Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

ABC News confirms Wall St Journal story?

I think editors are being too dismissive of the WSJ story. Ohconfucius has removed any reference to it in from the lede and someone has apparently added a "disputed" tag to the WSJ story citation name. Based on what? The denial of Malaysian officials? The same officials who have repeatedly struggled to get their story straight? Look at what ABC News says: "The official said there were indications that the plane flew four or five hours after disappearing from radar and that they believe it went into the water." Looks like independent confirmation of the main point of the WSJ story if you ask me. Who is this "official" that ABC heard from? "[A] senior Pentagon official [who talked to] ABC News." This is not ABC just parroting the WSJ story, it's ABC working its own U.S. government contacts. The WSJ might have gotten played by a bad source, sure. But BOTH ABC AND WSJ played? Highly unlikely.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Reuters headline is "Malaysia says no evidence missing plane flew hours after losing contact" but the Malaysian official does not necessarily say exactly this. As Reuters notes, "the Wall Street Journal said that U.S. aviation investigators and national security officials believed the Boeing 777 flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from its Rolls-Royce Trent engines as part of a standard monitoring program." What the Malaysian clearly denies is the "based on" part. The clause prior to "based on" is not necessarily fully disputed by anyone. It could be that the U.S. detected the plane with undisclosed military assets and the ACARS data (which was snapped up and decoded by the NSA without any RR involvement?) was just element of the mix, an element that was mentioned to the WSJ despite it possibly not being absolutely confirmed because it was less sensitive to disclose than the rest of the evidence that the U.S. is sitting on.
Another way to put this would be to suggest that the U.S. with its surveillance capacities knows far more than the Malaysians but for national security/diplomatic relations reasons has decided to not both directly reveal how the U.S. knows what it knows and embarrass the Malaysians by going public with the claim they are barking up the wrong tree in the Gulf of Thailand/South China Sea. The U.S. is accordingly instead looking for back-channels to drop hints that its allies should look out towards the Indian Ocean. The idea is to convince the Malaysians to take their own initiative to move their search assets out there instead of just ordering them out there (which would undermine the notion the Malaysians are in charge of the search), which would surely require having to own up on the record to just why the U.S. believes the plane got way out there.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Too funny. You mean if one tries to tell you about a mistake you're making and doesn't want to embarrass you in front of the public is thru the press? Seriously? Beats my logic as I always thought it's the other way around :) TMCk (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
.. no mention of snow crystals in the pitots yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the WaPo story, TMCk, you find "Adding to the confusion, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Pool, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Defense Department has no reason to believe that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean. He said U.S. Navy assets participating in the search are being guided by the Malaysian government’s investigation. He said he did not know what new information Carney was referring to." This particular guy is clearly spinning hard to say that Malaysia is running the show here. And you know he's spinning because he 1) contradicts the OTHER officials who told WaPo they know exactly what Carney was referring to ("Obama administration officials later said the new information was that the plane’s engines remained running for approximately four hours") and 2) contradicts the OTHER Pentagon official who told ABC "We have an indication the plane went down in the Indian Ocean." How do you get these contradictions? Because they are hewing to the public relations line to differing degrees and the PR line the "we Americans don't know nuthin, we just follow Malaysian orders" non-back-channel guy (I say non-back-channel because he's a named, designated spokesman) is advancing is obvious.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You say "And you know he's spinning", but then cite evidence that only tells us that three different people had three different stories. That isn't evidence for spinning, it's evidence three different people reported three different things for unknown reasons. Saying he's spinning is speculation, there could be institutional confusion, factions with different theories, and so on. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We may have a resolution of the apparent conflict between sources here: "...communications satellites picked up faint electronic pulses from Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 after it went missing... the signals gave no indication about where the stray jet was heading nor its technical condition... The "pings" equated to an indication that the aircraft’s maintenance troubleshooting systems were ready to communicate with satellites if needed, but no links were opened because Malaysia Airlines and others had not subscribed to the full troubleshooting service..." If you've got five hours of these "pings" the plane must have been in the air for five hours since if the plane had crashed the "systems [would not be] ready to communicate with satellites". But it could at the same time be true that Roll Royce and the airline received no more reports because either the airline had not subscribed to receive reports after the plane had reached cruising altitude or because whoever was controlling the aircraft turned off ACARS at about the same time the transponder was turned off. These "pings" were misreported as data reports from an online ACARS when they should more precisely be described as queries of whether the ACARS system simply exists as opposed to online and reporting.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal has now issued a correction essentially confirming this analysis:
Corrections & Amplifications
U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane’s satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems, according to people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane’s Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
WSJ story writer Andy Pasztor has given a radio interview to WBUR-FM Boston that explains the above and notes the possibility the aircraft landed somewhere.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bdell555: I removed the paragraph in the lead on the same basis I wanted to remove the previous mention of the flotsam picked up by the Chinese satellite which you apparently supported. It's just another theory that had primacy at the time but has since been supplanted by others. I've said before and I'll state again that I feel that the lead is not the place for breaking news. I'm not dismissive of anything but I'm not supportive of the latest hot theory approach. It's not up to us but those on the ground to decide what's likely and what's unlikely, but even they seem to be running around like headless chickens. If you ask me, what's becoming more likely is alien abduction. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The Chinese satellite thing was dubious from square one. Some obscure Chinese government-affiliated entity threw those photos up on their website. Inexplicably poor quality images for a satellite. Inconsistent with the fact SAR had already been over the area and hadn't found anything. The idea that the plane headed out over the Indian Ocean, however, is not "just another theory." The NTSB has confirmed the radar track showing the plane passed over the peninsula heading west. And competing news agencies have been scrambling over one other to get the story straight. The WSJ has already gone through a correction round that has provided good reason to believe what we have here is solid. If this is going to to be "supplanted by others" how is that going to happen? It's one thing to expose some guy or small group in the Chinese bureaucracy going rogue and to expose a whole string of U.S. government sources right on up to the White House Press Secretary has having bought into something bogus. Western media can dig into the backstory here unlike those Chinese satellite photos. Everybody's already had their crack at debunking this and what we're left with is most media accepting it. If all we had was a single hot off the press story from WSJ, it'd be debatable, but when we now have CBS, ABC, and the Washington Post also cited in the paragraph at issue, I say we're doing our job, which is to follow the sources when the sources check out. I'll add that I get the impression U.S. officials are pretty confident and it's the media/media's OTHER sources, not these government sources, who are running around like headless chickens. Which may well be fine with officials since it's their job simply to know, not to hand-hold the media.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"Latest hot theory" would not have been a sound reason for removal of the Chinese satellite stuff. Unreliable would have been a sound reason, consistent with policy, and indeed it was unreliable. If you are going to justify removal you need to explain here what makes this material dubious. What we wait for is reliability, not simply passage of time. This material meets the reliability threshold. You cannot run away from our responsibility as editors to test for reliability by saying it's not our job "to decide what's likely and what's unlikely."--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bdell555: That's the problem. Nothing is solid at this point, and we should not be indulging in the latest theories even if every party in the search agrees (because they are only working hypotheses), and here it's by no means obvious that they do all agree. As I said, likelihood has nothing to do with whether it, or whether it's "dubious" or not. The lead is not for posting lines of inquiry that someone support and banish all others that someone doesn't. We should leave the lead section free from any of this until something is definitive (eg positive identification of a piece of wreckage). If you keep pushing this, I'd be tempted to make a point and add all the other theories, including alien abduction.-- Ohc ¡digame! 00:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC) ;-)
If you think any of the WSJ, ABC, CBS, or Washington Post stories cited are "dubious" then explain here why you think so. Insisting that it's not "solid" is an opinion, not an argument. You want to add alien abduction? Go ahead, but it will be removed because it's dubious. You are positing a false equivalency here with your alien abduction theory. We've got three elements here: 1) attributed statement that "aircraft... remained capable of flying for another four hours after first disappearing from radar": this has not been disputed by Malaysian authorities or indeed anyone. 2) radar records show diversion to the west: again, not disputed, and does not comes from exclusively U.S. sources. What is the motivation to put this out there if baseless? 3) search extending to the Indian Ocean. This rightly indicates to the reader that the searching of the Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea hasn't produced anything yet. This paragraph also explains why there has been searching west of Malaysia, a question the reader would have top of mind.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to critique CNN as well since they are also on board with the general thesis here (albeit with what I believe to be less precision).--Brian Dell (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bdell555: What you are once again missing is that Wikipedia is not part of the news cycle, nor does it strive to be. Yes, it's a very dynamic situation and is indeed subject to change as more information comes to light. The lead is to summarise what's in the article, and what you want to include is just the most current and apparently what you and/or the collective American press think it's the most likely scenario. It may turn out to be definitive, but so far it's just a working hypothesis. Although the reasoning is sound, nothing is proven. And the main reason there's so much confusion is because there are numerous scenarii to be evaluated and explored – from the likely to the possible to the unlikely but probable to the improbable to the impossible – but nothing is proven. I haven't tried to remove these "dubious" assertions [you're putting words into my mouth] from the body, where they belong (because they are notable and are reliably sourced). Again, that's not what I'm arguing. It's not about the credibility of the opinions or the reliability of the sources, so of course I'm also not going to argue if Scenerio A is more likely than scenario B like you seem to want me to. It's a false argumentation.

