Here is a map showing the WSPR search area, the UWA drift analysis crash location area and the OI area previously searched.
The WSPR search area is partly covered by the UWA drift analysis crash location area.
The WSPR search area was not covered by the OI area previously searched.
The WSPR search area is a circle with a 30 km radius centred on 29.128°S 99.934°E at a depth of 3,750 m.
We are getting closer and closer to finding MH370. It will only take one more search and 2024 will reveal the final resting place of MH370.
Are you in talks w/ Ocean Infinity? What do they have to say about a potential new search operation?
@Muhamad,
Welcome to the blog!
I am in regular contact with Ocean Infinity.
There has been no update on a new underwater search for MH370 since 27th September 2023, where Ocean Infinity confirmed that they are: “still keen to get back out there for another search.”
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas has published a new article at airlineratings.com titled “New Map Pinpoint Probable MH370 Location:
https://www.airlineratings.com/featured/new-map-pinpoints-probable-mh370-location/
The map below shows the MH370 location area identified by the University of Western Australia in yellow, the area searched in 2018 by Ocean Infinity in dusky pink and the area identified by Mr Godfrey’s team this year in cyan (top right).
It will be noted that more than half of the WSPR area was not searched by OI in 2018.
Knowing where the plane entered the water is a tremendous achievement! I am impressed and amazed at how you were able to accomplish this via WSPR analysis. My next curiosity question would then be, has anybody researched the underwater currents at that location? The plane may have been pushed (by the current) one direction or another as it descended towards the bottom. Considering the depth at that location, this sideways movement might be more than we expect. I don’t have the expertise to intelligently calculate the magnitude of this possible sideways movement. Perhaps up to a mile???
Another thing to possibly consider:
There is a scenario where the plane may have landed on the surface mostly intact, and then proceeded to sink. In this scenario, would the the shape of the plane lend itself to a sort of “glide” as it descended towards the bottom? I certainly don’t have the experience / knowledge in fluid dynamics to answer this question. But….. If yes, would this “gliding” allow the plane to deviate from the inital point of entry by a mile or two?
Thanks for all of your hard work on the WSPR analysis.
@Martin Reiss,
Welcome to the blog and for your kind words!
The search area identified using WSPR technology was partly searched by Ocean Infinity previously, but less than 50% of the area was covered.
The sea bed debris field of AF447 was mostly contained in an area 600 m x 200 m. So you are right that there will be a spread, but it will not be an issue for the underwater sensors used by companies like Ocean Infinity.
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. The aircraft broke up to a large extent on impact. Therefore, it will not be possible to find the aircraft mostly intact.
Thanks for your reply Richard. I will respectfully disagree with your estimate of 37,900 items. My Engineering instincts strongly feel that it would either be: Two Million pieces, or Two hundred pieces… depending on whether it was a high speed dive or a controlled water landing.
As we have only recovered 43 items… (and those items appear to match the damage from a controlled water landing in my opinion), while I 100% respect your feelings, I just can’t bring myself to agree. But its fine. That’s what makes this world go round… different opinions. As long as we can be civil towards each other, there’s nothing wrong with different opinions.
I theorize that the right wing tip touched the ocean waves during the controlled ditching and it was forced backwards, and pivoted/rotated partially into the passenger cabin. This explains why we’ve found some interior pieces…… but only a very small number. I feel that if it had been a high speed dive, there would be many many thousands of pieces floating around the Indian Ocean, not just 43.
P.S. – I’m still very impressed at the utilization of WSPR to locate the most likely point of entry. That’s genius level thinking and it matches quite closely the satellite data from Immarsat as well as corroberating the drift analysis location/ timeline. Bravo. Nice work. I wish that I had thought of that novel use of WSPR data.
Thanks for your time.
@Martin Reiss,
It was Dr. Robert Westphal who first thought of the idea of using the WSPR data to detect MH370 in the summer of 2020.
I contacted Rob in February 2021 and have followed up his research, together with my co-authors Dr. Hannes Coetzee and Prof. Simon Maskell, in a number of papers and case studies since.
Richard,
I have just sent you an email and exactly what this lady had suggested is exactly what I thought I saw, the plane fully in tact submerged underwater right near land north of WA. Please call me when you get the chance. My number is in the email. Hope we can find those poor people for their families.
Dear Richard,
I saw the 60 mins show last night and this prompted me to google search your contact.
Just like this lady says, the plane may still be fully in tact according to my story as well.
For years since the week the plane disappeared I have been telling my story to family and friends but no one believes me. I even looked up a contact a few years ago when something was on tv to report my sightings but heard nothing and just left it until now.
I am writing again to you now because of what I saw on the show last night and I want the families to find their loved ones and I really hope I am the answer that leads you to them.
A few days after the plane went missing, I was flying on my regular SQ flight from Singapore to Perth to see my children who were in boarding school in Perth. I was flying business class and wanted to look out the window for the missing plane. This day it was a bright sunny blue sky and waters below were very clear. Something caught my eye. The shape of a large aeoroplane far far below our plane and dark shadow shape. I could not tell if it was our plane shadow or something or another plane below or in the water. I called the stewardess over to have a look at this unusual sighting obviously it was in my mind the plane gone missing and I was looking to see if I could find it. This shadow was not moving with our plane, it was being left behind and the stewardess acknowledged exactly what I had seen was real and strange and said she would tell the captain. After a while and now having already seen this plane be left behind, she came back to say she had told the captain and he said it was another plane flying below us. This was bollocks as far as I was concerned, I knew it had to be that missing plane because it was not moving, it was not white but totally dark and I reckoned it was fully submerged in the water. I was made to feel like an idiot and dismissed so I dropped it with them but told family and friends my story for years. Probably fully sunken out of view by now. But I don’t think its in very deep water, because this was right close to the coast line. So it was basically right near the tip of WA that planes from Singapore will fly nearest to first on their way to Perth. I can’t say exactly which town but its either Shark Bay or Exmouth. I can remember the water different blues and murky sandy cloudy in parts near this land and can still see this vividly with the plane right on the edge of the northern tip of this jaggered land out of WA.
