This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malaysia and
Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
When the article was split from
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the editor who performed the split appears to have removed references from this content that resulted in an error (ie. there was a named reference in the copied text, but the full reference remained in the original article, causing a bold error message in the "References" section). This some of this text unreferenced. I've added references to content in the "Satellite communications and radar" and "International involvement" sections of this article, which were left mostly unreferenced (the latter had no inline citations). However, other sections of this article, from before the October 2014 split, may contain content where the appropriate reference was removed.
I'm just leaving a note behind for future editors of this article who come across unreferenced material in this article to please check the version of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
just prior to the split to see if it did have a reference. The "edit" link doesn't appear next to section headers in the old version of the article, so you will need to click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, find the reference, copy and paste it to the appropriate location in this article. Many references are just named references, with the full citation in the "References" section of that article. For example, you may find <ref name=EXAMPLE> or <ref name="EXAMPLE NAME"> in the prose, while the full citation is in the references section. Just add the named reference to this article and save, then check the "References" section of this article to see if an error ("Cite error: The named reference EXAMPLE was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." in big, bold, red letters) is present. If so, the easy fix is to 1) copy the name of the reference, 2) go back to old revision of the MH370 article (in edit view), and 3) use your browser's search/find function (in most browsers, Control+F) to find the full citation and copy it to the end of the "References" section in this article, before the final two brackets }}. If you need any help, just leave a message here or on my talk page.
AHeneen (
talk)
19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Removed content
Inaccurate content
The following content has been removed because it is not accurate. While the references are reliable and it appears that the reports were accurate, these vessels never joined the search for some reason.
Also contracted for the Malaysian government's effort, Boustead Heavy Industries and iXBlue Australia will supply a remotely operated vehicle that can be used to identify any positive leads detected by the towed sonar vehicles, which will be deployed aboard the MV John Lethbridge.[1][2]
Malaysia will contribute four vessels to the effort, including the naval survey ship KD Mutiara and naval vessel Bunga Mas,[3] and the GO Phoenix.
Canada: RCAF
CP-140 Auroras that were in Australia training with Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion crews were dispatched for an amount of time to search for the aircraft.
China: amphibious transport docks Kunlun Shan and Jinggang Shan, helicopters, medical personnel, divers and marines, life-saving and underwater detection equipment;[8]Type 052C destroyer,[9] coast guard and rescue vessels, divers and salvagers. Retasked military satellites.[10]
Between 17 March and 28 April, military aircraft from eight countries carried out 345 search sorties, for a total of over 2,998 hours of flight time. Aircraft involved in the visual search included:[45]
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)reply
It can be changed if a significant search effort is made around Réunion. However, most media report that the search in the area is just beach combing.
AHeneen (
talk)
18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Underwater locator beacons
If the plane went down in the first week of March, knowing the battery life of the underwater locator beacons, why did it take so long to mount a search. Was this a case of gross incompetence? There is nothing in the article to explain that failure. We learn that there was possible detection in the first 2 weeks of April when the batteries were at the end of there useful life???? It seems to have been a very indolent and bungled effort from the start. Given that the locator beacons were crucial to finding the wreckage, and they needed to rapidly determine the best area to search, there should have been some sense of urgency. What happened? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.21.165.210 (
talk)
03:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have added a "Reports" section plus duplicated those reports listed in the parent Flight 370 article which relate to the search operation, as I felt this information was highly relevant to this article. If there is a better way to do this, or if others disagree, pls advise. ❮❮GEEKSTREETTalk Lane❯❯05:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Why no 2017 updates, info, etc.?
Am curious as to why there are no updates for 2017.
At "The Week" website (www.the week.co.uk), there have been three articles posted so far this year --- January 3, January 6, and January 10 --- of which the last one talks about one of the main search vessels going rapidly to a new search area.
Right now, my user preference is "400px", and I like to keep it that way. If the size scale is changed, this would affect visual execution for those using "220px" and not signed-in at the moment. However, using the "400px" option, the images would be very big and may affect the readership, especially when the text is pushed so much. The images might need some shrinking. --
George Ho (
talk)
22:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Possibly 'located'?
"Explosive new report virtually pinpoints location of missing flight MH370"
here www.news.com.au AUGUST 16, 2017 @ 4:08PM.
"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has today released an explosive new report that effectively narrows the search zone for the missing plane down to an area half the size of Melbourne. The report places the most likely location of the aircraft “with unprecedented precision and certainty” at 35.6°S, 92.8°E — in between Western Australia and Madagascar."
I have just modified 3 external links on
Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Hi, based on their profiles at mh370-captio.net, only Garot is a member of
Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France, and I did not find anything about
Inmarsat (but I may be wrong). So is this their "private" hypothesis? Based on "En fin 2017, Jean-Marc Garot, Michel Delarche et Jean-Luc Marchand publient un site web détaillant leurs hypothèses et permettant de suivre le navire de recherches et comportant en particulier un document de synthèse." from the French article, it seems it is, so the fact they themselves call it "plausible" is irrelevant. We would need secondary sources commenting on their hypothesis - and I would welcome such addition. On the other hand, if we include their theory, we would need to include other unofficial theories because there are probably other experts (and "experts") out there. --
WikiHannibal (
talk)
15:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I have gone through the 68 pages, albeit quickly, and can confirm that a lot of work has gone into the document, especially with regard to matching the signals received from Inmarsat with possible manoeuvres of the aircraft in all stages of this proposed flight path. My overall impression however, FWIW, is that the final path of the aircraft that is proposed in the document is principally determined by the available evidence (eg Inmarsat), with logical explanations for this path coming a distinct second.
