Jump to content

Talk:Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

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

Unreferenced material

[edit]

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

[edit]

Inaccurate content

[edit]

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.

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

Assets

[edit]

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

[edit]

Surface search assets (17 March – 28 April)

[edit]

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]

refer to caption
Chinese PLAAF Ilyushin Il-76 arriving at RAAF Base Pearce in Perth, Australia on 21 March 2014.

Ships:[45]

Refs

[edit]

References

  1. ^ Sandilands, Ben (6 July 2014). "Malaysia announces MH370 search contract awards". Crikey. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  2. ^ "Hisham: GO Phoenix vessel to join MH370 search operations". Maylay Mail Online. 18 September 2014. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  3. ^ "Contractor Announced for MH370 Underwater Search". JACC. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
  4. ^ "Australia sending two P3C Orions from Darwin to Malaysia to aid with the search for missing Malaysian flight MH370". News Corp Australia. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  5. ^ http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2014/mar/15/bangladesh-begins-malaysian-plane-search
  6. ^ "Bangladesh joins Malaysian plane search". Dhaka Tribune. 15 March 2014. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
  7. ^ Zhu Ningzhu (10 March 2014). "Brunei's Suldan [sic] sends message of sympathy to Chinese president over loss of flight MH370". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  8. ^ "China dispatches more vessels for plane search". Xinhua News Agency. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  9. ^ "Chinese warships on way to rescue mission". Xinhua News Agency. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  10. ^ "China deploys satellites for missing plane search". Xinhua News Agency. 10 March 2014. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  11. ^ a b Missing Malaysian jet: Search reaches Chennai coast in Bay of Bengal Times of India 14 March 2012
  12. ^ "Malaysia Airlines MH370: India deploys 4 warships in search ops". Livemint. 14 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  13. ^ "India to deploy helicopters, ships in Malaysian jet search". Reuters. 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  14. ^ "India joins global search to locate missing Malaysia Airlines plane". The Indian Express. 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  15. ^ a b c Gupta, Jayanta. "Indian Navy joins search". The Times of India. Retrieved 11 March 2014.
  16. ^ Indian Navy joins the search for missing Malaysian plane IBN Live 13 March 2014
  17. ^ Bagus BT Saragih (9 March 2014). "RI deploy warships as search expands to Malacca Strait". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  18. ^ Fadli (9 March 2014). "RI deploys warships, aircraft to SCS to search for missing aircraft". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  19. ^ "MH370 SAR ops: Japan Joins Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370". The Diplomat. 13 March 2014. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
  20. ^ a b "Too early to come to any conclusion, says Najib". Daily Express. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  21. ^ "Vietnam, Malaysia mount search for plane". Sky News Australia. 8 March 2014.
  22. ^ "Malaysia widens area of search for missing MAS aircraft". Borneo Post. Bernama. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  23. ^ "Missing MAS flight: Malaysia grateful for assistance in search and rescue operations, says Anifah". The Star. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  24. ^ Michael Field (11 March 2014). "NZ air force joins search for missing jet". stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 11 March 2014.
  25. ^ "Malaysian plane crashed off Vietnam coast: state media". Yahoo News. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
  26. ^ "PH joins SE Asia search for Malaysian plane". Rappler. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
  27. ^ "Malaysia Airlines: How is the search being carried out". BBC News. 11 March 2014. Retrieved 11 March 2014.
  28. ^ "PH planes ships still have no sighting of missing malaysian jet". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  29. ^ "Phl Navy's helicopter joins search for missing Malaysian Airlines plane". The Philippine Star. 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  30. ^ "Malaysia Airlines missing flight: Live Report". Yahoo! News Malaysia. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
  31. ^ "Malaysian Airlines missing flight MH370: Live Report". Digital Journal. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
  32. ^ "Additional SAF assets deployed in response to missing Malaysia Airlines Plane (09 Mar 14)". Ministry of Defence of Singapore. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  33. ^ Leong, Wai Kit (14 March 2014). S'pore deploys another patrol aircraft for MH370 search". Channel NewsAsia
  34. ^ "MISSING MH370: South Korea sends two aircraft to help with SAR". New Straits Times. 14 March 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2014.
  35. ^ "Taiwan joins search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370". Taiwan Today. 11 March 2014. Archived from the original on 12 March 2014. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  36. ^ "Search for missing Malaysian jet involves 8 countries". The Nation. 10 March 2014. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  37. ^ "Thai navy ready to deploy rescue vessels, aircraft for missing Malaysian plane: spokesman". CCTV News. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  38. ^ "MISSING MH370: Rescue efforts under way". New Straits Times. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  39. ^ "US P-3 and USS Pinckney helicopter over Malaysian Airlines search site". U.S. Seventh Fleet Public Affairs. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  40. ^ "U.S. Sends Destroyer to Aid Search for Malaysia Airlines Jet". NBC News. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
  41. ^ "US Navy sending P-8A Poseidon to assist in search for missing flight MH370". The Malaysian Insider. 13 March 2014.
  42. ^ Cite error: The named reference ntsb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  43. ^ "RSAF sends plane to search for missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft". Channel NewsAsia. 8 March 2014.
  44. ^ "No piece of metal found 60km from Vung Tau". Bubblews.
  45. ^ a b "Search for MH370: Facts and statistics --Surface search of the southern Indian Ocean" (PDF). Joint Agency Coordination Centre. Retrieved 31 October 2014.

