![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I've just replaced the allegation that the cause of the Asiana 214 crash at SF was 'pilote negligence' (sic) with the neutral 'due to descending below the approach path'. The Asiana 214 investigation is still ongoing and while we have a reasonable understanding of why the crash happened the NTSB have not issued their final report and it is far from clear that they will lay the blame at the feet of the pilots as what happened appears to be at the intersection of pilot action, training, and detailed aircraft design. I wouldn't expect a speculative statement like this in the Asiana 214 article, and this article has enough issues with speculation without bringing it in on entirely different incidents. If anyone wants to revert it, please explain your logic and provide appropriate references. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
One has to consider the context here. If someone says "The Triple 7 has a good safety record" and someone replies "3 died at SFO!" it is reasonable to note in response that preliminary indications are that the pilot(s) landing at SFO failed basic airmanship (and perhaps three teens failed to buckle up as well). Is it Boeing's fault the plane "descended below the approach path" there? Remove any reference to piloting and you're not, in fact, having the article say less, you're rather effectively supporting the line that "3 died at SFO!" is a legitimate objection, in other words you're advancing the (other) thesis that the T7 has safety issues as opposed to just removing the thesis that pilot error played a role in the San Fran crash.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 03:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
TThere's a Reuter's piece "Malaysian plane saga highlights air defense gaps" http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/15/us-malaysia-airlines-defence-idUSBREA2E0JT20140315 that may be a useful reference to introduce if the article needs to get into radar coverage. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point on air defense. Has anyone asked why the military could track a plane, without a transponder, not on an approvaed flight path etc - and not send an air force plane to investigate? This is not just something for Malyasia to consider - but also Thailand and Indonesia as well. Am I missing something here? Either seems to be very lax air defence or something deeper at play here. Mari370 ( talk) 07:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The article uses the word 'corridor' top describe the locus of possible last ping position. This word to my mind gives the impression that these corridors represent likely tracks of the aircraft. The aircraft could indeed have been flying along one of these these loci but it equally well could have been flying perpendicular to them.
How can we make this clearer in the article? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
1.Officials say that the last discussion with air traffic control was at 01:19. I think this clearly merits inclusion even if we already give the time from Subang Air Traffic Control as 01:22. 2.We may also want to include the fact that they are fairly sure the communication came from the co-pilot. 3.A statement at the 16 March press conference that the pilots had not asked to fly together also seems relevant. I realize that both 2. and 3. could be seen as potentially contributing to speculation. But both statements have been made at official briefings. Keep up the good work. Roundtheworld ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If something went wrong on board, and the passengers weren't immediately incapacitated, it would seem that one or more would have wanted to get on their Cell phones to call someone—if they were within Cell Phone Tower range. Also, if RADAR could not find them, someone's Cell phone being on could have been "triangulated" or approximated if someone had tried to do so. And when an airliner is missing, you'd think that some group (like a local country's version of the CIA) would have been contacted, and may have looked up information, but I found no reference to Cell or Mobile phones in the article. Do we have any serious reports on any of these sorts of things? Did any of the passengers contact their families, friends, or anyone? Misty MH ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Air Traffic Management reports a theory from a former US FAA security chief that what is known about MH370 so far is more consistent with a catastrophic fire than sabotage. Don't really know if this belongs in article, yet, as it's only one source. http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/03/exclusive-mh370-crew-succumbed-to-fire-catastrophe/ Will leave to editors more experienced in topic area GeoGreg ( talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Under the above sub-heading is the following:
Responding to criticisms that information about radar signals had not been made available earlier, Malaysia Airlines said that it was critical that the raw satellite signals were verified and analysed "so that their significance could be properly understood". While this was being done, the airline was unable to publicly confirm their existence.[171]
I find that paragraph confusing and suggest it be reworded or deleted. a) The first sentence seems to say that radar and satellite signals are one and the same. Are they? Surely not all are, since we had radar before we had satellites. b) I looked at the ref. 171 and the 19th Media Statement doesn't contain the phrase in quotation marks, not does it contain anything about why the airline was unable to publicly confirm {their} existence.
a) Thanks and b) You are quite right.
There are some reports that the aircraft descended to below 5,000 feet. This is based on the fact that it was not observed on commercial radar. It doesn't logically follow that if the aircraft wasn't found on commercial radars, it must have been deliberately avoiding them. So, that speculation should not be included in the article.
There is no real reason why the pilot would deliberately attempt to avoid being seen on commercial radar, especially since going below 5,000 feet doesn't guarantee that military radar won't be able to track the airplane. Also, going to a lower altitude drastically reduces the airplane's true airspeed. Fuel consumption is about the same in terms of fuel spent per hour, so the endurance in hours would be roughly the same, but the distance the aircraft could travel at 5,000 feet would be very roughly two thirds the range at 35,000 feet. (It's something like 300 KTAS vs. 475 KTAS.) Roches ( talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, having reviewed all the sources I've come to agree with you, @Roches, this material is indeed dubious, not just unproven, and should be excluded for now.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think a 'see also' link should be added (back in) to this airplane disappearance case, with its similarities to this case. Bearian ( talk) 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have knowledge as to what cargo the aircraft may have been carrying? 96.250.240.250 ( talk) 19:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been lots of discussion that the ACARS was turned off 14 minutes before the lost of contact with the aircraft (i.e. when the time the transponder went 'offline'). However, in a BCC article, it states the following:
Clearly if the last message was received at 1.07, this quite different than the ACARS system being turned off at 1.07 (an understatement). Considering the next time a message was due from ACARS would have been at 1.37 - and the plane disappeared at 1.21 - it is totally within reason that they ACARS was never turned off at all. And that the ACARS and the transponder went down that the same time - e.g. there being some kind of electrical or mechanical failure at a specific point on the plane.
If the BCC report is true, then in places into deep question the sequence of events that has been portrayed by the Malaysian PM. And the most important of these being that it places in question whether there was a hijack at all. Based on the information provided, that scenario can't be conclusively proven - especially if there is no evidence that the ACARS and transponder were actually turned off at different times. It could be, within reason, that there was a massive system failure at a single point in time and the change of directions were due to the pilots trying to get the crippled jet back 'home' - just that, in the end, for whatever reason, they didn't make it. Mari370 ( talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any source for the 30 minute interval between ACARS reports? The only source seems to be the original (and badly wrong) WSJ report which was actually talking about Satcom keep alive pings (which it seems are hourly anyway!). The next engine data would be a cruise report which would be 3hrs or so later. Maybe some other aircraft (position update?) report? Cebderby ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Lynbarn changed the Intro to "was a scheduled international passenger flight" but someone changed it back to "is a scheduled....". I think Lynbarn is right. It is no longer a scheduled international flight. If we keep using "is" when will we change it to was? In two years time? Roundtheworld ( talk) 21:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
China is searching its own territory in the northern locus. [3] 203.9.185.136 ( talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Coverage from a reliable source on the Tomnod crowdsourced search of satellite images. [4] 203.9.185.136 ( talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Some more specific details about the Australian search. [5] Search area map: [6]. Should we add details about what is being deployed where, not just aggregate numbers of assets? Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) have been very specific about where their aircraft have been based and and the areas they were/are searching. 203.9.185.136 ( talk) 05:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would help much but perhaps a FAQ for the talk page would be useful. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 07:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I added the {{ flagu}} templates under the participation part of the article. If you do not like it, you can revert, or talk at the talk page. -- Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 09:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to bring attention to another possible explanation which has been circulating for a while now and which personally seems sufficiently plausible as to merit a mention: a heist. The plane is said to have carried valuables (according to one source) or 10 metric tons of gold (acc. to another).
kashmiri TALK 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be trivial to confirm it, as it would be on the manifest. Airlines and pilots tend to rather like knowing what amount of mass is where on an aircraft. Wzrd1 ( talk) 02:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Could Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have slipped by radar? http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Are any investigators or governments considering that the plane could be used in a similar way as 9/11 that can be added to the article?
Igottheconch ( talk) 09:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The best theory I've seen so far: http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68 FortCharles ( talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
On 17 March, the flight became the longest disappearance in "modern commercial aviation history," eclipsing the ten-day mark of Adam Air Flight 574 in 2007. Malaysian Disappearance Joins Longest in Modern Aviation, By David Fickling, Alan Levin and Thomas Black 17 March 2014.
This is being edit-warred off the page, but it seems to go to the notability of the subject. Thoughts? Sportfan5000 ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that the following statement is not appropriate in this article? No one has removed it.Slate magazine said: the reaction from the Malaysian authorities is hardly responsible, and their inability to communicate underlines the serious neglect of a regime that has ruled for more than half a century and whose monopoly of political power has long depended on intimidation, strict media control and strong economic growth". Roundtheworld ( talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I found something new but I need a consensus to have somebody other than myself to place the information about Malaysian Airline being hampered by Indonesia for refusal to fly over their territory. My Suggestion before a consensus is if there are more sources to be able to reference back to this information first. [1] Azndrumsticks ( talk) 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Since the Subang Air Traffic Control is mentioned, could someone clarify which Subang in Malaysia it is? Brandmeister talk 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
On the article page it says "The MH 370 crash may be due to large turbulence intermittency at equatorial latitudes. Please see journalofcosmology.com volume 21 for the mechanism. A closely analogous crash was Air France 447. The two cases are compared." I do not want to edit it because it says do not edit it until discussing on Talk. But the plane may have landed, we do not know it crashed. So I do not think ut is is correct to say "The MH 370 crash....". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.237.127 ( talk) 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
10 miles north of Istaravshan, in Tadzhikistan on the border with Uzbekistan is a 1.5 mile landing strip. Perfect spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.163.112 ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've reinstated the link to the map of runways within range and large enough to take the aircraft. It seems reasonable to assume that if the aircraft landed safely, it is at one of these. Olddemdike ( talk) 17:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Before an edit war ensues over this link. Could some consensus be established here for its inclusion or otherwise? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the link. It IS important. If this aircraft has been hijacked, it was for use for a specific purpose - and its not been used for that purpose yet. Its on the ground somewhere being prepared for use - and thats going to be carried out at one of those airstrips. Olddemdike ( talk) 19:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Plane is on the ground in China and nobody can look there except the Chinese: Being briefed by Malaysia officials they believe most likely location for MH370 is on land somewhere near Chinese/Kyrgyz border.— Jonah Fisher (@JonahFisher) March 15, 2014 LINK 207.119.196.4 ( talk) 01:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The runway requirements are on page 54 of Boeing's technical information. Note that the runway must be almost 2,000 ft longer if it's wet. 6,500 feet is sufficient even under wet conditions for an altitude of 4,000 ft ASL, which is about the highest it gets in NW China. The number of possible airports is quite large. However, I doubt that you could just hide an airliner at a civilian airport. I live near an airport and it's very easy to hear and see airplanes coming in. Someone would probably have seen something. Roches ( talk) 22:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
NBC News is reporting that the ACARS data burst at 1:07 contained a new path entered into the autopilot. This new new path contained the turn to the West that was executed after the last voice transmission. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jets-u-turn-programmed-signoff-sources-say-n56151 Becalmed ( talk) 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: The new path was an alternate route. It is not unusual for pilots to enter an alternate route for a return to base in case of an emergency. It makes me wonder: If the plane did nothing but follow the alternate route, where would it be now? Becalmed ( talk) 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68
This is getting serious attention in reliable sources.
