The Search for MH370

Serving the MH370 Global Community

New Search

by | May 5, 2024 | WSPR | 1,466 comments

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.

1,466 Comments

← Older Comments
  4. Arian Borghei on 30 December 2025 at 22:19

    Dear Richard do you think they will find flight 370? Also will ocean infinity search we are you are saying it is using wspr and other peoples location?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 31 December 2025 at 12:04

      @Arian Borghei,

      I think there is a 50% / 50% chance of finding MH370 in the next 55 days and a 90% chance of finding MH370 eventually.

      Currently Ocean Infinity are continuing their systematic search, exactly where they left off on 28th March 2025.

      They are currently at a location between the Blelly-Marchand area and the IG-Iannello-Ulich area.

      Reply
  5. BARBARA R on 30 December 2025 at 23:22

    The research of Richard Godfrey has the MOST likelihood of where the M370 plane is . Truth seekers everywhere can see that Mr Godfrey’s evidence should be the most important evidence of the plane’s whereabouts . and should be the priority in finding the plane . Are there those who actually do not not want it found ?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 31 December 2025 at 12:10

      @Barbara R,

      Ocean Infinity have listened to all the experts and are doing a systematic search for MH370.

      Reply
  7. Edward on 31 December 2025 at 16:12

    I would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year 2026. This year begins for us with one word: hope.

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 31 December 2025 at 17:17

      @Edward,

      “Hope” is the right word.

      Reply
  8. Richard Godfrey on 31 December 2025 at 16:58

    @All,

    As the new search for MH370 starts and the New Year begins, I would like to share a message from KS Narendran from the MH370 families: “There is a question of justice, there is a question of fairness to the families and the travelling public. You can’t just let a passenger aircraft just disappear.”

    Here is a link to the full interview (4 minutes) with KS Narendran and Richard Godfrey published by Karl Sexton from DW (Deutsche Welle): “MH370: Will aviation’s biggest mystery finally be solved?”:

    https://www.dw.com/en/mh370-will-aviations-biggest-mystery-finally-be-solved/video-75343095

    Reply
    • Louis on 1 January 2026 at 04:14

      Hello Richard,

      55 days to search for an aircraft that has been missing for nearly 12 years in the harsh environment of the Southern Indian Ocean seems incredibly short. Do you believe this timeframe is sufficient? How come it has been limited to 55 days – was it outlined in the agreement for the search?

      Reply
      • Richard Godfrey on 1 January 2026 at 13:57

        @Louis,

        The search agreement between the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity was signed on 25th March 2025 for 18 months.

        The weather in the Southern Indian Ocean restricts safe operations to the summer period in the Southern Hemisphere.

        The Ocean Infinity ship Armada 86 05 is operating 2,051 km or 1,108 nmi from Perth, Australia, which is the nearest port for supplies and refuelling. The transfer takes ≈ 5 days in each direction.

        Armada 86 05 has an endurance between 21 and 35 days depending on payload and operation. The 55 days are limited by the good weather window and Armada 86 05 will have to return to Fremantle for supplies and refuelling at least once during the 55 days in the MH370 search area.

        The elapsed time from the start of the MH370 search on 30th December 2025 of 55 days plus one port visit taking a total of ≈ 12 days, amounts to 67 days. This implies the current search will end at the earliest on 7th March 2026.

        A second port visit and stoppage due to bad weather, would mean extending the current search toward the end of March 2026. The months of January, February and March are regarded as the best time to search based on historical weather patterns.

        Reply
        • Tariq Hussain on 3 January 2026 at 17:55

          hi Richard, when will Ocean Infinity search the areas mentioned/results from your calculations?

    • Megan on 1 January 2026 at 06:40

      Hi Richard and all,

      I’ve been reviewing the latest MH370 search positions and noticed a notable operational pattern: the March 2025 search grid (red) terminates exactly where the current phase (yellow) begins. The new activity involves concentrated, overlapping sweeps and restricted maneuvering rather than broad-area scanning and clearly defined grids & process/operational discipline to said grids.

      This to me suggests a shift from systematic coverage to targeted investigation. My working hypothesis is that prior sonar data indicated anomalies, but verification was deferred due to environmental constraints in March 2025. The current focus area (~35°S, 93.6°E) lies within the high-probability segment of the 7th arc, consistent with ATSB modelling and drift analysis.

      Could this indicate confirmatory operations on previously flagged targets, or is it simply systematic clearance of residual AOI/gaps?

      I’d appreciate your perspective Richard on whether this pattern reflects a strong lead or, is it just procedural rigour to support the (hopefully inevitable) evidentiary expectations required contractually?

      Best regards,
      Meg

      Reply
      • Richard Godfrey on 1 January 2026 at 14:08

        @Megan,

        Armada 86 05 has 3 AUVs on board. The first AUV deployment was to fill in a gap in the previous search dated 28th March 2025. The second and third AUV deployments continued the systematic search that was started in March 2025, when the contract was signed on 25th March 2025 and then was broken off on 28th March 2025 due to weather considerations.

