Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fotoguzzi (talk | contribs) at 01:27, 23 March 2014 (→‎Turn entered into system 12 minutes before last voice transmission: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Last ping and fuel (maps)

According to the German Wiki the position of last ping is an intersection between two circles where one (with center in last known position) is fuel range. Soerfm (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... what is their source for that? The released map didn't show complete circles, and in fact included a gap between the northern and southern arcs that still would have been within fuel range. How do you explain the gap? The 'official' released map has been described as arrived at by determining the direction the satellite antenna was (or could have been) pointing, explaining why it doesn't include full circles.
That would be the case IF the last ping coincided with the plane running out of fuel, and in which case, there would only be two places to look. The altitude and airspeed of the aircraft will have had a determining impact on the actual range, so there are still a number of unknowns, plus the ping didn't give any indication of direction - only two possible position at the time. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about given the lecturing and finger wagging a break, since that's been done enough times already. The German map is sufficiently consistent with the totality of reliable sources to be a legitimate point of discussion for possible inclusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Without any basis the German map seems to create full circles instead of the known arcs that have been released, and the overlay of remaining fuel is somewhat speculative. The NYT map that Soerfm linked is at least more accurate.
The basis is that the sat data only gives you distance, not location. The NYT makes that point explicitly. Unless there are sources I'm not aware of, there is no basis to not have circles over Africa EXCEPT the fuel range, which is reasonably sourced. You don't need a source for saying less, you need a source for saying more, and German map says less than the NYT map.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/15/world/asia/satellite-contact-map.html. It seems to sum up the discussion. Soerfm (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly all speculation, its a journalist jobs to fill newspapers with speculation it is not wikipedias. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why people read the New York Times? Because it is full of unfounded garbage? Maybe you're being sarcastic? The NYT map is more or less the same as the German one except the German one has the added benefit of explaining why no one is searching the other side of the satellite in Africa (out of fuel range).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the official source for assuming Africa etc would be viable if not for being out of fuel range? My understanding was the two arcs were delimited by antenna position, not fuel range considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I have seen from the sources is that you only get distance from the satellite, nothing else. If you've got a source that says it can be further narrowed by "antenna position," that'd be an important source.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NYT... "The satellite can “see” in an arc that stretches to the north and south of its fixed position..." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?hpw&rref=world
WaPo.. "...the only thing the satellite can tell is how much it would need to adjust its antenna to get the strongest signal from the plane." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/15/possible-paths-for-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight/
The satellite needs to adjust to "point" in the optimal direction. This is where the arcs come from, antenna directions. If it was just fuel remaining, there would be no gap between the arcs. The NYT graphic had it right, start with the arcs and then add potential remaining fuel. The German map misunderstands the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's convincing enough. It'd be nice to get this into the article. For what it's worth though, I don't think the German map "misunderstands" this, it just doesn't include it.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soerfm: That NYT graphic is showing the 2 light red "bubbles" around each red arc as speculations on remaining fuel of 20 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively (fuel remaining after last ping). That's not the same thing as saying the red arcs themselves are dependent on total fuel range from takeoff, or anything like that. If it were, there would be no gap between the arcs. This is why I reverted your caption change on the graphic here where you indicated it was partly dependent on fuel range. And perhaps the NYT graphic is "better", but it's also copyrighted, and partly speculative about the remaining fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the dimensions of the bubbles surrounding the arcs are based on "remaining fuel" but the arcs themselves cannot be "dependent on the total fuel range"? How does that work when the bubbles seem to be clearly related to and based upon the arcs?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. The arcs are what was officially released, with no mention of fuel considerations. One clue to you should be that if fuel was considered, there would be no gap between the arcs. You continue to ignore this point. The arcs are based on position data only. The NYT has a graphic that goes further, taking the arcs (WITH gap) and adding estimated fuel left at 8:11 AM, which is valid though speculative. The German map, on the other hand, completely misunderstands and corrupts the officially supplied satellite data by making assumptions about full circles that are unfounded.2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What editor @Karn said earlier on this page made a lot of sense to me. But see my "convincing enough" remark above where I basically concede the point to you. I would just say that the German map does not "corrupt" the data, it simply does not include further information that says the arcs can be shortened.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you posted that after. The German map essentially ADDS (i.e. corrupts) data... no data has been officially released showing full circles. It's not that the circles "can be shortened" to arcs, it's that they never should have enlarged them beyond the data to make them full circles in the first place. It's misleading and just plain incorrect. Also, Karn's guess about the gap is obviously off the mark: the gap covers open water where there is no radar coverage and yet ends before China where there is. It doesn't represent known radar coverage, and nothing official has suggested it did. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This no longer matters in terms of content but for the sake of understanding what needs more sourcing and what doesn't, I stand by my contention that the German map does NOT "add" data because it assumed there was no data that ruled out certain parts of the arcs. The original "officially released" map actually DID have some "full circles" including a curve over Somalia but that's really beside the point as the issue here is where is the plane. If the article is going to say it is NOT between Malaysia and Vietnam, that needs a source. You don't need a source for leaving a question of fact open. You've provided sourcing here which further explains and supports the original officially released map by explaining that we can rule more out because the last ping that the sat detected would have had to have been within its limited antenna arc. The original officially released map is still too definitive in that it has no error range (it just has thin red lines instead of corridors) but we agree that its arc ranges are sound.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the German map -- it's that "assumption" you note that I'm saying resulted in the creation of unsourced data (circles) on their map. I'd be interested to see any officially released map that included full circles including one over Somalia. Where did that appear?! 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right here in the article the "70 degree" circle is a full circle that crosses Somalia! The German map does show more of Africa (and the Pacific). That's not "creating sourced data". There's no "data" in these circles. "Data" is needed to say where the plane IS, not where it is NOT. If you are going to insist on preferring a copyright image over a free one, you need a better reason than just that the free one is bigger than the copyrighted one. Anyway, like I say I've accepted your other reason, namely that we can be more specific than the German map because we have further data about the satellite's orientation. This doesn't mean that the copyright map doesn't itself have the problem of going to the other extreme and being too specific (last known location is absolutely right on one of those thin red lines, is it, no error bars (corridors) should be given?)--Brian Dell (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there's a 70 degree circle going through Somalia on the current "official" map, similar to a line of latitude on a conventional map -- but they aren't highlighting that 70 degree marker as significant, it's just one of multiple rings showing the progressive angles from the satellite. It doesn't mean anything, and they don't claim it does. It's only the red arcs that are significant. The German map, on the other hand, shows full circles in red as being a "korridor", which there's no justification for in the released official map. My understanding has always been that satellites are directional, just as you have to angle your satellite TV dish to get best reception, so does the INMARSAT satellite have to angle to get optimal communication. As far as the copyright image vs. the "free" German one, I wasn't making a claim for inclusion of the NY graphic here, in fact I noted above that it's copyrighted and at least partly speculative about possible remaining fuel so not really a candidate. I do think it's much "better" than the German map though, and that the German map should not be used in any case, which is what started this topic to begin with. The German map offers nothing new, doesn't cite known sources underlying its many circles, and in fact is less well labeled. At this point, sticking with the official map that we have is the thing to do, since it's (1) officially sourced (2) no copyright issue and (3) doesn't include those unsupportable red rings of "korridor". I also wonder about +- error, which the official (and also NYT) maps seem to not discuss. It seems to be saying it runs precisely along the 40-degre line, which seems too convenient -- it may be rounding to the closest 5 degrees, in which the error would be +- 2.5 degrees, but we don't know that, and we can't create some kind of arbitrary "korridor" just because we think it should be wider to allow for error. By the way, when I used the shorthand "data", I meant the implied data from the satellite underlying the two arcs. So when discussing full circles and wider "korridors", that's the implied "data" created out of thin air by the German editor. As far as the gap, I have my own guess about what that represents having to do with limitations of the satellite, but since I'm unsure I won't elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright map I was referring to is the one currently in the article. That's the "official map" since it is the one Malaysian authorities handed out and you are not correct that there is "no copyright issue" with it. By the way, everybody (except perhaps you) knows that the corridors over Africa in the German map don't actually mean anything either since there's no way the plane could have gotten out that far without refueling. You seem to keep missing the point, which is WHERE IS THE PLANE?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware a government press release maintained copyright! In the U.S. at least, anything produced by the government press release or not, is automatically public domain, and I would assume that's true under international copyright law also, but I don't know that for sure. In any case, the official map was specifically *released to the press for dissemination*, so apparently no issues with including it in Wikipedia, as redistribution was its *intended purpose*... again, if there's some arcane Wiki rule why that's not the case, please let me know. I see it's been marked as "Non-Free" by the uploader, but I believe that's likely incorrect. My problem with the German map doesn't stem from any misunderstanding on my part thanks, but rather that it sucks as a useful infographic by including extraneous garbage that is unsupported. Also bad form, because bad info tends to be taken as fact and then added to incrementally by others and the problem grows. If it's bad data, or based on bad data, it shouldn't be there, even if we can deduce that the Africa portion etc. isn't meaningful. We have the arcs as defined by INMARSAT. Until/if they say more, expanding on those (including closing the gap) is irresponsible. Yes, where is the plane is of course the real question. But as far as this proposed inclusion of the German creation, the answer is no. Maybe someone could come up with a passable public domain version of what the NYT did, which would be an acceptable compromise. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here the fuel estimation stuff is mind-breaking to me: how exactly the fuel range is calculated in this case? And what criteria does Boeing use to calculate the fuel range of its aircraft (what altitude, speed)? I presume that the best starting point would be the fuel amount at the moment of disappearance, but even then some parameters would be arbitrary (i.e. the altitude, for example, would apparently be taken as the most fuel-efficient one, which looks like the worst scenario here). Brandmeistertalk 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what makes any fuel estimation speculative. It all depends how the plane was flying during those 7 hours, at what altitude and speed, what sort of maneuvers it may have done that burned fuel, if there was fuselage damage that would create drag, etc. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in a case like this there's also the question of what you count as the "moment of disappearance". It sounds like the UFO is now being treated as almost definitely MH370 but it's obviously possible to assume it's not and use the time and location when the transponder was disabled. There's also the fact there were likely multiple pings each with their own possible location. I presume investigator are integrating this data but I haven't seen it made public. Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the above discussion in entirety but while Hilo48 is correct we should not spectulate, the fact of the matter is we do have the map in the article with the gap between the northern and southern. The first time I saw the map (not here) I wondered what the gap was and from this discussion so do others. The only things I could think of were either it would have contacted a diff satellite which still seems most likely or that these areas have already been searched (but the gap seems too big for that) or that there's something I'm not understanding about how they determine distance from tge satellite. Obviously my speculation is irrelevant but we should try to find any RS discussion of the gap as its likely people reading this article would be just as unsure. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst the map may not be based on raw data only available to the authorities, I think that it is close enough approximation for our purposes and can be used. The investigators will be defining the search area by eliminating outlying data, so locations outside of where the fuel can take it will have been removed as extraneous – in-flight fuelling can only be provided by air forces. The maximum distance that can be travelled is factual (because the plane's fuel is finite), as is the distance of the ping from the satellite (because light speed is a constant as is the position of the satellite relative to the earth).