It also lends itself to rapid testing. See if the ACARS pings from both planes lie on the same timing. When they diverge, that's when MH370 left its place following the other 777. If, indeed, they are at all similar. Keith Henson ( talk) 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday's news was about the Captain being a supporter of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. However the story was broken by British tabloid Daily Mail, others are simply quoting the Daily Mail. Is there any other credible source on this news event?-- PremKudva Talk 05:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be kept out if it has been proven to be irrelevant. It does not have to be proven to be relevant for something to be considered for inclusion, if it is potentially relevant it can be considered.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the pilot's political beliefs are potentially relevant, so are a lot of things because nothing has been ruled out, as Najib has said. But that doesn't mean we need to rule it in, either. To take up a point Brian made on his talk page, it's not WP's job to use this article to show up what a repressive state Malaysia is. Millions of people support democracy. That Zaharie wore a tee with "democracy" on it in itself only means he may have democratic ideals, not that he's a subversive. There are plenty of dots to be joined, but there are also plenty of false dots along the way that could lead to the wrong conclusion. There are also quite a few testimonies as to what a kind and home-loving guy he is. Make of that what you will. Even if he was pictured wearing a tee with the likeness of Anwar, I'd day "so what?". Zaharie wasn't wearing a tee endorsing a banned religious sect in a country that smashes such dissent with a sledgehammer. There is no evidence that he's the sort of reactionary dissident who would take direct action to potentially harm people placed in his care, especially if he subscribed to Western democratic ideals.
It might be a whole lot more relevant if there were revelations that he travelled frequently to Sudan or Afghanistan to visit the Taliban or al Qaeda, but there are none. Anyway, his role in this "deliberate action" resulting in the plane's disappearance is by no means proven, and the Daily Mail is a jingoistic right-wing tabloid that I wouldn't cite anything to if my life depended on it. Don't get me wrong – I frequently read the Mail. Most importantly though, I think it should be excluded as BLP says we must assume he is innocent until proven guilty when all the info seems to be good for one thing – smearing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally one gives the background of leading individuals in a story. It's appropriate to mention that he has three daughters. [7] [8] Jason from nyc ( talk) 00:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If that sighting is confirmed to be true then it would mean the search in the north-western areas such China, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan is one of futility. The search for the plane in the Indian Ocean will be intensified, especially the efforts of Australia, US and India. But what I read is that India said that their radar installations in the Nicobar and Andaman islands have not detected the aircraft. http://www.news.com.au/world/maldives-reports-sighting-of-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-as-search-effort-criticised/story-fndir2ev-1226858579129 http://www.smh.com.au/world/possible-mh370-sighting-as-maldives-residents-report-lowflying-jumbo-20140319-hvkb0.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Missing-Malaysian-jetliner-Maldives-islanders-saw-low-flying-plane/articleshow/32251148.cms 58.168.101.216 ( talk) 02:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Not for inclusion in the article, but as another good reason not to hastily speculate about terrorism and the pilot's intentions, and perhaps as a lead for finding reliable sources (eventually):
Goodfellow believes that the MH370 pilot veered toward the southwest to reach the nearest air strip – Palau Langkawi, right on the southwestward "corridor" the plane was flying in after turning – because an electrical fire that disabled the communication systems was raging on board. Keep up the good work, guys! Madalibi ( talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a CNN anchor talk about the Northern arc as a "track" where they supposedly would have "had to" fly through China -- a total misunderstanding of what that arc represents. That got me to thinking... there were hourly ACARS pings received every hour up until that last 8:11 ping that the arcs were generated from, correct? Surely they've applied the same process to those earlier pings, and generated corresponding location arcs for each of those pings also? Why haven't those been released? If they generated those and placed them all on the same map, you should see a gradual shift of the arcs, which would give at least some general insight into what the plane did in the several hours from the time it left local military radar until it stopped sending pings. It would give a "cloud" of possible routes. Something to be followed up on, IMHO. FortCharles ( talk) 01:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Becalmed. Didn't notice which bird was receiving. That actually makes the situation wider, unless signal strength is logged and even then, it's of questionable. Such things are what the NSA quite enjoys working on, as that is one of their jobs. Satellite reception capabilities, atmospheric effects, GM conditions, etc complicate what some think of as simple. The region where each bird can receive is quite large. Wzrd1 ( talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the data from the previous pings would tell you much about the plane's position. It would tell you a lot about the plane's heading, though. We would have two measurements of the plane's distance to the satellite at two different times. (I haven't worked with vectors in ages, so please bear with me.) What we want to calculate is the vector of the plane's average velocity between the two pings. A vector has magnitude and direction. The magnitude is the ground speed of the aircraft. We can make a reasonable guess about that. (You could plug in the average cruising speed of the aircraft, or its last observed speed on radar, etc.) We know the portion of the vector that points towards the satellite. We can use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the portion of the vector at a right angle to the satellite direction. Then we have the whole velocity vector. The problem is, since there are two directions at right angles to the satellite, we would get two solutions. Maybe there is some way to rule one out.
I still have to ask why the data from the previous pings has not been released to the public? Becalmed ( talk) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that the map issued by AMSA http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/australia-takes-charge-of-multinational-search/5328904 has possible routes on it. Presumably these came from analysis of the earlier pings, the maximum speed of the plane at various altitudes etc. For example if two pings returned the same arc then the plane has basically been flying along the arc, if they are 500 miles apart then it has been flying perpendicular to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.183.132 ( talk) 17:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b777-28420.htm nowhere sqays that the flight was the 404th boeing 777 produced. the edit has been made solely for the purpose of trolling-404 page not found to 404 plane not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.81.186 ( talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Here, I've boldly removed some content from the Aircraft section. This seems to have originally appeared with this <> edit, and has been modified a since appearing, most recently here.
It appears to me that this is gives undue weight to this particular bit of information and/or it might be synthesys by juxtaposition (SBJ). SBJ doesn't seem to have been explicitly described in WP:OR, but it has been discussed and applied as justification for removal on a number of occasions (see this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is someone removing this valid information, that is referenced to the NY Post and then to a Malaysain newspaper (through the NY Post)? I don't understand. Pls explin. Thank you!
Here is the information: On March 19, it was reported that residents of Kudahuvadhoo reported having seen a "jumbo jet" matching the description of the missing flight. The sighting occurred on March 8 at around 6:20 a.m. [2]
Apparently; it hath been found: Read here, The Hindu, Hyderabad. Apparently, it has been found in Andaman. Another hoax I guess. Last night there were rumours of it catching fire. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
With theories being discussed by the BBC, among other reliable sources, I see no problem with including a well-sourced section, similar to Mary Celeste#Speculation and theories or Amelia Earhart#Theories on Earhart's disappearance. Giant Snowman 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Cops find five Indian Ocean practice runways in MH370 pilot’s simulator http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/cops-find-five-indian-ocean-practice-runways-in-mh370-pilots-simulator-bh-r 74.116.173.2 ( talk) 21:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Original ariticle here: http: // english.astroawani.com /news/show/mh370-thai-radar-saw-unknown-aircraft-after-plane-vanished-32102
Tweet with link to that article, which how I discovered it: https: // mobile.twitter.com /501Awani/status/446183037689405440
@501Awani #MH370: Thai radar saw 'unknown aircraft' after plane vanished ow.ly /uJEg6 = http: // t.co/ZT5wZFPe7z #MAS #prayforMH370 12:15 a.m. Wed, Mar 19 MH370: Thai radar saw unknown aircraft after plane vanished The information was not shared with Malaysia earlier because it wasnt specifically asked for it.
My Twitter reply, summarizing the news article: https: // mobile.twitter.com /CalRobert/status/446191343509835776
Robert Maas @CalRobert #MH370 Thai radar picked up unknown aircraft 1:28 Malaysian time, moving southwest ... then later swinging north to Andaman Sea. @501Awani
I never heard of Astro Awani before, so after posting my Twitter reply I did a search, and found this WikiPedia article about it: http: // en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Astro_Awani It seems to be a legitimate television service/network, so I presume the article on their official Web site qualifies as a "reputable source" for mention in WikiPedia. They also have an article about an Indian person finding a satellite image of the plane flying over the Andeman islands, but the text of the article says the report is a hoax based on older satellite images.
WikiPedia won't let me post links, so I've broken each URL into pieces. 198.144.192.45 ( talk) 09:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
Initial reports from a Chinese Uyghur/Muslim separatist group claiming responsibility here and here and here. The same group responsible for a recent knife attack killing 29 Chinese 1 and truck bomb on Tiananmen Square. 207.119.196.4 ( talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the known facts be laid on a timeline. It seems to be all there in the article, but not presented in a helpful timeline fashion. -- B2 C 16:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see we have
Last ACARS data transmission 1:07 (next due at 1:37)
Last ADS-B transmission? ?:??
Last ATC voice contact 1:19
[3]
Transponders off/ last secondary radar contact 1:21
Last (unsuccessful) voice contact from other aircraft 1:30
Last radar contact 2:15
[4]
Last ping 8:11
[5]
I too would like to see the time line as text but also that it include missed events on their own lines. For example:
I was figuring out the timeline as reported in this CNN article and then got puzzled. This part seems clearly stated:
I put down #1 above based on this statement in the article:
Immediately after that official's statement is a paragraph that puzzles me.
