In a previous paper entitled “Using the WSPRnet and Inmarsat Satellite data in the search for MH370” published on 14th April 2021, I showed how the weak signal propagation report network (WSPRnet) and the Inmarsat satellite data can be used in conjunction with each other to help solve the mystery of MH370. Both systems together can be used to detect, identify and localise aircraft.
In this paper I describe a system for the Global Detection and Tracking of any Aircraft, Anywhere and at Anytime (GDTAAA). The system takes data from the WSPRnet and feeds it automatically into a flight tracking system. Global detection and tracking of aircraft is possible using a form of electronic trip wires. Trip wires are both anomalous WSPR links and Inmarsat satellite arcs based on the Burst Timing Offset (BTO) and Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) data. Flight path position indicators are multiple trip wires that cross at a certain point. Flight path progress indicators are single trip wires that align with the predicted position of an aircraft following a given track at a given ground speed.
The paper can be downloaded here
Another great article by Geoffrey Thomas at http://www.airlineratings.com
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mh370-pilot-made-many-turns-speed-changes-new-report-reveals/
A new research paper by one of the world’s leading MH370 investigators has revealed that the pilot in command (PIC) of the Boeing 777 made many turns to avoid detection before it settled on its fatal course into the Southern Indian Ocean.
This new paper examines in finer detail the turn around Indonesia before settling onto a course for the Southern Indian Ocean.
This new system called GDTAAA applies WSPR technology to the search for MH370.
Credible new evidence that was not available during the previous underwater searches has come to light.
Richard- Nice! I have not had a chance to understand everything, but I will make 3 philosophical comments.
(1) All 180 South paths must hit Arc2 at 19:41 and at about 2-3 North latitude. It does not matter too much how they get there (to Arc2) but the important thing is to verify the Arc2 rendezvous at 2-3 North.
(2) If we can verify Arc2 was hit at 2-3 North, this then rules out most paths to 37-39 South which are based on flying fast and straight to hit Arc2 further south at around -5 deg South.
(3) Yes we have an alive and active pilot making many maneuvers, and the popular assumption that the simple solution (no maneuvers) is correct (by Occams Razor) is illogical. I think Occams Razor really tells us, if the pilot was alive and active before we lost the regular data flow, then the simple answer is he was alive and active after we lost the regular data flow. Which has end-of-flight implications too.
I forget if I had another implication.
Amazing work Richard. Well done!!
@Brian
Many thanks for your kind words!
@Richard. Thank you for this development and the prospects of two more papers, including one on the final descent.
On 18th April at 00:26 under ‘WSPRnet and Inmarsat Satellite data’ you explained why you have disregarded the military radar data.
In that post also you warned that the track around northern Sumatra that you depicted then was speculative.
Can you characterise your confidence in the track of your new paper?
@David
The analysis of the MH370 flight path in the Malacca Strait and into the Indian Ocean is ongoing. Using WSPR technology to detect and track aircraft is new and requires formal validation.
The GDTAAA prototype is promising but further tests are planned with the initial part of the MH370 flight (where ADS-B, ACARS and civilian radar data are available) and with other flights in both normal and distress operations (MH371, AF447, 4U9525, …).
I would no longer characterise the track in the new paper as speculative but a working hypothesis. The MH370 flight path I have proposed is a hypothesis supported by a body of evidence in the form of a large number of position and progress indicators. The working hypothesis will remain valid until someone proves it wrong by presenting evidence that this flight path was not followed. One possibility would be publication of raw radar data for example.
@Richard. Thank you for that clear characterisation and its bounds
Wow, if this holds up this is absolutely incredible. It would eliminate the possibility that this could have been an accident.
Wow.
@ Richard,
Now I’m intrigued.
Many years ago when I hypothesised that it was possible to determine the mid-flight speed of MH370, based upon the minimum in the BTO between 19:41 and 20:41 I tried to emphasise the implicit assumption that the aircraft track through those points was straight, or nearly so, and had been straight for some indeterminate time before 19:41 too.
There was no data available about that time, or for a long time since, to suggest my assumption may not have been sustainable. In particular the precise latitude of the track at both the Arc2 and Arc3 crossings were indeterminate.
But now we have a path [Fig 20 etc in your paper] that suggests that the track was far from straight, and indeed had a 90 deg turn to the left a short time after crossing Arc2. I’m not worried by that possibility, because there are a couple of things that can be checked to help substantiate this.