    It's unfortunate that there was only one satellite to hear the pings, because it's impossible to establish the position of an object in 3 dimensions when you have data on one dimension – the surface of the earth is the only delimitation for this data, and the dots on the arc are the distance at which the satellite ping intersects with the earth's (or ocean's) surface. The arc will have been so described by the 4 or 5 pings it received. If the data were continuous, it wouldn't be just a series of dots but the full arc. The margin of error in the distances in the range calculation is probably of the order of 300 miles, adjusting for possible variations in altitude and fuel use etc. The satellite distance may have a margin of error of maybe 3 miles, being the range in possible altitudes adopted by the plane's pilot. It may be possible for investigators to make further interpolations of data, but we do not have this data. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what additional data is it based on? What is the source? We already have the released map which is clear and concise. The German map is a mess in a few ways already discussed above. As far as the surface of the earth being the only delimiter, I don't believe that's true. The variable look-angle of the satellite and the width/arc of its antenna coverage are also delimiters. You also say "The arc will have been so described by the 4 or 5 pings it received. If the data were continuous, it wouldn't be just a series of dots but the full arc." This is just wrong, according to the description accompanying the officially released arcs. Those arcs do not represent extrapolation or interpolation of multiple pings over time. They specifically state that they relate to the 8:11 AM final ping only. And the arcs represent uncertainty as to a point source at that single point in time, not movement over the time when other pings were received. If you have an authoritative source to the contrary, please provide it.

The German circle map is more scientific than the arc map from the NY Times and therefore should be included in this article.

There is no justification for the gap in the semi-circle in the map released by the Malaysian government. (That is where the NYT map came from) You will also notice that the Malaysian map cuts off the far southern end of the arc for no apparent reason.

The satellite only knows the distance to the airplane. There is no way that it could know the direction. The satellite does not have individual directional antennas that it points at every signal source. Satellites are as no-maintenance as possible which means that they have few if any moving parts.

I know that the last paragraph is in contradiction to the WaPo article. I have an amateur radio license and I have bounced radio signals off of satellites, so I put my experience above that of the WaPo reporters.

Secondly, whatever I am wrong about will not justify the gap in coverage between Viet Nam and Malaysia. I assert that this is wishful thinking by Malaysian officials and has nothing to do with satellite data. (Why would you build a satellite that has strange gaps in its coverage?)

The only way that the satellite could know the distance to the airplane is if the satellite sent a query to the airplane and then the airplane replied. So I am assuming that this communication protocol is how the system works until somebody tells me otherwise. The German map has two circles for error in position. That alone tells me that it is a more accurate map than the NYT map. One basis for the error (distance between circles) could be uncertainties in the time that it would take the aircraft system to process the message and reply. Another basis would be the shadow of the sphere on the Earth. (The satellite does not know the altitude of the plane. The inner circle would be its max altitude.)

The NYT map should still be included in the article. It is the one that has been most viewed in the news. {I am going to call the arcs in the map, sausages.} The outer skin/limit of the sausages is not based on predicted remaining fuel. The plane was being queried every 60 minutes, so after the last query it could only have traveled for 60 minutes at most, so they used the maximum airplane speed to draw the boundary. 20 minutes is just a random reference time period.

