese televison: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_09/Family-of-Chinese-passenger-missing-on-flight-MH370-makes-contact-with-his-phone-1046/ Btw, anyone who has travelled to developing countries know that travelers switch SIM cards to local networks to avoid roaming fees. The fact the call connected is puzzling and should be in article imho.
Presumably the aircraft has an ELT/Distress radiobeacon. Why has this not enabled rescuers to find it? Biscuittin ( talk) 01:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-- I presume the ELT is the same as on our Delta A L jets(I pilot the Boeing 767).. It is a portable unit primarily to be used in a water ditching. It must be carried to the raft where it can be turned on (if you drop it in the water it floats and activates automatically). In this case it transmits on a satellite reception frequency. There is no crash activated rescue beacon. Ozma2020 ( talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)ozma2020
Please remove the oil slick marking on the map as the oil slick is completely unrelated after lab results indicated it was from a ship.
Thecodingproject ( talk) 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This was my version.... Sailsbystars ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The passengers section contains an implicit endorsement of racial profiling:
Given the ethnic diversity of contemporary Europe it is not a neutral statement to imply that persons 'Asian in appearance' be subjected to secondary screening when travelling[sic] on a European passport. It is an endorsement of a particular ideological viewpoint, and, therefore, not appropriate for an article on the facts of flight 370.
WP:NPOV should apply and the second clause should be removed.
Further, the statement that the passengers were not questioned is not supported by the associated source material. The article makes no mention of whether the men in question were allowed to board without challenge or were challenged but allowed to board.
It is a reasonable assumption that the men were not questioned--as it seems unlikely that Malaysian authorities would miss a stolen passport during a secondary inspection--but assumptions are in violation of wp:nor and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
An edit to correct the sentence in question was summarily reverted by user:WWGB. -- TheOtherEvilTwin ( talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they looked hapa or they looked full Asian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.169.104 ( talk) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Why have so many references been removed from the article? Parts of the "Incident" section are now unsourced. There is also an error in one of the duplicate citations where the reference was deleted but an orphaned reference remains as an error. —
sroc
💬
13:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Roches ( talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{reqmap}} Can the map look more like the one in the Air France Flight 447 article, with the dotted lines, etc? What do others think? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
MISSING MH370: RMAF chief denies military radar report. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 06:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems reliable and also cites "local newspaper Berita Harian quoted Malaysia's air force chief, Gen. Rodzali Daud ..." which may have more information.
It has the aircraft flying back over Malaysia at around 29,528 feet with radar contact lost at 2:40am. I'm surprised with all of the editor action on this article that this has not been added. Is it controversial? -- Marc Kupper| talk 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Its necessary to avoid bringing that up or everyone will figure out that we are dealing with an extraordinary rendition to Diego Garcia. -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Rozdali Daud has denied he ever said that military radar tracked the plane anywhere; I'm uninclined to believe anything he says, or anyone else in the Malaysian government, for that matter. Also, I wish to point out that the 777 ER is the maximum range airliner - with full fuel, it could fly anywhere. Does anyone know for certain that it didn't have full tanks?
24.108.58.1 (
talk)
04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's late and I've been on the scrumpy, but the New Scientist is reporting that the aircraft sent engine / ACARS data during the flight. Mjroots ( talk) 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Would someone familiar with aviation terminology in Chinese double-check the English to Chinese translations here: en:User_talk:Kxx#File:Mah370path_labelled.png ? This is so a picture related to MH370 can be translated into Chinese for the Chinese Wikipedia Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now, what I can glean from the article is that last ATC contact (over Gulf of Thailand) occurred at 01:24, while ATC reported this to Malaysia Airlines at 02:40. Beyond the ATC last contact of 01:24, the aircraft could still be picked up by Malaysian military radar.
The article also states that the last military radar detection (over Strait of Malacca, near Pulau Perak) was at 02:40.
While the last ATC contact time (01:24) seems clear, the real question here is whether the last military radar detection coincidentally occur the very same minute (02:40) that ATC reported the 01:24 loss of contact to Malaysian Airlines, or if that information is convoluted and a third time is missing from the picture. Right now either the article has times mixed up, the information from sources just isn't clear, or there is simply a coincidence that both of those events occurred at 02:40. Regardless, clarification is needed here.
As a sidenote, once this is clarified, maybe the image here could be modified to show the times next to the markers as well. -- CrunchySkies ( talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Which year was this aircraft built? Would it not be of interest to find out what year this model was built and some of it's service history / previous owners and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.218.40 ( talk) 10:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Close enough for me. Which year was it?
