Talk:Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Unreferenced material
When the article was split from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the editor who performed the split appears to have removed references from this content that resulted in an error (ie. there was a named reference in the copied text, but the full reference remained in the original article, causing a bold error message in the "References" section). This some of this text unreferenced. I've added references to content in the "Satellite communications and radar" and "International involvement" sections of this article, which were left mostly unreferenced (the latter had no inline citations). However, other sections of this article, from before the October 2014 split, may contain content where the appropriate reference was removed.

I'm just leaving a note behind for future editors of this article who come across unreferenced material in this article to please check the version of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 just prior to the split to see if it did have a reference. The "edit" link doesn't appear next to section headers in the old version of the article, so you will need to click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, find the reference, copy and paste it to the appropriate location in this article. Many references are just named references, with the full citation in the "References" section of that article. For example, you may find  or  in the prose, while the full citation is in the references section. Just add the named reference to this article and save, then check the "References" section of this article to see if an error ("Cite error: The named reference EXAMPLE was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." in big, bold, red letters) is present. If so, the easy fix is to 1) copy the name of the reference, 2) go back to old revision of the MH370 article (in edit view), and 3) use your browser's search/find function (in most browsers, Control+F) to find the full citation and copy it to the end of the "References" section in this article, before the final two brackets }} . If you need any help, just leave a message here or on my talk page. AHeneen (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate content
The following content has been removed because it is not accurate. While the references are reliable and it appears that the reports were accurate, these vessels never joined the search for some reason.


 * Also contracted for the Malaysian government's effort, Boustead Heavy Industries and iXBlue Australia will supply a remotely operated vehicle that can be used to identify any positive leads detected by the towed sonar vehicles, which will be deployed aboard the MV John Lethbridge.


 * Malaysia will contribute four vessels to the effort, including the naval survey ship KD Mutiara and naval vessel Bunga Mas, and the GO Phoenix.

--AHeneen (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Assets
I assume the following list of assets was removed just because it was long, not inaccurate? If so, they'd make a great stand-alone list: List of assets involved in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial search

 * Australia: air force Lockheed AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft.
 * Bangladesh: navy frigates BNS Bangabandhu and BNS Umar Farooq; two navy Dornier Do 228 maritime patrol aircraft.
 * Brunei: Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel.
 * Canada: RCAF CP-140 Auroras that were in Australia training with Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion crews were dispatched for an amount of time to search for the aircraft.
 * China: amphibious transport docks Kunlun Shan and Jinggang Shan, helicopters, medical personnel, divers and marines, life-saving and underwater detection equipment; Type 052C destroyer, coast guard and rescue vessels, divers and salvagers. Retasked military satellites.
 * India: surface and airborne assets from the Andaman and Nicobar Command: navy ships INS Saryu, INS Kesari and INS Kumbhil; coast guard vessels ICGS Kanaklata Baruah, ICGS Bhikaji Cama and ICGS Sagar; navy Boeing P-8I Neptune, Dornier Do 228 and Tupolev Tu-142 maritime surveillance aircraft; air force Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules and Mil Mi-17. Rukmini naval satellite. With the widening of the search area towards the Indian mainland, additional assets from the Eastern Naval Command will be deployed.
 * Indonesia: corvette and rapid patrol vessels; PC-40-type fast patrol vessels; IPTN NC-212 maritime patrol aircraft.
 * Japan: P-3C Orion, C-130 Hercules aircraft and a disaster relief team comprising Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, coast guard and International Cooperation Agency officials.
 * Malaysia: CASA/IPTN CN-235, Beechcraft B200T King Air, Lockheed C-130 Hercules and Bombardier Global Express fixed-wing aircraft; AgustaWestland AW109 and Eurocopter EC725 helicopters. Vessels from the navy and Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency. Co-ordination centre at the National Disaster Control Centre (NDCC) in Pulau Meranti, Cyberjaya.
 * New Zealand: air force Lockheed P-3K2 Orion maritime patrol aircraft.
 * Philippines: navy ships BRP Gregorio del Pilar, BRP Emilio Jacinto and BRP Apolinario Mabini; an air force Fokker F27 and a navy Britten-Norman Defender aircraft; and a navy AgustaWestland AW109 Power helicopter. A Hamilton-class cutter vessel and a C-130 Hercules placed on standby.
 * Singapore: air force C-130 Hercules; navy Formidable-class frigate with one Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk helicopter; and a submarine rescue ship with divers; Victory-class corvette; an air force Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft from 14 March.
 * South Korea: navy P-3C Orion and air force C-130H Hercules aircraft.
 * Taiwan: air force C-130 Hercules, the frigate ROCS Tian Dan, and coast guard vessels.
 * Thailand: Dornier Do 228, AgustaWestland Super Lynx helicopter and patrol ship HTMS Pattani. Other ships on standby.
 * United States: navy Lockheed P-3 Orion and Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft; navy ships USS Kidd (DDG-100) and USS Pinckney (DDG-91) with Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters; a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) team.
 * Vietnam: Antonov An-26, CASA C-212 Aviocar, de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, Mil Mi-171, and ships from the navy, coast guard, fisheries control and Maritime Search & Rescue Coordination Centre.