I said that the information isn't solid in the sense it's not definitive, like the discovery of a piece of the wreckage would be, and so it's not right to include it in the lead. That's all. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"If you've got five hours of these "pings" the plane must have been in the air for five hours" - no, this doesn't tell us anything about whether the aircraft is in-air or not, if correct (note the if), it simply tells us that the Satcom system was active for five hours, not whether the aircraft was in-air or on-ground. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty silly to say Wiki is not part of the news cycle when you're sitting around trying to document an ongoing newsworthy event. If that were the case, articles like this wouldn't exist until after the news event was finished.172.5.26.19 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Not definitive" of what? That the plane never crashed? The material at issue is NOT claiming that. It's on the contrary suggesting that it is not definitive that it has crashed! Look, the material at issue is NOT claiming that ANYTHING has been proved. OK? Therefore your "not proven" complaint is irrelevant. At issue is whether the sourcing supports what is claimed. And whether it's notable. That's it. What's claimed here is supported by the sourcing, and there are other sources as well (the Associated Press is now reporting something similar). You still have yet to come up with anything to challenge the reliability of this. If your argument is that it is not NOTABLE enough for the lead, then state that explicitly and we can discuss that.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You're conflating the issue. Notability doesn't come into it. If the information wasn't notable, it shouldn't even be in the article. The crux is all about correctly summarising the state of affairs without giving any particular aspect undue weight. Right now, all we can say definitively is that "nobody knows" or so far "neither the passengers, the plane or any wreckage has been found". NOT that the plane didn't crash. So far, it can't be proven one way or another. I'm not asking for more proof that the plan has turned westwards over the What's been happening to the article is that even a "dubious from square one" story got put in the lead, and it continues to happen with your edits. I'm saying that NONE OF IT belongs if not definitive. We shouldn't privilege the latest working hypothesis or indeed any hypothesis (working or otherwise), or any particular speculation. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"NONE OF IT belongs" but you edited to add in the oil rig worker report? If this is "dubious from square one" then show us why, like we can show why for the Chinese satellite stuff. You removed the citation to CBS News without any argument at all as for why that material is not reliably sourced or not notable. Here's a suggested guideline for notability: does it change the behaviour of the search op? No? Then's maybe it's dubious and/or not notable. If it DOES change the behaviour of the search op it is presumptively being taken seriously, no? The emphasis of the search is shifting to the west and there are reasons for that. Whether that's "proven" enough for your taste or not, it's widely reported enough by reliable sources that we follow that. The situation here is that you are far more definitive and certain about the state of affairs than either I am or the article is. You say it is absolutely settled that we have absolutely nothing at all indicating that the aircraft may have gone over the Indian Ocean. It's as likely as alien abduction in your books. Well that is simply not true. We've got information and it should be presented the reader who can make his or her own assessment of the information.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Since you refused to see it removed, I was trying to put some of these hypotheses into perspective, and provide context. I didn't mention oil rigger's report, all I wrote was "there have been false lines of enquiry such as fireballs in the sky and floating debris". The floating debris story wasn't ignored, AFAICT. They sent assets and people to investigate, but it just came to nothing. Doesn't mean it should have been in the lead then and doesn't mean your US currently most likely scenario belongs there either. I'm not making any judgement as to the relative likelihoods, but theories have come and gone. I also didn't write that there it was an alien abduction, because that would have been patently false, but it is incontrovertible that the internet is viral with such claims. I was saying there are reports, leads, speculation, and frivolity, but made no attempt to speculate myself or on the behalf of WP. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"I was trying to put some of these hypotheses into perspective" by trying a present a bogus equivalency between them and by this dodgy means undermine the U.S. government-related reports you were unable or unwilling to undermine directly. You cite "theories abound" to three different sources, none of which support "theories abound" directly, because you reckon that collectively they support "theories abound." This is classic WP:SYNTH, and it is SYNTH that is being pursued in order to drag down the reliability of what U.S. officials and investigators have said by juxtaposition with alien abduction. You are quite sure the Vietnamese "sent assets and people to investigate" in active response to the claim as opposed to just saying that they'd already been there? Then why didn't the Vietnamese announce it like we like got an announcement today from the White House? If you want Wikipedia to insinuate that what U.S. officials and investigators have said is as bogus as what has emerged before THEN FIND A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT SAYS THAT instead of SYNTHing your way into insinuating this equivalency.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a false argument and unproductive discussion to imply that I'm synthesising an innuendo to discredit the Americans. It's nothing of the sort, as I've said many times before. There are lots of theories being advanced, some outlandish some not; whilst alien abduction isn't one that's being treated seriously, some are certainly being explored out of the glare of the media. The ones that are or have been dismissed are dealt with with only two words; the current theory receiving favour can arguably justify a couple of sentences. Again, I'm not saying the latest theory is right, or that it's pie in the sky. It's not the first theory and it may not be the last. However, the existence of theories (previous or otherwise) needs to be stated if we are to posit the latest. Let's not try to scoop the lead and turn this into a news article. I suggest we take out that whole paragraph and get some much needed peace and quiet in this already hectic article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, how much fuel was on board

