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 evening addition today on Avionic Software from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas, who is in Paris, France:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2UOE8_DzBw
We have discussed viewers comments and questions on technology used in modern aircraft. Many have expressed concerns about computers and the software, that are used in avionic systems.
Has technology taken over from the pilot? Are aircraft over-engineered with too much technology? Can software bugs be missed in testing and only occur later during aircraft operations? Does technology make flying safer? Can software glitches cause an aircraft crash?
There are many questions that the flying public have about the aviation safety track record as aircraft use more and more technology.
Today, we take a look behind the scenes at avionic software, the computer brain of a modern aircraft.
The bottom line is that avionic software is getting better all the time.
Flying is getting safer all the time.
The Boeing 787 has made around 5 million flights with a total of around 40 million flying hours.
With no hull-loss accidents attributed to software failures, the goal of less than one catastrophic system failure in a billion flying hours has been achieved so far. UNLESS … the cause of the Air India crash is attributed to a software failure …
The Airbus A320 aircraft family likely holds the record for the most flying hours without a hull loss attributed to a software failure at around 150 million flying hours.
@All,
FlightRadar24 published the ADS-B data from the Air India flight AIC171 that crashed on 12th June 2025, shortly after take off.
Here is a link to an Excel spreadsheet that contains the 8 data points whilst the aircraft was airborne. There are 43 data points whilst on the ground from the gate to a holding point to enter the runway.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eck3903wmx3j5yp0buyts/AI171_Positions_Altitude_Flightradar24-Data-Analysis.xlsx?rlkey=7w5gpqudii8zi5dibl8b5g18v&dl=0
Here is table showing the 8 data points in the air:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nltw2krukjf73qmltkdny/AI171_Positions_Altitude_Flightradar24-Flight-Data-Analysis.png?rlkey=4mxp1eytb9e73hoe8vhl4t4ap&dl=0
The sequence of 8 data points last 4.3 seconds. The aircraft covers a horizontal distance of 397.8 m on a track of 223.7 °T at an average speed of 179.0 knots and ROC of +694 fpm.
FlightRadar24 shows the last point at a Barometric Altitude of 625 feet AMSL based on ISA standard air pressure of 1013.25 hPa, Ground Speed of 174 knots, Vertical Speed of 896 fpm and Track of 223°. The GPS Altitude is N/A, but I estimate the True Altitude AGL as 500 feet:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gkviu0qb1b5evvadc1xg3/FlightRadar24-Flight-AIC171-Barometric-Altitude-625-feet-GPS-Altitude-N-A.png?rlkey=r3k4fo4nfc8lnjljid1svko0o&dl=0
The position of the 8 data points can be seen in the following Google Earth Map:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5o6eie7nh6crsqsxf61qc/Google-Earth-End-of-the-Runway-23.066084-N-72.622550-E-76-m-249-feet.png?rlkey=xc5ldj557da05b7306lq28i4h&dl=0
The runway elevation is 180 feet at the end of the runway as shown in the Aerodrome Obstacle Chart:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k7c7s9tfncm6wjse6wl44/Aerodrome-Obstacle-Chart-Runway-23-Take-Off.png?rlkey=yuhzei3ljnpgu7224tt863ci4&dl=0
The surface temperature, air pressure and wind strength and direction are shown for the crash flight and other previous flights of the same aircraft VT-ANB on the same route AMD to LGW on other dates:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n4t3t919mkwssmecdpj2b/GE-Map-AMD-to-LGW-Flights-Augmented-Data.png?rlkey=qrnouy9806qi1dr9a37rkenlh&dl=0
@All,
There has been a lot of talk in social media about the cause of the crash of Air India being the toilets leaking into the electronics bay.
