The GDTAAA WSPRnet MH370 Analysis Preliminary Findings place the crash location at 33.177°S 95.300°E just 6 nm East of the 7th Arc. In the original report I incorrectly stated that the crash location was not included in the ATSB 2015 search area and only in the ATSB 2016 extended search area. In fact the crash location was included by Go Phoenix deep tow operations in February 2015. My apologies for this error. The updated report can be downloaded here
This preliminary report provides a summary of the key findings from the MH370 flight path analysis using the Global Detection and Tracking of Any Aircraft Anywhere (GDTAAA) software based on the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) data publicly available on the WSPRnet.
This report will be followed up by two papers. The first paper will give all the findings every two minutes during the entire flight of MH370 from 7th March 2014 16:42 UTC to 8th March 2014 00:20 UTC. The second paper will give the technical details of each detection of MH370 using the WSPRnet data and the technical details of the tracking of the MH370 flight path.
Hi Richard, great work you’ve done. I think the entire international community is encouraged by and supports the research you’ve done.
One point I’ve heard many skeptics discuss regarding your work is that you’ve apparently not included your methodology in your published papers.
Would you upload your GDTAAA software to an open-source repository such as GitHub?
That would help others not only fix potential bugs in your code, but also allows the scientific community to validate your code by testing it on other instances of anomalous aircraft trajectories.
If you enabled open, reproducible code, this would lend significantly more confidence and credibility in your conclusions regarding final location of MH370.
We are all very interested and encouraged by your efforts thus far!
@Will,
Welcome to the blog!
I have previously published my software and documented the software architecture, but for those new to the website I will give a repeat overview.
There are a number of components in the software.
1. The prime data source is the WSPRnet data, which is publicly available at:
https://www.wsprnet.org/drupal/
Please go to the downloads section …
2. I have exported the data set I use for the MH370 timeframe to a Microsoft Excel file (15.4 MB) available at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y8k3n4cd8m6bssr/wsprspots-2014-03-07-1600-2014-03-08-0100.xlsx?dl=0
This file includes in the last column code generated automatically for a Matlab function described below.
3. The second data set is the operational ADS-B data of all aircraft in the Kuala Lumpur FIR during the MH370 time frame. This stretches to the Bangkok FIR, Singapore FIR, Jakarta FIR, Phnom Penh FIR and Ho Chi Minh FIR but no further. I have exported this file to a Microsoft Access database (70.1 MB):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jw2cyd8f2uhcb1q/ADS-B%20Kuala%20Lumpur%20FIR.mdb?dl=0
I have other ADS-B from the Indian Ocean region from commercial sources but that requires purchasing a licence or premium membership and is very expensive.
4. I use a spreadsheet to model the MH370 flight path and the Inmarsat satellite data, the satellite ephemeris, the weather in the Indian Ocean and the Boeing 777-200ER fuel consumption. I have exported this to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file (4.1 MB):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7euh9357o8b3mg/MH370%20Flight%20Path%20Model%20V19.8%20Work%20Space.xlsx?dl=0
The spreadsheet is designed as a work space and is self documenting.
5. I use Matlab R2021b for the graphical presentation of the MH370 flight path and a typical example of the 2,171 files that my MH370 analysis comprises is in the link below. You need to purchase a Matlab licence to run this code as well as a number of additional modules, which is expensive and not to be recommended unless you have access through a corporate or university licence:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/97o9up2lt6yfeca/GDTAAA_V5_07032014_1642_UTC_N_Local_SDR.m?dl=0
6. Each Matlab script imports the function code generated in the WSPR spreadsheet (see 2 above) for the relevant timeframe. The example shown in 5 above is for 16:42 UTC. The function call code is shown in the link below:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/35iamr7d4bc55u6/WSPR_Link_GC6MIZ_DSDS_SDR_Function.m?dl=0
7. Finally any candidate detection is entered into the Proplab Pro V3.1 software for further analysis, which requires yet another software licence purchase.
8. The analysis of the output of the Matlab R2021b scripts and the Proplab Pro V3.1 software is a manual task.
9. The entire process and findings will be documented in full in the two upcoming papers that I am preparing.
Hey Richard,
Did you write anything other than the matlab scripts? Everything else seems to be dataset specific or a standard analysis tool. I’m very interested in further development of this. Did you generate the 2171 files for analysis or hand edit them? This sound like an interesting project to work on making more generic and widely applicable. I’m looking forward to the report, particularly details on the analysis in Proplab and any further output analysis.
Sorry for the ramble. Keep up the good work.
@Scooter,
Welcome to the blog!
There is one Matlab script template.
Each individual Matlab script is fed with the relevant WSPR data for that time in the form of Matlab function calls. These function calls are automatically produced by a code generator from the WSPRnet data.
Each individual Matlab script is augmented by the predicted position of MH370 from a flight path model.
An individual Matlab script may also be augmented by the position of other aircraft from an ADS-B database.
@Tom,
GDTAAA comprises the code generator mentioned in step 2, the import of the Matlab function calls described in step 6 and the Matlab template script for graphical presentation described in step 5. This process is fully automated.