So those so inclined can indulge in their OR exercises, can anyone show categorically how much fuel this aircraft had on board when it left KL? No working backwards from claims of how much it might have had when it disappeared, or x divided by y etc. What was the takeoff fuel load? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct your "OR exercise" elsewhere. WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN talk to me 01:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Get real and lighten up - you couldn't detect my tongue in cheek go at the original researchers. FACT. This article has a major flaw. It does not say how much fuel was on board, or how many hours the aircraft could have stayed aloft under normal flight conditions. Is that OK with you, or would you prefer we have as fully a comprehensive and informative article as is possible? Moriori (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"Can anyone find sources that state how much fuel was on board, or how many hours the aircraft could have stayed aloft under normal flight conditions?" Hope that helps you out. If you ask for OR (no matter how tongue in cheek), you're going to get OR. --NeilN talk to me 01:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You need to read up on OR. If Malaysia Airlines said somewhere the a/c was loaded with x gallons of fuel giving a max flight time of y, then it is not OR for us to include it in the article. It would improve this article which is why I mention it here on this talk page. Moriori (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
They're more likely to tell you it was loaded with z litres of fuel. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why you would think I would consider that OR seeing I was asking for sources stating that same thing. --NeilN talk to me 02:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That's what they're asking, they've just worded it a bit oddly. — Lfdder (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Fuel on aircraft is expressed by weight not volume, because a given weight of fuel can vary significantly by volume due to temperature change. It is easy to measure volume of fuel pumped aboard, but a formula taking into account the exact temperature of the fuel must be used to ascertain the precise weight - it is the weight, i.e. mass, that provides power. The pilot needs to know how many kg of fuel are available. Jet fuel volume can increase by nearly 1% for every 10 degree C temperature increase. This is highly relevant if you're pumping it at KL. Aircraft have gone down due to screwing up this calculation. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Boeing states the fuel capacity as 45,220 US gallons (171,170 L). This is about 310,000 lbs (140,000 kg) at 59°F (15°C). For KL-Beijing it was probably loaded at something like 70% capacity. You can't really say how many hours the plane could have remained aloft on that amount; the engines consume wildly different amounts of fuel at different speeds, and the altitude affects fuel use as well.Roches (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if 70% is an accurate figure for the fuel load _needed_ for a KL-Beijing flight, that doesn't allow for the possibility of the airline carrying more fuel than required for any of several reasons, fuel costs at Beijing, fuel quality at Beijing, contractual reasons, turn-around time, and so on. This isn't something we can hypothesize on given known industry practise can cause gross variation in fuel carried, we need the actual figures. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Even if exact fuel figures are out there, any projection we would make here based on such would be a non-expert kind of OR. Expert or not, unless a RS is giving range figures and in due weight, this discussion is not helping improve the article (w/o RSs') as nothing that comes out of it can and will be included. What is known is that the aircraft had enough fuel for reaching Beijing + some extra for maybe 1 (or 2 hours for the most) as backup. Changing route, if that is what really happened, would keep the plane flying for roughly the same time, but would much depend on the route, ceiling hight and speed. The OP got their answer already and since nothing of this thread is backed up by sources there is no sense in ongoing discussion in this kind of manner. Forum soap and OR has reached a dead end wiki-vise and should stop here. Open a new thread or subsection if you (and that means everybody) provides a RS for consideration.TMCk (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow!
I asked if anyone knew of referenced info which could improve the article. I did not say, and have not said, that we should make projections/guesses/supposition. I asked whether anyone could find sources stating how much fuel was on board, or how many hours the aircraft could have stayed aloft.
I am surprise that you would so brazenly post a ownership statement -- namely, "nothing that comes out of it (this discussion) can and will be include". If pertinent referenced material relevant to this article eventuates, it "can and will be included" despite your assumed ownership. Moriori (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Theories abound"

This is simply false. The China satellite stuff and the oil rig worker sighting have been dismissed. I'd add that these reports always were dismissed by every government. Name one government whose officials supported either of these stories, be it Malaysia, Vietnam, China, or the U.S. Fact is that even the Chinese government did not support the satellite photos story. If the equivalent of any of these countries' White House spokesman has has deemed either of these reports creditable "new information" please show us where.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of suppositions or theories has no place in the article. I've said it before and I'll say it once again for reiteration, wait until these possibilities become fact come via corroboration, then they can be included in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the inclusion of theories can be a part of the article if reported by reliable sources. Once they are debunked, that too can go in. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Theories abound" part has been replaced by "There have been a number of false leads" as a teaser in the lead section. Most of these are elaborated in the body. Brian is just arguing to keep his "plausible theory", the sentence which follows it, in the lead. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Not notable yet... Shaman says airplane captured by elves. But getting there...Malaysia government officially disclaims any connection to shaman.
Just hang on a moment... isn't that carpet levitating? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"Brian is just arguing to keep his 'plausible theory'" because I could not possibly just have a good faith desire to have reliable material get more attention than unreliable, is that it? Reuters has put its journalistic reputation on the line with a story titled "Radar data suggests missing Malaysia plane deliberately flown way off course - sources." As far Ohconfucius is concerned, this story is as bogus as a claim of alien abduction, Ohc having actually removed this radar report confirmation, then cited to CBS News, in order to make room in the lede for "alien abduction"! A refusal to separate the wheat from the chaff here is a basic refusal to do our job as editors.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"actually, the inclusion of theories can be a part of the article if reported by reliable sources"

