Petter Hörnfeldt has published a MH370 documentary titled “MH370 – A New Hope” on his YouTube Channel called Mentour Pilot. Petter describes his documentary as a “A NEW Trace! Explaining the MH370 Enigma”.
The documentary can be viewed here
The documentary is a well researched forensic analysis of the evidence for what happened to flight MH370. The report is well balanced, any speculation is avoided, but every technical and scientific detail is examined and discussed.
The need to find the wreckage of MH370 is underlined in order to solve the mystery of the disappearance of MH370.
Many people ask: “How can a Boeing 777, one of the biggest and most modern aircraft in the world, just vanish without trace.” Petter’s straightforward answer: “It can’t.”
The conclusion of his analysis is a recommendation to search again in two areas:
1. An area of 1,200 km² (marked in green on the above graphic) between 35.518°S 93.025°E and 35.875°S 93.039° E as defined by Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand in their paper titled “Analysis of the trajectory of Flight MH370” and dated 16th February 2023 and updated 22nd March 2023, which can be downloaded here
2. An area of 2,800 km² (marked in red on the above graphic) within a circle with a radius 30 km centred on 29.128°S 99.934°E as defined by Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and Prof. Simon Maskell in their paper titled “MH370 Flight Path Analysis – Case Study” dated 31st August 2023, which can be downloaded here
A short update on the crash location probability map confirming 29.128°S 99.934°E with even greater likelihood was given in section 9 of their paper titled “How does WSPR detect Aircraft over long Distances? – Technical Paper” dated 15th February 2024, which can be downloaded here
We support Petter’s findings and his search recommendation.
Just watched it, and it is very well done in all respects, concise, and to the point.
It should be compulsory viewing for everyone, [especially the MSM (mainstream media)]
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas of airlineratings.com has published a new article titled “Outstanding New MH370 Documentary Urges New Search”.
Both Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson also support the search recommendation of this new documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk
Commendable work by everyone involved. It’s so gut wrenching to believe that someone was capable of doing something so horrible. Yet at the same time it’s really heart warming to see so many people coming together and putting this much time & effort to help with this mystery. Hope that we renew the search efforts, find the aircraft and provide some sort of closure to the families and all the people involved in helping with this mystery.
@Prajna Pallabee Ray,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
The key goals are to provide some closure for the families and to make sure such an event never happens again.
I agree with you that we need to renew the search efforts until we find MH370.
Hello Mr. Godfrey, I want to ask you if there’s any petition or forum where we can sign to help encourage the authorities to start searching for the aircraft?
Mr Godfrey,
I really want thank you, and your team, of course, all the people involved in this effort to find the MH370 and solve this mistery. Much more than give answers to the victims families, your efforts give us a hope in human kind itself. People like you are making our lives better, your efforts are bringing up new tecnologies and improving the aviation industry
@Alexandra Ponso,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the extremely kind words!
We still need to find the wreckage of MH370 and recover the back boxes and other evidence in order to help solve this mystery.
Then we can learn the lessons from MH370 to make flying safer for us all.
@All,
A 60 Minutes Australia interview with Tony Romeo of Deep Sea Vision who say that they have been asked to submit a proposal to the Malaysian government to search for MH370:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFJv16l1WEY
Would not the strength of a request to reopen the search be much improved if the people of the two different analyses mentioned above got together and tried to reconcile the differences in their proposed flight paths leg by leg such that they would come up with one agreed search area?
@William R. Edgar,
I have written to Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand, but they reject the use of WSPR in detecting and tracking aircraft. I find the assumption of a “quasi-straight continuous track” as put forward in their paper unrealistic.
As Petter says in his excellent documentary “But what I really want to do now, is also to look at the possibility, that there actually might be more physical evidence, of where this aircraft finally ended up.”
Petter goes on “A question that has been nagging me is would someone who has obviously planned this so thoroughly to avoid detection, bring the aircraft out to this point and then just turn the aircraft south and wait several hours until it ran out of fuel? It feels a bit unlikely given how active this person was during those initial parts of the manoeuvre, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he continued to be as active until the very end.”
Petter simply concludes both analyses are possible and the search areas are small and recommends that both are searched. We agree with his recommendation.
Thank you for your reply and to Petter and his team for such outstanding work and for such a good cause!
Mr. Godfrey, first let me thank you for all the work you’ve done.
I see how important this mystery is to you by the amount of work and writings you’ve made available to all of us, just in this blog alone.
All the comments I’ve read have been so interesting and shows how many people want this flight found.
My two cents…
There’s another Documentary which I found very interesting.
Green Dot Aviation
https://youtu.be/MhkTo9Rk6_4?si=kLZP8JUeE3_0goZe
Especially with the switching off communications.
Some have said a trip down to the electronics bay was needed to
Pull circuit breakers.
In this report he said it could have been switched off from the cockpit. (Switching off many other functions as well)
I find that more logical if it can be done.
Maybe someone out here can verify it.
I also find that “holding pattern so curious.
Was it to communicate to someone?
Burn off fuel?
Make sure when fuel was exhausted it was daylight?
Finding this flight will answer many questions obviously.
I don’t think we’ll ever know the why, but at least the who will be discovered or confirmed.
Thank you for giving us a platform Mr Godfrey.
And if I’ve repeated anything here, forgive me, I’ve not read all your blog yet, but I’m getting there.
@R.L.M.,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
I have commented at length on the Green Dot Aviation at the following link:
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/12/18/wspr-as-radar/comment-page-1/#comment-2350
The documentary correctly points out that the transponder was switched to standby in the cockpit. The documentary correctly shows there was not an electrical failure that caused the transponder to stop operating, but a pilot selection in the cockpit.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve just watched the Green Dot Aviation video. It’s pretty good, and everything he says until 60 mins seems very plausible. But he then makes the assumption that the pilot put the plane into autopilot and effectively killed himself by depressurising the plane for a second time, this time without wearing an oxygen mask, and that the plane then flew for several hours in a straight line on autopilot with no-one alive on board. We know now that this is very unlikely. It seem much more plausible that the pilot would have wanted to have carried on flying the plane manually for as long as possible, and the latest evidence confirms that as the most likely scenario. Also, the pilot committing suicide in this way in the middle of the flight just doesn’t seem right from a psychological point of view. It doesn’t really fit in with everything else he did beforehand — where his main focus is having total control of the aircraft. Anyway, that’s what I thought about the Green Dot Aviation documentary. Certainly worth watching.
What I find odd is that only 4 years ago they were proposing that MH370 had probably tried to land on Christmas Island and had only narrowly failed to do so. Although they’ve changed their minds now, I still find it a bit odd that they ever entertained such an idea in the first place. (I just watched their lecture from November 2019 where they were saying this, shortly after watching their new one from a few months ago).
Outstanding documentary especially in its coverage of the new WSPR analysis. The latter shows a much more complex path than hitherto assumed with what looks like a holding pattern in the latter part of the flight which could be a timing tactic, Given that the time of the impact appears to be around dawn, a traditional prayer time in Islam, perhaps there should be consideration that the the aircraft was aimed towards Mecca in the final minutes. Apologies if this has been mentioned before.
@PabloC,
Welcome to the blog!
The idea of facing Mecca has been put forward before, but not in light of the most recent results.
Along a great circle there are two possibilities to face Mecca, the short path and the long path.
From a crash location at 29.128°S 99.934°E the great circle distance to Mecca along the short path is 8,534.6 km on an initial bearing of 303.8°T. At 00:10 UTC MH370 had turned on to a track of 304.7°T as estimated by the WSPR data.