Is this CNN or the enforcement official speculating about how ACARS may work? I'm trying to understand why that line is in the CNN article and what it means. Unfortunately, the quoted "law enforcement official" could be anyone on the planet that has a theory and it may be a theory with little or basis known facts. That may be why I'm confused. Has someone seen an article that explains this aspect better so that we can have a fact, rather than speculation, based time line in the article? -- Marc Kupper| talk 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
See table in section above. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
In the section titled "Disappearance", there is a graphic titled "Events of the 7.5 to 8.5-hour flight", about which I have two complaints/questions:
The graphic shows (without any citation) "On radar" (green) continuously from take-off to nearly the two-hour mark. This contradicts my understanding from television reports, that primary military radar didn't begin until after the plane had reached the Malaysia/VietNam boundary then turned back and approached the coast of Malaysia again, heading West. This military radar observation continued as the plane crossed the peninsula into the Malacca strait, still heading West, then turned to a NW heading for a while. The ending of this radar contact agrees with the end of the green part of the graph. So, regarding the portion of the flight from take-off until the plane approached the Malaysian coast heading West, was the plane "on radar" during this entire part of the flight or not? If it was "on radar", it must NOT have been the military radar that observed it only later, so what radar was it? My belief is the graphic is plum wrong about radar contact during the entire first hour of the flight. Am I mistaken? So where is there a reference for any radar contact whatsoever, and who created that graphic showing continuous radar observations for first hour?
The same graphic shows (purple) continuous pinging from end of radar contact (just before the 2-hour mark) until just after the 7.5-hour mark. But the info I've gleaned from multiple sources (TV, news articles linked from Twitter) says pings were just once per hour, not continuously. If my understanding is correct, then the purple part of the graph is GROSSLY wrong. There should purple lines at the MOMENTS of time when each ping occurred, not a solidly-purple region. Again, who created this (AFAIK) definitely-wrong graphic?
The purple part of a graphic links to a footnote that links to a CNN article that says the pings lasted hours, but doesn't say whether pings were once per hour or virtually continously or at some repetition-interval shorter than hourly. Accordingly drawing a solid (continous) purple section on the graph might be correct (but not AFAIK) but in any case isn't fully supported by the CNN article. Is there a better source that specifies the gap between adjacent pings? 66.81.212.224 ( talk) 01:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
There is now this statement in the information flow section: "The Washington Post reported that Malaysia Airlines had also declined an upgrade for a system called Swift that would have provided critical information about the aircraft even after the ACARS system and the transponder went dead, a key element that helped significantly during the search for Air France 447 previously."
I cannot find any information linking this Swift system with the search for AF447. It is not mentioned in the BEA report. Can anyone confirm that this system was indeed a "key element"? Seban678 ( talk) 11:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
People can construct custom bathymetric maps and profiles of Flight 370 search areas using GIS software, i.e. Global Mapper or GRASS, and the data from "Gridded bathymetry data" at GEBCO, Gridded bathymetry data. There is a viewer for this data at GEBCO Grid display software. There are also free PDF and Geotiff files of the GEBCO world map, which shows the bathymetry of the oceans ans seas, including the various search areas at useful detail, in GEBCO world map. Paul H. ( talk) 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been a huge change of participation level between countries after the South China Sea and Malacca Strait Search-and-Locate was called-off. For example Singapore halted all operations with its naval and air force assets, and now only activates its Information Fusion Centre or IFC. I edited the Singapore section with relevant information and proper sources but the sentence about SAF stopping all operations was removed today. The current paragraph would tell readers that SAF still operates those naval and aerial assets in the Indian Ocean search effort, which is totally wrong. I think with so many changes of participating assets after the SCS, MS SaL was called off, necessary changes and/or appropriate clarifications needs to be made. TL T 07:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Singapore: South China Sea/Malacca Strait: air force C-130 Hercules; [6] [7] navy Formidable-class frigate with one Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk helicopter; and a submarine rescue ship with divers; Victory-class corvette; [8] an air force Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft. [9] Indian Ocean: Deactivates all previous assets. Activates Information Fusion Centre. [10] TL T 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit by 175.143.47.217 ( talk · contribs) added the unsourced claim: "When the last contact was made, it had fuel that could fly 8 more hours." This has since been edited to read: "When the last contact was made over the Gulf of Thailand, the plane had enough fuel for 8 more hours of flight." The claim remains unsourced and contradicts initial reports that the plane had 7.5 hours of fuel. Does anyone have a source for this claim? — sroc 💬 12:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the 'Timeline' section above.
There seems agreement that we should show all confirmed last contacts made with the plane. These are:
Last ACARS data transmission 1:07 (next due at 1:37)
Last ADS-B transmission? ?:??
Last Malaysian ATC voice contact 1:19
[11]
Transponders off/ last secondary radar contact 1:21
Last (unsuccessful) voice contact from other aircraft 1:30
[12]
Last radar contact 2:15
[13]
Last ping 8:11
[14]
I tried to add these to the existing timeline but it would need to be greatly expanded to allow this. I therefore suggest that we have a text section on 'Contacts' showing information and times of all confirmed last contacts.
Was the aircraft definitely fitted with and using ADS-B? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is a start: Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Time into flight | Event | Time (MYT) | Time (UTC) |
---|---|---|---|
0:00 | Takeoff from Kuala Lumpur | 0:41 | 16:41 |
0:26 | Last ACARS data transmission (next was due at 1:37 Malay time) | 1:07 | 17:07 |
0:38 | Last Malaysian ATC voice contact, "All right. Good night." [9] | 1:19 | 17:19 |
0:40 | Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E. | 1:21 | 17:21 |
0:41 | Transponder and ADS-B now off. | 1:22 | 17:22 |
0:49 | Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible [10] | 1:30 | 17:30 |
0:56 | Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission | 1:37 | 17:37 |
1:34 | Last primary radar contact by Malay military, 200 miles NW of Penang | 2:15 | 18:15 |
5:49 | Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing | 6:30 | 22:30 |
7:30 | Last automated hourly ACARS handshake with Inmarsat satellite [11] | 8:11 | 00:11 |
Should we add this to the article now ? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's worth adding to external links but http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/ and http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/mh370-search.asp are relevant and a WP:RS. The web site reports "Copyright © Australian Maritime Safety Authority." I have not looked into if products of the Australian government are automatic public-domain the way U.S. government created material is. -- Marc Kupper| talk 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The locations of the objects spotted by the Australian Defence Department are provided on the images AMSA have released at https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_01_14.jpg and https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_02_14.jpg. The co-ordinates for the first are 43 58' 34"S 90 57' 37"E and for the second 44 03' 02"S 91 13' 27"E. These co-ordinates are not provided in media coverage, but I believe WP should publish them. Any thoughts?? And how do we get a degrees symbol in HTML? Craigallan.za ( talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This story is a few days old, but could be useful in the part about the search.-- RM ( Be my friend) 09:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
For an inarticulated reason, the following was removed from the 'See also' section by WWGB ( talk | contribs). The edit summary of "c'mon" suggests a lack of due diligence by the editor. If the Tomnod link had been actually been checked prior to summarily being deleted, the relevance to this article would be obvious; it is certainly "related", and has an entire section devoted to this article, see: Tomnod#Malaysia Flight 370.
Please see (and read) WP:See also: List of "... internal links to related Wikipedia articles ... one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I have no desire to get into an edit war with WWGB ( talk | contribs) or anyone else; if there is a consensus to do so, please return Tomnod to the 'See also' list. ~Thanks, ~E: 71.20.250.51 ( talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The "See also" section has been removed on 2014-03-20 by
TheAirplaneGuy, his reason being: "not needed at this stage". I disagree. On
WP:See also one can read: "[...] one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." There is a number of accidents involving a similar class commercial aircraft and navigational problems. I believe that this section should be returned, as there is no other straightforward way to find previous accidents involving navigational problems. Here are some:
Anyone agreeing with my reasons please feel free to reinstate the section and use these entries. -- Borut ( talk) 07:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I reckon it's a load of rubbish to add an See Also section as the plane hasn't even been found yet! A fair few of the editors I've talk to, WWGB, YSSY Guy agree that a see also section isn't needed just YET. Interesting how the IP editor is talking like that, would of thought he/she would of created an account by now... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the Prime Minister of Australia, pieces of the aircraft may have just been found. There is nothing online about this yet, but it was just announced on the news, so this is just a heads up just in case a flurry of edits suddenly appear on the page. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thecodingproject ( talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it will be seen tomorrow as an exemplary way to communicate. There has been a lot of confusion and many communications mishaps. Now that the search is on Aussie turf, they are showing the world how it's done. Here, however, the importance is not in the information itself, but the process by which it is delivered.
The communication takes place at the highest possible level, yet extremely cautious. It sends a clear message that Australian is taking the search effort very seriously and that the head of state is personally involved and "on the pulse". The Malaysian PM "has been notified", so he's not trying to upstage anyone, yet making the declaration in parliament (probably within minutes of having informed Najib) means he's very much in charge at home. Abbott demonstrates that he is in control and open. There is information, yet the parameters of uncertainty are clearly laid out, and a more detailed
I urge you once again not to jump the gun. I sincerely hope that they have found the plane, but as already said, the Aussie revelations may not come to anything – even they have said so categorically. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the German Wiki the position of last ping is an intersection between two circles where one (with center in last known position) is fuel range. Soerfm ( talk) 19:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that there was only one satellite to hear the pings, because it's impossible to establish the position of an object in 3 dimensions when you have data on one dimension – the surface of the earth is the only delimitation for this data, and the dots on the arc are the distance at which the satellite ping intersects with the earth's (or ocean's) surface. The arc will have been so described by the 4 or 5 pings it received. If the data were continuous, it wouldn't be just a series of dots but the full arc. The margin of error in the distances in the range calculation is probably of the order of 300 miles, adjusting for possible variations in altitude and fuel use etc. The satellite distance may have a margin of error of maybe 3 miles, being the range in possible altitudes adopted by the plane's pilot. It may be possible for investigators to make further interpolations of data, but we do not have this data. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The German circle map is more scientific than the arc map from the NY Times and therefore should be included in this article.
There is no justification for the gap in the semi-circle in the map released by the Malaysian government. (That is where the NYT map came from) You will also notice that the Malaysian map cuts off the far southern end of the arc for no apparent reason.
The satellite only knows the distance to the airplane. There is no way that it could know the direction. The satellite does not have individual directional antennas that it points at every signal source. Satellites are as no-maintenance as possible which means that they have few if any moving parts.
I know that the last paragraph is in contradiction to the WaPo article. I have an amateur radio license and I have bounced radio signals off of satellites, so I put my experience above that of the WaPo reporters.
Secondly, whatever I am wrong about will not justify the gap in coverage between Viet Nam and Malaysia. I assert that this is wishful thinking by Malaysian officials and has nothing to do with satellite data. (Why would you build a satellite that has strange gaps in its coverage?)
The only way that the satellite could know the distance to the airplane is if the satellite sent a query to the airplane and then the airplane replied. So I am assuming that this communication protocol is how the system works until somebody tells me otherwise. The German map has two circles for error in position. That alone tells me that it is a more accurate map than the NYT map. One basis for the error (distance between circles) could be uncertainties in the time that it would take the aircraft system to process the message and reply. Another basis would be the shadow of the sphere on the Earth. (The satellite does not know the altitude of the plane. The inner circle would be its max altitude.)