After watching 60 mins, I can see the projection of what you see the plane dumping in the middle of ocean lines up with exactly the point near land that I saw the plane. I know most searches have been out middle of the ocean, I do think they have been looking in the wrong place and I really hope I have the key to your find.
Please call me. My number is in my email.
I really do hope you give me a call.
Kind regards
Yolande
@Yolande,
Welcome to the blog!
As you say, your flight from Singapore to Perth passes close to the North Western tip of Western Australia. Learmonth was once used as a diversion airport for a Qantas flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth flying 154 km West of Learmonth.
You estimate your position just off the coastline between Exmouth and Shark’s Bay at around 22°S 112°E.
MH370 is estimated to have crashed at 29.128°S 99.934°E, which is 1,445 km further South West.
The closest point MH370 would have passed your position is 1,735 km West.
The closest point to the so called 7th Arc as defined by the Inmarsat satellite data is 867 km West.
Here is a link to a map to better visualise your flight path in red, the MH370 flight path in blue and the 7th Arc in black dots:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rqdczmk4xbqeez34bqjnf/Yolande.png?rlkey=tezcb15tkm4aryk6sivyazwz4&dl=0
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and send me your graph drawings.
I am trying to understand how you know where the plane ended. Obviously it went off course not long into its flight and diverted south and you are going by signals but what if after your final signal the plane ended up quietly somewhere else. I know the shape I saw was of a large plane and it was like a dark shadow that did not move from its location. Not sure why you would not bother to look at my location just in case your findings are not exactly what you think and my sighting (not a theory) is correct!
I am also quite sure the reason the plane was bot found on all the other searches was because it is not in the middle of the ocean where you searched, it is near land and this makes sense as no one looked there
@Martin Reiss,
You are right and I stand corrected.
MH370 was neither a Sully soft ditching on the Hudson River with little or no floating debris, nor a full speed vertical dive smashing into the Indian Ocean and resulting in two million pieces of debris, of which thousands would have floated. Of course, without an organised search of all possible locations around the Indian Ocean, we will never know how many items of floating debris might have washed shore and could have been found and recovered to the authorities.
You theorise that the right wing tip touched the ocean waves during the controlled ditching and it was forced backwards, and pivoted/rotated partially into the passenger cabin. In my view, we still have to explain how one of the largest interior floating debris items found in Rodrigues was determined by the ATSB to be the cabin divider to the stowage closet at the forward right hand door of MH370. This interior part is well forward of the right wing and the final impact may have involved damage to more than the right wing.
The surface wind at 29.128°S 99.934°E on 8th March 2014 at 00:00 UTC was 17.8 knots from 150°T. The wind was a fresh breeze and the wave height would be just over 1.1 m, with small waves becoming longer and with numerous white caps. I agree with you, it is reasonable to theorise that if a wing tip touched the ocean waves during the controlled ditching, that this would have had a substantial or even disastrous cart wheel effect.
I think it is plausible that MH370 experienced a failed ditching attempt. In fact we stated in our paper on the MH70 Flight Path Analysis dated 31st August 2023 on page 4 in the summary of results: “If an attempt to ditch the aircraft was made in order to reduce the amount of floating debris, then it appears the bid is likely to have failed.”
My estimate, that the number of aircraft fragments is of the order of magnitude of 37,900 items, is simply calculated by dividing the zero fuel weight of MH370 which was 174,369 kg by the average weight of the 43 items of floating debris recovered which was 4.6 kg (174,369 / 4.6 = 37,906). The resulting figure is neither 200 items, nor 2,000,000 items as you correctly point out. A failed soft ditching would be something in between a successful soft ditching and an outright high speed crash.
If we can agree on a failed soft ditching, we also obviously agree that there was an active pilot until the end of the flight. We therefore also obviously agree that there was a recovery from the steep descent of around 15,000 fpm at 00:19:37 UTC. Ian Holland of the DSTG, Australia in his paper titled “MH370 Burst Frequency Offset Analysis and Implications on Descent Rate at End-of- Flight” dated 15th January 2018 showed the rate of descent was at least -13,800 fpm, but could be up to -25,300 fpm depending on the final track and was accelerating at around 0.68 g.
Boeing performed 10 end of flight simulations with various criteria of starting altitude, ground speed, autopilot disengagement timing at 1st engine flameout or 2nd engine flameout, alternate electrical configuration and turbulence setting. In 5 cases (Case 3, 4, 5 ,6 and 10) the aircraft recovered from a rate of descent of over -15,000 fpm. In Case 5 the aircraft only recovered after the 11th swoop right at the end.
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).
Significantly, if an active pilot recovered from the high descent rate of -14,773 fpm according to our estimate from the MH70 Flight Path Analysis and then controlled the aircraft on a glide slope with flaps partially lowered to attempt a ditching across the waves at a more normal landing speed of 135 knots, then the aircraft could have remained relatively intact, if the soft ditching was successful or would have incurred substantial damage, if the soft ditching was unsuccessful. It is plausible that a failed soft ditching would result in the level of debris we have observed.
