It is a well established fact that radio waves can detect aircraft over short distances. Since the demonstration by Robert Watson-Watt and Arnold Wilkins in 1935 detecting a Handley Page Heyford aircraft by using radio signals from BBC Daventry, radar systems are now used around the world for aircraft detection and tracking. In this technical paper we demonstrate how WSPR signals can detect aircraft over short distances like radar.
During the 3rd November 2023 a total of nine flights were analysed with commercial aircraft including Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Canadair flying at altitudes between 7,350 feet and 37,000 feet in the vicinity of the transmitter W8AC. Eight of the nine flights were detected with a total of 13 SNR anomalies. In two cases flights were additionally detected by frequency drift anomalies.
Sometimes the presence of the aircraft would make reception possible, by deflecting the transmitted ray to the receiver. When the aircraft track aligned to the WSPR propagation path, we observed multiple SNR anomalies in successive two minute WSPR time slots. In five cases there were multiple transmissions at different frequencies in the same two minute WSPR time slot resulting in one or more SNR anomalies in the same time slot.
WSPR can act as a multi-static and multi-frequency passive radar system over short distances. In a subsequent technical paper, we will demonstrate how WSPR signals can detect aircraft over long distances using ionospheric propagation around the globe. In this paper we show how a single WSPR link can detect aircraft, in the next paper we will show how multiple WSPR links can combine to detect aircraft with a higher confidence level.
The technical paper can be downloaded here
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas at airlineratings.com has published the following article titled: “Revolutionary MH370 Tracking Proven Over Short Distances”.
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/revolutionary-mh370-tracking-proven-over-short-distances/
This technical paper highlights how WSPR works over short distances and the authors point out that since the demonstration by Robert Watson-Watt and Arnold Wilkins in 1935 of detecting a Handley Page Heyford aircraft by using radio signals from BBC Daventry, radar systems are now used around the world for aircraft detection and tracking.
“In this technical paper, we demonstrate how WSPRsignals can detect aircraft over short distances like radar. In a subsequent technical paper, we demonstrate how WSPR signals can detect aircraft over long distances using ionospheric propagation around the globe.”
good Morning. Impressive work they are doing. So based on this new analysis, the wreckage of the plane is slightly north of the previous report? Has Occean Infinity carried out the search in that sector before?
I keep asking myself why, if Captain Zaharie wanted to commit suicide (apparently without any reason for depression, or without a farewell letter), why fly to the south of the Indian Ocean doing those “Zigzags”? If I were a pilot, and I wanted to commit suicide.
A: I don’t do the zigzags, I simply go south of the Indian Ocean in a straight line (direct to Antarctica). The more I want to hide the plane, the further south I would go.
B: He crashed it directly into the China Sun Sea. Why fly 7 more hours and use up fuel? That theory is the one that still doesn’t close me.
Hopefully Ocean Infinity can find the plane in its new search, apparently further north than the Previous Site described.
Greetings
Omar
@Omar Lopez,
Welcome to the blog!
Ocean Infinity has searched out to a distance of 22 nmi from the 7th Arc at this latitude, but the analysis shows MH370 could be up to 48 nmi from the 7th Arc. The estimated crash location is between 28.782°S 99.362°E and 29.317°S 99.934°E and is slightly north of previous reports.
We still need to confirm the identity of the pilot flying MH370.
If you fly south in a straight line, then it is easy to calculate where you will end up. if your goal is to hide the aircraft, so that the evidence will not be found, then you would not fly a straight line due south.
If you were worried about colliding with another aircraft on one of the flight routes across the Indian Ocean, then you might briefly switch on the TCAS system to see if there are any other aircraft in the vicinity. As soon as you switch on the TCAS, you will give away your position. In order to mislead any other aircraft reporting your position, a zig zag path will result in a bearing that is always changing, which in turn will result in confusing ATC of your intended destination.
If you crashed the aircraft into the South China Sea, then it would make it even easier to find the aircraft.
I believe the pilot wanted to hide all the evidence and tried to ensure MH370 would never be found.
At the risk of sounding like an idiot I have a question that hopefully will answer a question I’ve had for a very long time.