Becalmed (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say the German map is more "scientific", yet it doesn't label the circles, doesn't state the width of the corridor or how it was even derived, and elaborates/extends on the INMARSAT-sourced arcs without explanation. And just because the German map includes a "band"/corridor does not make it more accurate, unless it specifies how it arrived at that error band. It just has the *appearance* of accuracy... "truthiness" as Colbert would say. Until INMARSAT or another authoritative source elaborates, we have no basis for changing the released map. I think it's revealing that INMARSAT hasn't issued a statement detailing any discrepancies in the map released by the Malaysian government. As far as the southern arc being cut off, you don't know that, it could be that it only runs to the map edge, but because it's only open ocean no margin was deemed helpful there. Lots of assumptions being made. Too many. The existing map is not ideal, but the best and best-sourced that we have at the moment. You say the NYT graphic should be included, but I don't believe it can be used due to copyright? 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The German map is more scientific because it is based on the speed of light being a constant. That is my only assumption. Every other argument has all sorts of crazy assumptions. (You are probably right about copyright. I have no opinion on that.) Becalmed (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The plane positions are the same in both maps. (Same radius) I am just saying that some parts of the circle were excluded for non-scientific purposes in one map. Becalmed (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further mention of directionality: "Inmarsat executives told the media that the signals did not include altitude and location, but the DIRECTION and timing could be used to approximate the plane’s position." http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/15/airc-m15.html This is in line with the NYT and WaPo statements. Trying to remember where I've seen others, but it's hard finding amid all the various stories on this right now. It's been discussed that the satellite adjusts its look-angle until reception/transmission is optimized. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Authority is a common logical fallacy [1] The number of journalists that you have found copying each other doesn't prove anything. You are not required to take a single science class to get a journalism degree, so why do you think that they know anything about the operation of satellites? Becalmed (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal to Authority? No, not at all. I'm citing sources, something Wikipedia encourages. From the guidelines, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I'm not claiming it's *necessarily* correct, I'm claiming it's from credible published sources, as opposed to a German wiki editor's unsubstantiated beliefs. I realize journalists are fallible, but note that it's attributed to Inmarsat executives directly, not just a journalist's belief. Other journalists published similar explanations independently. Multiple publications based on Inmarsat executive comments establishes verifiability. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. There are no quotes attributed to Inmarsat executives in the article that you quoted. Everything is just the journalist's belief. This is not science. It is the usual uneducated journalist making thing up. Becalmed (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was a direct quote, I said it was attributed to Inmarsat execs, which it was. It wasn't "made up", it was a paraphrase of their statements. Could a mistake have crept in? Sure, bit it's attributed nonetheless, and is consistent with other journalists' stories. Likewise, your empty claims and the German map are not "science" either. If you doubt the journalism, produce your own established verifiable sources that contradict them. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing that you have to swallow is that the satellite company is saying that "We know where you are, except for that whole North/South thing." How does the satellite point an antenna, then? "And if you are are near the equator, we can't see you at all." Becalmed (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who's making things up now? You've created direct quotes out of thin air based on your assumptions and limited knowledge. That's about as far from science as you can get. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it much more explicitly worded here, now the 4th source: "Based on the hourly connections with the plane, described by a U.S. official as a "handshake," the satellite knows at what angle to tilt its antenna to be ready to receive a message from the plane should one be sent. Using that antenna angle, along with radar data, investigators have been able to draw two vast arcs, or "corridors" ..." http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3364021.shtml 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows the Inmarsat coverage. The gap in the arc that had been published is where Inmarsat IOR and POR overlap. For the first couple of hours or so MH370 was inside that area and it's likely both IOR and POR could see the ACARS pings. After that, only IOR saw them. MH370 had enough fuel for eight hours. The flight was planned for 6.5 hours and they had a 1.5 hour safety margin. The last ping was received eight hours into the flight. This picture shows Australia's radar coverage. Australia has said they have not seen MH370. That picture also shows the possible range of MH370 but it seems to include a safety margin for decent and landing. If you remove that margin then MH370 may well have flown south-southwest skirting the edge of Australia's radar coverage and intersected IOR's 40 degree circle to the south shortly before it ran out of fuel. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If IOR and POR can see the same spot on Earth, shouldn't that area be double strong and not ever eliminated from the map? If your theory was correct about the IOR and POR overlap being eliminated from the NYT map, a much larger area would be missing from the arc on the Malaysian map. No, the Malaysians drew the map haphazardly and the radius to IOR is the only part that you should pay attention to. (Your satellite map should be included in the article, though) Becalmed (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait! I see what you are saying. You are saying that they cut off the East end of the circle on the assumption that if the airplane was there, it would have been picked up by both satellites and not just IOR. I don't know. That seems like an assumption that I would not be willing to bet the farm on. It still doesn't explain why they cut off the southwest end of the arc and extended the northwest part past the service range of the airplane. Becalmed (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously asserted in this thread that "the arcs come from antenna directions". I now believe that is not in fact true, the satellite's "antenna" is effectively 360 degrees, and Marc Kupper is on the right track here. I believe "The cutoff due east of the sub-satellite point is likely due the fact that the transmissions would also potentially be received by Inmarsat’s Pacific Ocean Region satellite at that point, and if they weren’t, then that region would be ruled out." In other words, the cutoff has nothing to do with the "antenna position" of the Inmarsat 3F1 satellite located over the Indian Ocean, it has to do with the fact the Pacific satellite could also see that area and because it didn't see anything that area has been cut off. As for the other side, while "It's possible that the boundaries to the north and south have been established similarly by the boundaries of Inmarsat’s Atlantic Ocean Region satellite coverage... they may instead be based on available fuel, rather than the satellite measurements per se." I've invited the Germans to add the range of the Pacific satellite as this neatly explains the cut-off of Vietnam, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the gap makes sense, if a Pacific satellite's coverage intersected and it was known that no signal was received by it. Though that's still speculative. Likewise the furthest north and south limits could be delimited by an Atlantic satellite coverage intersection, but that's also speculation. The author at your link suggests they could be delimited by available fuel also. This part is not only speculative, but the northern and southern tips are not equidistant from the center as they would be if delimited by available fuel. In fact, the map he includes overlays an estimated fuel range circle, with the northern arc extending well beyond it. Whatever the reasoning might be, the known arcs of locus are limited at both ends, I think that's the main takeaway. I've seen several different overlays of estimated fuel ranges with different diameters. Any attempt at that should source Boeing data on maximum range with the documented fuel load, less estimated fuel use up to point of last countact. Which is not for amateurs. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that the Inmarsat 3F1 has several directional "wide spot" beams it can use, not just a single global beam. If you go to the following link that shows that particular satellite's beam coverage areas, and choose "EastHemi" at top, that approximates the footprint the arcs fall into. I think this is key to understanding. As far as the Germans adding a Pacific satellite range, that's guessing and groping in the dark by amateurs, not sufficient for Wikipedia. May be true, may not. http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?norad=27513 74.116.173.2 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the analysis you just presented here was developed in the brightest of sunshine? Isn't the Wikipedia community in general largely "amateur"? If you want an encyclopedia written by professionals you may be in the wrong place. The Germans are trying to the same job we're supposed to be doing: write an encyclopaedia. Unless there is a demonstrable problem with their work, and I don't see one yet, I say fine effort, Wikipedians.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stunningly obtuse interpretation of my comments. Edited by amateurs, yes, but original research by amateurs acceptable in articles here, no, absolutely not. The various incarnations of the German map is a series of amateurs grasping at straws based on guesses later informed by reality, but still not completely so. The comments I've made have been on the talk page, and never did I suggest inclusion of them in the article, as the German map has been. It's interesting that you fail to comment on the Inmarsat 3F1 directional beams documented at the site I linked, after your claim of no directionality. The silence is deafening. The preceding being offered in support of the existing officially released map being fine and correct as-is, not in an attempt to edit anything regarding this into the article itself. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that "the Inmarsat 3F1 has several directional 'wide spot' beams it can use, not just a single global beam." However, in this case evidently Immarsat only uses the global beam for these “pings” since otherwise we would have seen more areas ruled out of consideration (e.g. "1000 miles west of Perth" would not be bandied about as the most likely spot). At issue is whether our Germans compatriots are so clueless their work cannot be used and we have to use copyrighted material, material I further believe is too exact since it presents a thin red line as if the "corridor" of possibility is only mile wide.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "most likely" west of Perth spot conjecture you mention is completely separate from the hard map data that's been released. The EastHemi directional beam matches up quite well with the limits of the published arcs, and coincides with comments about direction from Inmarsat at the time of release of the map. There is no actual evidence that you've cited that "only" the global beam was used. None. It's wishful thinking at this point. And what is the source of the supposed copyright claim on something that was released for general distribution? The endless revisions of the German map have only more and more closely resembled the official one, eliminating the need for it at all. The fuel-range circle on it is still completely undocumented/unsourced/unlabeled, and coming up with something that does not involve original research will be a challenge. Also, the "corridor" verbiage has been substituted with "locus" in the article here for greater clarity. And, of course, their map is still in German. As far as the width of the arcs, you may be on to something, but what you state as your belief is not adequate for inclusion. Only verifiable info on actual error range from a reliable source (not opinion or conjecture) would allow showing a specified width. So... far, far from any basis for inclusion in this article as preferable over the existing one. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the south and east ends of the position arcs line up with the limits of the Inmarsat beam antenna map that you linked to. We would have to assume that the satellite knows which antenna it received the signal on. That is not that big of a leap. Thanks for providing the link. Becalmed (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging that. Yes, it sounds like the satellite uses the directional beam that provides the optimal signal, and that's what allows them to get a direction, or at least a directional swath. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The satellites use their global antenna for the pings. Consider dropping a pebble into a pond. You see an expanding ring. If there's a rock sticking out of the pond it will reflect part of that ring back. If you measure how long it takes from the pebble hitting the water to the reflecting getting back to where the pebble hit then you know how far away the rock is but not in which direction it is.
Inmarsat pings are similar. The satellite sends a ping on the global antenna. All terminals that receive the ping reply back with their ID code. When a reply is received by the Inmarsat satellite knows how far away that terminal is based on the time delay. The quickest replies come from terminals directly under the satellite and the slowest are from terminals at the horizon (from the satellite's perspective). Once they know how quickly a terminal that's easily converted into the distance from the satellite. The distance is converted into a circle or ring that's centered at a spot directly underneath the satellite.
Some pictures shown in the news have degree marks for the rings with MH370 somewhere on the 40 degree line. That's misleading. From the Inmarsat's perspective, the horizon is just 8.59 degrees from straight down. (8.59 degrees is computed by 6371 km radius for Earth, 35786 km altitude for Geostationary orbit. Add 6371+35786 shows the orbit is 42157 km above the center of the Earth. That gives you a right triangle with the right angle at Earth center. The resulting hypotenuse is 42636 km. The sine of (6371 divided by 42636) is 0.148873313 radians which gets converted to 8.53 degrees (rounded to 100ths).
To put 8.59 degrees into perspective, hold your arm straight out with the fingers relaxed but also pointing out. The width of your hand is roughly ten degrees. Thus, from an Inmarsat satellite's perspective, the Earth is just under two handwidths wide.
Now that we have gotten the math out of the way, :-), the Inmarsat system tries to keep track of where all of their terminals are so that when there's a request to talk to a terminal they know which satellite, and possibly which beam antenna on the satellite, has the best chance of talking with the terminal. As it is, I believe I read that all ACARS traffic is done on the global antenna as it's both cheaper and they don't need the bandwidth that the beam and narrow beam antenna give you.[2] See Inmarsat#Coverage about the beams though unfortunately, that section does not have any citations. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't really put the 40° on the map into perspective, thanks. Just an idea I had about why the arcs may end where they do: what we know is that the satellite over the Indian Ocean obtained an angle (from perpendicular to earth) for the signal and the time was used to calculate distance. Since the earth isn't a perfect sphere, plotting the same angle & distance from the known point the locations would be at different altitudes. It's possible that the arcs correspond to points in space (mathematically-speaking) that are within a reasonable altitude (0ft-40000ft/12000m) above earth's surface for a passenger aircraft. Of course this is just a plausible idea and (like most of this conversation) is just speculation, thanks to the lack of info about MH370 released by investigators. AHeneen (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the angle referenced in the map given by authorities (40°) is the elevation angle from the Earth location. Directly beneath the satellite is 90° straight above. However, the elevation angle is given from the earth location relative to vertical at that point. The elevation angle is not the angle from the satellite's perspective nor is it a right angle from any point on the earth's surface. Rather it is derived from the satellite's location relative to a tangent line at the location on the earth's surface. The arc also corresponds to the "East Hemi beam" ([3]) for the satellite, so maybe that's the beam that received the signal, not the global beam. AHeneen (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I agree everything seems to point to it being sourced from the EastHemi beam. Marc has a guess about it being global instead, but no reliable source for that. Marc, how to you reconcile the apparent comments regarding directionality from the Inmarsat execs that have been cited in the press? 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia's Transport Minister is showing a map of the northern position arc and it extends all the way to the Caspian Sea! http://huff.to/1idJKnN Becalmed (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I have been trying to find out is, Where are the circuit breakers for ACARS. Pilot/consultants on news reports give two answers: (1) a panel located immediately behind the captain’s seat and (2) an equipment rack located at a level below the cockpit, accessible by a trap door observable from passenger compartment (really?). Another question: Is there a separate circuit breaker for the “ping” transmitters? Paul Niquette (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the other hourly pings can be of help. Everyone is focussing on the final ping but the earlier pings could be of use. They could create an arc for each ping and then put them all together to give the possible location for the plane each hour after it disappeared from radar. That knowledge together with an estimate of the speed of the plane could narrow down it's flight path. Which might give a heads up to where it ended up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.124.10 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is banging on about "the last ping" and happy to accept the unnamed "experts" red arcs. Who made the red arcs? What were their methods? Where is the raw data? Where are the missing pings? There are many people apart from those officially assigned to investigate with knowledge of wave propagation who would like access to the raw ping data. Calculating possible locations based on ping data is complicated and involves consideration of satellite location, height, wavelength, speed of radio waves through various mediums such as rain and wind, signal strength, doppler effect. Each ping should produce it's own arc and an estimate of plane speed would narrow down possible directions of travel. What if the last ping was sent just after the plane crashed in open water and was in the process of being inundated but still powered? Radio waves travel much slower through water. This would bring the red arcs much closer to the satellite. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the chances of an aircraft pinging as it's being inundated? (... and you think doppler makes a significant contribution here?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last ping tells where and when the plane last heard from - where it was earlier is less important. As the satellite is some 22,500 miles high, I doubt a short depth of water would have slowed the radio signal down all that much, and the signal would not have travelled far through water before being very much degraded (the satellites aren't fitted for sonar). The arcs were produced by Inmarsat - the satellite operators. Just because the other pings haven't been released publicly, doesn't mean those calculations aren't available to the investigations. Besides, that doesn't really help Wikipedia - WP only requires and uses information published from reliable sources, not what-ifs or OR. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the other ping data should be released, not just the final one. Lynbarn, you say other pings are less important, but actually they would give hints about direction of travel that, taken together, would narrow the possible end points. All data should be released so "crowd-sourced" analysis can be done, just as is being done with satellite shots. I'm not sure how much of that is due to security concerns about capabilities, but in general, the more info that is released, the more the billions of creative minds of the world can be applied to it, and the more likelihood of a breakthrough. I'm assuming the arcs come from analysis by Inmarsat, but nobody has ever said, nor how the ends of the arcs were delimited. And all sorts of variations on those arcs have appeared in news media graphics without explaining why they differ. The NTSB needs a PIO to discuss these issues, and release whatever can be released. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for range of the plane with 7-8 hours of flight time? Currently the fuel range shown is 4800 km, but the Boeing 777 specifications claim typical cruise speed to be 905 km/h, which would make the range about 6800 km, maybe more to west as with trade winds. The plane maximum range is 14 000 km as it is Extended Range model, so the range depends on the available fuel. Puuska (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'See also' list

