Ocean Infinity presented a new MH370 underwater search proposal to Anthony Loke, the Malaysian Minister of Transport in Kuala Lumpur on 2nd May 2024. Anthony Loke said that based on discussions held on Thursday, the company had submitted a proposal paper along with evidence and information for examination by the relevant parties under his ministry.
Josh Broussard, the Chief Technology Officer, of Ocean Infinity led the team making the presentation, together with their Commercial Manager.
Pete Foley, the former ATSB search director, also attended the meeting in Malaysia. Pete has been campaigning for a new search for several years and is advising Ocean Infinity on the new search.
Prof. Simon Maskell, from Liverpool University, is a scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity and was also in attendance at the meeting. Simon leads a team investigating the possibility of using WSPR to detect and track aircraft. Simon plans to add the WSPR data to the particle filter developed by the Australian Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) described in their book titled “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370” in order to refine the new MH370 search area.
The new search for MH370 is expected to start in November 2024. Anthony Loke said the whole process of examining the new proposal, including cabinet approval would take about three months. Two representatives of the Association for Families of the Passengers and Crew on board MH370 also attended the meeting. The Association welcomed the new proposal and thanked everyone involved.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pJDs3XjhwQ
As with MH370, when there is no final crash investigation report, or when investigators disagree, or the report is not conclusive, then the ICAO should take the lead role in the investigation or conduct its own investigation. Airline safety can only improve with open and transparent aircraft crash investigations.
China Eastern Airlines flight MU5735 crashed on 21st March 2022 on a domestic flight from Kunming to Guangzhou. There were 132 passengers and 9 crew, who were all killed. China Eastern Airlines is the 3rd largest airline in China based in Shanghai and is state owned. There are 66 airlines in China, of which 39 are state owned, with 620 Million passengers per year.
The aircraft was a Boeing 737-89P and only 6 years old. Boeing have delivered a total of 4,989 aircraft of the 737-800 series since 1998 and only 11 have been involved in a fatal accident over the last 27 years.
The CAAC in China has not published a flight plan and has only given very few details of the crash. The preliminary report published on 20th April 2022 was one page long.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rk064726m3m8w3dcqcxbk/Google-Earth-Map-of-KMG-to-CAN.png?rlkey=ow0241biesl53onrgf5hydsiu&dl=0
There is no official ADS-B data, but FlightRadar24 has published the ADS-B data with 397 data points and a partial coverage of the flight route. We are showing a link to the ADS-B data marked in black, which follows the flight route A599 marked in red.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ynm6hjrjwxd759ukjz4vm/FRF24-MU5735-Flight-Path-ADS-B-Data.png?rlkey=1lxso8uqf2wde3uhvd10y35sw&dl=0
The crash location was in a remote wooded location and it was difficult for rescue workers to reach the site. The remaining fuel, which I have estimated at 2,448 kg, caused a fire on impact and created a forest fire, which had to be extinguished before rescuers could reach the scene.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rhuphixjzkrk9ewsxtyaq/Google-Earth-MU5735-Crash-Site-JAN2022-141-m-125.4.png?rlkey=v1bhmxqb2ogswfh8hn53p39e2&dl=0
The impact left a crater 141 m long and 2.7 m deep, which filled with water during the wreckage recovery and pumps had to be brought in.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oze5hsicyavbm82g0xc1m/Google-Earth-MU5735-Crash-Site-APR2022-141-m-125.4.png?rlkey=howfd8iq07r5zkhq9rourtysq&dl=0
The descent was caught on a security camera, in a near vertical dive, by CCTV from a nearby mining company.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=257768099901811
The aircraft descended so fast that the structure experienced flutter and a part of the wing tip winglet separated and was found 12 km from the main crash site.
The ADS-B data makes it clear that the descent was without auto-pilot control and flown manually.
The final sequence of events was:
1. 06:17:02 UTC – Adjacent to waypoint ATLAT (5 nmi lateral offset South) – Top of the descent point reached.
2. Throttle switched to idle.
3. Autopilot disengaged.
4. 06:21:00 UTC – Nose down maximum.
5. Guangzhou Air Traffic Control Centre – Altitude Alarm.
6. 06:22:58 UTC – Crash – 118 seconds dive from 29,100 feet Pressure Altitude – 30,675 feet GPS Altitude.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/chk16ay2tdinktcwq9g1v/FRF24-MU5735-Crash-Location-ADS-B-Data.png?rlkey=ufmqphfxwnvg50yawp0ogdnlc&dl=0
If you compare the technical data with other similar aircraft accidents, three things stand out.
The speed of the descent (-30,975 fpm).
(2) The short time of the descent (118 seconds).
(3) The nose down attitude of the descent (Nose Down Attitude).
Germanwings 4U9535 was shown to be caused by a suicide pilot, but under auto-pilot setting to an altitude of 100 feet and a steady descent of -3,400 fpm. In this case, the descent was -30,975 fpm.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wt5hg01pylyc1o08cm73n/Technical-Data-Comparison.png?rlkey=mkyx4y1vzvha5zo3zm7c9r6eq&dl=0
When you take the key NTSB statement: “The plane did, what it is supposed to do, by someone in the cockpit.”
Plus the key NTSB statement: “There was silence during the descent.”
Add the ADS-B end of flight data on the curving non auto-pilot flight path, we showed earlier.
Add the ADS-B descent rate and levelling off during the descent for a short time and even climbing 575 feet.
My conclusion is that this was a silent struggle in the cockpit.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mn3cgoifynqga7greks4j/FRF24-MU5735-Crash-Descent-ADS-B-Data.png?rlkey=zdh7kl23g4kic8y11tl9lk5wp&dl=0
The NTSB completed their analysis almost 3 years ago. They confirmed that they had received the CVR on 1st April 2022 and the FDR on 5th April 2022. In the worst case where both black boxes are severely damaged, such as the TWA 800 accident, it takes 8 weeks to fully recover and validate the data. We can reasonably assume the analysis was completed by July 2022.
The NTSB has not published their findings, having analysed the FDR and CVR, preferring to defer to the Chinese, as lead investigators.
The NTSB statements widely quoted in reputable media, conflict with the one pager repetitious annual statements from the CAAC in China.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y6vpjmvq51tnomwl9vj89/Preliminary-Findings-on-China-Eastern-Plane-Crash-Released.png?rlkey=fp9aso5k550s284o347w5fn0r&dl=0
There is no official final report, just the one pager preliminary report, which is repeated annually.
When you compare with other similar investigations, the one page official responses from China are quite frankly, a sick joke.
The MH370 final report was 447 pages long and with appendices 1,483 pages, but unfortunately inconclusive.
The BEA reports from France on AF447 (373 pages) and Germanwings (110 pages) were conclusive.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fkx8qqg62fquubu6svabq/Official-Reports-Comparison.png?rlkey=in9nb9mzp6yr4r8bgyw0nz3vt&dl=0
My personal conclusion is murder/suicide by the First Officer, following a cockpit struggle with the Captain and possibly third officer.
There is an unconfirmed report that twenty minutes after the incident, the public security department personnel of Yunnan Airlines (affiliated with China Eastern Airlines) went to the hotel where Zhang Zhengping was temporarily staying to search his room and saw the suicide note left by Zhang Zhengping.
Yunnan Airlines used the Mercure Hotel for flight crew on rotation. They required flight crew to overnight close to the airport and be available without restricting the allowed limits for flight hours.
The content of the note was very long, but it apparently exposed the persecution and unfair treatment of him and the original team of Yunnan Airlines after China Eastern Airlines merged with Yunnan Airlines.
The second content of the suicide note is that he complained about the central government’s economic policies. He had entrusted someone to invest his decades of savings in Evergrande Real Estate, but ended up losing all his money and became disgusted with the world.
The public security personnel of Yunnan Airlines purportedly, not only submitted this suicide note to the public security agency, but also copied a copy to the top management of China Eastern Airlines, and the top management of China Eastern Airlines copied another copy and handed it to the Civil Aviation Administration of China. Now dozens of people have seen this suicide note.
The focus on the lack of information regarding the China Eastern Airlines crash may prove helpful in prompting a response from Malaysia re MH370. It’s also worth noting, if it hasn’t been highlighted recently, that MH370 was a codeshare with China Southern Airlines flight CZ 748.
The Guardian had a recent article about long-standing stresses in the US ATC sector, but the problem probably goes far beyond the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/10/air-traffic-control-america
The Malaysian Airlines ATC operators were working under very stressful conditions at the time of the disappearance of MH370, and this might partly have contributed to the multiple mis-communications that bedevilled the flight monitoring, search, rescue and recovery operations.
On page 95-96 of Appendix 1.18F of the Factual Information Report the following entries indicate the stress:
“21:20:16 MAS Ops_____Morning
21:20:17 KL ATC_____Morning MAS Ops centre here any news on Eight Seven Zero?
21:20:20 MAS Ops_____Negative Sir….still…..we are…..haa
21:20:23 KL ATC_____I see
21:20:23 MAS Ops_____This is aaa…actually I don’t know how to explain but we are under aa…mode very stressful mode down here.”
While there currently seems to be no indication of ATC fault in the crash of China Eastern Airlines flight MU5735, there is a strong suggestion that the personnel management processes experienced by the First Officer may have contributed significantly to the incident.
Operator overload may also have played a significant part in the January 29th 2025 crash between a helicopter and a passenger jet near Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington.
In addition to the ICAO, there may be another UN role, in this case for the ILO, in ensuring that airline industry workers are not abused in the reckless pursuit of maximum profit and market share, regardless of the human cost.
Perhaps instead of airlines being government owned or privately owned they could be re-designated as Public Benefit Corporations, at least in the US to start with. If the idea proves to be popular with air travellers it might be taken up by other nations and corporations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G_VtjAMV4c
Several viewers have put forward the proposal, that any country that does not fully publish the investigation findings after a serious incident such as an aircraft crash, however caused, should have all its carriers restricted to that country and be banned from international operations.