First in the days and weeks following the disappearance of MH370 there were reports (I don’t know if they had been confirmed or not) that immediately after the turn to the west and then to the east over the China Sea the planes altitude changed very quickly from 37,500 feet, to over 40,000 feet, to 17,000 feet several times before leveling back to 37,500. Wouldn’t this be an obvious sign that there was some kind of interference in the cockpit and a struggle was occuring to try and take control of the plane?
Second question. Several countries have spent millions of dollars to try and find the location of MH370. Would it not be conceivable to use a plane that matches 9MRO specifications, (size, weight, remaining fuel,etc.) to the point of the last known turn to the south and follow it to see exactly what happens, when it happens, and the exact point of impact with the sea.
Again I don’t want to sound like an idiot. I have been obsessed with MH370 since it’s disappearance, and have followed the website, Facebook groups, and documentaries. I firmly believe that it was not pilot murder suicide. In the meantime I pray for the families and friends of the passengers and crew and that it is found before I pass away. It took 73 years to find the Titanic. I welcome any conversation or debate buddrick391@gmail.com. David Harris, Paw Paw WV.
Good afternoon i have the same question i mean.
I suport you that was not a pilot murder suicide. Again, as i said. If i want to commite massive suicide, why spend 7 hours from fuel, to go to the southern indian Ocean. For make dissapear the airplane? why?
I Mean i saw many many times the flight path i am suporting you this not was a murder suicide, on my opinnion.
Regards.
Omar
@Omar Lopez,
The pilot flew 7 hours into the Southern Indian Ocean to hide the evidence. So far after almost 10 years this strategy has been successful.
The pilot obviously felt guilty, but did not want to be proven guilty.
Richard. You are putting your own theroy. it looks like u were on that plane. You are too much biased. your WSPR theory might be right. My question is why no one considers your findings if it has any weight? Why no one cares about your findings and search for Mh370 has not resumed.
@David Harris,
Welcome to the blog!
There is no such thing as a stupid question.
The official Malaysian Safety Investigation Report states: “The Military radar data provided more extensive details of what was termed as “Air Turn Back”. It became very apparent, however, that the recorded altitude and speed change “blip” to “blip” were well beyond the capability of the aircraft. It was highlighted to the Team that the altitude and speed extracted from the data are subjected to inherent error.”
It is generally accepted that the range of altitudes recorded by the Military radar data between 4,800 feet and 47,500 feet are incorrect. Primary radar only gives you the range and bearing of the aircraft and not the altitude. Secondary radar give the altitude as communicated by the aircraft, but that was switched off at diversion. The last known altitude was 35,000 feet. There is some evidence of a change of altitude, but no evidence of wild variations in altitude.
As to your second question, Boeing supplied a range of 22 possible flight paths in Appendix 1.6E of the same Malaysian Safety Investigation Report. Boeing considered flights at various altitudes and speeds. Most of the likely crash area options have been searched already without success.
In my view, it is a big assumption that the aircraft only flew in a straight line. I believe there was an active pilot until the end of the flight and the aircraft made turns and climbs during the almost six hours flying time over the Indian Ocean.
What would it cost to conduct an underwater search of the new projected area and what would a timeline look like?
@Jacob Thomas,
Welcome to the blog!
Based on current technology you would want two of the latest Hugin AUVs at $8M each and a boat and crew for something equivalent to Seabed Constructor for a six week timeframe based out of Fremantle, Australia.
The total package will require a ramp up time of two months at least.
The total cost will be of the order of magnitude of $32M.
Hey Richard,
I am a big fan of your work,
Have you seen the youtube video by Green Dot Aviation on MH370? There is some damning evidence against Zaharie in it (if true). I would recommend you watch it if you haven’t, although it is very long. If you have, tell me what you think about it please.
I also wanted to ask why a search for MH370 isn’t happening? I’m desperate for a search. What can we do as a community to get a search?
Thanks,
Rory
Do you know for sure whether MH370 ran out of fuel?
Did MH370 crash at high speed e. g. did it spiral down or just sink?
How could the pilot cause a pressure drop?
In addition, oxygen masks would have to come down and each passenger could breathe for 15 minutes. You could definitely have made an emergency call etc. there.
Or was the pilot able to manipulate the masks?
And why is Ocean Infinity hesitating for so long if they want to look for 2023 2024. Is there no statement from the CEO?
Thank you for your effort in answering all questions.
