Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 8

Amount of fuel on board
I notice that a figure and a sentence about the seven hours of fuel have been taken out of the article, though a figure still references it indirectly as the last known "possible" position. Obviously many news sources have repeated that figure, but -- where does it come from? Does anyone know the primary source? Do we have the pilots' word for it, or someone working at the fuel pump, or is there a way to audit how much they pumped with accuracy? Wnt (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The pumps are metered and the aircraft operator is billed. They know to a fraction of a gallon as to how much fuel was loaded. Also, someone from the airport loads the fuel. You only see "self service fuel" at very small airports. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But is there anyone with a key to the fuel pump who could turn off the meter and keep pumping? Wnt (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As with your car, the total range also depends on how much fuel there was on board before last filling up, and speed, gradients, weather conditions, temperature, etc. etc., so even knowing how much was loaded at KL only gives an approximate idea of the maximum range MH730 could have travelled (plus another 100 km or so "gliding" after the fuel gave out). YMMV Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really thinking of random variation here. One of the theories is that terrorists took over the plane, possibly with complicity in the cockpit.  So could they have filled it up with all the fuel it could hold, and flown all the way to Africa or beyond? Wnt (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if they also took over the entire fuel handling system on the ground. Think of airport fuel handling as more akin to a small refinery than your local garage, it isn't a case of pull up at the pump and fill her up, but of your office calling their office to send out a tanker with X amount of fuel to the aircraft. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they could have, just as they could have loaded up a few hundred jerry cans of fuel, and re-filled the tanks mid-air - or soaked the mangosteens in aviation fuel, then squeezed them into the tank..., but such speculation is of no value to this wikipedia article! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course! (That's why I began by asking after the primary sourcing for the fuel loaded) Wnt (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Airports are not tinpot operation, not even Malaysian ones. The amount of fuel taken on board is carefully calculated optimised and controlled. Too much becomes extra weight, too little means having to make an unscheduled stop. too much fuel affects safety at landing. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 00:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Might there be some aviation expert among the many in the media who can be quoted for the obvious issue about MH370. “Dry Tanks Range” is important only for managing the search. For distraught people waiting for answers, “Maximum Time Aloft” is the only information that matters. The following three factual realities, which were known in the first two hours after take-off: [1] radio communications were stopped, [2] transponder was manually turned off, and [3] ACARS was disabled – all just at the limit of ATC radar coverage. Coincidence? Not so much. The ‘stealthiness’ of the flight after that along with no ELT detection means one thing. It has been grotesquely irresponsible for officials to offer hope for survivors beyond the moment of fuel exhaustion (with or without “pinging” detected by satellites). At maximum endurance cruise power settings, the Boeing 777 can stay aloft less than 17 hours not 17 days! Paul Niquette (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. But that would be enough time (just for instance, I doubt they could avoid challenge on the way) to land at an abandoned spaceport in the Congo.  I mean, from the perspective of someone just watching the news there are two explanations for hijackers ... they made a plan to take over a plane and fly it out into the middle of nowhere and run out of fuel and crash in the ocean, or they made a plan to land somewhere.  Intuitively the second sounds more plausible, which is why I wish we knew how many people we have to trust to believe there was only x much fuel on board. Wnt (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting the third possibility - that they planned to land, but things went wrong... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The passengers would have had a fate worse than death for the six hours the plane continued to fly. Sitting in the cabin in increasing frenzy, without a word from the pilot; the in-flight info showing the flight heading to the south pole. The landing time long past and the last of the beverages and delicious airline food run out and knowing inevitably the fuel was on the same trajectory... --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I semi-protected this for three (3) hours. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * 2011 has a better image of the total fuselage, the brand is more distinct, and the wheels-down takeoff adds dramatic effect to the photo. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 - again, the quality of the 2011 image is far better, try opening them both side by side (FULL VERSION), then you will see, and also the image focuses on the name of the plane (distorted in the 2012 image) and clear view of tail number (when opened fully) and as WWGB mentioned, its in full splendor..people like seeing images of planes taking off, with the landing gear....lots of image of the same plane flying in the air, none showing it taking off.. so not really special..--Stemoc (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 as per reasons above and there really isn't a point in changing it, it's the same plane... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a graphic design rule that subjects should face towards the article. If the 2012 image was flopped it would have a better chance. Composition (visual arts) and Flopped image do not have citations and so instead Google for 'graphic design leading the eye'. My personal feeling is towards the 2011 image as it also shows the aircraft connected to an airport rather than floating in empty space. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "floating in empty space" < weird choice of words since the plane "probably" is currently floating in empty space...that said, i have been trying to get a better image but we will see, till i can, I feel the 2011 image is the best available ..and yes, the plane pointing toward the article is probably one of the reasons i like this image...--Stemoc (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sub-comment) Regarding "flopping image" — That would cause the script for the airline logo to be reversed. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "floating in empty space" interesting way of looking at it indeed. More like "doing what planes are designed to do" would be more accurate. As to a flipped logo/livery, I recall one airline did that a few years back (port–starboard), but I can't remember which one... --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohc, that was on a BA concorde. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * class. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 As an image, I prefer the later picture, but for the purposes of the article, the earlier version is perfectly adequate - no need to change. The caption issue is a red herring as the article is about the plane - the caption doesn't need to go into any more detail than "this is the plane". Flopping the 2012 image would meet the design guideline (it's not really a rule) of facing towards the text, but would be silly as we have a perfectly adequate view with the 2011 image. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Flipped logo - NATO's AWAC's always had NATO on one side of the emblem and OTAN on the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OTAN is the Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord which is the French, Spanish, and Portuguese name for NATO. The job of developing acronyms such as NATO/OTAN sounds like fun. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody could make an animated GIF of the 2nd image showing the plane "fading away".   71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2011 does seem more in context (it's not a good size reference, but it's better than nothing). Please don't get tempted to start fooling with the photos - for encyclopedic purposes, it's generally preferable to have a raw image rather than one that we think looks fine. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2013 - Added a new image, better angle, brighter, can see aircraft registration underneath wing, the landing gear is out so full view of image with a nice backdrop of Hollywood Hills (like a scene from a Hollywood movie which is what this is turning out to be) ...--Stemoc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this beats the others so far. But the lower margin is distracting. I've uploaded a cropped version to File:MAS plane.jpg. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support image 3. Soerfm (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also like File:MAS plane.jpg and the Hollywood aspect the story has taken on. I checked the source image and it appears the photographer has released the image under WP:CC-BY-SA meaning it's good to use on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (3) is a bit cluttered for a lead photo but I dont have a problem with Ohc's crop. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2012 Clear, undisturbed and fine pic. Keep this.--Kim for sure (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest announcement - change summary or wait?
According to today's announcement, "all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean." It is "beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived". Should we change the summary and state the deaths as 239 (all)? Or should we wait until the discovered debris has been verified as belonging to MH370? Hey mid  (contribs) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No plane=No fatalities. Unless the plane is found I would not advise you too change it.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We deeply regret that we have to assume beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board have survived..we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why haven't we found the plane then. I think anything you edit regrading the plane should be reverted until we have proof of it's location--76.107.252.227 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's interesting which evidence exactly. AFAIK, the search and rescue operation is still in full swing and no announcement of its cessation has been issued so far. Brandmeistertalk 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There will be (already is) a firestorm of minor edits for a while. I guess the task is to keep any changes under control as much as possible. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Malaysian Airlines has sent text messages to the families of passengers and crew advising of no survivors. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Official statement by Mayalsia Airlines. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oddly, the statement says: "...the 226 passengers and of our 13 friends and colleagues..." Officially, there were 227 passengers and 12 crew members.  When did one of the passengers become a friend of Malaysian Airlines?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How very strange. Surely they couldn't get this wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect they may be referring to Mohd Khairul Amri Selamat, who could be considered an industry colleague. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very possibly. One might immediately think of an off-duty employee. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Should we change to Presumed Crashed ? Ojy 97 (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think while the announcement is important, the sentiment of the folks above is correct -- quote and work with the Malaysian PM's comments, but until there is proof from ID of plane parts or human remains, treat them as assumptions and announcements, and not proof of a crash or all lives lost. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Presenting that as a fact until the debris and/or bodies are found isn't a good idea. Brandmeistertalk  15:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

With all on board officially presumed dead, this is the worst fatality and 4th hull loss to occur on the 777. This has been added into the article Ceecookie (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Presumed lost" seems more neutral than to use the word "crash". When it runs out of fuel it'll turn into an unpowered glider and may well have made a glide/landing on the ocean and then sank with minimal debris shedded. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So does "presume lost" that is officially assumed by MAS counts as a 4th hull loss? If MAS says the plane went down in Southern Indian Ocean, it may very well be a 4th hull loss already? Must we wait for NTSB to issue that statement instead?Ceecookie (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm old and cynical, but I don't trust the motives of politicians. Some editors seem have got very excited each time the Australian and Malaysian PMs have said something. But it's the formal air incident investigation bodies whose announcements we should be trusting here. Once politicians get involved the colour of the announcement seems to become a bit distorted. HiLo48 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your not (old) at all. But you're quite right. Politicians like to make bold statements and these particular politicians have been under increasing pressure for the past two weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even worse than political nonsense, the keyword "assume" means there is no new information, and they're unsure enough to hedge. Assuming it crashed isn't the same as being sure but not having proof. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont think I like all the "presumed" entries in the infobox, more news blog then encyclopedia, I dont have a problem with reporting the latest PMs statement but we still have a doubt, unlikely but all they have is evidence that the SATCOM stopped pinging and it didnt have enough fuel to get anywhere so we should still wait for evidence that it actually crashed and sank. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A strange time and a strange announcement. In the build up to it, the buzz was surely this will be more than another attempt to grab the global microphone and say "Pay attention to me. Nothing new is known."  It turned out to that be exactly. Who is 'presuming' and who is 'not presuming' are not events worth noting. patsw (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"corridor" wrong/misleading, "locus" is correct
The term "corridor" has been used to represent the possible points the plane might have been located as of the last satellite ping/handshake. The correct term is "locus", not "corridor". The word "corridor" has confused MANY reporters, causing them to write that the plane flew ALONG one of the corridors. Even the Malaysian Prime Minister, as quoted in the article, made that mistake. I propose all use of the word "corridor" in the WikiPedia article be flagged "[sic]" to indicate that it is quoted accurately but was wrong in the original source, and I propose that all such "[sic]" annotations be linked to a single footnote that explains why the usage is wrong.

Also, it would be nice if at least one reputable source would switch to correct usage, so that we can then cite that correct usage in this article. Does anybody know of any such correct usage in the reputable media? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas) PAGE''' ]] ) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it is geometrically/physically more accurate, I think it is safe to ignore them WP:INCOMPETENT reporters and change the description to "locus". " My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome! " 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, Lieutenant of Melkor, your signature is almost unreadable in that color. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Look it up, corridor: "Airspace restricted for the passage of aircraft." —E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * precisely! The term corridor in relation to flight 370 search locations is actually an arc of equidistance from the INMARSAT satelite geostationary location in the Indian Ocean - nothing to do with the corridor in which the plane might have flown along (and which it didn't, by all accounts) The arcs shown on the various maps in relation to the search bear no relationship to any existing (or past) air corridors. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources called it a corridor and it is not our place to make stuff up, I think most readers would be confused by the term "locus" not a word normally used in general English. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your general point, we do have two distinct uses of 'corridor' relevant to MH370, the flight corridors that it followed initially, and the set of possible positions inferred from the Inmarsat data that are also being referred to as a corridor by the media. There is a potential for reader confusion between the two that may need an explanation at some point. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should use the term search corridor to distinguish from air corridor? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC) PS, here is a world map:


 * Sound like a good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Satellite pings vs underwater pings
Is any better distinction now required? Also - what type of ULB is fitted on a 777? (Note: " .. there are fears the battery attached to a tiny aluminium cylinder in the Boeing 777-200ER (9M-MRO) will die in the first week of April." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Towed Pinger Locator link
I don't know how to fix this: In the 'Presumed lost' sub-section is a link, [Towed Pinger Locator]→Underwater locator beacon. This is a misdirect, or at least an inaccurate or misleading link. The actual apparatus bears no resemblance,  , [etc.]. I suggest a new page for (perhaps) [Ping locator] with redirects Towed Pinger Locator, Black box locator (which is also a red-link in the article). Suggestions? Comments? ~E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The redirected link (to the ULB) is to the pinger they are trying to locate - something similar will be on the "black box". There is no (identified) article yet for the pinger locater (towed or otherwise) hence the redirect. You can either wait for somebody to write the article (as the link is there, they may already be working on it) - or perhaps have a go yourself - you can use the information in the pdf, as long as you use your own words... Why not give it a go? Regards, (and good luck) Lynbarn (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it's currently not a redirect (which would be a satisfactory workaround for now) — it is a piped link: . ~E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've split that out now - Towed pinger locator is a new link, and there is also a link to Underwater locator beacon. Lynbarn (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ~E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest to change sub-section heading
I would like to suggest that the section heading "Signs of life" be changed, especially now since the plane has been declared lost at sea, with all presumed dead. It is in the section of "Disappearance" and at this point, we don't know at that stage of the flight that is described in that sub-section what the status or condition was of the passengers and crew onboard. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the heading back to this one prior to the diff earlier today. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it was perhaps a bit metaphorical. For all we know, the pilot and everyone on board may have died soon after the plane plotted a southern trajectory and then flown the rest of the way by George. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of disappearance (2)
LUV the Timeline of disappearance chart - really makes clear the confusing events as they happened. Great job editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.230.39 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Inmarsat satellite name
MH370 has the satellite name as "Inmarsat 3F1" but Inmarsat has "Inmarsat-3 F1". What's its correct name? cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 13:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

About Incident summary
I believe Presumed Crashed is a more accurate way to explain PM's speech. The PM did not expressly say the plane has crashed, he just based on the data said it ended. Asiaworldcity (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thecodingproject is making these changes without consensus despite the very clear comment in the source that indicates consensus should be achieved before changing the text prematurely. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed to a version similar to one from some time ago. It is a summary and shouldn't have too much detail. I don't like using presumed but that is all we can do at present. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made now. – Thecodingproject (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the comment: '''

(AAIB confirmed via satellite data analysis) '''
 * is necessary or warranted in the summary section of the infobox. All the information is provided elsewhere, and it just serves to clutter the summary,. Please can we discuss this here to achieve some degree of consensus. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I support the removal, especially because the reference and introductory paragraph both provide the exact same information. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 02:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this reasonable? Can we agree to remove the parenthetical, but keep a reference that talks about the confirmation of the search area? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still technically "lost" ore "missing" until any signs of wreckage are found. Don't need or want anything more than that in the infobox. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the original status of the infobox was fine, but an editor who was a bit possessive was reverting every attempt to restore the original infobox while claiming that "it says clearly that consensus should be reached before any change to the infobox." – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why my images are deleted?
Hi, yesterday I inserted four valuable images about the Chinese searching forces, but unfortunately they are deleted today.I'm hoping to receive an explanation and suggestions for this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjiang000 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, There are 26 countries involved in the search for the plane. There was once several images from different nations, but these were too much, and were put into a wikicommons gallery (see the link under the present photos) Wikipedia takes a neutral view, so the several images of Chinese ships - with no other nationalities included - you added were perhaps seen as too WP:POV I think they are probably in the gallery: [] Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * PS New topics should really go at the bottom on a talk page. There is a "New section" tab at the top of the talk page that can do that for you ;) Lynbarn (talk)