The ATSB in their analysis of the Outboard Flap found on the island of Pemba off the coast of Tanzania concluded that the right outboard flap was most likely in the retracted position at the time it separated from the wing. This would have resulted in a higher speed at the attempted ditching.
My mistake was to ignore the logic, that if a pilot recovered from a descent of around 15,000 fpm, it would not be because he wanted to follow this up with another high rate descent but much more likely because he wanted to follow this up with a slow rate descent and a soft ditching.
Many thanks for pointing out my error.
Richard, you are amazing. I am sitting up at 2:30 a.m. rechecking this blog for some inexplicable reason, and as I’m reading Martin’s comment, your thorough (and humble) reply pops up. On Christmas morning. Your dedication to this subject is epic. My hope for 2024 is that MH370 will finally be found and the families can receive what passes for closure after all these years. Thank you for the work you’ve done and continue to do to help make that happen. Merry Christmas!
I just want to thank both of you gentleman for this insightful and respectful dialogue the two of you conducted in. If more people in the the world were like this overcoming problems and obstacles would be a breeze! No pun intended just quoting a famous media personality.
@April,
Welcome to the blog and the kind words!
Merry Christmas to you as well.
@Martin Reiss
Respectfully I would disagree with your conclusions about the quantity and meaning of the debris and controlled ditching. IMHO the debris evidence demonstrates the aircraft did not land on the surface mostly intact and sink. The 370 recovered debris shows it tragically shattered on impact. MH370 did not float intact mostly on the surface nor move mostly intact underwater. Underwater currents there are almost nonexistent, and heavy debris would sink pretty much straight down.
Of the 43 pieces of 370 floating debris recovered, 40 are small and shattered and come from all parts of the aircraft, wing tail, undercarriage, floor, landing gear door, and about 14 from the main cabin. Many small floating honeycomb pieces would not beach at all, would be missed, and many were seen by local people in northeast Madagascar in 2016 but not recognized nor picked up as they had no use for them nor knowledge of what they were.
We can agree to disagree on the debris and the controlled mostly intact ditching. However we can agree that most important is the crash location, and on the crash location area itself, and the need to resume the search based on both old and new credible evidence
@All,
Merry Christmas to all our readers who celebrate Christmas!
Dear Richard
Your work is amazing! Just a curiosity and apologize my ignorance. Is it possible to get a satellite image data of the probable (roughly) crash site for the time period say From 08 March 2014 to few days just to have a visual of debris? Can we look into this Thank you
Thank you for addressing several of my comments. You are a true gentleman and I appreciate your time.
We agree on many details, but not all.
We can agree on a failed soft ditching.
We can agree that there was an active pilot until the end of the flight.
We agree that there was a recovery from the steep descent.
I think the cabin divider to the stowage closet at the forward right hand door might be explained rather simply: the failed water landing created what you called a cart wheel effect. This cart wheel effect, coupled with the structural damage from the right wing piercing the fuselage, could possibly lead to the forward right hand door popping open violently. Is the cabin divider piece small enough to fit through the (now open) front right door during the tumbling?
I will go waaaaay out on a limb here and state some educated guesses, based on all of the information that I have come across for the last 9+ years:
1. I strongly believe the flaps were in the down position when the plane entered the water, contrary to several reports. The damage to the flaperon’s trailing edge and outboard flap’s trailing edge makes it rather obvious to conclude they were dragged through the water at a very high speed, prior to being ripped off the wing. I believe that type of damage would only happen if they were in the down position during the water landing.
2. When we finally locate the plane, (likely via WSPR) it will be mostly intact.
3. The right wing has likely separated from the fuselage, or is just barely still attached.
4. The nose will show considerable damage but will still be intact.
5. 99% probability that the two engines were ripped off during the attempted water landing.
6. So, basically there will be four large pieces to find on the bottom, with a few smaller components that resulted from the water landing.
7. I think the cockpit voice recorder will have some very interesting audio. Perhaps in the last 30 minutes of the flight he may have provided a complete explanation for his actions. (Thinking that his recording wouldn’t be found for several decades.)
Let’s hope that the next search locates the plane and we can possibly get some answers to this trajedy.
@Martin Reiss,
I cannot accept the fact that you disagree with the official ATSB analysis, where they conclude that the flaps were highly likely not extended at the end of flight of MH370.
You appear to contradict yourself, where on one hand you propose a failed ditching and a cartwheel crash and on the other hand propose that the aircraft remains largely intact.
On 23rd November 1996 a Boeing 767-260ER from Ethiopian Airlines operating flight 961 was hijacked. The pilot attempted a soft ditching on water. However, the aircraft brushed the water in a left-wing-low attitude. It was then held straight and level after which it broke into four sections and came to rest in the sheltered waters 500 m off Le Galawa Beach in the Comoros Islands. Of the 175 occupants, 6 crew members and 119 passengers were fatally injured in the accident. Six crew members and 38 passengers sustained serious injuries, 2 passengers sustained minor injuries and 4 passengers received no injury.
On 15th January 2009 an Airbus A320-214 from US Airways operating flight US1549 incurred the loss of both engines after take off from La Guardia Airport, New York. The aircraft successfully ditched on the Hudson river and subsequently all of the occupants were evacuated from the airplane and rescued by area responders. There were no fatalities.
There is a big difference between a successful ditching and a failed ditching.