A few features of the Plausible Trajectory theory which struck me as very odd included:
The proposed path is within radar coverage (usually military) in several places, but no evidence of radar returns from the aircraft in these areas seem to exist;
The theory appears to presume that malicious person(s) stowed away in the aircraft's electronics bay, disabled the aircraft from there and then invaded the cockpit, however there does not appear to be any missing person(s) on the record who may be responsible for this;
The proposal has the aircraft flying to a Christmas Island destination, however the path doesn't go direct to the island but deviates substantially to the south-east on approach. This incurs around 150km of extra distance to land, right when the B777 was theoretically extremely low on fuel;
When the B777 does theoretically lose both engines due to fuel exhaustion approx 100kM from Christmas Island, the aircraft turns directly away from its destination and glides for another ~ 50kM before ditching 150kM from land;
The proposed flight path requires many complex manoeuvres by the aircraft, involving numerous heading, altitude and power changes to get the aircraft to "hit" the satellite rendezvous while avoiding known flight paths, ATC reporting zones, radar coverage, etc. These must be undertaken all while having much of the aircraft's electronics and navigation systems disabled. It does not seem possible for unsophisticated aviators or other malicious person(s) to perform these functions as proposed, implying a very high degree of training and familiarity with the B777 would have been needed.
Regarding the reliability of the information, my own opinion is that it shouldn't be classed as a "conspiracy theory" but is rather an alternative proposal to what may have happened, albeit not one strongly supported by logic. ❮❮GEEKSTREETTalk Lane❯❯04:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
C'est pourquoi je viens de l'ajouter dans l'article sur les
théories possibles, avec zone de crash possible CAPTIO zone. Et aujourd'hui, j'ai fait un commentaire sur les recherches actuelles disant que j'espérais (et l'équipe qui a fait cette étude) que ces recherches iront au moins jusque là cette année !--
Friendly, Kasos_fr (
talk)
08:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Adding to the unofficial disappearance theories is OK. However, I removed (again) the comment about "hope" as it is uclear whose hope it is. (Seems it is your hope, and it is quite inappropriate for a wikipedia editor to add such comment.) BTW a wikilink is not a reference, as your edit summary suggest you believe.
WikiHannibal (
talk)
12:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
My view is that while the Ocean Infinity search is underway, it helps followers of the topic to have the list of updates shown. Once the search concludes (or moves to another phase), which is likely to be fairly soon, given the limited search area, the weekly updates can be condensed into a summary of what was done & how it turned out. ❮❮GEEKSTREETTalk Lane❯❯02:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with GEEKSTREET. In a month we can perhaps present the same data in a tabular form (esp. if nothing is found), and much of the repetition will be removed. Not sure how
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source helps in this case (pages of one book vs multiple (paginated) documents with their own urls) but if there is a way how to condense the references, I have nothing abut that. --
WikiHannibal (
talk)
09:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi,❮❮GEEKSTREETTalk Lane❯❯,it seems you created the map of the new search area used in this article (see above) by adding the yellow circle to an existing map from 2014. Where did you find the coordinates? Can it be sourced? But the more important thing is, as Ocean Infinity search has almost covered the two legs of site 1, which was the most probable location, could you please somehow merge the two maps - the 2014 map and the map(s) used in Ocean Infinity reports? "Broken Ridge" can be used as reference but there are also more precise maps of the original search area in the "
The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part III" I think your map with the circle is now misleading, as it probably indicates only where the new search begun but not the whole search area. Thank you,
WikiHannibal (
talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
WikiHannibal (
talk)
13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi WikiHannibal I will take a look at it & see what my limited skills can achieve.
I did send a request some time back to Ocean Infinity (via their Contact Us page) for any maps or pix that could be put up on WP to assist readers in following what they are doing, but sadly, no response. ❮❮GEEKSTREETTalk Lane❯❯00:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi, the new updates have some more precise maps, peraps you could use them as reference/guide, and replace the yellow circle in your map (which is based on the existing map from 2014) with a larger geometrical shape covering more or less the area searched in 2018?
WikiHannibal (
talk)
14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)reply
"Currently we believe this signal was generated by a small earthquake and was not related
to the loss of MH370 although no matching earth tremor signals have yet been identified on the
earthquake seismic network. References are Duncan et al. (2014 a & b)."
Like I said
here, Ian Wilson, a British tech expert, claimed to have spotted the aircraft's remains in
Cambodia, using images from
Google Maps which were dated to 2018. The images show a what appears to be a plane about 70 m (230 ft) (similar to the MH370's official measurement of 63.7 m (209 ft)), with a gap between the tail and the body, indicating where the plane broke up upon crash-landing in a thick, high-altitude jungle. In addition, the Cambodian jungle is roughly near where
air traffic controllers lost contact with the aircraft, on the route from Kuala Lumpur to China.[1][2]Leo1pard (
talk)
04:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Turned off satellite tracking for 3 days no explanation?
"Seabed Constructor, began the search on 22 January, but on Thursday, after only 10 days, it turned off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) with no explanation. Three days later, it reappeared outside the search area and on its way to a scheduled refuelling stop at the Australian port of Fremantle. Neither the Malaysian government nor Ocean Infinity has explained the outage, or where the ship travelled in those three days."
Did the ship not want anyone knowing what they were doing during that time? Suspicious. Of course it is possible that they weren't up to something, but in this case I am inclined towards suspicion against odd occurrences
Bucky winter soldier (
talk)
00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Captains flight on simulator was the same as the aircrafts!
Six weeks before the aircraft’s disappearance, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah used his home simulator to fly a route that was initially similar to part of the route flown by MH370 up the Strait of Malacca, with a left-hand turn and track into the southern Indian Ocean, the ATSB said in its report.