For an inarticulated reason, the following was removed from the 'See also' section by WWGB (talk | contribs)‎. The edit summary of "c'mon" suggests a lack of due diligence by the editor. If the Tomnod link had been actually been checked prior to summarily being deleted, the relevance to this article would be obvious; it is certainly "related", and has an entire section devoted to this article, see: Tomnod#Malaysia Flight 370.

Please see (and read) WP:See also: List of "... internal links to related Wikipedia articles ... one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I have no desire to get into an edit war with WWGB (talk | contribs)‎ or anyone else; if there is a consensus to do so, please return Tomnod to the 'See also' list. ~Thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it adds greatly to the article, so I'd leave it out. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read WP:See also — The purpose of 'See also' is not to "add greatly to the article". Also note that the Tomnod program is far from being "fringe" or even "controversial"; if one can argue that this in somehow not related to this article, please do so. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP editor, and suggest having a See also entry for Tomnod#Malaysia Flight 370 JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A see also should add to the article, and the link doesnt add anything. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to change policy guidelines for Wikipedia's Manual of Style, this is not the place for that. If you wish to discuss how the current guidelines support your position, please do. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC):[update timestamp]:05:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good extract of WP:See also above. The edit in question fits those criteria. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The "See also" section has been removed on 2014-03-20 by TheAirplaneGuy, his reason being: "not needed at this stage". I disagree. On WP:See also one can read: "[...] one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." There is a number of accidents involving a similar class commercial aircraft and navigational problems. I believe that this section should be returned, as there is no other straightforward way to find previous accidents involving navigational problems. Here are some:

Anyone agreeing with my reasons please feel free to reinstate the section and use these entries. --Borut (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it's a load of rubbish to add an See Also section as the plane hasn't even been found yet! A fair few of the editors I've talk to, WWGB, YSSY Guy agree that a see also section isn't needed just YET. Interesting how the IP editor is talking like that, would of thought he/she would of created an account by now... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. We need to be patient and wait until the dust has settled. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, far to early TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat tangential to the 'See also' issue, but relevant to the original 'Tomnod' posting: certainly, satellite images provided by DigitalGlobe has "added greatly" to the search effort; and, readers might want to find out more about the subject, therefore (I believe) a link would be a useful addition to this article. See: Reuters , BBC , [etc.]  ~"IP editor [who] is talking like that":71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Heads up

According to the Prime Minister of Australia, pieces of the aircraft may have just been found. There is nothing online about this yet, but it was just announced on the news, so this is just a heads up just in case a flurry of edits suddenly appear on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah saw it on Al Jazeera, maybe some truth to it or just another Abbott propaganda..--Stemoc (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it is now in the article, so I guess we can moderate it accordingly. Also, I doubt he would pull a stunt like this, especially since this would be one of the worst calls a politician could do. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources.[4][5] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More info needs to be added to the lead. thanks.