Firstly, it would be possible to calculate the BTO for the position of the track that is closest to the sub-satellite position, i.e. in the middle of the turn. It would be interesting to see how this might fit the otherwise smooth polynomial curve of BTO numbers. It shouldn’t, of course, because the 90 deg left turn represents a discontinuity, actually another one, because there is no evidence [before now] that the track was straight immediately before 19:41 anyhow.
The second interesting check will be to compare the BFOs and the BFORs at 19:41 and 20:41, with the tracks now proposed. Is the BFO sufficiently discriminatory at these points.
If your tracks can be confirmed then there is in fact, a very important result. At last it would be possible to confirm, without doubt, the latitude of the crossings of Arc2 and Arc3. That would be a major breakthrough, and lead immediately to a more precise determination of the end point of the flight.
Can’t wait for the next two papers.
@Brian Anderson
Do you plan to revise your paper to calculate the BTO at the sub-satellite position?
The BFO residual at 19:41:03 UTC for a position 0.06°N 94.65°E, flight level FL360, ground speed 480 knots, track 229.7°T and ROC 0 fpm is 7.8 Hz. This BFOR is marginal and not within ± 7 Hz, but you only require a ROC of -343 fpm and the BFOR is zero.
A ROC of -40 fpm brings the BFOR within tolerance. Alternatively a track of 215°T in level flight results in a BFOR of zero or a track of 228°T brings the BFOR within tolerance. An ROC of -40 fpm or a change in track by 2° could be caused by simply passing an area of turbulence.
I have assumed a flight level of FL360 and ROC of zero, but this could be wrong.
The BFO residual at 20:41:05 UTC for a position 6.56°S 93.49°E, flight level FL360, ground speed 460 knots, track 180.0°T and ROC 0 fpm is 1.2 Hz. This BFOR is well within ± 7 Hz.
@All
What I have published so far is only a working hypothesis.
I could easily be proven wrong by the Malaysian military publishing their raw radar data.
I would like to point out that GDTAAA still requires a formal validation.
I am currently looking at the end of flight in more detail.
The previous conclusions remain valid:
1. The BFO data at 00:19:37 UTC is evidence of an accelerating rate of descent of around 15,000 fpm.
2. The floating debris recovered is evidence of a forceful impact and break up of the aircraft.
3. The floating debris recovered includes several right wing control surfaces that appear to have detached from the aircraft due to flutter during the high speed dive. There is a possibility that the right wing detached before impact.
4. Loss of control surfaces or the entire right wing makes a long glide impossible.
5. The flight path analysis UGIB published 7th March 2020 concluded a position at 00:19:29 UTC of 34.2342°S 93.7876°E.
6. The drift analysis published 1st January 2021 agrees broadly with a crash area in the region 32.5°S to 36.5°S near the 7th Arc.
I have yet to finalise my analysis of the end of flight, but the preliminary results show:
1. A position at 00:18 UTC of 34.44°S 93.37°E. The flight path, drift and WSPR analysis all independently align.
2. A crash site close to 34.40°S 93.21°E after a spiral dive between 00:22 UTC and 00:24 UTC.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a40wbgyblgrdeyu/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200020%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
3. The crash site is 13.5 nm inside and to the West of the 7th Arc.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wiue8kaxjcvlamo/MH370%20Crash%20Site.png?dl=0
4. This area is in a canyon and the water is 4,550 m deep.
5. This area was previously searched by Ocean Infinity.
6. Seabed Constructor returned to the search area on 15th February 2018 after a visit to Fremantle.
7. It appears the underwater search resumed on 20th February 2018 and the first AUV launch would cover the crash site at 34.40°S 93.21°E.
Not to be argumentative, but the above overall scenario is not exactly logical to me.
You are suggesting almost exactly analogous to the ARA San Juan lost sub, there was a passive flight to an random (relatively easy-to-search) ocean floor area, but unfortunately the debris happened to fall into a crevice that OI missed the first time, but could find the second time, if they re-searched the canyon. The one advantage I see is that OI could probably do this canyon re-check relatively quickly, and I am not opposed to some quick re-checks.
But obviously MH370 debris was probably not acting like a semi-intact sub neutrally buoyant, skidding down the ocean floor topography to a low point? Do we think?
If it was a hard crash, we would have probably seen the massive debris field extending beyond the canyon feature.