@Karthick Velu,
Welcome to the blog!
Here is the NASA satellite imagery for the crash location area for each day from 7th March 2014 until 20th March 2014. Each picture shows the area from the top right corner at 28°S 101°E to the bottom left corner at 30°S 99°E. The estimated crash location is marked in red at 29.128°S 99.934°E.
The Terra satellite passes the equator each day at 10:30 UTC in a southerly direction. The picture resolution is 30 m per pixel. You will see that most days were partly or fully cloudy, but 7th March 2014 was clear as was 11th and 18th March 2014.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i50m4s27ad9eekutw6i0s/20140307-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=5kqv2tz8txwwiv7bpjlsfabg9&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f5xem2lpdl56pplzo8y8s/20140308-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=tg7adbrymzzokl9dtz22a7y9h&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u46jm15gaqeyj092tbpla/20140309-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=px2f0vomi3ubz8qpi0fm5t8f2&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vsgyj32jta2qf9vr0fe3d/20140310-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=o97b9gdftg4p1v8dh7ydivsrv&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5je2k6dfz6rjwpvhgxqq2/20140311-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=go8nq5y2mm5nb8psjatd0d957&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e04pqerl1hpbpig7jy2dl/20140312-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=bsmc7fwqy8h521hxovqmqomdi&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9nosgyoeca25153z4d8jh/20140313-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=m3tjpltncvp1sj7pqdr9h5pdq&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a88j65o9ig5xx2h70p4ft/20140314-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=bzhgpe8g95fq9wxzdf72ltmpx&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jercg4q7idt4ca3q4em52/20140315-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=xspulq0tjbf2zaoz53z2k2lcg&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/egpymva5amdnuia2m2px1/20140316-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=co53vq56stnmvkcn2gwq2jmlm&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x2l2e6ax8dmjzrfac5ncr/20140317-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=ni33meos34p86lnk3knlbz3m6&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lhhgq0z8ydik5wvxp77kc/20140318-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=sx5hixx294fh491bynuawb16u&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pobx7yl42as74wystlqib/20140319-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=gcbd8bji3g8pdm255r76uj5oa&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ookuyjmfrjgh60z2f2ohz/20140320-29.128-S-99.934-E-30m-per-pixel.png?rlkey=osf34jqgtnvo5xmb3m26rdvl5&dl=0
hi Richard, hope you’re well. could you confirm that your location using WSPR analysis matches the International news posts that relate to the latest pending new search areas. please. p.s. Merry Christmas all. Tariq/Manchester, UK.
@Tariq Hussain,
The estimated crash location based on the WSPR analysis is at 29.128°S 99.934°E. This has been widely reported in the international media and is being used by underwater search companies to determine their next search area.
@Martin Reiss
As explained in more detail in my reply to you above, the floating MH370 debris evidence recovered demonstrates the plane did not remain mostly intact.
Of course we agree most important is resuming search and finding the location of the crash and debris field. However to do that underwater search companies need to be scanning for small shattered sunken heavy pieces of debris, not just a large mostly intact aircraft.
Hi! Could AI help in the satellite images search? Perhaps a silly question but why not 😉 Thanks for all the intriguing work you have done, always a pleasure to read it!
Compliments of the Season
Thank you for this post and the comments over the past few days. There were 2 building blocks I took from the aircraft that was operated as US Airways flight 1549 in constructing my MH370 story despite it being a different type of aircraft.
1. Although the speed at which US1549 landed on the water surface was higher than the suggested/recommended for such a landing only one of the 2 engines was detached from the wings.
2. Watching a YouTube video of the aircraft when it was being lifted from the Hudson there was a “snap” moment when seeing the wear pattern on the flaps and flaperon, which were fully extended for landing, was identical to that on the corresponding pieces recovered from 9M-MRO. The identical wear pattern predicted by the modelling performed by the Captio Initiative for flaps extended, and definitively explained by Larry Vance in the book MH370 Mystery Solved.
The ATSB have incorrectly placed too much weight on the evidence that shows that the flaps and flaperon were retracted in their housings when they left the wing. The contact marks show this to be the case but there are also marks to show that they were fully extended, and also they traveled further in their guides when retracted than would be allowed if they were still connected to their actuators. The flaps were fully extended before breaking away from their actuators, being forced back into their housings and then becoming dislodged from the wings.
The ATSB were wrong in their initial debris drift analysis saying there was unlikely anything would be found after 18 days and if there was it would be on Sumatra.
The ATSB were wrong about an un-manned flight at end point.
The ATSB was too small and their work was not properly critiqued.
Once again thank you Sir
@John Finlay,
The Airbus A320 does not have a flaperon.
So you are talking nonsense to suggest that flight US1549, an aircraft type Airbus A320-214 with the registration N106US exhibited a “wear pattern on the flaps and flaperon, which were fully extended for landing, was identical to that on the corresponding pieces recovered from 9M-MRO.”
You state that your nonsense is backed up by “The identical wear pattern predicted by the modelling performed by the Captio Initiative for flaps extended, and definitively explained by Larry Vance in the book MH370 Mystery Solved.”
Neither Captio, nor Vance have examined the 9M-MRO Outboard Flap and the 9M-MRO Flaperon and the N106US A320 Flaps.
Your tirade against the ATSB is baseless.
The ATSB actually examined the 9M-MRO Outboard Flap and had access to the results from the BEA examination of the 9M-MRO Flaperon.
Your incorrect analysis is based on watching a YouTube video.