It is all about aviation safety, If we can’t learn lessons out of each accident, then how do we ensure it does not happen again?
Another viewer asked: “Are the yokes in the 737-89P linked together? Or, are they independent like on the Airbus?” The yokes are mechanically connected on the Boeing 737-800 series aircraft. A rigid bar runs beneath the cockpit floor, linking the left and right control-column assemblies. The columns themselves are connected internally by steel cables or rods that mesh into pinion gears at the base of each column.
The stronger pilot (or the one exerting greater force) will tend to “win” unless a deliberate disconnect mechanism is used.
Boeing 787 is a fly-by-wire aircraft, like Airbus. Airbus aircraft also have a Priority Takeover button, which lets one pilot take control and have the airplane ignore inputs from the other side-stick.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkHGNfO8sl8
From the ADS-B data of the China Eastern Airlines crash, it appears that there were manual inputs via the yoke (both elevators and ailerons), the foot pedals (rudder) and the throttle levers. Inputs for pitch, roll, yaw and speed.
There were turns in the horizontal plane, flying an s-curve, initially without excessive side slip.
At the same time, there was as a steep dive in the vertical plane.
When the aircraft levelled out, it was also in a straight flight for 21 seconds.
At the end of the descent, there was a sharp turn with massive horizontal side slip.
The final direction of 114°T aligns with the crater at the crash location at 125°T.
In my view, this all points to a struggle in the cockpit.
Horizontal and Vertical ADS-B Data.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8igoyvakrhfjljfy7t7tc/Horizontal-and-Vertical-ADS-B-Data.png?rlkey=bp2winamg7us4req3qiwfo21o&dl=0
Google Earth MU5735 Crash Site APR2022 141 m 125.4°.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oze5hsicyavbm82g0xc1m/Google-Earth-MU5735-Crash-Site-APR2022-141-m-125.4.png?rlkey=howfd8iq07r5zkhq9rourtysq&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5VmMLpj19g
Four weeks ago we did an episode on MH370 SEARCH – HUGE DATA IS MISSING!
A viewer called Ventus45 commented ALL data must be collected from ALL sources immediately and before it becomes “perishable”.
The viewer suggested: “Richard, perhaps the best thing you can do is draft a ‘gigantic check list’.
The first draft of the check list is ready. We want to invite the viewers to submit their suggestions for the next version.
There are viewers who are pilots, air traffic controllers, engineers, scientists, first responders, rescue coordinators, airline personnel, victims of air crashes and airline users or aviation geeks. We have viewers who work for Boeing, Airbus and other companies in the aviation industry. We even have an aviation journalist, an aerospace engineer and a wreck hunter on the show.
We look forward to your feedback.
The draft contains 33 different types of data and 240 possible sources of data have been identified so far.
The draft document can be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dr6eo2qeyjhco9ske85wi/Checklist.xlsx?rlkey=6zl50jg1fbdjji0d5jq1dek3g&dl=0
Infrasound sources might be worth adding to the checklist, eg the raw data from IS23 etc. The data is used normally for volcanic activity monitoring and is part of the IMS
A 2004 article describes the way volcanic and other infrasound signals can be enhanced by “speeding up” the signals so that they fall within the human acoustic range. and can then, ideally, be detected in real time by operators.
The article suggests that these boosted ‘audio’ signals can then be further enhanced to remove noise by using film studio sound processing software.
https://geoscienceletters.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40562-020-00158-4
https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/monitoring-technologies/infrasound-monitoring
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1gCgQDo_cc
Today Blaine is answering viewer’s questions about the MH370 debris.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Xr1kDj0AU
What happens when an aircraft is in distress?
The pilot in command (PIC) takes the lead role in a distress situation. One reason why you have two pilots on board all commercial airliners is in the event of one pilot being incapacitated, the other pilot takes over.
ATC has a critical support role to ensure communication, to provide a clear path, expedite routing, and coordinate with rescue services, but never to usurp the PIC’s authority.
Once a distress phase is declared, national Search and Rescue (SAR) coordinating agencies take charge of rescue operations, leveraging the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS) for locating the aircraft.
Every country either has a Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) or an agreement with a neighbouring country to provide coverage. Every coastal country has a Maritime RCC (MRCC), there are over 60. There are also 44 countries with a Joint RCCs (JRCC). A few countries have a separate Aeronautical RCC (ARCC). Large countries often have several regional RCCs.
Databases such as SARContacts.info list over 200 RCCs worldwide, covering every country either directly or via agreements with neighbouring RCCs.
Hi Richard,
Following the recent video with Geoffrey; there are many practical implications for having the cockpit door closed during passenger boarding.
The pre-departure period is a very busy time for everyone involved. The cockpit door is left open to allow easy communications with cabin crew and access for engineers and dispatchers who need to sign off paperwork. Having the door closed would have a significant detrimental effect and would delay the departure process.
The security screening process at the airport is considered to be sufficient to prevent anyone boarding the aircraft who could be carrying a weapon of some kind. It is also thought that take-over of an aircraft is much less likely to happen on the ground where the security services have immediate and ready access.
Cabin crew are always in the vicinity of the cockpit door during boarding and would be considered the last line of defence should some unauthorised person have a desire to access the flight deck.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BroWkiTDeFk
Two months ago, we did several episodes on the observation of Captain Martyn Smith, who was an Emirates pilot on 8th March 2014, crossing the Indian Ocean from Melbourne to Dubai. This was the day after the disappearance of MH370.
“We were in a block from FL370 to FL390 over the Indian Ocean, when I observed an aircraft within this block and crossing our track. I queried this with Australian ATC, who denied any knowledge of traffic near to us.”
“I had a visual sighting, there was certainly no Traffic Alert (TA) or Resolution Advisory (RA) given.
EK407 and the unidentified aircraft were detected and tracked on 8th March 2014 every two minutes using the WSPR technology, that we have developed for tracking aircraft.
The scenario at 18:46 UTC, is shown in the screenshot with flight EK407 reaching waypoint MUTMI along its planned flight route. It turns out that there were 3 unidentified aircraft in the vicinity of EK407 at 18:46 UTC.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/adslb4vuw3s5r8soxpbn4/EK407-from-Melbourne-to-Dubai-08MAR2014-1846-UTC-Waypoint-MUTMI.png?rlkey=65ubabebesuu2cna5audw5kxm&dl=0
I tracked the aircraft using WSPR, back in time towards their departure point, and forward in time towards their arrival point. Three aircraft were detected and tracked consistently at over 50 different data points along the track. The flight path is 3,857 nmi long and the flying time was 8h 55m. The maximum range of a P-8A Poseidon aircraft is 4,500 nmi, so there was sufficient fuel without an in-flight refuelling.
When you overlay the WSPR flight path for MH370, then there is a further interesting observation, that the tracks broadly align. It is possible that the US Navy picked up MH370 on an OTHR radar from Diego Garcia. It is possible that the Poseidons went back again in the following days.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r10aguds90tkzhl3ggefq/US-Navy-P-8A-Poseidon-Flight-Path-XX-08MAR2014-with-MH370-Flight-Path-07MAR2014.png?rlkey=rl2lhuuu5n520qn92p1byz0vw&dl=0
Five Poseidons flew to and from Perth Airport as well as Pearce AFB in Perth from 18th March 2014 onwards. On 25th March 2014 the commander of the US Navy Pacific fleet, Admiral Harry Harris arrived in Perth to congratulate the crews personally. Neither the US nor Australia have said exactly how many P-8A Poseidons were involved in the MH370 search and rescue operation. The official US Navy picture shows 3 Poseidon aircraft, the official AMSA picture shows 2 Poseidon aircraft and the report by the Australian RCC states 1 Poseidon aircraft. Plane spotters in Perth show 5 aircraft and faithfully record date, time and registration.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fbkfcat73hhei96e1dcpq/MH370-Search-and-Rescue-Operations-429-430-433-438-439.png?rlkey=ldykythgv93ag0s7yblvnkbkj&dl=0
Is there any evidence for the presence of an OTHR at Diego Garcia in 2014? OTHRs typically have their transmitters and receivers located hundreds of miles apart, to minimise signal interference. That would not be possible at Diego Garcia, where the island is only about 40 miles long. Also, reports on various other websites indicate the US military only started getting serious about OTHR relatively recently. The USAF, for example, is expected to commence construction on two OTHR sites in Oregon in 2028.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT64p4uJL2c
The Poseidons only followed the MH370 flight route from the equator down to around 20°S on this sortie around 15 hours later. The assumed MH370 crash area is between 30°S and 36°S. We are hoping, that the Poseidons flew another sortie, covering the search area further south.
The distance from Diego Garcia to the 7th Arc is 2,038 nmi. There and back is 4,076 nmi. With a maximum range of 4,500 nmi, that only leaves 424 nmi, which is cutting into reserves. Without an in-flight refuelling, there would only be an absolute maximum of 50 minutes on station.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g9llr1v0ql2odo44y6rq7/US-Navy-P-8A-Poseidon-Flight-Path-XX-09MAR2014-with-MH370-Flight-Path-07MAR2014.png?rlkey=twau6mdjd9yah38vhgzcqx83k&dl=0
On 2nd April 2014, the Pentagon announced it had spent over $3.3 million on the MH370 search between March 8 and March 24, funding ships, helicopters, and surveillance flights from its humanitarian aid budget.
JORN Was Not Operating on the Night of 8th March 2014. When questioned about why the over-the-horizon radar network had not picked up Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Defence spokespeople confirmed that the relevant Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) segment was switched off at the time the aircraft was transiting the Indian Ocean MH370 Search.