Perhaps a WP:SPLIT seems suitable for all these theories? I mean, even CNN could joke in an article body about ridiculous theories with a one liner, is it really necessary to include a bunch of nonsensical theories in this article? I only see one right now, but I'm sure people could try and include more. Perhaps we split or be careful about what "theories" get included. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think: No Hurry. It will probably take a very few more days so that the real story would become clear. so no hurry, & I think all theories are theories till they would be one more accurate which then we call it a reality. Just No hurry, if there is any hurry it should be in searching for more clues. Hope Everything would become clear, soon. KhabarNegar Talk 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
But of course funny ones like the one mentioned here in this section of talk page, "the elves story" usually would not get into articles as a norm, so luckily there is no worry... KhabarNegar Talk 15:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I see, obviously like I said just be careful about what theories get inclusion in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

maybe if the crazy theories prove true you post the conspiracy theories right by then you (Wikipedia) would have no choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If a theory is proved true, it is no longer a theory, it is a fact. Known facts, there are no flying saucers with space aliens in them, there are unidentified flying objects that are more commonly misunderstood atmospheric phenomena or military experimental aircraft. The known fact at this time is that the aircraft is missing. Everything else lacks solid evidence, only reports of transponders being turned off and assorted times for when they were turned off, etc. We can write those into the article because the reports are in respected news sources, not because of some theory advanced by a blog, internet meme, Youtube video, etc. That said, we may want to consider waiting before editing in the latest and greatest report until it's confirmed in other media outlets from more than an anonymous "source", but an official statement. That would beat the hell out of edit, revert, modify, re-add, then mass deletion of erroneous reporting.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Known facts, there are no flying saucers with space aliens in them, Sorry to be pedantic (and well OT), but that is NOT a fact. Just because we have no proof that there ARE any, doesn't mean we have proof that there ARE NONE! It is an as yet unproven theory. ;) Lynbarn (talk)
Considering the many governments who studied UFO reports and found no credibility to such things, such theories must fall in the same land as miasma theory of disease. Now, if space aliens were to contact the news media and provide evidence, such as a press conference with imagery of their spacecraft, it would be an established fact. As regards this article, UFO abduction is a peer with the report of the aircraft being held by elves. The only known fact is, the aircraft is missing.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
well there's a few government reports that found "credibility to such things" too of course 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Lol, maybe one day we'll find a flying saucer with space aliens in it. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC) ShawntheGod (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

lol too ill wait for that day and look at your faces and see what its like to be ridiculed and i assure you that day is fast approaching, ufo debunkers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

before editing in the latest and greatest report until it's confirmed in other media outlets from more than an anonymous "source", but an official statement. That would beat the hell out of edit, revert, modify, re-add, then mass deletion of erroneous reporting-hello check out this[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/us/malaysia-airline-plane-theories/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring take two

Two days ago, I stated that the level of edit warring at this article was too high. In the last few hours, there has been another surge of edit warring. By my count, there are at least three major contributors to this article who are on the wrong side of WP:3RR at this point. (Not counting the relative newbie who has already been blocked for edit warring.) Loath as I am to use protection against a high profile article like this, that seems to be a likely outcome if people continue to edit war. Please use this talk page for discussion and resolve issue via consensus rather than reverting text back and forth. Dragons flight (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

i am watching this article like a hawk right now, 99% of it is completely stable... news is progressing about as fast as the edits are getting made. i think the 3rr threat can wait for a couple more days 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Arrogant clods who just want their own way have no intention of discussing anything on a talk page. Sometimes a forced 3RR block is a reasonable outcome for such "contributors". The matter has been handled, the newbie dispatched and editing goes on. No-one else who participated in the recent debacle has any reason to feel concerned at their actions. WWGB (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That post from 72.... is telling. REAL news ISN'T progressing very fast at all, Sensational nonsense is. We have no deadline. We don't have to post the latest unlikely crap as soon as it appears. No great kudos goes to the editor who is "first with the news". My advice. Wait. Always. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't have a deadline, we do have a responsibility to be concise and accurate. As fast breaking stories tend to be incorrect stories, we have a responsibility to *not* include them until the veracity of claims can be confirmed by reputable sources. Political leaders are cautious in their choice of wording, they are cautious in their claims, so it's not notable for a political leader to speak to the world press and neither confirm nor deny that which has been "supposed" by many. The only thing known for certain still is that the aircraft is missing and that essentially a large fleet is looking for it.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
the flood of RS reporting be damned 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A flood of reporting on what was reported by one source is not confirmation, it is reporting on reporting of what has quite frequently been aether. Our responsibility is not to be first to a deadline, but to be concise and accurate, if that means we're "last to the byline", so be it. Wikipedia is not a news source, it is an encyclopedia.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

one source??? that simply isn't the case, sorry... and as others keep writing, yes even encyclopedias change as the facts change (GASP!)... a goal of concise accuracy, is no justification for sucking more than neccessary 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you at least acknowledge that a lot of idiotic bullshit has been posted in this article, and then correctly reverted, all because of the haste of some editors to be first with the news, whether it made any sense or not? HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
i've seen a lot of poorly-written stuff that generally had RS support in one sense or another, get reverted, instead of CE-ed into proper english and WP standards. I always get a little aggravated when people use the undo button as a substitute for the edit button. I've also seen articles where the translation standards were MUCH lower than this one. So lets take a quick moment to count our blessings 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's take a lot of moments, and just slow down. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
although I'd have to say, the amount of hard data showing up in RS media outlets, seems to be increasing. thats why i'm finally here, for example 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
A lot of poorly-written stuff, yes. If I broke the revert rule, it's because I find it unacceptable that the article mentions a PR consultant. I've also been really, really careful about what I consider appropriate changes and additions to the story, and I wish those changes didn't get reverted just because they're new. Every little detail about the plane's course or whatever should not be added. However, some things were of obvious significance, such as the identification a few days ago of the stolen passport holders.
The article is unacceptable in various other ways. Lots of other ways.Roches (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Crap is crap regardless of how recent or aged it is. Old material that is dubious/unverified should not go in and new material that is solidly sourced and verified (and notable, see Wikipedia:Recentism) should not be kept out for the sole reason that it's new. --Brian Dell (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Search operations by Day

The search operations by day needs to be documented by day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.188.53 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Ceecookie (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to document such things. Wikipedia is not a live news feed; there are better websites out there to suit such a function. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree completely. First, every day the search operations have changed. Second, this article needs to document the story as it happened. Third, I agree wikipedia is not a feed. Fourth, Wikipedia has the best article on MH370, let's keep it this way. Cheers!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.188.53 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a news service, once the search has been completed the actually notable encyclopedic content may only take a few paragraphs. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pilot

NEW: POLICE SEARCHING HOUSE OF PILOT OF MISSING FLIGHT MH370 - SENIOR MALAYSIAN POLICE OFFICIAL - REUTERS. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 08:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not unusual for that to occur when an aircraft disappears. Every facet of the personnel on the flight crew, the flight itself, suspect passengers, even mechanics will be investigated to be sure that if a criminal act did occur, evidence is not lost.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing unusual, quite typical for investigations. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Some people have thought it was odd he had a flight simulator; someone asked the airline about that and they said their employees were free to pursue their own hobbies. I don't think it's terribly unusual; many pilots really, really, really like flying, which is a good thing. I know a former pilot and engineer who restored a F-86 Sabre simulator. If it turns out that he liked making simulated planes crash in his spare time, no one should jump to any conclusions about that, either. In training, pilots are given all kinds of failure scenarios and they don't always succeed in recovering from them. Basically, if any stories come out about that flight simulator, they're not significant to the article.Roches (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed some guff about what the pilot and his simulator hobbies, as Roches says not really significant at this time./ MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers

I've been wondering this since before the Inmarsat stuff and maybe now it's covered in RS and time to consider for our article. I know it's now been discussed in the media the 2 main possibilities, namely either someone forced the pilots to fly somewhere or one or both did so willingly. (The 3rd possibility namely it was someone besides the pilots has also been mentioned but doesn't seem to get that much attention probably because we have no public evidence of any with the skills after all this time.)