The software architecture comprises the WSPRnet data exported to Microsoft Excel, the ADS-B data exported to Microsoft Access, the Flight Path Model in Microsoft Excel, the Template Generator in Matlab R2021b, the Function Call Code Generator in Microsoft Excel and imported into the Matlab Script produced by the Template Generator and executed in the Matlab Function (there is one Matlab Function Call for each WSPRnet link in each two minute timeframe) and the Propagation Path Analysis in Proplab Pro V3.1 (and sometimes additionally in VOACAP).
In addition to the core product Matlab R2021b I also use the Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox and the Mapping Toolbox.
The actual data used and examples of the Matlab Script and Function Call have all been published. Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Matlab R2021b and Proplab Pro V3.1 are all proprietary software but publicly available for a licence fee. VOACAP is an internet tool developed by Jari Perkiömäki (OH6BG), James Watson (HZ1JW) and Juho Juopperi (OH8GLV) and is free of charge.
The analysis of the GDTAAA output and the analysis of the Proplab Pro V3.1 output is manual.
GOOD JOB !!!
@Madhan,
Welcome to the blog!
Many thanks for the kind words.
@All,
An interesting video from Airspace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnMDO7bfYTc
@All,
An article by Geoffrey Thomas at AirlineRatings on the growing support for GDTAAA and the WSPRnet data approach to finding MH370:
https://bit.ly/3yjP9qD
@All,
An article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in German:
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ungluecke/verschwinden-des-fluges-mh370-neue-hoffnung-auf-der-suche-17684005.html?premium=0x99f08b71ebdf7ef8303fd8bf5a455e4d
@All,
Once again there are a small number of vocal detractors, who do not understand ionospheric HF radio propagation. They also do not understand that aircraft do not fly in the ionosphere. They erroneously claim that GDTAAA does not discriminate between MH370 and all the other aircraft in the air at the same time along the propagation path of an ionospheric WSPRnet signal.
The ionosphere is the region of the earth’s upper atmosphere (between an altitude of about 50 km to 1 000 km) that is ionised (forming an electrically conducting layer) due to Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) radiation from the sun.
Commercial aircraft typically cruise at flight levels between FL290 and FL410. Unless near an airport commercial aircraft are confined to the airspace between 8.8 km and 12.5 km above the earth’s surface. There are aviation rules to ensure both horizontal and vertical separation. The minimum separation is typically 15 minutes horizontally and 1000 feet vertically. On designated RNAV routes, ATC may apply a distance-based separation using a Mach number technique. In such cases, the minimum longitudinal separation is usually 80 nm, but can be reduced to 50 nm with direct pilot – ATC communication. On two-way routes the usual vertical separation would be 2,000 ft between aircraft flying the same direction, but on one-way routes that would normally be reduced to 1,000 ft. The minimum vertical separation in RVSM airspace is 1,000 ft.
Ionospheric HF WSPRnet signals do not propagate around the globe at aircraft cruising altitude. Instead the propagation is refracted in the ionosphere at much higher altitudes back to the earth’s surface, where it is reflected back up to the ionosphere. A number of hops can take place between a transmitter and a receiver. Any claim that for every 5 km of WSPR spot path, there are roughly two planes is nonsense. Radio amateurs do not locate their antennas under the take off and landing flight paths of major airports. High ground, with a terrain drop off and clear of obstacles is much preferred. The WSPRnet actually proves hundreds of times a day that global ionospheric HF radio propagation works.
GDTAAA determines the elevation angle of a candidate WSPRnet propagation by using ray tracing. The number of hops and interim landing points of a WSPRnet HF propagation are fed into GDTAAA from Proplab Pro V3.1. The proximity of the target aircraft at altitude to the descending or ascending ray path to or from the ionosphere and to or from an interim landing point on the earth’s surface is calculated in GDTAAA. GDTAAA also checks all other aircraft in the vicinity of an interim landing point by accessing a database of ADS-B data giving position and altitude of all other aircraft at that particular time.
The MH370 flight path is initially in crowded airspace at take off, there is much less traffic following diversion and hardly any traffic in the Indian Ocean region for the majority of the flight:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8coi7q4gdgkwqet/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%201642%20UTC.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/78fqffl01wbkjgu/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%201732%20UTC.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5oigjdjs2lqyfc/GDTAAA%20V5%20MH370%2007MAR2014%202046%20UTC%20PRG%20WSPRnet%20Detections.png?dl=0
Hi Richard. Your work on helping to find MH370 continues to significantly improve the prospects with this latest WSPRnet analysis. Thank you for your efforts! I have a question regarding the early part of the flight up the Malacca Strait. How closely does the WSPRnet data track the earlier radar data past Penang? The last Malaysian Military Radar capture was reported to be at 18:22 UTC, just after passing waypoint MEKAR in the Malacca Strait. Your recent analysis appears to show the flight path closer to the northern shore of Sumatra, south of MEKAR (however the map resolution is not that precise). How closely does the current analysis track the earlier radar assessment? Your comments and thoughts on this will be much appreciated.
@Steve Hargrove,
Welcome to the blog!
We have the raw Civilian Radar data, which extends a short distance past Penang. There are 290 data points from the Civilian Terminal Area Radar (TAR) at Kota Bharu and Butterworth Air Force Base between 17:30:33 UTC and 18:00:51 UTC. There is also a detection of the co-pilot’s mobile at the BBFARLIM2 base station at Bandar Baru Air Itam on Penang Island at 17:52:27 UTC. The WSPRnet data track agrees with all this data.