Surface search assets (17 March – 28 April)
Between 17 March and 28 April, military aircraft from eight countries carried out 345 search sorties, for a total of over 2,998 hours of flight time. Aircraft involved in the visual search included:
 * Royal Australian Air Force (8 aircraft): 4 Lockheed AP-3C Orion, 2 E-7A Wedgetail, 1 KA-350 King Air, and 1 C-130J Hercules aircraft
 * Royal Malaysian Air Force (3 aircraft): 3 C-130H Hercules aircraft
 * Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (China; 2 aircraft): 2 Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft
 * United States Navy (2 aircraft): 2 P-8A Poseidon aircraft
 * Japan (2 aircraft):
 * Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force: 2 P-3C Orion aircraft
 * Japanese Coast Guard: 1 Gulfstream V
 * South Korea (2 aircraft):
 * Republic of Korea Navy: 1 P-3C Orion aircraft
 * Republic of Korea Air Force: 1 C-130H Hercules aircraft
 * Royal New Zealand Air Force (1 aircraft): 1 P-3K2 Orion aircraft

Ships:
 * China (9 vessels)
 * Peoples Liberation Army Navy: the destroyer Haikou; two amphibious landing docks Kunlun Shan & Jinggang Shan; the replenishment ship Qiandaohu;
 * China Coast Guard: cutter Haixun 01
 * Other: the icebreaker MV Xue Long; the rescue vessels Donghaijiu 101, Nanhaijiu 101, & Beihaijiu 115
 * Royal Australian Navy (5 vessels): two frigates HMAS Toowoomba & HMAS Perth; the offshore support vessel ADV Ocean Shield; the replenishment ship HMAS Success; and the motor vessel Seahorse Standard'' (privately-owned, operated under contract for RAN).
 * Royal Malaysian Navy (2 vessels): the frigate KD Lekiu and the replenishment ship TLDM Bunga Mas Enam
 * Royal Navy (UK; 2 vessels): the survey vessel HMS Echo and the submarine HMS Tireless
 * United States Navy (1 vessel): the replenishment ship USNS Cesar Chavez