 * ... so I moved it! Lynbarn (talk)

Is it right to assume a "crash?"
If the |pilot suicide theory turns out to be correct, I'd imagine that the pilot, having done so much to cover his tracks, would have tried his best to perform a Captain Sully style landing to minimize any debris. In this case it'd technically be a soft landing and not a crash. 98.210.60.236 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * just speculation. He could have died before anyone else. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That bit about Diamantina Deep is quite interesting. I think it might get a mention in the article before too long. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or it may not have been a suicide at all, like that chap who speculated on his Google+ page, maybe they indeed had a comm and other failure making them turn back and like Helios Airways Flight 522 would have flown and then crashed.-- PremKudva    Talk   10:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * CRYSTAL -- Let's stop the speculation. There's no evidence of anything related to suicide, and that Reddit post is 8 days old and starts with "My fictional account...." -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The location is not WP:CRYSTAL, of course. MalayaMailOnline said: "The current area of interest is a smaller patch located 2,300 km away from Perth and is said to be roughly the size of Italy. It is located just around 1,000km south from the Diamantia Fracture Zone, which includes the Diamantia Trench on its eastern part. The 7.3km-deep trench called Diamantina Deep, which is among the deepest points in the Indian Ocean, is located there." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The location is "the current area of interest..." not necessarily the crash site. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Split the article?
Is it my idea or is the article getting too long? Would you think we ought to split it somehow? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * By Wikipedia standards it's not that long, and even if you wanted to split it there doesn't seem like a logical way to do so. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Early discussion talked about creating the Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 at some point, but it is still a bit early for that. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Map654342
can someone talk about this in the article? Jackzhp (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable third party source explaining its importance, then it will be added. But a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything. Did you have an article in mind? – FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The crowd approach found it, Tomnod's source should be deemed as reliable. the problem is that Tomnod and the satellite company does not give the latitude and longitude. Jackzhp (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014/map/654342 and http://i60.tinypic.com/b705qc.jpg if the tomnod link doesnt work. However, it seems to be a GoAir Airbus A320. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: it appears to be over the jungle too. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh370-debunked-tomnod-image-of-plane-in-jungle.3319/ Redalert2fan (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomnod is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY for the policy on primary sources. Basically, we would have to do too much of our own work to include Tomnod's find. Wait till reliable secondary sources cover it. A search on Google news for map 654342 doesn't reveal anything usable. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No survivors
Does the majority believe it's acceptable to label them all dead in absentia?


 * That would be up to them. Personally I think it is acceptable to declare the 239 people dead - the aircraft has been missing for 17 days, and the plane had only 7 to 8 hours of fuel left. Although we haven't found the wreckage, Chinese and British satellite data suggests that the 9M-MRO did crash with no surviviors. Therefore, the 239 people on 9M-MRO are dead in absentia. <font color="#004d00">Teh <font color="#00B32F">PlaneFreak! <font color="#006d00">talk  01:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia editors do not label people dead in absentia. That is a legal process that declares somebody legally dead. See this. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> MH370 passengers' relatives protest in China(Lihaas (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)).
 * Reuters: "Malaysia says jet crashed in sea; China wants evidence". This may be a separate topic worthy of mention. It seems there was a march on the Malaysian Embassy in Beijing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How does this sound? I was thinking this information could go in the response section. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Following the announcement of the deaths of all those on board, around two hundred family members of Chinese passengers presumed killed in the crash protested outside the Malaysian embassy.
 * Sounds fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I put the sentence and source at the end of the response section. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 20:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Satellite images and tracking
Right now this is a grey area, the findings by the British satellite MH370 has not found the plane. It did go on to say that it crashed into the sea but seeing the plane has not been found it is not confirmed. Hence why "Presumed crashed at sea (AAIB confirmed via satellite data analysis)" contradicts its-self. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thankfully the infobox is a lot better now. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes true, well I did get reverted citing the hidden comment to get consensus here first before changing that bit but I felt it fell under WP:IAR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you were wrongly reverted. The editor who originally changed the infobox changed it without consensus, proceeded to revert anybody who tried to revert back. Afterwards, the editor would claim "consensus" on their version of the summary, despite the fact that it was changed against consensus in the first place. So rest assured in knowing that you did the right thing. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 22:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Add section about media coverage?
I think that there's been a reasonable enough amount of reports about the media coverage of this event (mainly CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News, I think) to add a small section or at least mention of it here. Several high-profile figures (such as Jon Stewart), have been throwing criticism back and forth about it. I've found a reasonable amount of sources, but many of them likely aren't reliable enough per WP:NEWSORG - most of the following are blogs:. If someone can find WP:RSes or think that any of these are enough, I'd be glad to actually try to write something (or better yet, to avoid my horrible writing, go ahead and do it yourself). ansh 666 03:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (please ping me if anything comes up, I'm not watching this)

Photo of IL-76 assigned to MH370 search
This picture of an IL-76 is said to be at Perth Airport. Can anyone identify if it the civilian airport at Perth, or - as i suspect - the nearby military airbase at RAAF Pearce? Thanks Lynbarn (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (I moved the photo from gallery to thumbnail, for convenience)
 * The photographer took photos from both Perth (PER / YPPH) and Pearce (YPEA). Contact info can be obtained via link in,  file description page — I don't want to put direct link here. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! These are also now on wikicommons, along with a nice view of a US Navy P8 Poseidon: Commons:Category:2014 at Perth Airport. Lynbarn (talk)
 * It is Perth Airport. Almost identical photo naming the location in Australian Aviation magazine, "The Il-76s flew into Perth Airport from Malaysia and soon after relocated to RAAF Base Pearce". 203.9.185.136 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of disappearance (3)
Why is there a thick dark gray border between MYT and UTC, and why does it stop after 07:24 MYT? <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 11:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To separate the dates. It separates the two columns when the times occur on different days. Where you noted, 07:24MYT March 8 on the left, 23:24UTC March 7 on the right...the next event occurred at 08:11MYT and 00:11 UTC both on March 8. It may be better to use different shading in the columns rather than the dark line. AHeneen (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed...there's a section above titled (that discussion may be archived before this one, so check archives, if that one has disappeared). AHeneen (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources that change
There are some cited news sources that become updated, and the info when the original ref was made has changed. (I don't specifically recall which ones). I also noticed that Checklinks identifies some links as "Expiring news link" –which I assume are those links. How is this handled? ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually this is because the original info is found to be incorrect, so the article needs to be updated to reflect the new info. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also go to archive.org and have them save a page with a time stamp.--Nowa (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories
Editors may be interested that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories has been nominated for deletion or possible merger into this article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ... is there a deep sea trench deep enough...? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP because of Freescale Technology stealth technology conspiracy:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * just a note, don't respond here but on Articles for deletion/Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories or click on "nominated for deletion or possible merger" above. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Acquisition of Freescale staff with stealth technology knowledge
Delta Air Lines Captain Field McConnell was interviewed and stated that the aircraft was seized to cull classified patents from 22 Chinese employees of Austin-based Freescale. The company has developed a classified technology that uses paint and electronics to enable traditional aircraft to be overhauled into stealthy jets. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting hypothesis, but whoever wrote that article doesn't know anything about patents.--Nowa (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So why is Delta Air Lines Captain Field McConnell seen as an expert in this field? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A Delta mainline captain that was a former F-16 pilot is authoritative. His credentials are far better than any of the following: regional pilot, first officer, pilot with no fighter experience. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, and possibly also the opinion of the "Voice of Russia", but not of all editors here nor, as far as we know, of any recognised experts. Why should a former F-16 pilot be an expert in stealth technology exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither the article nor I claimed he is a stealth expert. Did you even read the airticle? --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's in the other article, why are we mentioning it here? That is a rhetorical question of course.--MONGO 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the other article is being put up for deletion specifically because it is only composed of speculative drivel. Let's keep all the nonsense contained to that one article. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the airticle. Would advise you against adding it at Serco just yet, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Turn 12 minutes before good night message
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/mh370-was-programmed-change-course-last-message-sources reports
 * The on-board flight computer on missing MAS flight MH370 was programmed to turn 12 minutes before co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid said "All right, good night".

Is this of significance to add to the timeline table? No mention of this deviation from the flight path before saying good night sounds strange to me.

By the way, does "programmed to turn" mean "turned"? If contact was lost, how could we know it was programmed if it didn't also physically turn?


 * Just to be clear, the article wasn't implying it was programmed 12 minutes before, but rather at least 12 minutes before: the info about the programming had been included in the ACARS transmission 12 minutes earlier, but could have happened anytime between then and the prior ACARS transmission. We know it did actually turn from the subsequent radar tracking. Assuming a reliable source can be agreed on, it probably is relevant to note in the 17:07 UTC entry that the ACARS transmission included info that the flight path had been reprogrammed -- though sources seem to suggest that could have just been an emergency flight path that was being filed. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 13:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. and will the FDR, if recovered, ever tell us? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The cited reference says: NBC News quotes sources as claiming that whoever turned the plane around programmed the FMS. Have these sources been reported anywhere else? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows if the autopilot was even engaged at this time, certainly not NBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FDR/CVR capacity
I realise this is a little pre-emptive, but I notice that the Flight Data Recorder article says this: "Most FDRs record approximately 17–25 hours worth of data in a continuous loop.". I wonder could anyone confirm this is the case with the 777? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This BBC article] seems to focus mostly on the voice recording, but seems to group the flight data recorder along with the voice recorder and says that it only records 2 hours of data. The relevant section, with a comment by a pilot who says the entire flight path could be reconstructed, is this:
 * US firm Honeywell Aerospace says the black box on the missing airliner - which it provided - only retains two hours of recording. That's the length of time that regulations demand. The principle is in place because it is normally the last section of a flight that determines the cause of the crash. But in the case of the Malaysia Airlines 777 it might well be the case that the key events happened long before the actual crash. On the other hand, Steve Buzdygan, a former BA 777 pilot, says the data recorder would provide a wealth of useful information. "You can almost reconstruct the flight path from it."

– <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

First of seven automated hourly 'handshakes'
The timeline table has the line

01:30 	02:11 	18:11 	First of seven automated hourly 'handshakes' by Inmarsat via the Inmarsat-3 F1 satellite.

The graph on the reference shows handshakes all the way back to take-off. I'll amend the description to "First of seven automated hourly 'handshakes' since last ACARS transmission via the Inmarsat-3 F1 satellite."

cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 13:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ACARS (telemetry) is different but related to Inmarsat (satellite communciations). ACARS sends data via Inmarsat/Satcomm. ACARS was turned off remember, calling it ACARS messages is going to be confusing for readers who don't know the details. Marked (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical details of Inmarsat satellite data has been released
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=740971779281171&id=178566888854999

From Ministry of Transport Malaysia

The diagrams at the end are really helpful. Becalmed (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Getting it from the source is, I think, better than from Facebook. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 19:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Inmarsat also published their own account of the investigation here. Although there is little difference in content between the two. Since the satellite contacts are the only pieces of information regarding the plane's location, I think there should be a subsection added to the "Investigation" section regarding the analysis of the satellite communications with the aircraft. "Analysis of satellite communications" seems like an appropriate title. AHeneen (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BBC News report dated 24th March 2014 here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of satellite communication
The recent upload is an awful large chunk of text to be added without any discussion here. Roundtheworld (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one unhappy with the size of this new section and with its positioning in the article? Roundtheworld (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The section is necessary, but it contains a lot of stuff that's a bit too technical for the layman. I was going to trim it, but I can't get my head around it at this stage to know what should stay and what should go. Maybe you can have a go trimming it. or leaving it a few days and then filter out the less important details... --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying there are too many times/events, that the descriptions are too long, or the section too long overall? I did noticed having it next to the map photo, they're different sizes messing up the layout a little.Marked (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Missing"
There has been a pointless edit war over the status parameter in the infobox. "missing" is defined as "Not able to be located; gone; absent; lost" so it seems perfectly adequate to use this label. It's totally unnecessary to include any presumptions in the infobox, and it makes even less sense to insist on adding a presumption to it, wherever it may have come from. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Some want to write what some politicians have said. Politicians probably understand less about planes than most of us do, and have a primary goal of impressing potential voters in their own countries. Not really great, knowledgeable, objective sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * agreed: There is plenty of additional information in the article - the infobox is a summary only. Lynbarn (talk)

Also there may be a possible new"MALAYSIAN TRIANGLE" similar to a "BERMUDA TRIANGLE" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.131.165 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 26 March 2014
 * * N.B. the struck-out comment above was erroneously ascribed to me by this edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynbarn (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 March 2014‎
 * Signatures sorted out. I left the strikeout in place as as 14.97.131.165's contribution appeared to be WP:FRINGE and unlikely to lead to material being added to the article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Airlines System Flight 370 confirmed crashed here. http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysia-airlines-mh370-hopes-dashed-as-pm-confirms-plane-crash-20140324-35e3d.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewD2 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CONSENSUS for what consensus means. It does not mean you go against consensus and change the infobox, and then post on the talk page. It means you post on the talk page first your proposed change. Thanks. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 07:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, see this for why we decided to go with "missing". – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 07:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did Australia's 2 billion dollar JORN radar system not pick up MH370?
It has a range of 3,000 km and MH370 would've been in range of it.

The Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) is an over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) network that can monitor air and sea movements across 37,000 km2. It has an official range of 3,000 km. It is used in the defence of Australia and can also monitor maritime operations, wave heights and wind directions.
 * It's being looking into. --Nowa (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It may not have shown up on JORN. This image shown the original satellite based arcs and JORN's coverage overlap. In looking at that it would appear JORN should see MH370. However, the flight path is now believed to be more to the west and was just outside the publicly stated range of JORN and then into areas not covered by JORN. This BBC article shows the estimated flight path but not JORN's coverage. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Handshake vs ACARS contact
There is a bit of confusion regarding terminology related to the satellite communications. The article has terms such as "ACARS contacts" and "pings", the latter being commonly used by the media.

"ACARS" refers to the software/monitoring system that transmits data relating to aircraft performance, which is transmitted via a communications device (not sure of correct name) that can also be used by other aircraft systems. ACARS was intentionally shut down while the aircraft was still over Southeast Asia, however the satellite communications device remained operable. The senior VP of Inmarsat said during an interview that ACARS is like an app on a phone, while the communications device (likened to a phone) will remain operable and continues to make contact with the wireless network (Inmarsat satellite for the aircraft, mobile phone operator for a mobile phone) even if no data is transmitted.

In an article by Inmarsat, they describe the contact between the plane and their satellite/ground system: ""[I]f the ground station does not hear from an aircraft for an hour it will transmit a ‘log on/log off’ message – a ‘ping’ – and the aircraft automatically returns a short message indicating that it is still logged on, a process described as a ‘handshake’. The ground station log recorded six complete handshakes after ACARS, the aircraft’s operational communications system, stopped sending messages...[However] the last handshake should not be interpreted as the final position of the aircraft because of evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 00:19 UTC.""