JORN Is a directed, not continuous, surveillance system. Official commentary has emphasised that JORN is not a passive “always-on” global radar; rather, it operates by steering long-range beams into specific sectors and only on a scheduled basis. It does not continuously monitor every part of the sky, so even when active it may not detect every aircraft in its nominal range
The U.S. position is that its OTHR assets at Pine Gap and elsewhere, and its SOSUS assets in the Indian Ocean, neither detected MH370 nor can it confirm any such detection, and it will not provide further details due to the classified nature of its surveillance systems.
Mh370 was hijacked by the 2 Iranian (?) asylum seekers, who were
in league with Uyghur dissidents , their target were the mainly Chinese
passengers on board , in retaliation for Chinese communist behavior in sinjiang province, no announcement/claim was made because then a further retaliation against the Uyghur people would occur, how did the
Malaysian government know they were asylum seekers,? and also why would any asylum seeker go to communist china ,? they were on board
mh370 for the only reason of hijacking and hitting back at the strong arm tactics of Chinese authorities in Singjian Province.
@David Tilley,
I looked for a link between the Uyghur dissidents and the Iranians using stolen passports and failed. That does not mean there is no link.
The Austrian and Italian passports were added to Interpol’s SLTD database after their theft in Thailand in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Unfortunately, many countries do not check the SLTD database as a matter of routine.
Pouria Nour Mohammad Mehrdad and Delavar Seyed Mohammad Reza were travelling together and had either a family connection or support network in Germany and Denmark respectively.
Pouria, a 19-year-old Iranian, was en route to Frankfurt, Germany, where his mother resided. She now resides in Hamburg. She had been expecting his arrival and became concerned when he did not show up, prompting her to contact authorities. Malaysian police confirmed that they were in touch with his mother and believed he was attempting to migrate to Germany to seek asylum.
@Francis Botham,
Welcome to the blog!
The US has a global network of OTHR. The data is shared between over 20 listening stations on a satellite network. The prime OTHR covering the Indian Ocean is based at Pine Gap in Australia. Diego Garcia is another of the listening stations with a satellite connection to the Echelon system. Every telephone, email, SMS, message, mobile cell, radio, TV, microwave link, satellite link and including every aircraft are captured 24 x 7 globally in the Echelon system, which is funded by the CIA and the NSA, as well as the security services in Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, the so called five eyes.
There is also a Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS), the US has fixed sea floor assets and mobile ships and buoys assets in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean. They have officially stated that they did not detect MH370. They have also stated that they would neither confirm nor deny any such detection, should it have taken place. They will not provide any details due to the classified nature of its surveillance systems.
There are a few other systems on Diego Garcia.
CDAA Surveillance – Circular Disposed Antenna Arrays on Diego Garcia and elsewhere, which can be used for direction finding and triangulation.
Satellite Surveillance – Diego Garcia has an AN/GSC-39C SHF satellite system able to intercept all satellite communications in its area of operation.
GEODSS – Ground Based Electro Optical Deep Space Surveillance system.
In summary there is SOSUS Sound Surveillance, OTHR Over-The-Horizon-Radar, Hydro-Acoustic and other surveillance systems, which have not all been revealed publicly and certainly have data on MH370, which is not in the public domain.
The reason for the secrecy is, that they watch Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea and the Middle East from Pine Gap, Diego Garcia and 20 other locations and they do not want to give away the extent of their capability.
@Richard
Thank you for your reply. I am aware of the Five Eyes’ ECHELON program, used to gather SIGINT from around the world. I also know that Diego Garcia plays a role; however, I have not heard of a global network of OTHR associated with that program. Are you able to share any references or let readers know how you came by that information?
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy9ZoKtvd74
We go through the sources of information available to the US Navy on 8th March 2014, on which their search and rescue operation was based. They had the Inmarsat satellite data, OTHR, SOSUS, CTBTO, radio, SATCOM, CDAA as well as other passive radar systems, which operate like WSPR does.
The Pentagon spent $3.3 M in 16 days, between 8th March and 24th March 2014, funding ships, helicopters, and surveillance flights from its humanitarian aid budget.
The Malaysian official search started on 8th March 2014 in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
The Australian official search started on 18th March 2014 (10 days later). Australia’s Search and Rescue Area is 54 M km2, 1/10th of the Earth’s surface and 85% Ocean.
The US Navy were on the job on 8th March 2014. If there is any possibility of survivors following a crash in the Indian Ocean, in an area with a water temperature of 22°C, you have a maximum of 40 hours to find them and much less time if people are injured.
@Francis Botham,
As far as I am aware, there are nine Over The Horizon Radar (OTHR) Sky Wave systems and four Over The Horizon Radar Ground Wave systems currently operated by the US and their allies, partly with the help of US personnel. Some of these are fixed OTHR and others are relocatable ROTHR systems.
The US, UK, Australia, Canada, France are quite restrained about publishing information on the exact capability of each system. There is a good overview on OTHR in Wikipedia. There are also a large number of academic papers (109) on OTHR in general and aircraft (64) or ship (129) detection in particular.
A wider literature research reveals a total of 8,535 papers on passive radar.
In particular, Doppler aircraft detection (560), reference waveforms (688), surveillance beams (917), matched filtering (1097), adaptive beam forming (365), constant false alarm rate (35), space time adaptive processing (53), coherent integration time (7), coherent processing interval (13).
A good introduction is the paper by Giuseppe (Joe) Fabrizio the key guy behind JORN, titled “Passive Radar in the High Frequency Band” dated 2008, which can be downloaded from IEEE Xplore with a subscription.
More general literature on the subject is immense, forward scatter (9,433), back scatter (7,659), side scatter (7,664), radar cross section (14,767), near field (68,489), mid field (5,656) and far field (126,754).
Over The Horizon Radar Sky Wave systems include:
North Atlantic – Chesapeake, Virginia, USA – ROTHR – 1993.
Central America, Gulf of America – Corpus Christi, Texas, USA – ROTHR – 1995
South America, South Atlantic – Rafael Hernández, Puerto Rico, USA – 1999.
Pacific Ocean – Longreach, Queensland, Australia – JORN – 1984.
Indian Ocean – Laverton, Western Australia – JORN – 1984.
Asia, Indonesia – Alice Springs Northern Territory, Australia – JORN – 1984.
Asia, Pacific and Indian Ocean – Pine Gap, Northern Territory, Australia – OTHR -1988.
Europe – France – NOSTRADAMUS – 2009.
Middle East, Mediterranean – Cyprus (UK) – PLUTO – 2012.
Over The Horizon Radar Ground Wave systems include:
North Atlantic – Cape Race, Newfoundland, Canada – OTHR – 1999.
North Atlantic – Cape Race, Newfoundland, Canada – OTHR – 1999.
Mediterranean – France – STRADIVARIUS – OTHR – 2015.
Black Sea – Romania – OTHR – 2009.
Planned OTHR systems include:
Arctic – Canada – JORN.
Pacific Ocean – Palau (US) – TACMOR.
Asia, Pacific and Indian Ocean – JORN Upgrade.
Decommissioned OTHR systems are not included in the above lists:
USAF AN/FPS-118 network (East Coast, West Coast, Alaska).
Anglo-American Cobra Mist.
You may find the short paper on the history of the US OTHR systems interesting (4 pages):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2mgvi6t43jpnj04yj1hrt/Development-of-OTHR-in-the-USA.pdf?rlkey=9f698il0eufjn0vv5hy3sc4oo&dl=0
Two of the key papers on the subject are:
In 2016 Ari J. Joki et al. presented a paper titled “Forward-scatter Doppler-only Distributed Passive Covert Radar” in which they describe a system for air traffic safety augmentation. One possibility is to take advantage of existing radio amateur and dx listener resources. During the periods where the proprietor is not using the receiving equipment for their hobby, perhaps the receiver could be utilised as part of an air traffic monitoring network (NATO).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5joafgw56t3zwxcwf9boy/NATO-Finnish-Defence-Forces-Air-Force-Sytems-Division-Forward-Scatter-Doppler-only-Distributed-Ari-Joki.pdf?rlkey=1rv6zwoxa2e73c2ezlzed87qe&dl=0
In 2017 M. A. Cervera et al. published a paper titled “Climatological Model of Over-the-Horizon Radar” in which they describe using HF ionospheric radio waves to detect and track Boeing 777 aircraft in Australia from three stations in New Caledonia, Norfolk Island and New Zealand, over distances of up to 3,000 km away from the target aircraft (Radio
Science).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g41ujki6rucew6yp8dl3o/Climatological-Model-of-Over-the-Horizon-Radar-Cervera.pdf?rlkey=rbnhok0npmko1xkx8cjibwdt1&dl=0
Then there are airborne line of sight systems like the Hensoldt PEGASUS airborne SIGINT system. The Persistent German Airborne Surveillance System (PEGASUS) is a SIGINT/reconnaissance suite mounted in a crewed Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft. It records and geolocates military radio traffic and radar emissions. My co-author Dr. Hannes Coetzee has a leading role in this project.
My other co-author Prof. Simon Maskell is working on a number of projects including sonar, active radar and passive radar. He is leading a team of researchers investigating WSPRnet data by comparing with the ADS-B data from thousands of aircraft using “big data” and distributed computing. He is also a scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity on the search for MH370.
@Richard
Thank you for the detailed reply. There are indeed a number of OTHR sites operated by several different countries. However, I haven’t found any information that suggests those OTHRs operate as a network that feeds data to the ECHELON program. Furthermore, I have not found any mention of an OTHR at Diego Garcia, or indeed Pine Gap.
If an OTHR was installed at Diego Garcia, the most likely candidate seems to be the AN/TPS-71 ROTHR operated at other US Navy sites. The following reference states that the AN/TPS-71 transmitter and receiver sites are located 50 to 100 nm apart. Such a configuration does not seem possible at Diego Garcia, given the small size of the island.
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/01.oth/karte006.en.html
Hey Richard,
When is it likely they will cover your identified search area?
Based on your data which looks accurate that’s where the plane is likely to be located.
Assume everything is seasonal.