Merry Christmas to you and all the best.
@Elias,
Welcome to the blog!
We know for sure that MH370 ran out of fuel from the amount of fuel loaded, amount of fuel reported in the cruise and the Malaysian Airlines fuel consumption figures for both engines installed on 9M-MRO from their engineering data.
The Inmarsat satellite BFO data shows that a descent speed of at least 15,000 fpm was reached towards the end of flight. Boeing provided end of flight simulations which shows that it is possible to recover from a descent of 15,000 fpm, even without an active pilot, but only to eventually enter a subsequent steep dive. An active pilot may have been able to reduce the speed of descent, but without engine power and without flaps extended the crash would have been at a higher speed than required for a soft ditching. This is confirmed by the damage to the 43 debris items that have been recovered, many of which have been either confirmed as from MH370 or are highly likely to be from MH370.
The pilot can open outflow valves to allow a pressure drop in the cabin to equate with the outside air pressure, which is very low at high altitude.
The cabin oxygen masks are automatic and the pilot has no influence over them. They deploy when there is a loss of cabin pressurisation. There is certainly time to make an emergency call and time to descend to a low enough altitude.
There has been no official statement from Ocean Infinity recently as to their plans for a next search.
@Rory,
Many thanks for the kind words!
You ask what I think of the Green Dot Aviation on MH370?
Green Dot Aviation make it clear that this documentary is not a definitive analysis of what happened to flight MH370, but they state that in their view a murder/suicide by Captain Zaharie Shah is the most probable scenario and according to Occam’s Razor the most plausible scenario.
To hold up in a court of law, you would have to provide clear evidence that the accused not only had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime, but in fact actually committed the crime. In my view the documentary shows the Captain had the capability and opportunity, but it does not prove the intent to commit the crime. To conclude that the Captain committed the crime, because he was an opposition supporter who was upset with the political regime and government corruption is insufficient. The fact that the Captain had simulated a flight to the southern Indian Ocean until fuel exhaustion may well be seen as a smoking gun, but it still does not prove he pulled the trigger.
The documentary correctly points out that the transponder was switched to standby in the cockpit. The transponder mode selector has several positions. When XPNDR (transponder) is selected, the active transponder responds to ATC interrogations with mode A and mode C (altitude reporting) replies. When ALT RPTG OFF (altitude reporting off) is selected, the active transponder responds to ATC interrogations with mode A replies only. When STBY (standby) is selected, a ground discrete goes to both transponders. This ground discrete prevents operation of the transponder.
When the rotary switch for the transponder mode selector in the cockpit is in the XPNDR position, it has to pass briefly through the ALT RPTG OFF position to get to the STBY position. The last ADS-B data received from MH370 at Sultan Mahmud Airport in Terengganu with the identification “MAS370 _3414F3DF0820” and ICAO hex code “75008F” shows the flight level was 350 up until 17:20:33.61 UTC. Thereafter from 17:20:34.15 UTC there were two ADS-B data transmissions spanning a period of 0.4 seconds where the flight level was 0. The last ADS-B data transmission was at 17:20:34.55 UTC at a position 6.930275°N 103.591034°E, which is 0.968 km South East of waypoint IGARI on a bearing of 128°T. This shows that MH370 was already in the turn to the next waypoint at BITOD.
The documentary correctly shows there was not an electrical failure that caused the transponder to stop operating, but a pilot selection in the cockpit. This shows a clear intent to hide the aircraft. The additional fact that the ACARS position reporting system was switched off and no further ACARS reports were received either via the SATCOM or via VHF confirms the intent to hide the aircraft.
From this point on the documentary descends deeper and deeper into speculation. There is no evidence that the outflow valves were opened and all the passengers and crew died of hypoxia. There is no evidence that there was a sharp turn exceeding a 20° bank angle to avoid an incursion into Thai airspace in the Bangkok FIR. In fact the documentary admits that the aircraft crossed in and out of Thai airspace when flying back over the Malaysian peninsula towards Penang, as shown by the primary civilian radar data from the Kota Bharu Terminal Area Radar. It is perfectly possible to turn at a bank angle of 20° without an immediate incursion into Thai airspace.