From a crash location at 29.128°S 99.934°E the great circle distance to Mecca along the long path is 31,540.4 km on an initial bearing of 123.8°T. At 00:16 UTC MH370 had turned on to a track of 120.4°T and at 00:26 UTC at the MH370 had turned on to a track of 124.4°T as estimated by the WSPR data.
There is quite clearly evidence of MH370 facing Mecca via both the short path and the long path just prior to the crash estimated at 00:27:51 UTC.
Have read all the reports and technical paper by @RichardGodfrey along with the documentary by @MentourPilot. I must say it is a really convincing and scientific work. I hope the authorities approve a renewed search in the areas.
@Felix P,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
I also hope that there will be a new search and MH370 will be found.
@Richard Godfrey, I watched the MentourPilot video and he mentions at the end that the plane did a figure of eight before running out of fuel. I can’t see this mentioned or shown in any previous reports, is there a more detailed flight path or report on the detail of the flight path from WSPR? Can you point me towards the evidence that shows this?
@Callow,
The figure of eight in the documentary is exaggerated to make a point.
The figure of eight in the report is termed “circling” and in reality is much flatter.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/irlhsoap5a2cyysjq9vvr/MH370-Crash-Location-Probability-Map-with-circle-radius-30-km.png?rlkey=saq0q191y7v29du0xok3bol18&dl=0
Hello
My interpretation of the figure 8 for Richard’s data was that it was that of a pilot, like the radio use just before the last transmission was interpreted as indicating that Shah was busy doing something else as he was talking. Pilot Petter has made excellent aviation videos and I find him to be very professional in interpreting official reports.
A figure 8 certainly fits with a very specific location on the ocean surface to target the ditching of the aircraft, on rough water, as being the intention.
John.
So is the Figure pattern accurate or not?
I looked at the picture he has on his video compared to the actual data by Joseph Hooton Taylor and they look pretty different.
I’d love some help because I’m a student researching the theories on mh370 and I’ve been stuck on what he said in the video.
Hey, would you mind telling where you got this image? Thanks.
@Mina He,
Welcome to the blog!
As explained in the post above: “A short update on the crash location probability map confirming 29.128°S 99.934°E with even greater likelihood was given in section 9 of our paper titled “How does WSPR detect Aircraft over long Distances? – Technical Paper” dated 15th February 2024, which can be downloaded here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vzftcvfx01lhbt3xfgyu5/How-Does-WSPR-Detect-Aircraft-over-Long-Distances-15FEB2024.pdf?rlkey=p8dcu8q3ww741joa922bdikng&dl=0
Please see Figure 40 on page 61.
You appear confused, when you refer to the “actual data by Joseph Hooton Taylor”. There is no data supplied by Joseph Hooton Taylor with respect to our analyses of using WSPR to detect and track MH370.
I suggest you start by reading our paper linked below, which is referenced in the video and the post above:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nn3eedtd9ew15f81n2xx7/MH370-Flight-Path-Analaysis-31st-August-2023.pdf?rlkey=c72bo3kc2vv74swr3wll3e4j9&dl=0
Is it possible that the debris of mh17 flight are implanted to prove mh370 distruction while it still stand somewhere in some militry airbase
The phone call family members of passengers recieved after the incident supports my point of view.
According to my understanding, what happened that night
Someone hijacked the cockpit, while another one went down to switch off the communications and after the plane went off the radar , they took the plane to some desired place.
@Ajay Sapra,
For someone who is so clever, why are you pretending to be so stupid? You understand the difference between a part number and a serial number.
It is not possible that MH17 debris was planted where MH370 debris was found, the MH17 debris may have the same part number, but has different serial numbers than the MH370 debris. Some of these serial numbers are hidden in the interior of the debris and only viewable with a borescope.
The mobile phone call received by one of the next of kin has already been explained in previous comments on this website, as a reboot of the provider’s system.
Please see this comment:
https://www.mh370search.com/2022/09/08/mh370-detection-and-tracking/comment-page-1/#comment-1992
A ghost mobile call has absolutely nothing to do with the 43 items of floating debris that have been found in the Indian Ocean and it is completely illogical disinformation to claim otherwise.
Your understanding is completely wrong, MH370 did not land safely in “some desired place”. MH370 crashed in the southern Indian Ocean and to claim otherwise is fake news and disinformation, designed to be deliberately misleading and a manipulation of the facts.
Please take your propaganda elsewhere, you are not welcome on this website.
@John Finlay,
MH370 did not ditch, it crashed and likely broke up on impact.
Capt. Petter Hörnfeldt says:
“We do know that the aircraft crashed in the ocean, in or near the already searched area, because both internal and external parts of the aircraft have been found.”
“The confirmed piece of debris comes from a flaperon from the right hand wing, as well as multiple other components, which are almost certainly coming from MH370.”
“All of those pieces have been washed up along the coastlines of Eastern Africa and islands around, by currents that can be tracked back to this general area.”
“And given that some of the debris found comes from inside the aircraft, it is likely that it broke up upon impact.”
I have watched Petter’s documentary and it is presented in a very clear style. I have been a subscriber to his channel for a long while. I hope a new ocean search is initiated as a result of the WSPR data.
One thing that occurred to me seeing the figure of 8 flight path near the end, was that it was very likely to be part of an ocean surface search. But my thought is that it was maybe to find a vessel, not to avoid one.
The whole elaborate plan seems a waste of time for someone who intended suicide. They may have died in the final moments of the flight but accidentally.
I see the disappearance of MH370 in the same light as the Al-Hilli murders. A mystery that will be solved one day.
@Sean Evans,
Welcome to the blog!
That is why we need ot find the wreckage and recover the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder.
If there was any radio contact with a rendezvous vessel, then the Cockpit Voice Recorder will have recorded the last 2 hours of flight.
The Flight Data Recorder will help us to more precisely know the last minutes of the flight path towards a rendezvous point.
I agree the mystery will be solved one day.
Hello Richard Godfrey ,I enjoyed your talk on ABC Radio Station,PERTH WA 8/3/3/24.👏
I have few photographic evidence photos, taken my iPad-Zoom Earth.
SW of Perth & quite close to where you mentioned. A new hope!?
Am not pullling your leg! A Aussie saying. 👍
Would love to phone you ,but cannot see your number on this website.
Have been reluctant to show photos to only a few friends,in case I get ridiculed.
My mobile number 0401 157 160 Western Australia.
Sincerely Dale K
@Dale Kelliher,
Welcome to the blog and I am glad that you enjoyed the interview.
I have received so many pictures from so many people showing MH370 in so many different locations. Up until now, they have nearly all been debunked for one reason or another.
I am sure you are not trying to pull my leg, but I do need certain information to be able to investigate photographic evidence. Low resolution pictures are not usually very helpful. I prefer high resolution colour pictures, the date, time, time zone, GPS location and direction in which the picture was taken, which some cameras embed in the picture. What you believe the picture is showing and whether a report was made to the authorities at the time and what their response was. It is important if the photo shows a debris item to know if it is a current find and whether you have access to the debris item. In this case, I would like the dimensions length, width and height as well as the weight. A description of shape, colour and material is also helpful. It is seldom helpful to send pictures that were taken years ago, where the circumstances are long since forgotten.
I run a website for any public comment relevant to helping to find MH370 and I can be contacted at richard@mh370search.com for private communications. I do not have a global call centre operating 24 x 7, as I have over 20,000 viewers on my website and I prefer to respond to the many private emails, that I receive, during working hours in my timezone. My private phone number is reserved for my family and friends. I hope for your understanding.
Hello Mr. Godfrey,
Thank you for your great work in trying to find MH370.
Please excuse my English. I’m from Germany, near Lake Constance.
I have a few technical questions:
Can a Boeing 777 receive a normal radio station with the radio direction finder (ADF)? (AM Broadcast Band, MF Medium Frequency)
Are there other options for getting news on board the plane?