As noted, "ping" remains the commonly used term by the media for the communications between the aircraft & satellite, although Inmarsat states that ping refers to the satellite's message to the plane. I have adjusted the statements in the timeline to "handshake" (previously "ACARS contact" or "ACARS ping", which is incorrect as noted above), although they may need a note explaining what handshake means. AHeneen (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And ping is also used to mean "sonar ping", for the Underwater locator beacon on the FDR. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But I see we now have Ping (networking utility). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I unlinked it because the networking utility is distinct from the communication between plane and satellite. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the Ip editor has refined the ping link, so it is now more meaningful. I've "emphasised" thre first use of ping as it is a technical/jargon word being used in common parlance(esp by journos). hope that makes sense. One more thing though, as far as this handshaking is concerned, is it (normally - obviously the last one wasn't) instigated by the plane saying "I'm 9M-MRO receiving", or by the satellite saying "9M-MRO are you receiving?

most plausible alternate theory yet
I have added this section to the other article. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:UFO and Bermuda Triangle added this section and and "Acquisition of Freescale staff with stealth technology knowledge" as a sub-section. I've split the latter into its own section rather than as a sub-section. UFO/Bermuda, it was not clear what you meant by "the other article" and people art reacting to the McConnell claim as its own section. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Pings?
Just curious as to what avionics box provided the 'pings' after the main devices were turned off or failed? Not mentioned in the article. Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   00:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure (I'm not an aviator), but my understanding is that after ACARS stopped transmitting data from the plane, the system still responded to periodic polling from the INMARSAT satellite, even though no data was transferred other than basic ID handshaking. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The SATCOM system does it. It is much like a ping between routers on the Internet. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-379.html#post8396229 Becalmed (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's helpful. We do have a DAB page on SATCOM. I guess it is the transceiver part of the ACARS system. Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   09:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is pinging the correct aviation technical term? Isn't this a computer networking term? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In relation to this point and timeline table above: ACARS is a reporting SYSTEM (like an app on phone) which can use use either a VHF or SATCOM (like WiFi or Cellular) to communicate. ACARS stopped reporting as per timeline above (it was configured on MAS to only use VHF). The SATCOM assembly however separately continued to handshake with the Satellite throughout the flight (First was at 1:11), and for this aircraft/flight had nothing to do with ACARS system. ChimayBleu (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the raw ping data? No bodies, no wreckage, only ping data to conclude location "beyond reasonable doubt". For two weeks the "last ping" was used to create huge red arcs without disclosure of actual data or explanation of previous pings or precise methods. Now but not then the previous pings have been used for narrowing the location. What possible reason is there not to make the actual ping data public so that members of the public with knowledge of radio waves can concur or refute? Can anyone cite a reason given for not disclosing the data? The article should include criticism of failure to release ping data. Is the ping data and actual calculations used to be kept secret forever? Why? 60.241.100.51 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't forget about WP:NOTFORUM, people. ansh 666 03:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the above comments seem to be implicitly (or explicilty) saying "this is something that I think the article should explain, but it doesn't", so I don't think WP:NOTFORUM applies. Iapetus (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM redirects to a generic not-whatever page. Where is the specific not forum information? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

OFFENSIVE
This article is OFFENSIVE. Are you guys trying to compete with immediate news? Or non-news? Or prove who has the fastest cock in Wikipedia? An encyclopedia should wait AT LEAST until facts (as much as they can be determined) are already known.Phecda109 (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, see WP:NOTNEWS. If you've read the article, you'll see that only information verified by third party sources is reported, per WP:V. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 06:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Is Not A Newspaper! Read it yourself. Interim speculation does not belong here (EVEN IF SOURCED). Go to Wikinews if you want to prove you have a fast cock. Or twitter or some blog. NOT Wikipedia please.Phecda109 (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand what roosters have to do with this article or the subject in question. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely.Phecda109 (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What a cock-up. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to give information to people who search for it. Sourced information on this story is not offensive, it's what Wikipedia should be doing. If they had to wait until there was absolute unanimous certainty on every subject before starting an article, there would be a lot of missing pages on important historical events.

Tzu Chi
I removed the description that says Tzu Chi is "tolerated by the PRC government". The reason is that this description implies that PRC government does not officially permit Tzu Chi's existence in China but chooses not to persecute it either. It's not the case, since "In August 2010, Tzu Chi became the first overseas NGO to receive permission from the Ministry of Civil Affairs to set up a nationwide charity foundation." (quoted from its own Wiki article) Ahyangyi (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right. But just because it was allowed to register doesn't mean the organisation is more than tolerated. The source I cited says "China's government has traditionally been suspicious of overseas religious groups, but it tolerates Tzu Chi, whose members are careful to avoid politics and proselytizing". Furthermore, if you read into the citation for that assertion you quote, it says: "China keeps a tight lid on non-governmental organizations, but welcomes the millions of dollars they bring annually to make up for a dearth of government spending in public welfare and environmental protection." It's actually on a very tight leash. Registration means the organisation is watched and controlled; non-registration means the organisation is effectively up the Swanee. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that I was too into the subtleties of English that I'm not good at. I'd say I decide to abandon my point. Feel free to change it back or rephrase it please. --Ahyangyi (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad weather
Yet again today the air search for debris has been suspended because of bad weather. But the word "weather" currently appears only once in the article. I think weather has been a major factor in the delays in the entire search operation. Shouldn't the article better reflect this? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you propose that we report the weather conditions for each day of the search, in the article? Is it unusual to experience bad weather at sea (or anywhere)? Phecda109 (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what Martin is suggesting. A day-to-day weather report is clearly unwarranted. I already banished the mentions in the timeline of searches suspended due to bad weather. Weather is a factor, and we could mention it somewhere in the article in half a sentence or maybe a full one. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Goodness me - that straw man is so large it could probably withstand a tropical hurricane. I was thinking more along the lines of: "On 27 March the aerial search was postponed due to bad weather." etc. Something in the timeline might useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "aerial". Never mind. Given it's in the middle of an ocean, and the Roaring Forties at that, do you think the conditions might be "typical" for that area? Weather is a factor in ALL searches, land or sea? Phecda109 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for finding that missing e. Yes, quite right, weather is always a factor: if it's good the search goes ahead. If it's bad the person reading this article is left wondering why there are unexplained delays and gaps in the timeline. The authorities have taken a huge amount of flak for mishandling this. The weather is perhaps one factor they can't be blamed for. Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is also reasonable for the S&R to look after their crews. But I don't think any search logistics belong in the article, coz it's currently ongoing, unfinished, get it? Phecda109 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, I don't "get it". We're not responsible for S&R crews. We are responsible for reporting facts. I'd suggest that whole days in a timeline, where apparently nothing has happened, need some kind of explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Get it?" refers to my premise that, since the event is still ongoing, a Wikipedia article is premature IN IT's ENTIRETY. As someone pointed out, this is neither a news channel, a blog, an avenue for research, a place to promulgate theories, or anything else... and one FACT is that no-one - NO-ONE -has any real idea yet. So I would propose the entire article for deletion (or suspension)replaced by a stub with a few lines of bare fact, because this article is inappropriate in any detail, in an encyclopedia, AT THIS TIME Phecda109 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, so your intention here is, in fact, to get rid of the entire article, yes? Thans for the clarifcation. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Martinevans123: We should definitely keep the entire article in its current format. I guess what you ask for is just todays 07:00 edition of the time table? IMHO it can be justified to keep the info about "cancelled searh days" in the time table until the point of time where the first flight debris has been recovered by a ship, per the argument that each day of progress or no progress in the search operation until that point of time will have factual value to most readers (to understand why it took so long to recover the first piece of flight debris). On the other hand, I can also follow the argument by Ohconfucius, that we should not crowd the table with info about non-events in the search. I will leave it for other editors to decide. A compromise could perhaps be a single line (note) beneath the table stating on which days during the search operation the Australians cancelled the search operation due to bad weather? Danish Expert (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought I made the tenuous nature of the article, in an ENCYCLOPEDIA, clear from my first entry. Phecda109 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Phecda109, I have this dead horse I want flogged, could you do it for me please? YSSYguy (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is needed is a link to an article that sets out something about the weather and sea conditions usually to be expected in the search area. The only one we have is Roaring Forties, which is not a very impressive article, but could be expanded.  There is nothing specifically about weather conditions (or indeed undersea topography) in the southern Indian Ocean.  Until those articles exist, we should use the reliable sources that do exist to create a paragraph that explains that the prevailing conditions in the search area - not just a day or two's ephemeral bad weather - are creating problems in the search operation, and the cancellation of searches on some days.  Such a statement is clearly encyclopaedic and will be of permanent value.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. A single short paragraph would at least explain the background. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just read some accounts of Round The World races? Why bother us here? What do you want to know? Whether or not it gets too rough to search?Phecda109 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Why bother us here"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * At the top of this page, it says:  This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article.  If an editor has a pertinent question, and doesn't know the answer, or has a suggestion for improving an article, but doesn't know how to go about it, or whether or not it is appropriate, and asks his question or makes his point sensibly and politely, then that is not speculation, or original research, that is using the talk page for what it is intended. Far better than those editors who add all but nothing of value, object to other editors' work, complain that the article shouldn't even be on Wikipedia, or resort to petty personal insults and trolling. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort from which we can all benefit. I know who'd I'd much rather collaborate on an article with. Thanks too to all those - some of whom I've worked with on other articles, and some I'm working with for the first time - from whom I have learnt a great deal since joining this article. Now, can those that want to, get on and help improve this article, and the rest leave us to get on with it... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we need worry about gaps in the timeline. We're not the investigators, and WP is not the news – if nothing happens, we don't put it in. We're not looking to fill a void, nor make up certain column inches. If readers want the news. they turn on the television or go to CNN.com. Just like if something's unconfirmed, you don't put it in the lead. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually suggesting hour-by-hour weather reports for the southern Indian Ocean. Never mind. Perhaps those search aircraft will just run out of fuel after 30+ hours continuous operations. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yea. There are already plenty of limitations to the search that we take as read. Lack of daylight, poor visibility, aircraft fuel (distance from nearest land mass), pilots' rest, etc... --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another search capacity restraint is the number of ships. We only have 5 to sail through the first photographed debris field at 100 square kilometers and now also the second debris field of a similar size 300km away. The ships need to sail back and forward on 200m lanes to be sure to check the entire area, which overall equals a 50.000km sailing route for the first 100km x 100km debris field. If sailing by a speed of 10 km/h this equals 5000 daylight hours with a calm sea, and if they only can search at 10 daylight hours every second day due to bad weather - then this equals 1000 calendar days (equal to a combined 200 days for 5 ships). For sure the Search operation could heavily benefit of more searching ships in the area, but I guess the overall constraint is of financial nature here. I predict critical articles will start to pop up in a couple of weeks, in case no debris at that point of time still hasn't been recovered, when the press realizes the number of searching ships is ridiculous under-dimensioned for the task (considering they need to complete their scan after surface debris before the Australian winter kicks in from June to August - where the sea gets completely wild). At that point of time, it will be appropriate to expand the article with a subchapter entitled "searching constraints" based on those yet to be released articles covering this aspect. ;-) Danish Expert (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, at least we haven't seen any weather-based conspiracy theories yet, (have we?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OMFG the sheer size of it is mind-boggling! Probably explains why some experts are saying the wreckage might never be found. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let alone the black boxes, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful timeline
Great work editors.

Lots more to be added and we can make it even greater.

– Thecodingproject (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

300 objects spotted by Thai satellite
Flight MH370: Thai satellite 'shows 300 floating objects'
 * Yes, I think this should be added. Featured by BBC News this morning. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The news this morning (28 March) is that the search area is being moved several hundred miles northwards, as analysis of data has shown that the plane flew faster than previously thought, thus increasing fuel consumption and resulting in the aircraft running out of fuel faster. The new search area is directly west of Parth (instead of southwest), but it is still a huge area. This means that the "210" objects seen floating on previous searches are now discounted as being unconnected with the aircraft. The text of the article needs to be updated to mention this. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
I suggest that the timeline is split like below; we already have a separate tineline for disappearance. I also suggest that investigation only covers causes and potential plots not satellite image analysis, which I believe belongs to search. The over-all timeline could then be moved to a separate article and maintained there. Soerfm (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of response

 * Hmm, I can see what you're getting at, but it would then start to look very ponderous, and difficult to follow in sequence. Time does (for the purpose of this exercise, and in this dimension) run in a single, linear fashion. Having two sets of tables to maintain in parallel is liable to result in inconsistencies - sticking with one will be much better in that regard. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the table originally had three columns for these different categories and it became so I.

It would be possible to use a sortable table so that the reader could sort by date (overall) or by category, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC) [edited —sroc &#x1F4AC; 00:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)]

Sortable timeline
In answer to that I have made the following sortable table:

...Soerfm (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Is there anyway to make it not sortable by "Event" though, since this would be useless?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have fixed that. Soerfm (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> 'Credible lead' shifts jet search area(Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)).

Legal matters
From the BBC source just added :
 * "A US-based law firm, Ribbeck Law, has said it expects to represent half of the families of missing passengers in a lawsuit against both Malaysia Airlines and Boeing Co, and has filed an initial petition."
 * "Chinese insurance firms have begun to offer payouts to the relatives, state news agency Xinhua said."
 * "On Thursday, Malaysia Airlines took out a full-page condolence advertisement in the New Straits Times, saying: "Our sincerest condolences go out to the loved ones of the 239 passengers, friends and colleagues. Words alone cannot express our enormous sorrow and pain."
 * Should any of these points be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not the first one. Someone put it in earlier, but I removed it when it seemed clear they had no idea what "discovery" was. It can go in once the class action suit is itself filed. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Ribbeck Law have also been involved with Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly there will be many such ambulance chasers like Ribbeck Law. At the least there is no need to advertise any law firm within the article.Prairiegrl (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But you're quite happy with their appearance at Asiana Airlines Flight 214? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * not sure what you mean, I have never heard of themPrairiegrl (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be their second wiki "advert"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Messrs Sue Grabbit & Runne preparing for legal action. Damages re the 3 American passengers, with their lawyers taking a 30%+ contingency fee, will probably exceed damages to the rest of the others put together. See interesting articles about compensation and the law. (For discussion only) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do ordinary Chinese people have access to highly-paid attorneys? Interesting articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hint: China is not a country known generally to be respectful of the rule of law, although I don't doubt they will apply heavy pressure for equal treatment for the Chinese victims. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from The Independent: Why are Western lives worth more...? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On one hand, you have a simple economics/finance concept called discounted cash flows. The more you earn and the younger you are, your dcf (value) is higher. The average Chinese earns maybe a tenth of an American, so just do the math. On another hand, American courts are generous than most other jurisdictions, so will pay out more compared to say European courts. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Search Area Shifts 700 Miles to Northeast (28 March)
Summary of rationale for shift in search area: last radar contact at 2:15 AM indicates plane was flying faster than previously believed, hence would have burned fuel at a higher rate and not been able to travel as far along the southern corridor.

Criticism: Partial ping at 8:19 AM indicates that plane was in air until that moment. Had plane continued at the speed noted at 2:15 AM, it would have gone into the ocean much sooner. Note calculation anomaly:

02:15    Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang. 08:19    Partial ping.