Thecodingproject (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mention shouldn't be made until the objects are confirmed to be from the plane. As an aside, images released by the Australian government are not in the public domain and could only be added to the article under fair use (per Commons). AHeneen (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to disagree - world news and the only really credible possible "breakthrough" that appears to have been made so far. But we certainly would not want an image at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sighting is so far unconfirmed, although obviously promising enough for a country's leader to go public about it; but then he may just be playing the "transparency" card. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be jumping from one hypothesis to another. It's only a working theory that is already included in the body. I think it can wait a few hours (or may be until morning, because it'll be nightfall in Australia) before we need to decide to include it in the lead – if it turns out to be a true sighting, it will of course go in; and if it isn't, it never belonged in the first place. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not jumping from any particular theory to any other theory. To me it's just a set of relevant and notable facts. Australian PM + image + RS = worthy of mention. Even if it proves to be mistaken, I suspect it will still remain worthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My insert of the info into the Intro was reverted on the grounds that it was just a "hot theory". It's not a hot theory if several planes and a ship have been dispatched to the area. We are not saying that this is the plane but just reporting on major actions taken to find it. If people go to the page and see no reference in the Intro to this search they will believe that the article is out of date. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young, the Amsa chief, said after Abbott’s announcement that the objects were “relatively indistinct” on the satellite imagery but were of “reasonable size and probably awash with water … bobbing up and down in the water. We have been in this business of doing search and rescue and using satellite images before,” Young said. “They do not always turn out to be related to the search even if they look good, so we will hold our views on that until they are sighted.” quoted from The Guardian. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've included a shortened summary of the current search. The fact it was announced by the Australian PM is itself, and will remain, notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right that PM's announcements have been quite rare up to now. But you know, actually it's a lot less than a hot theory if you read the Guardian article above. It's a good report, but all indications are that it's only a lead. Maybe the only promising lead. -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the images and see a lot of detail that is nearly identical between the Mar.14 and Mar.16 images, which is virtually impossible if it's all floating in the open ocean. Could we be seeing coral reefs, with a large shipping container wedged on one of the coral ridges? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)[reply]
It is certainly not up to us to guess whether there is debris from the plane or not. It certainly is up to us to report, prominently, that the search has become focused on possible debris. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by Mar.14 and Mar.16 images? Those I've seen such as at [6] are both dated Mar 16 - one version of each has been enhanced/sharpened to aid clarity, but they were taken at the same time. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pair of images I was viewing was linked from this tweet: https:// mobile.twitter.com /newscomauHQ/status/446541102321897472 The text-frames overlaying the upper-left corner of each image are so tiny they are difficult to read, but it looked like 16 ... in one and 14 ... in the other. But looking back at it now, maybe they are both 16 ..., in which case nevermind my remark about stuff remaining in place over two days. In any case, I haven't seen any image of the smaller object, alleged to be about 14 km away from this largest object. Is there any Web site where somebody is volunteering to collect links to ALL the various images and maps that have been proposed as possibly related to this missing plane, with annotations if and when we know whether they are correctly the plane or correctly something else or hoax/mistake etc.? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)[reply]
The Guardian says http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/20/mh370-poor-conditions-hamper-search-debris-indian-ocean the search area is centred on the 250x400km Naturalist Plateau, average depth 3500m, with surrounding waters at 5000m, that would tend to rule out coral reefs unless there are any significant seamounts on the plateau. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Abbott's announcement is very significant, but perhaps not in the way you may think.

    I think it will be seen tomorrow as an exemplary way to communicate. There has been a lot of confusion and many communications mishaps. Now that the search is on Aussie turf, they are showing the world how it's done. Here, however, the importance is not in the information itself, but the process by which it is delivered.

    The communication takes place at the highest possible level, yet extremely cautious. It sends a clear message that Australian is taking the search effort very seriously and that the head of state is personally involved and "on the pulse". The Malaysian PM "has been notified", so he's not trying to upstage anyone, yet making the declaration in parliament (probably within minutes of having informed Najib) means he's very much in charge at home. Abbott demonstrates that he is in control and open. There is information, yet the parameters of uncertainty are clearly laid out, and a more detailed

  • brief is provided by the head of AMRS in secondary briefings. The progress is couched in terms that while there is hope, expectations are not unduly raised.

    I urge you once again not to jump the gun. I sincerely hope that they have found the plane, but as already said, the Aussie revelations may not come to anything – even they have said so categorically. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update The aircraft has now returned after an extensive search and has confirmed no objects found at all. That area now "ruled out" (even if it was wreckage and has sunk). Have not yet heard if the ships have been recalled. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I heard on TV is they found nothing Thursday during 2-hr search window, mostly because of clouds and rain, but will go out again Friday at daybreak to try again, hoping for better weather making search easier. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)[reply]
I think you are right, although the reporter (the only press to be briefed directly by the pilot) who spoke on today's The World at One on BBC Radio 4, sounded pretty definite that the search had been both extensive and thorough. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The search area is over 2000 km from land. By the time an Orion gets there it has around two hours of searching time before it has to return, due to fuel requirements. It was in very stormy conditions. Not ideal for a search. It also got dark! Sunrise in the area is soon, and searching will resume, but do understand the limitations here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's nearer to Antarctica than it is to Australia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a map: [7] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as speculative information?

This story is a few days old, but could be useful in the part about the search.--RM (Be my friend) 09:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

You used the word "could". The article headline uses the word "could". That's double speculation. So, no. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COULD be nice if the speculation police could try being polite for once 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following over-all timeline. In case you like it, for how long do we want to update it? Soerfm (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date Search Investigation Public response
March (UTC)
8 Saturday: Malaysia Airlines confirmed they lost contact with flight MH370 at 2:40 am local time (later corrected to 1:30 am). An international search and rescue mission was mobilized.
9 The search area for the rescue mission was expanded as the aircraft might have turned back. Four suspect passengers were investigated in a terror link.
10 Test reveals that an oil slick on the South China Sea did not come from Flight 370. Ten Chinese satellites were now utilized in the search. Malaysia Airlines announced it will give 31,000 yuan (app. $5,000 US) to the relatives of each passenger.
11 Terror link grew cold after Malaysian police found that two of the men, who travelled on stolen passports, were probably not terrorists.
12 Chinese satellite images showed possible debris from Flight 370 in the South China Sea Beijing criticized Malaysia for inadequate answers regarding Flight 370.
13 Search was expanded to the Indian Ocean.
14 Investigation concluded that Flight 370 was still under the control of a pilot after it lost contact with ground control.
15 The last satellite transmission from Flight 370 was traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia. Malaysian police searched the homes of both of the plane's pilots in an inside-plot link.
16 The number of countries involved in the search and rescue operation reached 25.
17
18 China started a search operation in a northern region of its own territory. Relatives of Chinese passengers are threatening to hunger strike for lack of information from Malaysian authorities.
19 Files deleted from the home flight simulator of the captain were tried restored. People came together for an interfaith ceremony for the flight.
20 Aircraft and ships were dispatched to locate two objects seen by satellite floating in the southern Indian Ocean. Number of countries in search reached 26
21 Search focused on an area 3,000 km southwest of Perth, Australia.