If I wanted to vanish a plane, and I could hear on the news, that they were searching in the wrong place, I would feel safe.
The first holding pattern was between the first Handshake and the second Handshake.
Perhaps at this moment, the pilot was receiving news from the radio or something else.
What information about the plane was on the air at that time, on the news or radio and television?
Best regards Markus
@Markus,
„herzlich willkommen, keine Entschuldigung nötig”
The ADF receiver on a Boeing 777 calculates the bearing to a station that transmits in the frequency range of 190 KHz to 1750 KHz. The receiver also receives station identifiers and AM broadcasts.
The audio management unit (AMU) receives Morse code station identifier signals and audio from the receivers and sends them to the flight inter-phone speakers and headsets.
Radio station AM bands include long wave broadcasts (150 kHz to 285 kHz) and medium wave broadcasts (525 kHz to 1605 kHz).
The long wave AM stations would experience attenuation of signal strength with distance by absorption in the ground, which is lower than at higher frequencies, and falls with frequency. Low frequency ground waves can be received up to 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi, 1080 nmi) from the transmitting antenna.
The medium wave AM stations have a practical groundwave reception of strong transmitters, which typically extends to 320 – 480 km (200 – 300 mi, 173 nmi – 259 nmi), with greater distances over terrain with higher ground conductivity, and greatest distances over salt water.
The only AM station available at the time broadcasting in English was Voice of America on 1,575 kHz broadcasting from Bangkok, Thailand, but had limited range on medium wave.
Of course the active pilot may have spoken several languages.
Voice of Malaysia ceased broadcasting in 2011, prior to the flight of MH370.
@Markus,
My co-author Dr. Hannes Coetzee points out to me, that instead of using the ADF to tune to an AM station, the person piloting MH370 could, if he wanted to, have listened on the aircraft’s HF transceiver(s) to commercial ShortWave (AM) transmissions. A bit of planning beforehand (frequency predictions or practical experience) would have enabled him to receive real time news broadcasts over much longer distances than what LW or MW would have allowed. If utilised it could have contributed to his situational awareness.
I think Hannes’ idea of using the HF radio instead, which is tuneable between 2 MHz and 30 MHz to pick up a short wave radio transmitter is much better. Stations broadcasting in English like All India Radio on 11.670 MHz, Radio Thailand on 9.390 MHz, Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 4.835 MHz and many others like the BBC World Service are all candidates for real time news broadcasts.
Great work! Why
have cockpit voice recorders not been upgraded to stream compressed voice data audio to a remote server? This is not difficult to do. Would get rid of all this waiting and recovery time to get to the box.
Aren’t there any local fishermen in the new area? What about ships in the area. Wouldn’t they have seen the debris?
@Andrew Suares,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for your kind words!
The Boeing 777 registration 9M-MRO which operated flight MH370 was built in 2002 and designed and developed between 1992 and 1994.
Today I am sure your are right and would stream the data from a CVR and FDR via satellite.
AIS Marine data was also only implemented on large ships in 2014 and satellite usage was in its infancy. To my knowledge, there were no ships in the area at the time of the MH370 crash.
Mr. Godfrey,
Many thanks for all the work you do and for sharing it with us. God bless you for caring about the victims relatives.
I am shocked with disbelief learning that Ocean Infinity will search a different location, far away from your proposed area. Of course, being a private company, it is their prerogative to waste their own time, effort and treasure, but I believe they haven’t thought this through, they are simply not aware of the pain they will cause by raising false hopes again for the relatives.
It is unthinkable for me that they won’t review the case studies that you have presented, where a number of planes have been successfully tracked in real time with your methodology. What more evidence does anyone need, for heaven’s sake?
@Rodney Alcon,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for your blessings!
Ocean Infinity have been in touch with my co-author Prof. Simon Maskell recently and are keen to see what he concludes. Our impression is, that they are somewhat sceptical, but we think they are trying to walk a political tightrope and that’s motivating what they can say openly.
WSPR has been validated against over 50 flights, including MH370 and other flights with the same aircraft as 9M-MRO. Prof. Simon Maskell is currently validating WSPR against around 1,000 Boeing 777 flights, which is a much wider scale study and will be far more convincing than that, which we have published so far.
Great documentary by Mentour Pilot. However, also check another youtube channel “Green Dot Aviation”. He also explains in detail how the pilot executed this.
@Tanmay,
Welcome to the blog!
I have commented at length on the Green Dot Aviation documentary previously at the following link on 23rd December 2023:
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/12/18/wspr-as-radar/comment-page-1/#comment-2350
And again in this post more recently on 21st March 2024 above:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/03/16/mh370-a-new-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-2591
Dear Richard,
Many thanks and well done on all the work you are doing. Hopefully it will contribute to solving this mystery, bringing peace and closure for the families and friends of those on board.
I have been following your work for several months now. I am fortunate that my husband is a radiocommunications engineer and RAF veteran, so he is doing a great job translating some of the technical details!
I am currently reading Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand’s paper where they refer to the co-pilot’s phone connection to the Celcom Location Base Station in Penang Island at 17h.52 UTC. I am not sure it is covered in this report or elsewhere on your superb website, but if his phone connected, one wonders why other mobile phones on board did not?
I understand the issue with the plane’s altitude, but I’d expect the phones to be “pinging” the base stations even if calls weren’t being attempted. I think flight mode/device power off was more strictly enforced on aircraft in 2014, so this could be another reason along with the distance/height of the plane from the base station.
Finally, we watched Petter’s documentary which was excellent, thanks for the recommendation.
And now back Messrs Blelly and Marchand!
All the best,
Karen Halicki
@Karen Halicki,
Welcome to the blog and for the kind words!
The co-pilot’s mobile detection and the possibility of other mobile detections have been covered at length in around 60 comments on this website, which are too numerous to mention.
I am glad you liked Petter’s excellent documentary “MH370: A new hope”.
As we state in the post above: “We support Petter’s findings and his search recommendation.”
Meanwhile the BBC documentary “Why Planes Vanish – The Hunt for MH370” has reached more viewings worldwide than any other MH370 documentary at 23 Million views in total.
The widely criticised Netflix series was previously the most viewed (Netflix claim 21.6 Million views). Other figures show only around 6.7 Million actually finished watching all the series in three parts, as it was so full of obvious conspiracy theories and sensationalism.
Thank you! I will find them and have a read.
I watched both documentaries and tend to agree with your views.
@Karen Halicki,
To save you hunting through all the comments here are some of the most relevant on the subject of mobile phone detection:
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/12/18/wspr-as-radar/comment-page-1/#comment-2356
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/12/18/wspr-as-radar/comment-page-1/#comment-2372
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/02/26/the-ongoing-search-for-mh370/comment-page-1/#comment-2164
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/02/26/the-ongoing-search-for-mh370/comment-page-1/#comment-2162
https://www.mh370search.com/2022/09/08/mh370-detection-and-tracking/comment-page-1/#comment-2150
https://www.mh370search.com/2022/03/14/mh370-wspr-technical-report/comment-page-2/#comment-2036
https://www.mh370search.com/2022/09/08/mh370-detection-and-tracking/comment-page-1/#comment-1992
@Andrew S,
Welcome to the blog!
The CAPTIO team and later the CAPTION team have presented three studies based on two opposite hypotheses: Most recently Captain Patrick Blelly’s trajectory assumes that there was an active pilot in command of MH370 and a flight path ending in the South Indian Ocean, whereas previously CAPTION and CAPTIO trajectories hypothesise failed attempts to land at airports either at Christmas Island, an Australian external territory in the Indian Ocean or at Learmonth, on the North-West point of mainland Australia.