        Reply
  10. Richard Godfrey on 1 January 2026 at 10:43

    @All,

    The Crash Survivable Memory Unit (CSMU), which is also referred to in some documentation as the Crash Protection Module (CPM), is the component that protects the recorded data in an FDR/CVR system. The recorder’s outer stainless-steel or titanium casing primarily protects the CSMU/CPM (mechanically, thermally, and environmentally). In real accidents, investigators often find that the recorder’s external housing may be damaged or distorted while the CSMU remains intact and readable, which is why post-recovery assessment focuses on CSMU/CPM condition and seal integrity, not cosmetic shell damage.

    Certification survivability requirements apply to the CSMU/CPM, including demonstration of memory integrity and post-test data readability after impact, crush, penetration, fire exposure, and deep-sea pressure. However, the salt-water immersion/corrosion qualification is typically limited (commonly ~30 days), so long-duration seabed exposure is not directly “certified” as a time-based requirement. Consequently, for long-term deep-ocean losses, the dominant determinant of data recoverability is whether the CSMU/CPM remains hermetically sealed.

    AF447 provides a strong empirical precedent: its FDR and CVR were fully readable after ~2 years at ~3,980 m depth. MH370 candidate depths proposed by experts (~3,900–4,600 m) are within the order of magnitude of modern recorder pressure qualification (often cited as ~6,000 m equivalent). Therefore, depth and memory volatility are not the primary issues; the key variable is CSMU hermetic integrity. If MH370’s Honeywell CSMUs (SSFDR 4700 and SSCVR 6022) remained hermetic, a successful readout after ~11 years is plausible and defensible (architecture + pressure margin + AF447 precedent). If the seal was compromised even slightly, long-term saltwater exposure is likely to drive progressive corrosion and interconnect damage, with outcomes ranging from partial recovery via extreme laboratory methods to complete unreadability.

    Here is a link to the MH370 Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder recovery and readability assessment:

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fw215m1671cnalbsvhafp/CSMU.pdf?rlkey=lqggw55nk7xsbccgpu7esll55&dl=0

    Reply
  12. Jafni on 1 January 2026 at 14:32

    @Richard,

    If MH370 is not found in the other hotspots,

    I am just guessing the WSPR area will only be search in end of February or early March 2026

    Reply
  13. Gareth on 1 January 2026 at 15:09

    Hello Richard and Happy New Year everyone.

    I have been watching the vlogs and love the great detail you have gone into. I hope and pray for the families involved that the plane is found.

    My question is, how can this sort of thing be stopped in the future? Can there be a redundancy in place to override the system to track or take control of the aircraft if it diverts from its route?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 3 January 2026 at 07:34

      @Gareth,

      Since the disappearance of MH370, the Global Aviation Data Delivery System (GADDS) has been introduced. GADDS would not have prevented MH370 from disappearing, but if fully implemented and enforced, GADDS could have made MH370 much harder to lose and would likely have reduced the search uncertainty dramatically.

      GADDS cannot stop intentional actions and does not override cockpit authority.

      GADDS provides autonomous position reporting every 15 minutes normally and every 1 minute when abnormal conditions are detected.

      Reply
  14. Arian Borghei on 2 January 2026 at 05:46

    Hello again Richard and to everyone else who saw my precious comment, I do have another question for the main flight route that MH370 was going to take to Beijing do we know what waypoints it passed through and what was the list?

    Another question I do have did captian Zaharie have a change in mood in the hours leading up to the flight?

    And if this search is successful can ocean infinity try to recover pieces from the ocean floor like the frame of the aircraft if they are intact?

    And if this search is not successful could MH370 be dithered south that we think if captian Zaharie glided it for a longer time?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 2 January 2026 at 09:50

      @Arian Borghei,

      Question 1 – Flight Plan.

      I have started a new YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@IAIwithRichardGodfrey

      The first episode will be published next week called IAI Episode 1 – MAS370 9M-MRO – Diversion from Flight Plan.

      Here is a link to the official flight plan and waypoints planned:

      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b6j2itm7c544sjeysqwok/Image-MAS370-9M-MRO-Flight-Plan-Key-Facts-Flight-Route.png?rlkey=rl7mc7c26piwi91htv4trq9ii&dl=0

      Question 2 – Change in Mood.

      The official Malaysian report states: “The PIC’s ability to handle stress at work and home was reported to be good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict or family stresses.”

      Question 3 – Wreckage Recovery.

      In 2018 Ocean Infinity agreed a list of items with the Malaysian authorities that should be recovered if at all possible, when MH370 is found.

      Question 4 – Search Not Successful.

      If the MH370 search is not successful in the planned 55 days, then the search assumptions will be revisited. Either MH370 has been missed, which I doubt or MH370 is outside the current and previous search area. In order to search again, Ocean Infinity will need to extend the current contract, which expires on 25th September 2026.

      Reply
      • Arian Borghei on 3 January 2026 at 05:08

        Thank you for the reply Richard I do want to make a point that if I remember correctly that when a pilot of a different airline tried to contact flight 370 they hard mumbling and few other pilots in the area I think hear that too I might be wrong could the mumbling have came from Captian Zaharie or whoever was in the cockpit? If it was the pilot or whoever could it be the fact they they were breathing heavily due to having an oxygen mask on?