Boeing issued an Alert Requirements Bulletin on 6th March 2024. Here is a summary of that Alert:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r8t1wfe5e78w8x8j3b62b/Boeing-Alert-Requirements-Bulletin-B787-81205-SB530085-00-Summary.png?rlkey=5pk32bhdp4epxaikww30rwlc2&dl=0
You can download the full text as a .pdf (73 pages) here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5xfwrwa4uuya6immjguzc/Boeing-Alert-Requirements-Bulletin-B787-81205-SB530085-00-RB-FUSELAGE-Section-41-and-46-Floor-Panels-and-Seat-Track-Sealant-and-Tape-Application.pdf?rlkey=t6oh5kq7q4x2sh93i9lhx0eye&dl=0
You will see that the phrase “before next flight” is used 10 times in the full text.
This Boeing Alert was recently issued as a FAA Airworthiness Directive FAA-AD-2025-06-18 with an effective date of 18th June 2025:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/efxuovyxqj70hcm1ivh0d/FAA-AD-2025-06-18-Water-Leakage-into-Elecronics-Equipment-Bay.pdf?rlkey=p7lik9i64ad95kw09w14ae9h2&dl=0
Maybe. At rotation. Nose up water flooded into the. Wires or electronics at that point causing a bad signal shutting down thrust
@Denny G,
Welcome to the blog!
You may well be right. If water leaks into the Electronic Equipment bay, it could cause a catastrophic electrical failure.
When the pressure at sea level QNH 1001.1 hPa is less than standard pressure 1013.25 hPa the reference for Flight Level is below sea level, so when the pressure altitude eg; 635 ft is measured with respect to mean sea level it must be less that when measured with respect to the standard pressure reference.
Using a simple model, ignoring the effect of temperature, the correction required is (1013.25 – 1001.1) x 30 = 364.50 ft which must subtracted from the pressure altitude 625 ft resulting 260.5 AMSL. With the airport elevation of 189 ft, this correspond to 71.5 ft AGL.
@christopher robinson (Chris),
Welcome to the blog!
The reference for flight levels is always 1013.25 hPa, but this is not a physical altitude “below sea level” when QNH is lower than standard.
Flight levels are pressure-based altitudes, not geometric altitudes.
When QNH is less than 1013.25, the actual altitude corresponding to a given pressure level is higher, not lower, than expected.
Approximate Altitude Correction
ΔP = 1013.25 – 1001.1 = 12.15 hPa.
Approximate altitude correction: 12.15 × 30 ft/hPa = +364.5 ft.
You add this correction to pressure altitude to get true altitude above MSL, not subtract.
“With the airport elevation of 189 ft, this corresponds to 71.5 ft AGL”
Since the corrected altitude should be ~989.5 ft AMSL, then AGL = 989.5 ft – 189 ft = 800.5 ft, not 71.5 ft.
Improved Altitude Correction
A better calculation accounts for temperature difference:
TA = PA x (Tactual / Tstandard)
Where
TA is True Altitude.
PA is Pressure Altitude.
Tactual is Actual Temperature in Kelvin.
Tstandard is International Standard Atmosphere Temperature in Kelvin.
°K = °C + 273.15
Tactual = 38.9 °C = 38.9 + 273.15 = 312.05 °K.
Tstandard at 625 feet = 13.75 °C = 13.75 + 271.15 = 286.9 °K.
TA = 625 x 312.05 / 286.9 = 680 feet AMSL = 500 feet AGL.
The end of the runway has an elevation of 180 feet.
Please see the Indian Airport Authority – Aerodrome Obstacle Chart:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k7c7s9tfncm6wjse6wl44/Aerodrome-Obstacle-Chart-Runway-23-Take-Off.png?rlkey=yuhzei3ljnpgu7224tt863ci4&dl=0
@christopher robinson (Chris)
@Richard Godfrey
I have been doing some number crunching and have come up with a slightly different answer.
I’m not claiming perfection, but I calculate the maximum altitude acheived AGL was only about 303 feet.
This is 1.54 wing spans of a B787, which, to my eyes, seems to be about right as seen in the video showing the takeoff and initial climb to the point where it leveled (before descending).
Convoluted workings as below.