We have 1 data point from the Military Radar at 18:22:12 UTC, supposedly on flight route N571 between waypoint MEKAR around 10 nm beyond MEKAR toward the waypoint NILAM. The raw Military Radar data has never been released.
The DTSG in their analysis decided not to use this single data point for two reasons:
(a) “The final reported position from radar was at very long range from the sensor and there was a long time delay between it and the penultimate radar report. This report is at long range and it is likely to have rather poor accuracy because the angular errors translate to large location errors at long range.”
(b) “The radar report at 18:22 is closer to the penultimate report at 18:02 than the filter speed predicts. Also, it was observed that the range ring derived from the timing measurements at 18:25 and 18:28 are closer to the 18:02 report than predictions based on either the 18:02 filtered speed or the 18:22 filtered speed”.
The DSTG decided: “a prior was defined at 18:01 at the penultimate radar point”. In my analysis I have tracked MH370 from take off at 16:42 UTC using WSPRnet data as well as all other data from ACARS, ADS-B, TAR, Inmarsat Satellite, Boeing and MAS Operations.
At 18:26 UTC flight UAE343 is approximately at the position claimed by the Malaysian Military for MH370 at 18:22:12 UTC. At this point in time UAE343 is 47.7 nm distant from MH370 on a bearing of 013°T. Here is a link to a higher resolution chart at 18:26 UTC:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z42p5rsgrqlnfef/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%201826%20UTC.png?dl=0
I did follow the official flight path until 18:22:12 UTC and well beyond to 19:41:03 UTC and the Inmarsat satellite data at the 2nd Arc, but there was no route consistent with a Boeing 777-200ER performance and the WSPRnet data that matched. There is a consistent path that matches the Inmarsat satellite data at the 1st and 2nd Arc as well as during the first SATCOM call starting at 18:39:55 UTC via waypoint TASEK and following the northern coast of Sumatra, without any artificially contrived changes in altitude or speed.
The implication of this WSPRnet finding is that the Military Radar capture of MH370 at 18:22:12 UTC and the eye witness claim by Kate Tee to have seen MH370 at low altitude during a jibe on their sailing boat Aaza Dana at 6.628°N 94.438°E between 19:15 UTC and 19:25 UTC are both false.
@All,
Victor Iannello and a small group of 10 detractors have published an article titled “WSPR Can’t Find MH370”.
The purpose of the scientific analysis regarding the disappearance of MH370 is to assist with the search, yet this article fails to make any search recommendation. This group has variously proposed 8S, 12S, 25S, 35S and 36S along the 7th Arc. MH370 cannot be in all these locations.
Despite being unsure where MH370 is, this group illogically insist that one thing is sure “MH370 is not at 33S” as both my work and the drift analysis by leading Oceanographer Prof. Pattiaratchi independently conclude.
The article ignores the 31 observations regarding WSPR and MH370 that have been published on this website. This group fails to take up the challenge we proposed to download live or historic WSPR data and test for themselves. The article ignores the blind tests conducted by former Qantas Captain Mike Glynn and adjudicated by aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas. The article ignores the research paper presented by Dr. Robert Westphal at the world’s leading amateur radio scientific conference on WSPR and aircraft detection following the observation – validation – verification process. The article ignores the review of my work by Dr. Johannes Coetzee who has written a PhD thesis on HF radio propagation.
In short, the article ignores complex radio paths through the ionosphere and the article ignores the peak solar cycle 24 in 2014. Instead the article focuses on Flex 6400 and AM broadcasts from China Radio International, neither of which are WSPR transmissions and neither of which were from 2014. I have previously published rebuttals of both Hayden Haywood’s video and Steve Kent’s paper. It is inappropriate to refer to Prof. Baker’s excellent paper on forward scatter passive radar in the context of MH370 and WSPR HF ionospheric propagation. There are more appropriate papers for RCS at HF from Australian and other sources. We even have one paper for a Boeing 777.
Dr. Robert Westphal first publicly addressed the issue regarding the baseline signal and the scattered signal on this website in his comment on 3rd December 2021 at 11:41. Rob discussed his research: “This has also worked numerous times in Antarctica in 2020 and now in 2021. There are at least two options: 1. Monitoring along the baseline between RX (Receiver) and TX (Transmitter) or vice versa and at best perpendicular to the baseline (often better results).”
We have also discussed (a) no disturbance, (b) interference in amplitude (signal strength), (c) steady Doppler slope and steady amplitude, (d) steady Doppler slope and amplitude interference, (e) wild amplitude variations and frequency fluctuations. There is reflection and deflection.There is refraction, diffraction, polarisation and phase angle changes. There is forward scatter, back scatter and side scatter. There are engine exhaust and wave vortex disturbances. These issues and many others will be dealt with in full in a technical paper on MH370 and WSPR which as previously mentioned is in preparation.
In addition Mike Exner falsely claims to speak on behalf of the next of kin. I have received many messages of support from the next of kin. Mick Gilbert falsely claims that I have left the Independent Group. I disassociated myself from one of its members Victor Iannello and another non-member Dr. Bobby Ulich because of mixing US political issues with the search for MH370. I am still in contact with other members of the IG and many other MH370 analysts.