        And in the voice of the captian I did notice that when he said they are reaching flight level 350 for the second time the pitch changed as if like he was busy and the same thing for the last transmission could he have been checking in if Malaysia ATC would bother him if they realize anything wrong or could he have been making sure that they are dealing with other planes in the area?

        Regarding the second to last transmission the repeated. Message I am wondering if he was busy turning off ACARS or if he simply forgot because I do also remember hearing that the last ACARS signal before the flight disappeared from radar screens was sent at 1:09 am.

        Also regarding the report from Malaysia that he was able to handle areas and that there were no signifier changes could it be possible that he kept it to himself in the weeks leading to march 8th 2014 because he did pilot mh370 and its return flight 2-3 weeks before and that flight matched what his simulator showed the taking off part. If he didn’t get depressed from family issues could he have been angry for the sentencing of Anwar Ibrahim the current prime minister? He was a big supporter of him .

        Reply
  15. Richard Godfrey on 2 January 2026 at 09:26

    @All,

    Armada 86 05 has deployed (marked D) and recovered (marked R) 2 AUVs extending the systematic search started in March 2025.

    Armada 86 05 has also recovered AUV1, which was filling in a gap in the 28th March 2025 search.

    Armada 86 05 has now started the next AUV deployment cycle as part of the systematic search 20 nmi further out from the 7th Arc progressing in a North Easterly direction between 36°S and 33°S.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jjieum3hreefq5ql1a3o/Armada-86-05-02JAN2026-0737-UTC.png?rlkey=1jblrsp1lz6trqx1a38zzcfuk&dl=0

    Reply
  16. Richard Godfrey on 3 January 2026 at 08:09

    @Arian Borghei,

    We need to distinguish between established facts and media speculation.

    1. Did other pilots hear mumblings from MH370?

    This report of hearing mumblings from MH370 is an unsubstantiated report in the media. I have investigated these claims and the particular aircraft, that is claimed to have heard mumblings from MH370 was out of radio range. Other aircraft within radio range did not report any contact with MH370.

    2. Did Captain Zaharie Shah’s voice change, as if he was busy with something else, when he repeated the FL350 message?

    This comes from the analysis of MH370 by Mentour Pilot, Captain Petter Hörnfeldt. Since Petter is a training Captain, he makes an expert analysis of the voice pattern. Petter mentions that pilots repeat a “Maintaining FL350” message, to prompt Air Traffic Control (ATC) to pass on any pertinent messages that they may have missed and left without response. If an aircraft remains unresponsive for longer than 10 minutes whilst under ATC control, then the ICAO procedure for an unresponsive aircraft is followed.

    The first phase is INCERFA – Uncertainty. After prolonged loss of communication the second phase is the Alert phase (ALERFA). Finally there is the Distress phase (DETRESFA), if there is reasonable certainty the aircraft is in grave danger.

    MH370 quietly exited radar coverage, crossed FIR boundaries with weak coordination and showed no clear “distress trigger” at the point of diversion.

    3. Was Captain Zaharie Shah angry at the sentencing of Anwar Ibrahim?

    This is media speculation. Captain Zaharie Shah was involved in opposition politics, but whether this went beyond a normal citizen’s interest in politics or not, is not a proven fact. There is no evidence, that substantiates a radical political engagement.



    Reply
    • Arian Borghei on 4 January 2026 at 05:40

      I have a question for everyone.

      I am wondering could it be possible if it wasn’t family related or political related if Captian Zaharie caused the plane to divert and flew the plane the whole time could it have been something to do maybe like he was angry at Malaysia airlines about something?

      I am wondering because if we remember Egypt Air 990 Co Pilot Gamiel Al Batudi according to reports had a warning against him from the chief captian that he’s won’t be able to fly to the us again due to his actions. Could something similar have happened to the pilots of MH370 the no one might know about?

      And on a separate note I did remember seeing that there were 2 Ukrainians on board mh370 but their ticket was untraceable to investigators.

      I do have to bring this up could in the final moments whoever was in control pushed the nose forward almost in a vertical dive which caused the plane to go to a steep decent when the last ping was sent the plane ran out of fuel and because it run out of fuel the generator stopped working and Stu stopped sending signals. Based on this if this is what happened could have mh370 been in a dive and whoever piloted the plane changed their mind and changed their minds again and crashed it could it be located in the area of the broken ridge?

      I also do have another possibilities which I think are most likely The Captian did it and MH370 is located in the southern Indian Ocean or could whoever was flying before the diversion let’s say for instance captian Zaharie got up and went to stefh his legs and noticed the carpet leading up to the avionics bay is like askew could someone have been a stowaway or is that less likely.

      I do have a few theories one it is pilot suicide and very elaborate even though it doesn’t seem like it was murder suicide, because it’s outside the norm fo what history has seen people who do that. I am not saying it can cant happen but in my opinion there was a lot of effort to take the plane to a remote area far away for a long period of time then changing their mind. And the pilot or whoever spent presumably a huge amount of time and attention and pouring through technical documents on how to carry an attack whose end result is everyone thinks he did it.