Orphaned references in Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

[edit]

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

Reference named "Interim report-March 2015":

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]

 Fixed AHeneen (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debris search on the east coast of Africa

[edit]

Shouldn't a the possible debris section be a debris search section for the search in the zone off the coast of eastern Africa? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any formal search zone off Réunion. They are beach combing, of course. kencf0618 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 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

[edit]

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]

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reports section/list

[edit]

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

Why no 2017 updates, info, etc.?

[edit]

Am curious as to why there are no updates for 2017.

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

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

Image sizes

[edit]

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'?

[edit]

"Explosive new report virtually pinpoints location of missing flight MH370" here www.news.com.au AUGUST 16, 2017 @ 4:08PM.

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has today released an explosive new report that effectively narrows the search zone for the missing plane down to an area half the size of Melbourne. The report places the most likely location of the aircraft “with unprecedented precision and certainty” at 35.6°S, 92.8°E — in between Western Australia and Madagascar."

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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.

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

http://mh370-captio.net/

[edit]

Has this source promoted by User:Kasos fr been used in the article, discussed, removed? Is it reliable? It shows a trajectory ending near Christmas Island... WikiHannibal (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This source result from a study made by French aeronatics specialists from Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France with Engineers from Inmarsat, who made a conference on the subject in Cannes in October 2017 : Le Détournement du vol MH370. Il is described in the French Wikipedia version. As they say in their web site CAPTIO : it's a Plausible version.--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
You have to fully read the 68 pages document they include in their web site : A plausible trajectory for MH370--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[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. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET Talk 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]

Ocean Infinity search - weekly updates

[edit]

In the section on the Weekly Updates, please refer to the guidance on Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source. I can see this section becoming unwieldy after many weeks of progress updates, can it be summarised please? John a s (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[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. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET Talk 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]
Update: as the search moves into its final month, the summary will be provided soon. Meanwhile, slightly off-topic, recent info can be found here: https://twitter.com/LabratSR. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Infinity search area

[edit]
MH370 7th arc search area, with focus of 2018 search noted

Hi,❮❮ GEEKSTREET Talk Lane ❯❯,it seems you created the map of the new search area used in this article (see above) by adding the yellow circle to an existing map from 2014. Where did you find the coordinates? Can it be sourced? But the more important thing is, as Ocean Infinity search has almost covered the two legs of site 1, which was the most probable location, could you please somehow merge the two maps - the 2014 map and the map(s) used in Ocean Infinity reports? "Broken Ridge" can be used as reference but there are also more precise maps of the original search area in the "The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part III" I think your map with the circle is now misleading, as it probably indicates only where the new search begun but not the whole search area. Thank you, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC) WikiHannibal (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[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. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET Talk 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]

Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS)

[edit]
  • International Quiet Ocean Experiment says

to the loss of MH370 although no matching earth tremor signals have yet been identified on the earthquake seismic network. References are Duncan et al. (2014 a & b)."