But has anyone seen any RS discussion of what the passengers and other crew knew presuming they were alive? In the 1st case it's difficult to imagine no one besides the pilots knew (which raises the question of how to control such a large group).

In the second case, it's possible to imagine up to it dissappearing (I believe it was only slightly past arrival time) no one knew. Considering the time, it may be difficult to recognise the terrain was wrong except even if it was visible. However I think MAS planes are generally capable of showing the current location (and related details) on the in flight system and even at the time some may have noticed it was way of course. But I presume this could easily be deactivated and waved off as a system problem. (There is the slight risk someone used their own GPS, but given the time and possiblity the person would dismiss it as their GPS not working, it's probably not significant.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That reads like speculation. We need sources. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Add "Alright, Good Night"

The pilot's last words were "Alright, good night". I think this should be included in the timeline since a lot of major news corporations are reporting this as significant. [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are certain that's not the HIJACKER'S words? Only if the hijacker is the assigned pilot should we just suggest that this was the "pilot" without qualification, since authorities now agree that the chronology is 1:07 ACARS turned off, 1:21 transponder turned off [so somebody must have entered the cockpit prior to this time to apply duress to the pilots or otherwise take control], 1:22 this remark, then at 1:30 ""We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked them if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace. The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie or Fariq but I was sure it was the co-pilot."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"[so somebody must have entered the cockpit prior to this time to apply duress to the pilots or otherwise take control]" And the evidence for this is? I also notice the Malaysian PM said ACARS was 'disabled', not 'turned off'. Unless we have an official source saying 'turned off' we probably should stick with 'disabled', which implies a wider range of possibilities than simply someone flicking a switch. Equally the transponder is externally triggered by receipt of a secondary radar pulse, there's a significant gap between 'last response to a secondary radar pulse' and 'turned off' (including malfunction, electrical failure and a host of other failure modes). The investigation may now be assuming a deliberate turn off course, but that doesn't mean we should leap straight onto the assumption everything was the action of a putative hijacker. We need to make clear that this is currently the working hypothesis, not established fact, and that everything we say reflects that. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If it was "mumbling" how can he know whose voice it was? :O Harfarhs (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Other news agencies say it was All right, roger that so again we can wait for a reliable references, wikipedia is not in a rush to add everything the news agencies report. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory(ies)

Where are all the conspiracy theory experts? Transponders off, blonde (attarctive) young women in cockpit, stolen passports, undetected by primary Radars in one of the most intensively scanned regions in the world, scanned by the military for surveillance... What better script for a all-time great movie? Jokes & jest aside, concern for human lives has been expressed in the media... Strange world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.122.233 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place for conspiracy theories. Incidentally, the radar coverage is not as good here as you might think. There is a map somewhere, a professional-quality map with ranges of primary radars, and there are gaps. There are political limitations in that, for example, the US may have detected the plane from an AEGIS ship like an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, but they may not be able to admit that they were operating off the coast of Vietnam.

Roches (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There can be a place for conspiracy theories if they are notable in and of themselves. See for example John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. But otherwise I would agree with Roches, I haven't seen anything yet about these conspiracy theories that makes them notable enough for inclusion.--Nowa (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, but I would emphasise the point with an inserted word, thus: "There can be a place for conspiracy theories only if..." JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What Richfield said + it will take some time (month at least) to see if such are of notable from a historical standpoint. Only then we might include them.TMCk (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey take all time you want its up to you,a donkey wont eat an apple immediately because its not familiar with its but once he eats it he will realise how DUMB he was not to earlier(talk) 30:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it

Each day that pass, more confusing and disturbing this case becomes. 31.209.149.53 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

...is that one of the suitcases? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's file it under lost luggage.TMCk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png

File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png What's the point of this map? There's nothing on it, it's completely blank. Why do we have a blank map at "File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png" when we could just use a normal blank map? The name of this image is highly misleading as it doesn't map anything concerning MH370. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This map is used as the background image on the article. Interactive points of interest are added by additional code in the article.

see: the edit screen for 

<div style="float:right; position:relative; width:265px; font-size:11px; margin:0 1.0em;">
<!-- Route map -->
[[File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png|thumb|265px|<span style="font-size:11px;">Route (hover letters for explanation)</span>]]
{{Image label|x=0.385 |y=0.870 |scale=265|text=[[File:City locator 23.svg|10px]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.435 |y=0.875 |scale=265|text=<span style="background:#f9f9f9;">[[Kuala Lumpur]] (start)</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.420 |y=0.790 |scale=265|text=[[File:Airplane silhouette.svg|10px]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.470 |y=0.800 |scale=265|text=Last contact}}
{{Image label|x=0.720 |y=0.080 |scale=265|text=[[File:City locator 23.svg|10px]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.620 |y=0.135 |scale=265|text=<span style="background:#f9f9f9;">Beijing (destination)</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.060 |y=0.910 |scale=265|text=1000 km}}
{{Image label|x=0.265 |y=0.755 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Andaman Sea|A]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.340 |y=0.860 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Strait of Malacca|M]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.390 |y=0.740 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Gulf of Thailand|G]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.670 |y=0.690 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[South China Sea|S]]</span>}}
{{Image label|x=0.120 |y=0.755 |scale=265|text=<span style="color:#66b; font-size:14px;">[[Indian Ocean|I]]</span>}}
</div>
Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
But that's my point. There's no reason for this map file to exist, you could just use one of the standard blank map files. Or this file shouldn't be called "Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map", because it is nothing of the sort, it's just a regular map, there's no MH370 information on the map file at all. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is discussion of crisis management appropriate in this article?