The NYT map should still be included in the article. It is the one that has been most viewed in the news. {I am going to call the arcs in the map, sausages.} The outer skin/limit of the sausages is not based on predicted remaining fuel. The plane was being queried every 60 minutes, so after the last query it could only have traveled for 60 minutes at most, so they used the maximum airplane speed to draw the boundary. 20 minutes is just a random reference time period.
Becalmed ( talk) 04:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 ( talk) 04:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Further mention of directionality: "Inmarsat executives told the media that the signals did not include altitude and location, but the DIRECTION and timing could be used to approximate the plane’s position." http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/15/airc-m15.html This is in line with the NYT and WaPo statements. Trying to remember where I've seen others, but it's hard finding amid all the various stories on this right now. It's been discussed that the satellite adjusts its look-angle until reception/transmission is optimized. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 ( talk) 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, found it much more explicitly worded here, now the 4th source: "Based on the hourly connections with the plane, described by a U.S. official as a "handshake," the satellite knows at what angle to tilt its antenna to be ready to receive a message from the plane should one be sent. Using that antenna angle, along with radar data, investigators have been able to draw two vast arcs, or "corridors" ..." http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3364021.shtml 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 ( talk) 06:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia's Transport Minister is showing a map of the northern position arc and it extends all the way to the Caspian Sea! http://huff.to/1idJKnN Becalmed ( talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What I have been trying to find out is, Where are the circuit breakers for ACARS. Pilot/consultants on news reports give two answers: (1) a panel located immediately behind the captain’s seat and (2) an equipment rack located at a level below the cockpit, accessible by a trap door observable from passenger compartment (really?). Another question: Is there a separate circuit breaker for the “ping” transmitters? Paul Niquette ( talk) 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the other hourly pings can be of help. Everyone is focussing on the final ping but the earlier pings could be of use. They could create an arc for each ping and then put them all together to give the possible location for the plane each hour after it disappeared from radar. That knowledge together with an estimate of the speed of the plane could narrow down it's flight path. Which might give a heads up to where it ended up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.124.10 ( talk) 20:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Everyone is banging on about "the last ping" and happy to accept the unnamed "experts" red arcs. Who made the red arcs? What were their methods? Where is the raw data? Where are the missing pings? There are many people apart from those officially assigned to investigate with knowledge of wave propagation who would like access to the raw ping data. Calculating possible locations based on ping data is complicated and involves consideration of satellite location, height, wavelength, speed of radio waves through various mediums such as rain and wind, signal strength, doppler effect. Each ping should produce it's own arc and an estimate of plane speed would narrow down possible directions of travel. What if the last ping was sent just after the plane crashed in open water and was in the process of being inundated but still powered? Radio waves travel much slower through water. This would bring the red arcs much closer to the satellite. 60.241.100.51 ( talk) 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for range of the plane with 7-8 hours of flight time? Currently the fuel range shown is 4800 km, but the Boeing 777 specifications claim typical cruise speed to be 905 km/h, which would make the range about 6800 km, maybe more to west as with trade winds. The plane maximum range is 14 000 km as it is Extended Range model, so the range depends on the available fuel. Puuska ( talk) 01:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Search for Malaysian jet: Pentagon spends $2.5 million; India deploys Super Hercules aircraft >> New satellite images show possible debris( Lihaas ( talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).
Hello - I am simply wondering whether the tenses of the status of passengers and crew should agree. Thank you. KarenBelton ( talk) 18:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Karen Belton 3/21/14
Hi someone deleted the image gallery I made of the jet, and linked to a WP non-policy page as justification! Please help! 72.35.149.153 ( talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
What a conceited person you are, it's about a single plane as per above.... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Everyone! Is it a good idea to add information about Tomnod in the Search paragraph, because I think Tomnod is the "public search" while the ships and fighter jets are the "private search" WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Milborne! Were you talking about the See Also post? If so, they were talking about Tomnod in the See also.... section. However, I was talking about including the info in the article itself.
WooHoo! •
Talk to me!
00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, tomnod must be added in the search paragraph. This artikel today is labeled "This article documents a current event.", so it not "far to early" to add this information. And it is an ongoing, worldwide crowdsouce effort in this search. Tomnod does not need to actually find the plane to make it into wikipedia, it IS part of the search right now. Even the official international search of at least 20.3.and 21.3 is aimed at "two objects...had been spotted by a satellite". The images in the news that show the two objects IS imagery from Digitalglobe. The same images that are online on tomnod. I qoute 71.20.250.51 from the "See Also"-Talk: "if one can argue that this in somehow not related to this article, please do so" 79.241.175.207 ( talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
File:MH370 last ping corridors.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 07:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
In a statement just released by the Malaysian Transport Minister, the map has been confirmed as a product of the U.S. Government and so therefore public domain:
It looks like there is a slow edit war over the photograph. Can we please stick with the original for the time being and discuss any change on this talk page? Mjroots ( talk) 06:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop removing the alternate image of the aircraft until there is consensus. Reading above it seems like this has been controversial in the past, so the easiest way to solve it is to use both. Arguments that "we don't need both" are inapplicable for properly sourced and notable works, using existing formatting, which of course any image of this plane qualifies. Furthermore having multiple views of the airplane in question is far more encyclopedic than images of aircraft types involved in the search. If there is room for it, there is no reason to reduce the amount of encyclopedic info we present. 72.35.149.153 ( talk) 10:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I added that pilots did not request to fly together: [20]
But I need to find source if they like[d] or dislike[d] each other? Do [did] they get along? Do [did] they respect each other? Also, what tense should I use? I think past-tense should be used, since they are presumed deceased by now. -- UFO and Bermuda Triangle ( talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of all of the seemingly infinite online discussions about this tragedy, the messageboard that is most well either following or checking on periodically is the Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost thread on the PPRuNe Web Page's Rumours & News section. Despite the noise that typifies Internet discussion groups, there is a lot of useful information, ideas, links, figures, and other background information to be found by wading through the posts. Paul H. ( talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
[21] Very interesting, was spotted apparently 2 days after the Australian find... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the recent addition of an alleged transcript from the Daily Telegraph, it is probably misleading to add what has been said by other sources to be a not very accurate translation from English to Mandarin and back to English, we are not in a hurry in my opinion we can wait for an accurate English transcript as the Telegraph one is possibly misleading, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Presumably the original communication would have been in English; we have an English translation of a Mandarin translation. Does that tell us anything useful? The original conversation would most likely have said things like 'Hold at ...', 'Cleared takeoff...'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems inaccurate. (3) was reported to be 120km SW of (2) but here it appears due west. Roundtheworld ( talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This has just reappeared in the article, and is referenced, but on it's own is unsupported within the article. It should be removed or extended to explain why this comment is significant. Me? I'd remove it. There is as yet no evidence to suggest which, if either, of the crew had anything to do with planning the incident.Regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you will find that the Pilot was on one schedule and the co-pilot on another that happened to coincide at that particular week or month depending how the airline rostered its crews. The same applies to the cabin crew. One roster ascends and the other descends so the crew do not work together for long periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 ( talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following over-all timeline. In case you like it, for how long do we want to update it? Soerfm ( talk) 15:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Date | Search | Investigation | Public response |
---|---|---|---|
March (UTC) | |||
8 | Saturday: Malaysia Airlines confirmed they lost contact with flight MH370 at 2:40 am local time (later corrected to 1:30 am). An international search and rescue mission was mobilized. | ||
9 | The search area for the rescue mission was expanded as the aircraft might have turned back. | Four suspect passengers were investigated in a terror link. | |
10 | Test reveals that an oil slick on the South China Sea did not come from Flight 370. Ten Chinese satellites were now utilized in the search. | Malaysia Airlines announced it will give 31,000 yuan (app. $5,000 US) to the relatives of each passenger. | |
11 | Terror link grew cold after Malaysian police found that two of the men, who travelled on stolen passports, were probably not terrorists. | ||
12 | Chinese satellite images showed possible debris from Flight 370 in the South China Sea | Beijing criticized Malaysia for inadequate answers regarding Flight 370. | |
13 | Search was expanded to the Indian Ocean. | ||
14 | Investigation concluded that Flight 370 was still under the control of a pilot after it lost contact with ground control. | ||
15 | The last satellite transmission from Flight 370 was traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia. | Malaysian police searched the homes of both of the plane's pilots in an inside-plot link. | |
16 | The number of countries involved in the search and rescue operation reached 25. | ||
17 | |||
18 | China started a search operation in a northern region of its own territory. | Relatives of Chinese passengers are threatening to hunger strike for lack of information from Malaysian authorities. | |
19 | Files deleted from the home flight simulator of the captain were tried restored. | People came together for an interfaith ceremony for the flight. | |
20 | Aircraft and ships were dispatched to locate two objects seen by satellite floating in the southern Indian Ocean. Number of countries in search reached 26 | ||
21 | Search focused on an area 3,000 km southwest of Perth, Australia. |
Color-code: alternating weeks. Source. [timeline 1] |
One problem with this timeline: it could take years for this search to be concluded. Perhaps this timeline should be spun-off as a separate article (eventually; it's fine for now). — 71.20.250.51 ( talk) 05:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
not helpful
|
---|
Sunrise occurred between 5:50 am and 6:20 am at the presumed latitude [23] [24] of the crash landing. Since the plane disappeared at 1:30, the plane's last few hours were in daylight. After daybreak, spy satellites should have compiled thousands of gigapixel/ terapixel images that could be stitched together to identify every wide-body plane above the Indian Ocean. By a process of elimination, MH-370 could be identified. I am looking for a source that discusses this. -- UFO and Bermuda Triangle ( talk) 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
On 21 March, ″ The Daily Telegraph″ published an English translation of a Mandarin translation of the final 54 minutes of communication between the aircraft and the control tower. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10714907/Revealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html
Radio Transcript
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transcript based on Mandarin version of English language transcript. Some wording may not be exact. |
I've just pulled the text above from the article for I feel such a radical change needs to be discussed. I'm off to bed so will comment in due course. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war over mangosteens. Yes, there were mangosteens in the cargo hold. (So?) This edit summary [25] 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)
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)
|
This article has had over 2.8 million visits since it was started [26]. Keep up the good work! WWGB ( talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just a bit of background info to archive IATA Lithium Battery Guidance Document MilborneOne ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| 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 —
71.20.250.51 (
talk)
03:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
{{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)![]() | This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. (8 March 2014) |
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=timeline>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=timeline}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I've just replaced the allegation that the cause of the Asiana 214 crash at SF was 'pilote negligence' (sic) with the neutral 'due to descending below the approach path'. The Asiana 214 investigation is still ongoing and while we have a reasonable understanding of why the crash happened the NTSB have not issued their final report and it is far from clear that they will lay the blame at the feet of the pilots as what happened appears to be at the intersection of pilot action, training, and detailed aircraft design. I wouldn't expect a speculative statement like this in the Asiana 214 article, and this article has enough issues with speculation without bringing it in on entirely different incidents. If anyone wants to revert it, please explain your logic and provide appropriate references. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
One has to consider the context here. If someone says "The Triple 7 has a good safety record" and someone replies "3 died at SFO!" it is reasonable to note in response that preliminary indications are that the pilot(s) landing at SFO failed basic airmanship (and perhaps three teens failed to buckle up as well). Is it Boeing's fault the plane "descended below the approach path" there? Remove any reference to piloting and you're not, in fact, having the article say less, you're rather effectively supporting the line that "3 died at SFO!" is a legitimate objection, in other words you're advancing the (other) thesis that the T7 has safety issues as opposed to just removing the thesis that pilot error played a role in the San Fran crash.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 03:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
TThere's a Reuter's piece "Malaysian plane saga highlights air defense gaps" http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/15/us-malaysia-airlines-defence-idUSBREA2E0JT20140315 that may be a useful reference to introduce if the article needs to get into radar coverage. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point on air defense. Has anyone asked why the military could track a plane, without a transponder, not on an approvaed flight path etc - and not send an air force plane to investigate? This is not just something for Malyasia to consider - but also Thailand and Indonesia as well. Am I missing something here? Either seems to be very lax air defence or something deeper at play here. Mari370 ( talk) 07:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The article uses the word 'corridor' top describe the locus of possible last ping position. This word to my mind gives the impression that these corridors represent likely tracks of the aircraft. The aircraft could indeed have been flying along one of these these loci but it equally well could have been flying perpendicular to them.