  • Australian Transport Safety Bureau says
  • The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift
  • The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift–Part II
  • The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part III
  • The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part IV
  • The Operational Search for MH370
  • The Search for MH370 (news, maps, videos, images, reports, links)

69.181.23.220 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the plane crash in a Cambodian jungle?

[edit]

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]

References

  1. ^ Jolly, Bradley (2018-09-04). "Google Maps tech expert claims he's found doomed flight MH370 in 'darkest part of Cambodian jungle'". The Mirror. Retrieved 2018-09-05.
  2. ^ Rivers, David (2018-09-03). "MH370 found in Cambodian JUNGLE? Search launched as Google Maps shows 'Boeing CRASH SITE'". The Daily Star. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

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

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

Turned off satellite tracking for 3 days no explanation?

[edit]

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

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

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!

[edit]

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

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

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

clean up the paragraphs on hydrophones

[edit]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 115.166.13.157 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MH 370 Disappearance: Theory base upon experience flying the Boeing 777 as Capt.

[edit]

I was a Captain on the Boeing 777 at Unted Airines. Every year we went in for training. Part of that training was Rapid Decompression. I did not read all the data but I think I know a path that should be followed if they want to discover what happened. From the limited date I read….I believe the airplane Engines were being monitord and I heard the altitude of the airplane went up to 46,000 feet. The service ceiling certified for the Boeing 777 is 43,000 feet. For some reason the autopilot disengaged and the airplane started climbing to 46,999 feet then lost cabin pressure due to a panel blowing out or window blowing out. Our proceedure for flying at that altitude was that one pilot had to have his oxygen mask on at all times in case of a rapid decompression. The time of useful conseiousness at 46000 feet s only a couple of seconds. The first step in the emergency proceedure is check oxygen mask on and verify it is at 100%. I believe if the pilots (middle of the night) were both sleeping, the autopilot disengaged for some reason and the airplane started climbing. It climbed to 46000 feet then the rapid decompression happened. Both pilots woke up….and started the proceedure for rapid decompression but forgot the first step. Oxygen mask on and oxygen at 100%.The second step is to engage the autopilot. They started making mistakes not on purpose….because they were beyond the time of useful consciousness (TUC) for that altitude. One of the steps in the proceedure was to decend to 10,000 feet asap. So the first thing we weould do is spin the altitude selector down. it would always stop at about 23000 feet. The proceedure in minimum separated airspace was to turn 90 degrees which was off the airway to avoid hitting another airplane on the same route. I belive the pilots un intentionally set the heading indicator 180 degrees. Both pilots were beyond the point of useful consciousness when they got to this point. The airplane however dit everything the pilots told it to do, It turned 180 degrees, decended to 23,500 feet and leveled off and cruised at that altitude in a straight line until they ran out of fuel. The Boening Jets do what the pilot told it to do and would try to maintain altitude, os it would probably stall and then spin in droppig one wing first..at impact it would break up but there should be large pieces in a Boeing. The pilots were deceased on the way down….and there was no communication to the back of the airplane. It woould seem like the pilots were still alive to the passengers for it would decend, level off at 23,500 feet and then the power would be pushed up to the speed set. When this first started the oxygen masks would drop in the passenter compartment. they would last for about 10 minutes and then the person next to you would go into convultions and die. That would eventually happen to al lthe passengers. Anyone on a portable bottle would stil be alive for as long as the bottle lasted. I do not thing anyone could survive long term at 23,500 feet but it may be possible for one or two. I may be wrong on that. So the airplane did everything it was told to do, the passengers and the crew were all deceased when the airplane crashed into the water. During the time when the crew or the passengers went into lack of useful consciousness it would be kind of like a sedative given to them. so there was no pain but some fear as you saw the person next to you go into conflusions and die. I am pretty certain this is what heppened. If the airplane did not fly in a straight line once it leveled off and if it did n ot manintain the same altitude then I am possibley wrong. Bruce Jorgessen UAL Retired. 71.208.196.19 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is this your theory that you came up with? -Waterard water?(talk | contribs) 03:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Search_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=1239240431"