Color-code: alternating weeks.
Source.[timeline 1]
While I like the idea things like March 15 having "The last satellite transmission from missing Flight 370 has been traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia" without mentioning the northern arc are of a concern.
The table would be a bit more compact if the first column was a "Day" column rather than the full date. "Day" may introduce confusion because on Day 10 for example the plane would have been missing for 9 days. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added color-code for every week and name of the month. Soerfm (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is looking good - I think it should be maintained daily until such time as they find it or call off the search. Need to update the entries to make sure tenses are consistent though - they are all over the place - which is preferred - unlsess there is a wiki style preference, I would go for past tense, Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
another false lead just a container flotsam dont get excited yet --Evensacornevensacorn|talk 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evensacornevensacorn (talk • contribs)
I do support the inclusion of this timeline, very well done! It will explain the efforts by day, and for my documentary on MH370 is also helpfull. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.93.63 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more support for the search effort timeline! It makes things clear!! 177.42.54.107 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with this timeline: it could take years for this search to be concluded. Perhaps this timeline should be spun-off as a separate article (eventually; it's fine for now).  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the guy above on this one. It should either be scraped or put into a separate article TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this article title Dead ends in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Only the last search, the one that actually locates the aircraft, if it occurs, merits appearance in this encyclopedia. The unsuccessful searches are interesting and properly belong in web news sites, not listed here. patsw (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been suggested that a Search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 be created where all this stuff can go, probably a bit early yet as it is hard enough keeping this article in order never mind two. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

I'm not sure if it's worth adding to external links but http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/ and http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/mh370-search.asp are relevant and a WP:RS. The web site reports "Copyright © Australian Maritime Safety Authority." I have not looked into if products of the Australian government are automatic public-domain the way U.S. government created material is. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian government publications are under crown copyright for 50 years if not otherwise licensed. Some are now giving cc-by-3.0, but you have to check each site. I don't think the link needs to be added unless they have a large amount of relevant content on their web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, if you link, why does copyright matter?CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright issue if we link. At the time, it seemed these may well be related to MH370 meaning someone would likely upload the images to Wikipedia. That's why I brought up the copyright. Thank you for finding the crown copyright for 50 years part. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The locations of the objects spotted by the Australian Defence Department are provided on the images AMSA have released at https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_01_14.jpg and https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/images/DIGO_00718_02_14.jpg. The co-ordinates for the first are 43 58' 34"S 90 57' 37"E and for the second 44 03' 02"S 91 13' 27"E. These co-ordinates are not provided in media coverage, but I believe WP should publish them. Any thoughts?? And how do we get a degrees symbol in HTML? Craigallan.za (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The degree symbol is ° which displays as 123°. I noticed those coordinates on the images too and wondered why the general media was not at least putting a dot on the maps. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomnod!

Hello Everyone! Is it a good idea to add information about Tomnod in the Search paragraph, because I think Tomnod is the "public search" while the ships and fighter jets are the "private search" WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed above and I dont think it gained a consensus to be added. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tomnod must be added because it did contributed to new leads currently being investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.93.63 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Milborne! Were you talking about the See Also post? If so, they were talking about Tomnod in the See also.... section. However, I was talking about including the info in the article itself. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, tomnod must be added in the search paragraph. This artikel today is labeled "This article documents a current event.", so it not "far to early" to add this information. And it is an ongoing, worldwide crowdsouce effort in this search. Tomnod does not need to actually find the plane to make it into wikipedia, it IS part of the search right now. Even the official international search of at least 20.3.and 21.3 is aimed at "two objects...had been spotted by a satellite". The images in the news that show the two objects IS imagery from Digitalglobe. The same images that are online on tomnod. I qoute 71.20.250.51 from the "See Also"-Talk: "if one can argue that this in somehow not related to this article, please do so"79.241.175.207 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cant list very agency or organisation or volunteers that are part of the search particularly unofficial amateurs, in the unlikely event they find something then that would be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not counter?

Why there is a note not to add a counter? Like this one {{Start date and age|2002|09|23}} So it will say that it is missing for "2 weeks". --Kirov Airship (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template in the infobox: | date = {{Start date|2014|03|08|df=y}} — if there were a consensus to do so, it could be changed to {{Start date and age|2014|03|08|df=y}} , which would render: 8 March 2014; 10 years ago (2014-03-08)  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back when were were under 72 hours some editors tried to add the number of hours it has been missing (currently at 91060 hours). Other editors objected and removed that. I really like how the use of {{Start date and age}} you suggested is displayed and so added that to the infobox. Media reports these days are regularly reporting the number of days and so the adding age may have work this time. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't our readers do arithmetic? Let's see. 21 minus 8. Hmmmmmm.... HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
consider WP:NOTNEWS How would it look if this event had occurred a month ago - five years ago... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered a potential compromise. If the "current" template were to be replaced with {{current|date={{Start date and age|2014|03|08|df=y}}}}, it would render as the following; and once this is no longer considered a current event and the template is removed, then the counter goes with it.  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections, I'll go ahead and modify accordingly.[Nevermind]  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
object This isn't necessary, adds nothing to the article, and is messing about with a standard Wikipedia message. I wouldn't bother - Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photograph

It looks like there is a slow edit war over the photograph. Can we please stick with the original for the time being and discuss any change on this talk page? Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there's no reason we have to name the airport in the infobox caption, and anyways I like the original more for what its worth. I think the gear down almost looks better, and that image definitely looks "more like" a 777, whatever that means... I don't think planform views are that valuable in most cases and the new image really pushes in that direction, although I think it would be great to add to the body 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to get a little opinionated, lets leave it as it is TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt an agree, two disagrees, and a comment counts as consensus... anyways on a side note, imagine how awesome WP would be if the "experienced" editors were the IPs and not the other way around...! 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
then please stop reverting my edits trying to fix the problem by using both images!!! if we have two images and empty text blocks, there is literally no reason to only use one 72.35.149.153 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using both?

Please stop removing the alternate image of the aircraft until there is consensus. Reading above it seems like this has been controversial in the past, so the easiest way to solve it is to use both. Arguments that "we don't need both" are inapplicable for properly sourced and notable works, using existing formatting, which of course any image of this plane qualifies. Furthermore having multiple views of the airplane in question is far more encyclopedic than images of aircraft types involved in the search. If there is room for it, there is no reason to reduce the amount of encyclopedic info we present. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thu current infobox image was the first one used, so it should remain displayed until there is consensus to change it. Remember, it's WP:BRD, not BREWEWEWFPPBPD! Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree, I've always advocated for keeping that one too in the infobox, what I'm talking about is adding additional images in-line, like the one that was causing the earlier mentioned edit war. Anyways I crawled my dumb ass over to commons and realized there are like two dozen 9M-MRO already existant, so I took some of the gems and made a gallery for us, hopefully that will make everyone happy 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, Wikipedia isn't a museum. And I have never seen an airplane crash article with a gallery... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MH370 last ping corridors.jpg

File:MH370 last ping corridors.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That map was released for distribution, and that's how it's being used. Fair Use. I also haven't seen any evidence that it was authored by the Malaysian Government, only that it was released by them at one of their press conferences - it may have been authored by Inmarsat or the NTSB. Also, the proposed substitute map is not a duplicate of the info in the original, but rather makes new assumptions without a reliable source, as has been discussed elsewhere here. The copyright-disputed map should not be deleted. See my further comments on the image's Talk page. 2001:558:600A:63:4554:A84B:5713:24 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a statement just released by the Malaysian Transport Minister, the map has been confirmed as a product of the U.S. Government and so therefore public domain:

"Upon receiving the raw data, the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used. Initial results were received on Thursday 13th March at approximately 13:30, but it was agreed by the US team and the investigations team that further refinement was needed, so the data was again sent back to the US. The results were received at approximately 14:30 on Friday 14th March, and presented to the investigations team at a high-level meeting at 21:00 on Friday." [8] 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt appear to mention the image or that the image was part of the American presentation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As if they would present a screen full of digits? Of course it was presented in map form. 74.116.173.2 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the Americans presented a map its not mentioned in the quote and "data" could be anything, also if they did use a map how do we know the image in question was the same one or has been produced by the Americans. All we need is a reliable source that the map in question was produced by an American government agency. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi someone deleted the image gallery I made of the jet, and linked to a WP non-policy page as justification! Please help! 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Image dos and don'ts, please justify your reason to include the image gallery TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, you've already been informed that guidance page is not policy (it says so right at the top FYI)...so please point to some policy that says galleries aren't allowed (if you can)... anyways more to the point you're deleting images of the aircraft in question, that have proper CC licenses- I guess I shouldn't be surprised you've already been reported once for editing errors on the MH370 page, I'm happy to reopen that if you think it will help 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, when I replaced the image of the cockpit with the image of the cabin, you reverted it and didn't bother to replace the cockpit image... so in your zeal to revert all of my edits you're actually making the page worse, and not just maintaining status quo, I hope you realize that 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you were talking about there, but is says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wow another non-policy source you've found so far... I guess you must really hate image galleries huh? Anyways until you can find someone else to agree with you on principle I think I'm going to continue being bold, its interesting that your edit summaries act like you're dealing with vandalism, when in fact you're making editorial judgments (and you've been called on this before within the last week). So from now on I'd like to see some policy-based edit summaries, or its off to the admin noticeboard with you (again)72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, why does this article need an image gallery? It's about a single plane. In my view, the images that we do have are better placed in the individual relevant sections. I can't see how multiple images of the aircraft itself would have any value. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I tried adding inline images originally, but those all got reverted too, I'll see what i can figure out going forward72.35.149.153 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a conceited person you are, it's about a single plane as per above.... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

72.35.149.153, whilst i appreciate your efforts, ask yourself "What does a gallery of old images of the missing plane actually ADD to this article?" Other than one in the infobox (and even that isn't necessary, although custom suggests it is useful), I don't see how they would add anything of value. There are many sites where galleries of aircraft types - and even particular aircraft - are encouraged, but not Wikipedia. This article has already restricted the number of images of the search fleet to two, to avoid the article getting too cluttered. Now, if you had some of the plane SINCE it went missing... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I wish... anyways I can generally agree with you, especially on the cleanup of the search vehicle section, which was very out of control for a while with images and terrible formatting. However keep in mind, we've always had in fact, TWO pictures of the aircraft, one was just of the interior (cockpit). Like I said before, this other editor who is spending all their time reverting my edits, has in fact removed the cockpit image and is now deleting it when I try to restore it (this is due to me moving it around and them not realizing I didn't originate it, which says a lot about some folks understanding of good faith editing). I'm probably going to be blocked for this whole fiasco but I hope the rest of you guys whose edits are of a "higher caliber" can at least get things back to status quo, with the cockpit image included.
And now to get on my high horse for a second, I hope people check out the commons pages for the search as well as 9M-MRO... there are tons of interesting images on those pages, like images of the actual search plane crews etc... also some great shots of 9M-MRO. Its a little weird that we spend all this time updating the maps for this article, but we are not willing to update or change the pictures. Anyways I guess I think that images of the actual airframe are more notable than the anonymous shots of P-3s and various frigates, and first priority should always be to have pictures of the plane itself, before we use anything else, but I'm willing to accept i'm in the minority on that one 72.35.149.153 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. Thanks for discussing. Everyone needs to follow the edit warring guidelines and discuss until WP:CONSENSUS is reached. There's no rush, so take the time to discuss and don't revert. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need an image gallery as we already have a commons link in the article for readers to follow. I am sure if the aircraft is found then we can add some free post-missing images, somebody needs to find 9M-MRO first. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Online Source of Information About MA370

Out of all of the seemingly infinite online discussions about this tragedy, the messageboard that is most well either following or checking on periodically is the Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost thread on the PPRuNe Web Page's Rumours & News section. Despite the noise that typifies Internet discussion groups, there is a lot of useful information, ideas, links, figures, and other background information to be found by wading through the posts. Paul H. (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.: Pprune is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia, however, it is a useful research tool, as often there are links from Pprune to reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely that Pprune is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia. I was just suggesting it can be a useful research tool as the discussions on Pprune often contain links to and citations for reliable sources that people can consult. Although Pprune is not a WP:RS, it can help interested parties find reliable sources and understand their limitations. It also highlights the complexity and controversial aspects of the subject of this article. Paul H. (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>> Search for Malaysian jet: Pentagon spends $2.5 million; India deploys Super Hercules aircraft>> New satellite images show possible debris(Lihaas (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Present / Past Tense of Passengers / Crew

Hello - I am simply wondering whether the tenses of the status of passengers and crew should agree. Thank you. KarenBelton (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Karen Belton 3/21/14[reply]

Do you have any examples? it depends on context, they were the crew and passengers of Flight 370 rather are as the Flight has clearly ended somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past vs. present tense (generally speaking) and Capt Zaharie Shah and First Lt. Fariq Hamid

I added that pilots did not request to fly together: [9]

But I need to find source if they like[d] or dislike[d] each other? Do [did] they get along? Do [did] they respect each other? Also, what tense should I use? I think past-tense should be used, since they are presumed deceased by now. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the rostering policy for Malaysia Airlines? Are pilots and co-pilots usually permitted such requests? Why is that in any way relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close this it was raised before and without information on the rostering policy of the airline is not notable or relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they didn't want to fly with each other, then there could have been cockpit tension and a problem with the third variable: aviate, navigate, communicate --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you have a reliable source that crews always pick each other ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to the relevance of Crew resource management in general, to aviation incidents and accidents, in general, may be perfectly valid. But without any actual evidence whatsoever, or even expert opinion from a reliable source, that this was a relevant factor here, it is simply speculation and so cannot be considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, in the absence of: I am seeking a source for: "I don't not like to be paired with this crewmember" list. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you find one you are welcome to share it here, but it's significance may still be open to question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pilots didn't ask to fly together

This has just reappeared in the article, and is referenced, but on it's own is unsupported within the article. It should be removed or extended to explain why this comment is significant. Me? I'd remove it. There is as yet no evidence to suggest which, if either, of the crew had anything to do with planning the incident.Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will remove. I think it should be added he was engaged to marry Air Asia Captain Nadira Ramli: [10] --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that relevant? Do we need a list of all his previous liaisons? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP needs to be considered - even if it is in the public domain through published sources, it may not be appropriate for WP. Lynbarn (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems that we have agreed it is wholly irrelevant. I'd suggest that any further discussion over the physical attractiveness, or otherwise, of any passengers or crew, should see this entire thread hastily binned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His life was going places and he will have married a wide-body captain. This makes him an unlikely less likely candidate for sabotage. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place in this article for any speculation about the pilot's marital plans, unless these has been raised as being in some way relevant to the disappearance of the aircraft by a WP:RS. This is not a discussion forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Pprune is over there! Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this forum a reliable one with good discussion and good sources? --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if you wish to improve the encyclopedia, you are most welcome. but i'm sorry that we don't indulge speculation. Not much, anyway. I'm sure there are sites and discussion boards out there where u can discuss theories, suppositions and speculation to your heart's content, and would wish you the best of luck in finding your joy. rgds, -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that the Pilot was on one schedule and the co-pilot on another that happened to coincide at that particular week or month depending how the airline rostered its crews. The same applies to the cabin crew. One roster ascends and the other descends so the crew do not work together for long periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If true, this sounds very ordinary and wholly conventional. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

Infobox image
2011: said to be "clearer" (according to TheAirplaneGuy (talk · contribs) See this edit
2012: said to "lack a distracting foreground, thus permitting a more concise caption (according to 67.100.127.204 (talk · contribs) See this edit

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

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

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

Flipped logo - NATO's AWAC's always had NATO on one side of the emblem and OTAN on the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTAN is the Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord which is the French, Spanish, and Portuguese name for NATO. The job of developing acronyms such as NATO/OTAN sounds like fun. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe somebody could make an animated GIF of the 2nd image showing the plane "fading away".    71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese satellite spots wreckage??