The flight deck door switch in the cockpit on the P8 Aft Aisle Stand Panel is a two position illuminated push button switch marked LKD (locked) and UNLKD (unlocked) and not as shown in the documentary a three position rotary switch with 3 positions UNLKD AUTO and DENY. Flight MH370 was operated by a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft registration 9M-MRO with the serial number 28420, line number WB175 and was 404th aircraft of this type from the production line and delivered to Malaysian Airlines on 31st May 2002. There is no record of the flight deck door switch being upgraded on this aircraft.
The cooling fans for the AIMS equipment in the Main Equipment Centre (MEC) do not cease to operate when the 115V AC power is unavailable as there is a 28V DC backup. Langkawi is not the only radar in the Malacca Strait area that could have detected MH370. There is no evidence that MH370 followed a straight line flight in a southerly direction on a heading of 188°M after the final turn as shown in the documentary. The video of this change of direction is faked as the word “HDG” is missing next to the figures “188” on the MCP, but can be seen on the PFD.
There is no evidence that the Captain committed suicide hours before the end of the flight and MH370 ended up as a ghost flight with hours of fuel remaining. There is in fact evidence to the contrary that there was an active pilot until the end of the flight. There is no evidence to show that the In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) was still switched on and that the IFE initialisation should have been sent as part of the 00:19:29 UTC logon sequence.
The Green Dot Aviation documentary states that there are circuit breakers for the Flight Data Recorder System (FDRS) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (VOX RCDR) in the cockpit on the overhead panel. They even show the two circuit breaker panels, but on closer examination you will not find the circuit breakers. There are no circuit breakers for either the FDRS or VOX RCDR in the cockpit.
The FDRS circuit breaker is on panel P210 and the VOX RCDR circuit breaker is on panel P110 in the Main Equipment Centre (MEC) underneath the cockpit floor in the nose of the aircraft and only accessible by leaving the cockpit and accessing the MEC via stairs under the forward galley area.
In summary the Green Dot Aviation documentary has factual errors and delves in speculation to over dramatise their production. However, I do agree with Green Dot Aviation that Netflix got the MH370 story wrong in many more ways with the various conspiracy theories of Jeff Wise and Florence de Changy, just trying to sell their latest books. With over 140 books on MH370, there are many more theories than even Netflix can dream of.
We still do not know the full truth of MH370 and it is of the utmost importance in order to solve this mystery to find the aircraft wreckage and recover all the remaining evidence.
Thanks for replying with such a detailed explanation, it is very clear. What is the evidence that there was an active pilot until the end of the flight out of interest?
Also, I am (hopefully) heading to university in September 2024 for an Aerospace Engineering Beng, I would like to research MH370 while at university but I’m not sure where to start, are they any areas of the case that are particularly under-researched?
Thanks
Hello Mr. Godfrey, I am very interested in the case of MH370.
I have several questions on this topic:
Why didn’t any passenger or crew member make an emergency call?
There would have been enough time.
What time exactly did MH370 crash?
Is there clear evidence that MH370 changed altitude or that it was flying at FL 350 the entire time.
Can a plane disappear over the middle of the ocean today or have radars been improved since 2014?
Did MH370 land gently in the water or crash violently?
Thank you for answering my questions.
I wish you a Merry Christmas, a happy new year 2024 and all the best!
@Vincent Aichmayr,
Welcome to the blog!
Q1: “Why didn’t any passenger or crew member make an emergency call?”
The First Officer’s mobile phone was detected by a cell tower at the BBFARLIM2 base station at Bandar Baru Air Itam on Penang Island at 17:52:27 UTC. The Captain’s mobile phone was not detected by a cell tower on Penang Island.
It is very difficult to successfully logon to a base station from an aircraft at an altitude of around 35,000 feet and travelling at a speed of around 500 knots. There is an additional difficulty in logging on to a base station as the aircraft track followed the border between Malaysia and Thailand and not all passenger’s mobiles would necessarily support international roaming.
The point of diversion was over the Gulf of Thailand at 17:20:34 UTC, where there are no mobile base stations. According to the Kota Bharu Terminal Area Radar, MH370 only reached close to Kota Bharu at 17:37:49 UTC, which is 17 minutes 15 seconds after diversion. If there was a cabin depressurisation at diversion, and MH370 did not immediately start a descent to an altitude below 10,000 feet where there is sufficient oxygen, then the passenger oxygen masks would be insufficient to enable a passenger to remain conscious to make a call.