The paper titled “A plausible trajectory for MH370” published 23rd December 2017 considered Christmas Island as the final target and was written by Jean-Luc Marchand, Michel Delarche & Jean-Marc Garot as members of CAPTIO.
The analysis was inspired by the French book “Le détournement du MH370 – Pourquoi faut-il chercher l’épave ailleurs” (“The Hijacking of MH370: Why should we look elsewhere for the wreck” by Jean-Marc Garot and Michel Delarche and published on 4th August 2016, where the idea is that hijackers were hidden in the Main Equipment Centre from some time before take-off and climbed into the cabin and from the cabin gained entry into the cockpit.
As explained on their website the CAPTIO team assumed Christmas Island was targeted, the CAPTION team assumed Learmonth was targeted. The CAPTIO team included Jean-Luc Marchand, Michel Delarche, Jean-Marc Garot, Philippe Gasser and Argiris Kamoulakos. The CAPTION team includes Jean-Luc Marchand, Capt. Patrick Blelly, Philippe Gasser and Argiris Kamoulakos.
The paper titled “MH370 – CAPTION – A New Plausible Piloted Trajectory” published 22nd September 2021 and updated 28th February 2022 considered Learmonth as the final target and was written by Jean-Luc Marchand with contributions from Philippe Gasser, as members of CAPTION.
Captain Patrick Blelly published the results of his research in a French book titled “MH370 La contre-enquête d’un pilote” (“MH370 A Pilot’s Counter-Investigation”) and published on 24th March 2022. His first major hypothesis is that Flight MH370 embarked on a nefarious and fatal journey of no return. The second major hypothesis is that the flight of MH370 was piloted until the end.
The paper titled “Analysis of the trajectory of Flight MH370” published 16th February 2023 and updated 22nd March 2023 abandoned the idea of a safe landing and considered a nefarious act to crash MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean and was written by Captain Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand.
Jean-Luc Marchand was author or co-author of all three studies Christmas Island, Learmonth and Southern Indian Ocean, but he was first influenced by the book “The Hijacking of MH370: Why should we look elsewhere for the wreck” written by his colleagues in Air Traffic Management, but in the most recent paper he was influenced by the book “MH370 A Pilot’s Counter-Investigation” written by a pilot Capt. Patrick Blelly.
I agree that there was an active pilot until the end of the flight of MH370 but I disagree with the assumption of a quasi straight line flight path assumed in all three studies. The WSPR data shows that there were a number of turns towards various waypoints, as well as two step climbs to higher altitude during the flight of MH370.
There are over 120 books written on MH370 and each with their own theory of what happened. As Sherlock Holmes said in the book ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’, “It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
The facts come from the Boeing 777-2H6ER documentation, Malaysian Airlines 9M-MRO Engineering data, the Fuel Docket transmitted on 7th March 2014 at 15:27 UTC showing 49,100 kg of fuel loaded and 49,600 kg of fuel on board MH370, Inmarsat BTO and BFO satellite data for MH370 registration 9M-MRO, Drift Analyses by Oceanographers based on the location and timing of floating debris recovered around the Indian Ocean and either confirmed or highly likely to be from MH370 and the analysis of the WSPR data recorded and archived at the time of the flight of MH370. All these facts agree on a crash location at around 29.128°S 99.934°E.
I watched the recent BBC documentary (twice) and find the WSPR data extremely compelling. Coming from an aviation family, I have more than the average man in the street knowledge of aviation.
Your research is absolutely amazing…please can you add me to your list of people to be kept informed on whatever further developments there are?
Best regards to you sir.
@Andy Ruaux,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
I agree the BBC documentary was excellent.
Coming from an aviation family, you may find the pilot’s perspective in the MH370 documentary published by Petter Hörnfeldt titled “MH370 – A New Hope” on his YouTube Channel called Mentour Pilot even better.
The documentary can be viewed at the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk
Hello Richard,
Would I be right in assuming that no country has used its military submarine assets in the search , as there sonar detection systems are not designed for this kind of operation?
I hope the recent developments with WSPR and the Oceanography studies will result in a new search. Even though the Flight Data Recorders may not be able to give answers due to being on the sea bed at extreme depth for ten years.
Best Regards
Andy
@Andy Ruaux,
A UK nuclear powered submarine HMS Tireless joined the search on 2nd April 2014 in the effort to locate the fixed Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) located above the ceiling of the aft passenger cabin, which is activated on impact. There were 3 other ELTs on MH370, one portable ELT in the cockpit and two portable in life rafts, but these are only activated on demand.
As you say, submarine sonar detections systems are not useful in an underwater search for aircraft wreckage only in searching for ELTs.
The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) are designed to withstand impact and extreme depths for over ten years. The CVR only records the last 2 hours, but the FDR records the last 25 hours of flight and it is stored in solid state non-volatile memory that does not require battery power. The FDR records more than 1,300 parameters. The FDR is a 256 word per second data rate recorder. The most recent flight data recorder download for this aircraft was in September 2013 and this was carried out for the annual maintenance readout check.
@Adam Coombs,
Welcome to the blog!
I do not know of any petition or forum where people can sign to help encourage the authorities to continue searching for MH370.
It is a nice idea!
@All,
There has been discussion again recently about the missing Inmarsat satellite data from the In Flight Entertainment (IFE) setup message, which was not received as expected at around 00:21:06 UTC, around 90 seconds following the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) reboot, which started at 00:19:29.416 UTC and was acknowledged at 00:19:37.443 UTC. The SDU reboot is thought to have occurred due to the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) coming on line following dual engine flameout and fuel exhaustion to the engines and just prior to fuel exhaustion to the APU.
The APU fuel feed is lower in the fuel tank and allows 30 lbs of fuel to the APU after fuel exhaustion to the main engines, assuming the aircraft is in a normal flight attitude. The APU when electrically loaded runs for a maximum of 13 minutes 45 seconds on 30 lbs of fuel.
When both engines flame out, the APU autostart sequence begins and takes around 60 seconds for power to come on line. We know that the SDU reboot started at 00:19:29.416 UTC and from manufacturer’s tests the SDU required approximately 60 seconds to transmit a log-on request after power application. This means the APU came on line at around 00:18:30 UTC and the autostart sequence commenced around 00:17:30 UTC and the APU fuel would last at a maximum until 00:32:15 UTC.
The failure to receive the IFE signal is falsely used by some MH370 analysts as proof that the crash occurred before 00:21:06 UTC and therefore the crash was close to the 7th Arc.
As Capt. Patrick Blelly points out, it is perfectly possible that one or both engines were shut down at the end of flight to preserve fuel for the APU in order to provide essential hydraulic and electrical power to the aircraft. Capt. Patrick Blelly further points out that this would enable the flaps to be extended for a controlled ditching. Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand show that an active pilot can perform a glide with 30° flaps extended and this could result in a controlled ditching between 00:28:20 UTC and 00:35:30 UTC. The crash point in this case is between 45.4 nmi and 66.8 nmi from the 7th Arc at 00:19:29 UTC.
However, the hypothesis that the flaps were extended is in contradiction to the ATSB findings, where they point out that the damage to the Outboard Flap recovered from Pemba Island, Tanzania that they subsequently analysed shows that it was not extended at impact.
The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) can also be deployed manually from the cockpit overhead panel or automatically when hydraulic or electrical power is lost from the main engines and the APU. The RAT does not provide hydraulics to be able to extend the flaps however, the pilot would require APU power for flap extension.