I have received hundreds of messages of support from scientists and engineers around the world. Dr. Alan Eustace, the former head of Google Engineering, stated “The greatest mystery of our time is solved by ingenious engineering and incredibly hard work. What an inspiration!”
@All,
I first reported Rob’s research into the flight of two Airbus H125 helicopters at the Australian Davis Station way East of DP0GVN in March 2021. There were receptions from DP0GVN in Antarctica TX in New Zealand by ZL2005SWL as RX, a distance of more than 7,500 km. This clearly shows an example of an indirect path detection perpendicular to the direct path. The details can be found in the 3 comments referenced below:
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/01/21/mh370-debris-drift-analysis/comment-page-3/#comment-394
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/01/21/mh370-debris-drift-analysis/comment-page-3/#comment-398
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/01/21/mh370-debris-drift-analysis/comment-page-3/#comment-399
2021.12.21: Oh, what a wonderful day today! Winter solstice! SFI=123 (+8), SN=115 (+6), the upcoming solar storm is not yet influencing us! The detractors beat on us and we almost feel in line with Kopernikus (1543), Galileo (1616, 1632) and Christian Hülsmeyer (1904). I suppose the experts know Christian Hülsmeyer‘s contribution to mankind? The late Hülsmeyer was honoured by IEEE 115 years after his invention and first patent, date 1904.04.30!!!
So we have enough time working on the subject for just less than 18 months now. How many years to go? Anyway I have a gift today for those you do not want to or cannot wait that long.
2021.12.20 to 2021.12.21: Go to FR24 and look for CPT (Capetown, South Africa) to Antarctica. Novolazarevskaya Station (QAO and ADS-B available) and Wolf‘s Fang (no ADS-B) close by.
In addition please observe what is going on along the shoreline of Antarctica.
Search WSPR signals in http://www.wsprnet.org before monitoring FR24 or after as you wish.
Along the baseline: DP* (DP0GVN) to ZS* (any ZS station in South Africa) and vice versa.
Perpendicular and other angles to baseline: VK* TX to LU* RX, DP* to EA8* and vice versa, DP* to ZL* and vice versa, DP* to VK* and vice versa. Even from Austria (OE9GHV at 1.000 m a.s.l.) and my own KiwiSDR (900 m a.s.l.) in Germany. Probably I forgot a few of them. Please keep in mind WSPR is a multistatic system with lots of transmitters and lots of receivers in all kind of directions. Again please also check for changes in frequency bands!
Right now I will not tell you what you are going to see as maybe some detractors will just again consume the stuff and not gain any insight or experience. After you will have done your homework we can discuss the observations unless people will not expose good manners and polite behaviour. Have fun! All is open to the public and no hidden secrets! Good luck! Enjoy the day! Thanks!
Merry christmas and season greetings!
Prof. Joe Taylor (K1JT), Nobel Prize in Physics, and the Inventor of WSPR claims that the WSPR method won’t work to track MH370, I don’t know if I should believe it or not?
If there was a chance Mr. Taylor was correct, could he be wrong too?
@Ethan Larsen,
Welcome to the blog!
Did Professor Joe Taylor really say that WSPR won’t work to track MH370?
Or is that what Mike Exner claims he said?
According to Mike Exner the response to my work from Professor Joe Taylor and I quote Mike Exner was “Nuts!”
I do not believe the distinguished Professor and Nobel Laureate would issue such a statement as “Nuts!” as a scientific response on a WSPR protocol that he invented.
He might at least get one of his team to write a paper proving everything I have written is false.
So far this has not happened.
I leave it your judgement, what you believe.
Thank you
Hello, I am from Chinese, a mh370 follower.
I want to know that will you publish a more complete report for mh370 search? And when?
@Cui Shi neng,
Welcome to the blog!
There are two further reports currently planned:
(a) GDTAAA MH370 WSPRnet Analysis – Flight Path Report.
(b) GDTAAA MH370 WSPRnet Analysis – Technical Report.
I do not have any publication deadline for either report, but the first report is progressing well and should be finished in the next few weeks. The technical report is more complex, further analyses are still being conducted and is more time consuming.
Dear All,
2021 has been a very successful year with regard to the thoughts on WSPR and MH370!
Unfortunately the first encounter with blog mh370.radiantphysics.com was not too enlightening and encouraging for me but the ePaper for HamSCI 2021 and the encounter with Richard in February 2021 have been positive events in the first half of 2021. So was the support by a couple of people with good intentions and an open mind.
Especially the WSPR signal observations in Antarctica in the summer of 2021/2022 (Southern hemisphere) were most promising and gave a lot of positive results with regard to the theory on long range flight detection. WSPR flight detections to and from all entry points into Antarctica have occured and have been documented!
It has been a lot of work to be accomplished in 2021!
I did not at all expect this media hype in 2021!
Anyway I was never prepared for so much bashing, defamation and hatred from a so called scientific community and people I thought had good manners and an excellent education.
Social peer pressure is a nontechnical but psychological subject that has been and can be very intriguing in the past, presence and the future. There a lot of ego driven people!
In conclusion I need at least a mental break until next year 2022 or I might consider taking the „Christian Hülsmeyer exit road“! So see you all in 2022 or never again!
Thanks for the technical and psychological studies! Obviously mankind‘s social skills do just very slowly develop at a low rate in 117 years (1904 to 2019 C. Hülsmeyer and IEEE).