200 miles NW of Penang --TO-- new search area 1150 miles WSW of Perth ~ 2900 miles traveled in 6 hrs = 483 mph

200 miles NW of Penang --TO-- old search area at tip of southern corridor ~ 3600 miles traveled in 6 hrs = 600 mph

155.109.35.51 (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So how does this fit in with the debris fields identified by satellite? And are the "six ships" all new ones or do they include the five ships from the previous day? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can disregard the above calculation. Its not correct. The key detail here, is the altitude of the airplane. According to the initial Inmarsat calculation, they presumed the plane travelled at 30000 feet, now they apparently assume it only cruised at a height of 12000 feet. When it travels at a lower height the air resistance is higher - and hence the engines burn more fuel - and its endpoint on the arc-route will consequently be somewhat shorter. In regards of the earlier discovered debris fields (1100km away from the new search area), I was surprised the Malaysian press conference today informed this debris could still possibly be related to Flight 370. Honestly, I think they are wrong about that. IMHO none of the previous debris findings can no longer be related to Flight 370 (because its highly unlikely that the sea current has floated the debris 1100km in a southeastern direction). Danish Expert (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Yes, that does also seem quite unlikely to me. Any clarification on the ships? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is a reasonable expectation for a daily drift rate under the prevailing conditions? How long before it would be possible/likely for debris from the fields identified so far to be washed ashore in Australia? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * An Australian oceanographer, on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, has just said that the earlier debris fields are definitelty not connected with the new search area. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Danish Expert - the calculation is correct as it is merely "distance divided by time equals speed." The announcement of the shift in search area states that the shift is made because the rate of speed was determined to be higher at the point of last radar contact. The issue of cruising at 12000 feet was brought up some time earlier and is not a factor in yesterday's shift in search area. The key question here is how to reconcile the duration of the flight (until 08:19) with a postulated faster speed and shorter distance. Specifically, the plane would have arrived at the nearer point (new search area) much sooner than 08:19, and yet the partial ping indicates that the plane was airborne until that time.155.109.35.51 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

South Indian Current
If the flight crashed where it is currently (on this date, late March 2014) believed to have, could its proximity to the South Indian Current Example: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corrientes-oceanicas.gif) and conditions in the Indian Ocean Gyre be frustrating the search for the wreckage? Could the wreckage be in the further southern Antarctic Circumpolar Current? I haven't seen this listed anywhere in the article. I offer no conclusions here, just suggesting avenues of research. I hope someone with more knowledge than I have on these issues will contribute in the article, or begin a discussion here. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Go to a blog-spot or talk to your friends about your speculations or something. Phecda109 (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Phecda109, please only post in good faith. Your comment is emotional and irrelevant. I am suggesting ways to improve the article, not offering facts.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You are offering SPECULATION. Phecda109 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are based on research. I am suggesting research avenues, from people who are knowledgeable on these matters. (as I am not) Perhaps people who have edited thus far are not aware of these ocean currents. I have offered no conclusions or speculation to this talk page. My edits to this Talk Page have been appropriate. Slow down and take the emotion out of this. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are based on thoroughly researched Reliable Sources. You are not a Reliable Source. Neither is any speculation in any newspaper without a Prime Source in regards to the Actual Investigation. Send your theories to Malaysia Airlines, the Malaysian Air Accident Authorities if you think it hasn't been thought of, or the NTSB or something seeing as you are world-wisely. Phecda109 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Our job is to understand and transmit the current state of knowledge on any given topic. It's not our role to help research for the missing vessel. Whilst your suppositions may be of relevance to the understanding of the area, they have not yet proven significant enough for any source to mention the specific ocean currents in direct relation to the potential pieces of wreckage. Your comment is not inappropriate, and is taken in the constructive spirit in which it was offered. But let me just state that any such analysis as you propose above will probably be in too scientific and in much detail than will ever be required for this article. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Then please stop offering speculative research areas for this missing vessel, in an encylopedia. I don't say this lightly, Are You Stupid?Phecda109 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion by Juneau Mike to add information about the South Indian current, based on facts we know, is actually relevant and good. I have personally seen a lot of current maps published by CNN, showing there exist a lot of local circle currents, meaning that its quiet complex and difficult to predict where the debris is floating each day. In order to be more wise about the current, a search expert has stated its normal procedure for the search operation to dump a lot of GPS buoys in the search area, so that they can track how debris travel in the water. Presumably the Australian search team have done so, from the moment they started to search the narrowed area on 24 March. According to my knowledge, neither the Australian search team (nor the Malaysian transport minister) so far published any information about this, which in my point of view is very strange.
 * This is of extreme scientific relevance to drop the GPS bouys to map the current in the search area, because as soon as the debris has been found they need to calculate from where it has floated since the crash of the airplane. So far we have no good sources to create a chapter, but the moment a good source arrive with info about this subject, it will be highly relevant to add in the article. Danish Expert (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Ohconfucius for your succinct and well explained answer. I understand. When I read your reply, I realized that this is Wikipedia, (facts) not Wikiresearch. I appreciate your reply, very much so, and you have expanded my experience here. Thank you. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some TV channel (most likely CCTV) said within the past day or two that indeed GPS buoys have been dropped to track ocean currents in vicinity of spotted debris. I don't have a citable source, but presumably somebody can find it and cite it here and/or in article. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)


 * The BBC and ITV in the UK have mentioned GPS buoys being used on several reports, from the beginning of the search in the southern Indian Ocean, along with images of their deployment from Orion, Poseidon and Il-76 Aircraft. They've shown several ways of deployment, from dropping from a rear ramp (possibly from C-130?), dropping down a tube in the floor, to the simple expediency of opening the door and throwing! Some of this may have been library footage, but some appeared to be very recentLynbarn (talk).
 * looking for something else justy now, I found this from 21 March. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR Phecda109 (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Danish Expert, I appreciate your comments. But I appreciate Ohconfucius's comments. I can unintentionally confuse an issue. For example, if I tried to suggest a way to improve articles on humans and kangaroos, I might suggest some relationship between the two animal species without my ever intending to. Now, if I see an editor who I can see has a unique understanding of an issue, and I believe I can add something to that, I should explain that on their Talk Page, and ask that editor to open a dialogue with ME, not the main article or its Talk Page. I am grateful. I became a better Wikipedian tonight. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The comments by Phecda109 are quite harsh and anti-collaborative. Maybe there was some confusion caused by the wording (suggesting "research" rather than simply suggest info about currents be added)? Juneau Mike, I don't think you're confusing anything about the search for MH370. As noted above, the weather and ocean currents in the search zones (which correspond to the areas where MH370 most likely crashed) do play a major factor in the search, which has been echoed by many news articles. From a Guardian article about these issues:
 * "David Learmount, of flightglobal, [said] because of weather, "Radar … struggles in rough seas. Infrared is no good because the objects will be the same temperature as the water. We really have to eyeball these objects – but eyeballs struggle in poor visibiity."...On Monday, Australia delayed search efforts because of rain, 50mph winds and 13ft (4m) waves...[Flotsam] will likely be carried quite a distance east by the waves, but much floating debris will closely resemble the sea itself: dark seat cushions blend with the ocean's grey-blue, and fragments of wing or hull look like the whitecaps of rough waves...Debris that has sunk even slightly could be caught in strong currents heading away from the westerly winds. As in the air, different ocean depths have different currents, affected by storms, eddies, temperature, pressure and the geography of the ocean floor. Alexander Babanin, an oceanographer in Australia,...[said] "there are large-scale vortices that can go any way. It depends on how large the object is and if it has some buoyancy; if it's suspended it could be carried quite some distance, perhaps even more … because ocean currents can be stronger than wave-induced currents."...Simon Boxall, of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, told Henley that "the Antarctic circumpolar current runs at around one mile an hour, which may not sound a lot but in ocean terms is very fast. In four days … objects could have travelled 100 miles." By this reckoning, after 18 days, wreckage could be over 500 miles from where debris was spotted, and hundreds of miles farther from where the plane actually struck the water."


 * (Note: That's a long quote, but not a contiguous section and nonetheless only a small fraction of article, so I'm fairly sure that copyright isn't an issue) Here's a quote from another article that discusses currents' impact on the search (it says the source is CNN, but highlighting & searching Google for the original CNN article yields no results):
 * ""It's one of the most hostile regions in the world," Pattiaratchi said. "This is what we call the roaring 40s, which has always strong winds and big waves"...Chari Pattiaratchi, a professor of coastal oceanography, teaches in Perth..."The main current here is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current...It's the largest in the world in terms of volume of water.""


 * The fact that spotted debris may be hundreds of km/mi from the crash site has been mentioned in many media reports (a couple more: & ). IMO, there is some merit in mentioning and possibly having a subsection ("Search complications"?) about these issues inserted in the "Search" section as these issues are akin to the "Information sharing" issues. AHeneen (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping & handshake
These terms are gaining much attention in the media due to this story. These links are inadequate, but it is not the fault of the links — If somebody can improve the articles, please do!
 * Ping → Ping (networking utility) –or→ Ping (networking utility) –or→ [???]
 * Handshake → Handshaking

—71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you are asking for. I see that Handshake → Handshaking is already implemented in the article. Ping is harder to deal with as we have satellite, beacon, sonar, and likely more pings involved in the MH370 story. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And what about this (much older) ping? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you all find it acceptable that I linked "ping" to the description of ACARS messages instead. The networking utility, in my opinion, is too far divorced from what "ping" in this context refers to. It's just a little odd to connect the pings of a satellite and a plane to the program I use when I want to see if I can connect to someone on a network. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My preference is to the more generic link provided by 71.20.250.51s revision to the sub section - for general readers new to the article, the ACARS article is heavy going, when at that stage all they want to know is "what's a ping?" The link you have added would be better moved to the first mention of ACARS - perhaps in the timeline table. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Linking to ACARS might be okay as a temporary workaround, but is not a solution.  There is also the matter of  ADS-B transponder data link (which as of yet, has not been differentiated in this article).  Wherever the links go, the corresponding articles should be improved; -I've attempted to find proper locations to link on a permanent basis.  BTW, the handshake link was added by me (here). —That article has problems, and (presumably) receives recent  increased traffic.  ~E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, none of the articles adequately cover this specific use of ping. Should there be a sentence/section on the ACARS page explaining the informal use of the word ping? I feel like that's the most relevant place to put the description of ping, unless there is enough documentation for this use of ping to have its own page. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 22:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * try this: :) Lynbarn (talk)


 * So I did some research and found the ACARS documentation which indicates that these pings are just a networking utility. This means we can probably just link to the Ping (networking utility) page, I think. Sorry 71.20.250.51 for assuming you were wrong! Interestingly enough, the documentation lists pings and position messages as separate – perhaps the media have conflated the two? Another solution is making a subsection on the ACARS messages section explaining the ping message. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant text:
 * Just echoes OK, to test the connection with the communication station. This is the equivalent of an ACARS Link Test to the media layer. In case the packet is not empty, each word of the packet is considered to be an ACARS call sign. The message returns a packet with the call signs of the list that are actually online. This is not a real-time ping request all the way to the remote station and back. A special fake call sign is ALL-CALLSIGNS (case-sensitive) which will return a list of all recently seen call signs.
 * Okay, sorry for all the posts, but I finally figured it out. So the pings are normal network pings, and they don't themselves encode any location information. However, by examining the time the ping request received a reply, the satellite operators were able to deduce the location. The inclusion of this type of ping in "other types of pinging" in the other article is actually mistaken. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 23:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution – I've written a brief section on ping messages on the ACARS page. The first word of this section also links to Ping (networking utility). Would this be an acceptable place to link to, at least for the second appearance of the word ping? – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that what we have in place at the moment is probably okay. Before linking the first ping ref to the ACARS page section you've just added, I'd make sure that - being as it's a fairly technical article - your change doesn't get amended too much so as to make the link less useful to the MH370 article. Is "ping" actually mentioned as a term in the ACARS reference material, for example? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, The ACARS documentation specifies "ping message" as a specific type of message that checks that the airplane is there, analogous to the network operation of "pinging" another client on a network. In fact, the ACARS specifies that these are network actions. Thus the reason that ping used in this sense does refer to the "network utility". I pasted the relevant section above (though without the heading)– <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 00:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding of the "ACARS pings" is that Inmarsat needs to know which satellite to use if someone needs to send a message to one of their terminals. As part of this, all of their satellites periodically broadcast a ping. All terminals in range answer back. Inmarsat uses this both to see which satellite(s) heard the answer from a given terminal but also uses the time delay for those answers to see which terminals may be approaching the edge of a satellite's coverage zone. If a terminal is moving towards the edge of a zone it may well be better that for that future communications for that terminal be handled by a neighbor satellite that will have better coverage at that time. The pings used to help develop possible flight paths for MH370 were for internal housekeeping by Inmarsat. They did not involve ACARS. The ACARS service uses VFR radio when available otherwise it switches to using the aircraft's Inmarsat terminal. Inmarsat later did extra analysis on the ping replies it got back from the Inmarsat terminal on MH370 and was able to deduce at the instant the replies were sent the speed of the aircraft was traveling towards or away relative to the satellite, and using estimates of the aircraft's speed, to then approximate the aircraft's Course (navigation).