The RAT system can be deployed from the cockpit overhead panel as depicted in the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vbn6hrc90uqrhl7x3gs3z/Boeing-777-Cockpit-Overhead-RAM-Panel.png?rlkey=bj2fp2fx1rns94c8wajtt8hed&dl=0
The ATSB report the fact that the expected IFE system transmission was not received could be due to:
– the IFE system being selected off from the cockpit overhead panel at some point after the 18:25 logon, or
– the IFE and/or SDU unit losing power (APU flame-out), or
– the IFE and/or SDU becoming inoperative (due to impact with the water) before the connections could be set up, or
– an unusual aircraft attitude breaking the line-of-sight to the satellite (aircraft transmission not received by satellite).
The IFE system can be switched off on the cockpit overhead panel as depicted in the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r5r6jm2kjwpaj25ua0bll/Boeing-777-Cockpit-Overhead-Electrical-Panel.png?rlkey=j6nqpi82del7o1kmpieby8846&dl=0
The Electrical Load Management System (ELMS) automatically sheds non-essential electrical loads when the APU starts. The ELMS protects the electrical power system. It sheds (disconnects) electrical loads to keep the load levels below the power supply levels. In flight the ELMS monitors the status of these three power sources for load shed control:
– Left Engine Integrated Drive Generator (120 kVA).
– Right Engine Integrated Drive Generator (120 kVA).
– APU generator (120 kVA).
These are the loads that the ELMS can shed and the general sequence it sheds them:
– Galley loads.
– Utility buses.
– Equipment cooling vent fan.
– Galley chillers.
– Recirculation fans.
– Lavatory/galley fans.
– Electronic passenger seat equipment.
– Hydraulic pumps.
The APU generator can supply 120 kVA and is the equivalent of the Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) in either engine. The RAT can only supply 7.5 kVA and provides power to a select number of essential aircraft systems via the standby power panel, such as the Air Data Inertial Reference System, Radio Altimeter, GPS, Fuel Quantity Indicating System and the Captain’s flight instruments. The SDU is not powered by the RAT generator.
The IFE system is one of the non-essential power loads that is shed automatically when either the APU starts or the RAT is deployed on a Boeing 777, like galley ovens and refrigerators or passenger seat electronic equipment including IFE, that are all automatically switched off.
The IFE would definitely have been switched off automatically at the end of flight following fuel exhaustion to both engines and the APU. The IFE would also be switched off, if the RAT were deployed manually, earlier in the end of flight phase.
The hypothesis from Capt. Patrick Blelly that the RAT was deployed much earlier in the flight of MH370 at the diversion does not match the fuel consumption that he claims, “the path of our trajectory is 2,522 nmi long and was flown during 5.825 hours from 18h28:06 UTC”. They show the Boeing fuel estimate for their flight route as 2,544 nmi. They further explain: “The shortfall of 22 nmi results most likely from the drag of the deployed RAT leading to a fuel overconsumption. From ARC1-Boeing at 18h28:06 UTC, we estimate this overconsumption at about ~300kg i.e. 0.9% of the fuel consumed during this southern leg.”
If the fuel endurance is 5:49:30 from 18:28:06 UTC, then fuel exhaustion was at 00:17:36 UTC. How is it then possible to “manually shut down the left engine at 00:19:00 UTC in order to save 200 kg of fuel for the APU”? The hypothesis of an early RAT deployment does not fit Capt. Patrick Blelly’s own fuel calculations.
It is possible that the IFE system had lost power and this was the reason why the IFE signal was not received as expected at 00:21:06 UTC. It is therefore possible that the crash of MH370 occurred after 00:21:06 UTC.
The damage to the 43 items of MH370 floating debris recovered from the Indian Ocean shows that there was not a controlled ditching with a soft landing, but rather a high energy impact with a large number of debris items with an average weight of 4.881 kg. The zero fuel weight of MH370 was 174,369 kg, which implies the aircraft disintegrated into around 35,700 items of debris.
Drift analysis by oceanographers at the University of Western Australia (UWA) show the crash of MH370 likely occurred in an area between 28.297°S and 33.172°S and 1° of longitude either side of the 7th Arc. This area is 96,400 km² of which 44.5% has previously been searched by Ocean Infinity.
The Boeing end of flight simulations performed in April 2016 show it is possible for the aircraft without an active pilot to recover from a dive of over 15,000 fpm and fly a further distance of between 48.8 nmi and 69.1 nmi from 00:19:37 UTC.
The WSPR analysis shows MH370 was still airborne at 00:26 UTC and most likely crashed between 00:28 UTC and 00:30 UTC and definitely by 00:32 UTC. The crash point is between 39.9 nmi and 40.9 nmi from the 7th Arc at 00:19:29 UTC.
We accept the ATSB finding that the flaps were not extended on impact, which means a higher speed impact and shorter glide path. The higher speed impact aligns with the analysis of the 43 items of floating debris found so far. The shorter glide path aligns with the WSPR analysis that the crash most likely occurred between 00:28 UTC and 00:30 UTC.
The WSPR crash location aligns with the:
1. Boeing fuel endurance and fuel range.
2. Inmarsat satellite data.
3. Boeing end of flight simulations.
4. ATSB finding that the flaps were not extended.
5. Damage to 43 items of MH370 floating debris recovered around the Indian Ocean that show the crash was a high energy impact.
6. UWA drift analysis predicted crash area between 28.297°S and 33.172°S long the 7th Arc.
@All,
Here is a list of Frequently Asked Questions on MH370.
1. Why was the northern arc never searched properly?
Inmarsat scientists, Chris Aston et al., published a paper in the Journal of Navigation titled “The Search for MH370” on 4th September 2014. They explain that the Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) satellite data shows that MH370 followed a southern route and not a northern route. The measured BFO frequencies match the predicted South track, but not the predicted North track. The Inmarsat paper can be found at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tprui5tp235efmm/Inmarsat%20Paper%20Sept%204.pdf?dl=0
2. Why was it abandoned so quickly?
The evidence supplied was independently verified by a number of MH370 analysts. The authorities accepted the evidence and decided not to search the Northern route.
3. Why didn’t you or the BBC refer to it, even though the screen showed the complete arc when talking about the handshakes?
The BBC did refer to it. The documentary relates that evidence found by Inmarsat scientists using satellite data shows that the “aircraft continued flying for seven more hours” after the diversion, that there were “seven boundaries known as arcs, which MH370 must have crossed” and that “a more detailed analysis revealed that it turned south after living the Strait of Malacca.” I agree that the evidence was left out in the documentary.
4. The FR24 glossary defines ELT as Emergency Locator Transmitter. “Activated automatically upon impact, the ELT emits distress signals … to locate the aircraft’s position swiftly”. Can the ELT be turned off with the other aircraft information systems as Capt. Zaharie is supposed to have done?
The Boeing 777 has four ELTs. There is a fixed Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) located above the ceiling of the aft passenger cabin, which is automatically activated on impact. There are 3 other ELTs on MH370, one portable ELT in the cockpit and two portable in life rafts, but these are only activated on demand. The fixed ELT can only be switched between ‘ARMED’ and ‘ON’ in the cockpit. The device is accessible via a ceiling panel at station 1880 above the aft passenger cabin close to the aft galley. You would require a step ladder or equivalent in order to gain access. Once access to the device is gained, the ELT can theoretically be disabled by switching the front panel switch to off or disconnecting the antenna.
5. I have not come across a reference to ELT in all the reading and research I have done. If there was no ELT transmission from MH370, why was that?
There was no ELT transmission received from MH370. A review of ICAO accident records over the last 30 years prior to 2014 indicated that of 173 accidents involving aircraft fitted with ELTs, only 39 cases recorded effective ELT activation.
6. I know there were supposed to be some bleeps from the ‘black box’, but as I understand it, they were never verified. There would be no emission of ELT if the plane were safely landed somewhere, would there?