If it was a CAPTIO-style hard ditch in 4 pieces, that makes some sense as the type of crash we might expect for a passive B777, but then the BFO signals (descent in progress) would tend to say the pilot may have been active doing a maneuvers. Which then calls into question the close-to-Arc7 assumption.
By the way, I also deduced an inside Arc7 location in my prior 180S paper before OI looked there. But that was a judgement call, based on the fact it was then an unsearched area consistent with a 180S CTH path falling within +-25 NM of Arc7.
Anyways not much WSPR related in this. If end-point can be proven (eg by WSPR) then we can find the aircraft and figure out the riddle. But unless WSPR can be agreed to be definitive indicator, I will not be optimistic about 34 South. I am further east and probably further from Arc7 with ProfChari. But I am OK with quick check of some canyons over there at 34 South to rule out the ARA San Juan analogy.
@TBill
The analogy of the San Juan are your words, not mine.
In my drift paper I estimated that MH370 disintegrated into around 35,740 items, based on the weight of the 34 floating debris items recovered and the Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) of the aircraft. The vast majority of the 35,740 items will not float and will be spread over a wide area of the sea floor. I expect an area of the same order of magnitude as the AF447 sea floor debris field:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xuwhrmnmiukyjy0/AF447%20Debris%20Field.png?dl=0
I expect large items like the landing gear or engine cores would be the first to be detected on the sea floor:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4n56szj1hg6xqmi/AF447%20Landing%20Gear%20at%203900m.png?dl=0
How does a pilot do a manoeuvre if the wing control surfaces are damaged by flutter in a dive over 15,000 fpm? It is possible that certain wing control surfaces or even the entire right wing detached before impact.
Mike Exner and Don Thompson in their analysis of the debris conclude “The inboard spoiler, flap and flaperon each separated from the mounting attachments fixing the structures to the rear spar of the right wing. The damage exhibited by these three structures is consistent with a span-wise, destructive, flex of the right wing. It is feasible that subsequent to fuel exhaustion, an uncontrolled descent would involve aircraft attitudes that present loads beyond the design limits of the aircraft.
The nature of the fractures to the subject article, the metal hinge structures of the flaperon, and the carrier of the outboard flap, together with the visual evidence of damage within the outboard flap ‘seal pan’ all suggest that the forces leading to the detachment of these structures initiated in the core torsion box of the wing and not from forces due to external contact applied at the trailing edge of the control surfaces.”
That conclusion does not align with either a long glide or a controlled ditching in my view. MH370 will be found close to the 7th Arc.
In the end it is up to Ocean Infinity if and where they search, assuming they are funding on their own risk. I am speculating but I feel certain they will want to be convinced by some evidence before considering a further underwater search.
I am open to close-to-Arc7 as an option, and that was my No.1 assumption until after the 2018 OI search.
The alternate option is active pilot running low on fuel dipped down to lower altitude, and momentary 15000-ft/min is not so bad aerodynamically (pending a simulator check). Actually it is hard to explain how a passive aircraft would conduct a delayed dive like that by itself, thus we can I believe conclude it (BFO data) may well alternatively indicate active pilot.
P.S.- 35000 pieces sounds on low side for violent crash, AirFrance I am not sure is nose dive. However, I am certainly not the expert there. I do like the idea of estimating numbers of debris pieces.
@Richard
Are you revising the UGIB analysis concluding LEP 34.2342°S 93.7876°E at 00:19:29 UTC ?
And if the most likely crash site is not at 34.40°S, 93 21° E, then where would you place it ?
@BG370
Yes, I am revising the UGIB analysis slightly.
I commented yesterday: “The last known position is possibly at 00:22 UTC at 34.45°S 93.29°E, in which case this would mean the accelerating dive indicated at 00:19:37 UTC by the Inmarsat satellite BFO data at around 15,000 fpm was not recovered from.”
All this is speculation until all the MH370 data has been analysed and GDTAAA has been validated against the early part of the flight of MH370.
@TBill
I agree with you that MH370 will be found close to the 7th Arc. You may be right and there are a lot more debris items from a high speed dive. My estimate was based on the number and average weight of the floating debris items that were recovered and we do not know how many floating debris items were not recovered. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that the average weight of floating debris items is less than the average weight of debris items that will be found on the sea floor. As long as there are large items like engine cores and landing gear to be detected in an underwater search, then MH370 will be found.