I do not need the intense work on MH370 for my peace of mind, may be science and the 370noK could eventually benefit from my humble contributions as the originator of that „crazy WSPR MH370 idea“! In the beginning I was not sure now I am convinced WSPR long range detection of aircraft works under certain well defined conditions.
It was my intention to add one or two pieces to the puzzle of MH370‘s fate being on or next to any loci on arc7 and to gather better estimates with regard to the end of flight time and location, not to substitute all the other great achievements.
So in summary the idea was to narrow down the size of a future search area for MH370!
The other intention was to establish a team to prepare new experiments before the 8th anniversary of MH370‘s disappearance and the end of summer 2021/2022.
As a consequence of these unpleasant events in 2021 this will not happen now!
Most likely another year will be saved, wasted or lost depending on one‘s own opinion!
I send season greetings to all of you no matter if supporter or opponent, merry christmas, good health, stay safe, peace of mind and a very happy new year 2022 with lots of new insights! Good bye, at least for the rest of this year or forever! Take care! Wish you well!
Although you do not elaborate on the method using WSPR in detail, there is a hype that is not supported by anything. On the contrary, your statements, which are already risky, end with further stalling. What is to be seen also clearly by your statement to the appearance of the two “papers”.
Quote: “Richard on 22 December 2021 at 12:35
I do not have any publication deadline for either report …”
My impression is that with your method the crash site of the MH370 airplane cannot be found.
For the sake of the survivors of the crash, I hope I am wrong.
Your purpose on earth goes far beyond satisfying critics or proving yourself according to standards others set for you. Your purpose is to recognize the greatness within you and deliver it. (Alan Cohen)
@Kerstin,
Welcome to the blog!
Many thanks for the quote.
Hello Richard,
the study is very interesting and therefore everyone is eagerly awaiting the publication of the same. Can you describe in short sentences why it is possible to distinguish MH370 from Emirates Flight 343? As we know, both planes were only 33 nautical miles apart at VAMPI. How can one ensure that one is tracking the “right” flying object in the further course?
I sincerely hope that the study will bring the success that many people so eagerly desire.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
@Flybywire
This question has been discussed several times on this website.
Most recently in my response to Steve Hargrove:
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/11/30/mh370-preliminary-findings/comment-page-2/#comment-1273
For flight UAE343 we have ADS-B data that tells us where the aircraft is.
For flight MH370 we do not have ADS-B data beyond 17:20:35 UTC and we do not have civilian radar beyond 18:00:51 UTC. We only have the Inmarsat satellite data and WSPRnet data to be able to determine the flight path.
Thank you Richard,
My question was a little bit imprecise. It is unclear to me how I can specifically identify a particular source of interference based on many sources of interference on the long paths of the signal waves. Therefore, I wanted to know how to distinguish these sources of interference from each other.
I will probably have to wait until the study is published to be able to understand. I am and remain curious.
@Flybywire,
If your question relates to how GDTAAA WSPRnet based analysis works please see:
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/11/30/mh370-preliminary-findings/comment-page-2/#comment-1268
If your question relates to how the physics works please see:
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/11/30/mh370-preliminary-findings/comment-page-1/#comment-1258
There are two further reports currently in preparation to explain both aspects in full detail:
(a) GDTAAA MH370 WSPRnet Analysis – Flight Path Report.
(b) GDTAAA MH370 WSPRnet Analysis – Technical Report.
@All,
Happy Christmas, if you are one of those celebrating this event.
For those new to the blog, I have published a number of posts and papers on WSPR.
Dr. Robert Westphal first presented a paper regarding the use of WSPR to locate aircraft at the world’s largest scientific forum in the radio amateur community held on 19th – 20th March 2021 and hosted by the University of Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA.
The paper titled Geocaching in the Ionosphere was published on my website 22nd March 2021.
I have written 24 posts and published 34 papers on MH370, including 10 papers specifically on WSPR as follows:
1. Using the WSPRnet and Inmarsat Satellite data in the search for MH370 – 14th April 2021.
2. Global Detection and Tracking of Aircraft as used in the search for MH370 – 1st May 2021.
3. When do Whispers Shout – 15th May 2021.
4. How does WSPR help to Detect and Track Aircraft – 31st July 2021.
5. GDTAAA Test Flight – 28th August 2021.
6. WSPRnet Propagation Technical Analysis – 9th September 2021.
7. AMSA MH370 Search and Rescue Flight – 21st September 2021.
8. Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight to Maldives – 26th September 2021.
9. How can WSPR Help Find MH370 – 11th October 2021.
10. MH370 GDTAAA WSPRnet Analysis Preliminary Report – 30th November 2021.
These papers have been viewed and downloaded by over 20,000 people and I have received over 2,000 written comments on these papers from many MH370 analysts.
@All,
Here is a useful diagram explaining ionospheric HF radio propagation at 15 MHz and 20 MHz over single hop distances between 1,000 km and over 3,000 km (Climatological Model of Over-the-Horizon Radar – M. A. Cervera, D. B. Francis and G. J. Frazer – 2017):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2xac47y21yll7i1/Climatological%20Model%20of%20Over%20the%20Horizon%20Radar.png?dl=0
Hello Richard,
even your hardest detractors admit that WSPR works fine but only for small distances. As I understood their most prominent complain, it is the weakness of the signal which is their main argument against this method working on long distances. I read it on Victor‘s blog.
