Regarding the 30-day prelim report requirement
Poster "YYZjim" recently noted the standard requirement of a preliminary report at the 30-day mark. Also noted was that one could argue as to whether the triggering event is known to have occurred - there's obviously no physical investigation site yet, etc.
In my legal view, there is unequivocally and literally zero basis to regard the incident as in abeyance. True, no wreckage (or other confirmatory physical evidence). But certainly the 30-day clock began to wind at the point in time no later than scheduled arrival plus 24 hours. I'd not want to advocate for any entity with any degree of involvement in the Mystery of MH370 that the fact of said Mystery bars the 30-day clock from starting to wind.
But that timing point is merely procedural. The substantive stuff is hinted at by YYZjim's noticing that Malaysian authorities seem not prepared to add generation of such a report to their already-overwhelmed capacities. One realizes the ICAO legal system does not presently contemplate, and perhaps does not even allow, a kind of mobilization of investigatory, legal, and technical expertise on a multi-national level. But this incident dramatically breaks the mold - and it's a fair bet that when the facts ultimately do become known, that breakage will extend far more deeply. So it is time to innovate, on the legal and administrative agency front. (I won't repeat earlier posts advocating broad outlines of such new approach.)