Q2: “What time exactly did MH370 crash?”
We do not know exactly what time MH370 crashed.
We know that the satellite data unit was working up to 00:19:37.443 UTC on 8th March 2014. At this point MH370 was descending rapidly at an abnormal rate of around 15,000 fpm, according to the DSTG analysis by Ian Holland of the Inmarsat satellite BFO data. The Boeing end of flight simulations show that in 5 cases it was possible to recover from such a descent rate without an active pilot.
The average for Case 3, 4, 6 and 10 was a glide range of 58.5 nmi and glide duration of 471.8 seconds. The average flight duration from the point of first reaching a rate of descent of -15,000 fpm was a further 129.5 seconds. This would imply a crash at around 00:21:46 UTC. With an active pilot, this time could be extended to 00:27:51 UTC and the ground speed reduced to a more reasonable ground speed of 163 knots on impact with a descent rate of – 1,722 fpm, without lowering the flaps, assuming a 19° glide slope and average altitude recovery of 19,636 feet after the first descent from 40,000 feet (or for Case 6 from a start altitude of 35,000 feet).
Q3: “Is there clear evidence that MH370 changed altitude or that it was flying at FL 350 the entire time.”
At 21:14 UTC MH370 turns towards waypoint UVUBI. There is an intersection of two anomalous WSPR signals at this point. MH370 slows from 500.2 knots to 482.6 knots and it appears there may be a step climb taking place. At 21:16 UTC MH370 turns towards the geographical waypoint 16S097E. There is again an intersection of two anomalous WSPR signals at this point. MH370 slows to 461.9 knots confirming a step climb is being executed. The duration and temporary speed reduction indicate a step climb of around 4,000 feet, for example from FL345 (34,500 feet) to FL385 (38,500 feet).
At 23:20 UTC MH370 is detected by 5 WSPR SNR anomalies with a 1.33, 1.32, 1.11, 1.07 and 1.03 standard deviation from the mean taken over ± 3 hours and is tracking towards waypoint 26S98E. The aircraft’s ground speed slows by 33.7 knots over a 4 minute period indicative of a step climb of 2,000 feet to say FL405 (40,500 feet). The change in ground speed cannot be explained by a change in the wind speed or wind direction.
The WSPR analysis indicates that there was neither a constant straight line flight path, nor a constant flight level. On the contrary, there were a large number of turns and two step climbs at around 21:14 UTC and 23:18 UTC, which will have significantly changed the fuel range.
Q4: “Can a plane disappear over the middle of the ocean today or have radars been improved since 2014?”
The military from several nations have been working on over-the-horizon-radar (OTHR) systems and are continuously making improvements. Australia had an OTHR in 2014 but it was not operational on the evening of 7th/8th March 2014. The USA has a number of OTHR systems covering the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean, but there is no evidence that there is detailed coverage of the Indian Ocean from the US base in Diego Garcia for example.
The ICAO has decided to implement their Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) for a Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) by 2027. The global aviation system continues to become more complex and technically advanced and in the future will include the increasing use of satellite-based communications, navigation and surveillance systems.
Q5: “Did MH370 land gently in the water or crash violently?”
MH370 broke up to a large extent on impact. We have recovered 43 items of floating debris with an average weight of 4.6 kg. The zero fuel weight of MH370 was 174,369 kg. This implies the number of aircraft fragments is of the order of magnitude of 37,900 items. Items have been recovered from every part of the aircraft, from the interior and the exterior, including cabin dividers, seat back video trim and parts of the nose, tail, wings and engines.
If it was almost impossible to make an emergency call with a mobilephone, couldn’t a flight attendant have made an emergency call using a satellite phone or something else?
Is it normaly possible if every passenger is calling 911 during a flight ? How is it working over the ocean?
Do you think the depressurization was done shortly after the flight disappeared from radar or is there also a chance that everyone was alive until the crash?
If this were the case, there would have been no chance of making an emergency call across the Indian Ocean, right?
If the pressure fall would have been right after dissapearring For example, if the co-pilot was locked out and the oxygen masks fell off, panic must have broken out.
Do you think any chance of calling for help was gone?
I hope that Ocean Infinity really continues the search in 2024 and finds the wreckage including the flight data recorder, and that we can find out a lot.