84.208.218.40 (
talk)
11:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this should be in the article. It is almost entirely made up of opinions of people who are not otherwise involved. Roches ( talk) 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This person is the CEO of a public relations firm, evidently. It's not really about whether or not the paragraph follows the rules of Wikipedia. Roches ( talk) 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The ages of the Austrian and Italian are not supported by the two references following the second sentence. I guess they are based on the Passenger Manifest. However, at least the age of the Austrian is wrongly given with 30 years. Correct are 61 [sic]. "Auf Flug MH370 gebuchter Österreicher im Gespräch". Der Standard (in German). 2014-03-11. Retrieved 2014-03-12. Shall we keep wrong ages? It might be reasonable to assume that a young Iranian manipulated the DOB (1953) in the passport – but since I don’t have a reference, that’s pure speculation. ;-) Alfie ↑↓ © 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Notably this:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73541000/png/_73541784_303252.png Thecodingproject ( talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think one of the Brunei ship has been listed here by Xinhua, the Darussalam class. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, the article has two maps showing very much the same information. The second, captioned "search area" doesn't show the published delineated search areas - it is just zoomed in from the first. As it stands, does the second map add anything to the article? Can it be deleted - or made more informative? Regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It says in the 3rd paragraph of the section Location that it flew west for "70 minutes." Was this a mistake and it was actually "7 minutes" or was it true? If it was true, can I please see the source? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now it currently says: On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft turned west and continued flying for 70 minutes before disappearing near Pulau Perak;[27][28] it "changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait". This last location is approximately 500 km (311 mi) from its last position in contact with air traffic control.[29] However, the next day Rodzali Daud denied making the statements as reported in the media, requesting that the misreporting be "amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretations of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report".[30][31] Vietnam has scaled back its search operations to await clarification from Malaysia due to the conflicting reports.[32]
But, shouldn't it say On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft turned west and continued flying for 7 minutes before disappearing near Pulau Perak;[27][28] it "changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait". This last location is approximately 500 km (311 mi) from its last position in contact with air traffic control.[29] However, the next day Rodzali Daud denied making the statements as reported in the media, requesting that the misreporting be "amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretations of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report".[30][31] Vietnam has scaled back its search operations to await clarification from Malaysia due to the conflicting reports.[32]
WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
In the in-depth reports of the unfolding case thatI've seen, they all mention the transponder having to be turned off, likely manually. This may have been debunked already, but the omission seems like an oversight. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
3 satellite images -- breaking news Thecodingproject ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.216.2 ( talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Then there's a person not authorised to communicate who is doing just what they are not authorised to do. It's irresponsible. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree this shouldn't be in the lead. The Associated Press says that Malaysian authorities insist there's in fact nothing at the location where these images are supposed to indicate there is something. And the Vietnamese say they've gone over it as well. The Chinese may have just thrown these out to basically say, "see we're doing something, adding value here." As the Washington Post notes, "China has been eager to present a proactive image to its citizens and has released a steady stream of propaganda-like images and news about its efforts".-- Brian Dell ( talk) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need to list each a/c and ship by type and (sometimes) name? — Lfdder ( talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The distance first estimated for detecting the ULBs by the submarine was of the order of 2,000 metres.
Does anybody braver than me wanna try sorting it out then? — Lfdder ( talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks for informative article, not sure where crowd sourcing search of satellite images should go but should be mentioned. [ [9]] is one of a few web references. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Suggestion: put it after the list of countries involved in the search, either with or without a bullet point. Call it "Online" or "International", then talk about the search of satellite images. Roches ( talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Spotted this over at http://wordswithmeaning.org/the-search-for-mh370-boeing-777-continues-as-satellite-imagery-discovers-potential-wreckage/
Is this notable enough to include? It doesn't state it's definite, but it does contain the images
-- The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
|
According to this article at Indianexpress.com and this one at Reuters.com (among many other reliable sources), the two Dornier Do 228 aircraft that have recently been dispatched to the area by India, belong to the Indian Coast Guard and not to the Air Force, as is incorrectly mentioned in our article. There are several sites around that mention this fact. Is anyone willing to correct this little mistake or should I do it myself? Thanks in advance. − Sandip90 ( talk) 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
wp:NOTAFORUM and wtfs with casually blaming the pilot? 2nd time I see it now — Lfdder ( talk) 03:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Does anyone want to give credence to this idea? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this hoax could find a mention: Facebook Survey Scam - 'Malaysian MH370 Plane Found In Bermuda Triangle' from Hoax Slayer. -- Auric talk 03:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
MIGHT. Got this idea from Facebook by another person. Agree? IDK. And, remember. MIGHT. -- Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 04:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Astro Awani's Citation under the Malaysian Search Response section states that "On 9 March, the Malaysian transport minister said that the Malaysian intelligence agencies have been activated, while counter terrorism units in all relevant countries have been informed, adding that he has met with officers from the FBI in Malaysia." [1]
While Reuter's Citation under the Investigation section states that "The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has deployed technical experts and agents to investigate the disappearance. However, a senior US law enforcement official clarified that FBI agents were not sent to Malaysia." [2]
So which is true? Both cannot be true without a proper explanation. -- (,・∀・)ノシ(BZ) ( talk) 03:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, there's a standard for aircraft flight names. Wikipedia:AVINAME. I used a hyphen; you can't check links in comment boxes. I also did sort of mean it with that comment. This has been fought over and fought over and I finally found that there is a clear standard somewhere. It happens to be exactly what the media use. I don't think the codeshare number is being used much in the media, but I guess that can stay.