Orphaned references in Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Interim report-March 2015": From Analysis of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 satellite communications:  From Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370:  From Malaysia Airlines Flight 370:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * AHeneen (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Debris search on the east coast of Africa
Shouldn't a the possible debris section be a debris search section for the search in the zone off the coast of eastern Africa? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any formal search zone off Réunion. They are beach combing, of course. kencf0618 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be changed if a significant search effort is made around Réunion. However, most media report that the search in the area is just beach combing. AHeneen (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Underwater locator beacons
If the plane went down in the first week of March, knowing the battery life of the underwater locator beacons, why did it take so long to mount a search. Was this a case of gross incompetence? There is nothing in the article to explain that failure. We learn that there was possible detection in the first 2 weeks of April when the batteries were at the end of there useful life???? It seems to have been a very indolent and bungled effort from the start. Given that the locator beacons were crucial to finding the wreckage, and they needed to rapidly determine the best area to search, there should have been some sense of urgency. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.165.210 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are right...
 * Hmmm...
 * Closure could have been achieved.
 * 😢 Bucky winter soldier (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141103030321/http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/0260ea4c3e85456b80715585ba3c7b5b/Article_2014-03-13-Malaysia-Plane/id-5e2a35290e794992b6a975e969348ddd to http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/0260ea4c3e85456b80715585ba3c7b5b/Article_2014-03-13-Malaysia-Plane/id-5e2a35290e794992b6a975e969348ddd
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140312152356/http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-rmaf-chief-denies-military-radar-report-1.509129 to http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-rmaf-chief-denies-military-radar-report-1.509129
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140310030407/http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-malaysia-welcomes-sar-assistance-from-other-countries-1.504618 to http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-malaysia-welcomes-sar-assistance-from-other-countries-1.504618
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150206023025/http://www.disasterscharter.org/home to http://www.disasterscharter.org/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reports section/list
I have added a "Reports" section plus duplicated those reports listed in the parent Flight 370 article which relate to the search operation, as I felt this information was highly relevant to this article. If there is a better way to do this, or if others disagree, pls advise. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 05:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why no 2017 updates, info, etc.?
Am curious as to why there are no updates for 2017.

At "The Week" website (www.the week.co.uk), there have been three articles posted so far this year --- January 3, January 6, and January 10 --- of which the last one talks about one of the main search vessels going rapidly to a new search area.

Might want to check this out and see if the info there can be used to update this entry. 68.231.71.119 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Image sizes
Right now, my user preference is "400px", and I like to keep it that way. If the size scale is changed, this would affect visual execution for those using "220px" and not signed-in at the moment. However, using the "400px" option, the images would be very big and may affect the readership, especially when the text is pushed so much. The images might need some shrinking. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly 'located'?
"Explosive new report virtually pinpoints location of missing flight MH370" here www.news.com.au AUGUST 16, 2017 @ 4:08PM.
 * "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has today released an explosive new report that effectively narrows the search zone for the missing plane down to an area half the size of Melbourne. The report places the most likely location of the aircraft “with unprecedented precision and certainty” at 35.6°S, 92.8°E — in between Western Australia and Madagascar."

Just FYI. 220  of  Borg 06:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140604033317/http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-lost-in-indian-ocean-font-credible-lead-moves-search-to-new-area-1.536483 to http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-lost-in-indian-ocean-font-credible-lead-moves-search-to-new-area-1.536483
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140405142726/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-04/05/c_133241023.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-04/05/c_133241023.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218104844/http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/ksd-maintenance/DarkSites.html to http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/ksd-maintenance/DarkSites.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