Richard,
Thanks again for your response to my comments. Your comments are always well thought out.
I respect your opinion with regard to the flaps. I’m glad that we can have discussions on technical details in a calm, civilized manner. A few things to mention:
1. My personal belief is that everything the pilot did prior to the water landing was in preparation FOR the water landing. I believe that he waited 6+ hours for the sun to come up because it would help him land the plane in one piece. And why bother to recover from the steep descent only to attempt the water landing at much higher speed than absolutely necessary?(with no flaps)
2. Also, it doesn’t seem reasonable that a veteran pilot with 25+ years experience would attempt such a difficult water landing in the ocean without fully extending the flaps. But admittedly, many things about this flight don’t seem reasonable.
3. Changing topics: Carefully analyzing the flaperon photos we can see several “witness marks” that would be impossible to be made if the flaperon was retracted in the “up” position. They simply would not be there… but they are there.
4. Additionally, the trailing edge damage would not be present if the flaperon was “up”.
5. Lastly, to follow up with my seemingly contradictory position on the failed ditching… I used the phrase “failed ditching” only to describe the fact that he didn’t land as smoothly as he would have liked; ripping off the right wing, and having the fuselage tumble to a small degree. But I believe the plane still remained mostly intact. Hopefully we will be able to determine next year when we locate the wreckage if I am over-trivializing the tumbling aspect of the plane.
6. Oh, I was hoping that you could comment on the size of the cabin divider piece that has been found. I’d like to find out if it is small enough to fit through the front right door as I theorize? (see my previous comment from 12-25-2023) If the cabin divider is too large to fit though the door opening, then clearly the front of the plane has been damaged to a much higher degree than I am claiming above.
Thanks Richard. Keep up the good work.
Martin- I have similar scenario to yours, but to answer your question: “why recover from a descent…” except to conduct a ditch? My answer would be, to continue flying for some distance after Arc7. My “savvy pilot” assumption is the perpetrator wanted to fly some good distance after SATCOM was turned off (probably with fuel remaining). Whether or not the end crash plan was to ditch or dive from say 5000-ft ( to destroy the Emergency Locator Beacon ELT), I do not know for sure. Looks like a “fast” ditch to me, though, to break-up but into less parts for fast sinking. As an aside, most pilots seem to feel instant death (sorry to be graphic) – nose dive- would have been almost certain end plan. I am not so sure, but aside from absence of ELT signal, that pilot-opinion needs to be addressed as well.
As I made a comment above, why wait more than 6 hours to bring down the plane? It’s okay to “make it go away” but who cares about that? That is to say, suicidal pilots make the plane plummet the same moment they decide to do so. If the case of MH370 is whoever piloted that plane to make it disappear forever, with what sense? I give examples of suicide pilots: Germanwings 9525 dated 03/24/2015. China Eastern Airlines 5735 03/21/2022. Egyptair 990 10/31/1999. I think there are a few more but they don’t come to mind right now.
MY main question is: I am a suicide pilot, why fly more than 6 hours to make the aircraft “disappear”? Who cares once you’re dead if they find the aircraft or not?
I follow my firm theory that:
1) Some catastrophic failure happened to the aircraft, the cause is not known. But something serious happened.
2) Kidnapping by a passenger
3) Some other theory with a reasonable explanation.
Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s mental conditions were normal, without symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression. (I’m not saying it, it’s what psychiatrist and psychologist experts who have analyzed him after this event say), he had a good life, his own house, no debts. I saw her YouTube channel and she made several videos to help the community fix air conditioning, seal windows, etc.
There is a theory that says he went in revenge for Ibrahim’s conviction, this doesn’t make sense to me. IF I want to give a political message I DO IT BY SAYING IT AND THE PLANE DIVING AT THE SAME MOMENT, not flying for more than 6 hours.
Last but not least: 22 minute holding pattern over the coast of Sumatra? so that? If I want to go south of the Indian Ocean, I don’t do a 22-minute holding pattern to use up fuel. If I were a pilot, I would go MORE SOUTH OF THE INDIAN OCEAN, closer to Antarctica.
In the end it is my opinion.
Kind regards
Omar
Hi Omar,
Many things could go through his head. Everyone onboard is already dead from oxygen starvation. So it’s quiet last moment. When you’re saying your last goodbyes. 6h or 3h doesn’t make a diff.
1) Why all the very clever maneuvers, between VN and MH air spaces. Also avoiding Thailand AFBs. Then taking the Malacca Straight as if. Then finally diverting back in South Indian Ocean. No “catastrophic failure” of an aircraft could create such a flight path in anyone’s wildest dreams. Willing to hear your thoughts as to “How”, but it seems absolutely unlikely for those reasons.
2) From all the passengers they looked at, there doesn’t seem to indicate anyone with such extensive knowledge of the 777 or SEA airspaces. So if EVER this had happend, the high-jacker would have to give order to the Pilot. Even so, assuming someone would have/could have, trained to such extend. Or directed the pilot to. How would you explain no one claimed the highjack. This got to be the most useless highjacking coup in the history of high-jacking.
3) Looking forward recovering the plane this year to find more possible ways.
@All,
Mike Exner is once again found out to be a liar and a manipulator on the MH370 Families Facebook page and once again trying hard to lead the next of kin astray.