Although both sides were vocal in this, consensus seems to be against having this mentioned in the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it appropriate for this article to contain a section about crisis management? If so, are quotations from a specific person in that field appropriate? The section is called "Officials' communication with the public." Roches (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No and clearly No. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess it depends on whether there was a crisis here. There obviously was and still is a great deal of "Officials' communication with the public." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
From Crisis management: "Crisis management is the process by which an organization deals with a major event that threatens to harm the organization, its stakeholders, or the general public. The study of crisis management originated with the large scale industrial and environmental disasters in the 1980s." The essence of the quotation in the article is that the police and military should shut up, because they're just confusing people, and one agency should tell the world what it needs to know as the company moves through this embarrassing, expensive time.Roches (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes and yes. Multiple reliable secondary sources are covering the issue and the information should be properly attributed to the cited experts.--Nowa (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean that anything multiple reliable secondary sources say can be added? Because that's what I've wanted to do to this article. (angry bit redacted. "people first, things second.") Roches (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say yes, if multiple independent reliable subjects are covering an aspect of this crisis, then it should be part of the article. I wasn't in on what you've had redacted before, but if you want to point to the original conversation or reintroduce it, I would be happy to look at it.--Nowa (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely NO. Please keep this article as much as possible about technical matters and facts about the plane's disappearance. It should not be about management styles and procedures. That would be a diversion.203.158.42.234 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is essential, but never sufficient. Try to think of what content this article will have in ten years time. Petty squabbling over how information is released before almost anything is really known will not be in the article. So it doesn't belong now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If multiple independent reliable sources cover "petty squabbling" (which by the way, is not what's happening here) then this article, or any article, should reflect that with appropriate weight. I also disagree that we should project what will be important about this subject 10 years from now. I understand what you are saying about how we should be encyclopedic, but the article will be updated to keep the proper weighting of different subjects as time progresses.--Nowa (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not aim to get it right now? HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we both agree we should get it right now.--Nowa (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No weight is not proper due weight. ;-) It's not petty squabbling, but huge contradictions and disagreements that are hampering the search. Petty squabbling doesn't result in the quadrupling of the search area. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The key to any crisis is effective communication. When the situation is effectively managed, there is nothing to talk or write about. It's been proven that in this instance there is anything but. There are no good angles in this – its one monumental tragedy, with mistakes compounding mistakes, insult being added to injury. Personal and political conflicts abound. Critical commentary on this topic seems absolutely necessary – maybe not from Mike Smith, but certainly from some objective (external) observers. Deleting of the section won't solve the problem and won't make the story any "prettier" or happier. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
THE CRISIS MANAGEMENT IS AN EVENT OF ALL ITS OWN!! Perhaps a WIKI article can be created SOLELY for the purpose of keeping track of the MH370 quotes, redactions, mis-direction and political grand standing on part of the officials. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The crisis management does need to be mentioned, largely due to communication missteps and the coordination issues that appear to have arisen early in the incident response. That said, we don't need something so large that we could create an entire article over it. A mention of incorrect communications from different sources, incident response lack of coordination due to the multiple nations responding, etc is more than sufficient. Remember, crisis management and incident response are linked, but different fields. The actual issues that have occurred are somewhat predictable, as there are multiple sovereign states acting in concert and many have never operated together. It's also quite likely that some of the nations whose waters the search is ongoing in have never developed contingency plans for just such a massive search, especially with a multinational force. So, mention is necessary, clarification of crisis management and incident response and the scope and number of moving pieces. That is all.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One more time, this is not about "managing a crisis." Crisis management in this sense means "corporate damage control." That's what bothers me. Managing the crisis (which I guess is called "disaster management") is not the same thing. I have absolutely no objection to discussing how Malaysia Airlines has been criticized for the way it's handled the event. There's been a lack of communication and the airline has made some serious blunders, of which deciding that flying Chinese families to Malaysia was probably one of the biggest. That is relevant. So is renaming the flights. I do think that lessons are being learned in general about how airlines should deal with crashes, as well. But I don't like naming and quoting an individual. Roches (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Roches is right. As a fellow Australian I am familiar with Mike Smith and his work from his own media appearances. His job is to advise corporations and governments on how to limit damage to their images when things go bad. It's not about managing the actual problem being faced. His comments are probably primarily aimed at promoting his own business, and now we're helping him do that too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment No. As things stand neither the whole matter, nor reporting on it, is encyclopaedic, certainly not yet anyway; it is more or less tabloid-standard speculation. There is already a WP article on crisis management as such, and crisis management in this particular matter is not yet well enough characterised for us to deal with according to WP standards. I suspect the topic could justify a section, maybe even its own article, once the spray has blown away, but that might not be in another year. This is an encyclopaedia (we hope), not a gossip column. JonRichfield (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Likely Scenario?

Speculation not intended for article improvement

The scenario of Ocenaic Flight 815 in the television seires "Lost" is shaping up to mimic the recent (and I mean just over a week ago now, as of this posting) of the now mysteriously lost Malaysian Flight HC003 777 jetliner. To wit: In the TV series "Lost", several unaccounted for people board a passenger jet bound for the US from Korea. Less than mid-way en-route, the plane experiences mechanical and allegdly telemetry and navigational problems. The plane inexplicably veers off course. It flies for several hours (and presumingly thousands of miles)off course, and out of all radar scrutiny and reckoning. With the Maylasioan flight, all the bullet-points bear out, almost exactly to the fictious TV show, including the unaacounted for "passengers". This is eeriely like the "Lost" scenario. What's amazing about this real-life horror is that with all the sophisticated satelitte and computer tracking- even "smartphones" with the "Google Earth" application-this airplane disappeared from all of the most powerful nations' scrutiny. As in the TV's scenario, the passenger and plane were initially presumed dead, with scant evidence presented (in the Maylasian situation, an oil slick in the ocean was discovered last week, leading experts to believe that the plane crashed in the Pacific. This was somehow disputed and dismissed, as computer messaging evidence concluded that the plane traveled thousands of miles further away from the fuel slick). A congruent scnario of action is played out in the novel "Three Days of the Condor". --65.88.88.73 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

Interesting comparison with LOST. You wrote "this airplane disappeared from all of the most powerful nations' scrutiny." Which nations do you mean? As to "smartphones", see my new section below. I didn't follow LOST, so I don't know the basic premise of what was really going on (dead?), but already some have suggested a connection with UFOs :) though this is seeming unlikely at the point—unless someone is lying about the turning of the plane (which was stated by one authority, then refuted by another, then...); disabling of electronics is consistent with several report UFO encounters, even encounters with military and civilian aircraft. But then this is usually the last possibility on people's minds, lol. Misty MH (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Largest disappearance

Off-topic, non-productive comments by a now indeffed editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Im stating the fact and not wild rumors don't be overzealous in your factual standard that's already censorship

What are we talking about here exactly? Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

what you so blind you cant see the fact it is in your wiki pages for gods sake look it up [[1]]--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The second largest disappearance was the Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 with 107 passengers i think you should put it up so the people would realize the real gravity of the tragedy i cant believe you missed this important fact--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#UFO_abduction_rumors