http://mh370-captio.net/
Has this source promoted by User:Kasos fr been used in the article, discussed, removed? Is it reliable? It shows a trajectory ending near Christmas Island... WikiHannibal (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This source result from a study made by French aeronatics specialists from Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France with Engineers from Inmarsat, who made a conference on the subject in Cannes in October 2017 : Le Détournement du vol MH370. Il is described in the French Wikipedia version. As they say in their web site CAPTIO : it's a Plausible version.--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, based on their profiles at mh370-captio.net, only Garot is a member of Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France, and I did not find anything about Inmarsat (but I may be wrong). So is this their "private" hypothesis? Based on "En fin 2017, Jean-Marc Garot, Michel Delarche et Jean-Luc Marchand publient un site web détaillant leurs hypothèses et permettant de suivre le navire de recherches et comportant en particulier un document de synthèse." from the French article, it seems it is, so the fact they themselves call it "plausible" is irrelevant. We would need secondary sources commenting on their hypothesis - and I would welcome such addition. On the other hand, if we include their theory, we would need to include other unofficial theories because there are probably other experts (and "experts") out there. --WikiHannibal (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to fully read the 68 pages document they include in their web site : A plausible trajectory for MH370--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the 68 pages, albeit quickly, and can confirm that a lot of work has gone into the document, especially with regard to matching the signals received from Inmarsat with possible manoeuvres of the aircraft in all stages of this proposed flight path. My overall impression however, FWIW, is that the final path of the aircraft that is proposed in the document is principally determined by the available evidence (eg Inmarsat), with logical explanations for this path coming a distinct second.


 * A few features of the Plausible Trajectory theory which struck me as very odd included:
 * The proposed path is within radar coverage (usually military) in several places, but no evidence of radar returns from the aircraft in these areas seem to exist;
 * The theory appears to presume that malicious person(s) stowed away in the aircraft's electronics bay, disabled the aircraft from there and then invaded the cockpit, however there does not appear to be any missing person(s) on the record who may be responsible for this;
 * The proposal has the aircraft flying to a Christmas Island destination, however the path doesn't go direct to the island but deviates substantially to the south-east on approach. This incurs around 150km of extra distance to land, right when the B777 was theoretically extremely low on fuel;
 * When the B777 does theoretically lose both engines due to fuel exhaustion approx 100kM from Christmas Island, the aircraft turns directly away from its destination and glides for another ~ 50kM before ditching 150kM from land;
 * The proposed flight path requires many complex manoeuvres by the aircraft, involving numerous heading, altitude and power changes to get the aircraft to "hit" the satellite rendezvous while avoiding known flight paths, ATC reporting zones, radar coverage, etc. These must be undertaken all while having much of the aircraft's electronics and navigation systems disabled. It does not seem possible for unsophisticated aviators or other malicious person(s) to perform these functions as proposed, implying a very high degree of training and familiarity with the B777 would have been needed.


 * Regarding the reliability of the information, my own opinion is that it shouldn't be classed as a "conspiracy theory" but is rather an alternative proposal to what may have happened, albeit not one strongly supported by logic. ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 04:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * C'est pourquoi je viens de l'ajouter dans l'article sur les théories possibles, avec zone de crash possible CAPTIO zone. Et aujourd'hui, j'ai fait un commentaire sur les recherches actuelles disant que j'espérais (et l'équipe qui a fait cette étude) que ces recherches iront au moins jusque là cette année !--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding to the unofficial disappearance theories is OK. However, I removed (again) the comment about "hope" as it is uclear whose hope it is. (Seems it is your hope, and it is quite inappropriate for a wikipedia editor to add such comment.) BTW a wikilink is not a reference, as your edit summary suggest you believe. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ocean Infinity search - weekly updates
In the section on the Weekly Updates, please refer to the guidance on Citing_sources. I can see this section becoming unwieldy after many weeks of progress updates, can it be summarised please? John a s (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is that while the Ocean Infinity search is underway, it helps followers of the topic to have the list of updates shown. Once the search concludes (or moves to another phase), which is likely to be fairly soon, given the limited search area, the weekly updates can be condensed into a summary of what was done & how it turned out. ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 02:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with GEEKSTREET. In a month we can perhaps present the same data in a tabular form (esp. if nothing is found), and much of the repetition will be removed. Not sure how Citing_sources helps in this case (pages of one book vs multiple (paginated) documents with their own urls) but if there is a way how to condense the references, I have nothing abut that. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: as the search moves into its final month, the summary will be provided soon. Meanwhile, slightly off-topic, recent info can be found here: https://twitter.com/LabratSR. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ocean Infinity search area
Hi, ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯,it seems you created the map of the new search area used in this article (see above) by adding the yellow circle to an existing map from 2014. Where did you find the coordinates? Can it be sourced? But the more important thing is, as Ocean Infinity search has almost covered the two legs of site 1, which was the most probable location, could you please somehow merge the two maps - the 2014 map and the map(s) used in Ocean Infinity reports? "Broken Ridge" can be used as reference but there are also more precise maps of the original search area in the "The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part III" I think your map with the circle is now misleading, as it probably indicates only where the new search begun but not the whole search area. Thank you, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC) WikiHannibal (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi WikiHannibal I will take a look at it & see what my limited skills can achieve.
 * I did send a request some time back to Ocean Infinity (via their Contact Us page) for any maps or pix that could be put up on WP to assist readers in following what they are doing, but sadly, no response. ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 00:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, the new updates have some more precise maps, peraps you could use them as reference/guide, and replace the yellow circle in your map (which is based on the existing map from 2014) with a larger geometrical shape covering more or less the area searched in 2018? WikiHannibal (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS)