How can we make this clearer in the article? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
1.Officials say that the last discussion with air traffic control was at 01:19. I think this clearly merits inclusion even if we already give the time from Subang Air Traffic Control as 01:22. 2.We may also want to include the fact that they are fairly sure the communication came from the co-pilot. 3.A statement at the 16 March press conference that the pilots had not asked to fly together also seems relevant. I realize that both 2. and 3. could be seen as potentially contributing to speculation. But both statements have been made at official briefings. Keep up the good work. Roundtheworld ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If something went wrong on board, and the passengers weren't immediately incapacitated, it would seem that one or more would have wanted to get on their Cell phones to call someone—if they were within Cell Phone Tower range. Also, if RADAR could not find them, someone's Cell phone being on could have been "triangulated" or approximated if someone had tried to do so. And when an airliner is missing, you'd think that some group (like a local country's version of the CIA) would have been contacted, and may have looked up information, but I found no reference to Cell or Mobile phones in the article. Do we have any serious reports on any of these sorts of things? Did any of the passengers contact their families, friends, or anyone? Misty MH ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Air Traffic Management reports a theory from a former US FAA security chief that what is known about MH370 so far is more consistent with a catastrophic fire than sabotage. Don't really know if this belongs in article, yet, as it's only one source. http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/03/exclusive-mh370-crew-succumbed-to-fire-catastrophe/ Will leave to editors more experienced in topic area GeoGreg ( talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Under the above sub-heading is the following:
Responding to criticisms that information about radar signals had not been made available earlier, Malaysia Airlines said that it was critical that the raw satellite signals were verified and analysed "so that their significance could be properly understood". While this was being done, the airline was unable to publicly confirm their existence.[171]
I find that paragraph confusing and suggest it be reworded or deleted. a) The first sentence seems to say that radar and satellite signals are one and the same. Are they? Surely not all are, since we had radar before we had satellites. b) I looked at the ref. 171 and the 19th Media Statement doesn't contain the phrase in quotation marks, not does it contain anything about why the airline was unable to publicly confirm {their} existence.
a) Thanks and b) You are quite right.
There are some reports that the aircraft descended to below 5,000 feet. This is based on the fact that it was not observed on commercial radar. It doesn't logically follow that if the aircraft wasn't found on commercial radars, it must have been deliberately avoiding them. So, that speculation should not be included in the article.
There is no real reason why the pilot would deliberately attempt to avoid being seen on commercial radar, especially since going below 5,000 feet doesn't guarantee that military radar won't be able to track the airplane. Also, going to a lower altitude drastically reduces the airplane's true airspeed. Fuel consumption is about the same in terms of fuel spent per hour, so the endurance in hours would be roughly the same, but the distance the aircraft could travel at 5,000 feet would be very roughly two thirds the range at 35,000 feet. (It's something like 300 KTAS vs. 475 KTAS.) Roches ( talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, having reviewed all the sources I've come to agree with you, @Roches, this material is indeed dubious, not just unproven, and should be excluded for now.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think a 'see also' link should be added (back in) to this airplane disappearance case, with its similarities to this case. Bearian ( talk) 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have knowledge as to what cargo the aircraft may have been carrying? 96.250.240.250 ( talk) 19:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been lots of discussion that the ACARS was turned off 14 minutes before the lost of contact with the aircraft (i.e. when the time the transponder went 'offline'). However, in a BCC article, it states the following:
Clearly if the last message was received at 1.07, this quite different than the ACARS system being turned off at 1.07 (an understatement). Considering the next time a message was due from ACARS would have been at 1.37 - and the plane disappeared at 1.21 - it is totally within reason that they ACARS was never turned off at all. And that the ACARS and the transponder went down that the same time - e.g. there being some kind of electrical or mechanical failure at a specific point on the plane.
If the BCC report is true, then in places into deep question the sequence of events that has been portrayed by the Malaysian PM. And the most important of these being that it places in question whether there was a hijack at all. Based on the information provided, that scenario can't be conclusively proven - especially if there is no evidence that the ACARS and transponder were actually turned off at different times. It could be, within reason, that there was a massive system failure at a single point in time and the change of directions were due to the pilots trying to get the crippled jet back 'home' - just that, in the end, for whatever reason, they didn't make it. Mari370 ( talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any source for the 30 minute interval between ACARS reports? The only source seems to be the original (and badly wrong) WSJ report which was actually talking about Satcom keep alive pings (which it seems are hourly anyway!). The next engine data would be a cruise report which would be 3hrs or so later. Maybe some other aircraft (position update?) report? Cebderby ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Lynbarn changed the Intro to "was a scheduled international passenger flight" but someone changed it back to "is a scheduled....". I think Lynbarn is right. It is no longer a scheduled international flight. If we keep using "is" when will we change it to was? In two years time? Roundtheworld ( talk) 21:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
China is searching its own territory in the northern locus. [3] 203.9.185.136 ( talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Coverage from a reliable source on the Tomnod crowdsourced search of satellite images. [4] 203.9.185.136 ( talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Some more specific details about the Australian search. [5] Search area map: [6]. Should we add details about what is being deployed where, not just aggregate numbers of assets? Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) have been very specific about where their aircraft have been based and and the areas they were/are searching. 203.9.185.136 ( talk) 05:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would help much but perhaps a FAQ for the talk page would be useful. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 07:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I added the {{ flagu}} templates under the participation part of the article. If you do not like it, you can revert, or talk at the talk page. -- Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 09:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to bring attention to another possible explanation which has been circulating for a while now and which personally seems sufficiently plausible as to merit a mention: a heist. The plane is said to have carried valuables (according to one source) or 10 metric tons of gold (acc. to another).
kashmiri TALK 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be trivial to confirm it, as it would be on the manifest. Airlines and pilots tend to rather like knowing what amount of mass is where on an aircraft. Wzrd1 ( talk) 02:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Could Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have slipped by radar? http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Are any investigators or governments considering that the plane could be used in a similar way as 9/11 that can be added to the article?
Igottheconch ( talk) 09:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The best theory I've seen so far: http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68 FortCharles ( talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
On 17 March, the flight became the longest disappearance in "modern commercial aviation history," eclipsing the ten-day mark of Adam Air Flight 574 in 2007. Malaysian Disappearance Joins Longest in Modern Aviation, By David Fickling, Alan Levin and Thomas Black 17 March 2014.
This is being edit-warred off the page, but it seems to go to the notability of the subject. Thoughts? Sportfan5000 ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that the following statement is not appropriate in this article? No one has removed it.Slate magazine said: the reaction from the Malaysian authorities is hardly responsible, and their inability to communicate underlines the serious neglect of a regime that has ruled for more than half a century and whose monopoly of political power has long depended on intimidation, strict media control and strong economic growth". Roundtheworld ( talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I found something new but I need a consensus to have somebody other than myself to place the information about Malaysian Airline being hampered by Indonesia for refusal to fly over their territory. My Suggestion before a consensus is if there are more sources to be able to reference back to this information first. [1] Azndrumsticks ( talk) 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Since the Subang Air Traffic Control is mentioned, could someone clarify which Subang in Malaysia it is? Brandmeister talk 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
On the article page it says "The MH 370 crash may be due to large turbulence intermittency at equatorial latitudes. Please see journalofcosmology.com volume 21 for the mechanism. A closely analogous crash was Air France 447. The two cases are compared." I do not want to edit it because it says do not edit it until discussing on Talk. But the plane may have landed, we do not know it crashed. So I do not think ut is is correct to say "The MH 370 crash....". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.237.127 ( talk) 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
10 miles north of Istaravshan, in Tadzhikistan on the border with Uzbekistan is a 1.5 mile landing strip. Perfect spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.163.112 ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've reinstated the link to the map of runways within range and large enough to take the aircraft. It seems reasonable to assume that if the aircraft landed safely, it is at one of these. Olddemdike ( talk) 17:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Before an edit war ensues over this link. Could some consensus be established here for its inclusion or otherwise? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the link. It IS important. If this aircraft has been hijacked, it was for use for a specific purpose - and its not been used for that purpose yet. Its on the ground somewhere being prepared for use - and thats going to be carried out at one of those airstrips. Olddemdike ( talk) 19:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Plane is on the ground in China and nobody can look there except the Chinese: Being briefed by Malaysia officials they believe most likely location for MH370 is on land somewhere near Chinese/Kyrgyz border.— Jonah Fisher (@JonahFisher) March 15, 2014 LINK 207.119.196.4 ( talk) 01:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The runway requirements are on page 54 of Boeing's technical information. Note that the runway must be almost 2,000 ft longer if it's wet. 6,500 feet is sufficient even under wet conditions for an altitude of 4,000 ft ASL, which is about the highest it gets in NW China. The number of possible airports is quite large. However, I doubt that you could just hide an airliner at a civilian airport. I live near an airport and it's very easy to hear and see airplanes coming in. Someone would probably have seen something. Roches ( talk) 22:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
NBC News is reporting that the ACARS data burst at 1:07 contained a new path entered into the autopilot. This new new path contained the turn to the West that was executed after the last voice transmission. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jets-u-turn-programmed-signoff-sources-say-n56151 Becalmed ( talk) 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: The new path was an alternate route. It is not unusual for pilots to enter an alternate route for a return to base in case of an emergency. It makes me wonder: If the plane did nothing but follow the alternate route, where would it be now? Becalmed ( talk) 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68
This is getting serious attention in reliable sources.