[11] Very interesting, was spotted apparently 2 days after the Australian find... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the ABC website now. That's two excellent sources. Definitely worth adding. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find it TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been on BBC. The object looks very similar (and similar size) to the larger of the two seen before. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page hits

This article has had over 2.8 million visits since it was started [12]. Keep up the good work! WWGB (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio transcript

I have removed the recent addition of an alleged transcript from the Daily Telegraph, it is probably misleading to add what has been said by other sources to be a not very accurate translation from English to Mandarin and back to English, we are not in a hurry in my opinion we can wait for an accurate English transcript as the Telegraph one is possibly misleading, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communication table

Presumably the original communication would have been in English; we have an English translation of a Mandarin translation. Does that tell us anything useful? The original conversation would most likely have said things like 'Hold at ...', 'Cleared takeoff...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gone already! Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of images from spy satellites - plane was still flying at sunrise (around 6 am)

not helpful

Sunrise occurred between 5:50 am and 6:20 am at the presumed latitude [13][14] of the crash landing. Since the plane disappeared at 1:30, the plane's last few hours were in daylight. After daybreak, spy satellites should have compiled thousands of gigapixel/terapixel images that could be stitched together to identify every wide-body plane above the Indian Ocean. By a process of elimination, MH-370 could be identified. I am looking for a source that discusses this. --UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFOABT - you seem to be in the habit of inventing outlandish or controversial theories and then announcing to us all that you are looking for a source. Most editors here, and on Wikipedia in general, go completely the other way - find what the sources say and then construct a theory, or at least a summary (no matter now conventional), that is supported by the most sources. It seems to be much more productive. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UFOABT - Can you give me an idea which countries would WANT to watch the desolate areas of the Southern Indian ocean, that border Antartica, with their 10cm pixel resolution Quickbirds? The military has satellite-borne wake sensors that pickup ocean vessels with a specific water signature over vast area - but aircraft tracking in this, and many other areas - is completely redundant - no one flies there. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cell phones

The present text states According to Chinese media, the relatives heard ringing tones when calling to the passengers.[34] However, flight 370 was not equipped with a base station that some airlines offer for in-flight cellphone contact,[34] it is presumed that the passengers' low powered cellphones were not able to transmit back due to distance from a transmission tower, flight altitude and shielding by the aircraft body.[34]. This seems to me to be just speculation, particularly given the use of the word "presumed". Suggest delete. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for retaining, while the word "presumed" may be removed. The related source cites the professor emeritus of computer science, who after the 9/11 attacks tested the capability of mobile telephones to work from the air: "Without this (an on-board base station), a mobile cannot be used at an altitude of more than roughly 0.5 kilometres in the case of a commercial airliner, and must not be too far from a cell tower... No cellphone could possibly succeed from an airliner in mid-ocean, even if flying low over the water. At normal cruising altitude no cellphone could possibly succeed in making ground contact as it is completely out of reach of the network of towers, in any case". Brandmeistertalk 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that has been discussed before and didnt gain a consensus to be added. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, when there is a reliable source, addressing the issue of relatives hearing the ringing tones, why not? Especially when one is interested in the possibility of a phone communication with/from the aircraft. Brandmeistertalk 17:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only Iridium and Globalstar phones would work on an jet aircraft over a large ocean, but it needs a clear line of site. I have no sources that say any passengers carried a satellite phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map of locations

This seems inaccurate. (3) was reported to be 120km SW of (2) but here it appears due west. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desirability of table of communications

On 21 March, ″The Daily Telegraph″ published an English translation of a Mandarin translation of the final 54 minutes of communication between the aircraft and the control tower. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10714907/Revealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html

Radio Transcript
Time (hh:mm:ss) Communication Notes
Kuala Lumpur Control Tower
00:36:30 MH370: ATC, this is MH370, good morning MH370 makes contact with the control tower, which typically directs planes by sight from the tower
00:36:30 ATC: Good morning, MH370, This is KL control tower, please remain in A10 32R MH370 directed by air traffic control to stay in a holding position on the airfield before moving on to the runway
00:36:50 MH370: A10, MH370 copies that
00:38:43 ATC: MH370, please get on the runway from 32R A10 MH370 given permission to take its runway starting position from the runway’s “32R A10” entry point before flying
00:38:43 MH370: runway from 32R A10, copy that
00:40:38 ATC: MH370, position 32R, runway ready, permitted to take off. Good night
00:40:38 MH370: position 32R, runway ready, permitted to take off. MH370 copies that. Thank you, goodbye. Cockpit acknowledges clearance to take off and farewells the ground tower before making contact with the next air traffic controller, who uses radar to control the broader air space
Kuala Lumpur Airport
00:42:05 MH370: MH370 has left the port
00:42:15 ATC: MH370 position confirmed, flight altitude 180, follow the command and turn right, target IGARI waypoint. The plane’s altitude of 18,000 feet and routing is confirmed and it is instructed to turn toward “Igari”, a navigational waypoint above the sea almost halfway between Malaysia and Vietnam
00:42:40 MH370: Alright, altitude 180, direction IGARI waypoint, MH370 copies that
00:42:52 ATC: MH370, you’ve entered KL Radar 132.6, good night The cockpit is told that it has left the area covered by the Kuala Lumpur Airport tower controllers and is instructed to change to the frequency to that of the succeeding Malaysian air traffic controller
00:42:52 MH370: 132.6, MH370 copies that
Kuala Lumpur Radar
00:46:51 MH370: KL ATC, This is MH370
00:46:51 ATC: MH370, please climb to flight altitude 250 Air traffic control gives the plane clearance to ascend to 25,000 feet
00:46:54 MH370: MH370 is climbing to flight altitude 250
00:50:06 ATC: MH370, climbing to flight altitude 350 The cockpit is given clearance to ascend to 35,000 feet
00:50:09 MH370: This is MH370, flight altitude 350 MH370 advises it has now reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet
01:01:14 MH370: MH370 remaining in flight altitude 350
01:01:19 ATC: MH370
01:07:55 MH370: MH370 remaining in flight altitude 350 The cockpit advises it is remaining at 35,000 feet – this is unnecessary but not especially unusual
01:08:00 ATC: MH370
01:19:24 ATC: MH370, please contact Hu Chi Minh City 120.9, good night As the plane approaches Vietnam, Malaysian air traffic controllers advise that the plane should switch to a new frequency controlled by Vietnamese air traffic controllers
01:19:29 MH370: All right, good night In its final known communication, the cockpit – apparently the co-pilot - acknowledges the instruction in relaxed terms rather than with a formal call

Transcript based on Mandarin version of English language transcript. Some wording may not be exact.

I've just pulled the text above from the article for I feel such a radical change needs to be discussed. I'm off to bed so will comment in due course. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I've already included that in the external links section before. May go to Wikisource, especially considering the article's big size. Brandmeistertalk 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agree The voracity of the translation has been brought into question by the Malysian authorities and other media too, so we should perhaps hang back until an official transcript is released. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already mention above in "Radio transcript" that I deleted and challenged the addition of this mainly because it is not accurate and could be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside commentators are saying that nothing unusual or non-standard appears to have been said, so even if we had the official transcript it may not be notable or relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:  The relevant information per-square-inch of page space is quite low.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd suggest that the only notable aspect of this material is it's ordinariness (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said nothing is really relevant from an inacurate transcript with no notable content MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cockpit fires (not unheard of)

[15] [16]

As an unmanned aircraft w/o autopilot or anyone at the controls, as such a fire damaged cockpit could still continue to fly, but without any controls over its course, altitude or active control of most anything else. Communications and navigation would have likely been terminated, and even if some pilot control got reestablished they likely had no good idea of how far off-course or what if any options would keep functioning.

Personally, I had no idea that 777s had ever experienced such horrific issues with a potential total loss of cockpit control.

Another potential issue; if pilots had temporarily exited the cockpit in order to avoid their being burned alive, and had shut that security door behind them in order to keep that fire from spreading, there’s no easy way of their ever getting back into their burnt-out cockpit.

What sort of upgraded fire suppression system did this MH370 have?

Why would anyone intentionally remove a documented reference to a 777 related cockpit fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradguth (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or perhaps both? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the link to this kind of 777 fire issue. Are you (Martinevans123) suggesting that this cockpit fire never happened, and therefore isn't a relevant what-if issue?

Do we objectively know that MH370 had no such fire issues?

Turn entered into system 12 minutes before last voice transmission

This seems to start with NBC. Is it possible that any reliable source for this exists? Is the shadowy source who provided this information any worse than the sources who claim pings to satellites? Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=timeline> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=timeline}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=600813529"