Joe Taylor has been asked twice, once in 2022 and once in 2023, to participate in a round table moderated by Christian Entsfellner who is the Chairman of the German Amateur Radio Society and long time acquaintance of Joe Taylor. Here is a link to a picture of them together back in 2012:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qhor7ew7lt5jbh1l0o57a/Joe-Taylor-and-Christian-Entsfellner.png?rlkey=h9w3jmyy7bbjfrmq8199fe9hj&dl=0
Joe Taylor has so far refused to participate in the round table, although Christian thought Joe would most certainly do so.
What Mike Exner does not tell any one, is how he led Joe Taylor by telling him what he should say about our work on WSPR.
Here is how Mike Exner introduced himself to Joe Taylor back in 2021, saying how “a few well meaning people” are using the WSPR data in “a way that does not seem feasible to me”.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tmxekrxr042p096/Mike%20Exner%2014MAY2021.jpg?dl=0
Mike Exner follows this up by dictating to Joe Taylor a public statement: “We agree, Joe. Totally nuts. Would you be willing to say so publicly?”
Mike Exner then apologises to Joe for dragging him into the “swamp” and just in case repeats his mantra “Nutty for sure” and his worries that the main stream media have picked up on the story.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d7xb3udq9onuuxj/Mike%20Exner%2016MAY2021.jpg?dl=0
Mike Exner manipulated an 82 year old to his own ends and should be ashamed of himself.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for all your hard work on this. What are your thoughts on any of the wreckage landing in Australia (ie an MAS towelette in Western Australia)?
@Julie C,
Welcome to the blog!
The drift analysis shows that MH370 floating debris will not land in Australia from the estimated crash location at 29.317°S 99.934°E. MH370 floating debris will instead be carried by the South Equatorial Current towards Africa and the islands off the east coast of Africa like Madagascar, Reunion and Mauritius.
The MAS towelette was examined and it was concluded that it was in a pristine condition. It is more likely to have been left by a tourist who arrived in Western Australia from Malaysia via Perth. In 2014 there were daily non stop flights by Malaysian Airlines from Kuala Lumpur to Perth.
Hi Richard,
In regards to a new search:
considering the alleged crash site is in international waters what’s to stop OI unilaterally searching for MH370?
If they were to find it surely the Malaysians would pay up for the location.
Hi all,
I used AusSeaBed.gov.au to search in the general area where we think MH370 may be. I believe this may be the best place to share what I found. Let me know what you think it could be.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kceisrlwek2tqo7d8a4pq/Screenshot-2024-01-09-031602.jpg?rlkey=f7zesm0grtfwq3rb6tq7wa5it&dl=0
Thanks
In reply to Brian Wheeler
I have not gone as far as interpreting these maps but the Geospatial Team Leader for ATSB during the MH370 search, Megan McCabe, gave a great presentation on how she put together these maps and their resolution. Interesting when you flip and rotate your screenshot.
The location you have shown in the screenshot has a recorded history. Despite it being so remote and not near any shipping lanes an event took place on 21 November 1962 around this location involving 3 ships. 2 research vessels, Argo and Horizon, part of the Lusiad Expedition, had come from near Amsterdam Island on 17 November heading for Fremantle. Horizon had on board a seriously ill crewman who needed hospitalisation. They were travelling relatively slowly in the rough sea. The HMS Cavalier, a destroyer, on route to Fremantle from Christmas Island, was re-routed to rendevous with the research vessels and speed the ill seaman to hospital in Fremantle. The rendevous took place in the area above your screenshot.Argo and Horizons’ ship logs indicate that they were “near 34S 94E in the extensive basin south of a major, broad, flattened east-west ridge”. Although they had not been doing any research work the 2 ships were still accurately sounding the bottom with one sending and the other receiving. Research began again on 22 November with both vessels taking core samples. Early in the day at 33 deg 47″S 96 deg 00″E, Argo took a core at a depth of 4328m that was 4,25m long consisting of layers of mud.
I think 9M-MRO is in that mud. Your screenshot, depending on the resolution, could be it.
Brian,
Interesting picture. Is there any way that you could add some sort of scale to this? The wingspan of a Boeing 777 is over 200 feet. (And the length is over 200 feet as well.) It would definitely help us look for wreckage if we knew the scale.
Thanks,
Martin Reiss
Hi Richard,
On the search for MH370 – why does Ocean Infinity (or any operator with the right equipment) need Malaysia’s permission to launch a search? The crash site is clearly in international waters. Law of salvage says Malaysian government would have to pay whoever locates the wreckage for its location. Weather is best from Jan-April in the area (correct me if wrong) so the window to launch an effective search this year is narrowing every day. Why not just go ahead and find the plane, send proof of finding the plane to the Malaysians and get paid without an official agreement?
@Leon,
Ocean Infinity require compensation, if they find MH370, hence the need for an agreement with the Malaysian authorities. Other organisations interested in the underwater search for MH370 also require compensation. I know of one organisation, who is willing to search at their own cost.
MH370 is not just the wreckage of a crashed aircraft, it is also a crime scene. There are ongoing criminal investigations in France and Malaysia, and possibly other jurisdictions.
You do not need permission to search as the wreckage is in international waters. If found, the photographic or video evidence would lead to a salvage agreement, especially for items like the flight data recorder that may help solve the mystery. DNA samples may identify the crew and passengers. DNA from any person found in the cockpit, would also be helpful in solving the mystery.
@Yolande,
I know where MH370 flew and where it crashed from:
1. Boeing data.
2. Inmarsat Satellite data.
3. WSPRnet radio data.
4. Oceanography Drift Analysis data.
All the data point to the same crash location.
You can read all about it on my website, which contains links to a number of papers with the full details.
