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.
@Richard,
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Malaysia from April 15th – April 17th 2025..
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/13/xi039s-visit-to-malaysia-sparks-hopes-for-stronger-ties-boost-in-high-tech-investments
@Jafni,
Next thing you know, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announce an agreement between China and Malaysia to search for MH370. 🥹😂
@Richard
Many a true word said in jest!
When this Chinese ship turned up I did wonder whether the Malaysians might have signed a contract with them rather than OI, but I dismissed the idea because it wasn’t something anyone had suggested.
However, it would explain much: OI’s silence, the departure of Armada 78 06 from the search area, and Loke’s rather cagey statement in the Star TV clip that the contract had been signed the previous week, but without naming the counterparty.
Whatever the contractural position it’s now obvious that the Chinese are searching for MH370, so would you prefer the WSPR hotspot to be searched by the Chinese this season, or OI next season?
@Duncan,
I am a straight forward person and I like things to be done in a straight forward manner.
I do not appreciate stoney silence from Ocean Infinity, nor cagey statements from the Malaysian Minister of Transport.
I do not expect the Malaysians to have signed a contract, either publicly or secretly, with both Ocean Infinity and the Chinese government.
Frankly, I would like MH370 to be found and the mystery of its disappearance to be solved, by whomsoever, whenever, wherever and however. Whatever the outcome.
I follow the old adage, first come, first serve.
In my book, Ocean Infinity has shown willing since 2018. The Chinese have a right to search anyway, especially since Armada 7806 left for its home port Singapore. If the Chinese leave the MH370 search area without a result, then I would welcome any other organisation with the capability to search for MH370 to take up the open challenge to find MH370.
I notice that Ninetyeast Ridge (30 S, 87 E) is listed as a priority bathymetric survey area for the Seabed 2030 project and that “relatively close to MH370 search area” is mentioned under “other considerations”.
https://seabed2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AtlanticIndian_CallforDecadeActionsNo2.pdf
(page 6)
Bathymetric survey equipment may be back in the area and OI is listed as a project partner.
Back in early 2024, the Malaysian Transport Minister (LOKE) announced his enthusiasm about a new MH370 search by Ocean Infinity TO BE AWARDED BASED UPON THERE BEING NEW CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. He restated the intention to award a “no find/ no fee” contract for an O.I. search planned to begin in November 2024. However, 3.5 months later, the Malaysian Cabinet was still dilly-dallying over actually awarding a contract, with a Cabinet Paper later released stating that a contract was being prepared, but that “a few critical items” were still under active consideration. In April 25, a much “cagier” Minister Loke claimed that an agreement had been reached. Later he stated that an actual contract had been signed. Soon after this, the O.I. search vessel departed the area of the 7th ARC for the Northern hemisphere. Loke’s interpretation was that O.I. would return to recommence their search in November 2025. Meanwhile the sophisticated Chinese subsea research vessel Tan Suo Yi Huo turned up to start scanning the 7th ARC area with AUV’s (only a few days after Ocean Infinity’s Armada 7806 had departed the area).
What construct should one put upon this weird chain of events and contrived delays? What might be happening behind the scenes? There have been many opinions that Malaysia has no enthusiasm for locating the MH370 debris field. Why?
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaF4800en18
The Chinese research vessel is still underway in the Broken Ridge area:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7saga2o0ibwpyez7es5vy/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-14APR2025-0557-UTC.png?rlkey=lo91tx2kq57wpxaazpp8gb32k&dl=0
We ran a survey of viewers on our YouTube channel and 734 people responded to the question: “What do you believe happened to MH370 ?” The result was that 88% of the respondents believe it was a murder/suicide by the Captain Zaharie Shah.
4% said hijacker, 4% fire, 2% co-pilot and 2% multiple aircraft failures.
Hi Richard,
You’ve been very keen to say that all the search areas around the seventh arc should be looked at, and I think that is the right approach to take, yet I am guessing that deep down you feel the others can’t be correct if your WSPR analysis is? Would the discovery of MH370 in one of the other search areas (or an area outside all of them!) negate your findings, or would it be possible to reconcile them? Setting aside critics’ personal animus as a reason for not believing WSPR can be used as a tracking tool, is there one particular criticism that has given you most pause for thought?
@Paul,
Welcome to the blog!
We are still in the research phase on WSPR.
We listen carefully to all our critics and take each point seriously.