By simple calculation you find out the same when you use the equations for the 17:16 signal. It is simply not strong enough to be detected by WSPR.
How would you argument in this special 17:16 case. How did you detect something which is by using the standard equations undetectable?
I‘m very thankful for an answer as I appreciate your hard work and enormous enthusiasm.
Best regards
@Dieter R.,
You state: “even your hardest detractors admit that WSPR works fine but only for small distances. I read it on Victor‘s blog. As I understood their most prominent complain, it is the weakness of the signal which is their main argument against this method working on long distances. By simple calculation you find out the same when you use the equations for the 17:16 signal. It is simply not strong enough to be detected by WSPR. How would you argument in this special 17:16 case. How did you detect something which is by using the standard equations undetectable?”
It is a matter of public record that the WSPRnet spot id 186,123,049 sent by HB9CZF on 7th March 2014 17:16 UTC from a radio shack in Dürrenäsch, Switzerland was received by VK1CH in Kambah, near Canberra, Australia. The WSPR protocol exchanges call sign, location and other information between radio stations. From the WSPRnet data we know that at 17:16 UTC from spot id 186,123,049 that HB9CZF in Switzerland at the Maidenhead Grid location JN47ch transmitted at 30 dBm on a frequency of 14.097079 MHz and was received by VK1CH in Australia at QF44mp with a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of – 20 dB and a frequency drift of – 1 Hz/min over a short path distance of approximately 16,530 km.
You can download the data from https://www.wsprnet.org and see for yourself.
Dominik Bugmann (HB9CZF) sent 359 WSPRnet signals that evening. Craig Hunter (VK1CH) sent 131 WSPRnet signals and received 85. They were both not only exchanging signals with each other but also with other amateur radio enthusiasts all over the world.
Whilst you are looking at the WSPRnet data during the flight of MH370 you will see that there are 9,489 WSPRnet links with a propagation distance over 8,000 km. The claim that WSPR works only for small distances is nonsense. The WSPR protocol exchange recorded in a public database proves that 91,058 WSPRnet long distance links were transmitted and received during the flight of MH370. There are WSPRnet links with propagation distances up to 19,437 km recorded in the MH370 timeframe.
As any amateur radio enthusiast or HF ionospheric radio propagation scientist knows in March 2014 we were close to the peak of the solar cycle 24. It is not possible to run radio propagation experiments in 2021 and claim the results are valid for 2014. The large difference between 2014 and 2021 is shown in the link below from Carl Luetzelschwab (call sign K9LA).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8edop234j5o8f9u/Solar%20Cycle%2024%20-%20Carl%20Luetzelschwab%20K9LA.png?dl=0
As any amateur radio enthusiast or HF ionospheric radio propagation scientist knows a transmission made on the grey line as was the case at 17:16 UTC from Dürrenäsch, Switzerland will likely propagate over greater distances. The following graphic is taken from Proplab Pro V3.1:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0fkrylb68nntkx4/GDTAAA%20V4%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201716%20UTC%20PRG%20Map%20Revised.png?dl=0
It has also been known by amateur radio enthusiasts and HF ionospheric propagation scientists since 1947 that Trans Equatorial Propagation (TEP) transmitting over the Geomagnetic Equator in the early evening hours that radio waves will have a higher maximum usable frequency (MUF) and will propagate over greater distances. TEP is a symmetrically disposed north – south phenomena, for example W7ACS Pearl Harbour, Hawaii was picked up by VK5KL in Darwin, Australia a short path of 8,631 km on an initial bearing of 251°T. We are not just talking about north – south close to 180°T or 0°T. So Europe/Eurasia/Middle East with Australia or Southern Africa with South East Asia are all MH370 relevant TEP possibilities. The following graphic based on experiments performed by R.A. Whiting (call sign 5B4WR) in 1958 and 1962 and published in the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) journal QST shows the difference between the predicted, observed and peak MUF for transmissions between Cyprus and Southern Rhodesia:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/694s1isbgmnojb6/Daily%20Cycle%20TEP%20Cyprus%20to%20Rhodesia%20March%201962%20and%20April%201958.png?dl=0
There are different types of TEP such as standard TEP, F-type TEP and 2 hop F-layer TEP. It has also been known since 1958 that there is a significant increase in Spread F after sunset. This would also favour transmissions between Europe and Australia during the evening hours UTC when the MH370 flight was taking place. The following graphic based on experiments performed by R.A. Whiting (call sign 5B4WR) in 1958 and published in the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) journal QST shows the percentage Spread F after sunset:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fxselkf2ddrfuub/%25%20Increase%20in%20Spread%20F%20after%20Sunset%201958.png?dl=0
Ray Cracknell (call sign ZE2JV) and Fred Anderson (call sign ZS6PW) who are separated by 966 km have a backscatter recorded radio contact (QSO) almost every day of the year on 28.988 MHz at 17:00 local time. The time delay between the ground wave and the back scatter signals varies between 16 milliseconds and 20 milliseconds. This is equivalent to the reflection from a distance between 2,414 km and 3,058 km, which are typical one-hop F layer distances at 28 MHz. A graphic published in the ARRL journal QST in November 1981 is shown in the link below and describes the back scatter observations:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i5i00m95utmlh8y/Backscatter%20-%20Cracknell%20et%20al.%20-%201981.pdf?dl=0
There is an excellent paper titled “Estimating LF HF band noise while acquiring WSPR spots” by Gwyn Griffiths, Glen Elmore and Rob Robinett which contradicts the claim the WSPR signal is too weak:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqgl0qzo1kl3cg4/Estimating%20LF%20HF%20band%20noise%20while%20acquiring%20WSPR%20spots.pdf?dl=0
A WSPR transmission is at a symbol rate of 1.4648 baud, using narrow band 4-FSK modulation with strong forward error correction. The tone duration is 0.682 seconds. There are 162 channel symbols each at 0.682 seconds, which take a total of 110.484 seconds to receive. WSPR is a multi-static system with 120 second non-coherent integration time. The integration time is ignored by the detractors in their simplified calculation. Here are the standard equations modified to reflect Absorption, Focusing and Integration Time by Cervera et al. as published in Radio Science and presented at the International Union of Radio Science General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (2017):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1voc9rkwkxhx14q/Standard%20Radar%20Equation%20with%20additional%20terms%20for%20Absorption%2C%20Focusing%20and%20CIT.pdf?dl=0
There is a body of academic research showing evidence to support the hypothesis that the Radar Cross Section (RCS) calculation depends on the aspect. When MH370 turns, climbs, descends or enters an area of clear air turbulence, the aspect changes with respect to the radio wave rays descending from the ionosphere or having been reflected from the Earth’s surface (terrain or ocean) are ascending back toward the aircraft. The target RCS may vary greatly with the frequency and the angle of incidence of the illuminating radio waves. Thus, we need a realistic model to the target RCS, which captures this variability. Computer wire frame models of our target of interest must be used with NEC-4 to model the frequency and aspect dependant RCS:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xzjavv13f15ijvj/Wire%20Frame%20Model%20of%20a%20Boeing%20777.png?dl=0
In addition there is a body of academic research showing evidence to support the hypothesis that the aircraft wake vortex water vaporisation and engine exhaust particles can disturb radio wave propagation:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q3703o6ui2bpqhs/Aircraft%20Wake%20Vortex%20Evolution%20and%20Prediction%20-%20Frank%20Holz%C3%A4pfel.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nd0b66ppvy3pggf/Aircraft%20Wake%20Vortices%20-%20Jianbing%20Li.pdf?dl=0
Ionospheric HF radio propagation is a complex subject and there are many factors which influence the received signal strength. An experiment performed 10:30 am local time on 19th December 2021, at the wrong time of year, at the wrong time of day, not using the WSPR protocol, in a trough in the solar cycle, not attempting an ionospheric propagation, not considering the geomagnetic equator or trans equatorial propagation, not considering ionosphere to ionosphere chordal hops or ducting, not considering backscatter, not considering the Boeing 777-200 ER target aircraft RCS, wake vortex water vaporisation, engine exhaust particles disturbing radio waves, etc. is irrelevant to detecting and tracking MH370 in March 2014.
This does not prevent detractors contacting the distinguished Professor and Nobel Laureate Joe Taylor and telling him Godfrey “is completely off the rails regarding WSPR” and then inviting a response from Joe Taylor. In his response Joe Taylor freely admits that he has not read any of the papers on my blog.
Hello Richard,
First of all, thank you for your comprehensive and detailed answer.
That is a lot to read in the next days, for me and probably for all, interested in your findings.
Best regards
Dear Mr. Godfrey,
What are the status of an international exploration team to verify your hypothese by finding or not the plane at the location you are suggesting ?
Only the finding of the plane will be able to begin the understanding of the crash.
Many thanks.
Alex
@Alex Blanzat,
Welcome to the blog!
I agree that finding the plane is key to determining the cause of the crash.
There are organisations willing to go and search, but the Malaysian authorities have not yet given their agreement to a further search.
Dear Mr. Godfrey,, thanks for your answer.
If I understand correctly, the location you are indicating is in international waters, therefore there is no need of an authorization of Malaysian authorities, correct ?
Action should be taken through French BEA (as there is still acriminal investigation opened in France) which had previously organized search with success for AF447 Rio-Paris in the Atlantic Ocean with Woodshole institute in the US (could be co-financed by Boeing).
Have you contacted them and if yes what is the status ?
Many thanks
Alex.
@Alex Blanzat,
My understanding is that anyone may search for wreckage in international waters, but only salvage wreckage with the permission of the owner’s, who in the case of MH370 is the Malaysian Government.
I am in contact with the ATSB, Ocean Infinity and two other underwater search organisations. I am not in contact with the French Criminal Investigation, BEA, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution or Boeing.
Richard,
Have you collaborated at all with Joe Taylor?
@Larry,
Welcome to the blog!
Prof. Joe Taylor does not have the time for a collaboration. He does not follow this blog and has not read our various papers on WSPR. Understandably at the age of 80 he has retired from many activities.
Nevertheless it is planned to send Joe a summary of our key research findings and ask for his comments and review.
@Richard
Do you have any update on the availability of the two reports you have stated were in development?