      And I must wonder what if the goal of the deliberate act of deception fo making the plane vanish by the captain or whoever was that everyone thinks that the captain did it, like if the co pilot or any one who knows what to do could they have done what I’m asking.

      Frankly I just want to point out in my opinion most likely the captain of flight 370 is responsible but like the air India flight or Egypt air 990 or any other attempts the governments of the country the person is from is defending them because they are one of them.

      And last question I promise, in your opinions why did captain Shah fly the plane for 7 more hours instead of just crashing it if he had a problem we’re not aware of.

      Reply
      • Richard Godfrey on 4 January 2026 at 14:20

        @Arain Borghei,

        I have answered your 3 previous questions and warned you that we need to distinguish between established facts and media speculation.

        Now you ask everyone 5 further questions, full of unfounded speculation.

        Question 1 – Was Captain Zaharie Shah angry at Malaysian Airlines ?

        No, Captain Zaharie Shah was a highly respected training Captain and well liked by all colleagues at Malaysia Airlines.

        Question 2 – Ukrainians with untraceable tickets ?

        There were two Ukrainians on board with valid tickets and valid passports.

        Question 3 – Vertical Dive near Broken Ridge?

        The aircraft was in a steep descent of around 15,000 fpm at 00:19:37 UTC, but such a descent is recoverable.

        There is no evidence that the steep descent was near Broken Ridge.

        Question 4 – Stowaway on Board ?

        There is no evidence of a stowaway on board.

        Question 5 – Why did Captain Zaharie Shah fly for more than 7 hours ?

        The flight of 9M-MRO continued for a total of 7 hours 37 minutes at least. We do not know who was in the cockpit for all that time.

        I never stated that Captain Zaharie Shah had a problem that we are not aware of.

        You have a lot of opinions about murder suicide, deliberate or intentional acts, history of aviation accidents and precedents, change of mind and detailed planning, cultural and political motives.

        Your questions and opinions do not help to find MH370, or solve the mystery of its disappearance.

        You are warned not to continue pure unfounded speculation on this website.

        If you continue, you will be banned.

        Reply
  17. Nishith on 4 January 2026 at 06:59

    Hello Richard,

    If OI does not locate the wreckage within their defined search zone and since they haven’t got your WSPR area in the plans, do you have plans to approach other parties to search the WSPR area. If so, can this be done without the authorisation of the Malaysia Govt?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 4 January 2026 at 14:26

      @Nishith,

      We do not know, where Ocean Infinity plan to search precisely. There has been no update from Ocean Infinity on the proposed MH370 search area since March 2024.

      As previously mentioned on several occasions, there are other organisations, who are willing to search for MH370.

      You only need an agreement with the Malaysian authorities, if you want compensation or to recover the wreckage.

      Anyone can search in international waters and film or photograph, as they wish.

      Reply
  18. Richard Godfrey on 4 January 2026 at 13:34

    @All,

    Geoscience Australia produced a map of the MH370 search area sea floor. We have marked the various experts hot spots on the map for ease of reference.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1vuazry9s9t8bg37oy9po/Geoscience-Australia-Bathymetric-Data.png?rlkey=g21je8ie523r7m3apclgv9npa&dl=0

    Earlier today in the update episode 311 on Daily Airline News, Geoffrey Thomas showed the Geoscience Australia video of the MH370 search area. A fly by of the sea floor and what it actually looks like.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAhS8Ihnt7A

    The fly by starts at 06m 32s into the YouTube episode and lasts 70 seconds.

    You will see the Geelvinck Fracture Zone at 38.5°S, the area currently being searched by Ocean Infinity at 35.0°S to 35.5°S, Broken Ridge at 32.5°S, the Gulden Draak Seamount at 29.0°S and the Batavia Seamount at 25.8°S.

    The Blelly-Marchand search area is around 35.9°S, the IG search area is around 34.5°S and the WSPR search area is around 29.1°S.

    Reply
  19. Richard Godfrey on 4 January 2026 at 13:42

    @All,

    An update on the 2nd cycle of AUV deployments and recoveries by Ocean Infinity in the search for MH370.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0frfvcf3342likumykx00/Armada-86-05-04JAN2026-0841-UTC.png?rlkey=xb4fig5ccihij8ciapezypehz&dl=0

    Ocean Infinity continue to progress steadily North Eastwards with a search area 20 nmi wider than previously searched.

    You can find an in-depth analysis on Daily Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas at:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS5cUsZ64G8

    Reply
    • Edward on 5 January 2026 at 10:03

      @Richard A search report was released on Facebook by MH370 Families group, which referred to unsuitable sea and weather conditions in the search area for further AUV launches. Has the weather really turned bad?

      Reply
      • Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 11:29

        @Edward,

        At the time operations were paused, Armada 86 05 was experiencing long-period Southern Ocean swell with wave power approaching ~80 kW/m. Such conditions are known to produce high stern vertical velocities and recovery loads, making over-stern AUV launch and recovery unsafe despite moderate winds. The observed operational pauses are therefore consistent with standard, conservative offshore operating limits.