If MH370 is found in the WSPR area, it will be a milestone in the development of this new technology and will encourage Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and myself to further research and development.
If not, we will congratulate the finders, revisit our assumptions and check our calculations.
@Richard
To be honest, I am looking forward if TSYH does move in to WSPR hotspot..
Thank you for your daily work on your blog and the daily updates together with Geoffrey on YouTube.
I fully share your view that it is no longer a question of who and when, but that MH370 will finally be found.
China commissioned a new search vessel at the end of 2024. Like the two older ones, it operates on behalf of the Institute of Deep Sea Science and Engineering CAS.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/29/WS677146b0a310f1265a1d57d1_1.html
All the equipment currently in use can be found on the institute’s website.
https://english.idsse.cas.cn/pf/ships/
@AvantX670,
Welcome to the blog!
Great information.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7sdblobea8n9r1com2ex7/TSYH-Equipment-Overview.png?rlkey=c5unxn7fomv9r6l9ucg34x7vk&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://youtu.be/uM3RnmQoweo
Armada 7806 is heading towards the Northern Philippines. The Philippines and several other nations including Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia have a long standing dispute with China about their territorial waters in the South China Sea.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/501snjo9qk1evrdhkdvlw/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-15APR2025-0450-UTC.png?rlkey=ar2ffgeydojjoi09gzthywmdv&dl=0
The Philippines assert they have an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nmi around their territory marked in a solid line on the following screenshot and the Chinese claim the original boundary is the dotted line. The Spratly Islands, Scarborough Shoal and the Thomas Shoal fishing grounds are disputed.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/44gx000ifutoqpbqf1dhf/Territorial-Waters-Dispute-in-the-South-China-Sea.png?rlkey=7paebxiv2v1zr2ov85giotm1f&dl=0
TSYH is still in the Indian Ocean near the 7th Arc, but has moved away around 50 nmi from the 7th Arc back along the Broken Ridge, where it again stopped and is showing a restricted status. The most Western point along its path was exactly on the 7th Arc, where the UWA hot spot is also located at the Southern most part of the UWA search area. TSYH is launching or recovering AUVs or HOVs once again along the Broken Ridge. TSYH is showing the typical pattern in restricted status.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mhq9pu2m60gejpoflvql4/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-15APR2025-0529-UTC.png?rlkey=ovhgqux8qz1db6ect6pp6g2ty&dl=0
Dear Richard,
On page 18 of the MH370 Safety Investigation Report issued on 2 July 2018, the following statement appears:
“From 1730:37 UTC [0130:37 MYT] to 1752:35 UTC [0152:35 MYT], what appeared to be MH370 was captured on KL ACC primary radar, coded as P3362, P3401, P1415, P3415 and P3426 (P signifies Primary Radar)”.
Appreciate your thoughts on the following:
Q1) Why would the blip appearing on KL primary radar identify 5 different codes at different points of time for the same flight?
Q2) Are these perhaps different aircraft flying in close proximity to MH370 and at different heights? And if so, why does the report conclude that all the 5 codes relate to MH370?
thanks very much
@Veritas256,
The codes assigned appear to be a running number from the system for each separate detection. P3415 is named P3451 in the text that follows and is a typo. P1415 is not mentioned in the text elsewhere.
In Figure 1.1F and 1.1G the detections by other radar systems are coded P1778, P1793, P1805 and P1812. Each piece of the flight path is given a separate number. They then join the pieces, when the track and speed both match during the gap in between.
The secondary radar with identification of flight MH370 ceased when the transponder was switched off in the cockpit, but primary military and civilian radar still tracked MH370. The civilian radar has been released, but the military radar has never been released.
Richard,
I have been interested in the mystery of MH370 since the day it disappeared. I find it incredible that your track according to WSPR data is so detailed showing many turns. It’s also amazing that it intersects each of the 7 arcs when expected according to INMARSAT handshakes. It seems that your WSPR track has too be correct.
However, I noticed that the flight path (MH370 Flight Path) that you show on the 7 arcs, seems to follow 4 of the arcs (2,3,4 & 5) for a considerable distance. These 4 slightly curved sections do NOT seem to be likely paths of a plane relative to a satellite unknown by the pilot of the plane. How could he be following that slightly curved path at each of these 4 arcs?
Are these curved sections of the plane’s path a result of sparse data for these sections of the flight path or a result of some other contributing issue?
Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You for such a huge effort in trying to locate MH370.
Mark
@Mark W,
Welcome to the blog!
In the Indian Ocean, MH370 followed a flight path always to a waypoint, but never joined a flight route. MH370 made a number of turns, but at each turn tracked towards another waypoint. Each time an aircraft turns, the effect of the wind will result in an adjustment of the heading in order to maintain a particular track. This adjustment will depend on the strength of the cross wind component, but is usually quite small.
The Arcs are circles, but with a very large radius. Any appearance of following a curve is an illusion, as the lines are drawn as straight lines between the turning points by the computer program.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOircLmBCXs
Armada 7806 is heading around the Northern Philippines and will be arriving at its destination soon.
TSYH is back tracking along Broken Ridge and reached the point where it stopped for AUV or HOV operations on 7th April, 9 days ago. It is now heading North West over Broken Ridge, but still showing a restricted status.
Prof. Simon Maskell gave an interview, which is reported today in The Diplomat.
“The analysis we did indicated that there are three explanations that appear to be approximately equally consistent with the information we had at the time: there is a chance that a freak accident occurred and the crew were unable to communicate or land the aircraft elsewhere, or it was a murder-suicide with the murderer alive when the descent occurred, or a murder-suicide with the murderer no longer alive when the descent occurred.”
“Given the plane has not been found and the area that has been searched is underpinned by assumptions that involve there being no human intervention during the descent, it now seems more plausible that there was human intervention during the descent, that therefore slightly nudges up the probability that there was someone alive in the cockpit during the descent.”
“However, all three explanations remain commensurately likely.”
“While it transpires that our calculations indicate that an accident would be a commensurately rare event to there being a successful attempt at murder-suicide, all the explanations imply
that something like this happens very rarely indeed.”
does the new search area cover the area that is indicated by WSPR?
@freddie,
Welcome to the blog!
The new search is expected to get underway later this year around November, when the weather improves in the Southern Hemisphere.
The search for MH370 is expected to cover a number of areas, that have been proposed by various experts, including a search area based on the WSPR data analysis.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1Z19946y4
Armada 7806 is still underway to the East of the Philippines and is heading out into the Pacific Ocean.
TYSH is still going backwards and forwards along Broken Ridge in restricted status.
Today we look at what information about MH370 is not in the public domain.
There is a large volume of data, that might be helpful in solving the mystery of the disappearance of MH370, 11 years after the event.
This ranges from military intelligence to individual eye witness accounts.
Radio, radar, satellite and mobile phone data.
Aircraft sightings, ship sightings and debris finds.
Seismic, hydroacoustic, tsunami early warning system data.
CCTV, emails, social media and home flight simulator data.
@Richard
https://www.facebook.com/MH370Families
How do you understand the report from the Family group on Facebook that there was an actual “search” going on from March 25th to March 28th ?
Does that mean that there was search following a survey that indicated something more ?
If they are talking about the survey, why just mention those 3 days although the ship stayed longer in the zone ?
@Luca,
The report is from the Malaysian Airlines System (MAS), which is part of the Malaysia Aviation Group.
Please see the headline of the report in the link you are referencing:
“An update to the families from the MAS Family Support Centre, Malaysia Aviation Group”.
This is “to” the families and not “from” the families, as you say.
The report states that search operations were conducted, yet you previously claimed the vessel was conducting bathymetric survey operations and was not searching for MH370. How do you reconcile that discrepancy?
@Kurt Kastenmeyer,
The report is titled “SUMMARY OF MH370 SEARCH OPERATIONS REPORT FROM 25 TO 28 MARCH 2025”, as you say.
The table of data states “Daily Area Surveyed (km2)” and “Cumulative Area Surveyed (km2)”.
The text describes “search operations” x 3, “search area” x 2, “search mission(s)” x 2 and concludes “the search is expected to resume inearly (sic) November 2025”.
Clearly the term search and survey are used inter-changeably in the report.
I differentiate between survey and search.
@Luca
Thanks for posting the link to this very interesting document. Three points:
(1) Can you, @Richard or anyone else find the document on any Malaysian Government or MAS website? I can’t, so in case it disappears I suggest Richard uploads it to Dropbox and posts his own link to it.
(2) Assuming the document is genuine, the numbers in the the table are so precise that they can only have come from Ocean Infinity, and I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t have released this information unless they had a contract. So why have they STILL not announced that contract?
(3) The document seems to have been knocked up and released in great haste, as evidenced by the author’s failure to use the tab key after 2.0, 3.0, 3.2, 4.0 and 4.3. This would have taken just a few seconds to correct, so why the failure to do so?
The agreement between Ocean Infinity and the Malaysian Government may constrain the company from making public announcements about the search. The Malaysians seem intent on keeping this search very low key, perhaps to avoid raising hopes yet again, in case the search fails.
@Duncan,
(1) A Google Image search does not find the document on any Malaysian Government or MAS website:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nq8x3x5ttu42ds3boyhzw/Google-Image-Search-17APR2025.png?rlkey=ia3pqccw11ojbih9dy6bk0ep4&dl=0
Here is a direct link to the document:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8egyyi5uhcos9c8ajj9xl/Facebook-Page-17APR2025-0251-CET-screenshot.png?rlkey=x5z71a2otyfd18muowo7bc5ok&dl=0
(2) There is still no announcement from Ocean Infinity concerning a new search for MH370. If the table of data came from Ocean Infinity, as you suggest, then the Ocean Infinity PR people are Celicourt Communications (London, UK) and The MTM Agency (Southampton, UK). Celicourt and MTM use UK English for all their work. Why does the report, then use American English, such as “demobilization” and “favor” ?
(3) I cannot find any press release or public statement from Ocean Infinity with spelling mistakes such as “AUVsfrom” or “inearly” or formatting errors, as you point out.
I find it strange, that the Malaysian Airlines System (MAS) Family Support Centre and the Malaysia Aviation Group (wholly owned by the Malaysian government) has now taken over the PR function for Ocean Infinity from Celicourt (who show a testimonial from Oliver Plunkett on their website) or MTM. In my view, it would be nice if the search operator would make a statement about the search operations.
I have sent an email to Ocean Infinity, Celicourt Communications and MTM asking for clarification.
Hi Richard,
I was wondering… if the aircraft was found by Ocean Infinity would you receive any remuneration for the significant work you did to identify a new search area?
I know the more important thing is finding the aircraft for the family to bring closure but after the dust settles surely you’d deserve a proportion of the 70m.
All assuming it’s located in the area you’ve identified.
Has anyone approached TYSH’s handlers, or Chinese authorities, to ask for comment? In caution I think it would require the asker to have a native appreciation of the nuances of the language. I once wrote to a Chinese Ebay seller to thank them for their excellent service, using an online translation service. They did not understand what I thought was my simple thanks, and I received an endless supply of apologies and complimentary stuffed toys.
@Chris L
No unfortunately he won‘t get anything (I asked the same question a few weeks ago).
@Richard
I too find the posting of the families weird. It‘s not clear at all what was going on there between february and 25th march. And also between 25th and 28th march there seems to be inconclusive information.
Also in the comments on Facebook are the same persons as always stating that there never was a bathy survey and also that the ship itself would use sonar for this. As far as I know the ship itself can not do this and needs AUV/ROV… for any kind of operation, is that correct?
@Cessi and @ChrisL,
Many thanks for the kind thought, but I am not looking for a financial reward.
@Cessi,
There are many ways to conduct a bathymetric survey, using satellites, ships, deep towed devices or AUVs.
Echo sounders, sonars, radar, lidar, satellite optical spectral sensors, doppler sensors, etc.
Ocean Infinity published a paper on using AUVs for bathymetric surveys and claim this is both accurate and efficient.
ROVs are only used for investigating specific areas of interest in a bathymetric survey.
A ship can perform a bathymetric survey by using devices attached the bottom of the ship’s hull.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qq2nz-Lv6M
Armada 7806 arrived on 17th April at 08:35 UTC at its destination East of the Philippines, around 143 nmi (265 km) off the coast of Northern Philippines. This location is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nmi from the coast. Armada 7806 is just North of the East Luzon Trough or Trench, where the water is around 5,500 m deep. The Philippines Energy Plan 2018 to 2040 has identified a number of new survey areas for oil and gas exploration.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3s823jw0twgn4a813tq90/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-20APR2025-0431-UTC.png?rlkey=vozxhem1bj1c46s4tk6p461ww&dl=0
TYSH has departed the Broken Ridge area and is heading home for Sanya in China. TYSH left on 19th April at 00:30 UTC and is expected to arrive in 11 days time on 30th April 2025.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/li7ed0vlxxy5tq3m0ogqc/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-20APR2025-0509-UTC.png?rlkey=3aar52x2vid3kmpzni3bi78lm&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD2Tkp9k5Q
How do we ensure MH370 never happens again ?
What steps is the aviation industry taking to ensure that something like MH370 does not happen again ?
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has issued a set of standards. “The Standards became applicable in Nov 2018 and were intended to provide some degree of certainty that either the ATC or the Operator was receiving regular position reports from an aircraft in flight.”
The objective was:
i. detection and subsequent tracking of aircraft in distress;
ii. identification of the accurate location of end of flight;
iii. retrieval of Flight Recorder Data; and
iv. effective Search And Rescue operations and Accident Investigation.
The ICAO introduced the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS) to ensure the position of an aircraft in distress is known every minute and the crash location would be immediately known to within 6 nmi.
Initial implementation will be limited to requiring new aircraft to be fitted with these systems. Eventually all aircraft of over 27,000 kg produced after 1st January 2024 will be required to be fitted with a distress tracking system.
There are two key types of system:
i. Autonomous Distress Tracking (ADT) systems.
Ii. Location and Data Recovery (LADR) systems.
Artex, Skytrac, Safran, Collins, Dukane and Blue Sky Network all have new ADT systems.
Honeywell, FLYHT, L3Harris, FDS Sentry all have new LADR systems or combined ADT and LADR systems
New‑build Boeing airliners are equipped with crash‑survivable ELT‑DT beacons, namely Dukane Seacom’s AeroELT DK‑406‑DT or ACR/ARTEX’s ELT 5000 DT or Blue Sky’s HawkEye ADT, which automatically transmit one‑minute position updates under distress. Boeing has also certified the Honeywell HCR-25 system for the B737, B767 and B777.
Airbus has line‑fit its latest jets with an integrated ELT‑DT beacon developed together with Safran Electronics & Defense to automatically broadcast one‑minute position updates under distress. Installations began on the A330neo in April 2023, followed by the A350 in May 2023, and the A320/A220 families by the summer 2023.
Embraer has ADT, Bombardier, Comac C919 not as standard. Smaller aircraft Beech King, Citation, Falcon, … not as standard.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oik4xi5g3rnkkl1z2cvna/Screenshot-Aircraft-with-ADT-available.png?rlkey=sd2nuqslo9vzpk9it742kaxk8&dl=0
In summary all new large aircraft will have the systems and some older aircraft depending on the airline.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4qptu5anc4b5q3q5tgag5/Screenshot-Airlines-ADT-Retrofit.png?rlkey=5k3elja0h7ha78b8kezis3ksu&dl=0
There is a long list of countries that have not yet implemented the Regulatory Framework for ICAO GADSS ADT Standard.
All European, most South American, all Middle Eastern, most Asian countries have implemented the regulation.
USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil have not.
Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, North Korea have not.
Australia, New Zealand have not.
All African countries have not.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/84twknkvc7whtove3di6i/Screenshot-Regulatory-ICAO-GADSS-ADT-Standard-Not-Implemented.png?rlkey=gj69ceo0upd4nbz9aphg0uib1&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV0XD02gTGI
Armada 7806 is still in the survey area East of the Philippines, around 143 nmi to 165 nmi off the coast of Northern Philippines. This location is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nmi from the coast.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ou7usf448kl053kbl0z8/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-23APR2025-0554-UTC.png?rlkey=clyomnx86gc2qn8lmczogbkl6&dl=0
TSYH is heading home for Sanya in China, but has stopped a number of times en route. TSYH was initially expected to arrive back home on 30th April 2025, but has now updated the ETA to 3rd May.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4nmen4j2uwk8pj5sbtyn6/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-23APR2025-0606-UTC.png?rlkey=j387uet6ih58tbv7k9wlimv3m&dl=0
We are also running another poll. The keyword is “POLL” and the question is quite simple;
“Will MH370 be found?”