Please don't change the capital letters or anything. Roches ( talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (abbreviated MH370) was a scheduled international flight from Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Beijing Capital International Airport in Beijing, China. On 8 March 2014, the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER operating the flight disappeared while flying over the South China Sea with 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board. A joint search and rescue effort covering an area of 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in the Gulf of Thailand, Strait of Malacca, and the South China Sea, is being conducted by ten countries which have dispatched a total of 34 aircraft and 40 ships to the effort.
The loss of Flight 370 is the second fatal crash of a Boeing 777 since the aircraft's entry into service in 1995; previously, three deaths occurred when Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed on approach to San Francisco International Airport. Flight 370 is the third and deadliest accident involving fatalities for Malaysia Airlines.
I think "a Boeing 777-200ER, registration 9M-MRO" is too detailed for the lede, which should provide a more accessible overview of the subject. The details are already in the "Aircraft" section and the "aircraft type" is in the infobox. I suggest this copy be removed from the lede, but don't want to be bold and spark an edit-war over it. — sroc 💬 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
...please don't. This is the worst accident involving a 777 of any type, and the space you save with removing -200ER isn't really worthwhile if even 5% of people would be interested in the -200ER part. The 9M-MRO is there because of the RfC... I really would like this article to be something that people can read and come away with some idea of what's happening. But I've spent a lot of time arguing about the correct way of naming a plane crash. Roches ( talk) 03:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The 9M-MRO is there because of the RfC". Could you clarify? Thanks! Madalibi ( talk) 03:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any info on air hostesses? It seems there should be 10 of them on board, but after quick search I found nothing. Brandmeister talk 18:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Missing Malaysia airliner 'changed course' ( Lihaas ( talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).
A number of family members of the passengers aboard Flight 370 have called the passengers phones and the calls got connected i.e. were ringing, but no answer. Families have requested they be tracked before the batteries go dead. Worth mentioning. [3] [4]. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE ------------------------- "I wouldn't put too much stock into the phone ringing thing. The Chinese passengers would've had their phones last registered on a cellular network in Malaysia. When people call their Chinese numbers the cell network tries to pass the call to the Malaysia exchange.
Transferring calls across international exchanges is imperfect. The systems often run on different standards, are different ages and are made by different manufacturers. Most of these systems are not well integrated and aside from simply dialling numbers, do not exchange much information (such as the connected status of roaming phones). When dealing with really old hardware it's not uncommon to "answer" a call and play fake ringing tones while passing it to the foreign exchange.
Sometimes you can tell when this happens because the real ringing tones of the foreign exchange are sometimes different. So you get a couple fake rings from the home exchange, and then the real rings from the foreign one. Anyone who calls people travelling in Mexico has experienced this.
The answering/hangup after a few rings is probably the foreign exchange trying to figure out how to handle the call after it can't connect it. Sometimes the foreign exchange will redirect the call back to the home exchange's voicemail system. Unfortunately with old systems the meta data is lost, such as caller id, called number, etc. that the voicemail system doesn't know what to do with the call and just hangs up.
I work with a lot of people that travel all over central america, Europe and in Asia a bit. This kind of thing is super common." END QUOTE ------------------- 174.0.185.123 ( talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet another source mentionning the attempt to connect with ringing. This coming from a chinese televison: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_09/Family-of-Chinese-passenger-missing-on-flight-MH370-makes-contact-with-his-phone-1046/ Btw, anyone who has travelled to developing countries know that travelers switch SIM cards to local networks to avoid roaming fees. The fact the call connected is puzzling and should be in article imho.