Let us see if any further insights can be provided by the WSPR analysis of the data at the end of the flight. The time interval between the last Inmarsat satellite data point at 00:19:37 UTC and the crash will be an indicator as to how far the aircraft may have travelled away from the 7th Arc.
I have yet to finalise my analysis of the end of flight, but the preliminary results show a position at 00:18 UTC of 34.44°S 93.37°E:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/amh7vs80tkl75ea/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200018%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:20 UTC there is a large disturbance, but this is only 23 seconds after the last satellite data:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/92cfm2srrineug0/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200020%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:22 UTC there is a position indicator with two anomalous WSPR indicators crossing:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/osm1yi6bet9frny/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200022%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:24 UTC there is a position indicator with three anomalous WSPR indicators crossing:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2kfbi1vn1opb8t/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200024%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:26 UTC the large anomalous disturbance repeats:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rg7nnmcvs9tvs09/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200026%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:28 UTC the area goes quiet:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/geqrlhp4huh6b8u/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200028%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:30 UTC the large anomalous disturbance repeats again for a third time:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfad1gxncwplcso/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200030%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
At 00:32 UTC the area goes very quiet:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyqw14hecs8pohq/WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200032%20UTC%20Zoom%20Plus%20View.png?dl=0
The large disturbance is repeated three times and therefore is unlikely to be an aircraft because it cannot be in the same position at 00:20 UTC, 00:26 UTC and 00:30 UTC, even in a spiral dive.
Therefore the first time the area goes quiet at 00:28 UTC may be because MH370 has already crashed. But the position at 00:24 UTC and 00:26 UTC are the same as the large disturbance and should therefore be discounted in my view.
The last known position is possibly at 00:22 UTC at 34.45°S 93.29°E, in which case this would mean the accelerating dive indicated at 00:19:37 UTC by the Inmarsat satellite BFO data at around 15,000 fpm was not recovered from.
All this is speculation until all the MH370 data has been analysed and GDTAAA has been validated against the early part of the flight of MH370 as well as other flights like MH371 where we have detailed position data for the whole flight.
@Richard
“At 00:20 UTC there is a large disturbance”
“At 00:26 UTC the large anomalous disturbance repeats”
“At 00:30 UTC the large anomalous disturbance repeats again”
And, simply counting the indicated Singly Anomalous, Dually Anomalous and Stable link lines passing through the apparent same location in two dimensions provides:
00:20 UTC Single 7 Dual 1 Stable 1
00:26 UTC Single 5 Dual 1 Stable 1
00:30 UTC Single 7 Dual 1 Stable 0
Even though you have indicated the seventh arc in all three relevant attachments, have you more definitive scale and grid information concerning this apparent disturbance. For those with suitable resources and knowledge this may assist in identification of the particular (suspected) weather disturbance (?).
More specifically relevant to your task at hand, might it assist in general validation of your approach, even if unrelated to an aircraft ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5hhuqmd6eavzqul/Large%20Disturbance%20-%20Richard%20on%206%20May%202021%20at%201939.pdf?dl=0
@George G
I have meanwhile discounted the location 34.40°S 93.21°E at 00:20 UTC in a previous comment for two reasons:
1. It is only 23 seconds after a confirmed location at 00:19:37 UTC and not reachable at the assumed ground speed.
2. The anomaly reappears at 00:26 UTC and 00:30 UTC so it due to another cause as it is impossible for an aircraft to be three times in the same location, even in a spiral dive.
I have included arcs and either waypoints or latitude/longitude of key points.
You make a good point to include a scale and grid information as well.
One thing you have to look for is if there were other aircraft near it, meaning fighter jets looking out for it. Maybe the 2 anomalies at the end are 2 jets leaving the site after it crashed.
Richard OK but I am not convinced MH370 is close to Arc7, depending on definition of close.
Right now I am more in agreement with ProfChari at 32 South +65 NM. From flight data worse case, I would say +65 NM could be an underestimate.
@TBill
I am keeping an open mind on the subject and I will see what the upcoming analysis on the MH370 end of flight has to say once the GDTAAA validation with the early part of the flight has been completed.
My compliments to you for all of your superb work. As one new to the fact that a WSPR database exists(!), but (for more than 50 years) being well aware of the propagation effects and associated physics, I have high confidence in your analysis and your GDTAAA MH370 track predictions.