The aircraft did not land safely somewhere, as we have recovered 43 items of floating debris in various locations around the Indian Ocean. Most of this debris is either proven to be from MH370 or highly likely to be from MH370 as the only Boeing 777 ever to have crashed in the Indian Ocean.
7. As far as I know there have never been any details of what the mega spyware kept by the USA at Pine Gap in Australia, and on Diego Garcia, knew about MH370. They can monitor almost anything almost anywhere on the planet. If MH370 turned south when it passed the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, it was about 1800 miles from Diego Garcia. If it flew south, and if it passed east of Diego Garcia, it was only about 1000 miles away, and if it reached the search area west of Perth, it was within range of Pine Gap too. Am I wrong about all of that?
MH370 passed within range of Over-The-Horizon-Radar systems at the US base on Diego Garcia as well as ‘five eyes’ bases in Australia at Pine Gap, Leonora, Laverton, Longreach, Stonehenge, Mount Everard, Harts Range and the Harald Holt station. I have a friend who worked on JORN and another who worked the Harald Holt station on radar systems, but not on submarine underwater communications.
8. Has anyone asked the USA what it knows about the plane? If so, what did the Americans say?
Despite Freedom of Information requests regarding the FBI investigation, all information has been declined on the grounds of national security.
9. In your analysis of the radio interruptions, what caused you to decide that a route heading south was the one to look for?
The last known position of MH370, based on the Butterworth primary civilian radar, was 5.589118°N 99.165228°E at 18:01 UTC. The regional radar data contains 1,394 regular estimates of latitude and longitude at approximately 3 second intervals from 16:41:43 UTC to 18:00:51 UTC from four radar stations with three small gaps. A single additional latitude and longitude position was reported at 18:22:12 UTC but discounted due to the large gap to the penultimate radar position and possible inaccuracy due to the long range. From the last known position, 313 WSPR anomalies between 7th March 2014 between 18:00 UTC and 8th March 2014 00:28 UTC at a total of 195 points in time that were analysed. This represents a very accurate flight path.
10. How can you be sure that it was MH370 which caused the ‘ripples’?
WSPR uses two principles, firstly that radio waves can be reflected by an aircraft, as has been used in radar systems since 1935 and secondly that radio waves can propagate using ionospheric refraction and Earth surface reflection, as has been used since 1901. We have conducted tests with over 1,000 aircraft in different locations around the globe.
11. What enabled you to say definitively that it was MH370, and not some other plane or thing?
Firstly we have the ADS-B data for the entire region to be able to discount other aircraft. Secondly we have a continuous chain of data from the last known position of MH370 at 195 points in time. We have detected missiles, but it easy to distinguish missiles, as they travel much faster than aircraft.
12. The supposed route of MH370 as found by you on the BBC was a rather wiggly line. If the pilot wanted to go as far away as possible, why not fly in a straight line?
If you fly in a straight line into the Southern Indian Ocean for six hours until fuel exhaustion, it is obvious where you will end up. The pilot not only wanted to go to a remote location, the pilot also wanted to keep that location secret. Nearly all official and unofficial analysts have assumed a quasi straight line path and we have searched all those possibilities without success. A remote location is sufficient, it does not have to be as far as possible away from everywhere.
13. Again, at the end of that line the TV appeared to show the plane suddenly executing a number of turns in various directions before it hit the sea. Why would the pilot do that?
The pilot wanted to make sure that the crash was not observed by any fishing boats or shipping in the area.
14. If the pilot were unconscious or dead, could the plane do those odd manoeuvres of its own volition?
Changes of direction can be programmed into the autopilot, but the changes of speed and step climbs cannot, they require an active pilot.
15. If you carried out an analysis of the transmissions along the northern handshake arc, what would they show?
MH370 did not follow a northern route because there are no WSPR anomalies detected in that direction. There is no Inmarsat satellite data to support a northern route. All MH370 floating debris supports a crash in the Southern Indian Ocean.
16. How would you be able to say conclusively which plane caused them?
Firstly by having the ADS-B data for the whole region and discounting all other aircraft and secondly by having a continuous stream of detections along a particular flight path. The Southern Indian Ocean is easier as there are very much fewer aircraft that fly over this region.
this is such fascinating information. I am glad there are still people putting there brains to work on this. great job
@Andrea E Romero,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
This is a great blog based on apparently solid data. The supporting technical information provides valuable clues that help tie things together. Keep up the good work.
FWIW, with regard to why the perpetrator might have seemingly prolonged the flight (figure 8’s, etc.) could that have been to fully empty the fuel tanks so as not to leave a visible oil slick from remaining fuel? I am assuming he was expecting the aircraft to break up when it hit the water, intentional or not. Granted any oil slick would likely dissipate relatively quickly in open ocean but he clearly went to extreme lengths to conceal everything about his plan and his final destination.
Richard, did anyone thank you for all the time you have spent on this plain crash!?? You need a medal for all this!? Regards Johan Pretorius.
@Johan,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
@JimFeet,
Welcome to the blog!
Many thanks for the compliment. I have spent the last 10 years collecting verified data on MH370. I try to only hypothesise on the basis of solid facts, rather than speculation, sensationalism or conspiracy theories.
I think you are right. The pilot did not want any surface oil or fuel slick, any floating debris or any observers of the crash. I agree with your conclusion, that the perpetrator “clearly went to extreme lengths to conceal everything about his plan and his final destination.”
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas at airlineratings.com has published another article titled “Deeper Understanding into Final Moments of MH370”:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mh370/deeper-understanding-into-final-moments-of-mh370/
“British Aerospace engineer and MH370 expert Richard Godfrey has published fascinating details of the last minutes of the flight of MH370 which reinforces his WSPRnet technology which has pinpointed a final resting place for the Boeing 777.”
@All,
“The 10 Most Frequently Asked Questions On MH370 Answered” has been published by Geoffrey Thomas of airlineratings.com:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/the-10-most-asked-questions-on-mh370-answered/
I still have issues with the high-speed impact theory. Lack of damage to the leading edge of the flaperon and outboard flap segment mean these two items could not have been on the airplane during a high speed impact, period. Others explain the flap and flaperon possibly departed during the high speed dive, before impact.
Control surfaces can flutter and disintegrate during an overspeed incident, so maybe this theory works for a flaperon. But flaps don’t tend to flutter.
The flap and flaperon trailing edges were missing from these two recovered pieces. If the trailing edge of the flap was overloaded during the high speed dive, to the point of failure, would the loading on the remaining portion of the flap still be sufficient to fracture the fitting bolted to the bottom of the flap? I’m really skeptical. Another item, assuming flutter or an overload of the flap fittings, the spoiler actuator is literally an inch or so above the leading edge of the flap. It’s hard to imaging an upward loading or a flutter condition sufficient to fracture the flap support fitting but not causing contact between the flap and spoiler actuator. There is no damage to the flap in the area of the actuator.
The fracture locations on the flap fitting and on the flaperon hinge fittings are still very consistent with a flaps extended controlled ditch. The loss of the trailing edges of both items is also consistent with a controlled ditch.
The damage common to the flap seal pan and the outboard side of the flaperon suggest the two items were in the fully stowed (detent 0) position when they came off. This is the most compelling evidence that the flaps were retracted. But in a crash, the sequence in which structure fails is very dynamic. I think it’s possible to explain the evidence by the sequence of failure with the flaps extended. Maybe not fully extended (detent 30).
In every crash investigation I was involved with we found surprises. We can predict what should fail first, but we cannot predict where the broken pieces will go and what they will interact with, possibly causing our predicted failure sequence to change.
Evidence from other high speed crashes suggests lots of small debris, but very few large items. And the flaps and control surfaces on the back of the wing are mashed into hundreds of small pieces by the massive deceleration. Maybe others can show evidence from a prior crash where the flaps came off the airplane before impact?