        Reply
    • Duncan on 5 January 2026 at 15:21

      @Richard

      Are you sure that Armada 86 05 is equipped with an ROV? In order to be used, surely it would require a huge reel of cable/tether. I can’t see any sign of such a reel in Geoffrey’s pictures of the ship refuelling off Fremantle on 23 December.

      Reply
        • Duncan on 5 January 2026 at 16:05

          Thanks. So are you saying that the ROV cables are in the orange containers suspended from the underside of each gantry? If so, are these containers hinged? I had imagined a much larger vertical reel like that pictured here:

          https://www.nauticexpo.com/prod/desmi/product-30919-446690.html

        • Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 16:37

          @Duncan,

          The pictured system you link is for oil spill recovery.

        • Duncan on 5 January 2026 at 16:55

          Yes, I realise that. I posted the link only to illustrate the size and orientation of the reel I had imagined would be necessary to lower an ROV 4000 metres. That’s a lot of cable, given that allowing for shielding and flexibility it’s presumably at least 2cm in diameter.

  21. Andre on 5 January 2026 at 12:54

    Hello Godfrey,

    Im following the search and found this site where you publish alot of information regarding what is going on at the site. Do you recieve information directly from the people conducting the search on the boat?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 13:54

      @Andre,

      We receive satellite position and weather reports from Armada 86 05 directly. All commercial vessels use the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which is a maritime tracking and safety system used to automatically identify and track ships and to exchange key information between vessels and shore authorities.

      Reply
  22. Bob Kelland on 5 January 2026 at 14:33

    Hi @Richard – Has the research / longitudinal analyses to correlate WSPRnet data with ADS-B position data been completed? If so, then this really should be the definitive criteria to prioritize the current search. A robust AI powered statistical analysis would have significant benefits beyond this use case. The 2min WSPRNet refresh rate could also be significantly reduced subject to utility.

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 15:34

      @Bob Kelland,

      The WSPR research is ongoing at Liverpool University and Prof. Simon Maskell is fully aware of the potential beyond MH370. The refresh rate is defined by the WSPR protocol invented by Prof. Joe Taylor. The transmission of the protocol takes 110.6 seconds, which leaves 9.4 seconds for processing before the next transmission.

      Reply
  23. Omar Lopez on 5 January 2026 at 15:55

    Good morning. Armada 8605 remains stationary at a fixed point, moving at barely 0.3 knots or so, at a location where Richard mentioned they apparently deployed an ROV. It’s about time they reported whether they’ve found anything at that point of interest or if it’s just another shipwreck. Hopefully, it’s MH370, and if not, they’ll continue their search. But they’ve been at that particular spot for several hours. What’s strange to me is that they were in a position northeast of where they are now, and they went there specifically to check that hotspot. I’m from Argentina, and I remember when Ocean Infinity found the ARA San Juan submarine; they also returned to a hotspot to check (they had already left that location), but they went back to look at the hotspot and found it. Of course, we’re talking about the Argentine continental shelf, which, if I remember correctly, was 900 meters from the seabed. Clearly, the Indian Ocean is much deeper. I hope they’ve found MH370 out of respect for the families and for all aviation safety. My best wishes. Thank you, Richard.

    Omar

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 16:30

      @Omar Lopez,

      Another scenario, which I already mentioned above is that at the time operations were paused, Armada 86 05 was experiencing long-period Southern Ocean swell with wave power approaching ~80 kW/m. Such conditions are known to produce high stern vertical velocities and recovery loads, making over-stern AUV launch and recovery unsafe despite moderate winds. The observed operational pauses are therefore consistent with standard, conservative offshore operating limits.

      We also reported that one of the first cycle of AUV deployments was aborted due to a technical issue, which has subsequently been repaired. Armada 86 05 could have been returning to rerun that mission.

      The first task once a point of interest is confirmed as aircraft debris from the missing aircraft registration 9M-MRO is to map the underwater debris field. The other debris items can be recovered to confirm identification. This will take 2 to 3 weeks.

      The ARA San Juan debris field cannot be compared to a Boeing 777 debris field. Ocean Infinity use the term point of interest and they found ARA San Juan at a point of interest first seen in the initial days of the search and returned to that point right at the end of the search.

      The next task will be to locate and recover the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder.

      In 2018 Malaysia agreed with Ocean Infinity a list of items that they wanted recovered if at all possible. Items such as the Cockpit door to see if there are signs of a forced entry.

      I expect that the Next of Kin will be informed first, followed by a press conference. This should happen quite quickly once identification has been confirmed, within a couple of days.

      Reply
      • Omar Lopez on 5 January 2026 at 16:36

        Thks you very much for the details.
        And Thank you for the coverage you’re doing. It’s fascinating. Best wishes.
        Omar

        Reply
  24. Arian Borghei on 5 January 2026 at 16:02

    If ocean infinity has the Rov at the point of interest for a few more days searching could it be a sign they found something either wreckage or a signal?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 16:39

      @Arian Borghei,

      Or simply waiting for the weather to clear.