Thanks
@Bruce W,
The first report was published on 31st December 2021:
GDTAAA MH370 WSPRnet Analysis – Flight Path Report
The second report is planned for mid March 2022:
GDTAAA MH370 WSPRnet Analysis – Technical Report
I am a retired Navy veteran who had the pleasure to serve for 12 months on an isolated island in the Indian Ocean. This island has radar that would be able to track any traffic whether it be waterborne or flying objects. This is because of security reasons. The island is extremely small but has a runway built to be long enough to land the space shuttle. (Built that way on purpose). My question is…….
Has anyone suspected that MH370 landed there for what ever reason deemed necessary by whatever government covertly. It is a very very protected island by British Royal Marines and US Navy and US Air Force. If you’re curious, the name of the island is Diego Garcia (BIOT).
@Jerry Rucker,
Welcome to the blog!
Diego García has been put forward many times over the last 10 years as the location that MH370 was heading for, mostly in the context of a remote take over of the aircraft by US secret services.
Personally, I do not believe the stories or conspiracy theories, as there is no fit to the Inmarsat satellite data, WSPR data or floating debris drift analysis.
Hello Mr. Richard,
A new search is on the way by November for the missing 9M-MRO. It was clear that
the Malaysian capt. Zaharie Shah planned to vanish the boeing 9M-MRO’s wreckage
by having it’s entire body shredded into thousands.
The fact of the wreckage remains being shredded is what capt Zaharie wanted and managed to harden the finding of the 9M-MRO. It was even revealed in the documentary national geographic (Drain the Oceans) around the 7th arc and the imagery of the wreckage being shredded.
If however finally after years of search failure, Ocean Infinity starting this November once again for the search for the 9M-MRO wreckage the (Black Box) flight recorder after a decade being in the bottom of deep oceanic seabed, once recovered out of that environment, is it possible that it could still work after being dried and revealing the secrets of MH370’s cockpit most likely the final 2 hrs?
Air France 447’s black box after only 2 yrs it was successfully recovered and it operated.
@Faisal,
Welcome to the blog!
We are hopeful that the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) will be found.
We expect that both will provide data after 10 years, as they both use solid state non-volatile memory, which requires no electrical power to retain the data contents.
The CVR only records the last 2 hours, but the FDR records the last 25 hours of flight. The FDR records more than 1,300 parameters. The FDR is a 256 word per second data rate recorder.
I’m sorry Mr. Godfrey I always thought that both flight recorders the FDR and CVR would only be able to record the last couple of hours of flight how is it the FDR contains more data than the CVR ?
@Michael Ruiz,
It is extremely rare for an emergency to last for such an extended time as MH370. The purpose of the FDR and CVR is to help crash investigators determine what happened.
The FDR is designed to be able to reconstruct the whole flight and the CVR is designed to be able to reconstruct the emergency situation.
The longest emergency in recent history was QF32, which lasted for 1 hour 44 minutes. On 4 November 2010 Richard de Crespigny was the pilot-in-command of Qantas Flight 32. The A380 suffered an uncontained engine failure several minutes after leaving Singapore Changi Airport. Despite facing over 50 ECAM warning checklists and having limited use of many critical systems on the aircraft, including brakes, hydraulics, and electronics, the crew managed to bring the plane back to the airport and make an emergency landing.
The CVR records the flight crew’s voices, as well as other sounds inside the cockpit. The recorder’s “cockpit area microphone” is usually located on the overhead instrument panel between the two pilots. Sounds of interest to an investigator could be engine noise, stall warnings, landing gear extension and retraction, and other noises such as clicks and pops. From these sounds, parameters such as engine rpm, system failures, speed, and the time at which certain events occur can often be determined. Communications with Air Traffic Control, automated radio weather briefings, and conversation between the pilots and ground or cabin crew are also recorded.
A CVR committee creates a written transcript of the CVR audio to be used during the investigation. Air traffic control recordings with their associated time codes are used to help determine the local standard time of one or more events during the accident sequence. These times are applied to the transcript, providing a local time for every event on the transcript. More precise timing for critical events can be obtained using sound spectrum software.
The CVR recordings are treated differently than the other factual information obtained in an accident investigation. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the verbal communications inside the cockpit, Because of this sensitivity, a high degree of security is provided for the CVR audio and its transcript. The content and timing of release of the written transcript are strictly regulated.
The FDR onboard the aircraft records many different operating conditions of the flight. By regulation, newly manufactured aircraft must monitor at least eighty-eight important parameters such as time, altitude, airspeed, heading, and aircraft attitude. In addition, some FDRs can record the status of more than 1,000 other in-flight characteristics that can aid in the investigation. The items monitored can be anything from flap position to auto-pilot mode or even smoke alarms.
With the data retrieved from the FDR, the Safety Board can generate a computer animated video reconstruction of the flight. The investigator can then visualize the airplane’s attitude, instrument readings, power settings and other characteristics of the flight. This animation enables the investigating team to visualize the last moments of the flight before the accident.
Both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder have proven to be valuable tools in the accident investigation process. They can provide information that may be difficult or impossible to obtain by other means. When used in conjunction with other information gained in the investigation, the recorders are playing an ever increasing role in determining the probable cause of an aircraft accident.
Richard de Crespigny is also a supporter of our use of the WSPR analysis and believes that MH370 will be found and the mystery solved.