ISA/SL conditions are pressure (QNE) = 1013.25hPa and temperature 15.0°C = 288.15°K and density = 1.22500kg/m^3
A Runway at 180ft geometric AMSL in ISA conditions should be:
pressure (QFE/ISA) 1006.68hPa and temperature = 14.793°C = 287.943°K and density = 1.21856kg/m^3
Actual Runway temperature was NOT ISA – it was = 38.9°C = 312.05°K.
Which is (38.9 – 14.793) = 24.107°C = (312.05 – 287.943) = 24.107°K.
In other words, takeoff conditions for the runway elevation was ISA +24.107°C
If one assumes standard adiabatic lapse rate conditions pertain, then this temperature difference of ISA plus 24.107°C is equivalent to a sea level temperature of 39.107°C = 312.257°K at the standard sea level ISA pressure of 1013.25hPa.
The equivalent density at sea level is thus only 1.13043kg/m^3 which is 0.09457kg/m^3 below the standard sea level density of 1.22500kg/m^3, in other words, only 92.59595918367 percent of standard density.
If we assume that standard lapse rates pertain for temperature, density and pressure, and by using the QNH of 1001.10hPa, we can calculate the presumed actual runway pressure (ie QFE) to be (1001.10 x 0.9259595918367) = 926.977739hPa. (Just for interest, this is equivalent to a density altitude of about 2,442 ft in ISA conditions).
However, what we want to acheive, is to calculate the actual geometric altitude of the aircraft above runway level when the ADSB data reported 625 ft.
For the aircraft to report 625 ft (since it is calibrated to ISA), it would have “transmitted” of 1006.68hPa at lift off at 180 ft geometric altitude AMSL, and it must have actually “transmitted” an ADSB pressure of 990.573hPa.
The difference is (1006.68 – 990.573) = 16.107hPa which is 483.215 feet.
Since the runway height above sea level is 180 feet, the maximum height the aircraft acheived above runway level was (483.215 – 180.000) = 303.215 feet.
The wingspan of a B787 is 197 feet, so the maximum altitude above ground level was therefore about 1.54 wing spans, which, to my eyes, seems to be about right as seen in the video showing the takeoff and initial climb to the point where it leveled (before descending).
(Tool: https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/index.htm)
@ventus45,
Many thanks! A much more accurate calculation.
I still thin the calcucation is not accurate. It shows pressures at 180 ft and 625 ft (standard) and calculates from the difference the altitude above sea level (30 feet( hPa). Just imagine the plane is above an airport not 180 ft but 600 ft high. Then the same calculation would yield a pressure difference of 0.18 hPa and a height about ground of 5 feet – 620 feet = – 615 feet (negative).
Following a simple calculation based on pressure altitude (standard 1013,25) and local QNH (in hPa):
true altitude = pressure altitude (625 ft) + (QNH-1013.25)*30 ft
true altitude = 261 ft.
altitude over ground = 89 ft.
Temperature correction yields a slightly higher altitude, so we get roughly 100 ft.
The ADS-B sequence starts at 50 ft and ends at 100 ft. above ground, lasting only 4 seconds. The video shows 12 seconds from lift off to peak. peak is about 60 m / 200 ft. Possible as there was more time after the 4s-Sequence.
For confirmation, I watched a number of departures at that airport today, luckily also with QNH 1001 hPa. Three landings (on ground) showed pressure altitude 500 ft, 500 ft and 525 ft. One start showed 525 ft when rolling. A second start was even a 787-8. 525 ft. at a distance of 1000 m from the end of the runway and 1000 ft at the end.
I think some of your conclusions are not correct. Just to cite one:
“If we assume that standard lapse rates pertain for temperature, density and pressure, and by using the QNH of 1001.10hPa, we can calculate the presumed actual runway pressure (ie QFE) to be (1001.10 x 0.9259595918367) = 926.977739hPa. (Just for interest, this is equivalent to a density altitude of about 2,442 ft in ISA conditions).”
As a consequence, the local pressure is only about 93% of the QNH if tempature is about 40 °C, because air density drops accordingly.