Have you a reliable source that says it is the "the largest single disappearance of a group of people in history, and it is the largest single disappearance by a commercial aircraft." and please note the wikipedia article List of aerial disappearances is not a reliable source. Also note that it is probably a bit early for such statements as it is still a developing situation to declare they have disappeared rather than the fact we have just cant find the aircraft yet. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes @Replypartyreplyparty, I'm blind. I'm so blind that I'm undoing an edit that does not belong here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK well wait for several days then ill able to tell you I TOLD YOU SO--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys no problem but time is by my side better pray they find it and soon or im seeing quite a lot of respected people in here eating their own words, for your sake i hope--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey disappearance debunkers check this out [[2]] HEY Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has not disappeared it hasnt been found yet, this week biggest joke

Another one choke on it guys no need to sign in you know who i am lol [[3]]

The CNN article is interesting, but only says Flight 370 COULD be one of the greatest mysteries (among the Loch Ness Monster, the disappearance of Amelia Erhardt, the Yeti and others) - not that IT IS. The CNN journalist himself says "Answers about what happen [sic] to the Boeing 777 and the people on board must come soon" As you say, time will tell. My belief is that all will soon become very clear, and there will be no mystery at all. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Willing to bet your dollar on it i doubt they will ever be found look at the joke of searching for it in the Indian ocean now that is bull pure and simple,they are all desperate because sooner or later they will be force to face one of their biggest cover up and they will be debunked themselves big time and forced to admit a half century of lies--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

im not NOOB maybe you are--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You people are so uptight relax will you this is not a dictatorship remember the freedom of expression--User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC) P.S.we my group fights censorship and cyber bullying by the way --User:Replypartyreplyparty (talk) 14:67, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ok i admit im here to observe all your behaviour in Wikipedia and assess if your really bullying would be editors its you choice if you want to ban me but it will only confirm your behaviour pattern now my group wants to wage war on your site but their waiting for my assessment and i don't care if you ban me im just letting you we are watching you all very closely and don't force us to take action you would not like it your not NATO[[4]],so im advising all of you to take it easy you don't want a full scare hack war good day im not signing my name for its doesn't matter now so ban will you lol Anonymous Philippines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replypartyreplyparty (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
you are a left-wing conspiracy theorist, Replypartyreplyparty Dark Liberty (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to eat any words, nor am I gonna give you a chance to tell me I told you so. As HiLo48 said, Stop speculating. What' you're adding is unencyclopaedic. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

]>> Flight 370 Pilot Was Opposition Supporter With Love for Aviation >> Missing Malaysian Jet Said Tracked to Ocean Off Australia (Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)).

He also breathed air, and I understand he often drank water.207.119.196.4 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

7.5 hour or 7.5 hours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Disappearance "Events of the 7.5 hours flight" or "Events of the 7.5 hour flight"? Am I missing some grammar rule here? I thought it would be 7.5 hour flight. Aren't the two spellings used in this manner: "I spent 4 hours driving the 4 hour trip"? 107.199.113.209 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed the norm in the US. This might be something that differs between American and British speakers. TypoBoy (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It's an x hour flight, or a flight that lasted x hours. A two hour flight, four hour ride, ten hour drive, five minute walk. AFAIK, it's singular. -_13:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Diego Garcia

This speculation FYI. Regards, --YAAA (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally unreliable report.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable source, self-published, etc. Refuted by reliable sources anyway.[5] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Indiandefence.com is just another online forum. Cannot be an RS. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The photo of the 2 Iranian young men released by the Malaysian authorities

I've never made a comment before, so apologies if this is the wrong place to suggest an addition to the article, and please delete it after reading. I did not note anything in the article about the odd photo of the two young Iranian men that were supposedly travelling on stolen passports. My background is in photography and it jumped out at me that the lower part of the photos released by the Malaysian authorities is the same for both men. Isn't that a bit weird? Look for yourselves. In fact, it looks as though it was photoshoped by an incompetent... Why was this photo released? D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.26.125 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The released images seem to be photographs of security camera stills (perhaps quite a distance from the subjects) then scanned and printed on a standard photocopier / inkjet or similar printer, so the definition and quality isn't great. The bottom half of both is obviously of the same photo, so perhaps there was a jam in the printer? Why were they released? that is for the Malaysian authorities to answer, not Wikipedia, and I'm not sure the quality of the images (nor even the images themselves) is really notable enough to include in the article. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was already explained that the "same legs" was due to the photocopying process, where one sheet was on top of the other when the copy was taken. Anyway, it's trivia and doesn't warrant inclusion. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

UFO theory gaining much traction (for discussion - please do not remove)

Highly inappropriate. Let's not go there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Wiki co-editors and friends,

The UFO theory is gaining much traction and I would urge that the article incorporates information such as those discussed here:

Cheers, and thanks so much for your assistance. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this wiki article is non-fiction. Intrepid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If you watch movies, you would realise that UFO's, giant lizards and Aliens will only attack USA, they have no intentions of "hijacking" a Malaysian airline..now if this plane went missing after if flew off from an airport in USA, it would have made sense...--Stemoc (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Godzilla. It was Godzila. Why won't anyone listen to me? Hold on, let me straighten my tin foil hat. JOJ Hutton 03:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If the passengers turn up at Devils Tower in 40 years and haven't aged a day, then we'll add it. Meanwhile let's keep this a serious encyclopedia. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
True, this article appears related: Millenium (film)
I was think more of this --Stemoc (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Electrical failure resulting in decompression

this is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An interesting post from a pilot on reddit raises the idea that an electrical failure resulting in depressurisation may explain all of the observed events so far.

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/20iyi7/comprehensive_timeline_malaysia_airlines_flight/cg485vj

After takeoff, they engaged the autopilot and autothrottles - which is normal. Once air traffic control cleared them to climb on course, they engaged VNAV-LNAV. At that point the airplane was being controlled by the computer (power setting, climb speed and ground track). All that is totally normal. “Climb on course” means to turn to your destination and climb at your desired rate – which pretty much means do what you want to do – GTFO of here.

However, while enroute to China, at some point during the climb and prior to reaching their cruise altitude (while the power was still up at a climb power setting), something happened (I have no idea what). The electrical system had a failure of some sort or other. The autopilot quit and the autothrottles quit and the airplane was pointed UP with a relatively high power setting. They were climbing and there was nothing other than the pilot that was going to level the airplane off.

note.... it’s right here that the captain should have given control of the airplane to the first officer and told him to LEVEL OFF and turn back to the departure airport in Malaysia. Then, while the FO was physically flying the airplane and getting clearance to descend back to the departure airport, the captain would address the electrical problem and try to fix what he could. No way would I fly an airplane all the way to China in the dead of night with a serious electrical problem like that. However, the captain did NOT do any of this. They just kept going (freaking stupid – major league pilot error there – MUCHO FAIL). I guarantee you that ultimately they’ll do the typical thing and “blame it on the dead guy,” but in this case it’s deserved. The decision to do nothing right then is what ultimately killed everyone.

