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.