Until now, after just discovering this body of work relating to MH370, I had been unwilling to seriously consider that the loss of MH370 was a planned and deliberate destruction (difficult for an aviator to accept). However your tracking of the early portions of the flight is persuasive, and seems to almost conclusively show that that was the case.
In light of a carefully planned mission for destruction and the fact of persistent WSPR POSITION anomalies at the same ‘final’ location, it seems likely to me that whatever disturbed the links almost has to be in their common spatial volume.
Suppose MH370 disintegrated violently while still airborne due to an explosive device (perhaps triggered as a delayed consequence of fuel exhaustion). This could give rise to a cloud of reflecting and diffracting debris that might persist for minutes. A person/entity executing such a carefully reasoned effort to make MH370 difficult to find might have gone even further in an attempt to make MH370 truly unrecoverable by explosively destroying the aircraft. This conjecture is consistent with drift recovery of small, lighter components as well as the negative OI search results: Minimal large fuselage remnants– only scattered, dense components would remain.
@All
A really interesting YouTube video from Hayden Honeywood (VK7HH) titled “Can WSPR Radio signals help find Malaysia Airlines MH370?” (19:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KefDzzDAeew
A well presented and scientifically grounded exposé on radio physics.
I must apologise that my paper made him “angry” and my hypothesis is “unsubstantiated” and uses “old data” from 2014.
@George G
You commented: “Even though you have indicated the seventh arc in all three relevant attachments, have you more definitive scale and grid information concerning this apparent disturbance. For those with suitable resources and knowledge this may assist in identification of the particular (suspected) weather disturbance (?).
More specifically relevant to your task at hand, might it assist in general validation of your approach, even if unrelated to an aircraft ?”
I have followed your recommendation and modified the output from GDTAAA to show the scale and grid information.
Here are the initial results from the MH370 end of flight at 00:22 UTC as an example:
Local View
https://www.dropbox.com/s/su89wy85hailfne/GDTAAA%20WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200022%20UTC%20Local.png?dl=0
Global View
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehj0v0sycagtkn7/GDTAAA%20WSPR%20Links%20MH370%200022%20UTC%20Global.png?dl=0
Disclaimer: The final major turns of MH370 are published as a paper and characterised as a working hypothesis. The initial flight, GDTAAA validation and end of flight of MH3700 are not yet published and any initial results are characterised as speculation.
@Richard,
Thank you. It helps.
Note: It is recognised that your work is a work in progress.
@Richard,
Refer your “Global Detection and Tracking of Aircraft as used in the Search for MH370” of 1st May.
In your Findings, you state: “It was possible to detect and track MH370 throughout its flight. Several other aircraft in the vicinity of MH370 such as UAE343 and IGO053 were also regularly detected and tracked.”
In your Results, “Figure 3 shows two WSPR links at 18:00 UTC that cross at the position of MH370 determined from the last civilian radar data point.” The position is shown as a red dot.
The positions of the two other above mentioned aircraft are also shown: “UAE343 KUL-DXB FL340 actual position marked in blue square” and “IGO053 MAA-SIN FL330 estimated position marked in blue diamond”.
Subsequent Figure 6 shows the hypothetical track of MH370 from 18:00 UTC through to 18:12 UTC, accompanied by similar tracking for the other two aircraft. See the accompanying extract.
Your position indication for UAE343 in Figure 6 at time 18:12 UTC is by a blue filled square and prior positions by blue outline squares, and similar (diamond) positions are indicated for IGO053.
Question: Is the tracking for UAE343 and IGO053 shown in Figure 6 similarly derived by use of GDTAAA, or by other means.
If the tracking for these two aircraft is by other means, then have you already (by now) also tracked them using GDTAAA as part of your initial validation ?
” accompanying extract” – https://www.dropbox.com/s/raesysdfs7zro12/GTDAAA%20check%20.png?dl=0
@George G
The detection and tracking of UAE343 and IGO053 were two fold:
1. Using GDTAAA position and progress anomalous WSPR links.
2. Using estimated positions based on extrapolating from known positions, ground speeds and tracks from ADS-B data.
I have also detected and tracked other aircraft in the vicinity of MH370 following diversion including aircraft not in the ADS-B database at the time.
Richard-
This comment is not about WSPR per se, but the suggested flight path around Sumatra.