@Elias,
There is a satellite phone in the cabin crew station but that will not work if the the SATCOM system is switched off. There is a seat back video system that incorporated the possibility to make a satellite call, but that would not work if the SATCOM or EFIS system was switched off. Mobile phones do not work over the ocean. Emergency numbers like 911 in the USA or 999 in the UK or 112 in Germany or 000 in Australia do not work when a mobile phone has no connection to a base station or a satellite phone system is switched off.
If a cabin depressurisation occurred is pure speculation. We simply do not know, if there was a cabin depressurisation.
It is possible for a pilot in the cockpit to switch off all communication from the cabin to the outside world.
@All,
A message from Dr. Robert Westphal, who first proposed the idea of using WSPR to find MH370 in 2020:
Dear all,
I have hundreds of WSPR signals recorded and analyzed with aircraft detection involved (all over the world). Anyway if anyone believes the earth is flat then it will be flat for him or her, not for mankind over centuries!
Most counter arguments by detractors have been debunked today:
1. WSPR signal energy too low: There have been numerous WSPR detections for Transmit power of 1 mW = 0.001 W over more than 18,000 km.
2. Radar cross section of aircraft too small at HF: Australian DSTG has an RCS model of a Boeing 777 at HF with maximum RCS of greater than 45 dBsm = 70.000 square meters at short wave. Interesting article by DSTG of detection of Boeing 777 east of Sydney by moderate power at SFI (Solar Flux Index of 70 and 120), but detractors obviously refuse to study those papers by official government agencies such as DSTG in Australia.
3. I demonstrated that you can detect aircraft with Transmit powers of 0.01 W = 10 mW transmitted by WSPR HAB (High altitude balloons) across 1,000 km, 2,000 km, 4,000 km and even more in the Southern hemisphere (west of South America, Antarctica, New Zealand, Tonga, …….etc.; You can see the drift rates caused by aircraft in vicinity of HAB. Up to now these HABs are the cheapest substitutes for hired aircraft at special WSPR missions (see website “sondehub amateur”)…
4. I even demonstrated the opposite: No WSPR detection for more than 15 hours between New Zealand and Hawaii after the Tonga volcano eruption in January 2021.
5. Numerous examples for WSPR detections of airborne targets even space borne targets (ISS) in Antarctica such as piston engine aircraft, jets of several sizes, helicopters, missiles etc.
6. On 8th anniversary in March 2022 I received the primary as well as secondary WSPR signals of Swiss WSPR amateur radio station HB9CZF in Perth / Australia at VK6QS at a remotely controlled WSPR receiver with real time very strong signals just as it happened in March 7th, 8th in 2014. In conclusion these distances from Europe to Australia are applicable for WSPR HF signals.
7. I do not know any detractor who seriously studied the primary and secondary WSPR signals scattered by aircraft! A qualified technical discussion has not happened.
8. Now as a new present for the holidays 2023 a really obvious one from Antarctica as the German icebreaker and exploration ship Polarstern (equipped with WSPR for transmission as well as reception at HF as well as satellite radio) is cruising in Antarctica for a research mission close to the Australian Antarctic Davis station:
Around midnight 2023.12.22 Polarstern received rare WSPR signals from TI4JWC in Costa Rica on 21 MHz and from the US WSPR station KG5TW (near Fredericksburg in Texas / USA) on 21 MHz. Propagation from North America and Mid America via and across Antarctica! Why??? What is the root cause?
Please see the images in the appendix for demonstration. I used the map function of wsprnet.org to study the WSPR rays received by DP0POL (call sign of icebreaker Polarstern).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/l5beom9xhkj22an9gh1us/Rob-Attachment-1.png?rlkey=f7frrz7n1w2zdfo4flz100f5s&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2uk93iq7pbn2gwgh6yra7/Rob-Attachment-2.png?rlkey=3799vdw2bcyk1e59bvw9ivmyq&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fxos9yk2s17pdjesg3kuy/Rob-Attachment-3.png?rlkey=4xe1uxkqncvlilv6u455nesw7&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tf9il2ttdyt5gu9vudn4r/Rob-Attachment-4.png?rlkey=5n73d281d0qzjykmh8mlw0zlc&dl=0
In case you follow the foward scatter plots or rays and study Flightradar24 for a possible cause or reason you will find the answer:
Union Glacier Camp (UGL) is an airfield in Antarctica, mainly for tourists in Antarctica, located way South of the Northern Antarctic peninsula, South of Punta Arenas in Chile with a jet flight time of app. 4 hours..from UGL to PUQ. Now it is summer there and tourist season!