What is the reason then why Ocean Infinity won’t search at the location indicated by those data in their next attempt to find the wreck in the near future? If I understand correctly, they will search nearby, but not at the exact location those data you reffering to?
@Richard
Thanks for your hard work.
I have great faith in your report. Meanwhile, the Malaysian government is considering restarting the search. I hope that this time the job will be completed, once and for all.
@Long Thanh,
Welcome to the blog and many thank for your kind words!
I also hope that the Malaysian government’s intentions are serious and a thorough search will find MH370.
@Yolande,
You state: “I am also quite sure the reason the plane was not found on all the other searches was because it is not in the middle of the ocean where you searched, it is near land and this makes sense as no one looked there.”
Maybe you would be kind enough to point out my mistake in analysing the data from Boeing and/or Inmarsat and/or WSPRnet and/or Oceanography Drift Analysis.
You are convinced you saw MH370 sinking in the sea off Shark’s Bay, Western Australia from your business class window seat on your flight from Singapore to Perth.
Kit Olver is convinced he caught a wing of MH370 in his net 55 kilometres west of the South Australian town of Robe.
Mike Restieaux personally saw MH370 from his 5th story apartment in Fremantle, Western Australia.
Kathii Richards saw MH370 flying low over the sea and trailing smoke from their home in Jurien Bay, Western Australia
Maurice Cross saw MH370 debris whilst sailing between Christmas Island and Cocos Island.
Raja Dalelah Raja Latife saw MH370 floating on the Andaman Sea from her flight SV 2798 on the morning of 8th March 2014 from Jeddah to Kuala Lumpur.
Kate Tee saw MH370 fly overhead whilst sailing in the Andaman Sea at 6.40°N 94.42°E on 7th March 2014 at 18:53:56 UTC (Local Time 8th March 00:53:56).
Humaam Dhon Maniku saw MH370 above his home near the harbour on Kuda Huvadhoo in the Maldives between 07:30 and 08:00 on 8th March 2014.
Pete Macca found MH370 in the sea 20 miles NNE of Mauritius at 10:30 on 8th March 2014 and has a NASA satellite photo to prove it.
MH370 cannot be in all these places!
What makes you so sure, you are right and everyone else is wrong?
How deep is the water in this location?
@Jon R,
Welcome to the blog!
The WSPR search area is a circle with a 30 km radius centred on 29.128°S 99.934°E at a depth of 3,750 m.
Simon Hardy estimated the crash site near the Goldfinch Fracture Zone at approximately 40 deg S. The recent You Tube production by GreenDotAviation would seem to agree as to the final point of impact. Please comment. Thank you.
@David L,
Welcome to the blog!
Given the known route followed by MH370, the amount of fuel on board, the weight of the aircraft, the fuel consumption, the cost index, the performance degradation of the two Rolls Royce Trent 892B engines and the air temperature and winds encountered en-route, it is not possible to reach the point defined by Simon Hardy at 40° S.
Simon Hardy’s crash location is totally inconsistent with the WSPR tracking.
Just watched the Mentour Pilot vid. Very interesting, and I’m so happy to see how advances in amateur radio once again proves useful! And how accurate it is!
It took me a minute to realize how small the area you found is! Well done!
I’m seriously impressed! Now I can’t wait to see what happens next!
73 de
LA6NPA
@Halvor Pedersen,
Welcome to the blog!
Many thanks to the thousands of radio amateurs who upload WSPR data to the WSPRnet database, without whom our research would be impossible. The ability to go back in time to 7th and 8th March 2014 and track MH370 across the Indian Ocean is really great!
Hello Richard,
It’s fascinating to see new data emerge after so many years, and even crazier to think that the information was hiding in plain sight (at least few MHz-sight).
I would like to learn more about how you calculate the uncertainty in the flight trajectory. What prompts this question is the significant difference in trajectory proposed among the three models mentioned in your paper (preliminary, report, case study).
It’s understood that modeling can be refined over time, but it also suggests that WSPR data remains very delicate to interpret.
Particularly, the correlation between two or more signals potentially disturbed by the aircraft relies on the initial detection of the correct disturbance.
Isn’t the iterative mode of searching for position/velocity propagated from the last known position a source of uncertainty?
Are there few enough potential correlations to assert that it is indeed the aircraft’s trace observed at each iteration, and not an artifact?
How do you quantify the uncertainty on the potential waypoints followed by the pilot? Does synthetic noise on input data significantly change the calculated trajectory?
The method seems to work for retrieving known flight trajectories; what level of prior knowledge is necessary to affirm its success, and with what level of precision?
Also, I assume that the Inmarsat data does not serve as prior knowledge but solely as confirmation of the position calculation with WSPR?
Thank you for your time and for your fantastic work.
@Thomas B,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind remarks and very good questions!
The first test using WSPRnet data to detect and track aircraft was on 20th July 2021. We are now on V9 of the GDTAAA software and have run over 50 tests with different aircraft. We are continually gaining new insights and improving the software processing chain.
As you point out, there were three different MH370 analyses (preliminary, report and case study) and you ask how we calculate the uncertainty in the flight trajectory.
The major difference between the first two MH370 analyses was how we define a WSPR SNR anomaly. In the second analysis, we tightened the definition of an anomaly from ≥0.5 SD to ≥0.75 SD. This reduced the number of positions considered anomalous from 113 down to 77.