If you want to participate, please leave a comment on the YouTube channel Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas, with your answer as follows:
1. Yes.
2. Neutral.
3. No.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYoItA13Ols
There were six coordinates recovered from Captain Zaharie Shah’s home flight simulator. The last coordinate is 1,249 km (674 nmi) from the 7th Arc.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/931y1xbupzn7zqf3b2did/ZS-Home-Flight-Simulator-Coordinates.png?rlkey=3p1e216e1rkcv88t2d6lzmo3a&dl=0
On 25th August 2016 Victor Iannello and I published a paper titled:
“Possible Flight Path of MH370 towards McMurdo Station, Antarctica”.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/769t2wl3a9p6soyr318v4/2016-08-25-MH370-Path-Towards-McMurdo-Station.pdf?rlkey=z0kee73f8f5rnvgll82iakmqf&dl=0
We mapped the track as defined by the coordinates found on the home flight simulator (marked in black).
We also reproduced the track in Microsoft Flight Simulator with the exact settings as explained in the paper (marked in yellow).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1ec9d1zlobftpmnxixlmh/ZS-Home-Flight-Simulator-Map.png?rlkey=o5oiapi19lh1nsag5efqyscx4&dl=0
The track in yellow crosses the 7th Arc at 26.9°S 100.6°E.
The track in black crosses the 7th Arc at 29.2°S 98.9°E.
The point where the original track defined by Captain Zaharie Shah crosses the 7th Arc is 29.2°S 98.9°E.
This point is only 56 nmi from the WSPR defined crash location at 29.128°S 99.934°E, which is 33 nmi further from the 7th Arc, because I believe the aircraft glided for around 33 nmi and possibly up to 48 nmi beyond the 7th Arc.
I mentioned yesterday an excellent paper by Victor Iannello and Yves Guillaume (an expert in Microsoft Flight Simulator) dated 29th November 2016 (a must read if you want to analyse the home flight simulation):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nfxiq0yk6ee5b7nc66bdl/2016-11-29-Further-Analysis-of-Simulator-Data-Victor-Iannello-and-Yves-Guillaume.pdf?rlkey=h29na8akua73pij5h8wuuudw9&dl=0
That was very good work on the flight sims, if not extraordinary analysis because only a partial amount of the available data was leaked. However, the work was not updated when more data became available. Except that herein, Richard has kindly guest posted my update analysis several years ago. I now feel even more convinced that the inferred NZPG destination target was probably wrong, and instead the target was the Magnetic South Pole , in other words, Magnetic Heading flight mode (CMH) not and not LNAV to NZPG Antarctica. The significance of this profound, that the actual MH370 flight may have simply followed the simulator path. This implies crossing Arc7 in the 30-31s region, probably with spare fuel. Furthermore I do not think it is too hard to see this, rather we face a body-politic more interested in searching in the wrong places, than finding MH370 (is why I said Poll=No)
@All,
Armada 7806 has left the survey area in the Philippines and is heading to Vung Tau, Vietnam, where the Ocean Infinity ship yard is located and is expected to arrive in 4 days time.
Armada 8602 is currently moored in Vung Tau.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c6u970d50va87ochaw8l5/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-25APR2025-0349-UTC.png?rlkey=mpud5wh46qlz4s5elre8ca8ot&dl=0
After eleven years the final location of MH370 remains elusoive, though the search continues and is progressing.
In searching for the remains of the aircraft it is importatnt to consider whatever fragments of data are made available.
This, of course, includes the data from the Captain’s flight simulator, which has been studied at length,
Other crumbs of useful information include the fact that MH370’s Filed Flight Plan included an incorrect ICAO code for the destination.
The Flight plan indicated that after four hours and fifty miniutes the aircraft would be at location ZPE.
ZPE, which is a valid ICAO code for Osnabruck Airport Railway Station, was used instead of ZBPE, the correct code for Beijing Capital International Airport.
The official safety investigation report recognised this error and stated that the error did not “invalidate” the flight plan.
While the ICAO code ZPE is a valid code, it is nonetheless, erroneous in the context of a flight between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing.
The error in the filed flight plan could have caused human and / or software confusion with regard to the aircraft’s intended route and destination.
@TommyL
Item 18 of the ICAO flight plan lists ‘Other Information’, including the estimated elapsed times to each FIR boundary. ZBPE is the ICAO identifier for the Beijing FIR, not Beijing Capital airport. The ‘B’ appears to have been omitted when Item 18 was entered into the system. Nevertheless, Items 15 and 16 correctly show the intended route and that Beijing Capital airport (ICAO: ZBAA) was the destination. The error in Item 18 would have had no effect.