A Comprehensive Overview on the Ongoing Search for MH370 by Gerard Mendoza Ferrandis.
On 8 March 2014, the greatest mystery in the history of aviation took off from Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KUL) en route to Beijing Capital International Airport (PEK). How and why this plane ended up in the Indian Ocean is still unknown to this date; more than eight years after its disappearance. The scarcity of information regarding the route and wreckage location of the plane has only allowed for speculation, and the lack of a clear motive has left the families of the 239 people on board without closure.
However, a major breakthrough earlier this year has made it possible not only to completely fill in the gaps in the timeline of events, but also to determine the final resting place of the plane. This new evidence, coupled with what we already know from years prior, may allow to not only determine a motive and probable cause, but to also finally find the plane and its black boxes.
Although we have made some progress in uncovering the secrets of MH370 over the years, there is still much more to discover at the depths of the southern Indian Ocean. Despite the uncertainty, there remains a glimmer of hope that finding the wreckage will ultimately provide closure and a definitive explanation for the fate of Malaysian Airlines 370. With the facts in hand, we will be able to finally put an end to speculation and better understand what occurred on that fateful day.
The paper by Gerard Mendoza Ferrandis can be downloaded here
Comment Re: “We are currently tracking a Boeing 777 across the Indian Ocean”.
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/02/26/the-ongoing-search-for-mh370/comment-page-1/#comment-2163
Would it be worthwhile chartering a Boeing 777 very similar in design and engine configuration to 9M-MRO to fly from Colombo to Perth, trying to get the pilot to replicate the holding pattern and the southward path over the currently projected MH370 crash region?
With help from Boeing and Rolls Royce engineers, it might be possible to construct a “9M MRO meteorological impact signature” for the plane, and for each of the engines. This could then be compared to historical Indian Ocean meteorological data for 7th/8th March 2014.
If you know what to look for, approximately where to look, and at what times, it may be that the vapour trail, for example, from each of the engines can be picked out from the weather data, and this, in conjunction with the WSPR/GDTAA analysis, might help to pinpoint the crash time and location of MH370.
If successful, it might be accepted as ‘credible new evidence”, permitting a new search to be authorised by the Malaysian authorities and other global stakeholders.
@TommyL,
Nice idea to charter a Boeing 777 with Rolls Royce engines to replicate the estimated flight path of MH370 with a high level of authenticity.
Some analysts have already looked for vapour trails. The area of interest in the Indian Ocean does not have continuous coverage in the 7th/8th March 2014 timeframe. Some satellite coverage is marginal as the satellite footprint is at its limit in the area of interest.
The Malaysian authorities have never defined what they mean by credible new evidence, so it is not clear what they would accept or reject.
hi All, does anyone know when this search will be resumed? The government seems to be lethargic is reacting.
@Tariq,
Welcome to the blog!
Ocean Infinity are planning to resume the underwater search in late 2023 or early 2024.
Dear all,
after watching some documentary TV show, and after all this year’s, rediscovered that there is still MH370 misterry ongoing… After, long time ago TV news, and info about the search, I almost forgotten about this case. But now I rediscovered it, and for a few days, I am reading all online available info.
This site is most serious of all, that I ever found online (not only connected with the subject). Big respect for Your devotion.
I will try to be short, and not too boring…
– After all info, that I have been read, available to me, doesn’t seem that Captain did Murder/Suicide of his passengers and himself .. doesn’t look like that type of person to me…
Maybe he vas ready to sacrifice for “some grater cause”, but not to remain unknown, and without big impact and echo behind his sacrifice… He was smarter than that! (by my humble conclusion)
– My short thoughts, at this moment will follow…
What if:
– if they, at the moment of crossing borders, and changing countries and aerial spaces had some collision, impact of some kind… (UAV, other aircraft, lightning strike…).. is there possibility to damage external airplane antennas and sensors for transmission of radio signals, and to lose signals and sensors for orientation… suffer some kind of damage to the DIGITAL cockpit screens, that give direction data!?
To me, looks like, that in the middle of the night, over the dark sea, something happened, that damaged communication/orientation … Pilot(s) tried to return to starting airport, without too much panic, and maybe they though that they are transmitting messages over radio (there was some recorded communication with another plane, described as “mumbling” in some reports..”)…
They turned around, and considering that was the night, and conditions, maybe they mistook town (were pilot was born, and copilots phone signal was recorded) for another town, and tried to find airport to land in an emergency, but they lost orientation and went over the ocean again…
– So (maybe) they searched, and searched for mainland and airport in wrong direction…it was a night..without sensors, no lights, no horizon…maybe cabin was damaged…no pressure, no indications… couldn’t lower the plane, without reading the correct altitude… risky… maybe, I am not a pilot…just maybe
-Waited a morning light, to see where they are…fuel was lower and lower … sun, light, but no land… preserved altitude to preserve fuel…air is thinner
– maybe, just maybe… no land, no fuel… I don’t know.. if engines stop, probably You loose hidraullic pressure, and manual commands, and can not prevent 150 tons heavy aircraft to ditch in the ocean, at steep angle?
– Maybe there was wind in the cabin, no oxygen, low visibility…no one records a satelite phone in critical moment, and what was it’s purpose… just maybe…
I don’t know, but to me, reading all online info, that I could in the last few days, that is something feasible to me …something that could happen that 8th march 2014.
There is possibility that at the end, pilots become heroes…that tried to save everybody onboard… after You find boxes, we will see… I never wanted to judge person, by some stories, without evidences…even then, I prefer to check twice… I always believe in people …
thanks in advance to Your response
Regards
Ivica
Ivica, thank you for your theory. Had MH370 been struck by a drone or the like, with a full fuel load, she would have crashed IMHO. The external components of these communication systems are mounted in different locations on the aircraft. This would make it impossible to knock out everything that was “Turned Off” and not crash the aircraft again IMHO. I agree with your wanting to hope for the best intent of the flight crew. We all should until we truly know what happened.