Thus it is recommended to to crosscheck this with real data. Just now (6:00 UTC) related data from Doha (near sea level):
T = 41°C
QNH = 995 hPa
QFF= 997 hPa
QFE= 996 hPa
You will find similarities between QNH, QFF and QFE at many locations near sea level, including both hot and cold regions.
@Klaus Högerl,
Welcome to the blog!
I have checked the calculation provided by @ventus45 and the real data from Ahmedabad on the 12th June 2025 at the time of the flight and it all aligns.
In the analysis I published yesterday, I include the source of the 21 data items (ADS-B, NOAA, IAA, GE) and clearly state whether each item is a published data point, observation, calculation or generally accepted assumption.
Ahmedabad Airport runway is between 180 feet and 189 feet Above Mean Sea Level according to a survey done in 2012 by the Indian Airports Authority.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k7c7s9tfncm6wjse6wl44/Aerodrome-Obstacle-Chart-Runway-23-Take-Off.png?rlkey=yuhzei3ljnpgu7224tt863ci4&dl=0
“When QNH is less than 1013.25, the actual altitude corresponding to a given pressure level is higher, not lower, than expected.”
No.
In low pressure regions the altitude as measured by Flight Level remains the same but the corresponding but the height above is level is lower.
The FR24 ADS-B data provides altitude with respect to standard pressure to obtain the altitude AMSL the correct should be subtracted. And then the elevation of the airfield taken into account to obtain height agl.
Consider the case where an aircraft is flying at FL001 with QNH 1013.25 hPa. Hence it is at 1,000 ft AMSL.
If it flies into an area with QNH 1014.25 hPa it will be flying at FL001 but the height will have increased to 1,030 ft AMSL
Similarly,if it flies into an area with QNH 1012.25 hPa , it will still be flying at FL001, but the height will have decreased to 970 ft AMSL.
@christopher robinson,
My apologies, my original statement was not correct and I was sloppy.
The question remains what altitude did flight AIC171 achieve AGL?
What is your opinion?
@All,
Based on the true altitude calculation of 303.215 feet AGL by @ventus45, here is a link to a possible scenario which aligns with the ADS-B, NOAA, IAA and GE data:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fyhpsziglznxb0toover9/Air-India-AIC171-Possible-Crash-Scenario.pdf?rlkey=cbgduprts0mxd9i3erx03forl&dl=0
The aircraft was not overloaded, nor even near maximum take off weight (MTOW).
This was not a dual flame out, as the aircraft would have crashed 324 m from the last ADS-B data point at a barometric altitude of 625 feet AMSL.
The crash site was 1,620 m from the last ADS-B data point at a barometric altitude of 625 feet AMSL.
It was a single engine flame out, with the other engine operating at reduced thrust.
The descent configuration is assumed to be gear down, flaps 5 and RAT deployed, which all produces significant drag.
An over rotation on take off is possible.
A manual deployment of the RAT is possible.
The descent took 18.0 seconds from 303.2 feet according to the video evidence.
This would be much faster with a higher aircraft weight or overloaded aircraft.
The take off weight (TOW) is assumed to be 195,310 kg, which would result in a descent of 17.6 seconds.
@All,
Here is a link to a crash scenario analysis of the Air India flight AIC171 on 12th June 2025:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a9hhzvtqetl12x9juhnts/Air-India-AIC171-Take-Off-Initial-Climb-and-Glide-Descent.pdf?rlkey=h054uzj2n6r7qez8wd0gioijg&dl=0
I have divided the analysis into 3 phases:
1. The take-off roll from brake release or take-off thrust application to rotation.
2. The initial climb to the highest point reached, which may have been just after the last ADS-B data point.
3. The descent from the highest point to the crash.
We have ADS-B data just after take off, we have the Aerodrome Chart from the Indian Airports Authority, we have the environmental data from the US NOAA for Ahmedabad Airport at the time of the short flight, we have data from the Boeing Aircraft Flight Manual and from General Electric for the GEnx-1B67 engines.