And as far as what the captain or whoever was in control was thinking. If he had analyzed prior crashes he’d see the debris field as a way to locate the crash site. Ditching the airplane in one piece and letting it sink, would leave very little evidence on the surface of the ocean. He obviously thought he was concealing his route, with no surface debris, it becomes a very large ocean to search.
I also think a majority of the pieces found to date can be explained by an attempted ditching at low speed. I say attempted on purpose. Ditching is hard to accomplish. Throw in total darkness, and a very rough sea with large waves and swells, and it’s easy to explain a partially broken apart airplane.
My gut and experience still makes me believe the pilot extended the flaps and attempted a ditch. It would be an oversight to mount a new search without considering the possible actions of an active pilot.
@Curt Bry,
I fully agree with the points you make and your conclusion “It would be an oversight to mount a new search without considering the possible actions of an active pilot.”
In my view, there was a failed ditching attempt.
At 00:19:37 UTC when the last satellite data was received, dawn had broken. The NOAA apparent sunrise calculation at sea level for 8th March 2014 shows for 33°S 95°E an apparent sunrise at 05:34 Local Time in time zone UTC +6, which is 23:54 UTC. I assume MH370 was flying at 36,000 feet (10,973 m). Apparent sunrise from the pilot’s perspective would be 11 minutes earlier at 23:43 UTC at this altitude.
The surface wind in the crash area 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 a controlled ditching, that this would have had a substantial or even disastrous cart wheel effect.
I have included in a post titled “New Debris Analysis: A Potential Game Changer” a paper by Mike Exner and Don Thompson dated 5th March 2021. Out of 34 debris items found and reported by that date, 7 items are from the right wing and the analysis points out that 4 items are control surfaces from adjacent locations along the right wing.
The key finding of their analysis is “the forces leading to the detachment of these structures initiated in the core torsion box of the wing and not from forces due to external contact applied at the trailing edge of the control surfaces”. These control surfaces appear to have separated from the aircraft in an uncontrolled descent before impact. The question is raised in the analysis, whether the right wing separated from the aircraft before impact.
Obviously, if the right wing separated from the aircraft before impact, then a controlled ditching is no longer possible. If one or more control surfaces separated before impact, then an attempted ditching would also more than likely fail.
@Curt Bry. Further about this, While you observe that there is nI agree there is no conclusive theory advanced so far as to how the flaperon and part outer flap separated and also that cause and consequence are difficult to sort.
However with its low resistance to extension of its actuators flutter might well occur at a lower speed than wing flutter and I note that it appears to flutter during engine ground runs. If so, that could well lead to it separating as the aircraft entered flutter speed, whether or not wing flutter followed. Trailing edge separation might precede that, altering flutter susceptibility, though the very low hinges and ensuing rotation aft of the lift/drag resultant vector most probably would lead to the remainder’s pitch up and separation anyway. i can forward a diagram depicting this.
As to in-flight separation of the part outer flap’s trailing edge, the only reasons I can think of was that slamming of the support track inside it caused led to that, or it broke off in shock when the outer flap broke.
As to whether it did, in ‘outside the envelope’ dives of 737s and 747s, parts of empennage control surfaces have detached in flutter without wing flutter, yet MH370’s beached wreckage does not include any parts of these. I should add that these aircraft do not have flaperons.
Irrespective, about to the cause of separation of this and the adjacent part outer flap I put a case at the first URL below (warning, a laborious read) that the likelihood was that the damage evident to both flaperon and flap, also including a bend and twist in that flap’s inboard pivot link, together with the flaperon/flap mutual damage you mention, suggested the right wing had broken in overload, breaking the outer flap at that point.
This was either in flight (most likely at the bottom of a high speed phugoid if unpiloted or a deliberate dive if piloted) or on the aircraft hitting the seas right wing down, unpiloted. On that, the configuration I envisage is flaps-housed, based principally on the flap internal damage from by its support track, essentially fully inserted. Besides it is unlikely that a pilot would elect to ditch with engines off and flaps up. Also possibly germane, the damage to MH370’s fin, evident in a recovered piece of its skin, is dissimilar to the outcome of a Boeing 767 ditching in the Comoros.
Also on flap deployment, parts of both outer flaps and the right aileron were recovered as was the right flaperon and flaperon closing panels. Yet there were no identifiable parts of the inboard flaps, though these might have been expected were they deployed in a ditching, particularly given their size. All in all it seems more probable than not that they were not deployed, or, for that matter, vulnerable to what forced separation of other trailing edge components.
On your point about the limited damage to the flaperon and outer part flap leading edges, surprisingly the outboard end of MH17’s left outer flap was ejected with no leading edge damage after the aircraft’s front end crashed onto solid ground. The second URL depicts that.
(Even so the heavy impact at the flaperon’s outer leading edge is unexplained. Nothing for it to hit in that way. Perhaps that was after separation.)
Also, please note that the outer support track’s carriage assembly has remained in place, affixed to the outer flap part’s rib even though broken by support track extraction. The similar MH370 carriage was torn out. So with that in mind, it seems more likely that this did not occur from track extraction but rather it happened during track flailing when inserted, being a fulcrum for that flailing but overloaded…..
Finally, in supporting the theory that the flailing would have been with the flap essentially housed, part of my reasoning was that the flap brake, together with the screw pitch resisting reversal under end load, being fine, these together would prevent flap actuating mechanism compression under flap loading. Do you agree?
Please let me know should there be any hyperlinks in the below that you would like to see but are inaccessible:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ClXqhdHZJkrp4MkTkx6fFzq0D7w5pxf2/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105452605762640315384&rtpof=true&sd=true
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShIUUak42kyU9UaCl2PWc_Ch8TCEjx0U/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105452605762640315384&rtpof=true&sd=true
You are obviously spending more time on this than I. I’m too easily distracted by life in general. The following is not going to help solve any mystery, but may give you a little insight into my perspectives.
I was sent to France to establish whether the flaperon was from MH370. I accomplished that by convincing the French Magistrate that the internal composite parts would have Work Order Numbers and manufacturing dates printed on their internal surfaces. And that allowing a remote visual inspection and the limited damage that would cause, would allow us to give a 99% probability answer to the question that day, and that giving the W/O numbers to CASA (the flaperon manufacturer) would positively link the flaperon to the airframe. That was the only reason I was allowed to be there. As I saw the first manufacturing date, I knew MH370 had perished into the sea.
I spent a fair amount of my time there examining(not touching) the flaperon. I made fairly detailed sketches of the flaperon fittings and damage. This report was turned in to our safety people. I was not asked to participate in any of the subsequent analysis done by Boeing. As expected I was not privy to any information flowing between Boeing and the investigative bodies. As such I have no idea how much or how little Boeing contributed to the investigation. Or who at Boeing was consulted. I was the senior design lead for all the control and high lift surfaces on the 777 at the time. I knew my parts well with roughly 20 years spent tending to their needs.
So my opinions are based on close visual inspections I did many years ago of a flaperon whose fracture surfaces had been eaten away by years of corrosion in the worst environment possible. And my opinions are tempered by two crash investigations I was involved in first hand.
None of this matters.
I want this airplane to be found, for closure to the many families and friends affected.
I want to help when I can, and I also want to stay out of the way.
So here are a few other insights you may or may not be aware of. Some of this may help, or not.
The engines make fairly good skis. We saw this at Heathrow on sod, we saw it at San Francisco on tarmac. Speed and AOA will determine where the wake hits the trailing edge of the wing. Throw in a bit of yaw and it’s hard to predict how much flap angle it takes to hit hard enough to cause damage to the flaperon or the flaps. I would also conclude the fin and horizontal stabilizer are not out of harms way for bits departing the trailing edge of the wings either in-flight or sliding along the ground or water.
I would not discount the lack of inboard flap debris too much. The inboard aft flap has a pair of heavy aluminum ribs at each end. The skins and spars are very light composite. The whole assembly only weighs about 220 pounds and it’s 18 feet long with a 4 foot chord and it’s only 6 inches thick. If it were to strike water when deployed, it would most likely fracture the skins which contain nomex honeycomb core. Any buoyancy left after impact would fade with exposure.
The inboard main flap would meet a similar fate. It has very heavy internal ribs and a 50 pound torque tube at the inboard end. If it broke into two pieces, it would probably sink right away.
I have not seen any of the info available on MH17. The links did not work for me.
I would be interested in seeing some of the evidence related to the trailing edges.
I have limited knowledge of the flaperon actuator bypass mode. They move, but not fast. the fusing is meant to relieve structural overloads, but I would guess not dynamic overloads. A sudden impact and the actuator may as well be a solid steel rod.
I do know we designed the end of the inboard and outboard flaps as frangible structure. It is sized to take the seal and aerodynamic loads, but not be strong enough to block movement of the flaperon during a skew event. So the seal pan of the outboard flap should not contribute too much to a break of the flap skins and spars especially considering it is more or less intact. Seal pan and skins are 10 plies or less of .0095 thick fiberglass prepreg.
The aux track at the inboard end of the outboard flap is there primarily for deflection control. It is also sized to take an up-load during certain partial failures of the flap support mechanism.
I do not believe it is strong enough to help break the outboad flap during a wing break as hypothesized. Maybe I’m not following the logic correctly. The attachments to the rear spar have spherical bearings as does the carriage on the track. When overloaded, the track will roll over or twist. And the aluminum link at the forward end is the weak point.
I will admit, it’s hard to tell how it behaves with a significant down load.
Lastly, the flaperon is moved to different positions dependent on flap positions, but these become the new neutral positions, and the surface remains a part of the flight controls. In other words, it’s still the inboard aileron.
I will also say I saw what the 777 airframe is capable of taking first hand at San Francisco. She did a cartwheel and the airframe including the wings remained intact. It’s going to be hard for me to visualize it breaking up in flight even though I know flutter can do amazing things.
If I have value to add to this investigation, it’s probably as a resource for specific part information where Boeing and other sources refuse or are not allowed to contribute. I’m working from memory as my access to drawings is gone.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your logic to me. I do appreciate the time you guys are taking trying to understand this tragedy.
@Curt Bry. My thanks for your informative summary of your design leadership of the 777 control and high lift surfaces and your subsequent experience.
Persuading a French magistrate as to how to identify the origin of the flaperon presumably stems from their criminal law; likewise their independent, albeit thorough, investigation and their retention of the flaperon with the bulk of its barnacles.
Thanks for your point about the variability of the engine wake shield of the flaperon in a ditching.
Yes as you say debris might could have struck the fin though whether that skin piece would have been as badly damaged as it was by that remains a question I think. Indeed a piece of skin was taken out of the right horizontal stabiliser but that was a straight tear.
To me, central to whether the internal seal pan damage is convincing evidence that the flaps had not been deployed for a ditching was whether water impact force could re-house them, or whether instead the lowered flaps would break off.
I see the Asiana wreckage supports that they would indeed break off. After what apparently was a left wing down hitting the runway, a wreckage photo has the right flaps fully down, the lefts’ torn off, i.e.not forced back to housed.
Thanks for your explanation as to why no identifiable inboard flap wreckage might have washed ashore, i.e. insufficient buoyancy.
However the flooded flaperon was floated by its honeycomb skin for 18months to beaching and while its trailing edge was fractured and there was other skin impact damage here and there, the French found there was little water ingress in its honeycomb.
Yet perhaps the heavy aluminium ribs of the front inboard flaps and torque tube etc in the rears might sink them regardless, if whole, but then there might be breaks. I will take another look.
It has occurred to me that the wing shaped object recovered recently off Robe in South Australia – there has been speculation about an MH370 origin – might be one of those but that would have been a long trip and in quite a different direction to other flotsam, so most unlikely.
BTW there are the leading edge slats and Kreuger flaps that are part of this absence too, being fully deployed with the other flaps.
Thanks too for that information as to the seal pan being frangible to allow for flaperon skew. I am left wondering whether the flaperon rear spar’s outboard end would have caused just the the pan’s impact damage that is evident. The significance is that the ATSB assessment has been that the position and character of that damage showed that the flaps were not deployed at separation. That is accepted widely.
Also on that I note that the French report shows the rear spar’s end bent to the rear, the front spar bent forward and without corresponding damage to the pan.
Nevertheless I think that the internal seal pan damage supports the theory still that there was no flap deployment.
You indicate that the inboard auxiliary support track is designed to take added load in some circumstances and will rollover or twist when overloaded. All new information thanks.
I have hypothesised that the bottom link connecting the track to the rear spar must have broken to account for some of the seal pan internal upper flailing damage. When you say the aluminium link at the forward end is the weak link, is that what you mean?
I will look into that inaccessible photo and find an alternative.
Thanks too for your offer to assist further.
@Curt Bry. The Robe item above was netted from the bottom by a trawler but it could not be disentangled and after some time trying and failing the net with had to be severed due to the rough conditions and approaching nightfall,
So ‘raised’ would be more accurate than ‘recovered’.
I alluded to the possibility that the bottom link attaching the outer flap’s auxiliary support track to the wing rear spar had broken. Supporting that contention I see that the photo of the Asiana wreckage that I mentioned shows the left outer flap’s inboard track (above the men) has been retained but is hanging down.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_2PhKL0Ms9qejNwmhnGXcxY814Bg1Q_1/view?usp=sharing
As to MH17 wreckage try:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S38Fjql-NVoJ8T_e0bS04RnZYTZIBWy6/view?usp=sharing
About the damage to the auxiliary support track carriage:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a9l5vvIRCGpcPbyGaJt-hpzZy6RbslJE/view?usp=sharing
and then the MH370 inboard similar carriage shown missing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RACXf9KgYM-P_m6OtjsVL7oYoHau2GsR/view?usp=sharing
@Curt Bry. Readability. From my first line please delete, “While you observe that there is n”.
@Curt Bry. My apologies. My post above was rushed.
The revision below will read better and also now has a conclusion.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EBy-Ds_F-bCbsCLjnNEoxELDofY3tOAE/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105452605762640315384&rtpof=true&sd=true
So I read all three papers and watched the video, and I think the wspr breakthrough is compelling. Equally compelling, I feel, is the in-depth analysis by captain Blelly and Marchand, which creates a vivid and plausible narrative of events in the cockpit based on observable behavior. Obviously these two analyses are very different and yield different results, though by its nature the cockpit-focused approach is certainly more speculative on the projected leg of the flight path.
I’d be very interested in seeing Blelly and Marchand try and apply a similar approach to the WSPR data obtained so far, as I think there is insight to be gained – particularly from the notion that the PIC was evidently navigated from waypoint to waypoint and avoiding established lanes at all costs.
I also think this speaks somewhat to the mindset of the pilot. I mean, if the theory that Zaharie Shah stole the plane is to be believed (and I myself tend to believe it), then surely it must say something about his state of mind that even after stealing a plane and asphyxiating all 200-someodd people on board, this man still treated this suicide mission – clearly having crossed the point of no return – as a routine flight.
It’s almost like he was enacting some kind of freedom fantasy about “getting away from it all”. Just a man and his plane flying off into the sunset to face a dignified end. To him, I guess the other crew and all the passengers were just miniscule annoyances to be dealt with along the way.