My simple mind wants to believe the aircraft was hijacked, but as far as I am aware no distress calls were made either by the flight crew or any passenger cell phones. Seems we would have picked up something had there been a public hijack onboard.
So this leads my simple mind to assume that whatever occurred happened behind the locked Flight Deck door.
My simple mind says this or something close happened;
*One of the Pilots goes to use Lav
*The other per procedure dons his O2 mask
*He locks the door
*Circuit breakers were pulled to reporting systems, etc.
*He depressurizes the cabin killing most in the cabin very quickly and painlessly
*The cabin flight crew who acted quickly would be on Portable O2 for a while but not posing any danger given the locked bulletproof door
*The pilot makes some course changes, altitude changes, etc. to help avoid detection and then sets the autopilot to the middle of the Indian Ocean.
*I feel like the Pilot then probably took his mask off as well and painlessly died in a minute or so having completed his mission.
*Any remaining cabin crew on portable O2 would die from extreme hypothermia very quickly after.
Fuel runs out
I know very little about MH370. These are just my thoughts…
@IvicaM,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
There are two key items of information with regard to MH370:
(1) The Inmarsat satellite maintained contact with MH370 for 7 hours 38 minutes until 8th March 2014 00:19:37 UTC.
(2) The endurance for MH370, which was loaded with 49,600 kg of fuel in Kuala Lumpur, is calculated to have lasted around 7 hours 34 minutes (depending on altitude flown and aircraft configuration selected).
MH370 carried on flying for over 7 hours until fuel exhaustion. The aircraft was not involved in a collision and did not experience a catastrophic failure. MH370 made several turns and followed a flight path around Penang Island into the Malacca Strait, so the navigation system appears to have been functioning correctly after the diversion.
MH370 passed by a number of major airports at Kota Bharu, Penang, Langkawi, Phuket, Kuala Lumpur, Medan and Banda Aceh with a runway long enough for a Boeing 777, but no attempt was made at an emergency landing. There was no attempt to communicate using one of the 3 VHF radios, 2 HF radios or satellite phone or messaging system.
We do not have sufficient evidence to be able to know exactly what happened to MH370 and why. We need to find the wreckage and recover the Flight Data Recorder to help solve the mystery of MH370.
Good morning all! I was recently researching some sources of acoustic data and I ran across the hydro acoustic analysis of the HA01W CTBTO hydrophone. I did 30 years worth of acoustic analysis for the US Navy and and I am interested in doing my own analysis of the hydrophone data for this event to see if there is data that may have been over looked. Is it possible to get a copy of the actual acoustic recordings?
The notes on the analysis of the CTBTO hydrophone discuss the impact on the order of 5.6GJ of energy but I think that implies a nose first burn in from altitude. There is a possibility that it was a controlled flat unpowered landing similar to US airways 1549 which would make for a significantly quieter impact event. My navy experience with recordings of sinking’s tells me that that type of event would have a much different profile and timeline.
@RobertP,
Welcome to the blog!
I can put you in touch with academics who have analysed the actual acoustic recordings from HA01 at Cape Leeuwin, which is a triangular set of hydrophones.
Here is a YouTube recording at HA01:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksfInwSHVwU
Do I have your permission to give out your email to these academics?
Also of interest is any acoustic recordings at HA04 Crozet Islands and HA08 Diego Garcia, which are also in the Indian Ocean.
Please do so, I would be very happy to assist if at all possible.
@RobertP,
I have written to Tom Kunkle and Alec Duncan giving them your email address and asking after the HA01 CTBTO hydrophones data for the MH370 event. There are 3 hydrophones arranged in a triangular manner to be able to estimate the direction of an acoustic source.
@RobertP,
Good to see the positive response from Alec Duncan and his support to get you the HA01 CTBTO hydrophone data you are looking for. Please keep us informed of progress.
How likely is it that the tyres would have burst on impact or exploded as the undercarriage sank to the ocean floor?
If the tyres exploded due to the sudden increase in pressure as the undercarriage sank then it might be that the hydroacoustic data contains more than just the sound of the plane hitting the water.
On the other hand, if the tyres did not burst on impact or explode as they sank, but deflated and remained attached to the undercarriage, then it might be that between them Goodyear, Michelin, Bridgestone and Dunlop could give some indication of the rate of decay or the tyre rubber at various depths and pressures in salt water after nine years.
Monitoring for microscopic traces of the decomposing tyres, in conjunction with other tracking data, might help to pinpoint the location and depth of the undercarriage.
@TommyL,
All sealed items, generally termed tankage, will implode at depth. Oxygen bottles, fire extinguishers, fire suppression gas pressure vessels, hydraulic reservoirs as well as landing gear tyres are all candidates.
In 2016 Tom Kunkle of LANL asked for scientific and engineering opinion as to whether “tankage” (generic term here used for hollow stuff that might implode at depth) would violently implode or just sort of ooze closed. The mechanical engineers ran some code calculations and reported no implosion of metal tankage, just oozing. The Navy people were in favour of violent implosion, based on deep underwater operational experience.
The long-running clean up of Osborne Reef off Fort Lauderdale may have yielded some useful commercial, military and scientific data about the dispersal over time of decomposing tyres in shallow salt water.
It may be that some of the agencies and corporations involved have equipment and skills in detecting the presence and location of old submerged tyres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef
Hi Richard, new to the blog here. Have had a passion for the search for MH370 since it disappeared all those years ago through school and college and have also extensively researched the AFR447 case. Air crash investigation interests me to a high degree.
Just one or two questions about the latest WSPR flight plan compared to the initial one if you have time to answer I would be most grateful.
Having watched the Sky News Australia documentary released last year discussing your work, it focused quite a lot on the 20 minute holding pattern where it is speculated to have been a potential negotiation and contributed to the narrative that the Malaysian government know something they’re not telling us.
Does the holding pattern in the latest WSPR flight plan still hold the same significance as the initial one? The location of the holding pattern appears to have changed substantially since the first published potential route. Does it still remain that 20 minute endurance?
Also the fact that the WSPR flight plan has changed a fair amount from the first one (and since the Sky documentary where it was heavily reviewed), can we expect more updates to it in the future and will it ever get to a point (before a search) where one can say; “yes this is the believed final route it took, it cannot be updated any further from the data we have to review.”
Thanks very much and thank you for being one of the biggest drivers to get the search restarted. Best, Louis
@Louis,
Welcome to the blog!
We have issued two reports using WSPR data to detect and track MH370. The first report was published 31st December 2021. The second report was published 8th September 2022.
In the last 18 months significant improvements have been made in both the process to detect and track aircraft and the software tools used to support the process. We have run a number of case studies, which have helped identify improvements.
The whole process is now fully automated, eliminating manual steps which are prone to the possibility of introducing errors. Another major advance is the development of a database with the precise latitude and longitude of each antenna used in WSPR transmissions. There is also a tighter definition of what constitutes a SNR or drift anomaly in the WSPR data.
An accurate antenna location database for the global static WSPR stations provides an effective passive radar system for detecting and tracking aircraft. Currently there are around 7,000 WSPRnet links every two minutes globally. In 2014 there were only around 500 WSPRnet links every two minutes globally and it is a major step forward to ensure the smaller coverage in 2014 of this passive radar system is of the highest accuracy.
It is perfectly possible that the holding pattern may turn out to be an artefact of the earlier versions of the software system (GDTAAA V5) or the 6 character Maidenhead grid locators (a 6 character code has a precision better than ±5.2 km) or the definition of a SNR anomaly (>= 0.75 standard deviation) or an error in manual processing steps.
We are currently rerunning the MH370 flight path with GDTAAA V9 using a fully automated process. We plan to share the results privately with the relevant authorities and companies like Ocean Infinity who have the objective and capability to search for the wreckage of MH370. The kick off meeting is planned next week. A new paper describing the findings will follow in due course. We again plan to offer to share our code and data package with academics who are interested in trying to reproduce our results.
There are currently two other academic groups working independently of us and using the WSPRnet data to detect and track MH370. Only recovery of the Flight Data Recorder will show how close the final analysis is to the actual flight path taken by MH370.
Many thanks for your detailed response Richard!
Perhaps the holding pattern in the 2021 route was over-dramatised for television?
Regardless, it is great to hear of the latest efforts by yourself and the team and I wish you the best of luck with the meeting next week and thank you for answering my questions.
As I understand it, Ocean Infinity are looking at a new search to start early 2024. Do they still need permission from the Malaysian government to restart the search or can they bypass them? And is there any public update on how this is going? I suppose the Malaysians would have to agree to something because should Ocean Infinity find the aircraft they will require payment? Many thanks, Louis
@Louis,
Ollie Plunkett (CEO) has publicly stated that Ocean Infinity considers the underwater search for the wreckage of MH370 as “unfinished business”. He also explained that they are an organisation that has “salaries to pay and mouths to feed”.
Legally they do not need permission to look in international waters.
However they need permission to salvage.
As you point out, they also need a contract to receive compensation from the Malaysian government.
any updates on when the new search will begin? thanks
@Rohan,
Welcome to the blog!
The next search is planned towards the end of this year or at the beginning of next year.
There is a lot of activity going on behind the scenes to prepare for the next search, but no final date has yet been published.
Dear Richard Godfrey, I’ve been fascinated by the loss of MH370 since I was very young. I can’t wait for it to eventually be found and brought to the surface. I also can’t believe it’s been 9 years since it vanished, May you explain to me how you think it crashed into the ocean and if possible the entire scenario that occurred on 8th march 2014. May you also update me on the latest with regards to ocean infinity’s pledge to search for it again. I believe your findings are the truth and I believed from very young it must of been the captain involved. Look forward to hearing from you from Leon✊
@All,
David Mearns is a wise man talking from great experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3pmT-8k-2Q
I have had the honour to meet David personally and spend 3 days briefing him on MH370.
Dear Mr Godfrey,
I’m very fascinated by the tragic disappearance of MH370 and a fan of your dedicated work. Thank you for this.
One thing that really interests me is whether you are familiar with the statements of Larry Vance who has written 2 books (which I´ve red), one about MH370 in particular and one about his life as a aircraft crash investigator. In a presentation (available on YouTube), he says that he and his co-writers are “100% sure” that the pilot conducted a controlled ditching and that the plane was in a landing configuration (flaps down etc.). This is contrary to e.g. Blane Gibson and lots of other people who are very sure that the flaps were retracted and maybe it was a high-speed dive etc. I found his book quiet persuasive and there is no shed of a doubt to me that this man is credible, so are his co writers.
Are you familiar with his books/work and where do you agree/disagree? Thank you very much. Best regards from Berlin
@Michael,
Welcome to the blog!
The theory of a controlled ditching put forward by Larry Vance and others has been debunked long ago. The 41 items of confirmed or possible MH370 floating debris recovered so far, comprise parts from the exterior and interior of the aircraft. There are items from the nose, wings, engines, tail, cabin dividers, flooring and seat back trim.
When Scully performed a controlled ditching on the Hudson River, there was a complete absence of floating debris from any part of the aircraft. Of course, the Hudson River is not the same as the Indian Ocean.
Larry Vance contends the findings of a number of accident investigations. Vance rejected the official finding of the Swissair Flight 111 near Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia on 2nd September 1988, where he was one of the investigators. Vance was also involved in an attempt to overturn the outcome of the Helios Flight 552 investigation, where he was not one of the investigators.
Vance said trace levels of magnesium found in the wiring and other wreckage of the Swissair Flight 111 could be easily explained by their prolonged exposure to sea water. “Everybody knows that magnesium is in pretty high concentrations [in seawater], it makes up a large part of the salt in seawater,” he said. “So I don’t think anyone was particularly surprised to find that there was magnesium in minute amounts.”
Several other investigators and a federal scientist supported the view that the high levels of magnesium, a key ingredient in an incendiary device, which were discovered in the cockpit area confirm the cause of the onboard fire on Swissair Flight 111.
On 6th January 2018 Captain John Cox kindly offered to set up a meeting with Larry Vance with myself and other analysts to exchange views on the MH370 findings. A meeting was scheduled, but Larry Vance pulled out at the last minute.
@All,
A new study has been published titled “A Stable Isotope Sclerochronology-Based Forensic Method for Reconstructing Debris Drift Paths With Application to the MH370 Crash” by Nasser Al-Qattan, Gregory S. Herbert, Howard J. Spero, Sean McCarthy, Ryan McGeady, Ran Tao, Anne-Marie Power.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023AV000915?fbclid=IwAR3dGkrINfCajAw62H7thuorrF_Ia9j4EJoUpgtlb_zpghBcaFpmeLiq5hk
I am not a marine biologist or oceanographer. As a physicist, I can only make general observations.
As the authors state in their study: “A severe limitation of this approach is that individual Sea Surface Temperatures do not have unique spatial solutions, especially on the scale of ocean basins over time.”
I would also point out the statement by oceanographers Rosemary Morrow and Pierre-Yves Le Traon: “The ocean, like the atmosphere, is a fundamentally turbulent system.”
1. The study does not give a crash location for MH370, but rather presents a method for determining the MH370 crash location.
2. The study focuses on one item of debris, the Flaperon found on Reunion. There are 41 items of possible MH370 floating debris which have been reported to the authorities from around the Indian Ocean. A number of other items also had barnacles attached when found.
3. The range of duration between 8th March 2014 and the time of reporting the various finds possibly from MH370 is from 508 days to 1,626 days. The study focuses on one specimen A2-G1 from the Flaperon with an estimated age of 154 days. This only covers 30% of the 508 days the Flaperon drifted.
4. David Griffin, the oceanographer appointed by the ATSB to investigate the MH370 drift analysis showed the importance of considering both Stoke’s drift and windage, both of which were ignored in this study.
5. Charitha Pattiaratchi, the oceanographer from the University of Western Australia, who investigated the MH370 drift analysis, questioned the utility of this study in being able to determine precisely the crash location of MH370.
@All,
A Stable Isotope Sclerochronology-Based Forensic Method for Reconstructing Debris Drift Paths With Application to the MH370 Crash by Nasser Al-Qattan, Gregory S. Herbert, Howard J. Spero, Sean McCarthy, Ryan McGeady, Ran Tao, Anne-Marie Power.
“This same method could be applied to the largest, oldest barnacles collected from the same debris to provide important information about the debris drift origin and location of the missing plane.”
“Only partial drift reconstructions are possible until the largest, oldest barnacles are released for study by the French government.”
Barnacles are a great help to find the arrival time of a debris item. There are 4 items MH370 floating debris, which have been found with barnacles. Many barnacles were attached to the Flaperon when reported on Reunion. The Flaperon was taken to France and examined in detail by various authorities. Dr. Joseph Poupin, a Marine Biologist and an expert in crustaceans, took samples of the barnacles from 5 locations on the Flaperon on 9th August 2015, 11 days after the Flaperon was reported. A picture of the Flaperon barnacles is linked below:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/faytgvkq28j7qtmvpf0gh/Barnacles-Reunion-Flaperon.jpeg?rlkey=thba46cwccyrki93xh7ik2vu5&dl=0
As the barnacles had been out of the water for at least 11 days, they had lost their ability to generate the adhesive chemical they normally produce to maintain their attachment to their host and were easily falling or breaking off the Flaperon. It was decided to collect all the remaining barnacles. The DGA note in their report that the remaining barnacles, after sampling, had a total weight of 468.3 g. The barnacles were of the species Lepas Anatifera.
Professor Patrick De Deckker of the Australian National University was asked to perform an analysis of one of the barnacles from the Flaperon. He was given a barnacle 2.5 cm in length and used a laser to examine the make up of the shell by drilling tiny holes 20 microns in diameter. De Deckker determined the ratio of magnesium to calcium, which give clues to the temperature of the water in which the barnacle is growing. De Deckker cautions that the results are not conclusive, but it appears that the on-start of growth of the barnacles occurred in warmer waters, then the most extensive period of growth then took place in cooler water temperatures, and finally the more recent growth happened in the tropical waters around La Reunion. The picture below is courtesy of the Australian National University:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1kx5yqltja37spe7l5e0x/MH370-Barnacle-Analysis.jpg?rlkey=br37pu1w8f0593v0z6rry32d9&dl=0
A study of barnacles (predominantly Lepas Anatifera), gathering on and below the water line of an oil rig structure towed on its side by ship from Japan to New Zealand mostly through tropical waters, showed that there were colonies of barnacles with an average size of 248 lepas per m2 and with an average weight of 0.29 g. Barnacles were found on both submerged parts of the oil rig as well as surfaces below the splash line.
In the sea trials performed by David Griffin, with an authentic Flaperon cut down to the size of the damaged Flaperon from MH370, it was found that the Flaperon was pitching over every few minutes during the sea trials and did not simply drift along with its tail raised to the wind. This would keep the barnacles below the water for sufficient time for them to feed and survive.
The full surface area of the Flaperon is 7.9812 m2 and at 248 lepas per m2, you would expect to find a colony of almost 2,000 barnacles upon arrival. The total weight of barnacles found by the DGA was 468.3 g and if the average weight of a barnacle was 0.29 g, then you would expect a colony of around 1,600 barnacles. Given that several batches of between 30 and 50 samples were taken before weighing of barnacles and given that some barnacles may have been lost between beaching in Reunion and arriving in France, then the two calculation methods generally align.
Dr. Poupin compared photographs and videos taken in Reunion with the Flaperon he examined in France and confirmed in his report that there was no substantial loss of barnacles in the 11 day interval. Although the number of barnacles found is aligned to the number of barnacles expected, Dr. Poupin concluded that the Flaperon did not pitch over and remained submerged with only the flat underside facing upwards. Dr, Poupin identified 4 generations of colonies of barnacles on the Flaperon and concluded that the debris item had been in the water for 476 days. The Flaperon was found on Reunion 508 days after the crash of MH370.
From laboratory experience it takes barnacles 4 days to die, when out of sea water and unable to feed. From the observations of Dr. Poupin we know it takes 11 days for barnacles to start detaching from their host. From expert estimates, it takes 4 to 24 days for scavengers to clean a debris item. From the debris item “Roy” we know when it was found for the second time after 89 days, it was clean of barnacles.
The new study claims much more precise methods of tracking the MH370 Flaperon by analysing the barnacles attached to the Flaperon using the sea temperature experienced at each stage of development. The study cautions the possible precision achieved as “A severe limitation of this approach is that individual Sea Surface Temperatures do not have unique spatial solutions, especially on the scale of ocean basins over time.”
However I am sure that Alain Gaudino, the judge in charge of the MH370 case in France or Dr. Joseph Poupin the marine biologist, who examined the barnacles on the MH370 Flaperon, can spare a few of the older barnacles for researchers like Nasser Al-Qattan from the University of Kuwait and Gregory Herbert from the University of South Florida.
Dear Mr Godfrey,
Thank you for your continued updates which make for very interesting reading.
I find the 20 minute holding pattern particularly interesting and I know there have been a number of potential reasons for this put forward. However, I can’t help but wonder if this was following the depressurisation of the cabin. Of course we won’t know anything until the black boxes are located which I hope will be sometime next year if the search recommences.
Thank you for your efforts. Off the top of my head, the WSPR data seem to suggest that the plane did not fly in a straight line. Would that not reduce its maximum fuel range from what was initially assumed? What information would national intelligence agencies or Navies have about this; after all, I presume they are tracking various submarines and would notice any airplane size debris in the vicinity. Even if they didn’t see any, where they didn’t see any might rule out some locations, thereby narrowing the search area. WS0G.
@Walter R. Schumm,
Welcome to the blog!
You are correct that MH370 did not fly in a straight line, once over the Indian Ocean. Most analysts have assumed a straight line. However, a straight line makes it much easier to predict the end point of the flight. We have searched those end points without success.
You are correct to ask what information national intelligence agencies have on MH370. So far the Malaysian military have not released the primary radar data they claim to have detecting MH370. The Australian authorities have stated that their Over-the-Horizon-Radar JORN was switched off on the 7th/8th March 2014. The US authorities have stated that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation’s station HA08 on Diego Garcia is missing 25 minutes of data at the time it would have detected the impact of MH370.
I have not seen any disclosure of information on MH370 by any of the national intelligence agencies. As you say, even a negative report of detection of MH370 or floating debris would help rule out certain areas.
@All,
We have suffered the Netflix documentary series on MH370, where the key message was that there was a massive cover up, the debris was planted and the satellite data manipulated or fabricated and the truth will never come out.
Now we have to suffer the France Television documentary series, where the key message is that there is a massive cover up, the debris was planted and the satellite data manipulated or fabricated and the truth will never come out.
Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson are not CIA agents (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos).
The US is not implicated in the disappearance of MH370 (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy).
The US did not shoot down MH370 over the South China Sea (as claimed by Florence de Changy).
The US did not shoot down MH370 over Diego Garcia (as claimed by Marc Dugain).
The MH370 floating debris was not planted on the shores of the Indian Ocean (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos).
The Inmarsat satellite data were not fabricated (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy).
The detection of the co-pilot’s mobile phone over Penang was not fabricated (as claimed by Florence de Changy).
Benoît Bringer and Guillaume Vénétitay give us the French version of Netflix in their documentary “MH370, la vérité disparue” (the truth disappeared) in France Television.
This time it is not a spy story like Netflix with Blaine Gibson as a Russian spy, for the French Television audience there are now two American spies, Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson, and the spy story is an even bigger puller.
Sarah Bajc lost her partner Philip Wood on flight MH370, just as Ghyslain Wattrelos lost his wife and two children. For Ghyslain Wattrelos to claim that Sarah Bajc was sent by the CIA to control the MH370 Families is ridiculous. For Ghyslain Wattrelos to claim that when Sarah Bajc left for Panama to start a new life, that Blaine was sent to replace her as a CIA agent to control the MH370 Families is doubly ridiculous.
This follows the previous documentary by Olivier Sibille for France Television titled “MH370 : aller simple pour l’inconnu” a one way ticket to the unknown, broadcast in 2019 and which implicates the US at Diego Garcia. The proof presented by Oliver Sibille is that a large jet with two engines, light grey underside, with red and blue line markings, was seen by several eye witnesses flying low over Kudahuvadhoo in the Maldives in a southerly direction early in the morning of 8th March 2014 toward Diego Garcia. Olivier Sibille falsely states there was no large jet landing or taking off from the Maldives of that description on that morning.
Meanwhile we know that this was likely a private jet of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which was a Boeing 777-200ER, just like MH370, registration HZ-AKF, with a light grey underside, with orange and blue line markings. The aircraft was overhead Kudahuvadhoo at 07:55 local time and landed at Malé Velana Airport in the Maldives at 08:37 local time on 8th March 2014.
Olivier Sibille states that a crash near Diego Garcia explains why all the debris has been found on the coast of Eastern Africa and nearby islands and not on the coast of Western Australia. Olivier Sibille explains that no debris was found in Australia, which is much closer to where Inmarsat places the crash near the 7th Arc. So the debris locations prove that the eye witnesses were right and that Inmarsat was wrong. Olivier Sibille obviously does not understand Oceanography.
Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi is an Oceanographer and he told Blaine Gibson where to look for debris in Riake Beach, Madagascar. “This is the location where the South Equatorial Current first encounters land after crossing the Indian Ocean. The next place to look would be the sandbanks in the Mozambique Channel.” An Oceanographer correctly predicting where debris will land, does not mean that debris was planted. It simply means the prediction was correct.
In the Netflix documentary 3rd episode at 12:11, Ghyslain Wattrelos refers to the “first debris”, found by Blaine Gibson, which was “No Step” found in Mozambique near Vilankulos on a sand bank within 2 hours. Ghyslain Wattrelos falsely claims “all the Anglo-Saxon TV were there”. There was no film crew in Mozambique from any nationality.
In the France Television documentary 4th episode at 23:58, Ghyslain Wattrelos repeats his story, but now it has moved to Riake Beach in Madagascar and debris was found within 10 minutes. Benoît Bringer shows a film crew on Riake Beach filming Blaine Gibson as he is hunting for debris. What Benoît Bringer does not say is that the film was old footage from Olivier Sibille and was first broadcast on 21st March 2019 by France Television in their programme Complement d’Enquete. The film was shot in Madagascar on 6th June 2016. Olivier Sibille had requested to accompany Blaine Gibson on one of his trips to Madagascar. In the original film, it took 3 hours to find debris on Riake Beach and the film crew were not Anglo-Saxon but French.
Now Benoît Bringer uses the old footage from 2016 to support the claim by Ghyslain Wattrelos that Blaine Gibson knows exactly where to look for debris, because he previously planted it. Was this a set up by France Television to entrap Blaine Gibson and make him look like he was planting debris?
In the Complement d’Enquete programme from Oliver Sibille in 2019, Ghyslain Wattrelos also claims we never received the Inmarsat data from the UK, but we received the entire set of raw data from Inmarsat in 2017.
In summary, France Television has consistently over a period of several years broadcast documentaries claiming the official MH370 narrative is wrong, Inmarsat is fabricated, questioning the crash location of MH370 and implicating the US, with either the US base at Diego Garcia or CIA agents or US AWACS aircraft or a US shoot down of MH370. Benoît Bringer excluded WSPR which independently supports the Inmarsat satellite and Oceanography data, despite filming me all day on the subject.
Benoît Bringer also excluded evidence from Christophe Bordes who is Head of Department of « Investigations following incidents or accidents » at the French Ministère de la Défense – Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), who had read our report on the Tataly debris and was the “French expert who authenticated the flaperon from La Réunion” and operating as an expert witness by order of the Judge Alain Guadino of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris and Alain Koenig the French police lead investigator at the Gendarmerie Nationale. Christophe Bordes concluded that the Tataly debris: “could indeed be a part of the 370. On the other hand, in the absence of marking, we cannot be sure. An analysis of the painting could give a clue to the origin”.
France Television is government owned and run.
The accusation by Ghyslain Wattrelos that Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson are CIA agents is all based on his personal feelings and suspicions.
Ghyslain Wattrelos admits he might be “dingue” (crazy), but for him it is “évident” (obvious) that Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson are CIA agents. Ghyslain Wattrelos can hardly stop himself laughing, when he makes those false claims during the interview by Benoît Bringer.
I could equally make the case based on my personal feelings and suspicions that Ghyslain Wattrelos is a member of the French secret service and was sent to China as the director of La Farge as a cover for his spying on China, but that would be ridiculous.
I could equally make the case based on my personal feelings and suspicions that Florence de Changy is a member of the French secret service and was sent to Hong Kong as the Asia Correspondent for Le Monde as a cover for her spying on Hong Kong, China and other Asian countries, but that would be ridiculous.
Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson are the victims of a French government sponsored anti-American defamation campaign based on the false claims of Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy and inflamed by the government run French media.
The truth about MH370 is a victim of a French government sponsored anti-American misinformation campaign based on the false claims of Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy and inflamed by the government run French media.
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas has published a new article at airlineratings.com titled “MH370 Myths Debunked”:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/industry-news/mh370-myths-debunked/
“Leading MH370 authority Richard Godfrey has published a comprehensive debunking of the bizarre theories that have been aired recently on French TV on the disappearance of the Boeing 777 on March 8, 2014.”
Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson are not CIA agents (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos).
The US is not implicated in the disappearance of MH370 (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy).
The US did not shoot down MH370 over the South China Sea (as claimed by Florence de Changy).
The US did not shoot down MH370 over Diego Garcia (as claimed by Marc Dugain).
The MH370 floating debris was not planted on the shores of the Indian Ocean (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos).
The Inmarsat satellite data were not fabricated (as claimed by Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy).
The detection of the co-pilot’s mobile phone over Penang was not fabricated (as claimed by Florence de Changy).
Sarah Bajc and Blaine Gibson are the victims of a French government-sponsored anti-American defamation campaign based on the false claims of Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy and inflamed by the government-run French media.
The truth about MH370 is a victim of a French government-sponsored anti-American misinformation campaign based on the false claims of Ghyslain Wattrelos and Florence de Changy and inflamed by the government-run French media.
@All,
I have been contacted by someone living in Exmouth on the tip of North West Australia. Exmouth is home to the Harald E. Holt (HEH) military base, which was originally built by the US military and my contact knows former US personnel, who worked at the base for a time period spanning 30 years.
The HEH military base is a fascinating place with a number of communications, surveillance and radar systems for land, sea, air and space operations. One US radar operator at HEH claimed the “station could detect a Cessna aircraft taking off at Kuala Lumpur airport”. It is therefore quite possible that HEH could detect MH370 on its flight path over the Indian Ocean, but no report has ever been officially released.
HEH was commissioned on 16th September 1967 and the US personnel mostly left in 1993. In 1997 Australia officially took over responsibility for the facility, although US involvement and funding continued. After December 2002, operation of the station passed to the Defence Materiel organisation’s Electronic and Weapons System Division together with contractors from Boeing Australia. HEH is currently operated and maintained by Raytheon Australia.