Presumably the aircraft has an ELT/Distress radiobeacon. Why has this not enabled rescuers to find it? Biscuittin ( talk) 01:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-- I presume the ELT is the same as on our Delta A L jets(I pilot the Boeing 767).. It is a portable unit primarily to be used in a water ditching. It must be carried to the raft where it can be turned on (if you drop it in the water it floats and activates automatically). In this case it transmits on a satellite reception frequency. There is no crash activated rescue beacon. Ozma2020 ( talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)ozma2020
Please remove the oil slick marking on the map as the oil slick is completely unrelated after lab results indicated it was from a ship.
Thecodingproject ( talk) 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This was my version.... Sailsbystars ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The passengers section contains an implicit endorsement of racial profiling:
Given the ethnic diversity of contemporary Europe it is not a neutral statement to imply that persons 'Asian in appearance' be subjected to secondary screening when travelling[sic] on a European passport. It is an endorsement of a particular ideological viewpoint, and, therefore, not appropriate for an article on the facts of flight 370.
WP:NPOV should apply and the second clause should be removed.
Further, the statement that the passengers were not questioned is not supported by the associated source material. The article makes no mention of whether the men in question were allowed to board without challenge or were challenged but allowed to board.
It is a reasonable assumption that the men were not questioned--as it seems unlikely that Malaysian authorities would miss a stolen passport during a secondary inspection--but assumptions are in violation of wp:nor and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
An edit to correct the sentence in question was summarily reverted by user:WWGB. -- TheOtherEvilTwin ( talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they looked hapa or they looked full Asian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.169.104 ( talk) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Why have so many references been removed from the article? Parts of the "Incident" section are now unsourced. There is also an error in one of the duplicate citations where the reference was deleted but an orphaned reference remains as an error. —
sroc
💬
13:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Roches ( talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{reqmap}} Can the map look more like the one in the Air France Flight 447 article, with the dotted lines, etc? What do others think? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
MISSING MH370: RMAF chief denies military radar report. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 06:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems reliable and also cites "local newspaper Berita Harian quoted Malaysia's air force chief, Gen. Rodzali Daud ..." which may have more information.
It has the aircraft flying back over Malaysia at around 29,528 feet with radar contact lost at 2:40am. I'm surprised with all of the editor action on this article that this has not been added. Is it controversial? -- Marc Kupper| talk 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Its necessary to avoid bringing that up or everyone will figure out that we are dealing with an extraordinary rendition to Diego Garcia. -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Rozdali Daud has denied he ever said that military radar tracked the plane anywhere; I'm uninclined to believe anything he says, or anyone else in the Malaysian government, for that matter. Also, I wish to point out that the 777 ER is the maximum range airliner - with full fuel, it could fly anywhere. Does anyone know for certain that it didn't have full tanks?
24.108.58.1 (
talk)
04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's late and I've been on the scrumpy, but the New Scientist is reporting that the aircraft sent engine / ACARS data during the flight. Mjroots ( talk) 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Would someone familiar with aviation terminology in Chinese double-check the English to Chinese translations here: en:User_talk:Kxx#File:Mah370path_labelled.png ? This is so a picture related to MH370 can be translated into Chinese for the Chinese Wikipedia Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now, what I can glean from the article is that last ATC contact (over Gulf of Thailand) occurred at 01:24, while ATC reported this to Malaysia Airlines at 02:40. Beyond the ATC last contact of 01:24, the aircraft could still be picked up by Malaysian military radar.
The article also states that the last military radar detection (over Strait of Malacca, near Pulau Perak) was at 02:40.
While the last ATC contact time (01:24) seems clear, the real question here is whether the last military radar detection coincidentally occur the very same minute (02:40) that ATC reported the 01:24 loss of contact to Malaysian Airlines, or if that information is convoluted and a third time is missing from the picture. Right now either the article has times mixed up, the information from sources just isn't clear, or there is simply a coincidence that both of those events occurred at 02:40. Regardless, clarification is needed here.
As a sidenote, once this is clarified, maybe the image here could be modified to show the times next to the markers as well. -- CrunchySkies ( talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Which year was this aircraft built? Would it not be of interest to find out what year this model was built and some of it's service history / previous owners and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.218.40 ( talk) 10:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Close enough for me. Which year was it?