It also lends itself to rapid testing. See if the ACARS pings from both planes lie on the same timing. When they diverge, that's when MH370 left its place following the other 777. If, indeed, they are at all similar. Keith Henson ( talk) 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday's news was about the Captain being a supporter of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. However the story was broken by British tabloid Daily Mail, others are simply quoting the Daily Mail. Is there any other credible source on this news event?-- PremKudva Talk 05:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be kept out if it has been proven to be irrelevant. It does not have to be proven to be relevant for something to be considered for inclusion, if it is potentially relevant it can be considered.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the pilot's political beliefs are potentially relevant, so are a lot of things because nothing has been ruled out, as Najib has said. But that doesn't mean we need to rule it in, either. To take up a point Brian made on his talk page, it's not WP's job to use this article to show up what a repressive state Malaysia is. Millions of people support democracy. That Zaharie wore a tee with "democracy" on it in itself only means he may have democratic ideals, not that he's a subversive. There are plenty of dots to be joined, but there are also plenty of false dots along the way that could lead to the wrong conclusion. There are also quite a few testimonies as to what a kind and home-loving guy he is. Make of that what you will. Even if he was pictured wearing a tee with the likeness of Anwar, I'd day "so what?". Zaharie wasn't wearing a tee endorsing a banned religious sect in a country that smashes such dissent with a sledgehammer. There is no evidence that he's the sort of reactionary dissident who would take direct action to potentially harm people placed in his care, especially if he subscribed to Western democratic ideals.
It might be a whole lot more relevant if there were revelations that he travelled frequently to Sudan or Afghanistan to visit the Taliban or al Qaeda, but there are none. Anyway, his role in this "deliberate action" resulting in the plane's disappearance is by no means proven, and the Daily Mail is a jingoistic right-wing tabloid that I wouldn't cite anything to if my life depended on it. Don't get me wrong – I frequently read the Mail. Most importantly though, I think it should be excluded as BLP says we must assume he is innocent until proven guilty when all the info seems to be good for one thing – smearing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally one gives the background of leading individuals in a story. It's appropriate to mention that he has three daughters. [7] [8] Jason from nyc ( talk) 00:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If that sighting is confirmed to be true then it would mean the search in the north-western areas such China, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan is one of futility. The search for the plane in the Indian Ocean will be intensified, especially the efforts of Australia, US and India. But what I read is that India said that their radar installations in the Nicobar and Andaman islands have not detected the aircraft. http://www.news.com.au/world/maldives-reports-sighting-of-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-as-search-effort-criticised/story-fndir2ev-1226858579129 http://www.smh.com.au/world/possible-mh370-sighting-as-maldives-residents-report-lowflying-jumbo-20140319-hvkb0.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Missing-Malaysian-jetliner-Maldives-islanders-saw-low-flying-plane/articleshow/32251148.cms 58.168.101.216 ( talk) 02:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Not for inclusion in the article, but as another good reason not to hastily speculate about terrorism and the pilot's intentions, and perhaps as a lead for finding reliable sources (eventually):
Goodfellow believes that the MH370 pilot veered toward the southwest to reach the nearest air strip – Palau Langkawi, right on the southwestward "corridor" the plane was flying in after turning – because an electrical fire that disabled the communication systems was raging on board. Keep up the good work, guys! Madalibi ( talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a CNN anchor talk about the Northern arc as a "track" where they supposedly would have "had to" fly through China -- a total misunderstanding of what that arc represents. That got me to thinking... there were hourly ACARS pings received every hour up until that last 8:11 ping that the arcs were generated from, correct? Surely they've applied the same process to those earlier pings, and generated corresponding location arcs for each of those pings also? Why haven't those been released? If they generated those and placed them all on the same map, you should see a gradual shift of the arcs, which would give at least some general insight into what the plane did in the several hours from the time it left local military radar until it stopped sending pings. It would give a "cloud" of possible routes. Something to be followed up on, IMHO. FortCharles ( talk) 01:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Becalmed. Didn't notice which bird was receiving. That actually makes the situation wider, unless signal strength is logged and even then, it's of questionable. Such things are what the NSA quite enjoys working on, as that is one of their jobs. Satellite reception capabilities, atmospheric effects, GM conditions, etc complicate what some think of as simple. The region where each bird can receive is quite large. Wzrd1 ( talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the data from the previous pings would tell you much about the plane's position. It would tell you a lot about the plane's heading, though. We would have two measurements of the plane's distance to the satellite at two different times. (I haven't worked with vectors in ages, so please bear with me.) What we want to calculate is the vector of the plane's average velocity between the two pings. A vector has magnitude and direction. The magnitude is the ground speed of the aircraft. We can make a reasonable guess about that. (You could plug in the average cruising speed of the aircraft, or its last observed speed on radar, etc.) We know the portion of the vector that points towards the satellite. We can use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the portion of the vector at a right angle to the satellite direction. Then we have the whole velocity vector. The problem is, since there are two directions at right angles to the satellite, we would get two solutions. Maybe there is some way to rule one out.
I still have to ask why the data from the previous pings has not been released to the public? Becalmed ( talk) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that the map issued by AMSA http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/australia-takes-charge-of-multinational-search/5328904 has possible routes on it. Presumably these came from analysis of the earlier pings, the maximum speed of the plane at various altitudes etc. For example if two pings returned the same arc then the plane has basically been flying along the arc, if they are 500 miles apart then it has been flying perpendicular to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.183.132 ( talk) 17:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b777-28420.htm nowhere sqays that the flight was the 404th boeing 777 produced. the edit has been made solely for the purpose of trolling-404 page not found to 404 plane not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.81.186 ( talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Here, I've boldly removed some content from the Aircraft section. This seems to have originally appeared with this <> edit, and has been modified a since appearing, most recently here.
It appears to me that this is gives undue weight to this particular bit of information and/or it might be synthesys by juxtaposition (SBJ). SBJ doesn't seem to have been explicitly described in WP:OR, but it has been discussed and applied as justification for removal on a number of occasions (see this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is someone removing this valid information, that is referenced to the NY Post and then to a Malaysain newspaper (through the NY Post)? I don't understand. Pls explin. Thank you!
Here is the information: On March 19, it was reported that residents of Kudahuvadhoo reported having seen a "jumbo jet" matching the description of the missing flight. The sighting occurred on March 8 at around 6:20 a.m. [2]
Apparently; it hath been found: Read here, The Hindu, Hyderabad. Apparently, it has been found in Andaman. Another hoax I guess. Last night there were rumours of it catching fire. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
With theories being discussed by the BBC, among other reliable sources, I see no problem with including a well-sourced section, similar to Mary Celeste#Speculation and theories or Amelia Earhart#Theories on Earhart's disappearance. Giant Snowman 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Cops find five Indian Ocean practice runways in MH370 pilot’s simulator http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/cops-find-five-indian-ocean-practice-runways-in-mh370-pilots-simulator-bh-r 74.116.173.2 ( talk) 21:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Original ariticle here: http: // english.astroawani.com /news/show/mh370-thai-radar-saw-unknown-aircraft-after-plane-vanished-32102
Tweet with link to that article, which how I discovered it: https: // mobile.twitter.com /501Awani/status/446183037689405440
@501Awani #MH370: Thai radar saw 'unknown aircraft' after plane vanished ow.ly /uJEg6 = http: // t.co/ZT5wZFPe7z #MAS #prayforMH370 12:15 a.m. Wed, Mar 19 MH370: Thai radar saw unknown aircraft after plane vanished The information was not shared with Malaysia earlier because it wasnt specifically asked for it.
My Twitter reply, summarizing the news article: https: // mobile.twitter.com /CalRobert/status/446191343509835776
Robert Maas @CalRobert #MH370 Thai radar picked up unknown aircraft 1:28 Malaysian time, moving southwest ... then later swinging north to Andaman Sea. @501Awani
I never heard of Astro Awani before, so after posting my Twitter reply I did a search, and found this WikiPedia article about it: http: // en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Astro_Awani It seems to be a legitimate television service/network, so I presume the article on their official Web site qualifies as a "reputable source" for mention in WikiPedia. They also have an article about an Indian person finding a satellite image of the plane flying over the Andeman islands, but the text of the article says the report is a hoax based on older satellite images.
WikiPedia won't let me post links, so I've broken each URL into pieces. 198.144.192.45 ( talk) 09:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
Initial reports from a Chinese Uyghur/Muslim separatist group claiming responsibility here and here and here. The same group responsible for a recent knife attack killing 29 Chinese 1 and truck bomb on Tiananmen Square. 207.119.196.4 ( talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the known facts be laid on a timeline. It seems to be all there in the article, but not presented in a helpful timeline fashion. -- B2 C 16:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see we have
Last ACARS data transmission 1:07 (next due at 1:37)
Last ADS-B transmission? ?:??
Last ATC voice contact 1:19
[3]
Transponders off/ last secondary radar contact 1:21
Last (unsuccessful) voice contact from other aircraft 1:30
Last radar contact 2:15
[4]
Last ping 8:11
[5]
I too would like to see the time line as text but also that it include missed events on their own lines. For example:
I was figuring out the timeline as reported in this CNN article and then got puzzled. This part seems clearly stated:
I put down #1 above based on this statement in the article:
Immediately after that official's statement is a paragraph that puzzles me.
