WSPR technology can be used to detect and track aircraft. This paper underpins the flight path report published 31st December 2021 which provided 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 alignment of the predicted position of MH370 with the great circle path of one or more anomalous WSPR links occurred at 125 different times during the flight, involving a total of 186 anomalous WSPR links out of a database of 76,097 WSPR links during the MH370 flying time. In 45 cases multiple WSPR links intersected at the predicted position of MH370. The crash location identified is 33.2°S 95.3°E. The previous report (124 pages, 55 MB) can be downloaded here
The results of the WSPR based analysis align with previous work on the Inmarsat satellite data, Boeing 777-200ER fuel model and Oceanographer’s drift analyses of the floating debris found from MH370. Blaine Gibson and others have found 36 items of MH370 floating debris, either confirmed from part numbers and serial numbers or confirmed from a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft type. Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi of the University of Western Australia predicted where floating debris would be found and Blaine Gibson successfully searched on his advice. Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi has identified a crash location between 32°S and 33°S near the 7th Arc based on his drift analysis.
WSPR technology provides credible new evidence to help determine the crash location of MH370 and we therefore recommend a further search be authorised. The offer by Ocean Infinity to recommence an underwater search in 2023 should be accepted. Our latest technical report (100 pages, 45 MB) can be downloaded here
Great Work Richard !!
Now let’s find the rest of the plane !!
Wonderful work!
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas at AirlineRatings.com has published the report linked below:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/comprehensive-credible-new-report-published-showing-mh370-location/
Outstanding work
@Richard. Thank you and your co-author for this paper.
Your work over the last few years, devoted to contributing a new method in predicting where the wreckage might lie, clearly has been intense, extensive and determined.
However, about some specifics of the paper, firstly in my view the test tracking of the flight from Samoa (your page 16) was unsuccessful, for reasons I put at the time.
Also, likewise, though it wasn’t a trial per se, I raised doubts about your quite recent tracking of AMSA search aircraft to the Indonesian boat in distress off the WA coast. I was concerned as to ambiguity of your positions and position indicators there also.
Just one illustration is that in the descent to the vessel by the first AMSA aircraft, as depicted in your track of it, that overshot the stricken vessel by some 30 miles, it then retracing that at low level.
I think it reasonable though to assume that that aircraft would have been informed of the vessel’s position by the RAAF P3 that had overflown it already, so to me that track was questionable.
Your response at the time to comments raised on these and some other issues was that your final report would clarify and, in-effect, disambiguate the indicators of your tracks. I have been awaiting that therefore as might have others.
Now that your joint paper is published, presumably replacing what then you had in mind, just for my part I regret to say that my reservations as above on the outcome of your techniques have not been dispelled. Adding to those, there are the numerous comments by your peers on Victor’s blog that remain unaddressed.
On that, it is unclear who conducted the peer review of the paper and their qualifications/background so to do. Manifestly those on Victor’s blog of obviously relevant expertise did not, as is evident from their recent remarks about it.
It concerns me that after Geoffrey Thomas’s promotion and the recent media hype, there is undue optimism for a new search’s prospects. Naturally that raises expectations among the next of kin, yet, depending on the search’s extent, those prospects may be insufficient to risk letting them down once more. To me the gain to be had in aircraft safely is most likely doubtful, the value of satisfying public curiosity being an incidental: the two then may offer insufficient gain to offset the consequences to some of another failure.
I hope therefore that this recent enthusiasm is of little account to potential searchers and that neither they nor the governments directly involved are swayed by it.
@David,
You are entitled to your opinion, but we never expected to win over hardline detractors. I do not follow any other blogs on MH370. I am sometimes alerted by my supporters to defamatory remarks made by a few individuals, but the internet is an unregulated domain and people feel they can say and write what they like, including slander and libel.
I have complete understanding of sceptics. I draw the line at outright lies such as the claim Hannes Coetzee does not have a PhD in radio engineering by Mick Gilbert or the claim that I am not an aerospace engineer by Florence de Changy.
You talk about AMSA search for the Indonesian boat in distress, but this is not mentioned in the paper. You discount all the tests of GDTAAA and WSPR as failed. However you have no explanation for how the method and results align with the ADS-B, ACARS and Civilian radar data in the early part of the flight of MH370 and with the Inmarsat satellite and Boeing fuel performance data in the latter part of the flight. You fail to argue against the fact that the alignment of the predicted position of MH370 with the great circle path of one or more WSPR links occurred at 125 different times during the flight, involving a total of 186 anomalous WSPR links. In 45 cases multiple WSPR links intersected at the predicted position of MH370. If you and your fellow detractors cannot contribute with some solid technical inputs, Hannes and I will tend to just ignore you and continue with something more positive in my life.
The next of kin strongly support my approach and invited me again to speak to them recently at the MH370 8th anniversary event. You are not a spokesman for the next of kin, so please do not claim to speak on their behalf.
You completely ignore the recent announcements by the ATSB, Ocean Infinity and the Malaysian authorities who are taking our work seriously. The ATSB has already responded to our latest paper with a number of initial questions, which we have answered. Prof. Simon Maskell of Liverpool University has also already responded saying that he has reviewed the first paper and is currently reviewing the latest paper in detail. He also mentions that they are making good progress with their system based on WSPR and will share their results in due course. Other academic institutions such as Adelaide University have reviewed the first flight path paper and are currently reviewing the second technical paper.
Your claim that Geoffrey Thomas is responsible for the global media interest is unfounded. Documentaries on our work have been broadcast in China, Australia, UK, France, Germany, US, Japan and several more are planned. Geoffrey Thomas is a renowned aviation expert who has followed MH370 for over eight years, however he does not control the world’s media and is not behind the production or funding of all these broadcasts.
You appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the detractor’s propaganda, but at least you are honest enough to state directly that you do not want another search: “I hope therefore that this recent enthusiasm is of little account to potential searchers and that neither they nor the governments directly involved are swayed by it.” By contrast to your position, some of your fellow detractors do want another search, but only where they think MH370 is. The problem is there are almost as many proposed locations as there are detractors from Ed Anderson at 8°S to Byron Bailey at 39°S and many locations in between near the 7th Arc. Other like Florence de Changy claim the crash location is off the coast of Vietnam or Jeff Wise claim the crash location was Kazakhstan. Others like Bill Tracy stated publicly on Twitter there should be no further search if Malaysia are faking/hiding data. If MH370 and the FDR is found, then there is no debate about where the aircraft ended up, how it got there and possibly even why.
The next of kin definitely want another search. The aviation industry and the flying public also want answers as to how a modern commercial aircraft with a good safety record can just disappear under the radar eyes of seven different countries.
@Richard
Beautiful, informative and empassioned reply. I have been watching the vicious personal and professional attacks on you, Dr. Westphal, Dr. Coetzee and others for your efforts, and on Geoffrey Thomas for reporting them. They remind me of the attacks on me for daring to find and report half the recovered pieces of 370 debris.
I was disturbed by the previous commenter’s presumption to speak for the 370 nok, and his express hope that recent enthusiasm for your WSPR work ” is of little account to potential searchers and that neither they nor the governments directly involved are swayed by it.” Only the nok are entitled to speak for themelves, and we should all support another search even if we may disagree on where it should be. I dont know if he speaks for the owner and others in that blog he refers to, or just himself.
Ocean Infinity has shown great courage and determination to make a search proposal including the WSPR area. It appears some WSPR detractors, having failed to dissuade one potential searcher, are saying things that could dissuade one government from contracting a search. While that may not be the objective of many detractors, it could be the unintended result.
Potential searchers and governments are entitled to an objective peer review from REAL peers, not bloggers and self appointed “peers” and experts who have been incessantly trashing WSPR GDTAAA for a year before this paper was published. Potential searchers and governments and most important 370 families will receive that peer review by Prof. Maskell, Prof. Ward, and others as they wish.
I encourage underwater searchers and Malaysia to search this area and adjacent areas to the northeast based on WSPR, and based on the UWA drift analysis that accurately predicted almost all and resulted directly in finding half the recovered 370 debris.
New technology like WSPR GDTAAA can only be truly verified by searching the location and finding the plane or not. Only then we will really know. It astounds me that so many bloggers and others on the internet appear to be so opposed to doing that. So Bravo Ocean Infinity ! Malaysia Boleh ! Let’s give this new technology a chance ! Search On for the 370 families, for the public, and the truth !
@Richard
You state that Adelaide University have reviewed the first paper and are in the process of reviewing the Technical Report. This erroneously implies that I and my colleagues believe that your WSPR/MH370 prediction has technical credibility.
To the contrary, we are of the view that there are numerous technical problems with your technique. A basic tenet of the scientific method is the ability for others to replicate results. If it is credible, your technique should be able to withstand critical review and not be waved away with broad sweeping assumptions.
I sought a copy of the technical report so that we could use it as a training exercise for a 2nd year Physics student. We have the WSPR data, two ray tracing programs (Proplab-Pro and Pharlap), IRI2007 and IRI 2016, Matlab, the DSTG analysis of the satcom data and years of HF radar experience so are in a position to undertake a scientific examination of your technique.
We would all like to have this mystery solved, not least the next of kin, but I seriously doubt that GDTAAA has the technical credibility which you assert.
@Bruce,
I only reported what you had told me, that you had reviewed our first paper and had requested a copy of our second paper. I made no claims and implied nothing regarding the outcome of your review of the first paper or your request for the second paper.
You asked in a previous comment a number of questions about our first paper, which we answered in full.
@Bruce,
We see the fact that a reputable academic institute spending time “looking” at our papers (I don’t want to use the word “reviewing” as it might cause some misunderstandings:) in a very positive light. We will then be able to use any feedback or findings to further refine or improve the WSPRnet and GTDAAA detection process of MH370, but only up to a point.
Please keep in mind that these papers are not pure research papers that are meant, after a year or more of peer reviewing, to be published in academic journals. The papers are also not meant to rigorously comply with all the academic guidelines and requirements normally associated with journal publications. This is a specific solution to a very specific problem, i.e. finding MH370 with the very limited amount of data that is available.
To that effect our first aim was to contribute to the body of interested parties that are requesting another search based on the new data that have become available. Fortunately Ocean Infinity has now committed to a new search that will hopefully bring closure to the families and everybody affected by the loss of MH370.
Our second aim is to try and define a search area that will hopefully ensure a high probability of success, and to this effect a holistic approach is taken by incorporating all the available data from various sources.
The MH370 case is very difficult seeing that MH370 hasn’t been found, so in principle nothing can be scientifically confirmed yet. Can I recommend that for a more generalized solution to determine the ability of WSPRnet data in combination with the GTDAAA software to detect and determine the position of an aircraft in flight that maybe use is made of the work of Dr. Robert Westphal? ADSB data is available for most of the aircraft that earlier this year flew into and out of Antarctica. This will enable correlating the WSPRnet and GTDAAA results with confirmed data.
Regards,
Hannes
Mr. Godfrey, I have a commercial aircraft certificate but no longer fly. I have been following this mystery from the beginning. I believe the captain of MH370 went to great lengths planning this flight and those plans included making sure the aircraft was never found. Your estimated position of the aircraft is in the region of the second deepest spot in the Indian Ocean, the Dordrecht Deep. The pilots intention could have been to ditch over this spot in hopes the aircraft is never discovered. At some point he could have entered those coordinates and flew directly there. This is just my opinion but I never heard this theory mentioned before.
Sincerely,
Jack L
USA
At the time MH370 went missing, the Dordrech Deep was reported to have been the deepest point in the Indian Ocean, with conflicting reports citing Dordrech and others citing the Java Trench.
This was only proven wrong in 2019 by explorer Victor Vescovo.
“One issue that quickly arose during the early stages of the expedition was how to locate the deepest places in each ocean, and how to determine their exact depth. One might expect this to be easy using global datasets such as GEBCO and the ever-omnipotent Wikipedia. However, it soon became apparent while planning the expedition that the information available is fraught with inconsistencies, including erroneous statements perpetuated online and numerous datasets of varying resolution. […] the search for the deepest point in the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean proved much more problematic [compared to other oceans].
The deepest point in the Indian Ocean is also contentious as it is often reported as being either the Java Trench or the Diamantina Fracture Zone. To resolve this debate, the Five Deeps Expedition surveyed the Diamantina Fracture Zone in March 2019 recording a maximum water depth of 7,019 ±17m at 33°37’52″S, 101°21’14″E for the Dordrecht Deep. Survey work consequently undertaken in April/May 2019 revealed the Java Trench to be a maximum of 7,187 ±13m at a location further west than previously anticipated (at 11°7’44″S, 114°56’30″E), with Vescovo completing his solo dive at this location on 16 April 2019.”
From https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/exploring-the-deepest-points-on-earth
The pilot of this aircraft could have been heading for what he actually believed to be the deepest point in the Indian Ocean.
Why fly for so long after escaping all areas of radar if not with a goal in mind?
It would fit with his meticulous planning of the rest of the disappearance.
@Richard. Your response noted, with thanks again and appreciation for your endeavour.
@All,
Here is a short note explaining “A probable scenario of the final minutes of MH370”:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3tjxgaofshjutw/A%20probable%20scenario%20of%20the%20final%20minutes%20of%20MH370%2017MAR2022.pdf?dl=0
Hi Richard,
Like yourself I am a university of Salford alumni having graduated in 2013- BEng Mechanical Engineering.
Having taken an extreme like interest in MH370 since it’s disappearance, your work has been a welcome update to the tragedy.
I am very keen to understand the work you have undertaken further, and to study the data you have based your assumptions, calculations and conclusions on?
Would you be willing to share this data for evaluation and technical scrutiny?
Thankyou,
Omar
@Omar Ahmed,
Welcome to the blog!
I have shared all my data and processes several times on this blog. There is a full description and links to all the data in the latest technical report linked in the post above.
Hi Richard- thanks for your reply. Very grateful.
Could we potentially set up a call/online meeting? To discuss in greater details once I have studied your work- to the best of my academic/technical ability?
I am
Also available on LinkedIn.
Cheers,
Omar
There are several reviews on the web now, and they are all very critical. Wrong math (various sign errors), wrong physics (8th root?), wrong assumptions (time independent behavior of signal ways).
I would hope to see you can prove them wrong. I think you owe that to the next of kin.
@Klaus,
Welcome to the blog!
You state: “There are several reviews on the web now, and they are all very critical.”
You further state: “I would hope to see you can prove them wrong. I think you owe that to the next of kin.”
Let me start with your concern about the next of kin. The next of kin are very supportive of our work and invited me to speak to them at their recent 8th Annual Remembrance Event MH370. You can follow the live stream of the event on their Facebook MH370 Families page. I explained our latest work to the next of kin and have had very positive feedback from them. Here is the programme of the next of kin event:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yl05vj42qbscv11/Programme%20-%20Search%20On%208.0%20-%206th%20March%202022.pdf?dl=0
The Malaysian Minister of Transport has confirmed that they are reviewing our work along with the ATSB and Ocean Infinity. Prof. Simon Maskell of Liverpool University is conducting an independent academic review and they are building their own system based on WSPR data. Prof. Bruce Ward of Adelaide University has reviewed our earlier work and has indicated he also wishes to review our latest paper. Oliver Plunkett, CEO of Ocean Infinity, announced a new proposal for an underwater search of the area we have identified starting in 2023 at the 8th Annual Remembrance Event.
You say that all reviews on the web right now are very critical. A cursory search in Google for MH370 reveals the top news includes “A credible and comprehensive new report has been published showing the MH370 location in the southern Indian Ocean.”, which is very positive.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/42hht96mifweg6v/Top%20News.png?dl=0
The top videos include a report by 60 Minutes Australia with 6.3M views and Sky News Australia with 4.5M views, both of which are quite positive of our work.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tb2xlpmgkxzy3cb/Top%20Videos.png?dl=0
One detractor @David has published a comment on my website on our latest paper and I have answered him in full.
Other commenters have been overwhelmingly positive:
Mike: I’ve known Richard for 7 years. He has done some excellent modelling. (16MAY2021)
Bruce: Fantastic work Richard. (27SEP2021)
David: Amazing, can’t wait to see the actual flight track of mh370 (28SEP2021)
William: Your dedication to this search is inspiring! Excellent use of science (03OCT2021)
Russel: Bless your continuing efforts to solve the mystery of MH370. (04OCT2021)
Medad: Thanks Richard for testing out this new angle at cracking the case. (06OCT2021)
Patrick: My compliments to you for all of your superb work. (09OCT2021)
Benjamin: I am very impressed by your findings and the big and successful engineering effort you put into GDTAAA. (10 NOV 2021)
David: fascinating work. (12NOV2021)
Robert: Thank you for the incredible amount of work you have put into analyzing the WSPR data to reconstruct the flight path of MH370. (14NOV2021)
David: The truth can’t be proven wrong no matter how hard anyone tries. (21NOV2021)
Ian: Fascinating work; great job! (30NOV2021)
Dirk: Biggest congratulations for this outstanding success to everyone. (30NOV2021)
John: Excellent work! (30NOV2021)
Sam: Fascinating, and brilliant work. (02DEC2021)
David: well done. it’s just shy of where I thought it would be. (03DEC2021)
Jean-Luc: very interesting piece of “hell” of a work ! (06DEC2021)
Tait: Fantastic work Richard. (07DEC2021)
Chee: Great work and progress Richard. (07DEC2021)
Fei: I am a engineer on geophysics from China. You have done a great job. (11DEC2021)
Will: Hi Richard, great work you’ve done. (11DEC2021)
Steve: Your work on helping to find MH370 continues to significantly improve the prospects with this latest WSPRnet analysis. (18DEC2021)
Kal: Really appreciate your hard work. (03JAN2022)
Michael: I find this work very impressive (07JAN2022)
Bob: “First they say you are wrong, then they say you are unimportant, then they try to give the credit to somebody else.” So you have my support Richard to keep going. (08JAN2022)
Noel: Fantastic analysis. (12JAN2022)
MN: As a Malaysian, I am very thankful for all the work you’ve done on this. (12JAN2022)
Fabian: Thank you for your tremendous commitment. (08FEB2022)
Joseph: Great work. (21FEB2022)
Luke: I am absolutely in awe. (21FEB2022)
KT: It’s very interesting work that you’ve done here. (23FEB2022)
Herwig: Amazing work! (24FEB2022)
Roy: Great research. (24FEB2022)
Sameer: Congratulations for your impressive work. (26FEB2022)
Nik: Fascinating work. (02MAR2022)
Eric: I was ecstatic to hear of these recent developments (09MAR2021)
Cory: Incredible work Richard (10MAR2021)
Majidin: Great scientific work @Richard (13MAR2021)
Bailey: Thank you for the work you do. (13MAR2021)
Kent: Very fascinating stuff you are doing. (14MAR2021)
Blaine: Great Work Richard !! (15AMR2022)
Ken: Wonderful work! (16MAR 2021).
Anthony: Outstanding work. (16MAR2022)
Bruce: Outstanding work Richard !! (19 MAR 2022)
Cees: Absolutely outstanding work done sir. I admire your logic! (20MAR2022)
Outstanding work Richard !!
Now let the search begin.
@Bruce,
Many thanks for your kind words!
After reading the first report I believe 300% in the conclusions of Richard Godfrey. A more specific search will show results! It has to be a great mind to think of the combination of datas and systems to come to the conclusions. Absolutely outstanding work done sir. I admire your logic!
@Cees van Heemert,
Welcome to the blog and your kind words!
@All,
Here is a short update regarding Ocean Infinity’s latest comments on a 2023/2024 search for MH370 from 60 Minutes Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av6L5c_FnyM
@All,
A detractor from Victor Iannello’s website has tried to submit hoax comments on my website using multiple fake email addresses from different countries but from one and the same IP address impersonating scientists who are deceased. There are email providers that allow you to take out fake email addresses such as albert.einstein@… This is surprising behaviour for mature educated scientists and engineers.
The detractor even boasted about his achievement on Victor Iannello’s website. The detractor further claimed that a long list of positive comments on my website are faked. However the author of each comment knows that their comment is genuine.
As a result all the detractor’s comments on my website have been deleted and he has been banned from my website.
As another consequence, I have been forced to implement tighter security on my website. I have tried to keep an open policy on communications so that everyone could comment as they wished. If you are new to the website, this new security means until you have had one approved comment you will have to go through a moderation step. Once your first comment is approved, then you will be free to make further comments as you wish.
It is obvious that this new security step will not stop a hardline detractor, who makes a genuine comment and follows it up with a hoax comment. If my website continues to be attacked with hoax comments, then all comments will go into a moderation queue, which will result in a delay for genuine commenters.
This is presumably the goal of the detractors, to deter, delay, discourage and prevent an open communication and discussion of our work.
@Richard
I’m following up my comments back in October 2021, where your response included, “I am publishing a paper … which should help your understanding” and “I apologise that I did not remove a bunch of internal workings and out of date columns in my Excel before publishing. I have fired the member of my staff responsible (me)! Your questions are irrelevant because unfortunately, and because of my oversight, you are trying to understand the meaningless.”
I’ve read your new paper carefully and gone through the spreadsheet calculations. Unfortunately it still looks as if I am “trying to understand the meaningless”.
Perhaps you can help me understand the calculation of Loss Algo. I think what you are trying to do in this step is to ‘normalise’ for transmit power. You are trying to take out the effect of different transmit powers. That is, at the same distance, if transmitter A with 23 dBm gave an SNR of -17 dB it would have the same Loss Algo as transmitter B with 30 dBm, which because of 7 dB increase in power would give an SNR of -10 dB, everything else (propagation, antennas etc.) being the same.
Your first line in the spreadsheet has 23 dBm and -17 dB SNR and a Loss algo of 156. If I apply your math to 30 dBm transmit power and -10 dB SNR I get Loss algo of 170. It has changed rather than remained the same. That’s because the sign error that I brought to your attention in October 2021 is still there. If I use the correct sign then Loss algo for both these cases becomes 190, which is I think your true intention?. Please have your co-author check this out.
Updated 22MAR2021: “March” changed to “October 2021” with the author’s permission
@Gwyn Griffiths,
Welcome back to the blog!
My apologies that you still do not understand what we are saying. That is entirely our fault for not making ourselves clear.
I have passed on your comment to my co-author Hannes as requested, but he is on a business trip until next week 28th March with limited connection to the internet. So meanwhile you are stuck with me.
You state: “That’s because the sign error that I brought to your attention in October 2021 is still there.”
There is no sign error.
I will prepare a longer answer to you, walking you through each step in our process and hopefully it will then become clearer for you what we are doing.
Updated 22MAR2022: Quote corrected with author’s permission.
@ Richard Please could I also be apart of these discussions to understand the mathematics behind it?
@Omar Ahmed,
Everybody can be part of these discussions.
Everything will be published on this website as usual.
There is nothing to hide.
@Richard
The personal attacks and harassment you are subjected to remind me of those targeting me ever since I dared to find and report my first piece of MH 370 debris. Hang in there, dont give up, let’s resume the search, and find and recover the rest of the plane !!
@All,
Here are the results of a confidence analysis on the results of the MH370 GDTAAA WSPRnet Flight Path and Technical reports.
The purpose of this confidence analysis is to take a critical look at the MH370 GDTAAA WSPRnet Analysis Flight Path and Technical Reports and question assumptions, methods, algorithms, calculations and limitations and the implications with regard to the results, findings and conclusions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtepshnjgy0hpuo/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Confidence%20Analysis%2029MAR2022.pdf?dl=0
@Gwyn Griffiths,
In our recent paper we cite your paper written together with Glenn Elmore and Rob Robinett, where you famously come to several conclusions about WSPR and Aircraft Scatter (ACS):
“In 2018 Gwyn Griffiths, G3ZIL, Glenn Elmore, N6GN and Rob Robinett, AI6VN published a paper titled “Some Observations While Using the KiwiSDR to Spot WSPR Stations” in which they describe the effects of AirCraft Scatter (ACS) on WSPR signals. They made 4 conclusions as follows:
Conclusion 1: The range of frequency offsets observed are consistent with aircraft speeds of up to 530 knots, with the variations arising from the shape of the curve of Doppler shift with range.
Conclusion 2: While acknowledging that the rate of change of Doppler shift is dependent on aircraft speed, the cluster of spots with positive frequency offsets does suggest we do see spots with sufficient SNR at drift rates (range) of less than -4 Hz/minute.
Conclusion 3: For aircraft traveling at 500 knots we would expect, at most, two consecutive spots to be decoded, and the lack of consecutive spots with frequency offsets in this set of data is not at variance with the ACS hypothesis.
Conclusion 4: We observed negative and positive frequency offsets, but both have negative drift rates. This observation is entirely consistent with the ACS hypothesis, indeed, it could be considered the clincher.”
We further cite, reference and link your 2019 paper. In 2019 Gwyn Griffiths, G3ZIL, Glenn Elmore, N6GN and Rob Robinett, AI6VN published a paper titled “Estimating LF-HF band noise while acquiring WSPR spots” in which they describe their experimental findings. We state a local floor noise level of -150 dBm in 1 Hz is assumed, but this can vary significantly as shown in the following paper:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqgl0qzo1kl3cg4/Estimating%20LF%20HF%20band%20noise%20while%20acquiring%20WSPR%20spots.pdf?dl=0
Interesting to note that VOACAP uses a noise level of -154 dBm/Hz at 3 MHz. -150 dBm/Hz is thus probably realistic although it will vary wildly as stated.
You are in principle correct by stating that if all else is equal then a 7 dB increase in Tx power will result in a 7 dB increase in SNR. The problem is that not all else is always equal. In fact, we are trying to find the anomalies where not all else is equal.
What is important is also to “standardise” for different frequencies and distances. For LOS the basic path loss formula is 32.5+20LogF [MHz] + 20LogD [km]. There is a 6 dB additional path loss every time the distance is doubled. This is only applicable for free space path loss as stated. The path loss for multi-hop, ionospheric propagation will be higher and also be much more complex to calculate as it depends on the amount of free electrons in the ionosphere, refraction loss through the ionosphere, reflection loss when the signal bounces off the earth, ocean or foliage such as in a jungle, etc. It is probably impossible and impractical to try to accurately determine all these parameters for each possible communication link.
We think we are all agreed that the standard radar equation does not describe the WSPR scenario and the calculation is fraught with assumptions (Time On Target, Coherent Integration Time, Radar Cross Section, International Reference Ionosphere, Detection Threshold, …) as described in our paper.
We are not trying to describe the ultimate OTHR WSPR Radar equation, that is a long way off in our view, although we are always willing to be pleasantly surprised.
The SNR Data Normalisation process is simply a statistical step to artificially create a sort of level playing field of all the WSPR data. It just makes it easier to see where the holes and bumps are in the level playing field.
Here is an explanation of the formulae and the process to detect candidate anomalous SNR WSPR links.
1. “Rx Algo” is simply assuming a noise floor level of -150 dBm and saying Rx Power = -150 – SNR.
2. “Loss Algo” = Tx Power – Rx Power.
3. “Dist Algo” = POWER(distance, -0.125). Also see our comment above why this is different from free space path loss as typically used in classic microwave radar.
4. “Algo” = Loss Algo / Dist Algo.
We agree the Noise Floor Level will vary depending on the time of day, so -150 dBm is a poor assumption.
We agree with what you say that from a propagation point of view (excluding scatter), doubling the path length results in 6 dB additional loss. To the 8th power translates to 9 dB which is normally not a value commonly referred to in communications links. This average value may however represent multi-hop ionospheric path loss to some extent under certain conditions.
We agree 32.5+20LogF [MHz] + 20LogD [km] would be better, but we tried the above for particular frequency bands and in the 3 MHz to 30 MHz range, didn’t get significantly different results in terms of detecting candidates. Refer to the comments above as this is not a free space, LOS scenario.
We agree that you are in principle correct by stating that if all else is equal then a 7 dB increase in Tx power will result in a 7 dB increase in SNR, but you appear to have not understood the process we are following and you are stuck on your idea that we have a sign wrong. Our apologies for our lack of clarity in the various communications on the subject.
When analysing specific WSPR links later in the overall process, we only compare SNR values at the same frequency band over time, to see what the mean and standard deviation are.
We are sure that there are better algorithms to be found, that will be close to modelling the physics involved. But this is not at this stage the purpose of the exercise. This is a very specific solution to the MH370 case.
We are initially only searching for candidate detections and to be able to detect a bump or a hole in a level playing field in the initial process. Each candidate is then submitted to further steps in the process, using only WSPR links between the same transmitter and receiver at the same frequency band. The mean and standard deviation of the same WSPR link is noted during the MH370 timeframe and on other days before and after the MH370 timeframe at a similar time of day.
Hi Richard,
I have been conducting research around the coordinates you have given. I have found something of interest at 33 degrees ‘01.0″ South and 101degrees 38’27.9″East. Have photo if required.
Kind regards,
Georgie
@Georgina Kelly,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for contacting me concerning your point of interest.
I am not sure what you mean with the latitude co-ordinate.
The longitude co-ordinate is clear 101° 38’ 27.9” E (101.641083).
But is the latitude 33° 0’ 1.0” S (-33.000278) or 33° 1’ 0” S (-33.016667) ?
Please send a photo, so we can see what you have observed.
The MH370 crash location I identified is at -33.177 95.300.
The location of your observation appears to be -33.016667 101.641083, which is around 592 km distant.
@All,
We previously published a Confidence Analysis on 29th March 2022:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtepshnjgy0hpuo/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Confidence%20Analysis%2029MAR2022.pdf?dl=0
The purpose of this Confidence Analysis is to take a critical look at the MH370 GDTAAA WSPRnet Analysis Flight Path and Technical Reports and question assumptions, methods, algorithms, calculations and limitations and the implications with regard to the results, findings and conclusions. This analysis showed the validity of our findings without the use of algorithms, interpretations or marginal results.
Following on from the Confidence Analysis, we now publish the Airport and Flight Route Interference Assessment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5qf5ryp3qpr2z0/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Airport%20and%20Flight%20Route%20Interference%20Assessment%2006APR2022.pdf?dl=0
The purpose of this Airport and Flight Route Interference Assessment is to take a critical look at the likely MH370 flight path as calculated with the aid of the GDTAAA software and WSPRnet data analyses and question whether aircraft other than MH370 could have disturbed the WSPRnet propagation path at any key position indicator along the flight path. The assessment shows that interference from other aircraft cannot be excluded, but the probability that all 186 MH370 progress and position indicators based on disturbed WSPRnet links were false positives is unlikely.
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas of AirlineRatings.com has published a new article titled “Two New Reports Verify MH370 Location Technology”.
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/two-new-reports-verify-mh370-location-technology/
Richard,
Please find link to “Implications of Algo”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hx9jc9498sw7uj6/Implications%20of%20Algo.pdf?dl=0
@George G,
You do not dispute the fact that WSPR is/can be influenced by an aircraft in flight. You question the selection process of the outliers. In other words, in your view it is more about statistics and less about the principle of operation. However, you conclude that a wrong use of statistics leads to an invalid conclusion and that your review leads to the implication that the whole flight path we have proposed is “invalid”.
What happens when you plot the positions of the remaining detections after you have “weeded” out the rest? Don’t you more-or-less still come to the same conclusion? In principle a single best point where 2 or 3 bearings cross should be enough to confirm the position of MH370 at that moment in time. Although the whole flight path is very interesting and gives you an idea of what was going on in the pilot’s mind during the course of the flight, it is not 100% required to find MH370. But if you want to find the plane then only information about the last couple of minutes are important.
When the holistic approach is used where data from all the sources are taken into consideration then the final position must be on or close to the 7th arc. The question is just is it more towards the equator or more towards Antarctica. After all your weeding are there enough samples left to take you to the 7th arc?
As you mention, we took a similar approach in the Confidence Analysis published on this web site on 29th March 2022:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtepshnjgy0hpuo/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Confidence%20Analysis%2029MAR2022.pdf?dl=0
The purpose of this Confidence Analysis was to take a critical look at the MH370 GDTAAA WSPRnet Analysis Flight Path and Technical Reports and question assumptions, methods, algorithms, calculations and limitations and the implications with regard to the results, findings and conclusions. This analysis showed the validity of our findings without the use of algorithms, interpretations or marginal results.
We follow a multi-step process and you make no mention in your paper of “unique” WSPR links. You mention the usage of all 91,058 WPR links as a statistical basis. You appear to miss the point that: “When analysing specific WSPR links later in the overall process, we only compare SNR values at the same frequency band over time, to see what the mean and standard deviation are.”
As explained in the Method section of our Technical Report: “We use several WSPR data sets. There were 91,058 WSPRnet spots in the MH370 timeframe from 7th March 2014 16:00 UTC to 8th March 2014 01:00 UTC. (From the a-priori information we are interested only in longer distance ionospheric propagation, so we filter out WSPRnet spots under 500 km.) During the MH370 timeframe on 7th/8th March 2014 there were 408 WSPR transmitters and 376 WSPR receivers operational. There were a total of 11,754 unique WSPR transmitter receiver links.
Daily WSPRnet spots were also downloaded before and after the MH370 timeframe from 28th February 2014 to 21st April 2014. This allows comparison of particular WSPR links at the same time of day across several different days. We analyse individual WSPR links during the MH370 timeframe and for the same time on other days around the MH370 timeframe. We analyse multiple WSPR links within particular timeframes and employ two algorithms to normalise the data by accounting for the various propagation distances and the various local noise floor levels. Having normalised the datasets, we then look for anomalies in the SNR levels.”
The key findings in our Technical Report are regarding the alignment between the transmitter, receiver, the interim landing points in a multi-hop ionospheric propagation scenario and the predicted aircraft position. You make no mention in your paper of the great circle path, nor of interim landing points in the ionospheric propagation.
In the section titled Findings we state: “The alignment of the predicted position of MH370 with the great circle path of one or more WSPR links occurred at 125 different times during the flight, involving a total of 186 WSPR links. In 45 cases multiple WSPR links intersected at the predicted position of MH370. In a few case where the angle of intersection was small the data was used as a progress indicator and not a position indicator. In yet other cases the azimuth of a WSPR link aligned with the aircraft track and the same WSPR link was anomalous twice in a short space of time.”
Another key finding in our Technical Report was regarding the alignment of an interim landing point in a multi-hop ionospheric propagation with the estimated position of the aircraft. We analyse each candidate detection noting the propagation distance, propagation azimuth, maximum usable frequency, elevation angle, ray path, ionospheric refraction, number of hops and interim landing points. The proximity of the predicted position of MH370 to an interim landing point allows us to deduce the high probability that MH370 must have been close to the interim landing point of a disturbed WSPR signal: “The WSPR links used in this MH370 analysis involved up to 5 hops in the propagation path between the transmitter station and aircraft and up to 5 hops between aircraft and receiver station. There was also alignment between the location of the landing points in the multi-hop propagation path and the predicted position of the MH370 aircraft.”
As we explained to Gwyn Griffiths, we are not trying to describe the ultimate OTHR WSPR Radar equation, that is a long way off in our view, although we are always willing to be pleasantly surprised. The SNR Data Normalisation process is simply a statistical step to artificially create a sort of level playing field of all the WSPR data. It just makes it easier to see where the holes and bumps are in the level playing field. We are sure that there are better algorithms to be found, that will be close to modelling the physics involved. But this is not at this stage the purpose of the exercise. This is a very specific solution to the MH370 case. We are initially only searching for candidate detections and to be able to detect a bump or a hole in a level playing field in the initial process. Each candidate is then submitted to further steps in the process, using only WSPR links between the same transmitter and receiver at the same frequency band. The mean and standard deviation of the same WSPR link is noted during the MH370 timeframe and on other days before and after the MH370 timeframe at a similar time of day.
Our choice of a starting point of 18:00 UTC is questioned and you further state: “it would seem appropriate to continue the presumed, or existing, track as it passed through the UTC 18:00 radar fix, based upon the known radar. This is not what was done.” This is factually incorrect and may be misleading. In my Flight Path report I state: “I did follow the official flight path for the next 100 minutes until the Inmarsat satellite data 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 2nd Arc via waypoint TASEK and following the northern coast of Sumatra.”
At 18:00 UTC the last civilian radar data point from Butterworth AFB shows the position of MH370 over the Malacca Strait heading toward waypoint VAMPI. The WSPRnet data shows a number of anomalies at 18:00 UTC both on the aircraft track as well as left, right and in front of the aircraft.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjf7nn6cwoa3ymm/GDTAAA%20V5%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201800%20UTC%20PRG%20Local%20View.png?dl=0
The ‘official’ flight route of MH370 heads toward waypoint VAMPI and then follows flight route N571 to waypoints MEKAR and NILAM. At 18:12 UTC MH370 is approaching waypoint VAMPI and flight UAE343 from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai at FL 340 is just 3 mins 40 secs behind and slowly closing. The ‘official’ flight route is supported by a number of ‘facts’, which all appear to be misleading:
1. UAE343 at FL340 followed MH370 at an assumed altitude between FL340 and FL360 along the ‘official’ flight route for at least 24 minutes but did not report any sighting. As MH370 was only 3 minutes 40 seconds in front on the same flight route and with possibly only 1,000 feet of vertical separation or less and not the usual 2,000 feet, the pilots of UAE343 would have complained to Air Traffic Control.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ucb99hmsetn1b00/GDTAAA%20V5%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201812%20UTC%20PRG%20Local%20View%20Official.png?dl=0
2. The Malaysian Military radar presented a single detection of MH370 at 18:22:12 UTC on flight route N571 10 nm beyond waypoint MEKAR to the NOK in Beijing. The raw data was never published in the official report and this point was not used by the ATSB or the DSTG in their analysis.
3. The ATSB claim that MH370 did not approach a theoretical NW point at 19:12 UTC. The definition of this point was based on: “all radar sources (both mobile and stationary)” and that these were “considered to define that point” and “what these sources were on a need to know basis.”
4. Indonesia announced that MH370 did not “cross over our territory”.
5. The ‘official’ route has MH370 performing a lateral offset to flight route N571 just after the reboot of the Satellite Data Unit on board MH370. Was this timing a coincidence?
6. The Inmarsat Satellite BFO data during the first SATCOM call at 18:39:55 UTC to 18:40:56 UTC shows a track in level flight of around 210°T. The implication for the ‘official’ flight route is that MH370 turned onto this track at some point shortly before the call came in and/or was descending at uniform rate during the call. Was this timing another coincidence? The alternative flight route in following the coastline around the tip of Sumatra is on a track of around 210°T without having to make any additional turn or change of altitude at a particular point in time. This alternative flight path is a natural fit and does not rely on any contrived coincidences.
7. Kate Tee claimed a sighting of a large low flying aircraft close to the position of her sailing vessel in the Malacca Strait. I have information from a reliable source that claim Kate Tee was not on watch that evening. The ‘official’ route passes close to the position of Kate Tee’s sailing vessel. Kate Tee places the timing of her sighting during a forced jibe of the sailing vessel in light and variable winds. The jibe takes place 30 minutes after MH370 has passed by according to the GPS records from the boat. Based on my analysis of the WSPRnet data and evidence from a reliable source, the sighting was fabricated.
8. The ‘official’ flight path between 18:00 UTC and 18:50 UTC has 8 WSPRnet detections, whereas the alternative flight path has 17 WSPRnet detections including 2 position indicators. Using a simple scoring technique the ‘official’ flight path scores 22 and the alternative flight path scores 56 as shown in the table linked below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1aotjmggragfne9/MH370%20Official%20vs%20Alternative%20Flight%20Path%20WSPRnet%20Detections.png?dl=0
Brian Anderson, a fellow IG member, commented on my website on 21st April 2021 concerning the holding pattern. He points out in his comment that he first speculated in 2014 that there was a holding pattern during the flight of MH370. We and other analysts have noted that there is some distance “missing” at some stage of the flight. It would be expected that MH370 would have made more straight-line progress, when the speed of the 777-200ER is taken into consideration together with the Inmarsat data, than what actually happened. The only explanation for this lack of progress is that at an early stage after MH370 disappeared from the radar screens, some circle or racecourse holding pattern was flown. Once again the WSPRnet data helps to shed light on this puzzle and although only progress indicators are available it definitely helps to clarify, what most probably happened. You correctly mention that 8th November 2021 was the first time I mention a “race track” holding pattern, but holding patterns have been discussed many times before. I agree that the entry into the holding pattern was marked by a position indicator (3 intersecting data items) and the extent of the holding pattern is marked by four progress indicators (2 intersecting data items in each case). You do not mention that the exit from the holding pattern is marked by a double progress indicator at 19:34 UTC. You do not mention that the extent of the holding pattern aligns with the waypoint PAKRA: “A look back at the waypoints in the vicinity shows that the holding pattern was centred around waypoint PAKRA, which lies at the intersection of two flight routes running NW to SE and NE to SW in the Indian Ocean.” We disagree with your contention that the use of progress indicators makes the holding pattern “invalid (or defunct)”. The position or double progress indicators at the entry and exit of the holding pattern, the alignment with waypoint PAKRA, the alignment of progress indicators with the estimated position of the aircraft, the alignment of the anomalous WSPR links with the great circle path between transmitter, receiver and aircraft in each case and the alignment of the interim landing points in a multi-hop ionospheric propagation in each case have not been explained away or “weeded” out in your paper.
May we take this opportunity to thank you for your comment and especially for the fact that you did not employ any ad-hominem arguments. Both Hannes and I are familiar with the game of rugby and we were always taught to play the ball and not the man. Although we disagree with you, you have kept your eye on the ball.
Richard,
Please find link to “Limited critique of a _Confidence Analysis_”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4enco9o278tvsqp/Limited%20critique%20of%20a%20_Confidence%20Analysis_.pdf?dl=0
@George
George, it seems to us that you are still “unhappy” with the selection process of candidate WSPRnet and GTDAAA detections.
The MH370 case is very difficult seeing that MH370 hasn’t been found, so in principle nothing can be scientifically or statistically confirmed yet. The amount of WSPRnet detections from 2014 are also considerably less than what is currently available, thus also limiting the options to some extent. Can I recommend that for a more generalized solution to determine the ability of WSPRnet data in combination with the GTDAAA software to detect and determine the position of an aircraft in flight that maybe use is made of the work of Dr. Robert Westphal? ADSB data should be available for most of the aircraft that earlier this year flew into and out of Antarctica. Or maybe another “easier” scenario where a decent amount of data is available with the minimum amount of ambiguity such as is the case with non-congested airspace. This will enable correlating the WSPRnet and GTDAAA results with confirmed data.
Regards,
Hannes
Gentleman, terrific paper, but you are a little off, you narrow your search to 33.17S – 95.3E and 34S – 94.8E. Based on your data and other data I have studied and the fact of very few debris being located from the plane. the plane was gliding for approximately 100 Km along the pathway between 95E and 94.8E. If you look along that corridor you will find the aircraft
@All,
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas of AirlineRatings.com on the latest ATSB/Geoscience Australia report titled “Incomplete ATSB MH370 Review is just more of the same”
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/incomplete-atsb-mh370-review-just/
AUS still probably thinks that the aircraft plunged into the ocean with their quote
“If the aircraft was within the area we have reviewed, the sonar data would have shown a scatter field of highly reflective debris.”
If that were the case, there would be millions of pieces washed up on shore by now. The plane is in one piece, correct?
@Ethan Larsen,
The flaperon found in Reunion weighed 40 kg and was 2.315 m in length and was subsequently confirmed as being from MH370. Many of debris items were light weight panels, so the average item weighed 4.47 kg. There were items found from every part of the aircraft, nose, tail, wings, engines and cabin. Debris items comprise both interior and exterior parts, which implies the aircraft broke up on impact.
The crash weight of MH370 was 174,369 kg. The 36 debris items found have a total weight of 161 kg. The total number of debris items would be around 39,000, if the aircraft fragmented at the same rate as the 36 debris items found. Heavier items like engine cores and under carriage would sink. Lighter items and even hybrid structures, like the Flaperon at 40 kg and Outboard Flap at 39 kg, floated because of the trapped air in the honeycomb parts. It is possible that several thousand items floated to the surface. Some of these items would have subsequently sunk, due to water soakage and marine growth. Some of the items would have never beached.
MH370 was not in one piece, in my view.
There would not be millions of pieces washed up on the shores of the Indian Ocean, but there would be several hundred of which 36 items have been found and reported.
The scatter field would not be necessarily highly reflective, especially if the debris items were buried under sediment.
@Ethan Larsen
Richard is correct. I can say first hand that MH 370 is definitely NOT in one piece or largely intact underwater. I found, collected, held in my hands, and delivered 20 pieces of shattered MH 370 debris, 13 from the main cabin. Sixteen other people found 16 pieces of MH 370 debris in six different countries, and 14 were small and shattered. Only two, the flaperon and wingflap, were large.
@All,
The ATSB announced yesterday the result of the review they had requested be performed by Geoscience Australia of the sonar data from previous MH370 searches. Although the report is dated 8th March 2022, it was only released on 22nd April 2022.
Angus Mitchell the ATSB Chief Commissioner states: ““The Geoscience Australia report notes that it is highly unlikely that there is an aircraft debris field within the area reviewed”. Most reviewers have taken this statement to imply that the ATSB is no longer willing to support a further search. The conclusion of the report contradicts this implication: “Review of the Ocean Infinity search data and additional data acquisition would be required in order to definitively ascertain if the aircraft rests in these areas.”
The ATSB announcement can be found at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iq7pmuahjjr40p0/MH370%20data%20review.pdf?dl=0
The full report can be found at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iy5yx89wi349lgk/mh370-data-review-2022.pdf?dl=0
The report states that only 29% of the area requested was covered: “The data reviewed included high-resolution sonar datasets acquired during Phase 2 of the original search for flight MH370. These covered an area of ~4,900 km2, or 29% of the area requested (17,000 km2).”
The report also states that although Andy Sherrell from Ocean Infinity was a co-author, that no data from Ocean Infinity was included in the report: “Data collected by Ocean Infinity during a Malaysian Government-contracted survey in January 2018 were also not reviewed as part of this process as Geoscience Australia did not have access to these data.” This statement begs the question why was the Ocean Infinity data not available to Geoscience Australia, especially when an Ocean Infinity expert was available as a co-author and the previous Ocean Infinity work was under a Malaysian Government contract?
The report concludes “However, there remains a significant area of 12,100 km2 within the 40 NM radius from the proposed crash location as well as 72.79 km2 area of gaps and ‘holidays’.” The report cites the AF447 incident and shows a picture of the 0.12 km2 debris field. The report omits the fact that the AF447 was only found in phase 4 of that underwater search. There is also no mention of the fact that the Argentinian Submarine ARA San Juan was also only found during the second pass of the Ocean Infinity search.
When you compare the ATSB’s report titled “The Operational Search for MH370” dated 3rd October 2017 to the Geoscience report titled “MH370 Data Review – Final Report” dated 8th March 2022 the maps of the underwater search area do not align.
The proposed crash location 33.177°S 95.300°E has apparently moved 23.8 km further south west on the current Geoscience maps as shown in the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5m8rxhvk90zdfbx/ATSB%20Search%20Area%20Wide%20View%20.pdf?dl=0
The proposed crash location is incorrectly shown in the 2022 Geoscience report both in the wide views in Figures 1 and 2 and again in the close up view in Figure 3.
The proposed crash location in the wide view is incorrectly positioned around 6 nmi to the south east and should be where the yellow dotted lines intersect in the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2segoneiwbcqf2/Proposed%20Crash%20Location%20-%20Incorrectly%20Marked.pdf?dl=0
The proposed crash location in the close up view is also incorrectly positioned (but differently incorrectly positioned) around 4 nmi to the south west and should be where the yellow dotted lines intersect in the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpgwtebjwab65tz/Incorrect%20Crash%20Location.pdf?dl=0
There are nevertheless 15 contacts close to the proposed crash location that have all been discounted, despite getting the crash location wrong twice. There are 8 new contacts which were previously missed, but now included without any explanation as to why they were previously missed. There is a further area marked in cyan on the following link, which is also left unexplained (missed or unscanned or …):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uxheobr95rtk2y4/ATSB%20and%20Geoscience%20Australia%20Review.pdf?dl=0
When the ATSB told me that they did not have the expertise to evaluate our WSPR technical report, I recommended to the ATSB on 30th March 2022 that they contact the following experts at the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) Stuart J. Anderson and Manuel A. Cervera, who are well able to review our WSPR technical paper. We had cited three papers authored by these experts in our technical report. I never heard back.
Meanwhile it transpires that Victor Iannello has been calling academics who are conducting a peer review of our WSPR technical paper to try and dissuade them from doing such a review. At the same time Victor Iannello and his fellow detractors complain there are no peer reviews.
@Richard
Contrary to your report re DSTG staff being dissuaded from reviewing your paper. Manuel Cervera is one of a group of current and former DSTG staff who are actively reviewing your report. We have certainly not been dissuaded by Victor from undertaking that review.
We are currently using your reports as an exercise for a second years Physics student and have a number of questions.
(A) You include a diagram of a wireframe model from one of Manny’s papers – what model are using to determine the forward scatter strength and what numerical values are you using?
(B) You also include a photo of the vortex from a large aircraft. What model are you using to estimate the enhanced scatter from the vortex and what specific numerical values are you using?
(C) Are we correct in understanding that you determine the range to the target by using the 2D Proplab/IRI to determine rays that land near your estimated track as well as the WSPR receiver. How do you arrive at the estimated ground range accuracy of 18 Km ?
(D) Why do you attribute the lack of detection in the early stage of the flight to the fact that MH370 had not reached altitude? Since the paths involve using ionospheric reflection targets can be illuminated at any altitude.
Thanks
Bruce
The delays in helping to bring closure for the relatives and friends of the passengers and crew of MH370 are a reminder of the catastrophic five hour delay between the initial disappearance of MH370 from civilian radar within the Singaporean FIR, (delegated, for civilian ATC, to Kuala Lumpur), and the request to Kuala Lumpur by Singapore civilian ATC, in response to a request from Hong Kong ATC, asking about the whereabouts of MH370.
After MH370 was for missing for five hours from civilian radar and radio communication a search and rescue operation was initiated.
The larger, heavier remnants of MH370 are most probably on the ocean floor, somewhere between the west coast of Australia and the Kerguelen Islands.
In traditional Chinese medicine there are three classes of ghost, one of which arises when someone dies while travelling. All the passengers who boarded MH370 almost certainly expected to complete their journey to Beijing. In fact, it looks as though they ended their days almost as far away from Kuala Lumpur as Beijing, but in the opposite direction to their scheduled destination.
@Richard,
Please find link to “Short Explanation”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3tcy2r1b2t4nbl/Short%20Explanation.pdf?dl=0
@All,
My home has been broken into and the police are investigating. They say it was a very professional job and suspect involvement of a state actor.
I have received a growing number of death threats and hate email on both private and public email accounts from anonymous senders or people impersonating names from the MH370 passenger list.
One of my private email accounts has been hacked and that account is in the process of being closed down. I have now moved to a much more secure email provider which requires double authentication. My public email address at richard@mh370search.com has not been breached by hackers.
My website is subject to daily multiple so called brute force attacks by hackers using multiple IP addresses from all over the globe, but fortunately due to the sophisticated security system no one has been able to break in as administrator of the website.
Academics who are peer reviewing my work have been contacted directly by Victor Iannello to try and dissuade them for conducting a peer review. Victor Iannello denies any such contact and has publicly called me an outright liar. I invite Victor Iannello to sue me and I will be calling witnesses and providing written proof of his attempted dissuasion of a peer review.
My private & confidential work on Moskva was leaked from my hacked email to the press but immediately deleted. Mick Gilbert a detractor of my work recovered the deleted article from the Google cache and republished it without permission. I have not published anything on Moskva and will not make any comment on or off the record on the subject. I have been strongly advised by the UK Military Intelligence not to make any public statements on this subject. Others who have published information, even officially on behalf of NATO, have had their email and social media accounts hacked, mobile phones hacked, biometrics stolen and issues with identity theft, bank accounts and credit card accounts. They required the support of UK Military Intelligence GCHQ to access email and social media accounts again, protect their information, identity and assets.
Nils Schiffhauer claims to have set up a new journal to facilitate a peer review. Nils Schiffhauer mocks the president of the German Radio Amateur Club (DARC), Dipl.-Ing. Christian Entsfellner, DL3MBG, with an unfounded statement that he supposedly tried to prevent this publication. Nils Schiffhauer has publicly invited me on Victor Iannello’s blog to formally submit my work for his peer review. Nils Schiffhauer ignores the fact that he was banned from my website on 8th December 2021. Nils Schiffhauer continues to try to hack into my website using a different IP address each time without success. At the same time Nils Schiffhauer has published an article calling me an inveterate liar (In German: “Richard Godfrey lügt wie gedruckt”). Nils Schiffhauer has been subject of criminal proceedings for allegedly illegally monitoring radio communications made by the police and other security services. Nils Schiffhauer is now publicly predicting my disappearance.
For the record, Nils Schiffhauer from Victor Iannello’s website is one of three people who are banned from my website. Nils Schiffhauer was banned from the German Amateur Radio Club in 1994 for his damaging behaviour bringing the club into disrepute and has been fighting this ban in the courts and in the media ever since. A second person banned was a commenter from Victor Iannello’s website called @Tom who has tried to submit hoax comments on my website using multiple email addresses from different countries but from one and the same IP address impersonating scientists who are deceased. The detractor even boasted about his achievement on Victor Iannello’s website. A third person banned was a Chinese commenter called @z00 for calling another Chinese commenter an “idiot!”
My research into using WSPR to detect and track aircraft will continue. My website providing a forum for technical and scientific discussion regarding the search for MH370 will continue.
@Richard
I definitely know how you feel.
Hang in there and stay safe !!
I did !!!
Stay strong!
@All,
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas of AirlineRatings.com
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/death-threats-break-not-deterring-mh370-tracking-expert/
@All,
You may need a re-calibration of your situational ethics sensor.
Mick Gilbert now says it is all right to lie to a private Facebook group as long as you don’t lie to a public Facebook group:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f34s3hp4inz7al5/Gilbert%2027APR2022%201.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qvffqbdta82plt4/Gilbert%2027APR2022%202.jpg?dl=0
Mick Gilbert then claims it is an outright lie to suggest that he retrieved my deleted article from the Google cache.
Oh! I forgot he retrieved the deleted article from the Google cache in a private Facebook group, so that makes the retrieval not exist:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnybtsaeyhiz5u2/Gilbert%2020APR2022.png?dl=0
Mick Gilbert further complains that nothing is being done to correct slanderous claims against Geoscience Australia.
At the same time Mick Gilbert calls their work sloppy and claims the only issue is the misalignment of the latitude and longitude scales on the map border in the Geoscience Australia Report:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdewrbj5i8t7ymp/Gilbert%2025APR2022.jpg?dl=0
Geoscience Australia is supposed to be the mapping agency for Australia. What confidence do you have, if such basic mistakes are made as Mick Gilbert and Victor Iannello point out.
@All,
Bruce Ward of Adelaide University now claims that DSTG are reviewing our paper!
Bruce states today on my website: “Manuel Cervera is one of a group of current and former DSTG staff who are actively reviewing your report.”
A week ago he stated on my website: “I sought a copy of the technical report so that we could use it as a training exercise for a 2nd year Physics student.”
Whatever made him change his mind?
Maybe some “encouragement” or “support” from his friend Victor …
I am so glad to see that Bruce and Victor and Manny (Manuel Cervera) are all on first name terms.
I never stated that Victor Iannello contacted Bruce Ward or Manuel Cervera.
I only stated that Victor Iannello had contacted “academics”.
I was referring to other academics outside of Australia and Victor Iannello knows who I am referring to.
Victor Iannello admits publicly that the had contacted several academics.
I note that Bruce Ward confirms that Victor Iannello had contacted him.
But Victor Iannello has contacted other academics who have reported attempted dissuasion of a peer review.
@Richard,
Bruce on 28 April 2022 at 13:24 asked four specific questions.
One presumes that answers to these questions will greatly assist the second years Physics student participating in active review of your reports.
Have you already answered those questions directly to Bruce, and not on this website, or are they still in preparation. ?
_____________________
On a more personal note, sincerely hoping that you have already overcome, or are overcoming, your recent reported adversities.
@George G.,
Many thanks for pointing out our failures to meet the non existent Service Level Agreement (SLA) with Adelaide University.
Since you are the newly appointed Hustler in Chief for Adelaide University, please note that the previous requests from Bruce Ward were all answered within 48 hours. Your comment after 12 hours is premature.
23FEB2022 22:01 – 3 questions – answered by Richard within 3 hours, by Rob within 24 hours.
02MAR2022 09:41 – Update request – answered within 12 minutes.
13APR2022 07:45 – Contact request John Gilbert – answered within 2 hours.
20APR2022 09:24 – Training Exercise Request – answered within 27 hours.
28APR2022 13:24 – 4 questions – draft response in preparation, discussion and internal review with Hannes and Rob, a work in progress.
On a personal note the adversities are on going.
@All
I wish to make it clear that I did not state that DSTG as an organisation is undertaking a formal review.
Several current and former DSTG staff have adjunct appointments with Adelaide University and we are using this as a training exercise for a second year Physics student. Associated with this student project we are reviewing the assumptions made in the GDTAAA approach together with the predictions for the location of MH370. In doing so we are using our deep experience in the development of operational HF radar systems.
A fundamental tenet of the scientific method is that results should be subject to critical peer review and be capable of being reproduced independently by others. As scientists with decades of experience in the development of operational HF radar systems we consider the methodology employed in GDTAAA in general, and the MH370 prediction in particular, to be fundamentally flawed. That will no doubt place us firmly in the ‘detractors’ camp but we are not interested in personality politics. The validity of the claims made for GDTAAA will either stand or fall on their merits.
Operational OTH radar systems use precision timing and waveforms to locate targets in range, azimuth and Doppler, the latter being critical in separating the target from the much stronger background clutter. Independent measurements are made of the ground clutter strength, target signal strength and background noise level. Tracking algorithms are used to identify tracks in radar coordinates. These tracks are then converted to geographic coordinates using a real time ionospheric model which relies on a network of ionospheric sounders. It sounds simple but it isn’t. A low cost tracking solution would be a useful adjunct to these systems if it can be proven to be real and reliable.
The nature of WSPR is that it has none of these capabilities – the only data recorded is signal to noise ratio and frequency drift. The scattered signal will be much weaker than the directly propagated signal. Despite this GDTAAA makes the bold assumption that any SNR measurement that lies outside of 1 standard deviation is the result of an aircraft crossing through a great circle path between the WSPR Tx and Rx at a range which is consistent with a predicted aircraft track. There are myriad reasons to question this assumption but these are appear to be either ignored or dismissed with a hand-waving explanation. Likewise, variability in frequency drift is assumed to be caused by an aircraft when there are any number of potential explanations.
Even if we were to assume that the ‘detections’ were indeed caused by an aircraft the predicted accuracy of the ground range using a 2D raytrace through the IRI is simply not credible. The ionosphere is highly variable on timescales ranging from minutes to the 11 year solar cycle and spatial scales ranging from tens to thousands of kilometres. This variability is driven by a myriad of geophysical phenomena.
The use of 2D raytracing through a monthly median ionosphere is inconsistent with the geolocation accuracy being claimed in the MH370 prediction. The F region model in the IRI is a monthly median model based on measurements made with a limited distribution of sounders in the 1960’s. It reflects little of the known spatial and temporal variability and its limitations are well known to anyone working in HF propagation.
In short, GDTAAA makes sweeping assumptions and ignores all of the known sources of variability inherent in HF propagation. I do not know of a single person involved in the development of HF radar systems that considers the MH370 predictions to have any technical credibility.
We will in time publish a rationale for our assessment and welcome quantitative arguments that demonstrate the flaws in our judgement.
Great article by Barbara Barkhausen
Those Who Seek the Truth Must Fear for their Lives
https://www.rnd.de/panorama/vermisster-flieger-mh370-wer-nach-der-wahrheit-sucht-muss-um-sein-leben-fuerchten-AGM4FMVHAFHLFDIBDXNFD3M6IU.html
English Translation
Those Who Seek the Truth Must Fear for their Lives
In March, one of the search parties declared its plans to resume the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane MH370. Since then, threats against those who search for the truth have increased. They report break-ins, hate mail and death threats against them.
When Malaysia Airlines plane MH370 disappeared without a trace on March 8, 2014 while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, numerous people have been working to solve the mystery surrounding the tragic accident. “We have to find out exactly where the plane crashed,” said US private investigator Blaine Gibson, who found most of the 36 pieces of debris from the plane that washed up on the African coast and on several islands. He also emphasized how important it is to recover more debris, the personal effects from crew and passengers, the black boxes and, most importantly, the cargo.
After the accident, the lawyer went out at his own expense to find evidence of the crash and to help the victims’ families look for the truth. Alongside Gibson, aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey has poured thousands of hours into solving one of aviation’s greatest mysteries to date. Godfrey analysed radio signals, the so-called “Weak Signal Propagation Reporter” (WSPR), for every two minutes during the period in March 2014 using an aviation tracking system he developed himself. His analysis prompted the Ocean Infinity search team, which has led one of the previously unsuccessful searches for the plane, to offer to head back to the Indian Ocean which experts have pinpointed as the final resting place of MH370.
Police are already investigating
Whilst a new search has become more likely, attacks on those who invest time and money in investigating the accident have increased. The British expert Mr Godfrey recently wrote on his blog: “My home has been broken into and the police are investigating.” He was told that it was a very professional job and that a state actor was suspected to be involved.
In addition, the number of death threats and hate mail sent to both his private and public email accounts was increasing, the engineer reported. The latter came from anonymous senders or from people providing names from the MH370 passenger list. “My website is subject to daily multiple so-called brute force attacks by hackers using multiple IP addresses from all over the globe,” he wrote. Fortunately, he has a sophisticated security system, and nobody has been able to compromise his website so far.
Search made US lawyer a target
US lawyer Gibson also reports similar provocations against him. “My search has made me a target for people who don’t want the plane to be found,” he said in a phone call. Some of these adversaries would operate from Russia, others from Malaysia, although Gibson stresses that these are not from Malaysia’s current government. Much like Godfrey, Gibson has received specific threats over the years and feared for his life. “Once my apartment in Kuala Lumpur was broken into,” he said. Cash he kept on the premises was not stolen, but documents about MH370 and a certificate given to him by the victims’ relatives were. In the meantime, he even feared for his life: “Once I made it public that I would back off – purely to take the heat off and to get these people off me.” Secretly, however, he continued his work anyway.
He was particularly shocked by the assassination of a Malaysian diplomat, who was gunned down in Madagascar in 2017. Zahid Raza was supposed to transport suspected MH370 wreckage to investigators in Malaysia. It’s still unclear whether his murder was connected to MH370.
Possible crash site in four kilometres’ depth
The disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines plane MH370 is one of the biggest mysteries in aviation history. Two searches, one coordinated by Australia and the other by Malaysia, could not find the Boeing that disappeared on March 8, 2014 with 239 people on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Ocean Infinity, which now wants to restart the search, led the second attempt to find the plane.
Mr Godfrey’s analysis, which will form the basis of this search, identified a possible crash site four kilometres deep in the Indian Ocean. “The prime crash location is at the foot of the Broken Ridge in an area with difficult underwater terrain,” the expert’s report said last year. The location is 1993 kilometres west of Perth. “There are mountainous outcrops and cliffs, an underwater volcano and a canyon.” The suspected crash site is in a region that Charitha Pattiaratchi, a professor of oceanography at the University of Western Australia, has also identified as the most likely zone. Pattiaratchi calculated the region by tracing the wreckage washed up by MH370 on Reunion Island and Madagascar, as well as on the African coast, using known ocean currents.
Barbara Barkhausen
@Bruce,
Many thanks for clarifying that the DSTG review is not an official review. I had proposed a month ago to the ATSB that they contact DSTG and ask for a review, but obviously DTSG went ahead anway without any official request.
You repeat your 20APR2022 statement: “A basic tenet of the scientific method is the ability for others to replicate results”
with your 30APR2022 statement: “A fundamental tenet of the scientific method is that results should be subject to critical peer review and be capable of being reproduced independently by others.”
We agree with both statements.
There are other academic institutions around the world currently building their own systems using the WSPR data to detect and track aircraft and in particular MH370. I hope Adelaide University will join them despite your obvious scepticism.
You state: “I do not know of a single person involved in the development of HF radar systems that considers the MH370 predictions to have any technical credibility.”
I find your statement strange because I know of several people involved in the development of HF radar systems that consider our MH370 work using WSPR data as credible. I also know several people involved in the European consortium on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and as part of the FCAS program in Germany the Future Combat Mission System (FCMS) consortium who are strong supporters of our work.
@Richard
Thanks for the details – apologies for the nmi/km error (careless on my part – we always work in km but that is no excuse)
(a) Do you have Matlab (or other) code to convert Maidenhead to lat/long?
(b) Do you know of a site that describes the format for the WSPRnet database format – I thought I had found one but cannot find it again
@Richard
Oops – please discard (b). The list I was looking for was at the very bottom of the list of monthly files in the WSP database.
@Bruce,
(A) You include a diagram of a wireframe model from one of Manny’s papers – what model are using to determine the forward scatter strength and what numerical values are you using?
We are making use of secondary results from the post processing done by WSPR. This question is not directly applicable to WSPRnet and GTDAAA in a way that is based on calculations of the forward, back or side scatter strength. Our findings are not reliant on a numerical model of a RCS wireframe representation of a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft.
(B) You also include a photo of the vortex from a large aircraft. What model are you using to estimate the enhanced scatter from the vortex and what specific numerical values are you using?
In the paper titled “Aircraft Wake Vortex Evolution and Prediction” dated 2005 by Frank Holzäpfel of the Technical University Munich which we have cited, he explains the equations on page 8: “The strength of wake vortices is usually expressed by their circulation, Γ. When the forces which act on the aircraft are in balance, the initial circulation corresponds approximately to
Γ0 = Mg/π4ρBV
Thus, the strength of the vortices is proportional to the weight of the aircraft, Mg, and inversely proportional to the air density, ρ, the wing span, B, and the flight velocity, V. Interestingly, the circulation achieves similar magnitudes for both a cruising aircraft at high altitude and an aircraft during approach to an airport at low altitude because the inverse variation of flight velocity and air density roughly compensate each other, respectively.”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q3703o6ui2bpqhs/Aircraft%20Wake%20Vortex%20Evolution%20and%20Prediction%20-%20Frank%20Holz%C3%A4pfel.pdf?dl=0
Further insight can be gained on the role of water vaporisation in a wave vortex from the presentation titled “Radar Observation of Wake Vortex in Clear air , Rain, Cloud and Fog” dated 2013 by Chen Pang, Jianbing Li, Zhongxun Liu and Tao Wang of the National University of Defense Technology and some of their various publications which are listed in the presentation.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nd0b66ppvy3pggf/Aircraft%20Wake%20Vortices%20-%20Jianbing%20Li.pdf?dl=0
Our findings are not reliant on a numerical model of the wake vortex of a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft.
(C) Are we correct in understanding that you determine the range to the target by using the 2D Proplab/IRI to determine rays that land near your estimated track as well as the WSPR receiver. How do you arrive at the estimated ground range accuracy of 18 Km ?
We do not use Proplab Pro V3.1 to determine the range to the target. We use a utility provided with GeographicLib to perform great circle calculations. The algorithms are described in C. F. F. Karney, Algorithms for Geodesics. We use Matlab R2021b from MathWorks for generation of maps and analysis. Aircraft tracking uses a WGS84 ellipsoid model of the Earth and ray tracing uses a simple spherical model of the Earth with a mean radius of 6,371,000 metres.
We use Proplab Pro V3.1 to generate the interim landing points but calculations and analysis are handled externally to Proplab Pro V3.1 as described above.
WSPRnet uses Maidenhead Grid locators with either 4 or 6 characters. 4 character grid references are transformed to 6 character with the suffix “mm” as explained in our paper. The Maidenhead Grid locators with 6 characters break the globe into 18,662,400 sub-squares and the path between the transmitter in one sub-square and the receiver in another sub-square will therefore have an inherent inaccuracy.
The WSPRnet data is only accurate to within 18 nmi (± 9 nmi) and not 18 km as you state. We further state: “The accuracy of single WSPRnet detections was found to be ± 17 km, but this can be reduced to ± 4 km with multiple intersecting WSPRnet detections.” This is an estimate based on the worst case inaccuracy of a 6 character Maidenhead Grid locator at both transmitter and receiver over a typical propagation path distance.
(D) Why do you attribute the lack of detection in the early stage of the flight to the fact that MH370 had not reached altitude? Since the paths involve using ionospheric reflection targets can be illuminated at any altitude.
Speed will have an effect (frequency shift) to help to distinguish between e.g. ships and aircraft in flight. But to “break the beam” a minimum altitude where the ray is once again focused and not scattered all over the place may be required. We initially concluded that during the flight of MH370 in 2014 with much fewer WSPRnet links available, that there might have been a need for a certain altitude. Dr. Robert Westphal’s tracking of helicopters in 2021 with many more WSPRnet links available, speaks against the need for a certain altitude.
We also initially concluded that in the early part of the MH370 flight there were not only much fewer WSPRnet links but also very congested skies in the vicinity of MH370. The congestion may have reduced detection. During the blind tests we were sometimes lucky to pick up an aircraft two minutes after take off, but sometimes unlucky for up to 10 minutes. Again blind tests in 2021 were easier than blind tests in 2014. We note that a heavy aircraft takes typically 8 minutes after take off to reach a speed of 380 knots and an altitude of 15,000 feet. 160 knots at 1,000 feet might be too slow and not just too low. 280 knots at 5,000 feet might be on the border line.
If your student wants any further information he/she may contact me via this website or if preferred directly via richard@mh370search.com
@Bruce,
VOACAP have a utility for converting Maidenhead grid code to or from Lat/Lon:
https://www.voacap.com/hf/
@Bruce,
We did publish this Matlab function which includes a conversion routine in our Technical Report on page 13:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/35iamr7d4bc55u6/WSPR_Link_GC6MIZ_DSDS_SDR_Function.m?dl=0
It will need adapting for your purposes.
@All,
Due to the unprecedented attacks with renewed death threats, website hacks and email hacks, I have decided to close my website for all comments.
The website will remain open in read only mode for a limited period.
@All,
The police investigation continues but there have been no further death threats. The attempted brute force website hacks continue, but the email hacks have been stopped with new security measures. I have therefore decided to re-open my website for comments.
@All,
A good article in the leading newspaper in Portugal on MH370:
Original in Portuguese:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ged49ugwupo1ou9/MH370%20Expresso%20Luis%20Francisco%20%28Portuguese%29.pdf?dl=0
Translation in English:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/78wq0xqytu2j6wk/MH370%20Expresso%20Luis%20Francisco%20%28English%29.pdf?dl=0
Hi Richard,
Looking through the technical report I noticed that figure 65 on page 54 and figure 66 on page 55 are showing the same information.
Also, if you are looking to cross the T’s and dot the I’s, the heading on page 31 is “Figure 18 an 19” rather than “Figure 18 and 19”
Many thanks TommyL!
Extremely observant and will be corrected in due course.
Dear Richard,
I have been absolutely fascinated by this tragic event ever since it happened. I think the work that you have done is fantastic, and it appears the families might finally know where the resting place off the aircraft is due to your new technology. In relation to Byron Bailey’s crash site location which appears to be 900km south of the WSPR location, what is your opinion on that? Are you in contact with Mr Bailey on this issue, and if not, are there any plans to meet him and listen to his proposals too?