The home simulator data, with my interpretation, paints the picture of a flight path that starts on Skyvector B466 but diverts to VAMPI to cut around the corner of the Indonesian flight space FIR. The sim flight then progresses out to 1090E (or DOTEN) seemingly to yet again go outside of Indonesian flight space and Sabang radar daytime coverage.
Aside from the redeye flight time, another possible reason MH370 did not have to fly out to DOTEN was that the proposed depressurization step was already completed at IGARI, so there was no need to fly out to DOTEN at FL400 for depressurization purposes.
Flying around the geography of Sumatra does not seem immediately consistent with the sim data. However, since the depressurization step was completed at IGARI, there could be freedom to change up on the simulator path logic. As you know the simulator data seems to relate to a MH150 (to Jeddah) flight plan.
@TBill
You raise very important questions about what was the original plan for the hijack and diversion and how did that plan evolve and change over the days prior to or even during its actual execution?
What flight(s) were targeted?
Why was MH370 finally chosen?
What time of flight (day or night) was targeted and why?
What radar stations were operational and at what times?
What range did these radar stations actually have at the relevant time?
What negotiations, communications and time limits were part of the plan, if any?
What decision paths and options were planned depending on negotiation outcomes, if any?
@Richard
Thank you for this amazing aproach for the later flight phases, using a second source of data collection (WSPR) to verify the up-to-now solely trusted source (Inmarsat).
If your working hypothese is correct, it suggest one much more and deeper meaning of your findings: This was not only a hijack to execute a suicide/murdering (independent if done by the pilot or whatever other skilled person on the plane). This seems to be a very carefully operated ‘disposement’ of the plane; an operation to purposeful make the plane disappear (as extensive and permanently as possible). For me it seems very unlikely that this was a one-person-only operation. How should one person benefit from making a plane disappear? It seems to me, that there must have been a valid reason to carry out such a crime in such a professional way; e. g. to make vanish certain people or items. So it might have beent a well planned, cooridnated and executed operation. And this leads me to a new suggestion, why there is debris on the shores but none or at least no core heavy (easily to find) debris – like gears and engines – on the crash site: Through the intentionally and well working misdirection of the search, this criminal operation (that knew where the flight led to) have had enough time to remove those heavy debris parts from the crash site to make a final investigation as nearly impossible as it seems these days; as OI has already largely searched the last estimated positions of your paper and Victors paper.
I think the Indepenendt Group, by all respect for your work, overlooks the criminal-intentional dimension and purpose of the hijack, and therefore the possible size of an operation including collaborators outside the plane.
@Ben
Welcome to the blog!
As you say, the Inmarsat data is reliable. However, we only have data every hour in the latter part of the flight. WSPRnet data is available every two minutes. If we can show that the WSPRnet data is useful to track MH370, then we can narrow the search area.
We have some evidence of an intention to fly to fuel exhaustion in the southern Indian Ocean from the home simulator of Zaharie Shah.
I agree with you that the operation to divert MH370 was very carefully planned and executed. I have an open mind on the issue of collaborators on the ground.
The majority of the Independent Group share my view that this was a pilot murder suicide, but we are not a court of law and the evidence we have is largely circumstantial. Clearly there is a lot we do not know about MH370 and we need to continue the analysis and search until we do know exactly what happened to MH370. You may well be right that there is a wider group of people with knowledge of a criminal operation, but there has not been any whistle blower up until now.
@Patrick Martin,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words.
I agree with your supposition that the flight of MH370 ended violently.
We have 33 items of floating debris from every part of the aircraft, interior and exterior, fuselage and wings, nose and tail, engines and landing gear doors, cabin seating and flooring, cabin dividers and door area. The entire aircraft appears to have disintegrated.
Although no traces of explosive or fire have been found on the items recovered, your conjecture is justified as these items were only found after between 508 days and 1,626 days. The items have been subject to the action of water and waves for long periods. Some items have beached and remained undiscovered for long periods and have been further subject to the action of sun, wind and sand. Some items may even have beached and re-floated and re-beached. The engine name plate with the Rolls Royce stencil definitely beached twice. All this action by water, waves, wind, sun and sand could effectively clean items of floating debris of any small traces of explosive or fire.
As you say, I still expect the engine cores to be found intact on the sea floor along with other large heavy items such as the landing gear or APU. It is important that the search continues for MH370 and the many open questions are answered.