Is this CNN or the enforcement official speculating about how ACARS may work? I'm trying to understand why that line is in the CNN article and what it means. Unfortunately, the quoted "law enforcement official" could be anyone on the planet that has a theory and it may be a theory with little or basis known facts. That may be why I'm confused. Has someone seen an article that explains this aspect better so that we can have a fact, rather than speculation, based time line in the article? -- Marc Kupper| talk 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
See table in section above. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
In the section titled "Disappearance", there is a graphic titled "Events of the 7.5 to 8.5-hour flight", about which I have two complaints/questions:
The graphic shows (without any citation) "On radar" (green) continuously from take-off to nearly the two-hour mark. This contradicts my understanding from television reports, that primary military radar didn't begin until after the plane had reached the Malaysia/VietNam boundary then turned back and approached the coast of Malaysia again, heading West. This military radar observation continued as the plane crossed the peninsula into the Malacca strait, still heading West, then turned to a NW heading for a while. The ending of this radar contact agrees with the end of the green part of the graph. So, regarding the portion of the flight from take-off until the plane approached the Malaysian coast heading West, was the plane "on radar" during this entire part of the flight or not? If it was "on radar", it must NOT have been the military radar that observed it only later, so what radar was it? My belief is the graphic is plum wrong about radar contact during the entire first hour of the flight. Am I mistaken? So where is there a reference for any radar contact whatsoever, and who created that graphic showing continuous radar observations for first hour?
The same graphic shows (purple) continuous pinging from end of radar contact (just before the 2-hour mark) until just after the 7.5-hour mark. But the info I've gleaned from multiple sources (TV, news articles linked from Twitter) says pings were just once per hour, not continuously. If my understanding is correct, then the purple part of the graph is GROSSLY wrong. There should purple lines at the MOMENTS of time when each ping occurred, not a solidly-purple region. Again, who created this (AFAIK) definitely-wrong graphic?
The purple part of a graphic links to a footnote that links to a CNN article that says the pings lasted hours, but doesn't say whether pings were once per hour or virtually continously or at some repetition-interval shorter than hourly. Accordingly drawing a solid (continous) purple section on the graph might be correct (but not AFAIK) but in any case isn't fully supported by the CNN article. Is there a better source that specifies the gap between adjacent pings? 66.81.212.224 ( talk) 01:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
There is now this statement in the information flow section: "The Washington Post reported that Malaysia Airlines had also declined an upgrade for a system called Swift that would have provided critical information about the aircraft even after the ACARS system and the transponder went dead, a key element that helped significantly during the search for Air France 447 previously."
I cannot find any information linking this Swift system with the search for AF447. It is not mentioned in the BEA report. Can anyone confirm that this system was indeed a "key element"? Seban678 ( talk) 11:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
People can construct custom bathymetric maps and profiles of Flight 370 search areas using GIS software, i.e. Global Mapper or GRASS, and the data from "Gridded bathymetry data" at GEBCO, Gridded bathymetry data. There is a viewer for this data at GEBCO Grid display software. There are also free PDF and Geotiff files of the GEBCO world map, which shows the bathymetry of the oceans ans seas, including the various search areas at useful detail, in GEBCO world map. Paul H. ( talk) 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been a huge change of participation level between countries after the South China Sea and Malacca Strait Search-and-Locate was called-off. For example Singapore halted all operations with its naval and air force assets, and now only activates its Information Fusion Centre or IFC. I edited the Singapore section with relevant information and proper sources but the sentence about SAF stopping all operations was removed today. The current paragraph would tell readers that SAF still operates those naval and aerial assets in the Indian Ocean search effort, which is totally wrong. I think with so many changes of participating assets after the SCS, MS SaL was called off, necessary changes and/or appropriate clarifications needs to be made. TL T 07:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Singapore: South China Sea/Malacca Strait: air force C-130 Hercules; [6] [7] navy Formidable-class frigate with one Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk helicopter; and a submarine rescue ship with divers; Victory-class corvette; [8] an air force Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft. [9] Indian Ocean: Deactivates all previous assets. Activates Information Fusion Centre. [10] TL T 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit by 175.143.47.217 ( talk · contribs) added the unsourced claim: "When the last contact was made, it had fuel that could fly 8 more hours." This has since been edited to read: "When the last contact was made over the Gulf of Thailand, the plane had enough fuel for 8 more hours of flight." The claim remains unsourced and contradicts initial reports that the plane had 7.5 hours of fuel. Does anyone have a source for this claim? — sroc 💬 12:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the 'Timeline' section above.
There seems agreement that we should show all confirmed last contacts made with the plane. These are:
Last ACARS data transmission 1:07 (next due at 1:37)
Last ADS-B transmission? ?:??
Last Malaysian ATC voice contact 1:19
[11]
Transponders off/ last secondary radar contact 1:21
Last (unsuccessful) voice contact from other aircraft 1:30
[12]
Last radar contact 2:15
[13]
Last ping 8:11
[14]
I tried to add these to the existing timeline but it would need to be greatly expanded to allow this. I therefore suggest that we have a text section on 'Contacts' showing information and times of all confirmed last contacts.
Was the aircraft definitely fitted with and using ADS-B? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is a start: Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Time into flight | Event | Time (MYT) | Time (UTC) |
---|---|---|---|
0:00 | Takeoff from Kuala Lumpur | 0:41 | 16:41 |
0:26 | Last ACARS data transmission (next was due at 1:37 Malay time) | 1:07 | 17:07 |
0:38 | Last Malaysian ATC voice contact, "All right. Good night." [9] | 1:19 | 17:19 |
0:40 | Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E. | 1:21 | 17:21 |
0:41 | Transponder and ADS-B now off. | 1:22 | 17:22 |
0:49 | Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible [10] | 1:30 | 17:30 |
0:56 | Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission | 1:37 | 17:37 |
1:34 | Last primary radar contact by Malay military, 200 miles NW of Penang | 2:15 | 18:15 |
5:49 | Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing | 6:30 | 22:30 |
7:30 | Last automated hourly ACARS handshake with Inmarsat satellite [11] | 8:11 | 00:11 |
Should we add this to the article now ? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's worth adding to external links but http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/ and http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/mh370-search.asp are relevant and a WP:RS. The web site reports "Copyright © Australian Maritime Safety Authority." I have not looked into if products of the Australian government are automatic public-domain the way U.S. government created material is. -- Marc Kupper| talk 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The locations of the objects spotted by the Australian Defence Department are provided on the images AMSA have released at https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_01_14.jpg and https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_02_14.jpg. The co-ordinates for the first are 43 58' 34"S 90 57' 37"E and for the second 44 03' 02"S 91 13' 27"E. These co-ordinates are not provided in media coverage, but I believe WP should publish them. Any thoughts?? And how do we get a degrees symbol in HTML? Craigallan.za ( talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This story is a few days old, but could be useful in the part about the search.-- RM ( Be my friend) 09:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
For an inarticulated reason, the following was removed from the 'See also' section by WWGB ( talk | contribs). The edit summary of "c'mon" suggests a lack of due diligence by the editor. If the Tomnod link had been actually been checked prior to summarily being deleted, the relevance to this article would be obvious; it is certainly "related", and has an entire section devoted to this article, see: Tomnod#Malaysia Flight 370.
Please see (and read) WP:See also: List of "... internal links to related Wikipedia articles ... one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I have no desire to get into an edit war with WWGB ( talk | contribs) or anyone else; if there is a consensus to do so, please return Tomnod to the 'See also' list. ~Thanks, ~E: 71.20.250.51 ( talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The "See also" section has been removed on 2014-03-20 by
TheAirplaneGuy, his reason being: "not needed at this stage". I disagree. On
WP:See also one can read: "[...] one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." There is a number of accidents involving a similar class commercial aircraft and navigational problems. I believe that this section should be returned, as there is no other straightforward way to find previous accidents involving navigational problems. Here are some:
Anyone agreeing with my reasons please feel free to reinstate the section and use these entries. -- Borut ( talk) 07:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I reckon it's a load of rubbish to add an See Also section as the plane hasn't even been found yet! A fair few of the editors I've talk to, WWGB, YSSY Guy agree that a see also section isn't needed just YET. Interesting how the IP editor is talking like that, would of thought he/she would of created an account by now... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the Prime Minister of Australia, pieces of the aircraft may have just been found. There is nothing online about this yet, but it was just announced on the news, so this is just a heads up just in case a flurry of edits suddenly appear on the page. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thecodingproject ( talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it will be seen tomorrow as an exemplary way to communicate. There has been a lot of confusion and many communications mishaps. Now that the search is on Aussie turf, they are showing the world how it's done. Here, however, the importance is not in the information itself, but the process by which it is delivered.
The communication takes place at the highest possible level, yet extremely cautious. It sends a clear message that Australian is taking the search effort very seriously and that the head of state is personally involved and "on the pulse". The Malaysian PM "has been notified", so he's not trying to upstage anyone, yet making the declaration in parliament (probably within minutes of having informed Najib) means he's very much in charge at home. Abbott demonstrates that he is in control and open. There is information, yet the parameters of uncertainty are clearly laid out, and a more detailed
I urge you once again not to jump the gun. I sincerely hope that they have found the plane, but as already said, the Aussie revelations may not come to anything – even they have said so categorically. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the German Wiki the position of last ping is an intersection between two circles where one (with center in last known position) is fuel range. Soerfm ( talk) 19:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that there was only one satellite to hear the pings, because it's impossible to establish the position of an object in 3 dimensions when you have data on one dimension – the surface of the earth is the only delimitation for this data, and the dots on the arc are the distance at which the satellite ping intersects with the earth's (or ocean's) surface. The arc will have been so described by the 4 or 5 pings it received. If the data were continuous, it wouldn't be just a series of dots but the full arc. The margin of error in the distances in the range calculation is probably of the order of 300 miles, adjusting for possible variations in altitude and fuel use etc. The satellite distance may have a margin of error of maybe 3 miles, being the range in possible altitudes adopted by the plane's pilot. It may be possible for investigators to make further interpolations of data, but we do not have this data. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The German circle map is more scientific than the arc map from the NY Times and therefore should be included in this article.
There is no justification for the gap in the semi-circle in the map released by the Malaysian government. (That is where the NYT map came from) You will also notice that the Malaysian map cuts off the far southern end of the arc for no apparent reason.
The satellite only knows the distance to the airplane. There is no way that it could know the direction. The satellite does not have individual directional antennas that it points at every signal source. Satellites are as no-maintenance as possible which means that they have few if any moving parts.
I know that the last paragraph is in contradiction to the WaPo article. I have an amateur radio license and I have bounced radio signals off of satellites, so I put my experience above that of the WaPo reporters.
Secondly, whatever I am wrong about will not justify the gap in coverage between Viet Nam and Malaysia. I assert that this is wishful thinking by Malaysian officials and has nothing to do with satellite data. (Why would you build a satellite that has strange gaps in its coverage?)
The only way that the satellite could know the distance to the airplane is if the satellite sent a query to the airplane and then the airplane replied. So I am assuming that this communication protocol is how the system works until somebody tells me otherwise. The German map has two circles for error in position. That alone tells me that it is a more accurate map than the NYT map. One basis for the error (distance between circles) could be uncertainties in the time that it would take the aircraft system to process the message and reply. Another basis would be the shadow of the sphere on the Earth. (The satellite does not know the altitude of the plane. The inner circle would be its max altitude.)
The NYT map should still be included in the article. It is the one that has been most viewed in the news. {I am going to call the arcs in the map, sausages.} The outer skin/limit of the sausages is not based on predicted remaining fuel. The plane was being queried every 60 minutes, so after the last query it could only have traveled for 60 minutes at most, so they used the maximum airplane speed to draw the boundary. 20 minutes is just a random reference time period.
Becalmed ( talk) 04:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 ( talk) 04:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Further mention of directionality: "Inmarsat executives told the media that the signals did not include altitude and location, but the DIRECTION and timing could be used to approximate the plane’s position." http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/15/airc-m15.html This is in line with the NYT and WaPo statements. Trying to remember where I've seen others, but it's hard finding amid all the various stories on this right now. It's been discussed that the satellite adjusts its look-angle until reception/transmission is optimized. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 ( talk) 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, found it much more explicitly worded here, now the 4th source: "Based on the hourly connections with the plane, described by a U.S. official as a "handshake," the satellite knows at what angle to tilt its antenna to be ready to receive a message from the plane should one be sent. Using that antenna angle, along with radar data, investigators have been able to draw two vast arcs, or "corridors" ..." http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3364021.shtml 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 ( talk) 06:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia's Transport Minister is showing a map of the northern position arc and it extends all the way to the Caspian Sea! http://huff.to/1idJKnN Becalmed ( talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What I have been trying to find out is, Where are the circuit breakers for ACARS. Pilot/consultants on news reports give two answers: (1) a panel located immediately behind the captain’s seat and (2) an equipment rack located at a level below the cockpit, accessible by a trap door observable from passenger compartment (really?). Another question: Is there a separate circuit breaker for the “ping” transmitters? Paul Niquette ( talk) 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the other hourly pings can be of help. Everyone is focussing on the final ping but the earlier pings could be of use. They could create an arc for each ping and then put them all together to give the possible location for the plane each hour after it disappeared from radar. That knowledge together with an estimate of the speed of the plane could narrow down it's flight path. Which might give a heads up to where it ended up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.124.10 ( talk) 20:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Everyone is banging on about "the last ping" and happy to accept the unnamed "experts" red arcs. Who made the red arcs? What were their methods? Where is the raw data? Where are the missing pings? There are many people apart from those officially assigned to investigate with knowledge of wave propagation who would like access to the raw ping data. Calculating possible locations based on ping data is complicated and involves consideration of satellite location, height, wavelength, speed of radio waves through various mediums such as rain and wind, signal strength, doppler effect. Each ping should produce it's own arc and an estimate of plane speed would narrow down possible directions of travel. What if the last ping was sent just after the plane crashed in open water and was in the process of being inundated but still powered? Radio waves travel much slower through water. This would bring the red arcs much closer to the satellite. 60.241.100.51 ( talk) 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for range of the plane with 7-8 hours of flight time? Currently the fuel range shown is 4800 km, but the Boeing 777 specifications claim typical cruise speed to be 905 km/h, which would make the range about 6800 km, maybe more to west as with trade winds. The plane maximum range is 14 000 km as it is Extended Range model, so the range depends on the available fuel. Puuska ( talk) 01:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Search for Malaysian jet: Pentagon spends $2.5 million; India deploys Super Hercules aircraft >> New satellite images show possible debris( Lihaas ( talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).
Hello - I am simply wondering whether the tenses of the status of passengers and crew should agree. Thank you. KarenBelton ( talk) 18:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Karen Belton 3/21/14
Hi someone deleted the image gallery I made of the jet, and linked to a WP non-policy page as justification! Please help! 72.35.149.153 ( talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
What a conceited person you are, it's about a single plane as per above.... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Everyone! Is it a good idea to add information about Tomnod in the Search paragraph, because I think Tomnod is the "public search" while the ships and fighter jets are the "private search" WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Milborne! Were you talking about the See Also post? If so, they were talking about Tomnod in the See also.... section. However, I was talking about including the info in the article itself.
WooHoo! •
Talk to me!
00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, tomnod must be added in the search paragraph. This artikel today is labeled "This article documents a current event.", so it not "far to early" to add this information. And it is an ongoing, worldwide crowdsouce effort in this search. Tomnod does not need to actually find the plane to make it into wikipedia, it IS part of the search right now. Even the official international search of at least 20.3.and 21.3 is aimed at "two objects...had been spotted by a satellite". The images in the news that show the two objects IS imagery from Digitalglobe. The same images that are online on tomnod. I qoute 71.20.250.51 from the "See Also"-Talk: "if one can argue that this in somehow not related to this article, please do so" 79.241.175.207 ( talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
File:MH370 last ping corridors.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 07:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
In a statement just released by the Malaysian Transport Minister, the map has been confirmed as a product of the U.S. Government and so therefore public domain:
It looks like there is a slow edit war over the photograph. Can we please stick with the original for the time being and discuss any change on this talk page? Mjroots ( talk) 06:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop removing the alternate image of the aircraft until there is consensus. Reading above it seems like this has been controversial in the past, so the easiest way to solve it is to use both. Arguments that "we don't need both" are inapplicable for properly sourced and notable works, using existing formatting, which of course any image of this plane qualifies. Furthermore having multiple views of the airplane in question is far more encyclopedic than images of aircraft types involved in the search. If there is room for it, there is no reason to reduce the amount of encyclopedic info we present. 72.35.149.153 ( talk) 10:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I added that pilots did not request to fly together: [20]
But I need to find source if they like[d] or dislike[d] each other? Do [did] they get along? Do [did] they respect each other? Also, what tense should I use? I think past-tense should be used, since they are presumed deceased by now. -- UFO and Bermuda Triangle ( talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of all of the seemingly infinite online discussions about this tragedy, the messageboard that is most well either following or checking on periodically is the Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost thread on the PPRuNe Web Page's Rumours & News section. Despite the noise that typifies Internet discussion groups, there is a lot of useful information, ideas, links, figures, and other background information to be found by wading through the posts. Paul H. ( talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
[21] Very interesting, was spotted apparently 2 days after the Australian find... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the recent addition of an alleged transcript from the Daily Telegraph, it is probably misleading to add what has been said by other sources to be a not very accurate translation from English to Mandarin and back to English, we are not in a hurry in my opinion we can wait for an accurate English transcript as the Telegraph one is possibly misleading, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Presumably the original communication would have been in English; we have an English translation of a Mandarin translation. Does that tell us anything useful? The original conversation would most likely have said things like 'Hold at ...', 'Cleared takeoff...'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems inaccurate. (3) was reported to be 120km SW of (2) but here it appears due west. Roundtheworld ( talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This has just reappeared in the article, and is referenced, but on it's own is unsupported within the article. It should be removed or extended to explain why this comment is significant. Me? I'd remove it. There is as yet no evidence to suggest which, if either, of the crew had anything to do with planning the incident.Regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you will find that the Pilot was on one schedule and the co-pilot on another that happened to coincide at that particular week or month depending how the airline rostered its crews. The same applies to the cabin crew. One roster ascends and the other descends so the crew do not work together for long periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 ( talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following over-all timeline. In case you like it, for how long do we want to update it? Soerfm ( talk) 15:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Date | Search | Investigation | Public response |
---|---|---|---|
March (UTC) | |||
8 | Saturday: Malaysia Airlines confirmed they lost contact with flight MH370 at 2:40 am local time (later corrected to 1:30 am). An international search and rescue mission was mobilized. | ||
9 | The search area for the rescue mission was expanded as the aircraft might have turned back. | Four suspect passengers were investigated in a terror link. | |
10 | Test reveals that an oil slick on the South China Sea did not come from Flight 370. Ten Chinese satellites were now utilized in the search. | Malaysia Airlines announced it will give 31,000 yuan (app. $5,000 US) to the relatives of each passenger. | |
11 | Terror link grew cold after Malaysian police found that two of the men, who travelled on stolen passports, were probably not terrorists. | ||
12 | Chinese satellite images showed possible debris from Flight 370 in the South China Sea | Beijing criticized Malaysia for inadequate answers regarding Flight 370. | |
13 | Search was expanded to the Indian Ocean. | ||
14 | Investigation concluded that Flight 370 was still under the control of a pilot after it lost contact with ground control. | ||
15 | The last satellite transmission from Flight 370 was traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia. | Malaysian police searched the homes of both of the plane's pilots in an inside-plot link. | |
16 | The number of countries involved in the search and rescue operation reached 25. | ||
17 | |||
18 | China started a search operation in a northern region of its own territory. | Relatives of Chinese passengers are threatening to hunger strike for lack of information from Malaysian authorities. | |
19 | Files deleted from the home flight simulator of the captain were tried restored. | People came together for an interfaith ceremony for the flight. | |
20 | Aircraft and ships were dispatched to locate two objects seen by satellite floating in the southern Indian Ocean. Number of countries in search reached 26 | ||
21 | Search focused on an area 3,000 km southwest of Perth, Australia. |
Color-code: alternating weeks. Source. [timeline 1] |
One problem with this timeline: it could take years for this search to be concluded. Perhaps this timeline should be spun-off as a separate article (eventually; it's fine for now). — 71.20.250.51 ( talk) 05:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
not helpful
|
---|
Sunrise occurred between 5:50 am and 6:20 am at the presumed latitude [23] [24] of the crash landing. Since the plane disappeared at 1:30, the plane's last few hours were in daylight. After daybreak, spy satellites should have compiled thousands of gigapixel/ terapixel images that could be stitched together to identify every wide-body plane above the Indian Ocean. By a process of elimination, MH-370 could be identified. I am looking for a source that discusses this. -- UFO and Bermuda Triangle ( talk) 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
On 21 March, ″ The Daily Telegraph″ published an English translation of a Mandarin translation of the final 54 minutes of communication between the aircraft and the control tower. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10714907/Revealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html
Radio Transcript
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transcript based on Mandarin version of English language transcript. Some wording may not be exact. |
I've just pulled the text above from the article for I feel such a radical change needs to be discussed. I'm off to bed so will comment in due course. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war over mangosteens. Yes, there were mangosteens in the cargo hold. (So?) This edit summary [25] 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)
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)
|
This article has had over 2.8 million visits since it was started [26]. Keep up the good work! WWGB ( talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just a bit of background info to archive IATA Lithium Battery Guidance Document MilborneOne ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| 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 —
71.20.250.51 (
talk)
03:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
{{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)![]() | This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. (8 March 2014) |
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=timeline>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=timeline}}
template (see the
help page).