 * International Quiet Ocean Experiment says
 * https://www.iqoe.org/sites/default/files/files/IMOS_Acoustics-21Feb2018.pdf
 * "Currently we believe this signal was generated by a small earthquake and was not related

to the loss of MH370 although no matching earth tremor signals have yet been identified on the earthquake seismic network. References are Duncan et al. (2014 a & b)."
 * Australian Transport Safety Bureau says
 * The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift
 * https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772119/mh370_ocean_driftv29.pdf
 * The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift–Part II
 * https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772655/mh370_ocean_driftii_final.pdf
 * The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part III
 * https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773371/mh370_csiro-ocean-drift-iiil.pdf
 * The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part IV
 * https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773567/mh370_ocean_driftiv_oct2017.pdf
 * The Operational Search for MH370
 * https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for-mh370_final_3oct2017.pdf
 * The Search for MH370 (news, maps, videos, images, reports, links)
 * https://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370/

69.181.23.220 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Did the plane crash in a Cambodian jungle?
Like I said here, Ian Wilson, a British tech expert, claimed to have spotted the aircraft's remains in Cambodia, using images from Google Maps which were dated to 2018. The images show a what appears to be a plane about 70 m (similar to the MH370's official measurement of 63.7 m), with a gap between the tail and the body, indicating where the plane broke up upon crash-landing in a thick, high-altitude jungle. In addition, the Cambodian jungle is roughly near where air traffic controllers lost contact with the aircraft, on the route from Kuala Lumpur to China. Leo1pard (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

But the flaperon and other parts ended up near africa! Thats a long hike from the mountain.--Apemonkey1 (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, is the Google map image still there, with the plane remains visible? Also is it possible that is another plane that went down in that area, and not 370? Bucky winter soldier (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Turned off satellite tracking for 3 days no explanation?
"Seabed Constructor, began the search on 22 January, but on Thursday, after only 10 days, it turned off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) with no explanation. Three days later, it reappeared outside the search area and on its way to a scheduled refuelling stop at the Australian port of Fremantle. Neither the Malaysian government nor Ocean Infinity has explained the outage, or where the ship travelled in those three days."

So there never has been any offical reason as to why it was turn off? This is very interesting!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Did the ship not want anyone knowing what they were doing during that time? Suspicious. Of course it is possible that they weren't up to something, but in this case I am inclined towards suspicion against odd occurrences Bucky winter soldier (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Captains flight on simulator was the same as the aircrafts!
Six weeks before the aircraft’s disappearance, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah used his home simulator to fly a route that was initially similar to part of the route flown by MH370 up the Strait of Malacca, with a left-hand turn and track into the southern Indian Ocean, the ATSB said in its report.

This seems more than a coincidence!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes it does...🤔 Bucky winter soldier (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

clean up the paragraphs on hydrophones
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 115.166.13.157 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)