84.208.218.40 (
talk)
11:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this should be in the article. It is almost entirely made up of opinions of people who are not otherwise involved. Roches ( talk) 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This person is the CEO of a public relations firm, evidently. It's not really about whether or not the paragraph follows the rules of Wikipedia. Roches ( talk) 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The ages of the Austrian and Italian are not supported by the two references following the second sentence. I guess they are based on the Passenger Manifest. However, at least the age of the Austrian is wrongly given with 30 years. Correct are 61 [sic]. "Auf Flug MH370 gebuchter Österreicher im Gespräch". Der Standard (in German). 2014-03-11. Retrieved 2014-03-12. Shall we keep wrong ages? It might be reasonable to assume that a young Iranian manipulated the DOB (1953) in the passport – but since I don’t have a reference, that’s pure speculation. ;-) Alfie ↑↓ © 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Notably this:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73541000/png/_73541784_303252.png Thecodingproject ( talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think one of the Brunei ship has been listed here by Xinhua, the Darussalam class. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, the article has two maps showing very much the same information. The second, captioned "search area" doesn't show the published delineated search areas - it is just zoomed in from the first. As it stands, does the second map add anything to the article? Can it be deleted - or made more informative? Regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It says in the 3rd paragraph of the section Location that it flew west for "70 minutes." Was this a mistake and it was actually "7 minutes" or was it true? If it was true, can I please see the source? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now it currently says: On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft turned west and continued flying for 70 minutes before disappearing near Pulau Perak;[27][28] it "changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait". This last location is approximately 500 km (311 mi) from its last position in contact with air traffic control.[29] However, the next day Rodzali Daud denied making the statements as reported in the media, requesting that the misreporting be "amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretations of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report".[30][31] Vietnam has scaled back its search operations to await clarification from Malaysia due to the conflicting reports.[32]
But, shouldn't it say On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft turned west and continued flying for 7 minutes before disappearing near Pulau Perak;[27][28] it "changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait". This last location is approximately 500 km (311 mi) from its last position in contact with air traffic control.[29] However, the next day Rodzali Daud denied making the statements as reported in the media, requesting that the misreporting be "amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretations of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report".[30][31] Vietnam has scaled back its search operations to await clarification from Malaysia due to the conflicting reports.[32]
WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
In the in-depth reports of the unfolding case thatI've seen, they all mention the transponder having to be turned off, likely manually. This may have been debunked already, but the omission seems like an oversight. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
3 satellite images -- breaking news Thecodingproject ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.216.2 ( talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Then there's a person not authorised to communicate who is doing just what they are not authorised to do. It's irresponsible. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree this shouldn't be in the lead. The Associated Press says that Malaysian authorities insist there's in fact nothing at the location where these images are supposed to indicate there is something. And the Vietnamese say they've gone over it as well. The Chinese may have just thrown these out to basically say, "see we're doing something, adding value here." As the Washington Post notes, "China has been eager to present a proactive image to its citizens and has released a steady stream of propaganda-like images and news about its efforts".-- Brian Dell ( talk) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need to list each a/c and ship by type and (sometimes) name? — Lfdder ( talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The distance first estimated for detecting the ULBs by the submarine was of the order of 2,000 metres.
Does anybody braver than me wanna try sorting it out then? — Lfdder ( talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks for informative article, not sure where crowd sourcing search of satellite images should go but should be mentioned. [ [9]] is one of a few web references. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Suggestion: put it after the list of countries involved in the search, either with or without a bullet point. Call it "Online" or "International", then talk about the search of satellite images. Roches ( talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Spotted this over at http://wordswithmeaning.org/the-search-for-mh370-boeing-777-continues-as-satellite-imagery-discovers-potential-wreckage/
Is this notable enough to include? It doesn't state it's definite, but it does contain the images
-- The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
|
According to this article at Indianexpress.com and this one at Reuters.com (among many other reliable sources), the two Dornier Do 228 aircraft that have recently been dispatched to the area by India, belong to the Indian Coast Guard and not to the Air Force, as is incorrectly mentioned in our article. There are several sites around that mention this fact. Is anyone willing to correct this little mistake or should I do it myself? Thanks in advance. − Sandip90 ( talk) 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
wp:NOTAFORUM and wtfs with casually blaming the pilot? 2nd time I see it now — Lfdder ( talk) 03:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Does anyone want to give credence to this idea? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this hoax could find a mention: Facebook Survey Scam - 'Malaysian MH370 Plane Found In Bermuda Triangle' from Hoax Slayer. -- Auric talk 03:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
MIGHT. Got this idea from Facebook by another person. Agree? IDK. And, remember. MIGHT. -- Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 04:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |