MH370 is one of the greatest aviation mysteries of all time. Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 was operated by a Boeing 777 aircraft with the registration 9M-MRO. The aircraft departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia on 8th March 2014 just after midnight at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to arrive in Beijing Capital International Airport, China at 06:30 local time.
MH370 never arrived. MH370 was diverted to the Indian Ocean and crashed after 7 hours 46 minutes, around 11 minutes after running out of fuel. There were 227 passengers and 12 crew on board from 14 different nations including 153 passengers from China and 38 passengers and 12 crew from Malaysia. Around 10 million commercial passengers fly every day and the safety of the airline industry relies on finding the cause of this and every other aircraft accident.
In this new case study by Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and Prof. Simon Maskell, we use ground breaking amateur radio technology called Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) to detect and track flight MH370. This aircraft tracking technology has been developed over the last 3 years and the results represent credible new evidence in the search for MH370.
From a known radar position, the case study presents 67 positions for MH370 over the next 6 hours 27 minutes of flight, as detected by a total of 125 anomalous WSPR links. The results of this case study align with the previous analyses by Boeing, Inmarsat and the drift analysis by the University of Western Australia of the MH370 floating debris that has been recovered from around the Indian Ocean. In a next step, Prof. Simon Maskell is also developing a variant of the algorithm first developed by DSTG Australia to determine the probable crash location of MH370, but this time modified to incorporate the WSPR data.
The MH370 Flight Path Analysis – Case Study can be downloaded here (37 MB, 232 pages).
@All,
A new report by Geoffrey Thomas has been published at airlineratings.com
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mh370-ground-breaking-report-reveals-location/
A new groundbreaking 232-page report has revealed a new location for MH370, which disappeared over nine years ago, on March 8, 2014, with a loss of 239 lives.
The prime location is 29.128°S 99.934°E, which is 842 nmi (1,560 km) from Perth.
The crash area is 70 nmi by 40 nmi (130 km by 74km) and about 46 per cent of the new area has been searched before.
I recorded seismic from two vessels 100 miles apart on that day, with some disturbing noise, offshore Somalia. if triangulated could possibly point to a crash location in the Indian Ocean.
John
Geophysicist
Hello,
For me it’s a bit weird that nobody took a look at the research from the following video, released 10 MONTHS ago : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plSIAPDW1Tk
Finding the believed exct location of the plane with a lot of different proof regarding the plane’s direction, comparing with Zaharie’s simulator, parts of the plane recovered on the shore of Africa and so on.
If it’s not “exactly” it’s very near. If someone has any contact with higher authorities at least to have a scan of the deep sea at these locations to figure out some shapes of the plane or what it’s left of, please do.
Thanks.
I have got to say, what you guys are doing is absolutely astonishing. This is an amazing thing and I have been fascinated ever since the flaperon was found off the plane. Reading this new report brings me hope that one day the will resume the search and find this plane. Keep it up!
Could there be a search soon
I need a full case study of MH370. and how has the invesgation loss of flight MH370 progressed since 2014
@Kasichka Annaduray,
Welcome to the blog!
Please see the next post for a full case study of MH370. and how has the investigation of the loss of flight MH370 and how it has progressed since 2014.
@All,
An interview with Geoffrey Thomas on Australian TV Channel 9 News:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g2UuJ8dUY8
Hats off for this outstanding development. I am just an aficionado with no technical expertise, but I am confident this is the closest the global community has been to finding MH370’s remains and solve the last pieces of the puzzle. Thoughts and prayers for the victims & their families.
@All,
An interview with Geoffrey Thomas on Sky News Australia regarding our latest case study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzUOIKVsoac&t=14s
I was intrigued when I came across this paper. However, once I understood the claims being made about 30 alarm bells went off in my head. The signal-to-noise for scatter off an aircraft at these distances cannot possibly be detected by commercial equipment, or any equipment for that matter. Sorry to be a skeptic but you cannot possibly be detecting signals off of MH370 as suggested in this paper. You should easily be able to test these theories using known flight paths on closer vehicles. If successful, it would be trivial to get published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. If unsuccessful there is no reason to go after a holy-grail such as MH370.
@Cyprien,
Welcome to the blog!
I have seen and dismissed this analysis previously, but many thanks for pointing it out again.
We do not know that an unknown perpetrator entered the MEC under the cockpit and pulled circuit breakers. We do not know that an unknown perpetrator entered the cockpit and locked everyone else out.
We do not know that the seat side telephone, internet, email and SMS satellite services were disabled. I am reliably informed that these seat side satellite services were not installed on 9M-MRO.
Other assumptions about flights to Jeddah and aligning with sunrise are pure conjecture.
It is possible that MH370 recovered from the accelerating descent at the 7th Arc and travelled further from the 7th Arc than first thought.
@Chris,
Welcome to the blog!
When I first heard about the idea of using WSPR to detect aircraft, I was a sceptic too!
I decided to try it for myself and found that it worked.
I suggest that you also pick an aircraft, download the ADS-B data for a particular flight and then download the WSPR data for the same time period and try it for yourself.
@All,
Flight MH370 was operated by a Boeing 777-200 with the registration 9M-MRO. The aircraft had a dual SATCOM configuration, where two Honeywell MCS-6000+ Satellite Data Units (SDUs) would work together in a master/slave relationship. The satellite Low Gain Antenna (LGA) was mounted on the centreline on top of the fuselage. The satellite High Gain Antenna (HGA) was mounted above door 3 either side of the fuselage. The HGA requires data from the aircraft systems to convert tracking and pointing coordinates to select the antenna array elements in combinations that point the antenna beam in the desired direction towards the satellite.
During the flights of MH371 and MH370 on the 7th/8th mach 2014 there were 70 log-on requests to the Inmarsat satellite system. There were 33 dual log-on requests on average 1,001 ms apart (min 962 ms, max 1,038 ms), 3 single log-on requests and 1 failed log-on request at 04:00:59 UTC during the flight of MH371.
The 3 single log-on requests were at 12:50:19 UTC during a ground engineering check, 18:25:27 UTC following the power up of the SDU after diversion and at 00:19:29 UTC after the APU came on line following fuel exhaustion.
The last dual log-on request was at 15:59:55 UTC to the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) Inmarsat satellite on Channel 10 and correctly identified the aircraft as 9M-MRO, the flight as MH370 and logged on to the In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) system with the password “Pet shop boys”.
The previous single log-on request at 12:50:19 UTC in Engineering was to the Pacific Ocean Region (POR) Inmarsat satellite on Channel 20 and also correctly identifies the aircraft as 9M-MRO, the flight as MH0000 and logged on to the IFE with the password “Pet shop boys”.
What is interesting to note is that the next single log-on request at 18:25:27 UTC after diversion is to the IOR Inmarsat satellite on Channel 10, but fails to identify the aircraft as 9M-MRO, fails to identify the flight as MH370, but still logs on to the IFE with the password “Pet shop boys”. Someone deleted the aircraft registration 9M-MRO and flight number MH370 in the onboard SATCOM system between 15:59:55 UTC and 18:25:27 UTC.
You may ask why only a single log-on request at 18:25:27 UTC? The pilot can select in the cockpit a single or dual log-on. Obviously the pilot knew that he did not require the additional capacity of voice or data channels, which the second SDU would provide.
The final single log-on request at 00:19:29 UTC after fuel exhaustion is to the IOR Inmarsat satellite on Channel 10, and also fails to identify the aircraft as 9M-MRO, fails to identify the flight as MH370 and does not complete the logging on to the IFE, which normally would be expected by 00:21:06 UTC. It is possible that the IFE was switched off in the cockpit after the SDU reboot at 18:25:27 UTC or lost power after fuel exhaustion or it is possible that MH370 crashed before 00:21:06 UTC.
The pilot clearly did not know how the SDU functioned and thought by deleting the aircraft registration and flight number he would go undetected by the Inmarsat satellite system. Pilots are trained in how to use the satellite system but are not trained in how the SDU functions.
This is interesting SATCOM discussion Richard and David, and I did not see it until now. Some new ideas for me . I had not been aware of the dual SDU units. Please give me some time to consider. I do have a certain viewpoint, that I speculate the pilot might have understood that the SATCOM might be a vulnerability re: phone calls might reveal if plane flying and possibly GPS location (turns out SATCOM calls do not reveal GPS but nobody except Inmarsat knew that).
@Richard. Re your, “The pilot clearly did not know how the SDU functioned and thought by deleting the aircraft registration and flight number he would go undetected by the Inmarsat satellite system.”
Interesting to see what outcome a simulator of the captain’s set-up would have indicated had he experimented with deleting rego and flight no?
@Richard. As I understand it, and having re-read the SIR pages 122 to 129, the in-flight single log-ons were related to prior power and SDU failure. That resulted in loss of the MAS370 flight id (from AIMS), earlier included in the pre take-off dual log-on; and also, presumably, the ‘Aircraft Number’ 9M-MRO, whose loss you mention also.
‘MH0370’ was the ACARS message header’s ‘Flight Information’, ACARS later of course being disabled. That, and the Aircraft Number, had been keyed in by the crew at 1556:08 (those capitals as per SIR page 108).
In any case as is evident, transmissions post-reboot do not require flight id/ flight information or apparently Aircraft Number and it is unclear on what basis a pilot would conclude that their absence would stop these transmissions or conceal their origin.
As also is evident, both dual and single log-ons allow voice and data transfer.
A difference between the in-flight log-ons and the engineering log-on at 12:50:19, also after SDU reboot, is that the former had not been preceded by a post-flight clearing of the FMS. In the latter the MH0000 awaits the Flight Information entry during the pre-flight procedures.
Of course none of that means a pilot did not intervene unsuccessfully after rebooting the SDU with halting transmissions or concealing their identity in mind, just that there is no evidence of him so doing.
Still, were there a record that he had made changes on his home simulator, like clearing the flight id via the MCDU (SIR page 383), apparently with that aim, that would be of interest.
Finally, as to the number of SDUs in the aircraft, the SIR pages 117 and 118 indicate there was just the one, that handling both dual and single log-ons.
@David,
I am not referring to anyones’s interpretation of what happened, I am referring to the raw data in the SITA satellite communication logs signal unit content.
There are two data entries with a logon request at 7/03/2014 15:59:55.413 UTC and at 7/03/2014 15:59:56.413 UTC. This is a dual logon and exactly 1 second apart in time.
The first data entry at 7/03/2014 15:59:55.413 UTC is “2F D0 10 75 00 8F C5 D0 FC 05 82 09 00 00 00 00 00 97 1F”.
The second data entry at 7/03/2014 15:59:56.413 UTC is “3F D0 10 75 00 8F C5 9A 82 A6 66 6E 60 40 41 00 00 93 88”.
The subsequent Eleven Octet User Data at 7/03/2014 15:56:09.768 UTC is “4B 79 75 00 8F 85 FF FF 01 32 AE B9 CD AD CD 52 4F B7 5E” which decodes to show “9M-MRO”.
The subsequent Eleven Octet User Data at 7/03/2014 15:56:10.259 UTC is “5B 79 75 00 8F 85 15 51 B0 B3 02 D3 B0 37 C1 CD C8 F4 D6” followed by “68 79 75 00 8F 85 B0 B3 37 B0 83 5D 7F 7F 00 00 00 FC B3”, which decodes to show “MH0370”.
At 7/03/2014 18:25:27.421 UTC there is only one data entry with a logon request.
The subsequent Eleven Octet User Data at 7/03/2014 18:27:03.905 UTC is “2B 09 75 00 8F C5 01 FF 1D 26 11 16 90 04 00 98 04 43 A8” which is empty and shows nothing.
The Subsequent Signalling Unit C2 at 7/03/2014 18:28:10.718 UTC is “C2 01 E8 01 00 50 65 74 20 73 8B 2C” followed by “C1 01 68 6F 70 20 62 6F 79 73 AB 9E ” which when decoded shows “Pet shop boys”, which is the IFE password. The aircraft registration and flight number are missing.
At 8/03/2014 00:19:29.416 UTC there is only one data entry with a logon request.
9M-MRO and MH370 are again missing.
Whether there is a single or dual logon is pilot selectable. To say there is no evidence of the pilot intervening in the logon process is patently false.
At the single logon on 7/03/2014 12:50:19.735 UTC in the engineering bay, the Eleven Octet User Data contained 9M-MRO and MH0000. They were not both missing in the raw data as was the case at 7/03/2014 18:27:03.905 UTC.
What I stated in my comment was: “The aircraft had a dual SATCOM configuration, where two Honeywell MCS-6000+ Satellite Data Units (SDUs) would work together in a master/slave relationship.”
It is obvious from what I stated, that there is one Satellite Data Unit box with the capability of two Honeywell MCS-6000+ Satellite Data Units. You misconstrue my statement about capability and configuration and falsely interpret it as a statement about the number of SDU boxes on the aircraft.
This falsehood was first put out by Mick Gilbert on Victor Iannello’s website. I advise you not to believe everything you read on that website and especially not the accusations that they are making: “fraudulent claims, patently false, bizarre, dishonest, untruthful, fraudulent misrepresentations, nothing at all, anonymous, doubtful, bogus, false contrivances, obsessive, unhinged and consciously fraudulent.”
Hi mate,
I have been reading all your stuff and quite frankly its quite impressive what you have been able to figure out and work out. I have been following MH 370 for a long time now and i totally agree with your work. i just wonder though will the search be restarted. it doesn’t look like to officials care anymore. just wanted to ask
Regards rcfullscale
@Rcfullscale,
Welcome to the blog and the kind words!
I am sure that either Ocean Infinity or Deep Sea Vision or Aqua Satellite will search again for MH370 and the aircraft wreckage will be found by one or the other interested and capable organisation.
Not all interested and capable parties are dependent on an official agreement and some are willing to search without compensation from the Malaysian authorities.
If MH370 is found, it can be photographed and filmed without permission. My understanding is that legally the wreckage can only be salvaged with the agreement of the Malaysian authorities. If such a salvage agreement were blocked by the Malaysians, then there would be an international outcry.
Thanks for the answer. I wasn’t familiar with the search situation, if it is found do you think there will be a recovery operation For what’s left at the bottom of the ocean?
@Rcfullscale,
In my view, only the key parts that will help in the investigation will be recovered.
Between101 to 105 longitude crossing the Tropic of Capricorn give and take latitude a few degrees south.Eddys deep turbulent took plane pieces to the Reunion island.
@Richard,
Looking at the WSPR flight path of MH370, I see an erratic pattern.
Maybe a pilot flying to avoid something.
The only thing that comes to my mind is other aircraft.
He did not want to get close because that would raise suspicion.
It sounds crazy. Has anybody thought of this?
But why did he come so close to EK407 that it could be noticed that the logo light on the tail was off? Maybe less than 10 miles?
Did he fall asleep for some time after the stressful hours? Or did he focus on another plane first and was too late? There was another plane passing not far at 2:14 UTC.
@Daan,
Other possibilities are:
A straight line flight, is easier to work out, where it will run out of fuel.
He was checking, whether he was being followed.
If other aircraft detected MH370 and reported his position and track, each report would indicate a different direction.