The main VLF radio towers transmit at 19.8 kHz with a transmission power of 1 million Watts (1 MegaWatt). The towers are built on a base using 386 kilometres of bare copper ground mat made out of copper wire to ensure a ground plane. They support communications with submarines submerged in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean.
The transmitter is so powerful that a Qantas flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth flying 154 km West of Learmonth on 7th October 2008 experienced a disturbance to its flight computer system. A software fault within the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) designed to protect from spikes in the data from the angle of Attack (AoA) sensors did not function properly and the powerful radio transmitter at HEH caused the ADIRU to falsely issue a descent command. 110 passengers were injured and the aircraft made an emergency landing at Learmonth. The ADIRU was manufactured by Northrop Grumman and an emergency airworthiness directive was issued to address the problem of the A330 and A340 aircraft. A similar incidence occurred with flight QF71 on 27th December 2008, but the crew performed the procedure issued by Airbus to correct the problem and the flight turned back to Perth without further incident.
I am sure that the HEH facility was able to detect MH370 over the Indian Ocean, but despite much speculation in the media, no official report was published of any MH370 sighting. Either the station was not operational, not looking for aircraft or not willing to reveal its capability.
Similarly the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) station was not operational on the night of 8th March 2014, when MH370 disappeared. A friend of mine who worked for JORN made a similar claim that “they could watch planes landing and taking off at Singapore Changi Airport”.
It would appear that either the Australian authorities missed an opportunity to solve the mystery of the disappearance of MH370 or are not willing to tell for fear of revealing their true capability.
We know the JORN was down, but if up, operates by looking at small selected target zone with no real chance of spotting MH370 even if it was looking for it. HEH radar is completely new idea, we have not heard anything about it. As with JORN, there are two questions: (1) what could JORN do in theory, if it was looking (answer=not much) and (2) what did the pilot *think* it could do, and therefore change plans to avoid it?
To my understanding the HEH base is a low frequency /high power comms system -it is not a “radar”.
@John,
HEH is primarily a low frequency high power comms system, but there is also a radar capability according to a former chief radar operator.
re:”the powerful radio transmitter at HEH caused the ADIRU to falsely issue a descent command.”
Small local signals can also interfere adversely with aircraft systems.
In 2015 the Australian Government published a civil aviation advisory circular advising of the risks posed to civil aviation by electromagnetic interference.
One of the many potential interference sources it lists is mobile phones.
The report notes that in tests mobile phones had caused smoke alarm warnings to activate erroneously.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/advisory-circular-21-53-electromagnetic-compatibility.PDF
Is it possible to secure a copy of the data used to predict the flight path? I am currently reviewing a 5th year Statistics subject on Spatial Analysis and this sounds like a great project to analyse and replicate. The Lecturer of this subject would be a real asset into solving this puzzle. There may be a number of PhD candidates who may also be interested and may be able to develop new methods.
@Peter Williams,
Welcome to the blog!
We make all our data and processes available to academic institutions. I will contact you by email and arrange the details. Many thanks for your interest in our work.
Hi Richard,
It’s wonderful to read your work on WSPR tracking, what you’ve managed to do is amazing.
It’s hard to believe it’s already been 10 years since the early days of this research by yourself and others over on Duncan Steels site, but heartening to know there’s still a determination to find MH370.
If this has been answered before then feel free to point me to the article.
I’m curious about the path of the plane in your WSPR data as it crosses the 3rd, 4th and 5th ping arcs themselves. Why do you suppose the plane is following/running parallel the arc itself?
Do you think this us just a random coincidence? It just stands out when looking at the map.
All the best
Rob
@Rob,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words.
You ask about the path of the plane in our WSPR data as it crosses the 3rd, 4th and 5th ping arcs themselves. Why do you suppose the plane is following/running parallel the arc itself?
This is random coincidence due to the fact that MH370 is generally heading southwards and the arcs where MH370 intersects them are also generally heading southwards.
This is an artefact of the scale of the map depicted in the post above, which is over a year old. The close up views at 3rd, 4th and 5th arcs reveal a different and more detailed story.
Here is a link to a map of the precise MH370 flight path:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s31s8ukay0z7bjrtvctlm/MH370-Flight-Path.png?rlkey=tjjpsqvj0r78ijii6drauaquc&dl=0
Hi Richard,
thanks for the image that makes it much clearer, it’s strangely eery looking at the meandering path the plane took after thinking for so many years that it simply flew straight.
In the early images you implied the possibility of a holding loop near Indonesia, with the new image is the current hypothesis that the holding loop isn’t there anymore?
Do you suppose with the plane zig zagging and sometimes heading towards Australia’s west coast that their JORN radar system picked it up and recorded it?
Best wishes
Rob
@Rob Lewsey,
I do not expect new visitors to my website to read all 43 posts and the attached 2,263 comments, so please excuse me if I point out that these issues you raise have been fully discussed before.
To save you from looking through the website here are the key comments in answer to your questions,
I have dealt at length on this website with the issue of straight line thinking. When an aircraft wants to fly from A to B it will usually follow a great circle path, with the possible exception of a diversion around bad weather. This appears to be a straight line because the track changes only slightly all the time during the flight along great circle path.
When an aircraft is hijacked and diverted, then the perpetrator does not want you to know where B is, so a straight line is not followed.
The most recent comment on straight lines was on 10th March 2024 at 15:17 CET “If you fly in a straight line for 6 hours over the Indian Ocean until fuel exhaustion, then it is easy to calculate where you will end up. We have searched this area and did not find MH370.”
Earlier the same day at 14:29 CET in response to the paper by Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand: “They hypothesise a “quasi-straight-line path to the south” from 18:40 UTC to 00:11 UTC, firstly at 188°M then at 178°T. This is based on the Inmarsat satellite BTO and BFO data alignment as shown in their Table 17. The big question is what happened in between the approximately hourly gaps in the Inmarsat satellite data? They make a big assumption, that the pilot continued in a straight line flight for each of the approximately hourly legs in between each satellite data point.”
A more extensive comment on straight line thinking is linked here dated 9th March 2024 at 11:18 CET:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/02/15/wspr-aircraft-tracking/comment-page-1/#comment-2484
The first comment on straight line thinking was on 18th November 2021 at 21:01: “ATSB, DSTG, Inmarsat, Boeing, IG and just about every other analyst assumed that MH370 flew in a straight line due south.”
This was followed by another comment and graphic:”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
I first mentioned a holding pattern in a comment on 18th April 2021 at 00:26 CET: ” It appears that a holding pattern was subsequently flown before MH370 headed further south.”
The possibility of a holding pattern was first explained as an artefact of an early software version about 2 years ago and has been discussed in 70 comments on this website.
The most recent comment on the software artefact was on 9th March 2024 at 14:01 CET: “As previously reported, the holding pattern was an artefact of an earlier version of the software used in the analysis.”
The first mention of an artefact was in a comment on 14th June 2023 at 09:00 CET: “It is perfectly possible that the holding pattern may turn out to be an artefact of the earlier versions of the software system (GDTAAA V5)”.
Similarly the most recent comment on JORN was by @TBill on 29th January 2024 at 21:03 CET: “We know the JORN was down, but if up, operates by looking at small selected target zone with no real chance of spotting MH370 even if it was looking for it.”
The first comment on JORN was by myself quoting my friend Duncan Steel who worked on JORN on 21st February 2021 at 12:05 CET. It was a lengthy comment and is linked here:
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/01/21/mh370-debris-drift-analysis/comment-page-3/#comment-370
quesion: who do you think, of the two pilots carefully orchestrated this event? was it the trainee or the experienced one?, because from the above information it was definitely done manually…
Question: What percent of a 777 will float and what percent will sink assuming a violent crash and the plane is broken up into many pieces with no piece of debris being greater than 8×8 feet?
@Bill Windflower,
Welcome to the blog!
Any items designed to float such as seat cushions or life rafts (if deployed) and any items with sufficient air trapped in them such as aircraft components with a honeycomb core will float. Some items can become water logged and eventually sink.
A violent crash is essentially a random process and the resulting damage to the aircraft structure and the various components depends on a number of factors. Heavier items like engine cores and landing gear will sink. Lighter composite materials will float.
It is impossible to says what percentage will sink or float or start off floating and become water logged over time. There will always be a small percentage that will float, but the majority will sink, if not immediately, then over time.
On the logistics of oceanic search and rescue
I spent 6 years in the US Navy and one of my primary missions was search and rescue. I flew on P8 Poseidon’s and there were some P8 crews tasked for searching some of the probable crash areas (i was not one of these crews). One thing I can say from my experience of searching the open ocean, whether it be for a downed aircraft or a fishing vessel out of fuel, is that the ocean is very, very big. By comparison the objects we are looking for in this massive expanse of remote water are absurdly small. Even with state of the art search radars finding even the largest floating pieces of a 777 require the right weather conditions, calm waters, and a bit of luck. Most open ocean search and rescue flights are just staring out the windows hoping you see something, you rarely do.
From people I have talked to about MH370, many seem to believe that there must be a cover-up because we already searched the area and found nothing. This is a reasonable conclusion if you have never done SAR (search and rescue) yourself. However, for those of us with experience there are major problems with the search effort.
The search area for MH370 is almost comically large. This isn’t anyone’s fault in particular, just a product of our lack of reliable intel. It would take decades to thoroughly search that area and that is ignoring that the sea is always in motion. Even searching an area 1% as large might not yield results.
Another problem is that the southern Indian Ocean is one of the most remote places on the planet. There are little to no islands, shipping traffic, air traffic, satellite coverage, fishermen, or research vessels. There isn’t even accurate weather or oceanographic information of the area. Its simply the search and rescue equivalent of a black hole.
As for the acoustic searches of the ocean floor; this is 1000 times more more hopeless. Acoustics were my primary job and detecting a stationary object on the ocean floor is one of the hardest possible things to do. The reason is very simple; you are always detecting the floor. When you ping you are listening for echoes. If you are pinging a plane of the ocean floor you would be hearing the echo of the plane at the exact same time and bearing as the echo of the ocean floor it sits on. You are just hoping that the metal in the wreckage reflets sound better than whatever the ocean floor in the area is comprised of. EXTREMELY difficult in the best circumstances.
I don’t claim to know what went wrong with MH370, nor am I sure that the flight wasn’t a product of foul play. However, I am sure that if the plane truly crashed in the southern Indian Ocean, finding it by the methods used by the US military would be highly unlikely. We simply can’t know anything for sure until we find the wreckage, and searching the open ocean is very expensive. Until the funding comes in and the search area gets shrunk dramatically we all just have to wait. 🙁
Richard,
The Mh370 blackboxes gave pings for about a month after going missing and I understand these pings were detected by Chinese and Australian search vessels. Are these two detections in the vicinity of the plane’s WSPR location?
@Veritas,
The Ocean Shield detection was around 1,000 km further North East of the WSPR crash point at 29.128°S 99.934°E.
The Haixun 01 detection was around 380 km further North East of the WSPR crash point.
Why wouldn‘t they search in those ping-areas?
Was it because they eventually found that the signal was coming from something different?
@Cessi,
The ATSB, CSIRO and DSTG in Australia were convinced, that MH370 crashed much further South in their analyses of the flight path, satellite data and drift models.
@All,
Armada 7806 is passing through the Sunda Strait on the way back to Singapore. Just beforehand Armada 7806 stopped for what appears to be an AUV exercise:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aa1ln5uuqx7inlz4o0rkj/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-05APR2025-0416-UTC.png?rlkey=58n6bp0u6i3p2ayibiew15tyq&dl=0
Armada 7806 was stopped for 10 hours 17 minutes at a location outside the shipping lanes:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ei5282qjh70mx4zzh1r6t/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-05APR2025-0416-UTC-Zoom.png?rlkey=xy30cqkcdkp10irhnbe5v0djy&dl=0