Thanks
Chris
Armada 78 06 departs for Cape Town. It looks like they have plans for this summer in Europe.
@Edward,
Thanks for the update!
@Francis Botham,
You ask:
1. Whether global OTHR sites are connected in a network.
2. Whether global OTHR data is shared on ECHELON.
3. Whether Pine Gap is an OTHR facility.
4. Whether Diego Garcia is an OTHR facility and whether the island is too small.
The UKUSA agreement was established in 1946 and provides for a comprehensive intelligence sharing between the UK and the USA, and subsequently Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The particular networked entities in each country are the GCHQ (UK), NSA (USA), CSE (Canada), ASD (Australia) and GCSB (New Zealand).
Countries operate shared listening stations and conduct joint operations. Pine Gap in Australia, is jointly run with the US. Facilities like Menwith Hill in the UK, Waihopai Station in New Zealand and Misawa Air Base (Japan, with US support) are part of this network.
There are several other networked entities including the BND (Germany) and DGSE (France). The BND has reduced sharing since they discovered 40,000 NSA selectors targeting European companies. The DGSE cooperation with the Five Eyes was formalised in the Lustre agreement.
The members of the Five Eyes Plus group are France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and India.
ICReach is a NSA search engine with data from all Five Eyes members.
FIVE-EYES Intelligence Sharing System is a secure network connecting the SIGINT agencies.
Each key entity has a geographic focus:
US (NSA): Americas, Russia, Middle East, China.
UK (GCHQ): Europe, former Soviet Union, Middle East.
Canada (CSE): Northern Russia, parts of Latin America.
Australia (ASD): Southeast Asia and Pacific.
New Zealand (GCSB): South Pacific and Southeast Asia.
Data comes from PRISM, XKeyscore, TEMPORA, MUSCULAR and ECHELON.
OTHR and other military surveillance data is shared via the STONEGHOST secure network, which is a Multinational Information Sharing (MNIS) network.
Pine Gap was established in the late 1960s to monitor and track Soviet missile capabilities, and its functions have evolved over time. Pine Gap is a key contributor to the NSA’s global surveillance and interception efforts, including the ECHELON program. It’s jointly operated by the Australian Defence Force (Australian Signals Directorate), the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), US National Security Agency (NSA), and US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
There are three types of OTHR, mono-static, bi-static and multi-static.
The first type has a dedicated transmitter co-located with the receiver.
The second type has a dedicated transmitter located between 100 km and 3,000 km from the receiver.
The siting and radiative properties of the emitters, the propagation channel characteristics, and most importantly, the transmitted waveforms are under the control of the radar.
The third type only has a receiver. Illuminators of opportunity are used, such as signals from FM radio transmitters, digital television broadcast towers, cellular base stations (e.g., 4G, 5G), Wi-Fi routers, satellite transmissions, commercial air traffic control radars (secondary radar), navigation aids (like VOR or DME) and HF radio amateur transmissions.
These multi-static systems have a number of advantages. They are cost effective, multi-frequency, harder to detect, less susceptible to electronic counter measures and can enhance the radar cross section of a target.
The size of Diego Garcia does not prohibit a mono-static active OTHR or a multi-static passive OTHR.
JORN on the other hand is a network of three transmitter and receiver pairs, each around 80 km to 120 km apart and spanning Australia over 2,272 km and all controlled from RAAF Edinburgh up to 1,728 km distant.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S4BxUgIbuo
Armada 7806 has left Port Louis, Mauritius and is heading for Cape Town, It is expected to arrive in 9 days time on 31st May 2025.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qsnoogqb97ipog657pde3/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-22MAY2025-0530-UTC.png?rlkey=mqs0mg40v95s7g03x7eb63rwy&dl=0
We look at all the radar systems that could have seen MH370. Here is an overview of the Five Eyes listening stations and satellite networks, connected to the NSA computer at Fort Meade, Maryland, USA:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rgsgoy225l8sfv7jupxf1/Echelon-Global-Listening-Stations-and-Satellite-Network.png?rlkey=ez6z1uflsjcck1klpuy50s2xl&dl=0
Hey Richard I appreciate what you have done and what you are doing currently, however I do not believe that nobody from the USA intelligence or Chinese intelligence don’t know where mh370 crashed or what happened to it. I believe there is at least one person in this world that knows exactly what happened and where it is. Why isn’t the US navy or Chinese military helping raises a major red flag !
@Tank from Ottawa,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for your kind words!
I agree that there are a number of countries, who have information on MH370, but have not made all their information public.
The concern for national security is their overriding priority and outweighs any help in specific incidents like MH370.
Tank- In short, Malaysia rejected continuing assist from U.S. NTSB which they had every opportunity to request due to Boeing/USA aircraft. It should indeed have raised “red flags” long ago that Malaysia is more worried about internal politics/cultural denial than finding MH370. USA is bound by Int’l law/diplomacy to let Malaysia take charge of the investigation and communications, if that is what Malaysia requests, and that is indeed what Malaysia has requested. China can speak for itself, but we can obviously see that non-Western, non-Democracies are culturally sensitive about cases that appear to be possible criminal cases of internal domestic pilot-hijacking. Buyers beware, in other words, we have fertile ground for conspiracy theories and other biases, and fairly low amounts of impartial, valid analysis.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHuEkjPzK_U
In the last 5 days, we have shared 5 episodes on what Captain Martyn Smith observed, how we believe the US Navy responded with Poseidon search and rescue aircraft and the capabilities of the five eyes global intelligence.
We have had 1,300 questions.
The Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren stated on 14th March 2014, “The U.S. Seventh Fleet said today that the P-3C Orion aircraft had flown a search mission that took it into the Indian Ocean. The aircraft went from the northwest section of the Strait of Malacca and flew about 1,000 miles west with nothing significant to report.”
“Warren also said that a P-8 Poseidon plane will soon be joining the U.S. Navy’s participation in the relief efforts. He said the jet aircraft will be flying missions over the southern portion of the Bay of Bengal and northern part of the Indian Ocean.”
We now know more. This statement was true, the Poseidons arrived at Subang AFB in Malaysia on 14th March 2014.
But the Poseidons moved on soon to Pearce AFB in Perth, Australia on 18th March 2014.
The statement on 14th March 2014 was not the whole truth.
We also know the Poseidons were active on the 8th March 2014.
It is not easy to know exactly what happened and to know the whole truth of the situation.
Hello Mr. Richard
When the (Boeing-777) impacted the ocean and drawn to the bottom, is there
a chance the search by ocean infinity to recover all the pieces of the wreckage of
the 9M-MRO? or only the flight recorders?
Because what is left other than the fligth recorder like the fuselage and landing gear, floor panels and wheels and the composite materials of the aeroplane broken all apart and the wings, the engines, all of these other remains will be important to be brought back to be examined? and for what will it be examined for? is it for knowing whether it was hijacking or a mechanical failure? can all of these be pulled out of the ocean?
@Yan Hao,
Welcome to the blog!
In 2018 Ocean Infinity and Malaysia agreed on a list of items they would like to recover from the wreckage, if found. I assume that this list would still apply for any new search.
Malaysia still has not published an analysis of all the items of floating debris that have been handed in to them.
The Malaysian investigation report is substantial but inconclusive.
The investigation needs to be continued by all relevant ICAO organisations, until a conclusion can be reached on the cause of the accident and prevention of any further incident of this nature.
The implementation of the GADSS system is an example of one measure already taken by the ICAO, as a result of the disappearance of MH370.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BGxc59Yoqg
Turkish Airlines Flight 981 was a scheduled service from Istanbul to London Heathrow, with a stop at Orly Airport in Paris. On 3 March 1974, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 operating the flight crashed into the Ermenonville Forest, approximately 38 kilometres (24 miles) northeast of Paris, killing all 335 passengers and 11 crew members on board.
If we don’t learn the lessons from each aircraft accident and correctly implement the changes, disaster will happen again. Service Bulletin 52-38 was not done correctly. The settings of the safety pins and the Lock Limit warning switch were incorrectly done by the airline or its maintenance provider.
American Airlines Flight 96 was a near disaster, that warned of a critical flaw.
Turkish Airlines Flight 981 was a preventable tragedy, caused by ignored warnings, inadequate fixes and lax training and oversight at Paris Orly.
The Paris crash led to major redesigns in the DC-10 and changes in international aviation safety regulation and enforcement.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlA1MA84E3Y
The search was moved from the South China Sea, to the Strait of Malacca, to the Andaman Sea, to the Southern Indian Ocean. The search area in the Southern Indian Ocean was moved several times between a large number of areas between 45°S to 20°S, over 2,000 km apart.
There were many assumptions made that were not well founded.
1. The MAS flight tracker showed real time data and the actual position of MH370, not the projected flight path.
2. The civilian primary radar and military primary radar sightings were not from one and the same aircraft.
3. There was no need to scramble fighter jets.
4. There was no active pilot on the flight into the Southern Indian Ocean.
5. The aircraft flew in a straight line flight path for 6 hours.
6. MH370 crossed over Indonesia, not just over Malaysia.
7. The fuel amount would allow the aircraft to reach 45°S.
8. The home flight simulator was irrelevant to what actually happened.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gipBaQTAco4
The CCTV footage of the Gate C1 boarding area on 7th/8th March 2014 at Kuala Lumpur Airport is examined for any evidence of something unusual happening during the security checks.
Accusations made against Ukrainian, Russian and Iranian passengers are debunked and proven false.
Richard- Blaine was good today.
I also very much appreciated the discussion of Risk Assessment by you and Geoffrey the other day. Somehow public vision of aviation safety is we wait accidents to happen, and then take several decades to decide if we want to do anything about it. As you point out, several companies correctly analyzed the Ukraine conflict situation before MH370 and stopped flying over. Same applies for MH370. It could be predicted, and certainly Germanwings and ChinaEastern cases may have benefited from proper risk assessment of MH370. Furthermore some have criticized that MH370 was allowed to happen after similar case SilkAir185. In my industry we did Risk Assessment fairly often and had predict worst case death rate and damage to company if an accident. I think the aviation industry Risk Assessment process is sheltered by legal limits on liability (small penalty), public and industry complacency in the case of hijacking/pijackling, and also an adversarial industry approach. Aviation gets away with some of that attitude due to public support, whereas my profession is well known to be planet destroyers, so we get such support and huge penalties. Also a factor is enormous public pride in Country-owned airlines. So there is complacency.
I would put it far more bluntly TBill.
Let’s call a spade a bloody spade shall we ?
All industries worldwide are “answerable” to the community at large, “except the aviation industry”. Individual companies, (and ultimately the industry concerned), are forced to change, in major ways after major disasters, especially those which result in widespread catastrophic outcomes.
Think BHOPAL, or better still, think Exxon Valdez which, (among other measures) forced the whole maritime world to re-think oil-tankers, and forced the introduction of “double hulls”.
The aviation industry on the other hand, is unique. It is the one and only industry on the planet, which by law, is not answerable to anyone. The aviation industry continues to hide behind ICAO Annex 13 in the same way that a small child hides behind his mother’s apron. It is high time that the industry “grows up”, and was made accountable, kicking and screaming, if necessary.
Look at the MAX debacle, the precursor reasons for it, and the fact that Boeing and the FAA and the DOJ are now doing “deals” (largely behind closed doors) to effectively let Boeing “off the hook” and return to “business as usual” such that the NoK get bugger all, but the real reasons for creating the disasters in the first place gets “quietly swept under the carpet” in the process.
What is going on is “a smoke screen” for a far more sinister game going on behind the scenes.
The real issue at stake here is this.
The Aviation Industry wants to “protect it’s special non accountable status under ICAO Annex 13″ – AT ALL COSTS !!
Why do I say that ?
Let’s go back to the beginning.
Towards the end of WW2 we had the Chicago Convention from where the current system sprung. Back in those days, through to about the mid 1980’s, aviation in all sectors developed in leaps and bounds. They were heady days, records broken weekly, aircraft getting bigger, faster, more comfortable, engines more powerful, more reliable, more fuel efficient, even cleaner.
But here is the point – aviation got SAFER – because accidents were thoroughly and almost always openly fully and honestly investigated, causes were found, people owned up to ‘mistakes’, and things were fixed, and we moved on.
Things stabilised by the mid 1980’s, everything was now standardized, accidents were by now very few, the fatal casualty rates went down to near miniscule levels compared to the early days, air travel became the safest mode of travel, it was hailed as THE GOLDEN AGE OF AVIATION, and all was good.
But for commercial aviation itself, unseen by most (although there were a few faint warning cries in the wilderness) increasing automation bred overconfidence, and gradually, complacency became the industry’s silent but deadly copilot, preparing to strike a savage blow.
That blow came at precisely 010214zJun09. You all know what it was. Suffice to say that it was totally unexpected by the industry heavyweights, deemed an unexplainable mystery, and the aviation industry went into “denial mode”.
Subsequent investigations proved otherwise as we all know, but the point is, only “cosmetic” changes were made, the underlying “proximate cause” essentially remains.
The industry “doubled down” with yet more automation. That was their only real answer. Since then, more and more accidents are being attributed to “mode confusion” of one kind or another. The man-machine interface has become even more heavily biased to ‘machine first – man will comply’, instead of ‘man first – machine must comply’.
To make it even worse, the two major manufacturers have different ways of implementing their systems, neither of which is safe. Examples are plenty. To note but two.
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 – 6th July 2013 – Boeing 777-200ER –San Francisco Airport.
Proximate Cause: mode confusion on approach. (AIRBUS Captain being converted to BOEING)
Emirates Flight 521 – 3 August 2016 – Boeing 777-31H – Dubai Airport
Proximate Cause: crew executed go around after touchdown, but the engine power remained unchanged because activation of go-around automation is inhibited after touchdown.
You will note the common factor here (and in many other incidents, events and accidents) is computer knows best, which really means designer / manufacturer knows best, but when the rectal output meets the fan, it is the pilot(s) who are to blame, never the designer / manufacturer.
Now we come to the MAX debacle.
These two disasters exposed the dirty secrets of the “insides” of the industry like never before. There is plenty of blame to go around. The Company, the FAA, even the Congress itself is more than ‘implicated’ at the deepest levels. Although the company has been publicly pilloried, that is mostly for show, not for substance. The company is too big and important to be mortally wounded, and that is why the FAA and DOJ are dancing around the issues the way they are.
But as I said above, and I repeat, the Aviation Industry itself wants to “protect it’s special non accountable status under ICAO Annex 13″ – AT ALL COSTS (any why Airbus has been silent).
@ventus45
In my view, your arguments on Annex 13 and automation are flawed.
First, where would aviation safety would be WITHOUT Annex 13 and the protections it provides? How many potential witnesses would fail to come forward with pertinent information if they were not shielded from the prospect of liability in civil or criminal proceedings? What effect would that have on safety outcomes?
Annex 13 does provide a mechanism for the use of protected records in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings, if gross negligence, wilful misconduct or criminal intent is indicated. If passengers or their families are not being adequately compensated (and I don’t believe they are), it’s not because the airline industry hides behind Annex 13, as claimed.
Second, the ‘experts’ agree that automation has markedly improved safety and efficiency in aviation, not caused it to go backwards. Automation certainly has its challenges and unintended consequences, mostly caused by the interaction between humans and technology. Overcoming those challenges is a learning process; no system is perfect.
Again, in today’s world, where would we be WITHOUT automation? The inappropriate use of automation has caused some accidents, but do we know how many accidents have been prevented by its use and the reduction in pilot workload that it facilitates? I doubt we have the necessary data to answer that question.
@ventus45,
The golden age of air travel was from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Commercial air travel was originally a luxury for the few and competed with ocean liners that were still common for international travel early in the 1960s..
With the advent of the de Havilland Comet in 1952, the Boeing 707 in 1958 and the Douglas DC-8 in 1959, the jet age started. In the 1960s rail travel was considered the safest form of travel, with the lowest fatality rate per passenger mile. In the 1960s to 1970s air travel was significantly less safe than rail, especially due to the number and severity of accidents during the early jet age.
There were some high profile crashes including the Boeing 707 Alia Royal Jordanian Flight 402 shot down by Israeli fighters in 1963 and the Douglas DC-8 UTA Flight 772 brought down by a terrorist bombing by Libyan agents.
Pan Am Flight 214 (1963) – the Boeing 707 was traveling from San Juan (SJU) to Philadelphia (PHL) via Baltimore (BWI). However, on the aircraft’s second leg, it was struck by lightning, with all 81 passengers and crew members killed in the resultant crash.
South African Airways Flight 228 (1968) – another Boeing 707, this time flying from Johannesburg (JNB) to London Heathrow (LHR), with a stopover in Windhoek (WDH), Namibia. The aircraft came down shortly after take-off from Windhoek, resulting in the deaths of 123 of the 128 people onboard. The investigation into the crash cited pilot error as the likely cause.
Air New Zealand Flight 901 (1979) – the McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 was operating a sightseeing flight over Antarctica when it flew into Mount Erebus, killing all 237 passengers and 20 crew members onboard. Following investigation, it was concluded that a combination of errors in communication led to the crash. We have done an episode on this accident.
The watershed accident happened on 27th March 1977 when two Boeing 747 collided at Tenerife Airport killing 583 people. Fog and limited visibility, language and communication issues, pilot error and misinterpretation of ATC instructions and no ground radar at the airport caused the accident, which had nothing to do with the aircraft itself.
911 in 2001 remains the deadliest day in commercial aviation history. 246 people died on board 3 aircraft, 2,731 people died on the ground, when 19 hijackers attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and intended to attack the Capitol or the White House. 2,605 US citizens died including first responders and 372 citizens from 19 other countries.
It was only after 911, in the early 2000s, that air travel became the safest form of travel, with around 0.01 fatalities per billion passenger miles (Rail ~0.04, Bus ~0.05, Ship ~0.11, Car ~0.57, Motorcycle ~25.0). Commercial aviation is still by far the safest mode per mile traveled.
@ventus45
Without disagreeing with your hypothesis about denial in the aviation industry, the number of deaths per airborne passenger nautical miles apparently has been, and continues to be, in steep decline.
To express that another way, the explosion of passenger flight nautical miles travelled over the past few decades has not been accompanied by an explosion of passengers involved in catastrophic incidents – not yet anyway.
Those statistics do not atone airframe manufacturers, flight regulators or regional governments in relation to this disaster, or any other flight related incident that involves injury or loss of live.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKYontNgdE
In my view you can rule out all the frequent causes of an aircraft crash, because the aircraft carried on flying for 7h 37m until fuel exhaustion.
1. There was no pilot error in aviating, navigating or fuel management.
2. There was no mechanical failure, due to fire, explosion or decompression.
3. There was no bad weather.
4. There was no controlled flight into terrain.
5. There was no mid-air collision.
6. There was no bird strike or foreign object damage.
7. There was no sabotage, terrorism or 3rd party hijacking.
8. There were no maintenance or ground handling errors.
9. There were no ATC errors.
10. There were no design flaws or manufacturing defects.
So what are we left with, then?
If we eliminate 97% of aircraft crashes caused by the top ten issues, then …
We are left with an extremely rare event.
1. An automation failure like AF447.
2. Crew sabotage like Silk Air 185 or German Wings 9525.
3. Military conflict or accidental shoot down like KE007 or MH17.
4. Cargo shifts or dangerous goods like ValuJet 592.
5. Space weather or radiation like SAS 751 or Qantas 72.
Hi Richard. Loving your work and here’s hoping the next search season brings a positive result and some closure to the MH370 families.
Just a quick question: you mention ‘space weather or radiation’ as the cause of the incidents involving SAS 751 and Qantas 72. I looked them up and neither investigation seemed to conclude that it was the cause you mention.
SAS 751 cited ice ingestion into the engines causing a compressor stall, with contributing factors of inadequate training and activation of an unknown system (where have we heard that one before?!), namely the Automatic Thrust Restoration (ATR).
With Qantas 72, cosmic rays were amongst the potential causes but deemed ‘highly unlikely’ and the conclusion was a software design limitation.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts
Also, it seems very telling that about half of all incidents involving failures of Air Data Inertial Reference Units appear to be flights in and out of Perth and in the vicinity of the extremely powerful Harold E Holt Naval Communications Station which I know you have mentioned on your channel before.
@Tom Kiely,
Welcome to the blog!
The Scandinavian Airlines flight SAS 751 was indeed an icing issue, as you correctly point out. It was on my list of aircraft accidents caused by “Weather” and not on my list caused by “EMI and Space Weather”. I apologise for the mix up and will issue a correction on the You Tube channel as well.
The Harold E. Holt VLF transmitter and space weather interference were considered but ruled out as causes of Qantas 72, as you also point out, but I am not so sure.
While the Harold E. Holt Naval Communication Station was considered during the investigations of Qantas 72 and Qantas 71, the ATSB concluded that electromagnetic interference from the station was highly unlikely to have been a contributing factor.
In my view, it is quite possible that the HEH transmissions exposed the latent software problem in the ADIRU, which did not catch a spike or bit flip.
ICAO and NOAA issue Space Weather advisories to pilots.
HF and GPS are monitored, by pilots, if an advisory is in force.
SATCOM or VHF communication is used instead of HF communication.
INS or ground based navigation is used instead of GPS navigation.
It is possible and has been discussed in aviation incident analyses, that High Energy HF (HEH) transmissions could exacerbate a latent software issue in the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) of an Airbus A330, leading to anomalous behaviour such as sudden uncommanded pitch-down or descent. This scenario is not only plausible but aligns with real-world incidents, most notably Qantas Flight QFA72 in 2008.
Presumably the powerful transmissions from HEH will have been picked up by various hydrophones in and around the southern Indian Ocean.
Just as WSPR uses signal anomalies in atmospheric radio transmissions, might it be that the pressure wave caused by the impact of MH370, somewhere in a region defined within the territories of Antarctica, Western Australia, The Kerguelen Islands, Madagascar, South Africa and Indonesia, caused detectable and measurable anomalies in those powerful HEH transmissions.
If it has not already been done, Australia has the capacity to compare what it actually transmitted from HEH during the time that MH370 was airborne, with the hydroacoustic data it captured during the same period in the southern Indian Ocean region.
https://data.aad.gov.au/metadata/AAS_4102_longTermAcousticRecordings
If Australia can identify likely candidate anomalies between what was transmitted from HEH and what was recorded acoustically, covering the period that MH370 was airborne, it may be that the other regional parties, including France, with HA04 in the Crozet Islands, would be able to help to home in on the actual impact site, by identifying corresponding anomalies for the same time.
The more accurately the impact site is defined, the more likely it is that the next search will successfully locate and recover the wreckage.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw2UOLuxEkQ
There were hundreds of Microsoft Flight simulations found on Captain Zaharie Shah’s home computer.
Only one simulation was deleted, but this was recovered with the help of the FBI.
7 waypoints were found on a hard drive in deleted fragments. One standard waypoint, as a start point at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), which was reused time and again.
The KLIA waypoint was found twice.
3 other waypoints at 3°N, 5°N and 10°N on the standard fight route toward the Middle East and Europe.
Two waypoints at 45°S at fuel exhaustion at 37,651 feet and 4,000 feet.
The simulation run was for 72 minutes, but simulated a 9 hour flight.
The fuel amount was the same as for the MH150 flight from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah.
The simulation run is dated 2nd February 2014, just before a real world flight to Jeddah on 4th February 2014.
Richard can you elaborate on the flight sim data deletion ?
Exactly what data was deleted deliberately vs ordinary temp type files getting automatically deleted.
I’ve seen many claims in the media that point to the pilot deliberately hiding his tracks by deleting the 1 sim run (with 7 waypoints). The only thing I could find that shows deletion is when someone deleted one version of the entire flight sim software program “Feb 20 FS9 uninstalled from MK25”
“Only one simulation was deleted, but this was recovered with the help of the FBI.”
On your youtube video you mention “….you will find hundreds of simulations, you will only find one that was deleted….”
“….some of that is deleted deliberately, other data and the particular waypoints that were discovered were deleted automatically by the flight simulator software”
@Maverick,
Welcome to the blog!
The word “deleted” is not used in the official Malaysian report. The report concluded “The Simulator Session had a route that lead to the southern Indian Ocean. There is no evidence to suggest that the pilot had flown this simulator flight and it cannot be established whether the simulator session is in any way related to the actual flight of MH370.”
Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, Malaysian Inspector General of Police, publicly stated that:
“Some data has been deleted from the simulator, and forensic work is being done to retrieve this data.”
Follow-up reports confirmed the FBI was involved in recovering these “deleted” files, which included a simulated flight path into the southern Indian Ocean, which did later appear (indirectly) in the official report as simply “manually programmed coordinates.”
A fuller explanation will be published in the You Tube broadcast on Saturday.
Maverick- Originally in 2016, IG’s Victor Iannello and consultant YvesG issued a report on the RMP sim data leaked by Malaysia sources. At the time, nobody in the public realized the leaked sim data was an incomplete version. Victor and Yves memo was mostly correct, they did a fantastic job. But without the benefit of having the complete data set, there were in hindsight a few wrong preliminary conclusions.
One such premature conclusion was that the Flight Sim user may have been saving case files which he later went back and deleted. This was probably the wrong idea as we now know these were temp files. However, a series of popular speculations further piled onto the old wrong theory, that somehow the purported case files (which it now appears no case files were made, but…) somehow these files were intentionally created for police to find as a subterfuge.
Then in Oct_2017, ATSB final report, ATSB disclosed that the leaked sim data was missing a lot of available data that actually did exist. Between Oct_2017 and about early 2021, we learned a lot from ATSB about the missing sim data. Although I personally attempted to report the new data and interpretations (guest paper post here) largely people are unaware of the updates.
What I would say is the sim data is very unpopular: even those who feel the sim data is suspicious do not want to accept that the sim data is evidence of the actual MH370 flight path, which it probably is.
@TBill,
Well said!
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kgQCjV1tl8
20 employees of Freescale Semiconductor, a global company, were aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 when it disappeared on 8 March 2014. Of these, 12 were Malaysian nationals and 8 were Chinese nationals.
Freescale had facilities in both Malaysia and China, as well as many other countries.
Although the company owned a number of valuable patents, there was nothing nefarious about this business trip, that has come to light, that might be regarded as a contributing factor in the disappearance of MH370.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl9aDPml96Q
We examine the shooting down of Korean Airlines KE007 over Russian airspace and Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Ukrainian airspace.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4cg-A0CeE
In 1983 aircraft did not have GPS systems. The U.S. Department of Defense developed and launched the GPS satellite constellation. It became fully operational in 1993. The FAA (US Federal Aviation Administration) began certifying GPS receivers for use in aircraft for supplemental navigation in 1994.
Korean Airlines flight KE007 was a Boeing 747-230B, registration HL7442 and had several navigation systems on board.
1. It was equipped with three redundant Delco Carousel IV Inertial Navigation Systems (INS). This system utilised gyroscopes and accelerometers to calculate the aircraft’s position, allowing it to navigate along a programmed route without relying on external signals.
2. VOR/DME (VHF Omnidirectional Range with Distance Measuring Equipment) which gives bearing (VOR) and distance (DME) to a station and used for en-route navigation and approach procedures over land.
3. ADF/NDB (Automatic Direction Finder / Non-Directional Beacon), which points to a ground-based beacon using radio signals for basic en-route and terminal navigation, especially in remote or oceanic areas.
4. A Magnetic Compass, Flux Gate System and a Gyrocompass / Directional Gyro (DG).
Following a constant magnetic heading of 245°M rather than the waypoints in the flight plan was a pilot error. After 290 minutes of flying time and over 2,442 nmi, the aircraft was 92 nmi out compared with the IGRF magnetic declination model dated 1st September 1983 and 319 nmi (590 km) off the planned flight route.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8xa6vhryms5n86cm1c7a1/SkyVector-245-M.png?rlkey=6u1uhrir9ng2lc53sli0npzzw&dl=0
KE007 followed 245°M all the way. The Sperry C-14 compass system has an accuracy of ± 2° and worst case ± 5°. It was designed as a back up system and the INS was very accurate and used precise waypoints, but was not used for some unknown reason or did not capture the flight path because it was only switched on when already more then 7.5 nmi off course.
The magnetic declination (or variation) on 1st September 1983 ranged from 25.05°E at Anchorage International Airport to 9.39°W at the crash location.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bpnuebv5acl5hyylbnkhf/KE007-Crash-Location-Just-20-nmi-from-Fukuoka-FIR.png?rlkey=urc6q106mcxsvyz44ju8gvw27&dl=0
KE007 was only 20 nmi from the Fukuoka FIR in Japan and not posing a threat.
The ICAO reopened its investigation into KE007 in 1993, when the Russians finally gave them the CVR and FDR tapes. The ICAO never published a detailed analysis of the CVR and FDR data.
The ICAO focused on determining whether the data changed the original conclusions or supported further recommendations—not a full reinvestigation. The tapes were seen as a political gesture and the ICAO did not want to re-open old wounds. There were gaps and ambiguities in the recordings, raising concerns about whether the data was unaltered.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVQfk0osiFY
Today we walk through the data that we have on MH370 flight path and crash location.
We track the MH370 flight path initially with radar and ADS-B data up until diversion. Then we track MH370 with civilian primary radar data back across Malaysia and into the Malacca Strait.
An hour after diversion the SATCOM system was switched back on and we track MH370 with the satellite BTO and BFO data around every hour until fuel exhaustion.
Finally we track MH370 using the WSPR data to a crash location at 29.128°S 99.934°E.
The crash location aligns with the 7th Arc, fuel exhaustion and the UWA drift analysis.
On Saturday 31st May 2025 I was asked to give a presentation to an Amateur Radio Club in Canada titled WSPR and MH370.
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISOUkWOJ0vs
Presentation Slides:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cbk0dwwqrhsmo49bzyrhn/IslandHF-Presentation-31MAY2025.pdf?rlkey=noycxa0v82bywis11nci8n8y8&dl=0
Presentation Script:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i3850j4csbu42or9jotdg/IslandHF-MH370-and-WSPR-Script.pdf?rlkey=69tpza917viuqhs61cwh734fw&dl=0
Hello Richard,
I watch all the episodes with Geoffrey and yourself. Thank you for that content. I just viewed your presentation to the Ham Club in Canada. A very interesting and informative presentation. Where can I see concrete examples of the WSPR data tracking any random flights from today, or years ago, does not matter when. Thank you.
Kurt Kenyon
Austin Texas
@Kurt Kenyon,
Welcome to the blog!
We have not yet published any “concrete examples of the WSPR data tracking any random flights from today, or years ago, does not matter when.”
We have published a paper tracking 48 different flights globally against their ADS-B data at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8q54o5btw9mfkc6io30ye/Global-Passive-Radar-01JAN2025.pdf?rlkey=kk4xbt04c8tlojs3j294lpljw&dl=0
Prof. Simon Maskell is currently tracking 73,541 flights globally in a 24 hour period on 1st August 2023.
In today’s episode you will hear in answer to a question from:
@cosmogman
“Has the WSPR method ever tracked a flight where the departure and destination locations were unknown prior to tracking?”
The answer:
“We are tracking the WSPR data for Diego Garcia between the 9th March 2014 and 13th March 2014.”
Thank you Richard. Following all your work.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEp2Sienq0g
The last few minutes of MH370 is a subject where there are many different opinions.
Did MH370 crash at 25°S, 30°S, 35°S, 40°S or 45°S?
Was it a controlled ditching or a high impact crash?
Did the APU kick in at the end of flight or was the RAT deployed or both?
There are some key issues that need clarifying.
Today we present an overview of the different views from the authorities, the experts and as reported in the media.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv6qxGO8UX4
One viewer asked:
“Some critics of WSPR detection say Richard is “cherrypicking” data when assembling link anomalies. How would Richard respond to these critics? What is the distinction between cherrypicking and filtering?”
Cherry picking is when you choose the results that you like or support your theory and reject the results that you don’t like or don’t support your theory.
Filtering is when you use an algorithm to select results, for example I only want to use data on male smokers over the age of 50.
You use filtering to get a relevant selection of data in a defined, neutral and transparent manner.
Cherry picking is undefined and in-transparent and certainly not neutral.
If critics think I am cherry picking, why don’t they download the freely available software and try it for themselves like many others have done.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKqT36w0JI
@KevinFielding-w4r made the following comment:
“Geoffrey and Richard, keep it up guys I have watched most of the episodes over the last few months and it is so important to keep spotlighting what happened and the continuing search. Apart from a general interest I also have a personal connection to MH370.
I recently retired from Warwick University. We have run programmes in Malaysia and China and a colleague of mine had previously taken that particular flight. Also a former student who attended a course I used to run, was on that flight.
About a year after the disappearance of MH370 his Mum came to the University to see where he had studied, I had the privilege to take her with a colleague to lunch. She was so dignified and brave. The families deserve answers and no stone should be left unturned until the mystery is solved.”
What a lady, dignified and brave.
I feel with you Kevin.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Suizg0D8lc
The FBI were asked to run a check on the crew and passenger list. A number of other security organisations were also asked.
The FBI were also asked to assist in the analysis of Captain Zaharie Shah’s home flight simulator.
In 2023, Victor Iannello made a Freedom Of Information request to the FBI and he published the response letter, he received from the FBI, on his website.
The subject of the letter was “SHAH, ZAHARIE AHMAD – (Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 Pilot)”.
The FBI declined the request on the grounds that there was an ongoing investigation.
“The FBI has completed its search for records subject to the Freedom Of Information – Privacy Acts (FOIPA) that are responsive to your request. The material you requested is located in an investigative file, which is exempt from disclosure …”
Ghyslain Wattrelos, who lost his wife and two children on MH370, stated in an interview, that the FBI was not being helpful and only gave them information on the pilot’s home flight simulator, that was already available in the Malaysian reports and which the French investigation already knew.
The Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) seized the Pilot In Command’s home flight simulator from the residence of the PIC on 15th March 2014. The RMP Forensic Report dated 19th May 2014 documented more than 2,700 coordinates retrieved from separate file fragments and most of them are default game coordinates.
it was also discovered that there were seven ‘manually programmed’ waypoint coordinates, that when connected together, will create a flight path from KLIA to an area south of the Indian Ocean through the Andaman Sea. These coordinates were stored in the Volume Shadow Information (VSI) file dated 03 February 2014. The function of this file was to save information when a computer is left idle for more than 15 minutes. Hence, the RMP Forensic Report could not determine, if the waypoints came from one or more files.
The word “deleted” is not used in the official Malaysian report. The report concluded “The Simulator Session had a route that lead to the southern Indian Ocean. There is no evidence to suggest that the pilot had flown this simulator flight and it cannot be established whether the simulator session is in any way related to the actual flight of MH370.”
Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, Malaysian Inspector General of Police, publicly stated that:
“Some data has been deleted from the simulator, and forensic work is being done to retrieve this data.”
Follow-up reports confirmed the FBI was involved in recovering these “deleted” files, which included a simulated flight path into the southern Indian Ocean, which did later appear (indirectly) in the official report as simply “manually programmed coordinates.”
Captain Zaharie Shah had different versions of Microsoft Windows and different versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator. An add-on from Phoenix Simulation Software (PSS) Boeing 777-200LR No Virtual Cockpit, was also used.
Victor Iannello and Yves Guillaume found out that this add-on was only available for FS 2004. The Malaysian report got the Microsoft Flight Simulator version actually used wrong, stating FSX and not FS2004,
A few analysts, replicated the software set up of Captain Zaharie Shah, the same Windows version, the same Microsoft Flight Simulator version and the same PSS Boeing 777-200LR add-on with No Virtual Cockpit.
As of now, this specific add-on is no longer officially available for purchase or download. PSS ceased operations years ago, and their products have since become rare and unsupported. PMDG offers a high-fidelity Boeing 777 series for Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Microsoft Flight Simulator started in 1982 with the first version. In 1996 it moved to Windows. In 2020 it moved to photo realistic scenery, real time weather and highly detailed aircraft models. Now you could simulate a Boeing 737 NG, in Poseidon P-8A livery, with military style avionics, live commercial air and ship traffic and run your own search and rescue mission.
Captain Zaharie Shah had multiple screens, yoke, rudder pedals, throttle quadrant, a motion controller that makes the chair of the simulator pitch and turn like in a real cockpit to simulate the climbs, descents and banked turns of a real plane. Zaharie’s set-up also included a centre pedestal, where aircraft controls sit and an overhead panel.
Both Malaysian and US officials have confirmed, that the FBI was asked to help in recovering the “deleted data” from Captain Zaharie Shah’s home flight simulator.
The Australian ATSB devotes a section of its final report to the Pilot in Command’s flight simulator, but without mentioning the FBI or its role in the investigation. “Data from the Pilot-in-Command’s (PIC) home flight simulator was recovered and analysed in March/April 2014. This information was provided to the ATSB on 19th April 2014, during the surface search and was subsequently also analysed for relevance to the underwater search. The simulator data was a partial reconstruction of a flight simulator session from 2nd February 2014. It comprised four complete and two partial data captures of various aircraft and simulator
parameters at discrete points during the simulation.”
The ATSB note that on the day the simulation was conducted, the PIC was on a rostered day of leave. They also note, that on 4th February 2014 the PIC was rostered to fly from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The first three data points recovered from the simulator were consistent with the route from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah.
We know from the Microsoft documentation, what data is available. There are almost 1,000 data items that you could find in each of these waypoint files and we have around 200 data items per waypoint file. So the complete data sets have not been published or leaked.
26 countries were involved in the search for MH370 and spent over $300 Million. The overall scale, cost, and international scope of the response provide strong evidence that authorities took the MH370 disappearance seriously.
Malaysia has been accused of making mistakes, miscommunications and a lack of transparency. However, Malaysian Airlines introduced a new rule 19 days after the disappearance of MH370 on 27th March 2014, by implementing a policy requiring that two crew members be present in the cockpit at all times. Other airlines only introduced the two-person cockpit rule a year later, after the German Wings disaster. Many airlines have since abandoned the rule as impractical and unworkable and it is no longer mandatory.
Interpol reported that two passengers travelled on stolen passports and that no checks had been made that their passports were valid. Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble expressed concern over the failure to screen passports against their Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database: “This is a situation we had hoped never to see. For years INTERPOL has asked why should countries wait for a tragedy to put prudent security measures in place at borders and boarding gates.”
The ATSB has been most helpful. Analysts including the IG, myself and others have received more data and shared our findings.
I have mentioned the report by Victor Iannello and Yves Guillaume before. Several experts including Captain Mike Glynn, Mick Gilbert, Bill Tracy and others have analysed the simulator data in further detail.
We now realise the type of file recovered is a temporary file that the MS flight simulator creates and subsequently automatically deletes. Temporary files are created, when the simulator is paused to make certain changes (for example load or jettison fuel), or drag the aircraft in a fast forward mode, to save time.
