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 !
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
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.