 * That said, the new section added to the ACARS is not "wrong" but is not entirely accurate either. The media has been calling them ACARS pings when Inmarsat pings would be more accurate. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is, a ping isn't a "ping" like a submarine ping in the movies (a la Lynbarn's rather enjoyable post, love that film). This is my understanding. ACARS is the network protocol; Inmarsat is the satellite. One of ACARS' features is similar to your operating system's ping (you can try your own ping by opening cmd.exe on windows or terminal on Linux/OSX and typing "ping en.wikipedia.org"). The satellite "pings" planes periodically to check that the connection is maintained (on human networks, we ping things also to see if the connection is viable). The pings in the satellite vs plane case, however, is unique because it takes a while for the ping to transmit. Thus, while the ping is just a "hey, are you there?" message, it can provide information on location because you can calculate the difference in delays with the ping (in fact, if you use the ping utility on your computer, you will notice that it gives you the number of milliseconds it takes for the server you pinged to reply). That's my understanding of why Ping (networking utility is related to all this. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As Marc Kupper said, it is wrong in the context of MAS 370. These pings reported in the media are not ACARS pings.  They are Inmarsat pings.  Everyone needs to remember that ACARS was turned off, which is why you can't call it that.  The only accurate way to call these things is to copy the language that Inmarsat uses, which is NOT "ACARS ping" Marked (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok here is a thorough explanation that backs me up: http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/03/15/understanding-satellite-pings/  I'm removing word "ACARS" from ping / handshake..Marked (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ACARS was switched off. What I'm trying to get at is that the "ping" we're referring to is the same thing as a local network ping. Pings are two way, when you ping someone, the time for their response is measured. The ACARS navigation system was turned off, but it was still responding to the ACARS pings from the satellite. See [this article] – it explains that ACARS was the only SATCOM protocol the satellite and the plane were using. While the media conflate ACARS with navigation, ACARS also refers to the SATCOM protocol that the two used. So the Inmarsat satellite sent out ACARS pings, which happened to receive replies from the plane. I'm not sure if ACARS has to be necessarily turned on for the ping to complete. Unless there was some other SATCOM, then ACARS was the method of communication, even if most of its functionality was turned off. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 04:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, I think I was a little hasty with reading the article. It seems like ACARS was linked through SATCOM to INMARSAT. So never mind, you were right. ACARS is the usual method of communication, but the underlying SATCOM was still operating. I've removed the edit I made to the ACARS page. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 04:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:FenixFeather, think of Inmarsat as your Internet Service Provider. When you sign up with them they give you a box which they call a terminal. The box has a data port on it. You send some data to the box along with the address of where you want it delivered. Inmarsat takes care of the details related to uplinking your data to a satelite, downlinking it to an Inmarsat ground station (in Australia in this case), and then transporting it over land lines (probably the Internet) to the desired address. Likewise, Inmarsat gives their customers a way to send data from your office to your Inmarsat terminal. Inmarsat runs the communications channel. The "pings" are an internal Inmarsat thing used to manage the channels. It's doubtful the ACARS boxes and other devices that you plug into Inmarsat terminals are aware of the pings. You may be interested in this Inmarsat report and also this Malaysian DCA report about the pings. A key phrase in the latter report is "it was established that after ACARS stopped sending messages, 6 complete handshakes took place." The link with the ACARS box was down, it was Inmarsat doing the handshaking with their terminal that's on board the aircraft.
 * This is why I had said the new section is not "wrong" but is not entirely accurate either. It starts out "Ping messages are used to test an aircraft's connection with the communication station".  That is correct if "communication station" is the Inmarsat ground station in Australia though it would also work to think of the communication station as the Inmarsat satellite. The not entirely accurate part is that the paragraph is in the ACARS article implying that ACARS is involved in doing the pinging. The paragraph belongs in the Inmarsat article. The hassle is that most of the media is reporting it as ACARS pings. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the media's reporting of it is all over the place. That makes sense now. I'll make the relevant changes to the links (redirect all the ping links to the Ping networking utility page). – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's Inmarsat's fault really. they should have explained how it worked instead of trying to make an analogy.  It's very difficult to get right now, because the media took what little they said and extrapolated in different directions.  The correct "ping" is a keep-alive, wireless network type of registration message.  There is no such Ping article in WP.  The closest would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keepalive or Handshake.  Wikitionary is the correct usage too: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ping  PS. Ooh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing) is close too. Marked (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just read another article that claimed "ACARS" was sending messages. No wonder there's so much misinformation. I figure the network ping is the closest one since they operate in similar ways. "Similarly to what happens on a Local Area Network, satellites send pings (once a hour) to their receiving peers that respond to it thus signaling their network presence." from the Aviationist article. It seems like the best place to link for now, but definitely change if you find something better. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the comparison of Inmarsat to an ISP isn't quite correct. Malaysia Airlines contracted with SITA, a major aviation communications company, to provide their datalink. SITA would be like the ISP that a home/business would purchase their connection from. When over the ocean or remote regions, SITA contracted with Inmarsat to provide a satellite communication link. I don't have a very good understanding of IP stuff, but I think this would be more like a Tier 1 network that provides a link to service providers but isn't directly involved with the customer. Or, at the very least, Inmarsat is like a company that operates an undersea telecommunications cable to an island, which is used by an ISP on the island and connects onwards to other networks (for Inmarsat, SITA/internet). The only difference to note is the fact that the terminal on the aircraft needed to be able to connect to the Inmarsat network, unlike a home terminal needing to be able to interface with any network other than ISP. AHeneen (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A user friendly documentation on Ping, The Story about Ping, is highly recommended by me. A review of the documentation is available here:. The documentation is ahead of its time, paraphrasing from the review: "the author was working with an early beta of ping in 1933". --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Partial Ping
CNN this morning at 03:00 UTC interviewed an expert (perhaps a pilot) about the Boeing 777 airplane, and he explained that the moment the airplane runs out of fuel, then of course all electricity will vanish. However in a Boeing 777 there is an extra emergency fuel tank (supplying the airplane with approximately 5 minutes of extra operational time) which then kick in, and he suspected this was exactly what happened on 00:19, with the short time power loss and reappearance most likely causing the airplanes communication terminal to transmit the partial ping. Currently I could not find a reliable source to add the story to the article, but I invite all of you to look out for it later today, as it might eventually pop up during the next few hours. Danish Expert (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "the moment the airplane runs out of fuel, then of course all electricity will vanish." Don't 777s have batteries? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the ram air turbine? cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Have the views of this expert (perhaps pilot) been substantiated anywhere else? It sounds very much like his supposition rather than fact. I had a reserve tank on my motorcycle, but that was because there was no fuel gauge. I'm not sure five minutes would be much help to any aircraft that had to rely on it. The pilots would be looking for somewhere to put down long before then. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Might want to add, with a WP:RS, at Boeing 777 first? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did check that, plenty of mention of fuel there, but nothing I could see about a reserve supply that only switches in once the rest of the fuel has run out and the engines are cycling down... Lynbarn (talk)
 * For those who want the story more accurately referred, I yesterday managed to record the CNN interview. So here it comes in full detail. The aviation expert being interviewed was Geoffrey Thomas (managing director of airlineratings.com, where you can also find his personal email adress). The following is a cite of what he said:
 * "When the auxiliary power units senses there is no power to the plane at all, it actually restarts. The auxillary power unit naitile has its own fuel source, a separate fuel source, it starts up. So power would actually return to the plane for the last few minutes of its crashing descent, and that may possibly explain that partial ping that Inmarsat picked up when the power returns to the plane."
 * The above interview cite, has been repeated by this airlinerating.com article. I have no time today to add (or evaluate) this piece of info. I invite all of you to read the article, and assess if its good enough to add as new supplemental info for the WP article - to explain what might have caused the socalled "partial ping". Danish Expert (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes a lot more sense now. Basically, the APU kicking in at least gives some control to what has become a glider. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I have a couple of problems with what was said in that interview. 1) I did not think an APU starts automatically. It's normally started manually. For example, with US Airways Flight 1549 both engines were down and it was Sullenberger's decision to start the APU immediately after the bird strike was credited as one of the things that allowed for a safe landing. The power from APU meant that the aircraft stayed in normal law mode. Had the flight deck lost power the fly-by-wire system would have switched to alternate law and there's a good chance the aircraft would have crashed hard. The point here is that the APU start was not automatic on an Airbus A320.
 * 2) while some APUs have their own fuel source jet aircraft APUs normally run off jet fuel from one of the main tanks. We would need very good WP:RS to show that the 777's APU would do an automatic start on loss of power or fuel and that it is able to run for five minutes after the main tank is empty. There's also the issue that it's unlikely the fuel tanks ran dry at the same instant and that the APU was connected to one tank.
 * The "Partial Ping" has not been explained well enough for us in the public to make an informed call on what it was. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 18:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A space for possible explanations
I'm surprised the article doesn't currently make any attempt to discuss the possible explanations that have been offered. Clearly these need to be well sourced and avoid conspiracy theories. But Chris Goodfellow's article in Wired and the BBC summary of possible explanations are not mentioned anywhere. This gives the impression that to discuss possible explanation is necessary to indulge in conspiracies. That there are objections to all these doesn't matter. They give insight into the issues. I've hesitated to add them as many others are watching this story far more closely than me. Chris55 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SPECULATION. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It states "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Chris55 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * By incorporating such theories, we would be crossing the line in dealing with conjecture. We try to deal with hard fact, and what the official position is and what authoritative sources have to say. The abundance of theories of ordinary folk doing the rounds makes for difficult assessment of their notability or credibility. And we don't know how seriously official investigators are treating each of these except that they "rule out nothing". Even now, all we know about the aircraft is where it is not. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are too many possible explanations. There needs to be time to gather more evidence...the biggest of which is finding parts of the aircraft. Some other aviation accidents have alternative explanations—see South African Airways Flight 295 and TWA Flight 800. However, both of those occurred many years before Wikipedia started, so there was no opportunity to start alternative theories before evidence was gathered/collected and the theories mentioned are supported by some evidence. Just give the investigators some time. Perhaps in six months or a year, there will be enough evidence gathered/analyzed to limit the possible scenarios down to a handful. AHeneen (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would also turn into a battle over who is a "reliable expert." For example, some people seem to believe that because a person served in the armed forces at some point in their lives that they are "experts" on many subjects. Are airline pilots experts or glorified bus drivers? The news media often quotes anonymous law enforcement sources as experts. Scientists, university professors, etc. have all been very wrong or misleading at times. If MH370 is never found and mainstream (not self or vanity published) books are being issued then I could see constructing an article similar to Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Pacific
Just as an experiment of thought: Does anyone know if there is reliable information about the flightroute. And why would it not be possible that the plane was e.g. heading for the Pacific? I think this might have been discussed before. I found a link to archive 5, but could not find the text there. Slowlate (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The only info we know about the route is that the plane turned west over the South China Sea & across Malaysia to the Straight of Malacca/Andaman Sea/Indian Ocean, based on radar. From there the only reliable information is from the automated contacts made between the satellite communication terminal on the plane and a satellite...see the Analysis of satellite communication section. The Pacific is out of range of the satellite that communicated with MH370. AHeneen (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I had overlooked the technical details or not realized the implications. Slowlate (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Final 54 minutes of communication
Should we include a collapsible box with the transcript of the final 54 minutes of communication from MH370, as introduced here? ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 06:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be notable enough for inclusion. Maybe once a reliable third party source does some analysis on it it can be included. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 06:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Transcript, the whole 54 minutes? No, never. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The transcript would be more fitting on WikiSource. See if you can upload it there and place a link to it at the end of the article. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It can't be WikiSourced yet as 1) it may be copyright material. 2) the transcript published was translated from English into Mandarin Chinese and then back into English. The Malaysian government will not say if this double-translated version is accurate. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I agree, I suggest the following:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:left; text-align: center;"

! style="width:60px;" rowspan="2"| Duration (HH:MM) || colspan="2"| Time|| rowspan="2"|Event ! style="width:60px;"| MYT || style="width:60px;"| UTC
 * 00:00 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:41 || style="background:#EFFFFF;"|16:41 || style="text-align:left;"| Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
 * 00:20 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:01 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:01 || style="text-align:left;"| MH370 confirms altitude of 35000 ft
 * 00:26 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"|01:07 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:07 || style="text-align:left;"| Last ACARS data transmission received; MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet
 * 00:38 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:19 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:19 || style="text-align:left;"| Last Malaysian ATC voice contact
 * 00:40 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:21 ||style="background:#EFFCFC;"| 17:21 || style="text-align:left;"| Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
 * 00:41 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:22 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:22 || style="text-align:left;"| Transponder and ADS-B now off
 * 00:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:30 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 02:11 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 06:30 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:11 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 02:11 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 06:30 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:11 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 05:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 06:30 || style="background:#EFFCFC;"|22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:11 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }


 * Friday, March 7   Saturday, March 8 – 2014...Soerfm (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Only use day before month for the date ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a useful improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this change really necessary? There is an elapsed time from take off which sets the timeframe neatly, the wikilinks to MYT and UTC give any background timezone info readers may require, and anyone who can tell the time knows that after 23:59, 00:00 is the next day, plus the colours/key makes it look less tidy. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that without it you could get the idea that UTC is 16 hours ahead of MYT. Soerfm (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is ever 16 hours behind (or in front of) UTC. see the comment in the Time header of the table - would that not do? - just in case... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it could still cause confusion. Soerfm (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, this: —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe more simple


 * Time in Italics: 7 March, time in regular: 8 March, 2014...Soerfm (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we drop the UTC column altogether, and replace that at the top with "MYT (UTC+8)" --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not a great idea considering the "Timeline of response" table is only in UTC. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better to keep UTC:

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


 * Thanks. Well, anything is better than nothing.  However, I do think that it's important to keep the local Malaysia time intact (and not to delete it, in favor of solely UTC time).  It's helpful, in terms of context, to know that this was happening in the dead middle of the midnight hours in local Malaysia time.  Having a generic UTC time really doesn't tell us much.  And, quite frankly, no one is going to do the "mental math" calculations in their head.  Thanks for all the above efforts.  They all look good.  As I said, something is better than nothing.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, I suggest the following (second thought):

...Soerfm (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think this last chart is the most confusing and least helpful of all. Most (all?) of the charts above were better.  I think it's important to keep local Malaysia time intact; this gives readers the "sense" (context) that this was happening in the dead quiet and dead dark of the midnight hours.  Using UTC time, by itself, is less helpful, contextually.  Also, most readers have no idea what UTC time is; and no one is going to do the math calculations mentally.  Also, the heading of "March 7 to March 8" is more confusing than it is helpful.   Almost any one of the above charts is better.  The new chart should include Malaysia time (and, if desired, UTC); and it should also make clear where March 7 ends and March 8 begins.   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the first and the third tables above are good. The first contains the color code (blue/yellow) to distinguish March 7 from March 8.  The third contains that heavy bold black line to distinguish the two dates.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Something like this?:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:left; text-align: center;"

! style="width:60px;" rowspan="2"| Duration (HH:MM) || colspan="2"| Time|| rowspan="2"|Event ! style="width:60px;"| MYT || style="width:60px;"| UTC
 * 00:00 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 00:41 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;"|16:41 || style="text-align:left;"| Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
 * 00:20 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:01 || style="background:#EFFEFE; border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:01 || style="text-align:left;"| MH370 confirms altitude of 35000 ft
 * 00:26 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"|01:07 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:07 || style="text-align:left;"| Last ACARS data transmission received; MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet
 * 00:38 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|01:19 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:19 || style="text-align:left;"| Last Malaysian ATC voice contact
 * 00:40 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|01:21 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:21 || style="text-align:left;"| Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
 * 00:41 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|01:22 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:22 || style="text-align:left;"| Transponder and ADS-B now off
 * 00:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:30 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|02:11 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|06:30 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFEE0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|02:11 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|06:30 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFEE0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|06:30 || style="background:#EFFEFE;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFEE0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFEE0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFEE0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }


 * Friday, March 7   Saturday, March 8 – 2014...Soerfm (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is fine with me. Thanks.  Great job.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Two issues with the shaded version. (1) Colour alone should not be used to convey meaning due to accessibility issues. (2) Dates need to appear day before month, as noted above. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 21:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this better...? (the yellow marker is ca. as dark as the headline box and the green as light as the body)
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:left; text-align: center;"

! style="width:60px;" rowspan="2"| Duration (HH:MM) || colspan="2"| Time|| rowspan="2"|Event ! style="width:60px;"| MYT || style="width:60px;"| UTC
 * 00:00 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 00:41 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;"|16:41 || style="text-align:left;"| Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
 * 00:20 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:01 || style="background:#F4FFFF; border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:01 || style="text-align:left;"| MH370 confirms altitude of 35000 ft
 * 00:26 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:07 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:07 || style="text-align:left;"| Last ACARS data transmission received; MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet
 * 00:38 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:19 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:19 || style="text-align:left;"| Last Malaysian ATC voice contact
 * 00:40 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:21 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:21 || style="text-align:left;"| Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
 * 00:41 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:22 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:22 || style="text-align:left;"| Transponder and ADS-B now off
 * 00:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|02:11 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|06:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFED0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|02:11 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|06:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFED0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|06:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFED0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }


 * Friday, 7 March   Saturday, 8 March – 2014...Soerfm (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, this looks great! I don't see any problems with it. --CrunchySkies (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively and perhaps more flexible:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:left; text-align: center;"

! style="width:60px;" rowspan="2"| Duration (HH:MM) || colspan="2"| Time1|| rowspan="2"|Event ! style="width:60px;"| MYT || style="width:60px;"| UTC
 * 00:00 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 00:41 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;"|16:41 || style="text-align:left;"| Take-off from Kuala Lumpur
 * 00:20 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:01 || style="background:#F4FFFF; border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:01 || style="text-align:left;"| MH370 confirms altitude of 35000 ft
 * 00:26 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:07 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:07 || style="text-align:left;"| Last ACARS data transmission received; MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet
 * 00:38 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:19 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:19 || style="text-align:left;"| Last Malaysian ATC voice contact
 * 00:40 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:21 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:21 || style="text-align:left;"| Last secondary radar (transponder) contact at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E
 * 00:41 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|01:22 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:22 || style="text-align:left;"| Transponder and ADS-B now off
 * 00:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Unsuccessful voice contact from another aircraft, mumbling/static audible
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|02:11 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|06:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFED0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 00:56 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 01:37 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 17:37 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission
 * 01:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|02:11 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:11 || style="text-align:left;"| First of seven automated hourly ACARS contacts with Inmarsat 3F1 satellite
 * 01:34 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 02:15 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 18:15 || style="text-align:left;"| Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles NW of Penang
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|06:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFED0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 05:49 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|06:30 || style="background:#F4FFFF;border-left:2px solid #000;" | 22:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Missed scheduled arrival in Beijing
 * 07:30 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:11 || style="background:#FEFED0;border-top:2px solid #000;" | 00:11 || style="text-align:left;"| Last automated hourly ACARS contact with Inmarsat satellite
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }
 * 07:49 ||style="background:#FEFED0;"| 08:30 || style="background:#FEFED0;"|00:30 || style="text-align:left;"| Reported missing
 * }