      Reply
  25. Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 17:40

    @All,

    Here are 5 Frequently Asked Questions with my answers. The questions were posed by the Journalist Barbara Barkhausen – German Foreign Correspondent Australia.

    1. Your WSPR (Weak Signal Propagation Reporter) methodology has identified a potential crash site at 29.128°S 99.934°E at 4 kilometers depth, though some researchers remain skeptical of this approach. What gives you confidence in this location despite the criticism?

    Dr. Robert Westphal, who is an expert in passive radar first put forward the idea of using WSPR signals to detect and track MH370. My co-authors Dr. Hannes Coetzee and Prof. Simon Maskell are experts in the field of passive radar, signal processing, data fusion, decision support, and Bayesian computation. With any new idea, there will always be sceptics, but meanwhile a number of academics have taken up my offer to download the software and try it for themselves by comparing the ADS-B data from aircraft with the WSPR data.

    2. Ocean Infinity’s upgraded autonomous systems with magnetometers and sub-bottom profilers represent a major technological leap from previous searches. How critical are these specific capabilities for detecting aircraft wreckage at extreme depths, especially metallic components that might be partially buried?

    Ocean Infinity has invested heavily in the latest underwater search technology and are very well equipped for the task of finding MH370. The company has a proven track record is best known for providing the Falklands Maritime Heritage Trust with submersible experts and underwater robots that helped to locate Sir Ernest Shackleton’s lost ship Endurance in 2022.

    There are 3 Hugin 6000 AUVs, which are critical to wide area scans using Synthetic Aperture Sonar HiSAS 1032, as well as closer range identification and classification of points of interest.

    There are 2 ROVs, which are critical to taking a closer look at a point of interest with lights, cameras and robotic arms.

    3. Given the complex underwater terrain in the southern Indian Ocean and the time elapsed since March 2014, what are the main challenges Ocean Infinity faces? Could the wreckage have been covered by sediment, broken apart further, or moved by underwater geological activity?

    Larger metallic items such as engine cores and landing gear are “sonar-friendly”. Once you detect one item of debris, you look very closely in the vicinity for more items. You can then use the magnetometer to find items covered in sediment.

    The primary limitation is the weather and the rugged sea floor terrain.

    The primary operational limitation is the search area coverage capacity with 3 AUVs in 55 days.

    The primary technical limitations, that might prevent a successful outcome are:

    The Hugin 6000 equipped with the HiSAS 1032, in wide-area mode can achieve a search swath of up to 2,000 m (≈6,560 ft) at an implied operating altitude of approximately 100 m (≈330 ft) above the seafloor.

    Wide area mode, trades target detail for coverage. There are a number of issues:
    – Target relief (“proudness”) and orientation (shadow length). Low relief / partial burial (shadow
    disappears and detection gets much harder).
    – Seafloor type/roughness (rocky vs sand/mud). Soft sediment / ripples / rocks (clutter competes with small targets).
    – Target material and orientation (specular vs diffuse returns).
    – Altitude and grazing angle (shadow length drives interpretability).
    – Frequency band / processing / vehicle stability.
    – Bottom reverberation and Signal to Noise Ratio.
    The biggest issue is terrain-driven acoustic occlusion and altitude-control constraints. In rugged sea floor, your detection problem stops being “do I have enough resolution?” and becomes “did the sonar ever get a line of sight to the target at all and with a geometry that produces a usable highlight–shadow pair?” Rugged bottom forces pitch/roll/heave corrections; currents add crab; the underwater vehicle chases its target altitude above the sea floor continuously.

    4. The search area encompasses approximately 15,000 square kilometers across four priority zones identified by different research teams. How much of the most probable crash zone has already been thoroughly searched in previous missions, and what new areas will Ocean Infinity be investigating?

    Ocean Infinity are filling in select larger data gaps in previous searches, but the main focus is on expanding the search area and going a further 20 nmi wider than previous searches.

    Each AUV can cover a line length of up to 225 km per day, but some missions have been shorter and around 12 hours only.

    The search width is 1.82 km, that is 910 m (2,986 feet) either side of the AUV. So each AUV at the
    theoretical maximum of 225 km line length will cover an area of 225 x 1.82 = 409.5 km2.

    With 3 AUVs in 55 days the theoretical area is 55 x 3 x 409.5 = 67,567.5 km2 with maximum utilisation.

    A lot depends on the weather staying good for safe operations. Also a lot depends on any technical issues that arise with the AUVs and the need to repeat certain missions.

    Finally the most important caveat is, if Ocean Infinity identify points of interest and stop to launch a ROV to take a closer look.

    Realistically, I expect a search area of around 35,000 km2 is achievable.

    5. If wreckage is discovered during this 55-day mission, what would be the process from detection to verification? How quickly could we expect confirmation, and what would be the next steps in terms of recovery operations and investigation at such depths?

    The first task once a point of interest is confirmed as aircraft debris from the missing aircraft registration 9M-MRO is to map the underwater debris field. The other debris items can be recovered to confirm identification. This will take 2 to 3 weeks.

    The next task will be to locate and recover the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder.

    In 2018 Malaysia agreed with Ocean Infinity a list of items that they wanted recovered if at all possible. Items such as the Cockpit door to see if there are signs of a forced entry.

    I expect that the Next of Kin will be informed first, followed by a press conference. This should happen quite quickly once identification has been confirmed, within a couple of days.

    Reply
    • Matt Fone on 6 January 2026 at 22:54

      Thank you for your work Richard.

      Based on the number and size of debris that has been recovered to date, is there still a possibility of large pieces being still intact on the sea floor? I believe I read somewhere that the debris indicates it was NOT a high kinetic impact. Or is it doubtful a fully intact cockpit might be found to determine if there are occupants, evidence of fire or if the door was forced.

      Granted for the WSPR hypothesis, there would be no fire or forced entry, just old mate at the controls till the end.

      Has it been established who the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder go to? An international group? ATSB? Malaysia?

      Cheers

      Reply
      • Richard Godfrey on 7 January 2026 at 13:46

        @Matt Fone,

        Based on the weight of the recovered floating debris we estimate around 35,000 items of debris.

        The aircraft at take off weighed 223,469 kg and when empty of fuel weighed 174,369 kg. Larger items like engine cores generally remain intact and each weigh around 6,000 kg. Landing gear struts are designed to take the weight of the aircraft and are very strong and also generally remain intact.

        From the damage observed on the recovered floating debris, this was definitely not a soft ditching like the miracle on the Hudson River.

        At one point the aircraft was descending at around 15,000 ft/min (≈ 76 m/s vertical). With a mass of 174,369 kg, the vertical kinetic energy was 506 MJ. That is the amount of energy that would need to be dissipated during impact (ignoring any forward speed). In energy terms, 506 MJ is equivalent to about 120–121 kg of TNT (using 4.184 MJ/kg TNT) and corresponds to roughly a moment magnitude ≈2.6 earthquake by the standard energy magnitude relation. These are energy equivalences only, the physical effects differ because TNT and earthquakes release energy very differently than a water impact.

        The AAIB Malaysia is the lead investigator and will determine who analyses the black boxes.

        Reply
        • ventus45 on 8 January 2026 at 00:08

          @Richard

          You said: “The AAIB Malaysia is the lead investigator and will determine who analyses the black boxes.”

          That MUST NOT be allowed to happen, under ANY circumstances (if the ORANGE boxes are EVER found).

          Recent experience (India, China, South Korea) has brutally and unequivocally shown that ASIAN country’s simply can’t be trusted, because ‘national political or religious or other societal interests and/or sensitivities’ clearly predominate, to the extent that they most often either compromise, or (as in one recent 737 case) completely neutralize any investigation ‘stone dead’, apparently because the country ‘can’t handle the truth’ (cue Lt Kaffee).

          MH370 is a WATERSHED CASE (no pun intended) if ever there was one.

          The ICAO MUST ‘put it’s foot down’ DECISIVELY this time.

          The ICAO CAN NOT ALLOW this sort of thing to continue, otherwise it’s credibility is destroyed.

          Membership of the ICAO places responsibilities on member states, so if member states deliberately and shamelessly disregards those responsibilities, they MUST be sanctioned, severely, ban their airlines from international services, make them ‘domestic only’ by default.

  27. Richard Godfrey on 5 January 2026 at 19:28

    @Duncan,

    You ask where is the cable drum with 5,000 m of cable? The answer is, the cable drum is below deck.

    Here is a close up of the Seasonics Gantry system:

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ynquols0kz2rcjqtzddtn/Armada-86-05-Seasonics-Gantries.png?rlkey=q44386hia0ij29neqbb40or2j&dl=0

    The orange box does not house the cable, it serves a number of purposes: constant tension and traction control, load isolation between vessel motion and the main drum and line speed control.

    If you look closely above the orange box in the gantry, you will see a top sheave which is simply a large, grooved wheel mounted at the top of the gantry structure that the cable or umbilical passes over to change direction while controlling loads and bend radius.

    Assuming the cable is 40 mm, the Seasonics Main Cable Drum housing (below deck) would have to be something like 2.5 m wide and have a drum diameter of 4.0 m. With a usable width of 1.5 m, a core diameter of 1.5 m, the outer cable envelope would be 3.25 m.

    Reply
  28. Jacob on 8 January 2026 at 21:42

    Hello Richard, and thanks for all the amazing work you have done!

    I have a few questions regarding the potential condition of the wreckage:

    Since the WSPR analysis points to an active pilot making inputs late in the flight, does your “End of Flight” scenario suggest a controlled ditching (keeping the fuselage largely intact), or a high-speed impact?

    Following up on that, do you expect there to be a debris field like the Titanic or AF447 that could lead the AUVs to the main wreckage? I realize the underwater terrain in the Southern Indian Ocean is vastly different from the Atlantic, but I am curious if you think a trail would still be the primary way to find it.

    Again, thanks for all your incredible work, and let’s hope the plane is found soon!

    –Jacob from Kansas, USA

    Reply
  29. TommyL on 9 January 2026 at 04:13

    Hi Richard,

    ‘ventus45’ above demands forceful action by the ICAO when he writes:

    “Membership of the ICAO places responsibilities on member states, so if member states deliberately and shamelessly disregards (sic) those responsibilities, they MUST be sanctioned, severely, ”

    ventus45 may not realise that the ICAO is a specialised agency of the United Nationsor that the UN is not a tyrannical overlord, but rather it is a collective of member nations attempting, sometimes painfully slowly, to collaborate in building a better world, regardless of and respectful of ideological and cultural difference.

    In the interest of improving the signal quality of communications within this discussion, might it be worth directing ventus45 towards a close, urgent, complete re-reading of the letter and spirit of the UN Charter?

    https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

    Reply
  30. Richard Godfrey on 9 January 2026 at 05:18

    @All,

    ICAO’s purpose is to ensure that international civil aviation is safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible, and that it develops in an orderly and sustainable way worldwide.

    It does this by acting as the global rule-setter and coordinator for international aviation.

    ICAO sets the rules for how investigations must be conducted (Annex 13).

    In the case of MH17, the UN General Assembly (2022 – 2023) adopted resolutions stating that:

    – Russia bears responsibility for the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

    – Russia is responsible for acts committed by Russian-controlled forces.

    – The downing of MH17 was part of Russia’s broader unlawful use of force.

    The International Civil Aviation Organisation Council later ruled (2023) that Russia breached the Chicago Convention.

    There have been many aircraft accidents, where member states have disagreed on the findings of crash investigations. There is still no full and final report on the crash of China Eastern flight MU 5735 after almost 4 years. Chinese investigators have repeatedly missed the expected deadlines for interim or final reports required under ICAO Annex 13 and their own procedures.

    Aviation safety is a global issue and ICAO member states that flaunt the rules should be subject to sanctions.

    The cost of persistent non-compliance by some states is carried by other states and the flying public.

    Reply
    • TommyL on 9 January 2026 at 10:12

      Re: “Aviation safety is a global issue and ICAO member states that flaunt the rules should be subject to sanctions.”

      I agree.

      However, all ICAO member states are also UN member states.

      UN member states that flaunt the UN Charter should also be subject to sanctions.

      The situation becomes very sloppy when permanent members of the UN Security Council abuse their veto privilege, as has happened repeatedly and increasingly in recent years.

      The ICAO, like many global governance infrastructures, is sandwiched between “The Golden Rule and “The Rule Of Gold”, but the UN General Assembly is attempting to rid itself of some of its more anachronistic, dysfunctional mechanisms, such as the veto and permanent memberships of the UN Security Council.

      If successful this long overdue reform will benefit the vast majority of travellers and non-travellers worldwide on land sea and air, and, increasingly, in space.

      https://unny.mission.gov.au/unny/241120_Debate_Use_of_the_Veto.html

      https://press.un.org/en/2025/ga12733.doc.htm

      Reply
  31. Richard Godfrey on 9 January 2026 at 11:21

    @All,

    A YouTube video on MH370 – Unexpected Diversion has been published with a Technical Paper:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdUxE6rvh8U

    Technical Paper (PDF):
    MH370 – Unexpected Diversion (Independent Aircraft Investigations, Episode 1)

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/74282q64sm3i7dlpg8wc3/Paper-IAI-Episode-1-MAS370-9M-MRO-Diversion-from-Flight-Plan.pdf?rlkey=4ctciphyqtp444167mu8bomv0&dl=0

    This paper documents the factual basis, source references, and analytical structure
    underpinning the episode. It distinguishes between established evidence and analysis
    in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 principles.

    Reply
  34. Nax on 11 January 2026 at 11:09

    Could other aircraft have potentially intercepted MH370, and is it feasible to determine this using WSPR technology?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 13 January 2026 at 21:29

      @Nax,

      There were 57 other aircraft in the Kuala Lumpur FIR, whilst MH360 was in the same vicinity.

      You do not need WSPR, the ADS-B data is an adequate source.

      Reply
  35. Jesse T on 12 January 2026 at 00:16

    How much longer can Armada 8605 remain at sea before it is required to return to Fremantle to resupply? Can we expect any sort of an update from Ocean Infinity soon?

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 13 January 2026 at 21:30

      @Jesse T,

      2 more days, before Armada 86 05 heads for Fremantle.

      Do not expect any updates from Ocean Infinity.

      Reply
  36. Duncan on 13 January 2026 at 21:17

    As the current phase of the search draws to a close, I note that the proprietor of another blog seems very keen that the WSPR area isn’t searched.

    Talk about mean-spirited.

    Reply
    • Richard Godfrey on 13 January 2026 at 21:33

      @Duncan,

      Actually none of the hotspots have been searched and no points of interest have been found.

      Reply
      • Duncan on 13 January 2026 at 21:50

        @Richard

        Sorry, I don’t understand your post.

        Taking account of previous searches, surely the Blelly-Marchand and IG areas have now been covered extensively?

        Reply
        • Richard Godfrey on 13 January 2026 at 22:00

          @Duncan,

          Extensively but not completely and finally.

← Older Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *