MH370 crashed between 00:22 UTC and 00:27 UTC. At 00:22 UTC the position from the WSPRnet analysis was estimated to be 30.00°S 98.70°E. At 00:26 UTC the position from the WSPRnet analysis was estimated to be 30.57°S 98.75°E. The crash location is further north than previously thought and up to 42 nmi South East of the 7th Arc.
We have presented evidence that there was an active pilot until the end of the MH370 flight. We have also presented evidence that the pilot may have been disoriented, which can be caused by hypoxia.
To solve the mystery of the disappearance of MH370 we need to find the aircraft and recover the Flight Data Recorder and other evidence from the wreckage.
The new paper can be downloaded here
Statement
We have presented evidence that there was an active pilot until the end of the MH370 flight. We have also presented evidence that the pilot may have been disoriented, which can be caused by hypoxia.
I am on the record publicly as stating that my private opinion is that the pilot was Captain Zaharie Shah. I have always made it clear that this is based only on circumstantial evidence and is not proven.
This is not my public opinion, where I have always talked about the pilot without naming anyone.
I am also on the record publicly as stating that the circumstantial evidence against Captain Zaharie Shah would not hold up in a court of law.
To be clear the home flight simulator of Captain Zaharie Shah shows an accelerated simulation to fuel exhaustion in the southern Indian Ocean based on the fuel available for a flight to Jeddah and not to Beijing. The simulation is not a flight route, but only a fuel check. This cannot be used as evidence in court of a planned flight to fuel exhaustion in the southern Indian Ocean. This is not evidence of a premeditated hijacking and murder suicide. This is like someone being handed a smoking gun and then being accused of being the murderer.
To solve the mystery of the disappearance of MH370 we need to find the aircraft and recover the FDR and other evidence from the wreckage.
@ Richard
Your statement and the paper are both excellent !
The WSPR crash site fits within Prof. Pattiaratchi’s UWA drift analysis, which identified the origin of MH 370 debris at between 28°S and 33°S. That drift analysis accurately predicted where and when MH 370 debris would arrive, and led me to find and collect from local people many pieces of the plane.
Search On, and let’s find the rest of the plane, the truth, and the proof !
It’s at –25.975, 101.461 or the US Air Force shot it down somewhere else.
Hi Mr Richard
I’m ENG. Hassan Al Hilali from SD
MH370 is the method of finding and rescue should be touts for all world aviators and it test if we’re capable to transform true informations to the public, I’m like so many others I do fully concerned about the full knowledge of mh370, to answer the questions where did it go?
-I make in my openion wsper net work is not enough to give the opportunity to reach the mh370.
– Mr Godfrey suggested hypoxia, I support him.
Reguards.
@Hassan Mohamed Osman
Welcome to the blog!
WSPRnet data matches:
(1) The Inmarsat satellite data.
(2) The Boeing fuel data.
(3) The Oceanography drift analysis.
Thank you for your support on the possible pilot disorientation. There are 64 occurrences of pilot disorientation in the Aviation Safety Network database. Hypoxia is one possible cause of disorientation.
Good Afternoon Mr. Godfrey,
Thank you for sharing the insights in this detailed report.
May I ask about the updated location of where the “holding pattern” happened…
Do you think this new location, more off from ground/airports, and new shape (“flatter” than the oval outlined before) can yield different predictions on its cause(s) ? Or do they no matter?
Like, in contrary to the rather popular prediction that claim the pilot “might had been negotiating with people on the ground”, can the pilot “accidentally” activate the holding pattern, given he was “disoriented”?
I am no expert in aviation so I am just asking, sorry.
Thank you for your time and a response from you will be very appreciated.
-Dustin
The holding pattern must be initiated by a pilot in control. There is no way to do it by accident. A disoriented pilot who can carry out a holding manoeuvre can also declare an emergency and switch on mode s, IFF etc.
I don’t know of any evidence for a claim of negotiation.
To my knowledge only 2 waypoints in the southern indian ocean was found on Shah´s simulator. And they were right next to each other. How do you connect that with any route? Or know that they were meant to be end points?
@Henrik,
Welcome to the blog!
Shah used Microsoft Flight Simulator X (FSX) and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 (FS9). Shah used an add on from Phoenix Simulation Software for the Boeing 777-200ER aircraft (PSS Boeing 777-200LR No VC) which only runs with FS9. There were 91 flight plans and 671 simulated flights found on 5 hard drives.
The initial part of the flight simulation to fuel exhaustion in the Southern Indian Ocean, found on one of the hard drives called MK25, followed the following waypoints and flight routes WMKK AGOSA R467 GUNIP B466 TASEK and VAMPI.
The full flight has been replicated on FS9 with the PSS Boeing 777-200LR using WMKK, AGOSA, GUNIP, TASEK, VAMPI, MEKAR, NILAM, IGOGU, LAGOG, DOTEN/-30 and NZPG.
FSX currently has 81 airports, 705 navaids and 16,219 waypoints in the Indian Ocean Region. I had no problem to find waypoints such as ISBIX, SELSU, KETIV, ELATI, PIBED, RUNUT, etc. Most of these waypoints would have been available in 2014.
You do not have to use standard waypoints, you can also create custom waypoints. In fact you do not have to use waypoints at all, you can use a flight path defined by a heading or a track based on either a magnetic or true compass bearing. An active pilot could enter a heading or track at any time during the flight on the Mode Control Panel.
The simulation recovered from deleted files on Shah’s computer to fuel exhaustion in the Southern Indian Ocean shows that the aircraft was manually positioned along the flight path. The data files were manually created and a number of parameters were manually changed. The data points share some of the same values suggesting the flight files came from the same simulated flight (or more precisely a simulation of a simulation).
When a great circle path that connects the points found along the flight path is extended past the final points, the great circle path aligns with waypoint NZPG which is McMurdo Station, Antarctica.
I co-authored a paper on the subject back in 2016:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fqld93pw00hxvav/2016-08-25%20MH370%20Path%20Towards%20McMurdo%20Station.pdf?dl=0
All the ‘experts’ I have discussed the final resting place of MH370 with insist on a northerly location for the remains. This is incorrect! It is south of the existing searched area!
@Mickey Smiths,
Welcome to the blog!
I disagree with your contention in your recent video, that MH370 is at 40.5°S 86.9°E for the following reasons:
1. How do you explain someone making an unauthorised entry to the MEC when the hatchway is under the floor carpet in the forward galley? Anybody trying to do that would be observed. In any case, there is no need because the cockpit overhead panel has all the switches and contact breakers required.
2. What evidence is there for dramatic changes in altitude following diversion?
3. Why is it necessary to avoid Banda Aceh airport radar, when it is was not operational at that time?
4. You say there was a soft ditching on water. You also say the flaps were not extended. Why do you think that the standard procedure of partially extended flaps was not followed, as for example in the Hudson River ditching.
5. You say the Captain’s home flight simulator shows an altitude of 40,000 feet, but that was only at 10°N. At 45°S the altitude was shown as 37,651 feet.
6. You say that MH370 glided 215 km, but that would take around 14 minutes. How do you explain the absence of the IFE connection transmission expected at 00:21:06 UTC around 90 seconds after 00:19:37 UTC?
7. How do you explain the analysis of the BFO data by Ian Holland of the DSTG which shows an accelerating rate of descent of between 14,800 fpm and 25,300 fpm at 00:19:37 UTC?
Its weird that this Airliner disappears without wreckage,jet fuell traces,luggage or anything else drifting on the ocean.
Even a high speed vectored impact would have led something to trace i think.
Planes don’t disappear.
Even more strange are that the passengers phones where still operating after the announcement that MH370 was lost.
Probably no one could answer the phones bc they suffocated.
It’s clear that someone or something happened on MH370 that led to:
* Cutting of the Transponder
* Messing around with the SDU
* Deliberate depressurization of cabin pressure to maybe deal with unwanted trouble like passengers making unwanted phone calls
* Maybe even tampering with CVR when the wreck is ever found
Many unanswered questions still lingering around but sign’s are pointing to either a massive technical failure or something planned and organized.
@Julie,
Welcome to the blog!
39 items of aircraft debris have been found as well as 56 items of personal debris.
The surface search in the Indian Ocean was only started on 18th March 2014, which was 10 days after the disappearance of MH370. Floating debris will drift on average 180 km in that time.
The Indian Ocean is 70 Million km2 and the exact point of impact was not known in 2014. A total of 4.7 Million km2 where searched in 345 sorties over a period of 42 days. A total of 28 aircraft from Australia, New Zealand, USA, China, Japan, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea were involved. Navy ships from Australia, China, USA, UK and Malaysia as well as many civilian merchant vessels were involved.
I have previously mentioned that different mobile phone operators handle a call to a mobile phone that is not connected to a base station anywhere in the global network of possible providers differently. Sometimes you will get a message that your call cannot be connected, sometimes they will just provide a ringing tone to make you think that your call could be connected.
Aircraft do not continue to fly for 7 hours 37 minutes with a massive technical failure.
I’m Fabio from Italy, neither NASA satellite saw nothing about that night in that area? It’s possibile?
@Fabio,
Welcome to the blog!
To my knowledge I do not know of any NASA satellite imagery, although there is plenty of satellite imagery from China, France, Italy, Japan, etc.
Sometimes the timing of the satellite passes do not fit, sometimes the imagery has insufficient resolution and is too grainy, sometimes the cloud cover is too heavy, sometimes the area of interest is beyond the limit of the satellites view.
Tomnod was a project owned by Colorado-based satellite company DigitalGlobe that used crowdsourcing to identify objects and places in satellite images. It was announced Tomnod was no longer using crowdsourcing of images as of 1 August 2019.
Hi! I’m new on here. When MH370 disappeared I couldn’t beleive that no one could trace it. I was actually one of the people that tried searching on Tomnod for a while. I felt heartbroken for the families. Recently I was looking into the indian ocean on the last noted contact of the plane. When I zoomed in on the map there were some islands. One of them is Cocos Keeling Islands. I was doing some research and apparantly its the dumpster of the indian ocean. An extensive amount of debris ends up on that island. Has anyone ever gone there to search for any parts or personal items?
@Klare,
Welcome to the blog!
The Cocos Islands beaches are regularly cleaned by volunteers from the Tangaroa Blue initiative. The volunteers have in addition kept a look out for any floating debris from an aircraft and in particular MH370. A number of items have been handed in, but no items have been from MH370.
The Tangaroa Blue initiative covers all the main beaches in Western Australia as well and issues annual reports including a report on MH370 related activities.
That’s good to know. Thank you for responding so quickly.
Listening to everyone say the pilot was trying to make the plane disappear, isn’t rather obvious, he was trying to ditch it IN the Broken Ridge. To me, seeing how much planning was used, hiding it there was probably his endgame. If it wasn’t for WSPR (and you meddling kids), his plan would’ve succeeded.
Here is chart of the underwater location:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t0raxweo4aangon/ATSB%202014%20North%20of%20Broken%20Ridge.png?dl=0
Here is a link to a comparison between the latest MH370 flight route and the previous one from last year:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qux4ei5d6d5ns7/GDTAAA%20MH370%20Flight%20Path%20New%20and%20Previous%20Comparison.png?dl=0
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas at airlineratings.com:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/refined-study-pinpoints-location-of-mh370/
In a follow up article, Geoffrey Thomas discusses the possibility that the pilot may have been disoriented due to hypoxia:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mh370-pilot-may-have-been-disoriented-new-study-finds/
Hey Richard 6,
The work you did there is just wonderful! It really seems like this time, we´re on the right path!
6 questions , which will probably answer all of the questions from the MH370 community:
1. Does the new calculated WSPR Route fit to the KNOWN part of the flight path at the border of the malaysian radar control? ( Important to prove the validity of the improved WSPR version)
2. Has the location you found out to be the plane´´s final resting place been searched yet? ( e.g. by Ocean Infinity in 2018?)
3. How does this new reseach affect Ocean Infinitiy´s planned seach for 2023?
4. How come that theres such a big difference in terms of the flight path and the crash spot in comparison to the first WSPR flight path?
5. Are sure that this time you have really found the planes final resting place?
6. Are you in contact with the ATSB? If yes, maybe they could review their old data belonging to the area you predicted, just like they did in march/april of 2022
Thank you for incredible effort!
Yours Sincerely
Fabian
@Fabian,
Many thanks for your comment and very good questions. Here are my responses:
1. Does the new calculated WSPR Route fit to the KNOWN part of the flight path at the border of the Malaysian radar control?
The new route fits the civilian radar from Butterworth Air Force Base for the Penang Airport area exactly, which is available up to 18:00:51 UTC.
There is a single military radar detection at 18:22:12 UTC, but the raw data has never been released. There are two conflicting definitions of the position of MH370 at 18:22:12 UTC:
– The Malaysian Military presented a slide to the NOK at the Beijing Lido shows the position was 200 nmi from Butterworth on a bearing of 295°T, which would position MH370 at 6.871123°N 97.354047°E.
– The Malaysian Safety Investigation Report shows the position was 10 nmi beyond waypoint MEKAR on flight route N571 toward waypoint NILAM, which would position MH370 at 6.577655°N 96.340864°E.
These two positions are 116.6 km apart.
The DSTG decided not to use this single military radar detection for two reasons:
– The radar data is less accurate at long range.
– The radar data is not consistent with the Inmarsat satellite data at the 1st Arc following the SDU reboot at 18:25:27 UTC, even at 18:28:15 UTC after the SDU satellite data had settled.
Both the previous and the current GDTAAA and WSPRnet analysis matched each of the Inmarsat satellite BTO and BFO data points from 7th March 2014 18:28:15 UTC up until the last data point on 8th March 2014 at 00:19:37 UTC.
2. Has the location you found out to be the plane’s final resting place been searched yet? ( e.g. by Ocean Infinity in 2018?)
Ocean Infinity only searched 22 nmi either side of the 7th Arc in this area. The new crash location is near the estimated position given by GDTAAA and the WSPRnet data at 00:26 UTC of 30.57°S 98.75°E and is outside the previously searched area at a position approximately 42 nmi South East of the 7th Arc.
3. How does this new research affect Ocean Infinity’s planned search for 2023?
Ocean Infinity have been kept fully informed of this update. The new crash location at around 30.57°S is very close to the centre of the area defined by Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi which is 30.5°S and between 28°S and 33°S as determined in his drift analysis. It was this drift analysis that correctly predicted where Blaine Gibson should look and would discover 20 items from MH370. In total 36 items of MH370 floating debris have been recovered and analysed by the authorities.
Ocean Infinity are determined to search until they find MH370. Their new technology allows them to efficiently cover a large underwater search area and well beyond what has previously been announced to the NOK on 6th March 2022 and the Malaysian authorities on 20th June 2022.
4. How come that there’s such a big difference in terms of the flight path and the crash spot in comparison to the first WSPR flight path?
There is a significant difference in allowing SNR anomalies only equal or greater than one standard deviation (SD) compared with previously allowing SNR anomalies equal or greater than 0.25 SD. We have shown in section 13 of the new paper that there is likely valid information in SNR anomalies equal or greater than 0.75 SD. SNR anomalies between 0.25 SD and 0.75 SD have been discarded as not providing reliable information and this has led to the change in track. This change in handling the SNR anomalies has been made following a suggestion by Prof. Simon Maskell. He is familiar with the details of our work and independently using the WSPR data in an analysis of the MH370 flight path as well as more generally to ascertain its usefulness to detect and track aircraft.
The following comparison between the previous and the current flight path shows broad agreement despite the significant changes in GDTAAA over the last 9 months:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qux4ei5d6d5ns7/GDTAAA%20MH370%20Flight%20Path%20New%20and%20Previous%20Comparison.png?dl=0
The major divergence between the flight paths occurs after the 5th Arc, where the flight path previously continued in a more southerly direction, which in turn resulted last year in a crash location 2.6° of latitude further south. The crash location has moved 436 km further North-East, but the Indian Ocean is 70.56 million km2 and this is a relatively small difference.
Boeing, Inmarsat, ATSB, DSTG, Mick Gilbert, Captio, Ed Anderson, Victor Iannello and UGIB have all presented analyses of MH370 of the flight of MH370 following straight lines:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kpsh92ihs6xghwj/Straight%20Line%20or%20Not%3F.pdf?dl=0
Mike Exner first pointed out in his paper dated 26th April 2014 that the BFO data from the 2nd Arc to the 6th Arc followed a straight line. This was followed by an Inmarsat paper dated 4th September 2014 showing that the BFO data from the 2nd Arc to the 6th Arc followed a near straight line and the BTO data followed a smooth curve resulting in a straight line flight path for MH370. Both ignored the granularity of these 5 data points was every hour and a lot could happen in between.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i162alunk28yupp/BFO%202nd%20Order%20Polynomial%20Trendline.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/24fjaqojix92sce/BTO%203rd%20Order%20Polynomial%20Trendline.png?dl=0
Niels Tas was the first MH370 analyst to consider curved flight paths in his paper titled “Python based implementation of MH370 explicit path generation employing polynomial fits to BTO and BFO derived input data” dated 21st February 2021.
We have shown, with the much improved granularity of the WSPRnet data (77 WSPRnet data points versus 7 Inmarsat satellite data points), that the flight path was anything but a straight line and much more like a zig zag flight path. Using GDTAAA and the WSPRnet data is more like taking a video as opposed to a few photos. This zig zag flight path raises the question whether the pilot was disoriented, because of all the turns up to every 8 minutes during the flight, coupled with times up to 32 minutes under autopilot in straight flight.
5. Are you sure that this time you have really found the planes final resting place?
In science there is nothing sinister in updating techniques and thus results where appropriate. It happens all the time due to the improvements in technology and further development and refining of techniques. Just look at how far carbon dating has come. In the early days there were some serious outliers in the carbon dating results but nowadays it is accepted as a very valuable science. And all of this happened because of continuous improvements.
I expect a continuous improvement in our GDTAAA software and the WSPRnet method. Kaizen is a compound of two Japanese words that together translate as “good change” or “improvement.” However, Kaizen has come to mean “continuous improvement” through its association with the lean methodology and associated principles. We follow these principles of continuous improvement.
6. Are you in contact with the ATSB? If yes, maybe they could review their old data belonging to the area you predicted, just like they did in March/April of 2022.
The ATSB kindly provided flight data to support the testing of the GDTAAA software and WSPRnet based detection and tracking of AMSA search aircraft between Pearce Air Force Base and the MH370 search area in March and April 2014 timeframe under a confidentiality agreement.
The ATSB did not cover this newly defined search area in their original underwater search in 2015 and 2016, although the area was partially covered in their underwater survey in 2014.
The area was only partially covered by Ocean Infinity in 2018 up to a distance of 22 nmi from the 7th Arc, but the crash location is more likely up to 42 nmi from the 7th Arc as explained in the answer to question 2 above.
Thank you so much for the detailed answers!
@All
Fabian’s good questions and my answers have been posted on Airlineratings.com by Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/new-mh370-location-report-clarified/
@All,
Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi and Ems Wijeratne published their drift analysis in an article titled “Ocean currents suggest where we should be looking for missing flight MH370” in “The Conversation” dated 28th July 2016.
On 29th July 2015, more than 16 months after the flight disappeared, a section of a wing – a flaperon – washed up on Reunion Island in the western Indian Ocean. This was later confirmed as originating from the MH370 aircraft. The authors actually predicted this discovery using an oceanographic drift model 12 months in advance.
The authors from the University of Western Australia (UWA) used the surface currents predicted by the HYCOM global ocean model as input to a particle tracking model to track debris over a 16-24 month period to coincide with the finding of the flaperon on Reunion Island. The origin of the debris was specified along the 7th arc at 25 different locations extending from the south (-39.258298°S 87.515653°E) to north (-22.815421°S 103.829706°E). For each model run, 50,000 particles were released and tracked over the period 8th March 2014 to 28th July2015.
The authors report the results as showing the MH370 crash location was between 33°S and 28°S in the region of the 7th Arc and in a wide area either side of the arc. The article states: “These results from the oceanographic drift modelling indicate that in terms of the timescales involved in the transport of the debris to Reunion Island the most likely location for the origin would be between locations 11 (33.171678°S, 96.294832°E) and 18 (28.297439°S, 100.503580°E).”
The authors also note: “These results are consistent with recent predictions by an independent Italian group using similar modelling techniques.” As further MH370 floating debris was recovered the authors updated their findings in subsequent articles, but maintaining that the crash location was in a wide band around the 7th Arc between 33°S and 28°S. The recent GDTAAA results based on the WSPRnet data indicate a crash location between 30.00°S 98.70°E and 30.57°S 98.75°E and up to 42 nmi South-East of the 7th Arc are in alignment with this drift analysis.
Blaine Gibson first visited Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi on 3rd September 2015. Based on the advice received at that meeting Blaine Gibson visited Mozambique and Madagascar. Blaine Gibson eventually found 20 items of floating debris from MH370. I believe Blaine Gibson made genuine finds of MH370 debris, as did Johny Begue, Schalk Lückhoff, Neels Kruger, Liam Lotter, Milson Tovontsoa, Rija Ravolatra, Eodia Andriamahery, Jean Dominique, Suzy Vitry, Barry McQade, Jean Viljoen and others. Many items of debris have been confirmed or are likely to have come from MH370. That these items of debris were flown intact to Kazakhstan, then subsequently damaged to simulate a crash, then subsequently exposed to marine life for a month and finally planted in 27 locations in 7 countries for 14 different people to find, is preposterous nonsense.
@All,
A new article “MH370 Tracking Expert Debunks New Critical Report” on airlineratings.com by Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/industry-news/mh370-tracking-expert-responds-to-a-recent-paper/
@Dustin Lo,
Welcome to the blog!
The new location of the holding pattern is of significance for two reasons:
(1) It is just inside the Melbourne FIR and in Australian airspace.
(2) It represents the last location of “no return”. At this point there was still enough fuel to return to Kuala Lumpur or go to any number of alternative airports such as Cocos Island, Christmas Island, Jakarta, Colombo or Maldives.
The holding pattern could simply be the action of a disoriented pilot as you suggest.
@Richard
Thank you for your time, Mr. Godfrey, and the critical inference that the pilot may be “disoriented”.
May I ask a couple of follow up questions based on the holding pattern and the potential hypoxia situation?
a) On the latest path you depicted that the holding pattern lasted for about 12 minutes rather than 22 minutes (from the path last year). Does this difference in length matter ?
b) Based on this updated flight path, and with the data in altitude, would you think/ deduce that:
i) the pilot, under hypoxia, might have turned the plane’s autopilot system on and off?
ii) aside from plane’s air-to-ground communication system, the plane itself was functioning normally until fuel exhaustion?
Thank you so much again.
Dustin
@Dustin Lo,
I assume the holding pattern was either to consider the next steps or make a HF radio communication to Melbourne FIR. We are reliably informed that there was no communication with the Australian authorities.
The outcome after 12 minutes was to proceed further south.
It appears that an active pilot was flying the aircraft by making speed, track/heading and altitude entries on the aircraft’s Mode Control Panel (MCP) and that the autopilot was engaged.
There is no evidence that any of the aircraft systems were not fully serviceable at any point during the flight. We know that the transponder and SATCOM systems were switched off at diversion at 17:21 UTC. We know that the SATCOM was rebooted at 18:25 UTC, but the ACARS application was never reactivated.
Hello all!
Thank you Mr. Godfrey for your outstanding work. When I learned about your work a year ago I have been a frequent visitor on your website. As I’m very interested in both AF447 and MH370 it is good to hear that Ocean Infinity is launching another search. Is there any update when will the new search be launced? There is nothing on their website about the schedule.
Mikko
@Mikko,
Welcome to the blog!
Ocean Infinity have not announced a schedule for the next underwater search for MH370.
The next of kin of those lost on the tragic flight MH370 held a remembrance event on 8th March 2022 as they do each year. I was once again a guest speaker and I explained the search area I propose. Oliver Plunkett, the CEO of Ocean Infinity, was also a guest speaker and announced their intention to return to the southern Indian Ocean and search again for MH370 in late 2023 or early 2024. I am in regular contact with both Ocean Infinity and the next of kin and have updated them with our latest findings.
Oliver Plunkett explained that Ocean Infinity are building 23 autonomous ships. It is my understanding that the ships will be operated remotely from the Ocean Infinity Remote Control Centre in Southampton, UK. The ships will be fitted out with the state of the art technology for underwater operations. The ships will be registered in Singapore, who are keen to be at the forefront of autonomous shipping.
The first vessel has just been launched in Vietnam and is undergoing sea trials. The ship will then go to Norway to be fitted out with all the electronics and satellite communications equipment. It is hoped that in future all ships will be built and fitted out completely in Vietnam.
On 20th June 2022, Oliver Plunkett together with Nathan Velayudhan from the MH370 next of kin gave a presentation to the current Malaysian Minister of Transport. Ocean Infinity has offered a no find no fee contract to Malaysia. The Malaysian Minister of Transport wanted more information about the intended search and I believe that this has been supplied. The Malaysian Government still has not decided whether to accept this offer.
Malaysia is going into elections soon. If there is a new Minister of Transport, then I assume that there will be another meeting with Ocean Infinity. I guess we will have to wait and see the outcome of the elections in Malaysia.
Thank you Richard for your reply! I was in belief that OI is planning to launch a search early 2023? Hopefully there will be an update once the schedule is made public. I really want this mystery to be solved and the wreckage found.
@Mikko,
Oliver Plunkett, the CEO of Ocean Infinity, stated at the last next of kin gathering on Sunday 6th March 2022: “There’s a lot of stuff to sort out between now and 2023. So, we’re going to try and make it happen. And if not, it’s 2024.”
Dear Mr Godfrey,
I would like to congratulate you on a well performed analysis and on answering the follow-up questions so well. I hope that the location determined in your paper will be searched as soon as possible, and that it returns a positive result.
With regards to the latest developments in geopolitical aspects of the world (namely the war in Ukraine, the pandemic and a potential global economic crisis), are you aware of any impact on the future mission to search for the wreckage? Has there been any negative development such as the ship construction slowing down and/or a lack of important parts or simply the will to continue the efforts?
I apologise if this is a different type of question than those above but I do approach this problem more from a sociological point of view.
@Aura,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
Ocean Infinity announced at the MH370 memorial event on 6th March 2022 that their goal is to search again in 2023 or latest 2024.
They are building 23 new autonomous ships and equipping them with the latest technology in underwater search and survey systems. This represents a large investment to ensure Ocean Infinity maintains a world leading role in this industry. The work is privately funded. This is a global effort with the ships being built in Vietnam and the key technology being developed in Norway.
I am not aware of any major issues impacting the progress towards the goal of a future mission to find the wreckage of MH370. I am in close and regular contact with Ocean Infinity.
We will soon know the outcome of the Malaysian elections to be held on 19th November 2022 and the stance taken by the then Minister of Transport responsible for authorising any new search for MH370.
There is no need to apologise and it is important that we look at all aspects of solving the mystery of MH370.
Given the new location – if MH370 was controlled and ditched as you speculate, and also considering ocean’s flow, and depth – how far away from the point of impact would the main wreckage be given the weight of the wreckage, time to sink and drift etc.
@Andre,
Welcome to the blog!
In my opinion MH370 was under the control of an active pilot until the end of the flight.
The crash of MH370 is not a controlled ditching or a soft landing on the surface of the Southern Indian Ocean.
The large majority of the wreckage would have sunk directly after impact, but several hundred items would have floated and travelled with the currents, winds and wave motion.
36 items of floating debris have been recovered and handed in to the authorities (33 have been analysed) and 21 items have been confirmed or deemed almost certain, highly likely or likely to be from MH370.
In the case of Air France AF447 the debris was found 7.5 km from the planned flight path and 12 km from the last known point at a depth of 3,900 m.
The main debris area on the ocean floor was 600 m by 200 m. Some items were found outside this main area up to a distance of 2 km away.
Richard….
Great Work on this Investigation. New Techniques are developed every day. As a Ham Radio operator for 50+ year have SEEN with my own Eyes. Thank You, keep pushing the Envelope… in this case its the Ether !
@Ray Maxfield,
Many thanks for the kind words and welcome to the blog!
this week, families of MH370 urges government to investigate further (see CNN or other news). Any idea that the search will be continued in 2023?
@Antoine,
Welcome to the blog!
Oliver Plunkett the CEO of Ocean Infinity told the next of kin at their 9th commemoration event on 5th March 2023, that it is one of his life’s ambitions to go back and search for MH370.
Oliver Plunkett expects to search again for MH370 in the summer of 2023/2024. Ocean Infinity have prepared a proposal, which they will submit to the Malaysian Minister of Transport in the coming weeks. The proposal provides the credible new evidence required by the Malaysian authorities to search again for MH370.
@All,
The Netflix documentary series on MH370 has been released. The key message is there was a massive cover up, the debris was planted and the satellite data manipulated or fabricated and the truth will never come out.
The Netflix documentary series is 2 hours 37 minutes 46 seconds full of misinformation and disinformation. Netflix gives conspiracy, fabrication, manipulation, speculation, fantasy and theory equal weight, but is short on hard facts and evidence. Netflix has relied entirely on speculation and fantasy from questionable sources, but they provide no definitive answers to the what, where and why of MH370.
I was first approached by Esme Ash an Assistant Producer at RAW media on 19th November 2021 to appear in the documentary they produced for Netflix. Esme Ash wanted to set up a Zoom call with Harry Hewland the Series Producer. I had an initial Zoom call and exchanged 15 emails with Esme Ash.
On 22nd March 2022 I wrote declining to participate in the documentary series after I realised the sensationalist and speculative nature of the planned production. They replied requesting I review my decision and requesting that I at least talk to Harry Hewland. I was told that: “The Next of Kin are a major part of our series, many of whom are backing your work.” I was further informed that: “We have already filmed with Danica Weeks, and we will be filming with Grace Nathan and Intan Othman over the next couple of weeks. We have also filmed with Peter Foley and are speaking with Ocean Infinity about filming with Oliver Plunkett after Easter.”
I declined to change my decision or discuss my decision with the Series Producer Harry Hewland. I note that Oliver Plunkett and Ocean Infinity also declined to be interviewed for the Netflix documentary series.
The entire narrative is determined by Jeff Wise and Florence de Changy simply in order to sell their books for their own personal gain. In the process Wise and Changy tread on Mark Dickinson and his colleagues at Inmarsat and falsely accuse them, that they manipulated or fabricated the satellite data. In the process Wise and Changy tread on Blaine Gibson and falsely accuse him of planting debris and being a Russian agent.
For 2 minutes 44 at the end of the documentary Mark Dickinson and Blaine Gibson are allowed a right of reply supported by Mike Exner of the Independent Group and Peter Foley formerly of the ATSB.
Mike Exner states: “Oh boy! I am just reluctant to talk about Florence or Jeff or these conspiracy advocates, they are just such a distraction.” … “These are people who do not understand the facts and the data.”
Mark Dickinson states: “The accusations that somehow Inmarsat fabricated or manipulated the data are simply wrong. The data is the data. I don’t understand why anyone would think that we wanted to change or manipulate any data associated with this. It is not who we are and to choose things differently I find hurtful and yeah it impacts me.”
Blaine Gibson states: “The theory that the plane was shot down in the South China Sea … basically denies all the evidence.” … “They seem to be losing objectivity and that’s sad.”
Peter Foley states: “At the risk of sounding flippant, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has got one. Um … Cut that please. But it is true.”
This narrative is not worthy of a premier streaming service and one of the leading streaming service companies in the world. The Netflix documentary series is specious, inaccurate, malicious towards Dickinson and Gibson, hurtful to the next of kin and misleading to the general public.
Jeff Wise speculates it was the Russians:
1. The Inmarsat data was manipulated or fabricated.
2. The debris recovered in the Indian Ocean was planted.
3. All the radar systems en route to Kazakstan failed to detect MH370.
Florence de Changy speculates and fantasises it was the Americans:
1. The Malaysian military and civilian primary radar showing an air turn back over Malaysia is wrong.
2. The Copilot’s mobile phone was not detected over Penang.
3. The Inmarsat data was manipulated or fabricated.
4. The debris recovered in the Indian Ocean was planted.
5. Two USAF AWACS planes jam all MH370 communications and then shoot down MH370.
The Netflix documentary series presents 3 theories:
1. Murder/Suicide by Captain Zaharie Shah.
2. Hijack by Russian Agents (Jeff Wise).
3. Intercept by USAF AWACS (Florence de Changy).
The official Malaysian investigation and report, Malaysian Airlines colleagues like Fuad Sharuji and Intan Othman, journalists like Jeff Wise, Florence de Changy, next of kin like Ghyslain Wattrelos and Grace Nathan all exonerate Captain Zaharie Shah, so theory number one is ruled out.
Jeff Wise then presents his Hijack theory by Russian agents to Kazakhstan. No suicide pilot flew for 6 hours before ending his life before. MH17 is not a coincidence. The Russians caused both the MH370 and MH17 events. The plane is not where it is supposed to be after an exhaustive search. There is no evidence presented to support this theory except that a hijacker in full view of other passengers entered the main equipment centre (MEC) via a door under the carpet in the forward service area. You cannot plug in to the Airplane Information Management System (AIMS) computer in the MEC and fly the aircraft remotely. AIMS uses four ARINC 629 buses to transfer information. There are 2 cabinets on each plane (left and right). The ARINC 629 bus operates as a multiple-source, multiple-sink system; each terminal can transmit data to, and receive data from, every other terminal on the data bus. This allows much more freedom in the exchange of data between units in the avionics system but makes it impossible to connect to any part of the system and take over the entire operation of the aircraft remotely. In addition, the Inmarsat Satellite Data Unit is not housed in the MEC but in an overhead locker in the aft cabin. Jeff Wise’s theory number two is ruled out because 39 items of floating debris have been by 28 different people in the southern Indian Ocean. Jeff Wise lies about the reason he was kicked out of the Independent Group (IG). It was not because he disagreed with the IG, it was because he stole all our data and published it in a book for his own financial gain.
Florence de Changy then presents her USAF intercept and shooting down of MH370 theory. Cyndy Hendry knows MH370 is in the South China Sea because she found a picture of the aircraft debris in the Tomnod satellite imagery. Ghyslain Wattrelos agrees it is the Americans and “Mr. B” told him in an underground car park that MH370 was intercepted by two USAF AWACS aircraft. The FBI have never released the full data found on the home simulator of Captain Zaharie Shah. MH370 did not turn back over Malaysia and the Malaysian military and civilian radar sources are wrong. The co-pilot’s mobile was not detected over Penang. The Inmarsat data has been fabricated or manipulated. The recovered debris is not from MH370. Florence de Changy states these are aircraft parts from a junk yard with name plates removed and ignores the fact that 8 items have been identified from MH370 with a part number, 6 with a stencil mark, 4 with Malaysian Airlines System materials, laminates and livery as well as 5 with conformity to Boeing 777-200ER drawings and specifications. Florence de Changy does not have one item of debris from MH370 found in the South China Sea. Florence de Changy’s theory number three is ruled out because we have the raw civilian radar data showing a turn back over Malaysia, we have the mobile phone records showing the Copilot’s mobile phone detection over Penang, we have the Inmarsat raw satellite data log and we have the physical evidence of the MH370 floating debris found by 28 different people on the shores of the Indian Ocean.
All three theories are ruled out and the conclusion of the Netflix documentary is we will never know the truth.
I believe that one day the truth will come out and MH370 will be found.
I just watched the Netflix documentary and it was 3 hours of my life I’ll never get back. What an utter waste of time. As someone typed in a heavy Boeing, the theories are so ridiculous it made me want to throw up.
Few corrections to your paper here, although I doubt they are relevant.
The 777 does not have “nominal ground speed”, at FL350 the max KIAS of 330 is around 500kts TAS. No-one really flies at the “barber pole” though, 0.82mach is more common. Winds aloft then determine the ground speed. They can be substantial, hundreds of knots, around the ITCZ.
The 777 can easily descend way more than 2500fpm. In a “speed on elevator” descend (FLCH or VNAV SPD), with an active pilot using speedbrakes, you can pretty easily see 4000fpm in descends. 2500fpm climbs are not really possible without bleeding down substantial amount of energy at the mid-30s.
If the plane is somewhat light, a turn at normal cruise speeds will not slow the plane down.
Technically, changes to one direction in flight level can be programmed in the FMC. They cannot be up and down though because the autopilot will always respect the altitude selector on the MCP. But for example, you can program step climbs, or stepdowns, and set the MCP altitude selector to the lower or higher value, and it will automatically initiate a climb or a descend at a calculated point.
Your end of flight simulations, did they use the autopilot? I have not tried it on a 777 but a 747 will fly somewhat flat in full stall all the way to the ground, with autopilot engaged. It will only spiral if you disconnect the autopilot.
And yes, you do have flap extension even with fuel starvation. The alternate flap system works electronically even with no hydraulic power.
@MT,
Welcome to the blog!
I used “nominal” in a scientific or mathematical sense, not in an aeronautical sense. We have all the training, operational and performance data from Boeing as well as the engineering data for 9M-MRO.
I appreciate that a Boeing 777 can descend at more than 2,500 fpm. There is obviously a large difference between normal operation of a Boeing 777 and extreme operation of a Boeing 777, especially if the pilot did not care if he or the aircraft survived.
We have a verified and validated model of the winds and temperature at altitude for each position and time in the Indian Ocean.
The end of flight simulations were performed by Boeing and assumed autopilot.
We have been advised by several commercial pilots who are Boeing 777 type rated.
I descended today on a normal flight at 4000fpm. There was nothing extreme about it. If the pilot did not care if the aircraft survived, he could easily descend at 15000fpm with autopilot engaged. That assumption is not correct. But as I said, I doubt it is relevant. Anyone flying a Boeing knows this was an intentional act from the flight deck. Did anyone look into the FO though? Locking up the FD doesn’t take any skill.
Richard, I fully respect, and understand, your reasons for not taking part in the Netflix documentary series.
However, so many people will watch the documentary given that they are Netflix subscribers, and the subject matter is of great interest to many. All these viewers would have been much better informed had you and Oliver Plunkett participated.
On the other hand, I realise that your time on the programme would have constrained, and that you did not want to be associated with such a production.
@David,
Welcome to the blog and for the kind words!
Please don’t worry, the truth will come out in the end.
I am currently in discussion with a well respected global producer of science based documentaries.
They plan to explain how:
(1) Boeing 777 performance data works.
(2) MAS Engineering data for 9M-MRO works.
(3) Aviation Weather Data for the region works.
(4) Inmarsat satellite data works.
(5) Radar data works.
(6) WSPR data works.
(7) Oceanography drift analysis works.
(8) Underwater search sonar data works.
(9) Debris analysis and materials science data works.
No conspiracy theories about faking data or planting debris.
I have an observation. The search came up empty. Pretty obvious the wreckage found cannot be 100% tied into MH370. My suggestion… Family band together and with everyone’s co-operation and donations…No one has done that and I strongly believe with the evidence that was ignored like the eye witnesses on the ground saying they saw a fireball. More then 1 witness who didn’t know each other. This I believe will give answers. scrap what is now known and improbable the plane is where they said it was. I believe if they band together and have a ship go to the last known location before disappearance doing a grid going the flight path it was suppose to take. No one has done that and I strongly believe with the evidence that was ignored like the eye witnesses on the ground saying they saw a fireball. More then 1 witness who didn’t know each other. This I believe will give answers.
@Gary Latendresse,
Two searches of each around 120,000 km2 of the Indian Ocean of 70,000,000 km2 came up empty.
It is pretty obvious that the MH370 floating debris have been confirmed in 8 cases by part numbers, in 6 cases by stencil marks, in 4 cases by Malaysian Airlines System materials, laminates or livery and in 5 cases with conformity to Boeing 777-200ER drawings and specifications.
It is well known in courts of law that eye witness reports are unreliable. You have one eye witness saying they saw a plane in a ball of fire over the South China Sea. You have another eyewitness saying that they saw a large plane pass very low over their yacht in the Andaman Sea. You have another eye witness saying that a large plane passed very low of their fishing boat on the north east coast of Malaysia. You have another eye witness saying that a large plane passed over their island in the Maldives on the way to school. You have another eye witness saying that a large plane landed in Diego Garcia.
They can’t all be right.
we need public to focus MH370，but not misslead public and searching
@Jack,
Welcome to the blog!
I agree we need the public to put pressure on the authorities to search again.
We do not need the authorities or the media to mislead the public.
Assuming the pilot was in control of the aircraft, it seems like two possible explanations that’ve been advanced are
1) This was an intentional act of murder/suicide else a politically motivated statement by the pilot,
or
2) Something happened that resulted in a disoriented pilot (perhaps a loss of cabin oxygen pressure), and the pilot in his confusion wound up in the SIO.
If the former case is truly discarded, then what are some likely explanations for why the pilot, disoriented as he was, would have kept flying south?
Did anyone noticed the weather
At that night it very cloudy so kindly check the plane tracker of that day
you would get it…
Thank you for these analyses Richard, you seem to integrate all the right data and have the best intuitions on this than anywhere else. A few questions:
1. Apart from WSPRnet data, is there any indication that the plane when it turned towards the Indian Ocean (sometime after 2:22 am) was controlled by a pilot (vs the pilot presumably committing suicide or going hypoxic after engaging the Indian Ocean course and turning on autopilot)?
2. What is the likelihood that the Inmarsat handshake data somehow pinpointed incorrect locations during the handshakes? Has the Inmarsat data been crosschecked with other planes with known coordinates at this time to verify its accuracy?
3. What incentive would Zaharie have to try to make the plane vanish/hide all evidence?
4. Were the passengers likely killed by depressurization/hypoxia, and if so when did this occur? How long would Zaharie’s oxygen supply have lasted and when did he likely repressurize?
5. It would seem common sense that if Zaharie wanted the make discovery of wreckage as difficult as possible, he would plan for an a) controlled descent so that the plane is submerged whole with minimal wreckage (and potentially allow him to bail), and b) target the heart of the broken ridge where discovery would be most difficult (roughly 32.27S, 96.49E). What do you think?
@Henry,
Welcome to the blog!
1. Apart from the WSPR data, the only indication of an active pilot at the end of flight would be if the landing gear was lowered or there was a recovery from the large accelerating rate of descent shown by the Inmarsat satellite BFO data of between 14,800 fpm and 25,300 fpm at 00:19:37 UTC.
The WSPR data in conjunction with the Inmarsat data show several changes of altitude that also require an active pilot.
2. The Inmarsat satellite data is logged in real time in multiple distributed databases by the ground station. The data cannot be manipulated or fabricated from the aircraft or any other ground station.
The Inmarsat satellite data is subject to constant testing and has been cross checked with other flights.
3. If Zaharie Shah was the perpetrator then he would want to cover his tracks to protect his family, colleagues and employer. If a court of law proves him guilty, then the Malaysian government is liable as the ultimate owner of the airline and open to claims of compensation.
4. I have no evidence that the passengers were killed by depressurisation/hypoxia. Zaharie Shah’s oxygen supply would last for several hours but becomes uncomfortable and possibly even unsustainable especially for a smoker after around one hour.
5. The 39 items of wreckage recovered so far have an average weight of 4.6 kg. The zero fuel weight of MH370 was 174,369 kg. This implies the number of aircraft fragments is of the order of 37,900 items. It is therefore clear that the pilot failed to make a controlled descent. It is also clear from other ditching attempts that it is not always possible to guarantee that a controlled descent ensures no floating debris. However only 39 items of MH370 floating debris have been recovered out of a theoretical total of several thousand. In any event, out of the estimated total of 37,900 items floating and sunken debris, only 0.1% has so far been recovered. So we could agree that the 99.9% of the physical evidence has not yet been found, which is so far quite successful in hiding the evidence for 9 years.
The air pressure would not allow you to open an aircraft door to bail out, so you would have to depressurise and would require oxygen. You are however unlikely to survive a parachute jump from a Boeing 777 as the air pressure would slam your body against the fuselage or you would be killed hitting the horizontal or vertical stabilisers at the rear of the aircraft, before you could clear the aircraft, so you would need to fly very slow. You would have to fly low to ensure sufficient oxygen. Finally you would need to parachute over land or to rendezvous with a boat. However, we know for a fact that MH370 flew for 7 hours 37 minutes which is not possible at slow speed and low altitude because the fuel range and fuel endurance is significantly reduced at slow speeds and low altitude. You would need another pilot willing to remain on board as an accomplice.
6. WSPR signals for aircraft are not too weak to be detected and decoded.
No one denies that radar works as a single site mono-static (Tx and Rx collocated) at a single frequency picking up reflections from the physical aircraft structure with a typical power around 1 MW, with a typical range at least 100 km (60 nmi) line of sight propagation, with a time on target < 1 second, a pulse width 1 µs and frequency of say 2.8 GHz.
WSPR is a multi site multi-static (Tx and Rx separated) multi frequency system picking up reflections from the physical aircraft structure (plus possibly water vapour and exhaust particles) with a power between 1 mW and 5 W, with a range of over 20,000 km (10,800 nmi) sky wave ionospheric propagation, with a time on time on target of 110.6 seconds and a coherent integration time of 110.6 seconds using FFT software, frequencies typically between 3 MHz and 30 MHz and processing that removes short and medium term ionospheric fluctuations.
WSPR has the same order of magnitude of energy on target at the aircraft as radar.
The WSPR protocol is designed to prove the reception of a high frequency propagation by sending the call sign of the transmitter to the receiver in a redundant code.
This web site contains a number of technical papers by Dr. Hannes Coetzee, Dr. Robert Westphal, Dr. Karl Herrmann and myself, which have been reviewed by Prof. Simon Maskell and which give further technical details on how WSPR works.
Thank you, that clarifies much. Points well taken on the debris issue.
Per the bailout idea, I was considering that the pilot might have aimed for a controlled intact landing on the water (with the passengers and crew already dead) before either committing suicide or exiting via raft and leaving the plane to sink in one piece.
What do you think of the analysis that the supposed trunion door is actually from the Vestas Wind racing yacht?
If I understand correctly, in another post you stated that the Indian Ocean flight path was aimed at McMurdo Station? Why would this be? Is there any significance to the direction/endpoint of the route or was the aim merely to sink the plane in an undetectable location?
Why would the pilot wait for fuel exhaustion to down the plane instead of a manually controlled crash slightly earlier when fuel is still available? And to clarify, are you saying that the last handshake data indicates that there was an active pilot during the descent?
@Henry,
7. The debris is from MH370 not from Team Vestas Wind yacht as per the statement from Farr Yacht Design Ltd.
8. McMurdo was 2016 and is superseded.
9. The pilot wanted to wait until fuel exhaustion to make it look like there was no active pilot.
10. The last handshake shows there was an active pilot during the descent.
6. One more question- what is your response to Victor Iannello’s assertion that WSPRnet signals for aircraft are too weak to be detected and decoded?
@Hazel,
Welcome to the blog and thank you for the following transcript from the Netflix documentary series:
[Jiang Hui, son of MH370 passenger, in Mandarin]: “Suddenly, there was a daughter of a passenger running toward us. We could see her phone was showing an incoming call. Uh, it was displaying “Papa.” She said, “What should I do?” I shouted back to her, “Pick up the call!” But sadly, when she tried to pick up the phone, it stopped ringing.”
Mobile phones are registered with a mobile phone operator. Many of the 227 passengers and 12 crew on MH370 had one ore more mobile phones registered with a large number of operators such as China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom, Telekom Malaysia, Celcom Malaysia, Maxis Malaysia, DiGi Malaysia, YTL Communications Malaysia, U Mobile Malaysia and a number of other operators.
Each mobile phone operator maintains a database in real time which gives the location of the base tower that each mobile phone is currently connected to. This database is updated as the mobile phone moves and connection to one base tower is lost and the phone is picked up by the next base tower nearest to the mobile phone en route. Sometimes there are multiple base station detections and the mobile phone will select the preferred connection depending on the operator.
When a mobile phone is out of reach of any base station, the different mobile phone operators handle a call differently. Sometimes the last known base station is preserved, sometimes you will get a message that your call cannot be connected, sometimes you will be connected to voice mail to leave a message, sometimes they will just provide a ringing tone to make you think that your call could be connected.
If there is a fault in the database of a particular operator, then sometimes a database roll back will be performed. This can have the effect of a previous call being repeated and a brief attempt is made to reconnect. This is possibly the cause of a so called ‘ghost’ call from the past being repeated, as it appears was the case in the incident you quote.
At the time of the incident during the meeting in the city centre hotel on the 8th March 2014 to which you refer, it is not clear that MH370 is still in the air. The flight was still in the air at 22:30 UTC, which was the scheduled time to arrive in Beijing Airport at 6:30 am local time, but the hotel meeting was later that same day and went on into the evening. At 22:30 UTC MH370 was already far out into the Indian Ocean and therefore beyond the reach of any mobile base station.
The useful data that these records might contain is, if any attempt was made by the passengers or crew other than by the copilot to try to get a connection over Malaysia after the air turn back and to make a call or send an SMS or email.
It is perfectly possible that all passengers and crew were alive during the air turn back over Malaysia as Kota Bahru was reached at 17:36:43 UTC according to the primary terminal area radar, which is only 15 minutes 30 seconds after the last recorded secondary radar position prior to diversion at 17:21:13 UTC. Even if MH370 was depressurised immediately after the diversion, the cabin oxygen masks would last for around 20 minutes.
So the plane begins to depressurise. Masks fall. Then it turns which all of the crew and passengers who had made the trip before would know was strange but none of them picked up a phone and texted “goodbye” or “I love you” or “we are being hijacked” does that not seem weird to anyone? Plenty of people on the 9/11 planes sent texts or made calls. Help me out here folks
@Jared,
Welcome to the blog!
MH370 was diverted over the sea and 158 km from the nearest mobile phone tower. The typical range of a mobile phone tower coverage has a radius between 32 km and 40 km. 9/11 planes were over mainland USA, which has a dense network of mobile phone towers.
The Royal Malaysian Police did extensive testing of all mobile phone towers near the flight path with all the major providers Celcom, Maxis, Digi and UMobile using both 2G and 3G infrastructure and a wide variety of different handsets.
Richard,
Thank you for your work. I hope we get to see the plane recovered one day soon.
When Zaharie crash landed the plane on the South Indian Ocean, is it likely he survived the impact? Could he have boarded a life vessel before the plane sank?
@Iain,
Welcome to the blog!
If the plane disintegrated into 37,900 pieces, there is no way any one survived.
Please see the questions from @Henry and my answers.
Thanks – one additional question:
Sunrise occurred in the area of the crash at approx. 23:21 UTC (I believe).
In addition to his goal of hiding the plane in a remote ocean area – has it been considered that Zaharie’s reasons for actively piloting the flight up until past 00:22 UTC could have included: (i) being able to observe a final sunrise; and (ii) using the daylight to assist in him in executing the crash maneuverer?
@Iain,
Sunrise occurs at different times in the crash area depending on the longitude and the altitude of the observer.
The points you have made have been considered.
Hi Richard, I came across your work on this about a year ago, and have just read every post here (very informative), and wanted to say keep it up.
Obviously with the anniversary and the timely airing from Netflix show (which aimed to mainly fantasize the mind from many angles, to say the least), I’m sure there is/will be reignited interest along with Ocean Infinity’s planned work.
Hopefully the Malay government supports the search, but dare I say if there was information kept back then if the recorder is found (big IF within itself), it’s a tough situation. Probably some narrative is put around for damage control, but we are talking about Chinese and Indian families as well as potentially Malaysia, China and Australia governments (depending what they did and did not know). Say if the Malay government does not agree a reward, but politically they are forced to green-light the search from the people, do you know whether there is sufficient financial backing for the operation to go ahead and be comprehensive as it needs to be regardless?
As a general public, I don’t have access to certain information, and any information on the internet has to be with some skepticism, naturally. But if the two pieces of information, 1) the flight simulator did indeed have a route broadly in line with the general understood direction and 2) there was a holding pattern, then for me, as much as it is hypothetical at this moment, it not great inference.
There’s just so much we don’t know, including what’s beneath the oceans. Keep up your work, I will be following and hopefully the friends and family affected get a closer understanding and more at piece with this mystery.
@Jason Yung,
Welcome to the blog!
Ocean Infinity’s position is that they believe it is a fair request that their search effort is compensated if successful.
There other philanthropists willing to search as well.
@MT,
I agree there is nothing extreme about 4,000 fpm descent. But the DSTG report by Ian Holland dated 15th January 2018 analysing the Inmarsat satellite BFO data shows in Table IV a decent at the end of flight of MH370 at 00:19:37 UTC at between 14,800 fpm and 25,300 fpm. That kind of descent is extreme.
All commercial pilots with a Boeing 777 type rating share your view that it is “an intentional act from the flight deck”, but who was the pilot flying on the flight deck?
Both the Captain and the First Officer were exonerated in the official report, which could not exclude a third party involvement by a hijacker.
Thanks so much for your postings. This is the most informative site that I’ve found. I have a couple questions.
1) Regarding the “disappearing” from radar after the handoff leaving Malaysian airspace. I’m a private pilot and so am a little familiar with how the transponder works in the airspace in the USA. If I turn off my transponder, which sometimes ATC has requested, I don’t “disappear” from radar. The “primary target” still shows up on radar, it is just missing all the additional information that the transponder supplies. I see references to “secondary” radar regarding MH370 so maybe this is the difference. If the pilot turned off the transponder, what happens where I fly is that the data block would be lost, but you would still see the target or “blip” on the radar. Can you explain how the MH370 is different and what would have happened when the transponder was turned off?
2) I’ve seen references that the satellite system was turned off (presumably with a circuit breaker I’m guessing) but then turned back on. What would be the explanation for the pilot pulling the circuit breaker on the satellite system, presumable to hide his location as done with turn off the transponder… but then turning it back on? Why turn it back on?
3) Can you say more about the holding pattern the pilot executed. Did I read correctly that this was done at the edge of the “no turning back” fuel level? It doesn’t seem likely that a disoriented pilot would be able to fly a holding pattern unless he just put the plane in a standard rate turn for 360, but I don’t know what the holding pattern looked like. If done at the edge of a go/no go decision, that seems pretty deliberate.
4) If the plane was hijacked… to what end? People who hijack a plane normally take credit for it or at least want people to know about it. As a pilot, we are taught that even if the plane is going down to fly it all the way down. That’s something a pilot would do, not a hijacker I would think. This all seems to point to a suicide, although the zig zagging is strange. Why keep changing the heading in the autopilot… unless there was some actual place he was aiming for? At any rate, in the official findings (and on Netflix) everyone agrees that the pilot was not to blame. On what basis? Given the deliberate actions at the beginning and course to a remote presumably unreachable location, suicide seems to be the most logical conclusion. I understand not wanting to call undo attention to such a hypothesis while it is not absolutely proven, but I also don’t understand completely ruling it out as seems to be the official line right now.
@Shawn,
Welcome to the blog!
1. When the transponder is switched off the aircraft identification in secondary radar is lost. Primary radar will still function as you say, but without a definitive aircraft identification.
2. The Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) is on the same bus as the Satellite Data Unit (SDU). If you want to cross busy airways at a normal cruising altitude, then you will need the TCAS.
3. The simple race track holding pattern was at the point of no return.
4. I do not believe that MH370 was a “normal” hijack. There was no hijack claim or demand. The reason why the official report rules out a pilot hijack is simply because the airline would be culpable. In this case the ultimate owner of the airline is the Malaysian government.
With regard to the switching back on of the SDU. Why would you care about colliding with another plane if you were planning on killing yourself and 200+ people?
@Jared,
The pilot may have wanted to ensure that MH370 crashed in an unknown remote location after 7 hours 37 minutes of flying time to ensure there was no evidence. This has so far been successful for over 9 years.
A collision or even a near miss with another aircraft in the busy airways just out of radar range from land after only 1 hour 44 minutes of flying time would have given the game away.
Hello, I have heard about this mystery on and off throughout the years. Recently my interest was resparked because of the Netflix doc. I have come to learn that the doc was untrustable. I think it is outrageous that there has not been more support from governments. Thank you all so much for your investigations into this, you seem very smart. I recently watched the 60 minutes documentary on the radio signals. Does anyone know if they will search in the area it was pinpointed? I have also been wondering, what is the leading theory on what happened? Thanks.
@Charlie McLaughlin,
Welcome to the blog!
I am in regular communication with Ocean Infinity and others who are willing to search again for MH370.
They have all confirmed that they will search the area I have indicated.
We still do not know why MH370 disappeared and we will know more when the aircraft is found.
There are several reasons why it is important to find MH370, the key rationale is:
(a) To bring closure for the families and friends of the 239 people on board MH370, who still do not know what happened to their loved ones.
(b) To help the aviation industry to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
(c) To give the flying public confidence when they fly. There are 12 Million people who board an aircraft every day somewhere in the world.
The benefits from finding MH370 will de:
(a) Safer air travel.
(b) Finalisation of the criminal proceedings in various countries.
(c) Full compensation payments to the bereaved families.
(d) Development of new technologies to find aircraft like WSPR.
(e) Resolution of hundreds of conspiracy theories used by sensationalist media as click bait to increase their advertising revenue.
Previously in 2015 and 2016 the ATSB searched an area of 120,000 km2. In 2018 Ocean Infinity then searched another 110,000 km2. We now have more information and can reduce the area we have to search.
Underwater search technology has made significant advances since 2018 and going back to search a smaller area in 2023 with better technology will be a lot easier.
When you search a large area you only have the time to go up and down the search area and pass each point once. When you have a smaller area, then you have the time to go up and down and across at different angles to make sure you cover each point from several angles. AF447 was only found in 2011 during the 4th phase of the underwater search. Ocean infinity only found the Argentinian submarine ARA San Juan in 2018 on the second pass of the location.
I am confident that if we search one more time we will find MH370 because we will be able to make several passes of each possible location with much better technology.
Hello, if the flight pattern is correct, and MH370 indeed turned back and flew over Malaysia approx. 30 min with no comms or gps, and was still unlucky to communicate, then when can say for sure MH370 had a catastrophic system failure, but if thats the case, why not keep flying over Malaysia territory? why not fly low to look for a landing spot? why keep flying to open sea?
i believe if they knew that there was an active pilot until the last ping, then he still had enough time to decide to fly low over the visible land to prevent hypoxia.
also why is that everyone is 100% sure that MH370 went either S or N after the last ping? he seemed to be flying in a straight pattern, isn’t it possible they kept going straight?
Also is there public information about what was MH370 lost comm emergency protocol, and was it followed? or did it appear to have been an attempt to follow emergency protocol?
@Wasp,
Welcome to the blog!
There is no evidence that any attempt was made at an emergency landing. A number of airports were passed, where it would have been possible to land a Boeing 777.
It is not possible that the aircraft kept going straight as there would be no alignment with the Inmarsat BTO and BFO data. The BTO data gives the distance from the Indian Ocean Region satellite to the aircraft and the BFO data gives the relative velocity, track and rate of climb between the satellite and the aircraft. The BFO data pattern fits a flight path in a Southerly direction.
There is no evidence that the aircraft followed any lost communications protocol. The transponder was not switched to 7600, it was switched to standby. The aircraft did not follow the filed flight plan, it diverted. No attempt was made to communicate via the satphone, if all three VHF and both HF radios had failed. The Controller–Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) were not used.
Richard, Thank God for the people like yourself who dedicate their life to making our future travel safer and for helping the family members find closure. Also Ocean Infinity is and will again be another Hero in this story. I am interested to ask, what are possible reasons for the Malaysian to not approve a new search? It seems like the OI offer is a no brainer. I hope the new approval happens soon! Tim
@Tim Martin,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words.
If evidence comes to light that makes Malaysian Airlines or its owner the Malaysian Government culpable in any way, then it opens the way to large claims being made for compensation.
@Kyle,
Welcome to the blog!
In my view the Haixun 01 detections using a Benthos pinger locator were far beyond the maximum practical range of 2,000m in an area where the water depth is 4,580 m according to Google Earth.
The detections could not be independently confirmed by either HMS Echo or a submarine tasked to investigate.
The ATSB report dated 3rd October 2017 states: “On 4 April 2014, crew from the People’s Republic of China vessel Haixun 01 reported detections at the southern end of the green zone at 25.975°S, 101.461°E. The crew were operating the hydrophone from one of the ship’s rescue boats in an area where ocean depths were approximately 4,500 m. Haixun 01’s crew reported a pulsed signal with a frequency of 37.5 kHz for 15 minutes, repeating once per second. A second detection at the same frequency was made the next day, 3 km west of the first detection, for 90 seconds with a much weaker signal than the previous day. On 6 and 8 April 2014, HMS Echo attempted to reacquire the detections reported by the crew of Haixun 01. However they were unsuccessful and concluded that the detections were unlikely to be MH370’s ULBs due to the water depth, surface noise and the hydrophone equipment being used by the crew of Haixun 01 which had a practical detection range of about 2,000 m according to the manufacturer. A submarine was also tasked to investigate the area and was also unable to identify any ULB transmissions.”
Ocean Infinity searched the area including 25.975°S 101.461°E between 31st May 2018 and 2nd June 2018 with the AUV launches A47C and A48C.
Linked below is the track of the Ocean Infinity vessel Seabed Constructor for 31st May 2018 showing the collection recovery points of AUVs A47C and A48C.
The Haixun01 detection at -25.9750 101.4610 is the point of interest marked H1.
For reference the collection recovery point of AUV A51C is -25.9359 101.7516.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/codnehri7zg3tlo/SC%20Track%2031052018.pdf?dl=0
The US Air Force did not shoot down MH370 as we have the raw near real time data from the Inmarsat Indian Ocean Region Satellite 3F1 for the entire MH370 flight duration of 7 hours 37 minutes 54 seconds until just after fuel exhaustion.
@Richard
Do you have OI’s AUV track files, and if so, are they available for examination ?
@Ventus45,
Unfortunately I do not have the AUV tracks from Ocean Infinity. I have the track of the Ocean Infinity surface vessel Seabed Constructor. The drop off and collection points of the AUVs can usually be determined by the times when Seabed Constructor is stationary at a particular location. Only Ocean Infinity will have the actual track for each AUV between the drop off point and the collection point.
@Richard
OK thanks, I thought it was a long shot.