The pressurization system: The pressurization system pumps up the interior of the airplane like a balloon. As air pressure is fed into the cabin from the engines, the “outflow valve” controls how fast air is allowed to leave the cabin. A computer automatically meters the outflow valve (open and closed) to maintain the cabin pressure within certain limits during all phases of flight. While in climb, the engines are putting out lots of air pressure, so the outflow valve is fairly open (when a lot of pressure comes in, a lot has to be allowed to flow out).

However, with an “essential bus” electrical failure (in the 727 and 737 anyway) the outflow valve freezes in it’s last position. So, if the electrical problem occurred in a climb with a climb power setting, the outflow valve would have failed in a more OPEN position. Normally, as the airplane climbs, the pressurization system automatically meters the outflow valve closed to maintain a cabin pressure differential (the “differential” being the difference between inside – cabin altitude - and the outside – airplane altitude) within certain limits. In this case, with the valve failed OPEN, the cabin-altitude (that’s the effective altitude inside the semi-pressurized airplane) would have continued to climb along with the airplane. It was either this or there was a breech in the fuselage and they lost pressurization completely. I doubt that there was a breech because that would have been noticeable (everyone’s ears would have immediately popped and a fog would have been created in the cabin and cockpit). I think their loss of pressurization was slow and not noticeable at all.

That same electrical problem (whatever it was) caused the transponder to fail (it was NOT intentionally turned off as suspected – the electrical power was interrupted). The engine power was up at CLIMB (engines are mostly unaffected by electrical problems), the autothrottles had failed, the autopilot was either OFF or in some wings level reversion mode, and the pilots were screwing around looking at the electrical problem instead of leveling off, turning back around to Malaysia, and putting their O2 masks on. As the airplane continued to climb, the effective altitude of the cabin continued to climb because the outflow valve was stuck in a more open position. As the airplane climbed and pressure outside the cabin was reduced, the outflow valve needed to CLOSE to maintain cabin pressure. As this continued, the cabin altitude continued to climb and they slowly lost the ability to think and passed out. They never leveled off and the power stayed up at the CLIMB power setting (where it had been since takeoff). The people in the back would have donned their masks which would have automatically dropped at a cabin altitude of 10,300’. There’s no telling what the airplane’s altitude was at that point (probably in the high 20,000s). Passenger oxygen is delivered by something called a gas grain generator and as I recall, those things start when you pull the lanyard down and on the 777 they work for 20 minutes or so. But the airplane was still climbing, so the passengers’ 02 units would have been exhausted and they would have probably been dead before the airplane reached 45000 feet. The airplane was still heavy after T/O so it was probably only climbing at 1000 feet per minute or so after reaching 30,000’ and slower after reaching 40,000’. It takes a while to get that high. The airplane was not being piloted at that point (by anyone or anything). It was ballistic. Passenger oxygen is designed to keep people alive while the airplane makes an emergency DESCENT. This airplane was still climbing.

At 45000 feet, the airplane could no longer physically climb. The wings could no longer support the airplane and they stalled. The nose dropped and dished out to the left bottoming out at 23000 feet. Like a falling leaf (in a way), that’s what caused the 90 degree heading change. Then, in a big aerodynamic oscillation aided by the big increase in airspeed (caused by the nose dropping and the dish-out maneuver), the nose rose and continued up – the airplane climbed again to 29000 feet. The changes in heading after that were random and probably caused by minor turbulence here and there in the air.

It was at climb power the whole time, so it ran out of gas an hour early – which is probably close to where the last ACARS ping was seen. The ACARS is an automatic computer generated reporting system in the airplane that sends all kinds of real-time data back to a computerized database at Boeing, the company that owns the airplane and to the maker of the various aircraft components – like the engines). It’s all automated.

The destroyer sent to the Indian Ocean will hear the pings from the Flight Data Recorder. It’s in the water, everyone is dead.

Pmw57 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I see this has no affirmation from any reliable sources, it's just another theory. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And has there ever been an "electrical failure" that FIRST knocked out ACARS, later, knocked out the transponder, then later knocked out comms/radio? Why didn't the pilot say something about the failures when he still had radio? And investigators simply don't agree that "changes in heading after that were random".--Brian Dell (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an excellent theory and appears to be better than the UFO or another Bermuda Triangle appearing in the Indian Ocean. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Lol, being a longer time lurker on this article (and an editor who has shared his sentiments on here before too) it seems that every 30 minutes somebody comes along with a theory regrading the plane. Sometimes these theories are mentioned in sources that are generally considered reliable, or not reliable sources at all. Sometimes these theories seem quite logical or just come off as jocularity in its entirety. Regardless, we can't be including a bunch of theories in the article about factual investigation. If you have a reliable source that states a fact of importance regarding the plane, then it more than likely can and will be included. Theories? Keep to the talk page or yourself. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting read, but the pilot theorist doesn't explain why the redundant electrical systems didn't kick in if there was an electrical failure. Over and over we've heard the 777 has, at minimum, triple redundancy, and for some systems many more levels than that. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

An interesting position – not a perfect scenario and not as random it as could be either. An issue to consider is whether there was a slow cascading electrical failure that slowly – unwittingly – turned off some systems. (And there is some uncertainty as to whether the ACARS was disabled at a certain point or whether that was the last recording from ACARS – a very very critical difference – see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26610946). Then, just after the final message to air traffic control, the compounding electrical failures were serious enough to cause critical decompression of the plane. Suddenly, there is no communication with the ground, pilots disorientated, blacking out, injured. The pilot(s) attempt to return to Malaysia (the airports they know the best) – with minimal electrical systems etc. However, before they can reach safety, they too are overcome with the decompression and the plane continues to fly...aka Payne Stewart's flight…

Also, the concept that the 777 has triple redundancy is a red herring, at best. A 777 does not have 3 extra pilot crews, 3 extra pairs of wings, another 6 engines somewhere to use in an emergency. There are not three buttons for every circuit, such as a transponder. Sure there may be some circuits that have a back-up system – but that is quite different to the plane have triple redundancy. To press the point, there is only one hull – and if that goes...bye bye plane Mari370 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe what is a red herring is your bringing wings and hulls etc. into it. The theory involved an electrical failure. There is electrical system multiple redundancy. The rest you mentioned is just distracting red herring. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

This section has been deleted multiple times since I created it (someone may have so before, though it was gone before I had a chance to notice). As most Major air disasters have comparable incidents included in such a section, can a see also article be maintained as a legitimate part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf Nirvana (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't actually finally know what kind of event this is, so identifying relevant "See also" events is difficult without it becoming a POV exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Without mentioning the "H" word, it was also a flight taken on an unauthorised path. WWGB (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec x 2) Can you kindly link to the "see also" articles so one doesn't have to search for it in this fast pace changing subject? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
WWGB - That would allow inclusion of every flight ever hijacked, and we don't want that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

True, though the 1977 incident happened to be from the same airline, so it deserves inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf Nirvana (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ [[http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/us/malaysia-airline-plane-theories/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370/Archive_5&oldid=1087968544"