We know how many people were on board and how much fuel was required for the flight to London Gatwick. We do not know how much cargo was on board, but we know the maximum allowed take-off weight for the Boeing 787-8 given the runway length, slope and the dry surface condition of the runway.
Speculation that the pilot did not taxi down to the runway start and tried to do a short take-off is false.
Speculation that the aircraft was overweight or overloaded is false. The take off weight meets the regulatory requirements.
Speculation that this was a simultaneous dual flame out, like the US Airways flight 1549, the miracle on the Hudson River, is false.
It is not possible to assign or presume blame to the pilots, the operator or the manufacturers at this stage of the investigation.
On the contrary, at this stage it appears that the pilots, the operator Air India and the manufacturers Boeing and GE were all acting professionally and competently.
@All,
A new episode today on the Air India AIC171 crash from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NIN_2Is5O8
We present and discuss the crash scenario analysis posted above.
@All,
Here is a link to an analysis of the take-off video of Air India AIC171.
The movie steps through at 1 second intervals:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/grg0wn4dkt6mj2qhzst8g/Air-India-AIC171-Video-Analysis.mov?rlkey=j3rw5rjnuj5s85vy9rywa6zgx&dl=0
The pdf is better, you have to download it and then step through it at your own pace forwards and backwards, as you wish:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fwuca1j942rp9ek6rco9v/Air-India-AIC171-Video-Analysis.pdf?rlkey=dsvp7vzrjlvrowl2yvzliz486&dl=0
It is obvious just after take-off that the aircraft heads to right but then crabs or side slips to the left.
The pilot is struggling to keep the wings level and the angle of attack right.
This appears to be a result of intermittent thrust, enough to get airborne, but then not enough to maintain altitude.
Richard- I wonder if the “dust” could possibly be fuel spray perhaps from the jettison ports for some unknown reason such as over-pressure relief? The “dust” does seem to fall to the ground (probably not smoke). Does seem to be both wings.
the aircraft travelled from Dekhi to Ahemadabad only couple of hours. Is this info has any bearing on the assessment sofar?
@sceptic1,
Welcome to the blog!
We have analysed all previous flights of the aircraft VT-ANB for the 12 months prior to the crash.
There are no obvious concerns about the aircraft that arise from the analysis of previous flights.
@All,
A new episode today on the Air India AIC171 crash from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1UWrRniDOA
We show a screenshot where the right wing is down.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g3rrqfyhag6uz2odvu8zq/Air-India-AIC171-Video-Analysis-Wings-Not-Level-Right-Wing-Down.png?rlkey=4zl1q6qxip6y3jj7qlkximuw2&dl=0
But moments later, in another screenshot the left wing is down.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7g18w0mhy39u1fn3fytiz/Air-India-AIC171-Video-Analysis-Wings-Not-Level-Left-Wing-Down.png?rlkey=gkwmklvd77c931h0u1i2yudpx&dl=0
The pilot maintained the wings level initially, but then appears to be struggling to keep the wings level as the aircraft starts descending.
This appears to be a result of intermittent thrust, enough to get airborne, but then not enough to maintain altitude.
@All,
A new episode today on the disappearance of MH370 from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuGn9ZPyYJA
There are currently no search activities in the Southern Indian Ocean because of the inclement weather at this time of year.
The sailing vessel Enigma is heading for Fremantle, Australia currently from the MH370 search area in 3.3 m (10.8 feet) and running downwind with a 26 knot wind. That is very exciting sailing, but not the conditions to be handling AUVs and ROVs even with moon pools on the aft deck.
Blaine gives an update on the MH370 search, the search area as defined by UWA and WSPR, the debris found and the next search planned for November 2025.
We are also analysing new ACARS data and are proposing a project using AI technology to analyse high resolution satellite imagery.
@All,
More possible scenarios on the Air India flight 171 with Geoffrey Thomas:
VIDEO ANALYSIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1UWrRniDOA
EYE WITNESS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLgj-xVENnw
FACTS & THEORIES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9yNgQovAZA
LOW SPEED?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCOJ7SiRud4
FUEL & ELECTRICS FACTORS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1oBuualG0