 * 1 Left column and right column below the dark line: Saturday, 8 March, 2014. Right column above dark line: Friday, 7 March. MYT (Malaysian Time) is 8 hours ahead of UTC.
 * ...Here colors are not necessary. Soerfm (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That legend at the bottom is so unnecessarily awkward. What's the aversion to putting the date in the table per my examples above?  Clear text within the table is more intuitive to interpret than colour coding/borders and an explanation under the table.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 12:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No legend needed. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but maybe even more simple:

...Soerfm (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, clean, simple and straightforward. I've been WP:BOLD and posted this latest version into the article. Of course, now we have another event - the eighth ping - to add. Thanks for all your input to this discussion. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Great job!  Thanks for expending the effort.  Thanks for resolving the issue.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Except is loses meaning when UTC rolls over to 8 March at the bottom of the table! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 00:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, it loses meaning? I don't understand what you are saying.  Please let me know what you mean by that?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that reading down the "UTC" column, you don't see a separate heading for "8 March" when the date changes. Compare with  that added that "8 March" heading into the "UTC" column.  I later realised that the thick line was intended to convey that meaning, but relying on formatting alone to covey meaning is generally a bad idea for compatibility and accessibility reasons.  I'm not the only one to find this confusing: see  below.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, now I see what you mean. Thanks.  Yes, you make a good point.  And with your edit, it now looks fine.  Thanks!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just write in the summary "Missing, crashed in the Indian Ocean"
To summarize what is probably 99.99% certainty? – Thecodingproject (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You just need to wait until they find something but until then it is still missing. MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * C'MON guys we have satellite imagery, debris sightings, satellite data and no possible landing site, YET editors want to be fantastical about it's whereabouts. Give the readers a break and just tell them the truth. :D – Thecodingproject (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You think someone knows "the truth" yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes x100 which is why I believe we should get the finest of info out there. – Thecodingproject (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, so care to tell us all where it is? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It crashed in the Indian Ocean :D. – Thecodingproject (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's part of the truth. Probabaly. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, see these sections and this archived discussion for why it was already decided that crashed is not a good term to use until we know exactly how the flight ended. Anything else is WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we don't have to rush to tell the readers "the truth". Just be patient. We are here to document what is known, not to try to give readers as much information as possible. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather  <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing we know for sure is that the plane isn't where it should be. In fact, it doesn't seem to be anywhere at all. That's perfectly consistent with the definition of "missing". It's the absolute truth; nothing more, nothing less. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)--  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Spot on. To date no aircraft wreckage has been identified as such, much less recovered by ship, which is why we keep hearing about "objects." Which is maddeningly generic, but until the assorted vertiginous flotsam are literally grappled with and analyzed there's no information which is subject to falsifiability. kencf0618 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

British Airways faux pas
"Missing Malaysian Flight MH370: British Airways runs 'Escape to the Indian Ocean' ad in spite of plane disappearance" Wakey, wakey! --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Includes free gift for all passengers with window seats. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but the rest of the world has to carry on, ad campaigns take ages to organise and cant react to every news event. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * we Brits will no doubt see the irony of that ad's timing, but there is a great deal of the Indian Ocean that is well worth visiting. Another airline-in-the-sea incident was reported yesterday in The Canaries albeit only briefly. Perhaps a sign of the concerns raised by flight 730? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to note to complete the story British Airways have apologised - We are very sorry for any offence caused, and the advertising is being withdrawn. This campaign was planned some months ago and we recognise that its appearance at this time is inappropriate. That said it is not that notable for a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Response proposal
Would the intricate nature (and likely longevity) of the international response merit a distinct timeline article à la the 2009 flu pandemic timeline by now? (Full disclosure: I contributed heavily to the latter timeline). kencf0618 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like we should be okay for now. Maybe in the future if it gets excessively long? It seems like the search has died down with only a few key countries now contributing. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 05:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my sense as well. After the initial mêlée in the northern hemisphere the focus eventually shifted to the southern Indian Ocean, and given the remoteness of that search area only green-water and blue-water maritime assets need apply. kencf0618 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section
I'm surprised that the criticism section contains nothing about aircraft black boxes being in the wrong place. The black box is on the aircraft so, if you lose the aircraft, you lose the black box. The black box (or a duplicate black box) should be on the ground and have data streamed to it continuously from the aircraft. Biscuittin (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really a criticism but a suggestion, so not really in the wrong place a "black box" is an-aircraft unit where else would you put it, it is very rare that a "black box" (actually not black and more than one) is never found. If you are talking about designing a new system then we would need some sort of reliable reference that such system was mandated or called for following the issue of an accident report, which I suspect it a long way ahead. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be a criticism of the whole worldwide aviation industry over the past 60 years or so - a bit beyond the scope of this article. To implement such measures would require a massive upgrade to satellite and groundstation bandwith capacity, at the very least. Besides, how is that going to help once comms are lost? The most critical data is usually the last minutes and seconds of an incident which, reliably, could only be recorded onboard the plane. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not mandated but it has been proposed. Biscuittin (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the cost of it would probably be quite small compared to the cost of the current search. I thought we lived in a high-tech world but I'm beginning to doubt it. Biscuittin (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Two Canadian companies have created systems to live-stream flight data": Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And this would not be shut down the same way the transponder was because... ? Hcobb (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Airlines has announced flight 370 has crashed.
Should not the status be updated from missing to presumed crashed or likely lost at sea?--174.69.193.211 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Source? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we've had this discussion repeatedly. The consensus is that politicans' announcements of what they think happened do not count as evidence. Once the actual plane is found, then we can update the status. See these sections and this archived discussion for specific reasons. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather  <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 07:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Sceptical" to "Skeptical"
I propose that this change be made. Ging287 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? (It always helps if you give a reason for a proposed change.) The variety of English to be used for this article is not clear to me. There is a mixture of varieties in use at present, although probably more UK English. I see "organisation" and "organization", plus an amazing mixture of measurement systems. We do need to settle on one standard eventually, and maybe now is the time to start. Malaysia, China and Australia, three of the major players, all use a variation on UK English, and the metric system. The aviation industry generally uses imperial style units. What other factors are at play here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Australian English, Malaysian English, US English should be the varieties to choose from. Since the UK is minimally involved, we should not use UK English. (US English because of the heavy US Navy involvement; Australian because of the Air Force/Navy involvement; Malaysian because it's Malaysia Airlines) -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reject – Like HiLo48 says above, if you do some research, most of the countries involved use some form of UK based English, largely as a result of British colonialism. This is certainly not an event mostly confined to the US, but rather much closer to Australia and Malaysia, and therefore should use the UK spelling. As far as I know, there are not massive differences in spelling among the various UK based English varieties. But it just doesn't make sense to make everything American. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 07:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As if we'd want to make everything American. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reject: UK English is the best standard to use for "International events". People in all non-English countries (incl. China) happen to learn UK English in school. IMHO only local articles about US events/topics merits the use of US English, and only local articles about Australian events/topics merits the use of Australian English. Danish Expert (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reject for the reasons offered above by FenixFeather and others. There was an EngvarB flag attached to the article from its creation. By way of precedent, for example, the wikipedia article on Malaysia is marked for British English. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is "an EngvarB flag"? And where is it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that may have been a red herring. EngvarB seems to be a deprecated wiki template formerly used to indicate British English use, but in this case, something to do with date formatting. It was added with This Edit at 04:07 UTC, 9 March 2014 by User:Ohconfucius (that took some finding!) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I have established that Malaysia uses what's called British spellings. Since the article had its dates and spellings aligned on 9 March, new content gets added, and also some editors are somehow uncomfortable with British spellings and insist on changing to American. I pass by with a script to clean these up every few days when I notice it needs doing. When that happens, the instances of mdy dates and American spellings are dealt with in one fell swoop. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Still 26 Countries?
A week ago, 26 countries were reportedly involved in the search over a very wide are. Now, searches in most of that area have been cancelled, and the search area is much smaller and more intense. How many countries are still involved? What assets from the other search areas have been redeployed? I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. I may have missed something, but does anybody know of sources to confirm the status now? If the numbers have changed, it should be included in the article, I think regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we would want to recreate a section similar to this, but as far as international involvement in the southern zone, we're now talking about a much reduced contingent: 12 planes and 2 ships – Australia's HMAS Success and the Chinese polar supply ship Xue Long according to the Guardian, although NST gives quite a few more assets, I suspect the Guardian is counting only assets that are in place. Search area of almost 470,000nm2 --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With the shift in the search area closer to Australia, as of this writing five ships from Australia and China are actively engaged. I don't think a highly detailed timeline of asset deployment is needful, but currently green-water navy assets are in play. And that's the focus of the search --it's not as if other ships have stopped keeping an eye out. kencf0618 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this, I was looking at the list of countries participating in the SAR and Malaysia was not on the list. I just want to confirm that this is correct and Malaysia either does not have the resources to aid in the SAR (highly unlikely and even so, an aircraft registered in their country has gone missing) or they chose not to. Bbrsox (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Malaysia's supposed to be the lead party, and a description of its assets is in the body of the text. Actually, China's assets were there also but someone put those back into the list. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Boeing’s Airplane Health Management system
"Malaysian Airlines had declined to buy Boeing’s Airplane Health Management system, which monitors systems in real time and could have alerted it to any potential problems." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581817/Doomed-airliner-pilot-political-fanatic-Hours-taking-control-flight-MH370-attended-trial-jailed-opposition-leader-sodomite.html#ixzz2xQdHhm52

"Eventually all commercial aircraft will stream live-status data directly to operation control centers, offering real-time situational awareness that is all but nonexistent today. The key question is whether operators will opt for their datasets and upgrades based on return on investment (ROI)—as they do now—or in response to a mandate issued to prevent another case like MH370. Malaysia, like most other airlines, has not invested in a system that supplements standard aircraft-status-reporting channels such as air traffic control or Acars—a data link using VHF, HF or satcom over oceanic airspace whose messages are routed via ground stations to the end users. . . . BEA’s research led it to recommend additional study into live data-streaming . . . The monthly cost is approximately $1,500 per aircraft." http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_14_2014_p0-672545.xml&p=2

(I have not tried to add this to the article, because of the warning against conspiracy theories. This fact suggests Malaysia may be making excuses, or releasing misleading information, to try to justify their having saved a small amount by not buying Boeing’s Airplane Health Management system. I suggest a Wikipedia editor decide whether to add this item.) Wilfred Day (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry it is just another 'what if, you have to remember a new aircraft is like a new car you can have as many gadgets as you want at a cost. Malaysian has its own operating model which doesnt include live date streaming, we dont know but the ACARS messages (which are tailored for each airline) works fine for them, we shouldnt speculate on what ifs. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This Australian source claims a $10 saving: . But still a what if, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (p.s. it's in the text, not in the video clip)
 * Malaysia is under an awful lot of pressure, a lot of data to sift through and then analyse, but with insufficient resources and no experience of such an eventuality. They are currently trying to blame Interpol. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

News Coverage mention?
I'm not sure where but somewhere online i read an article that criticized how major networks are handling the coverage of this event. If any provided links are found could this be added somewhere in the article? Like maybe the criticism section in its own ===Media coverage=== section? --Matt723star (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean China's major networks? (That's where most of the passengers are from.) Or Australia's? (Since it is the lead player in the search now.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose so, sure. I was thinking more of CNN due to the story being arguably the most discussed of the month, or probably the year. I wish I could remember where I read it, but I definitely saw a criticism of how the news, in general, are taking to this flight's disappearance. --Matt723star (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the transcript of an excerpt from ABC (Australia)'s Correspondents Report on 23 March: "The curious case of the media and MH370". Included are representative quotes from CNN, Sky News, ITV, and France24. The segment ended on an introspective note:


 * "The hard thing for all of us though has been to admit at various times that there has been simply nothing new to say.


 * "Yet the nature of these mass international stories has changed forever. Journalists will file a piece based on thin air. And some of them, with nothing to write about, will even descend into the navel-gazing exercise of analysing how other media outlets are reporting."


 * Probably not encyclopedic at this point, but it may be appropriate to touch on this point a few months from now as part of the retrospective analysis of the incident. NameIsRon (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The news coverage is not part of the incident. The 24 hour, online news cycle demands that news media continually create "new" content. Wikipedia has no such requirement. That some of the content from the news media is nonsense is a broader issue, and not part of this story. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I did suggest this in a previous section here, but nobody responded. I second that it could be worth a mention. ansh666 23:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's too soon to decide whether media coverage of the incident is or is not worthy of a mention in this article, but I want to point out that there is precedent for including a section dealing with media coverage, e.g., Hindenburg disaster and War of the Worlds (radio). At some point it will be up to the editors to come to a consensus on this. --NameIsRon (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll need to wait until a WP:RS analyzes and writes a report or article on the media coverage. My personal sense is that there has not been an unusual amount of coverage given it's an event that has spanned several weeks.
 * The media covers what gets web site clicks. When the clicks slow down they drop the topic. The New York Times and both of the main news sites for where I live have already dropped MH370 from their "hot topics" bars and don't have any articles about the search on their home pages at present. CNN is still pushing the story by using headlines such as "Aircraft spots one of the 'most promising leads'" and as a result "Flight 370" is the second item in their "CNN Trends" bar. The landslide in Washington state is #1. BBC has a "Most Popular in News" sidebar with #1 being 'Pinger locator' joins MH370 search and #2 is 'No time limit on plane search' this instant.
 * Today CNN posted How much is too much missing plane news?.
 * More locally, there has been interest among Wikipedia editors. The article is 22 days old and has seen 7,581 edits by 1,591 distinct authors and has been viewed 3,916,085 times. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Map needs update
Due to recent developments, this map needs a 3rd location added.

~E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)+TS:04:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

I have made this map based on the German, it seems to have more details:

...Soerfm (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree that the existing map is rather out of date and should be replaced.Roundtheworld (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)




 * I also spent the night fixing the German version, and just uploaded. Mine is SVG, please use mine so we can keep the German, English and Chinese versions in sync.

CommonMarks (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer we use the Soerferm edition of the map, as its useful to map all applied search areas on the same map. My only remaining objection is, that I also propose the first Australian main search area (the Nortern part of the Southern arc, described more accurately as the waters between Cocos Islands and Christmas Island south of Summatra) to be mapped. I think its possible to find sources to back up, that the Australian search operation had its main effort located in this search area on 17-18 March. The Australian search operation only opened up the search area in the southern Indean Ocean with use of 1 aircraft on 18 March. I am not sure when exactly Australia completely closed down the search area close to Summatra, but I suspect it happened on 20 March. Danish Expert (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, just took a further look into the issue. The initial media story about aircrafts searching the Northen part of the Southern arc was false! Some news agencies misreported the story. The correct story is this cite: An Australian Defence Force aircraft located at Cocos (Keeling) Islands and already assisting Malaysia with the search for MH 370 will relocate to Perth later on Monday evening or early on Tuesday 18 March. On 18 March this one and lonely aircraft conducted the first aerial search 3200 kilometers southwest of Perth, and on 19 March a total of 5 aircrafts were searching the same area. This AMSA webpage is an excellent portal to read through how the Australian search operation developed from 17 March to 23 March. Danish Expert (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate the greater detail now available on the current file, including the original search areas in the South Cnina Sea, etc. as part of the complete picture. However, It also shows Inmarsat-3 F3. If that had been involved, triangulation may have been very useful in pinpointing the crash site, but I've not seen any mention. If it isn't relevent, should it be deleted from the image? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. F3 is quite literally "out of the picture", and should not appear in our diagram. To have it there certainly implies that it's relevant. What's more, the diagram will be more legible at the current screen size/resolution. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

New image
I suggest this most recent image PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> Two different images of 9M-MRO have occupied the infobox recently. I thought I'd put them side-by-side to see if a consensus exists as to which image should be there.
 * We have discussed this as a matter of fact but I am not sure about consensus...Soerfm (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be "if it ain't broke..." --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 2011 has a better image of the total fuselage, the brand is more distinct, and the wheels-down takeoff adds dramatic effect to the photo. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 - again, the quality of the 2011 image is far better, try opening them both side by side (FULL VERSION), then you will see, and also the image focuses on the name of the plane (distorted in the 2012 image) and clear view of tail number (when opened fully) and as WWGB mentioned, its in full splendor..people like seeing images of planes taking off, with the landing gear....lots of image of the same plane flying in the air, none showing it taking off.. so not really special..--Stemoc (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 as per reasons above and there really isn't a point in changing it, it's the same plane... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a graphic design rule that subjects should face towards the article. If the 2012 image was flopped it would have a better chance. Composition (visual arts) and Flopped image do not have citations and so instead Google for 'graphic design leading the eye'. My personal feeling is towards the 2011 image as it also shows the aircraft connected to an airport rather than floating in empty space. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "floating in empty space" < weird choice of words since the plane "probably" is currently floating in empty space...that said, i have been trying to get a better image but we will see, till i can, I feel the 2011 image is the best available ..and yes, the plane pointing toward the article is probably one of the reasons i like this image...--Stemoc (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sub-comment) Regarding "flopping image" — That would cause the script for the airline logo to be reversed. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "floating in empty space" interesting way of looking at it indeed. More like "doing what planes are designed to do" would be more accurate. As to a flipped logo/livery, I recall one airline did that a few years back (port–starboard), but I can't remember which one... --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohc, that was on a BA concorde. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * class. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 As an image, I prefer the later picture, but for the purposes of the article, the earlier version is perfectly adequate - no need to change. The caption issue is a red herring as the article is about the plane - the caption doesn't need to go into any more detail than "this is the plane". Flopping the 2012 image would meet the design guideline (it's not really a rule) of facing towards the text, but would be silly as we have a perfectly adequate view with the 2011 image. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Flipped logo - NATO's AWAC's always had NATO on one side of the emblem and OTAN on the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OTAN is the Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord which is the French, Spanish, and Portuguese name for NATO. The job of developing acronyms such as NATO/OTAN sounds like fun. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody could make an animated GIF of the 2nd image showing the plane "fading away".   71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2011 does seem more in context (it's not a good size reference, but it's better than nothing). Please don't get tempted to start fooling with the photos - for encyclopedic purposes, it's generally preferable to have a raw image rather than one that we think looks fine. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2013 - Added a new image, better angle, brighter, can see aircraft registration underneath wing, the landing gear is out so full view of image with a nice backdrop of Hollywood Hills (like a scene from a Hollywood movie which is what this is turning out to be) ...--Stemoc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this beats the others so far. But the lower margin is distracting. I've uploaded a cropped version to File:MAS plane.jpg. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support image 3. Soerfm (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also like File:MAS plane.jpg and the Hollywood aspect the story has taken on. I checked the source image and it appears the photographer has released the image under WP:CC-BY-SA meaning it's good to use on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (3) is a bit cluttered for a lead photo but I dont have a problem with Ohc's crop. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2012 Clear, undisturbed and fine pic. Keep this.--Kim for sure (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Cropped 2013 does it for me. But then, am so easily led. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2013 is good but basically you're swapping some opacity around the fuselage airline name, caused by the wing/plyon, for a slight bit of opacity at the tail logo, again due to the wing. I think its a good tradeoff overall, and I like that the plane is even or moving toward the camera and not away from it. 2012 is the worst option imho 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Perske
his near miss may have been a big stroke of luck for him, and may warrant a mention in his biography. I wouldn't wish food poisoning on anyone, but I think it's trivia as far as this article is concerned, and so I have removed it, again. Cheers, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I see at least two editors who favour the inclusion of this material versus your solitary opinion. I won't engage in an edit war, but if anyone else supports the inclusion, it's a keeper. WWGB (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not needed on Wikipedia. Maybe a celeb mag. – Thecodingproject (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might be sufficiently significant, in his own life, to be mentioned in his article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not important enough to be put in the MH370 article but arguably important enough to be put into his article.Bbrsox (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's borderline acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Had he been on the flight, it would belong without question a notable event within the event. Anyone wanting to find out if their favourite golfer was on the plane may look it up in the news. But they wouldn't normally look here unless they saw it on the news and was curious if we picked it up. For such things, the presumption is that you write about someone's demise if it actually occurs and not if it doesn't. If it's considered important to perske, it would go in the bio. But I would still consider it cruft. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is not notable, this is an encyclopedia we cant include what ifs. MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, AF-447 has a few of these near misses? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Air France Flight 447 article makes no mention of possible or maybe of what if passengers, and shouldnt really. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, although I seem to remember a bit of discussion there, e.g.  (there was also plenty of speculation over that one too, if you care to skim through tthe archives) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be included. A well-known person has a near-miss on an ill-fated flight. That is in itself notable. There are similar stories in the Titanic article as well as American Airlines Flight 11, on which Mark Wahlberg and Seth MacFarlane were supposed to have boarded. If these accounts can be included in those articles, why can't Wayne Perske be included on this one? It's hypocritical. 175.136.192.206 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it's really not important, and consensus here is not to include it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing consensus at all... anyways I think its good and like others are saying, we have near-miss info in other plane crash articles. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What consensus are you talking about? I don't see any consensus here. Opinions seem about equally split down the line. Are you saying the MacFarlane/Wahlberg story on American Airlines Flight 11 is not important? Why is it still there then? Why don't you delete that one? And why don't you delete that little sentence on RMS Titanic saying J.P. Morgan was supposed to board but cancelled at the last minute? Why single out this one article? 203.106.220.77 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my reversion several days ago, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists for exactly this argument. Inclusion of a piece of information in article "A" is in no way indicative that a similar snippet should be included in article "B".  If you wish to discuss the importance of info in American Airlines Flight 11, the place to do it is on the talk page of American Airlines Flight 11, not here.  I am against this info as undue trivia.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No Reference on Malaysia Military Radar Points - There Were Different Statements
Evidence of An 180 Return Flight To Kuala Lumpur International Airport

Berita Harian reported the news, quoting Royal Air Force Malaysia (RMAF) chief General Rodzali Daud saying the Flight MH370 had turned back to Kuala Lumpur International Airport. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLqB-us-1D0

A Singaporean air traffic surveillance and control unit also picked up the signal that MH370 “made a turn back before it was reported to have climbed 1,000 metres from its original altitude at 10,000 metres”.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/03/12/mh370-a-topsy-turvy-affair/

Evidence of Fly Over on A 180 Degrees Turn

MARANG: Eight villagers here lodged police reports today claiming that they had heard a loud noise last Saturday coming from the direction of Pulau Kapas and believed it was linked to the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight on that day.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/983037

Evidence of Area Being Searched Inline with 180 Turn "Flight To Curved To Be Coming From West of Malaysia" The search area would not be in the location (as of March 31,2014) if plane left from the West of Malaysia Peninsula. The flight path is a straight line with compensation for earth's curvature. Calculating for the curvature of the earth a flight from the original point plane disappeared off the civilian radar would bring us closer to the search areas. We will not know of course until the plane is found.

Denis Bowen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.23.94 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Last words
The BBC has reported that the Malaysian Transport Ministry has stated (in a tweet)that the last words received from the plane were "Goodnight Malaysian three seven zero", not as previously reported, and that the full transcript is to be released by the Malaysian Authorities at the next briefing. Another potential conspiracy / mystery resolved. Did we agree earlier that the official transcript was notable and can be included when released? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we need to look at it, indications where that it didnt include anything of note if that is the case then a link to a source in external links may be better than filling up the page for no benefit. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was anything significant, it would have come out by now in some form. If all they can pull out of it is "Goodnight Malaysian three seven zero", after weeks of "All right, goodnight", it's tame as tame can be and not worthy of inclusion. We'll see what tomorrow will bring. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)o
 * I see that "Goodnight Malaysian three seven zero" has been added to the article. I like how it was done as it notes exactly who made the claim that the words are now "Goodnight Malaysian three seven zero". It sure seems odd that after three weeks of regular reporting on what someone's last words were that the wording would get revised like that. Unrelated to improving the article is that anyone with a radio can transmit. We can only assume that "All right, goodnight" or "Goodnight Malaysian three seven zero" came from MH370. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And we can learn to not really trust announcements from politicians. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * quite. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence on Return Flight to Kuala Lumpur Due to Mechanical or Software Malfunction
Evidence 777's Airworthiness has not Been Ultra Safe

There have been over 400 maintenance reports of fire on the entertainment system. There have been fires in the cockpit, fuel system, and cargo hold all have had fires due to electrical wiring. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/05/09/boeing-777-fires/2147173/

Failure on the 777 has caused crashes due to the ADIRU (Air Data Inertial Reference Unit). The ADIRU malfunctioned on Air France Flight 447 due to weather the pilots reacted in an improper way resulting in the crash.

Many other incidents of an ADIRU malfunction including Malaysia Airlines MH124 in August 1, 2005. The heroism of the pilots saved the plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_data_inertial_reference_unit

Evidence for a Return Flight to Original Airport Kuala Lumpur

Flightradar24 tracked Flight MH370 to point of when it vanished off the east coast of Malaysia. A few seconds before MH370 vanished from radar it was tracked turning right (eastward) and in this turn the plane disappeared off the radar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JtYApCrUDY

Malaysia Military Officials Say Jet May Have Turned Back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLqB-us-1D0

Eight witnesses on the Marang Beach Malaysia heard a loud jet noise in the direction of Pulau Kapas that early morning.If the plane flew from last point on radar, over Pulau Kapas and flew until fuel expired, the ending point would be in the Indian Ocean west of Australia. This is the area they believe the plane came down. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/983037

Strongest Evidence of Software or Mechanical Malfunction, MAS Flight124

August 1,2005 On August 1, 2005 a serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777 flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded maneuvers by the aircraft acting on false indications. The plane pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered and returned to Perth, autopilot was briefly activated by the crew, but the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely in Perth. The ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) found that the main probable cause of this incident was a latent software error which allowed the ADIRU to use data from a failed accelerometer.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_data_inertial_reference_unit

Maintenance Shop Fire in MAS Avionics Shop, March 26, 2014

Recently, March 26, 2014 at 4PM a fire broke out in the ultra-safe maintenance shop of Malaysia Airlines. The fire was in MAS Avionic Shop, level 2, Hangar 2 in Subang. The Avionic Shop has been existent for more than 30 years and this is the first time that a fire broke out. Malaysian officials are not releasing any information about this fire. Denis Bowen March 31,2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.23.94 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That Air data inertial reference unit incident looks spookily relevant. But we are still just guessing aren't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Denis Bowen - if you are serious about contributing here, please consider creating an account. Thanks.


 * Yes. And it's not our job to even try to solve the puzzle. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So why is "Possible Passenger Involvement" and "Possible Pilot Involvement" still in this ridiculously speculative "Breaking News" article? (as distinct from an encyclopedia) Phecda109 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are reports of official investigations which definitely did occur and which have been formally reported. I'll admit to being somewhat uncomfortable with the size of those sections. But their existence is probably justified. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * They are SPECULATION. Even "Reliable Sources" speculate. Which makes them speculators and not reliable sources for the items mentioned. Now it's fine to give a "probable likelihood" for Amelia well after the event, but this one is VERY MUCH ongoing. It is not only speculation, but interim news speculation. How bad is that? Phecda109 (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, NONE of those are suspects. ALL avenues are under investigation and that is all that has been reported. Phecda109 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What's Amelia? HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Everybody loves a good mystery. Because then, there's plenty of room for theories and speculation. If the plane wreckage is found in pretty short order, the article will calm down within a report of the contents of the black box, and we will be able to trim the article back to our hearts' content to remove all the crap. If OTOH the wreckage remains elusive, we'd better get ready to resurrect the conspiracy theories article, because that will gain centre stage. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. The article should CEASE AND DECREASE until there is something concrete to add. What is it with the editors? Are you all trying to outdo each other for the latest SPECULATION NEWS? Phecda109 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. OMG. Ohc admitted the article was full of crap. Phecda109 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Phecda109 forgive me but I can't work out if you are a troll or genuinely wanting to improve and contribute tothe article. Can I point out that ALL UPPERCASE WORDS like you are fond of are normally interpreted as "shouting" and is seen as being as distasteful here as it is in normal conversation. I'm mainly watching but I see a lot of people being very careful and considered about the very things you are being rather rude about.Andrewgprout (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see italics. IF I WANTED TO SHOUT I WOULD WRITE IT ALL THIS WAY. (why did you say "all uppercase words"?) Can you not reply to the points made? Phecda109 (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok - I take it from your answer that you are not here to contribute.Andrewgprout (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ditto. I SAID that speculation on Passenger or Pilot involvement is just that and needs taking out. Phecda109 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Phecda109 - What I see in the points you have made is a disturbing certainty about your position. You're not being aggressively opposed here. We agree that speculation doesn't belong. But I described the qualitative difference between reporting official but fruitless investigations that did occur and having Wikipedia editors do their own speculation. Your instant dismissal of that really weakens your position, by making it look just a little obsessive. As OhC said, give it time. See what happens when either the search is successful or a decision is made to cease. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainty LOL. I have read "reliable source" (777 captain) speculation that a decompression event could do it. There are problems with any speculated event fitting what little "facts" are known, including the only 2 in the article. Those are pure speculation. Why do you support keeping just a few speculative theories? Why do you purport that I dismiss them? All I say is that there is nothing yet to support their inclusion (the illegal passport holders have been dismissed AFAIK)(there is NOTHING to implicate the Captain as yet...). I'm just perplexed why you support these speculations. But don't let facts get in the way of an IMMEDIATE good story. BTW we approximately know what happened to Amelia albeit short on the detail. She RADIOED that she couldn't find the island... with this still ongoing event, there is little more to report yet than on the 8th March. But my objection is also WP:NOTNEWS Phecda109 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're listening. HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most other editors here seem to have doubts about the comparability/relevance of Amelia Erhardt. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is my take on it. The search operation for the missing plane is actually a notable event by itself, which justify why Wikipedia includes details about it (and not limit itself as suggested by Phecda109 only to report on final facts and conclusions about what happened during the last 7 hours in the air of Flight 370). The developments of the search operation itself, is something the aviation industry can learn from, with the purpose of creating new standards and procedures. One proposal could be that all planes in the future needs to be attached with automatic GPS transmitters that can not be switched off. Another proposal could be to set up an international aviation search and rescue body, being responsible to lead the search operations professionally for all future plane crashes (instead of the unprofessional uncoordinated lead by unqualified national governments). My point is, that we have a set of sub-topics being notable and relevant to report details about in our Wikipedia article about Flight 370, and this justify why the article currently also feature stuff labeled by Phecda109 as irrelevant. But don't get me wrong, while opposing Phecda109, I also oppose the suggestion above by Denis Bowen to expand the article with multiple speculative content. My point is, that the current content of the Wikipedia article gives an appropriate coverage, as it is based solely on facts released by official sources by entities involved in the search and investigation operation. Danish Expert (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Danish Expert, I think you have summed this up perfectly and I wholly agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll second that support for Danish Expert's comment. Regarding User:Phecda109, this user is either a troll or, at the very least, has a bad attitude. Phecda109's first contribution here was the section OFFENSIVE. Followed by these remarks in a following section:
 * Add that to the comments in this section and it's clear this editor has no desire to collaborate on this article and only wants this article deleted or reduced to a stub. The only contributions Phecda109 has made to this article (at the time I write this) have all been on the talk page...no edits to the article...and all been against its existence. From now on, I suggest everyone just ignore the troll. AHeneen (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Add that to the comments in this section and it's clear this editor has no desire to collaborate on this article and only wants this article deleted or reduced to a stub. The only contributions Phecda109 has made to this article (at the time I write this) have all been on the talk page...no edits to the article...and all been against its existence. From now on, I suggest everyone just ignore the troll. AHeneen (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Add that to the comments in this section and it's clear this editor has no desire to collaborate on this article and only wants this article deleted or reduced to a stub. The only contributions Phecda109 has made to this article (at the time I write this) have all been on the talk page...no edits to the article...and all been against its existence. From now on, I suggest everyone just ignore the troll. AHeneen (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now 8 ships and 9 planes
"Eight ships and nine planes...": Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to CNN (citing AMSA) a total of 8 ships and 10 planes were searching on 30 March. From an encyclopedic point of view it frustrates me a lot, that we have not got any sources delivering consistently accurate facts. I tend to believe your BBC source is right, and CNN is wrong. But it could also be the other way around. Danish Expert (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but as the coordinating authority for the search, would numbers from the AMSA briefings be as close to the 'horse's mouth' as you could get, if/when you need to quote them? Some of these are already cited for other references, but they're issued at least twice-daily, usually morning and evening, with the numbers of ships/aircraft taking part included for each day's search, thus available for any given date and – for the aircraft at least – noting the type plus the nations they're from. For vessels, there are numbers but not necessarily their nations. Other info/updates are included if applicable, for example the first of the 30th (No. 28) indicated that ADV Ocean Shield (fitted with the US pinger locator) was departing Perth for the search area later the same day, but by the last (No. 30) this had changed to 31st instead. When required there are additional briefings, with three or four issued on some dates. FelisTeeCee (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Before we get obsessed with chasing this information, I'd like us to ask ourselves a question on how we see this strategically. I mean, do we want to do as we have already done and create a list of every single asset type, by nation, or should be content ourselves with generalised global figures and assets, plus simply naming the nations that are participating? I'm a little uncomfortable with the already mammoth list that exists, with editors from all over keen to update it at a whim. Because we're unlikely ever to be completely exhaustive with this information nor would we want to be, my personal preference would be to keep the information macroscopic and focussed on (maybe) two key elements: 1/Asset: type and number – whether maritime or airborne 2/Country. I also believe we do not need that information in the level of detail that we can create a grid (i.e. not class or asset by country) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The global number of planes & ships employed in the search areas are of great interest. Perhaps not on a daily basis mapped by a table, but at least a few text lines about "search capacity" in the chapter about international collaboration, would be great, in order to map the build-up phase of the search capacity, until it reaches a more or less stable/constant size. One interesting fact, is that over 40 airplanes and 40 ships were employed to search the South China Sea + Mallacca Strait + Andaman Sea on 15/16 March. However, when the search area shifted to the current more remote area in the South Indian Ocean, this figure notably diminished due to financial costs (and partly due to the fact that it takes many days for global ships to travel the long distance to Australia). The search area became larger, but yet the number of employed searching airplanes and ships dropped significantly. On 18 March we only had 1 airplane and 1 merchant ship from Norway looking out for debris in the South Indian Ocean. As of 30 March we had 10 airplanes and 8 ships, which indicates the search effort now was 10 times as intensive on 30 March compared to 18 March, although it was still (despite of a larger search area) only 25% as intensive compared to when the Malaysian neighbor waters were searched.
 * At the moment, I only prefer text lines to map how the "search capacity" has developed, but propose that we create a summarizing Wikitable to map all sorts of country-specific search+investigation collaborations throughout the entire affair. Except from providing satellite assistance, many countries (incl. Thailand+India) are no longer directly engaged in the search/investigation activities. If we have a country-specific collaboration table the readers can obtain a quick overview of who helped with what - during the different phases of the search and investigation. Danish Expert (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Danish Expert, that's very pertinent information, I think. Is there any information on how ADV Ocean Shield will be deployed? Presumably some kind of positive debris identifaction will be needed before it knows where to start looking? The pattern of coean curents over the past three weeks may also need to be estimated, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK this is the first search for an international airliner which has shifted from the northern hemisphere to the southern, from a region of archipelagos and brown-water and green-water navies (albeit with some blue-water capabilities) to one of the most remote oceanic regions of the planet which even blue-water navies seldom traverse, so we now have green-water navies with some blue-water capabilities and even some primary blue-water assets such as the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) in play. So AMSA should be our primary source, and we should definitely be strategic about the timeline in the main article, but I think that eventually the whole megillah of the international search shall eventually find its home in its own article. kencf0618 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ocean Shield this evening set its course from the Perth harbor towards the search area, which it is forecasted to reach on 3 April. You are right that airplane debris findings are needed with exact positions being mapped, and then the debris findings needs to be tracked backwards according to their original positions based on measurements of the sea current. All with a purpose of calculating a smaller search area for the ping-searching ship to sail through. The ping-searching ship only has the capacity of searching 50 mi2 per day, which for the current size of the search area mean it would need 2460 days to search through the entire seabed area. It looks like mission impossible, as we know the black box will stop transmitting its pings around 7 April (only giving it four days of search). I have just added a short line about it, in the WP article. Danish Expert (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I guess we should consistently refer to that vessel by name or as the Towed pinger locator? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, it will get a whole four days of searching before the ULB batteries run out. No way round that is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
Are the current editors satisfied with how the talk page is being archived? The archiver checks once a day around 02:00 UTC. At present it's archiving all talk page sections that have not had any new material added in the past 24 hours. Now that the traffic is dropping we can tweak a couple of things. 1) We can increase the 24-hour cutoff. We don't have to use 24-hour increments though keep in mind the archiver only checks once a day. 2) At present the minthreadsleft parameter is 3. This means the archiver will always leave at least three threads on the page, regardless of how old they are. We can increase this value to 5, 10 or 15. The archiver will then take the oldest sections until there are minthreadsleft left. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. The parameters were set severely because the talk page was out of control at first, but more typical parameters can now be safely restored.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree too. How about 5 days and 5 threads left? AHeneen (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to 3 days, 5 threads. If/when the plane is found there will be another flurry of talk. Five days will be just too long to read. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Section must be corrected: Analysis of satellite communication
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014planemissing/2014-03/28/content_17387661.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I am not sure what you suggest we should change? My initial feeling is, that the article mostly is a criticism of how the Malaysian PM and authorities chose to communicate the facts towards the press and passenger families. No scientific experts at Inmarsat question the accuracy of the data, which show that Flight 370 "beyond any reasonable doubt" ended its journey at some point near the Southern part of the "Southern Arc circle". I think the Inmarsat employee speaking out in the article, just highlights that Inmarsat only worked as a data provider towards the Malaysian authorities, who then based on that made up their conclusions. CNN recently broadcasted an interview with an Inmarsat expert, who presented how their calculations had been made, which I have repeated by the bullet points below:
 * Its important to stress, that for each automatic ping signal they first on 15 March drawed a possible arc-route (based on time-lag between the "transmitted ask" and "received answer") going both northern and south relative to the satellites position. By doing that they had mapped 7 definitive arcs -on which the plane with 100% certainty was located at respectively 2:11, 3:11, 4:11, 5:11, 6:11, 7:11, 8:11.
 * By also checking the "frequency lag" of the received signal (comparing it with the expected doppler effect; a phenomenon experienced by most people in form of "the sound of an ambulance sounding different when it approaches you - compared to when it passes you and drives in a direction away from you"), Inmarsat could conclude on 24 March "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the plane definitely had travelled at a Southern route compared to the satellite.
 * By throwing in the assumption of a "specific average air speed" they could furthermore finally draw the line between the 7 arcs on which the plane had travelled, so that a straight line could be drawed fitting with the information when it was supposed to cross the 7-arc lines. This straight line first went from the West of Malaysia and ended approximately 3000 kilometer Southwest of Perth.
 * When Inmarsat on 27 March were informed the plane from the moment of losing its radar contact had less fuel on board, compared to what had been initially assumed (due to a burn of an extra amount of fuel during the first 1.5 hours of the planes radar mapped travel), then the line was slightly adjusted and shortened, leading to a shift of the search area going 680 miles up in a northeastern direction.
 * In regards of the latest adjustment of the search area being realized at the evening of 27 March (by effect from 28 March), the point here to keep in mind, is that nobody initially knew for how long time the airplane flew after 8:11 (only that it definitively had crashed on 9:15 because of no further ping signals being received). Given the amount of remaining fuel being revised by the investigators for the last southern route of the flight, it however seems more and more likely that this Boeing 777 captain is correct about his speculation that the last partial ping on 8:17 indeed could be because that the plane at this point of time ran out of fuel and became a glider - causing the planes APU to be switched on. When combining the "partial ping" story with the "revised estimates of remaining fuel", these two stories now actually fits together. So more and more points to the conclusion, that the investigators are now finally indeed searching the correct crash site for the plane. Danish Expert (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Chinese government is very critical of the response and investigation by Malaysia. I believe the comments made by the Inmarsat employee are being taken out of context. By international treaty, aircraft accidents are investigated by the nation of the carrier and where the accident occurred. They will work with investigative teams from other nations when necessary. Inmarsat has information relevant to the investigation (record of satellite 'pings') and has worked with the UK's AAIB to analyze that data. However, they are not officially responsible for the investigation...the Malaysian government is...so all they may do with their analysis is provide it to the Malaysian investigators. Inmarsat/AAIB only have one piece of the puzzle, not access to all the information relevant to MH370. So in Inmarsat/AAIB's perspective, they don't have enough information to make definitive statements about M370, but in the Malaysian investigators' perspective, the only reliable information available is that info from Inmarsat/AAIB and the little other evidence they have supports the analysis by Inmarsat/AAIB and they can publicly state that the Southern Indian Ocean is where the MH370 ended. AHeneen (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-03/29/content_17388757.htm

"Jonathan Sinnatt, a spokesperson for Inmarsat, said the Malaysian government may have drawn its own conclusions about MH370 having ended in the southern Indian Ocean based on Inmarsat data and other information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. This is however still a non story, and does not put any doubt into the conclusion that Flight 370 ended its days in the Southern part of the Indian Ocean. Inmarsat provided data about the ping whereabouts, but had to rely on Malaysian authorities informing them correctly about the assumed air height of the plane and amount of remaining fuel when the plane was tracked at its last known position West of Malaysia. The only real complaint I have heard of so far, was that Inmarsat did not immediately receive the revised estimations for remaining fuel, which on 28 March led to the search area being moved 680 miles upwards. According to the Wall Street journal, the area could have been shifted already 4 days earlier on 24 March, in case Inmarsat had been presented to the revised fuel estimates immediately. My own personal speculation about this matter is, that the investigation team also at the same point of time realized, that the plane indeed ran out of fuel already at the exact time when it transmitted its last partial ping on 8:19, a theory earlier being launched by this Boeing 777 captain and which currently fits with the revised data of remaining fuel. Danish Expert (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Adjectives vs nouns as headings
The section I renamed "Loss presumption" keeps getting changed to "Assumed lost" or somesuch adjectival construction. It was changed based on WP:NOUN, and because it is a very widely adopted convention.

For me, it makes sense to use nouns even though WP:NOUN is not specifically targeted at headings. Many of its provisions are very specific to article titles because they have a more specific problematic, like uniqueness and recognisability. Although it may sound a little weird to say "Loss presumption", there are few ways of writing that. I can live with another similar rendering that is a noun. It certainly seems even weirder to me to say "Assumed lost". Think about it: Correction vs Correct; Disappearance vs Disappeared; Death vs Dead; Education vs Educate; Fear vs Frightening; Illness vs Ill; Prefer vs Preference... I'd like any challenger of that notion to survey say 20 to 30 articles and report back the percentage of adjectives as headings vs nouns as headings. I'm prepared to wager that it will be less than 5% --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what about "Assumed loss"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable compromise, in light of the discussion on "presume" vs "assume" above. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 13:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yep. Why didn't I think of changing just one letter? Fits the bill as far as I'm concerned, just like "Presumption of loss" (currently in use). --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the heading to Assumed lost - a direct quote from the Malaysian authorities announcements quoted in the section. It may not be strictly grammatically or stylistically correct, but it does encapsulate the content of the section. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoax
Should we include a sentence in the beginning of the article that this is not a hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.6.64 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So that all fake theories in the media do not portray this sad and serious situation as a joke or hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.6.64 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We have nothing to do with the media and what they do. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the hoax theory becomes one of the mainstream lines of investigation then I could see adding it to the article. At present it's one of the WP:FRINGE theories. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 18:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Grammar on lead sentence
...was a scheduled international passenger flight from Kuala Lumpur International Airport flight paths routes to Beijing Capital International Airport, a distance of 4,399 kilometres (2,733 mi).
 * I think there is a verb or something missing, as this sentence does not make sense (I underlined the part.) I'm not sure that the missing word is "with", but could someone help with this? Thanks. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've attempted to fix it, any additional help is always appreciated! Funandtrvl (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Presume vis-à-vis assume
This may be a nicety, but an assumption is a professed hypothesis, whereas an presumption is what you take to actually be the case. The Malaysia Airlines SMS uses "assume," so we arguably have a conflict between the nuances of the words and the cited source. We've been back and forth on this a few times in the article already, so I'd like a consensus. kencf0618 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but of all the things to argue about people are arguing over this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no deadline so I don't think there is any tradeoff in discussing even minor issues. As for the wording, it does seem like "assume" is the better word to use, at least according to the dictionary definition. – <font color="SlateBlue">FenixFeather <font color="SlateBlue">(talk)<font color="SlateBlue">(Contribs) 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the situation. If it's a working theory but open to be changed via more testing / data coming in, it's an assumption.  If it's a executive decision because we won't get more data, it's a presumption.Marked (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good point. It's OODA loop in regards to any executive decision.kencf0618 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Significant recent changes to the article

 * The paragraph dealing with supposed cellphone ringing reported by relatives has never sat well in the article, IMHO. And now the Conspiracy theories article has been kept and the phantom phone theory is mentioned, I removed it from the article.
 * I also moved the paragraph about the delay in assuming loss from the time data was provided. I'm a little unsure about its new position as I was about its previous one, so I'd welcome comments or even a revert if the assembled editors don't think it works. Some judicious copyediting might just do the trick. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)