The major difference between the second and third MH370 analyses was the accuracy of the transmitter and receiver antenna locations. The WSPR Antenna Database originally relied on the WSPRnet 6 Character Maidenhead grid locators, which are only accurate to the nearest ± 5.2 km. The WSPR Antenna Database defines the location of each antenna used to the nearest ± 10 m. This increased the number of points considered anomalous from 77 up to 125 at 65 distinct positions.
Finally in our latest paper “How does WSPR Detect Aircraft over long Distances” we analysed not only SNR anomalies and Drift anomalies, but also included Frequency anomalies. This increased the number of points considered anomalous from 125 up to 313 and at 130 distinct positions. This increase did not change the flight path from the previous MH370 flight path analysis, but did increase the number of intersecting anomalies at just before the crash location to four.
The uncertainty in the flight trajectory is determined primarily by the granularity of the WSPRnet data, which is every two minutes. Between the last known civilian primary radar position for MH370 (where the raw data stream every few seconds has been published) on 7th March 2014 at 18:00:51 UTC and the last Inmarsat data transmission from MH370 on 8th March 2014 at 00:19:37 UTC, there are 189 WSPRnet two minute data points. We have WSPRnet anomalies at 130 out of a possible 189 distinct positions, which is 69% of the time or on average every 2.9 minutes. These align with the 7 Inmarsat arcs. We discard a single military radar return at 18:22:12 UTC as it is at the maximum radar range, liable to error and the raw radar data was never released.
The GDTAAA takes into account the maximum Ground Speed of a Boeing 777-2H6ER, which is determined from the Boeing specifications, Malaysian Airlines Engineering data for the aircraft with registration 9M-MRO and the wind speed and direction at each position, altitude and time as taken from the GDAS data.
The Ground Speed averaged 454.4 knots, but varied between 289.2 knots (at the end of flight) and 536.2 knots in the timeframe 7th March 2014 at 18:00:51 UTC and 8th March 2014 at 00:19:37 UTC. At 536.2 knots the maximum distance covered in two minutes is 33.1 km.
The maximum distance at each two minute point defines a circle of uncertainty within which the aircraft must be located. This is not a perfect circle, as a Boeing 777 cannot reverse its direction by 180° in two minutes, so the shape is more like a kidney shaped lobe, but the software uses a circle for simplicity.
The crash location is determined by 4 interesting anomalies at 29.128°S 99.934°E, but with a circle of uncertainty with a radius of 30 km.
You mention particularly, the correlation between two or more signals potentially disturbed by the aircraft relies on the initial detection of the correct disturbance. This is a valid observation. This is true at four points during the 6.3 hours flight into the Southern Indian Ocean, where there are two or even three alternative paths, each of which are pursued in successive two minute time frames and where the circle of uncertainty widens to four minutes, six minutes, etc. Fortunately, it does not take long for alternatives to no longer be viable as no more detections are made in those directions. Since we know that the aircraft was still in the air at these interim times, these alternatives are abandoned after 10 minutes of non-detection.
Another great help was the discovery at each turn that the pilot selected an aeronautical or geographical waypoint and each turn revealed by the WSPRnet anomalies aligned with a waypoint.
The iterative method we use is a source of uncertainty, but subsequent detections at a total 130 positions which align with navigation waypoints and Inmarsat arcs is a source of certainty. One huge advantage of the study being performed by Prof. Simon Maskell using around 1,000 Boeing 777 airborne during a 24 hour period is that he has the ADS-B data and WSPRnet data for all aircraft (not just the Boeing 777’s, but all other aircraft as well) at each of the 720 two minute WSPR time points. Another huge advantage of his MH370 flight path using the processing chain for MH370 defined by the DSTG particle filter but now including the WSPR data is that he does require an “a priori” from a last known position for each two minute WSPRnet time point.
Each of the 313 anomalies is an ionospheric propagation reaching altitudes of up to 400 km. A typical propagation reaches heights above the Earth’s surface of between 60 km and 400 km and spends on average an estimated 9.7% of its time within altitudes operated by commercial aircraft. Proplab Pro V3.1 is used to trace the ionospheric propagations and ensure an interim landing point is in the vicinity of the estimated aircraft position and on the great circle path defined by the transmitter and receiver antenna locations.
The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve typically shows an area under the curve of 67%:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xk0ycgjekma2k3zad1izc/Receiver-Operating-Charcteristic-ROC-171-Observations-Area-Under-the-Curve-67.png?rlkey=zia3v1qxo2ozifvv390bvomgg&dl=0
We have always been clear in our papers, that WSPR is “a noisy sensor”, but I think it is hard to argue that a ROC curve that is distant from y=x is measuring pure noise.
We are currently analysing around 600 WSPRnet observations during the flight of THY161, which will produce a more accurate ROC curve.
The alignment of the WSPRnet detection and tracking of MH370 with the Inmarsat satellite data, Boeing fuel range and endurance and the Oceanographic drift modelling used on the 43 items of floating debris found on the Indian Ocean coastlines, and either confirmed or likely to be from MH370, do not serve as prior knowledge but solely as confirmation of the crash location based on our work.
You ask: “The method seems to work for retrieving known flight trajectories; what level of prior knowledge is necessary to affirm its success, and with what level of precision?” We have accepted an invitation from Deep Sea Vision to a blind test detecting and tracking a Cessna 172 over the Atlantic Ocean with the transponder switched off. We only ask for the departure GPS position, date and time and that the aircraft flies above 5,000 feet in the cruise. We do not need any other information to detect and track the aircraft. Commercial GPS accuracy for position and time is sufficient.