It seems quite possible the user did not realise these temporary were created then auto-deleted. Case files would have been better because they contain more data. Instead we have auto-deleted-MicroSoft flight simulator temporary files which only contain the MicroSoft portion of the data and none of the more complete add-on PSS 777 file details.
I haven’t come to a conclusion yet, to quote the FBI, the investigation is still ongoing.
Whether the flight to Amsterdam, Jeddah or Beijing was the original target is speculation. The Amsterdam flight had the most fuel, but two complete sets of flight crew. The Jeddah flight had more fuel than the Beijing flight, but also additional flight crew. The Beijing flight had sufficient fuel to get to the Southern Indian Ocean and only one other junior flight crew member.
What is not speculation is that the flight simulator data leaked in the Malaysian RMP police report and referenced in the official report is not the whole truth. It has meanwhile become apparent that the FBI has more data than the data that has either been published or that has been leaked.
We know the full data set for each Microsoft Flight Simulator version and the add-ons used by Captain Zaharie Shah. We know what data has been made public, either officially or leaked. We have received written and verbal confirmation of additional information.
In my view, the conclusion of the Malaysian report, that it cannot be established that the home flight simulator data is “in any way related to the actual flight of MH370” is premature and misleading, if only because the FBI still says the case is ongoing.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NupfFJQxRGY
On 2nd July 2021, a Boeing 737-200 ditched in the Pacific Ocean, 11 minutes after take off from Honolulu International Airport.
The aircraft had levelled off at 2,000 feet with engine damage to the right engine.
The flight crew initially identified the correct engine as malfunctioning.
However, after levelling off at 2,000 feet, the first officer reduced thrust on both engines, and the captain, preoccupied with communications, failed to verify the engine status.
Subsequently, the crew mistakenly believed the left engine was the problem and continued to rely on the damaged right engine for thrust.
Both crew of the cargo flight survived.
We are showing an animation of the crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNUo46xhILg
The recommended ditching profile for a Boeing 737-200 is:
1. An indicated airspeed of 130 knots
2. Flap setting 15° or 30°.
3. Gear retracted.
4. Shallow descent rate at 200 fpm to 300 fpm.
5. Slight nose up attitude (6° to 10° pitch).
6. Touch down parallel to the swell or waves and not into them.
7. If possible touch down into wind.
The wreckage was recovered 3.2 km off the coast in water ranging in depth from 107 m to 137 m.
The aircraft was initially kept in a clean configuration (flaps and gear retracted) to reduce drag, but eventually 5° flaps were deployed, which helped to mitigate a stall warning.
By comparison, US Airways flight AWE1549, an Airbus A320, used Flaps 2 (flaps 15° and slats 22.5°) to maintain lift and air speed without engine power.
RDS810 was estimated ditching at 159 knots and a final descent rate of 152 fpm (for the last 269 seconds) from originally 2,000 feet.
The aircraft broke into two major sections.
By comparison, AFR447 was estimated ditching at 107.0 knots and a final descent rate of 10,912 fpm (for the last 217 seconds) from originally 35,000 feet from stall to impact.
MAS370 was estimated ditching at 339.5 knots and a final descent rate of 1,722 fpm (for the last 111 seconds) from originally 40,000 feet and reaching around 15,000 fpm at 00:19:37b UTC.
RDS810 was estimated ditching at 159 knots and a final descent rate of 152 fpm (for the last 269 seconds) from originally 2,000 feet.
AWE1549 was estimated ditching at 125 knots and a final descent rate of 263 fpm (for the last 57 seconds) from originally 3,200 feet.
The Indian Ocean at 29.128°S 99.934°E on 8th March 2014 at 00:00 UTC was a high pressure of 1022 hPa, winds from 150°T at 17.8 knots and a swell from 225° with a period of 12.9 seconds.
The wave height was 2.59 m.
The Pacific Ocean at 21.1639°N 158.01313°W in 21st July 2021 at 12:00 UTC was a high pressure of 1018 hPa, winds from 070°T at 14.6 knots and a swell from 85° with a period of 5.9 seconds.
The wave height was 1.59 m.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XtAkSP55xI
The ATSB in their final official report stated “The simulator data was a partial reconstruction of a flight simulator session from 2nd February 2014. It comprised four complete and two partial data captures of various aircraft and simulator parameters at discrete points during the simulation.”
A further piece of information that the ATSB later provided by email was: “All files except the final (partial) file contained a [DateTimeSeason] field which contains values for Day, Year, Hours, Minutes, Seconds, Season. The files with the field had the common values of Day=33, Year=2014 and Season=Winter. The [DateTimeSeason] field in the files indicated 15:26 to 16:38.”
The Malaysians also presumably had this information from the FBI, but did not disclose it. Or maybe the FBI did not tell the Malaysians, but only the ATSB.
The Malaysian official report released in July 2018 states: “These coordinates were stored in the Volume Shadow Information (VSI) file dated 3rd February 2014. The function of this file was to save information when a computer is left idle for more than 15 minutes. Hence, the RMP Forensic Report could not determine, if the waypoints came from one or more files.”
The RMP Police Forensic Report quoted was “dated 19th May 2014” and “documented more than 2,700 coordinates retrieved from separate file fragments and most of them are default game coordinates.”
The ATSB report states the “Data from the Pilot-in-Command’s (PIC) home flight simulator was recovered and analysed in March/April 2014. This information was provided to the ATSB on 19th April 2014, during the surface search and was subsequently also analysed for relevance to the underwater search.”
How is it possible that in July 2018 the Malaysian authorities could not determine that the files were from the same simulator run.
They may not have known prior to sending the Storage Device to the FBI, but like the ATSB they quite probably knew what the FBI Forensic Report stated by 19th April 2014 and before the RMP released its report on 19th May 2014.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLgSFkwKLb0
Some ask why do we have to switch mobile phones to flight mode?
How do mobile phones interfere with aircraft systems?
The mechanisms involved are radiated emissions, conducted emissions and susceptibility.
On average, airlines experience a 83% load factor and aircraft have a weighted average of 180 seats on each flight. 180 x 0.83 = 149.4. So there are around 150 passengers on each aircraft flight and 99% of airline passengers have at least one personal electronic device and 90% have two and 75% have three.
Smartphone, Laptop, Tablet, Smartwatch, Game Console, Earbuds, …
Each cellular transmitter was historically up to 2 W, Wi-Fi was up to 1 W and Bluetooth can be up to 0.1W. A typical modern mobile phone is 0.2 W and a Wi-Fi 0.1 W.
My personal mix would be a laptop, smartphone and buds. One cellular, 2 Wi-Fi and 3 bluetooth, typically 0.7 W, these days.
If 150 people all had 0.7 W of transmitters, that would be 105 W.
Now we are not talking about HEH station near Exmouth, Australia with 1 MW, but we are sitting between 3 m and 70 m from the cockpit and the avionics bay(s), and as we explained in the episode yesterday there is wiring in the ceiling, side walls and under the floor, which is susceptible to Electromagnetic Interference (EMI).
Conducted and radiated emissions testing for evaluating the potential interference of personal electronic devices on aircraft systems is described in the RTCA document DO-307.
Just taking a simple measure of power density 105 W at 37 m is 6.1 mW/m2.
Captain Zaharie Shah had his Nokia Lumia 925 connected to his WeChat messaging, whilst lined up on the take off runway 32R at Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
HEH at 1 MW at a distance of 163 km from Qantas flight 72 was around 3 µW/m2.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t96ISlVV6-k
We discuss the question: Can AI find MH370?
The answer is …
In principle: Yes — AI can significantly increase the odds of finding MH370.
In practice: Not unless it’s given the right data, access to search areas, and human collaboration.
In 2018, a UK-based company called Ocean Infinity led a renewed search using advanced technology.
In parallel, data scientists, including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and independent researchers, applied AI and machine learning to analyse massive datasets from satellite imagery and underwater sonar scans.
600 terabytes of satellite imagery from the days following the disappearance.
Deep learning models trained to detect possible aircraft debris or anomalies in the ocean.
AI helped filter out false positives (e.g., waves, reflections) and prioritise higher-probability locations.
AI has come a long way since 2018, so maybe it is time to try again.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haik-f_nqkw
The cockpit windows of the Boeing 777 and all other modern airliners are designed to reflect the sun’s radiation, particularly infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) light. The windows have metallic oxide coatings, often made of gold or silver-based films, that reflect infrared radiation(IR) to reduce heat buildup in the cockpit. They also block ultraviolet (UV) rays to protect pilots’ skin and eyes and reduce cockpit material degradation over time.
On the ground, you can open the cockpit side window.
There are between 15 and 20 different mobile phone standards between 2G and 5G. GSM, CDMA, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HSPA, EV-DO, LTE, LTE-A and 5G NR are all digital mobile communication standards.
Captain Zaharie Shah’s Nokia Lumia 925 was connected on a CELCOM Malaysia 4G LTE standard, whilst lined up on runway 32R at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, waiting for take off. Several digital mobile standards change the transmission power and transmission frequency and a higher transmission power will significantly affect battery life.
For a successful connection to his WeChat messaging system at 16:40:02 UTC, Captain Zaharie Shah either opened the cockpit window or entered the passenger cabin to sit by a window. The aircraft was given departure clearance at 16:40:37 UTC.
Thank you Richard for your sensible posts and replies in response to all sorts of outlier posts. Let me preface this comment by saying I do not have not firsthand knowledge of the glass used in aeroplane’s cockpits. Advanced manufacturers of passenger vehicles such as BMW introduced so called climate comfort glass some decades ago. This glass is designed to (and very effectively does) restrict the influx of solar insolation of both infrared and ultraviolet radiation without blocking GSM (UHF) frequencies, which are orders of magnitude different in wavelength.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBtvYKJ_ncU
Geoffrey and Blaine present further insight into the physical evidence of the floating debris.