23:25 h UTC on 2023.12.23 a big jet took off from UGL towards Punta Arenas (PUQ) in Chile. Arrival at PUQ app. 03:36 h UTC on 2023.12.23.
It has been detected by exploration ship DP0POL on the other side of Antarctica thousands of km away twice at 23:52 h UTC on 2023.12.22 (Signal from Costa Rica, TI4JWC, Transmitt power 1 Watt, distance from Polarstern 13.436 km) and at 00:24 h UTC on 2023.12.23 (WSPR Signal from Texas, USA, KG5TW, Transmitt power only 0,2 W = 200 mW, distance from Transmitter to Polarstern 15.923 km, close to Australian Davis Station in Antarctica). More receptions if transmit power would be 5 Watts or even more?
Other possible sources for reflections have not been investigated as this example is just for demonstration purposes. Remark: Terrestrical ADS-B is range limited to app. 500 km so you do not see the Ilyushin IL-76TD, EX-76010, NWY702 at 00:24 h UTC as the aircraft mark is yellow (terrestrical ADS-B). In case the symbol would be blue the jet would be equiped with satellite ADS-B. So you will see it from departure at UGL as a yellow symbol in Flightradar 24 until app. 00:10 h UTC at 44 min. after departure at UGL. But it will be further North at 00:24 h UTC and beyond. So we looked at the WSPR signals first and after anomalies and conclusions we refered to Flightradar 24 for reference!
So after investigation of hundreds of WSPR signals all over the world since summer of 2020 I can state in full accordance with the detractors (me being the original “trouble maker for WSPR aircraft detection” I can repeat: “The earth is flat and WSPR detections of airborne and spacborne targets are just halluzinations!”…… or maybe not ….?
Please enjoy this example over very large distances via Antarctica and I wish you all the very best for the upcoming holidays with the best season greetings from Germany!
So almost 120 years after Christian Hülsmeyer filed for the first Radar patent ever on 1904.04.30 at the Imperial Patent Office (Nr. 165546) we are ready for the next steps in this unpleasant (in terms of behaviour of various scientific crowds) episode! Anyway many achievements on this WSPR subject since summer of 2020. Thanks!
Unbelievable that we will face the 10th anniversary of the ill fated MH370 very soon in early March 2024!
@All,
Victor Iannello pontificates from on high: “In the past, I considered developing this presentation into a longer, more complete blog post, but I believe this is futile: The WSPR advocates will continue to dispute what is indisputable, the informed were persuaded long ago, and the technical discussion will not persuade the uninformed, who tend to believe what is promoted by Geoffrey Thomas and other entertainment media sources.”
So there you have it in a nutshell, the elitist group around Victor Iannello are the “informed”.
The rest of the world are the “uninformed” and they tend to believe Geoffrey Thomas.
So it boils down to Victor Iannello who is the leader of the informed versus Geoffrey Thomas who is the leader of the uninformed.
The elitist informed Victor Iannello even tells us how to conduct our WSPR research: “As a start, I would recommend that the WSPR tracking proponents conduct experiments in which aircraft scatter of HF signals could be observed under the most favourable of conditions, i.e., scatter of a very strong broadcast signal off aircraft in the vicinity of the receiver under low noise conditions, similar to the experiments that Nils Schiffhauer and I conducted.”
Both Victor Iannello and Nils Schiffhauer used high power transmitters, but WSPR uses low power transmitters.
The key objection of Victor Iannello is the long distances and low power as he states: “At long distances and at low transmission powers, the received signals from hypothetical aircraft scatter are simply too weak by many orders of magnitude.”
As Dr. Robert Westphal points out and which Victor Iannello tries desperately to deny:
“Most counter arguments by detractors have been debunked today:
1. WSPR signal energy too low: There have been numerous WSPR detections for Transmit power of 1 mW= 0.001 W over more than 18,000 km.
2. Radar cross section of aircraft too small at HF: Australian DSTG has an RCS model of a Boeing 777 at HF with maximum RCS of greater than 45 dBsm = 70.000 square meters at short wave. Interesting article by DSTG of detection of Boeing 777 east of Sydney by moderate power at SFI (Solar Flux Index of 70 and 120), but detractors obviously refuse to study those papers by official government agencies such as DSTG in Australia.
3. I demonstrated that you can detect aircraft with Transmit powers of 0.01 W = 10 mW transmitted by WSPR HAB (High Altitude Balloons) across 1.000 km, 2.000 km, 4.000 km and even more in the Southern hemisphere (west of South America, Antarctica, New Zealand, Tonga, …….etc. You can see the drift rates caused by aircraft in vicinity of HAB. Up to now these HABs are the cheapest substitutes for hired aircraft at special WSPR missions.
4. I even demonstrated the opposite: No WSPR detection for more than 15 hours between New Zealand and Hawaii after the Tonga volcano eruption in January 2021.”
@All,
Mick Gilbert is showing his ignorance again. Mick Gilbert also proves the fact that he has not read our papers and has no scientific arguments. Instead Mick Gilbert descends to personal attacks on my co-authors Dr. Hannes Coetzee and Prof. Simon Maskell.
Mick Gilbert states on Victor Iannello’s website: “In other words, their methodology is essentially a random classifier with no discriminatory ability. This is all basic statistical stuff that I would expect an Intro Stats undergrad to grasp. The notion that we have two PhDs signing on to this pap should be worrying.”
How low can you go? Well Mick Gilbert did previously go lower and claimed that Dr. Hannes Coetzee was a vet and did not have a PhD in HF Radio Engineering. That was until we published the PhD certificate of Dr. Petrus Johannes (Hannes) Coetzee and his PhD paper . Mick Gilbert never apologised for his disinformation campaign, but just complained that Hannes Coetzee did not use his full name Petrus Johannes Coetzee. It just goes to show what a poor researcher Mick Gilbert is.
Here is the disinformation put out by Mick Gilbert:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qpurxmr7yhyj0aw9jrvti/Gilbert-Lies-on-Dr.-Hannes-Coetzee-30NOV2021.png?rlkey=9gi3bacom5koxj5oln5xlhwp2&dl=0
Here are the facts of Dr. Hannes Coetzee’s PhD in HF Radio Engineering:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztn7tlb70134za3/Hannes%20Coetzee%20PhD%20Graad.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/70pbpyduqf05en0/PJ%20Coetzee%2084327678.pdf?dl=0
Mick Gilbert obviously does not know what a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is and what it shows.
For over a year now we have included the ROC data in a large number of technical papers and case studies that we have published.
The plot of the True Positive Rate against the False Positive Rate is a standard test and is called the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. It is a test of sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity (true positive rate) refers to the probability of a positive test, conditioned on truly being positive. Specificity (true negative rate) refers to the probability of a negative test, conditioned on truly being negative.
In other words WSPR can detect an aircraft when it is there and does not detect an aircraft when it is not there.
Here are three examples of ROC curves out of the many that we have published from case studies where Boeing 777 aircraft were crossing the Indian Ocean and being detected over long distances by WSPR anomalies:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yndsujycvayx6ab28pp7d/ROC-244-Observations-with-confidence-intervals.png?rlkey=7y4iy8yntn51er8dp4ujs4a1v&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/not2uug9g7ahd20rxsrrc/ROC-172-Observations-with-confidence-intervals.png?rlkey=26hncpl9vib6dyr5uvb4e1yuq&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sjuqnrzpsp0yc84nu8psa/ROC-143-Observations-with-confidence-intervals.png?rlkey=yh8pzttlkx8dknkerqeqk5h3m&dl=0
If WSPR is a random classifier with no discriminatory ability as Mick Gilbert fallaciously claims, then the ROC curve would follow the y=x line (marked with a dashed red line) and the area under the curve (AOC) would be 50%.
Instead the ROC curve is far from the y=x line and the AOC ranges from 58.0% to 67.49%.
This is statistical proof that WSPR works.
@Farzan,
Welcome to the blog!
You ask “why no one considers your findings if it has any weight? Why no one cares about your findings and search for Mh370 has not resumed.”
Our findings are being considered and the search for MH370 will resume.