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,
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas at airlineratings.com explains the new search proposal:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/new-search-for-mh370-expected-to-start-in-november/
The probable location of MH370 using WSPR technology is depicted on a bathymetric map of the Indian Ocean at around 29.128°S 99.934°E.
A close up of the WSPR defined search area is shown in the link below, defined by a circle with a radius of 30km centred on 29.128°S 99.934°E:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/irlhsoap5a2cyysjq9vvr/MH370-Crash-Location-Probability-Map-with-circle-radius-30-km.png?rlkey=saq0q191y7v29du0xok3bol18&dl=0
There seems to be a lot of hopes and expectations riding on the discovery of the aircraft, and while I’m sure finding it would be massive in both a symbolic and informational sense, but I have concerns that most usable evidence (the flight recorder, debris, human remains, etc.) will have deteriorated significantly by then. How founded are these concerns and what do you suspect are the most realistic expectations for what can be recovered if and when mh370 is actually found?
@Taryn Noone,
As long as the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder were not damaged on impact (they are designed to withstand an aircraft crash), then the data will still be recoverable. The FDR will have over 1,000 parameters from the whole flight and the CVR will have any noises in the cockpit for the last 2 hours. Particular items of aircraft wreckage will be revealing (retracted or extended undercarriage, flap position, cockpit door, etc.) Human remains will still give up their DNA.
Thank you! I know many are keen on knowing what happened in that cockpit. Myself included.
Is it possible that any data might have survived on the passengers’ cell phones? For example, pictures, audio and video that might show them recording their final goodbyes to family in case their bodies were ever found. Such could be used as forensic evidence to determine what happened, but only if the data can survive on a solid state drive submerged in the deep ocean. Then again, solid state drives are notoriously hardy.
the prevailing theory is the pilot cut power removing O2 from the cabin, Green Dot Aviation and mentour Pilot have excellent videos on YouTube based on all the facts we have about the data without wild speculation. if this is the case there wouldn’t be videos or messages from the passengers since they’d all have just lost consciousness, at most there might be a message from the copilot after being locked out of the cabin.
we know it was manually done since the data is consistent with someone turning the toggle off while passing through the middle setting and not just a power loss. but yeah, black box should be fine.
Hi Richard,
I’ve been following your work for quite some time and am truly impressed by your dedication and the impact your research could have on humanity. Recently, I watched an interview on the BBC featuring Simon Maskell, who discussed the ongoing debates among scientists about the credibility of your methods, despite him having co-signed and peer-reviewed your paper.
Since he supports your technique and findings, I’m curious to know more about the additional research that will be conducted to validate your methodology further. Could you elaborate on what kind of studies or investigations are planned to build upon your existing work?
Thank you for your insights, and I look forward to your response.
@Karlo Timmerman,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
Given the work that we have conducted to date, Prof. Simon Maskell thinks it is more likely than not that his team, at the University of Liverpool, conclude that WSPR has utility in the context of MH370.
Assuming they do draw that conclusion, we hope the work they are doing on WSPR will enable Ocean Infinity (and others) to share the confidence we will then have in WSPR’s utility in the context of MH370. We are intending to reach a conclusion and, assuming we conclude that WSPR has utility, then define a refined (relative to what DSTG proposed) search area in a timeline that could influence a future search by Ocean Infinity.
The existing Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves are positive, but they are based on a relatively small number of data and there wasn’t time in the BBC documentary or elsewhere to explain ROC curves or even the simpler version of that which we tried to push for.
Up until now, we have ROC curves from a number of flights, but each one is based on up to 244 hundred observations. Here is recent example with 171 observations and an area under the curve of 67%:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xk0ycgjekma2k3zad1izc/Receiver-Operating-Charcteristic-ROC-171-Observations-Area-Under-the-Curve-67.png?rlkey=zia3v1qxo2ozifvv390bvomgg&dl=0
Our hope is that we can generate a ROC curve with, say, 1000 flights of data from Boeing 777s. If the results are as we anticipate based on the initial ROC curves, we feel it will be difficult to argue that WSPR does not provide compelling new evidence.
Simon has collected all the ADS-B data globally during a 24 hour period. There are on average 21,538 aircraft in the air at any one time. Simon has all the WSPR data globally for the same time period and has developed a processing chain to produce a ROC curve based on around 1,000 flights of a Boeing 777. Long haul aircraft like the Boeing 777 make on average 2 flights per day with an average flying time of 8.58 hours each. This gives around 500,000 rows of data for the ROC curve.
Simon should soon be able to provide a ROC curve that is based on the large amount of data that they have collated. Simon is very conscious that the conclusions from that work are likely to be contentious. They have overtly avoided being funded to do the work thus far. That should make it easier than it would be otherwise to argue that they are not being biased by any commercial considerations. Simon also plans for a peer review by 4 other academic institutions, who have expertise in Bayesian methods and are familiar with the DSTG work, their particle filter and ROC curves.
Assuming that the ROC curve indicates that WSPR has some utility, Simon anticipates a period of refining their algorithm, for example to hone their processing chain and/or analysis to understand how turns, climbs, descents, geography and solar weather impinge on the ROC curve.
Simon also plans to generate a revised search area based on using the statistics from the ROC curve to enable them to augment the analysis that the DSTG did previously, but this time to include WSPR. Simon acted as an adviser to the DSTG book on “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370”, which defines the particle filter they used to determine the ATSB search area. Simon plans to extend that particle filter to include the WSPR ROC curve from his research.
Hello Richard Godfrey,
I am very impressed with your work regarding WSPR. Very nice work. I was thinking about the Malaysian government’s decision regarding the new search. Not many people familiar about WSPR, so how about proposing three locations (WSPR, Captain Belly-Jean Luc Marchand, and Independent Group-Victor Iannello) in one search?
There is a possibility that the Malaysian government will accept the proposal, especially when the media is aware of the proposal (three location in one search). Otherwise, they will be questioned by the public. Ocean Infinity has great ships and technologies. Previously, in 2018, they searched for MH370 for six months, covering 120,000km2 with one ship and eight Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV). Everything will get easier with the advancement of technology.
That’s why important of three team (WSPR, Captain Belly-Jean Luc Marchand, and Independent Group-Victor Iannello) need to sit together, discuss with Ocean Infinity, cooperate together, increase possibilities. ATSB and DSTG may need to be involved. Three locations in one search (total 120,000km2), once in lifetime, for history, the world will remember about this search many years to come. Thank you.
@Billy,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
Ocean Infinity reported at the MH370 remembrance event on 6th March 2024 that they are already talking to Aalto University, Linköping University, Liverpool University, Independent Group, Richard Godfrey, Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4688b5gnwhgee698bl1r9/Research-Summary.png?rlkey=pyhdzm6ktp8i34id7melhxhtd&dl=0
Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and I have shared all our findings with Ocean Infinity as well as Pete Foley, ATSB, DSTG and others. We had a video conference call with Andy Sherrell of Ocean Infinity and Pete Foley explaining our WSPR research and findings.
Prof. Simon Maskell attended the Ocean Infinity meeting with Anthony Loke on 2nd May 2024.
Petter Hörnfeldt in his Mentour Pilot documentary on MH370 also suggested searching the areas defined by Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand as well as defined by Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and myself.
We also already proposed, what you suggest in our post titled “MH370 – A New Hope” published 16th March 2024.
Great news about a new search!!
Presumably the iron parts of the two Rolls-Royce Trent engines will not have moved much since hitting the ocean floor ten years ago.
If the engines are close to each other and to the remnants of the fuselage and cargo containers it might suggest that the wings remained attached (ie a relatively ‘soft’ ditching).
A harder landing may have caused one or both of the engines to detatch from the wings, or the wings to detach from the fuselage, so the engines could be some distance apart.
Given the documented role of faulty heat exchanger design in previous aircraft emergencies, the age and condition of the heat exchangers from the engines on 9M-MRO might be worth closer inspection, upon recovery.
Item 51 in Appendix 1.6A of the MH370 Safety Report, “Recent Technical Log Entries” contains the following entry:
“S/N 4880475 – 28 February 2014
Maint entry – To c/out physically chk both heat exchanger S/No
and due date as per card no STR 1400567-001
Task carried out.
Found LH heat exchanger S/No 200310115
and RH Heat exchanger S/No 9709161.
Unfortunately can’t find due date on both heat exchanger.”
In particular, it might be important to establish whether or not the heat exchangers had been upgraded in accordance with A09-19-20 (2009).
The serial numbers 2003-10115 and 97-09161 may indicate that the heat exchangers on the engines on 9M-MRO in March 2014 were from 2003 (left engine) and 1997 (right engine).
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A09_19_20.pdf
I am less hopeful we will find anything, the data from hydrophone stations show no acoustic signals which indicates any crashes in arc 7.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60529-1
“The official investigation of MH370 supports the conclusion that a substantial crash should have taken place near the 7th arc9. In this case, the acoustic signal would have travelled approximately 1600 km to reach the nearest hydrophone station (H01W), a considerably shorter distance than any other acoustic signal analysed here. An aircraft with a mass of 200 tons impacting the water surface at a velocity of 200 m/s possesses a kinetic energy of 4 GJ, equivalent to 956 kg of TNT or an earthquake of magnitude 3.2. Considering half that velocity, the released energy would still be large, i.e., 1 GJ, equivalent to 239 kg of TNT or an earthquake of magnitude 2.8. Even with a significantly lower impact velocity of 30 m/s, the resulting energy release would be 89 MJ, equivalent to 21 kg of TNT or an earthquake of magnitude 2.1. Evidently, such earthquakes can be detected by distant hydrophones, just as the M 2.7 earthquake (see Fig. 2 for the location of the earthquake on the map; and Fig. 17 in “Methods” for the bearing). Therefore, it is highly unlikely for MH370 to have crashed near the 7th arc without leaving a discernible acoustic signature. “
Are you going to talk to the Cardiff University researchers about the hydrophone signals mentioned in this article? http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/mystery-of-flight-mh370-could-be-solved-by-underwater-microphones/ar-BB1oo9gn
I read a good quote about MH370 that went something like ‘lots of very clever people think they know what happened to MH370 – the problem is, none of them are talking to each other’
@Mark I,
Welcome to the blog!
As scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity for their current MH370 search proposal, Prof. Simon Maskell is talking to a large number of researchers from around the world in various disciplines including mathematics, physics, various fields of engineering, computer science, oceanography, acoustics, statistics, drift analysis, CTBTO data analysis, autonomous systems, etc.
A member of Simon’s team is specifically looking at the models for acoustic propagation through the oceans and assessing whether there is anything useful we can extract from both the data and the lack of data.
The assumption that none of the “very clever people” are talking to each other is complete nonsense and a fabrication.
I know for a fact that the following people are talking to each other as I have been privileged to have participated in many of the discussions. I am sure there are thousands of other discussions between academics on MH370, that I do not know about.
Prof. Simon Maskell of Liverpool University in England.
Dr. Hannes Coetzee of Pretoria University in South Africa.
Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi of the University of Western Australia.
Dr. David Griffin of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.
Prof. Frederik Gustafsson of Linköping University in Sweden.
Asst. Prof. Simo Särkkä of Aalto university in Finland.
Dr. Larry Stone the Chief Scientist of Metron in the USA.
Dr. Samuel Davey of Adelaide University in Australia.
Dr. Neil Gordon of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Ian Holland of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Mark Rutten of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Jason Williams of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Prof. Simon Godsill of Cambridge University in England.
Prof. Thomas Schön of Uppsala University in Sweden.
Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University in Australia.
Dr. Usama Kadri of Cardiff University in Wales.
Dr. Tom Kunkle of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA.
Dr. Richard Stead of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA.
Dr. Ed Fenimore of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA.
Hello Richard
Thankyou for that very comprehensive reply. I feel much more reassured now.
Fingers crossed the late 24 search comes up trumps!
KR
Mark
Hello Richard, have you seen/heard this news?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/17/mh370-mystery-could-be-solved-by-underwater-microphones/
Hi Richard,
Is there any update from the Malaysian’s regarding the approval of the new search? Over three months has passed since the presentation and I haven’t come across anything regarding a decision.
Kind regards,
@Gary Moore,
Welcome to the blog!
The Malaysian government has not yet authorised a new search by Ocean Infinity.
The proposal was to start the new search in November 2024. The Malaysian government will have to decide in the next few days, to allow Ocean Infinity time to prepare the logistics for the new search.
@Richard,
We have been through this ‘stand off’ game before.
Most will remember that when OI proposed the first ‘no find no fee search’ back in 2016, Malaysia sat on it’s hands. As it transpired, OI had a job planned southeast of Durban.
Seabed Constructor sailed from Durban to the work area.
Most people were expecting OI to return to Durban when the job was done.
But to the surprise of many, Seabed Constructor then headed east towards the 7th Arc without returning to Durban.
Malaysia then knew that OI would search without them, and had to scramble to get two of their Naval Officers flown out to Perth and onto a hastily chartered ocean work boat to rendezvous with Seabed Constructor at the 7th Arc.
It seems to me (my opinion only) that Malaysia does not want another search, so I think that if OI does not proactively deploy to the search area, Malaysia will almost certainly engage in a rerun of the same ‘stonewalling tactics’ yet again.
So, what do you think OI will do if Malaysia remains silent ?
Do you think OI will deploy anyway, and put the ball back into Malaysia’s court ?
Malaysia would then have two options.
(1) do nothing, and await developments, or
(2) scramble to get their people on board (like last time).
‘A penny for your thoughts’ on how you think this round will play out ?
@Andrew S,
Welcome to the blog!
I have seen the article and read the paper from Dr. Usama Kadri of Cardiff University in Wales on using underwater acoustic analysis to try and detect and locate the crash of MH370 in the Indian Ocean.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7p14jhd7vv54fhn1x8xk5/Underwater-acoustic-analysis-Revisiting-MH370.pdf?rlkey=lc0bt0jg003h6qnn251xuyyp6&dl=0
Results are inconclusive.
Dr. Usama Kadri states in his excellent paper, that the results are not conclusive.
The idea was first put forward in 2014 by Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University, Australia who is cited in the new research. Nature published an article on 12th June 2014 titled “Sound clue in hunt for MH370”, but the results were inconclusive.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) has hydrophone stations around the Indian Ocean. Dr. Tom Kunkle, Dr. Richard Stead and Dr. Ed Fenimore of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA have also analysed the data and also say the results are inconclusive.
My co-author Prof. Simon Maskell is the Scientific Advisor to Ocean Infinity for the recently proposed underwater search for MH370 planned for November 2024. He has a member of his team looking at the CTBTO data. It doesn’t look like there’s any positive evidence of the sensors having a confirmed detection of having “heard” the aircraft hit the sea. However, he thinks we can use that “negative information” to help localise the search area. He has someone using models for acoustic propagation through the oceans assessing whether there is anything useful we can extract from the data and the lack of data.
Not all Data Sources have been studied.
You have to analyse the full CTBTO data set without gaps in it from HA01 Cape Leeuwin, HA04 La Crozet Islands and HA08 Diego Garcia.
There is scientific data from the Australian IMOS system and secret military data from the US SOSUS system.
There are infrasound stations at IS04 Shannon Australia, IS06 Cocos Islands and IS23 Kerguelen Islands that may add useful information to the hydroacoustic stations.
Data Sources have Contamination.
Underwater seismic events (Earthquakes, Volcanoes) are picked up by the hydrophones.
Exploration companies set of explosives when conducting seismic surveys and are picked up by the hydrophones.
Ice breaking off from the Antarctic can be picked up by the hydrophones.
Speed of Sound in the Ocean varies.
The speed of sound in the ocean varies with depth. In the deep ocean at mid-latitudes, the slowest sound speed occurs at a depth of about 800 to 1000 meters and creates the SOund Fixing And Ranging (SOFAR) channel.
Sound is focused in the sound channel because the sound waves are continually bent, or refracted, towards the region of lower sound speed. The SOFAR channel acts like a wave guide for the sound.
The way in which sound speed changes with depth is not the same everywhere in the ocean because the ocean temperature and salinity profiles that determine sound speed can differ greatly from one location in the ocean to another.
Sounds can be weakened by reflection and absorption in the Ocean.
Whenever sound reflects from the rough ocean surface or seafloor, some sound energy is scattered and lost. A sound wave that hits the ocean surface or seafloor many times will be too weak to be detected.
Sound that does not hit the ocean surface or seafloor will still lose energy to absorption. Low-frequency sounds lose very little energy to absorption, however. The result is that low-frequency sounds that do not interact with the ocean surface or seafloor can be detected after traveling long distances through the ocean.
The amount of absorption increases as the frequency of the sound increases, and higher frequency sounds are therefore only detectable at shorter distances. The distances at which sounds can be detected depend on the frequency, how loud the source is, and how loud the background (ambient) noise is.
Sounds do not follow a straight line path in the Ocean.
Sound waves traveling in the sound channel follow many different paths. When the sound source and receiver are located at the depth of the sound speed minimum, called the SOFAR or sound channel axis, sound waves travel nearly straight down the axis and cycle above and below the axis, almost reaching both the surface and bottom.
Although sound travels away from a sound source in all directions, only sound traveling away from a source on paths that leave the source at specific angles will reach a receiver at a specific location. The sound waves traveling on these different paths have slightly different travel times. A single explosive source will therefore be heard as a number of separate arrivals, leading to the characteristic signature of a SOFAR transmission building up to a climax.
Sound paths from a source near the surface come together, or converge, creating regions of higher sound pressure at about the same depth as the source every 50-60 km away from it. These regions of higher sound pressure are called convergence zones. In between the convergence zones, there are regions of lower sound pressure called shadow zones.
Richard- I would add for MH370 the location, time, type of crash, and distance from Arc7 are all unknowns which complicate matters, and furthermore some feel the acoustic sounds from MH370 could be delayed related to parts sinking and not the crash itself. I realize there are strong opinions and assumptions for some of what I call the unknowns.
Richard,
Has anyone compared potential crash locations with the ocean floor depth and terrain?
With all the measures taken to remain undetected in the air, it seems logical that ditching above a relatively deep or difficult to explore part of the ocean would have been considered as well.
@MattP,
Welcome to the blog!
Several analysts have considered the ocean floor depths and terrain and have hypothesised different locations due to the extreme depth or difficult terrain or alignment with certain locations.
However, there are a number of alternative theories, which are not compatible with each other.
Neither are the theories compatible with the Boeing fuel range and endurance data and/or with the Inmarsat satellite data and/or the oceanographic drift analysis and/or the WSPR analysis.
Has there been any recent analysis of the sea floor in the suspected crash site area? Would a terrain filled with silt/mud make it significantly more difficult to find debris after 10 years?
@Pierson R,
There has not been any recent analysis of the sea floor in the suspected crash area. The Hugin AUVs used by Ocean Infinity are fitted with a number of sensors including a self-compensating magnetometer, which can be used as a metal detector. A magnetometer can detect small changes in the Earth’s magnetic field caused by the presence of magnetic ferrous metals. Large objects like engine cores or landing gear can be detected even if buried under silt or mud.
The self compensating magnetometer used by Ocean Infinity on the Hugin AUVs require no expertise with magnetic data processing to calculate the magnetic signature and compensation coefficients in order to remove the varying field of the AUV. No knowledge of local magnetic reference field (IGRF) is required by the sensor or the user to calculate and apply the compensation coefficients.
@ventus45,
The Malaysian Minister of Transport stated he would be presenting the new proposal to the Malaysian Cabinet in August 2024. To my knowledge that has not yet happened, but we still have August, so there is still time. It would fit the historical pattern you outline, to wait until the last minute.
The Malaysian authorities are well aware that there are other organisations interested in searching for MH370, such as Deep Sea Vision and Aqua Satellite. If no agreement is reached with Ocean Infinity, then the Malaysians might find an alternative, which also might be less expensive. There are also organisations, who do not require compensation and therefore do not require an agreement to search, only an agreement to salvage.
In my view, the Malaysian authorities would like to be in control of any future underwater search for MH370. It is therefore in their interest to reach an agreement with Ocean Infinity, rather than let some other organisation find MH370, where they do not control the process.
When the search is under Malaysian control, then the public communication is under their control. The timing and process of any salvage would also be under their control. The analysis of the FDR, CVR and other aircraft wreckage would be under their control, as would be the communication of the results of any such analysis.
Hi Richard do you know if and when the Malaysian government (transportminister Loke) will launch a new search for MH370? I hear nothing from KL
@Paul,
Welcome to the blog!
We have not heard back from the Malaysian government, but I expect their decision will be made soon.
Hi Richard,
hopefully we will hear back from the Malaysian Authorities soon. I was wondering what your view on the research from Vincent Lyne is, since it gets a lot of hype in the media recently.
@Dominik,
Welcome to the blog!
I was disappointed in the nonsense from Vincent Lyne, that is circulating in the media.
I do not wish to be associated with the unconscious processes, baseless thoughts and mystical dreams of Vincent Lyne, which the author admits he cannot even explain himself.
I am familiar with the papers Vincent Lyne has written, some together with his wife Melissa Lyne. Vincent Lyne is a retired research scientist in the areas of livelihoods, climate change, marine spatial planning and ecosystem characterisation. Melissa Lyne is a freelance communications specialist in science, medical and environmental media. Neither of them are aerospace engineers, satellite communications experts, hydroacoustic experts, nor oceanographers.
Vincent Lyne’s hypothesis is: “The final hydroacoustic message from MH370 provides a vital 8th arc from the Perth Canyon that signals a narrow landing range along the Broken Ridge near where the 33°S latitude is intersected by the longitude of Penang at an ultra-deep hole approximately 6000 m deep.”
There are only 7 Arcs, defined by Inmarsat satellite data. There is no mysterious 8th Arc.
In his various papers, Vincent Lyne states: ”I am unable to explain how the thoughts of Penang, leading to a reanalysis of the sound, entered my head; I can hear it now but can’t explain how.”
and
”Those thoughts incubated in my mind, and on the day of Capitol Hill riots (6th January 2021) I woke with a mental image of a longitude line drawn from Penang to the region I marked out in March 2019—which led to this report.”
In my view, Vincent Lyne does not give any scientific explanation as to why the longitude of Penang should determine the crash location of MH370.
Furthermore, Vincent Lyne’s crash location disagrees with a number of major scientific analyses:
1. Hydroacoustic analysis of Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University, Australia.
2. Inmarsat satellite data analysis by Chris Ashton et al. published in The Journal of Navigation.
3. MH370 Burst Frequency Offset Analysis and Implications on Descent Rate at End-of-Flight by Dr. Ian Holland of the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) in Australia.
Vincent Lyne’s nonsense appears to be a marketing ploy in promoting another set of nonsense, namely Larry Vance’s book on MH370.
Vincent Lyne’s obsession with the PL (Penang Longitude) and the PL Hole also results from profoundly disturbing imagery he provides of a heart with wings, tears and multiple mentions of a reborn foetus being carried away from the MH370 crash location.
Here are some quotes from a more recent paper by Vincent Lyne:
“Let your imagination free, and you will see wings on the north western part of the Hasetiho, mirroring the relative same location of the flaperon on the island, and a foetus in the southern half formed from the sediment-laden river of tears. A reborn foetus being carried away in a heart with wings. Yes, it’s not a scientific interpretation (how could it possibly be!), but have a heart and let those who have lost ones take some comfort from this interpretation.”
“Permit yourself some wild imagination and you will see the wings north-west of the heart, and the embryo cradled in the south. Top insert shows the bathymetry of the island, which suggests that the “embryo” may be from sediment-laden outflow—the river of tears that painted the foetus. The wings and flaperon are both in the north-west portion of their homes. Figure and interpretations dedicated to the innocent lost ones of MH370 and to my daughter Baba (the “reborn” artist who wanted to fly “free”.”
“Days before the flaperon is discovered, rain washes over the island, carrying its volcanic soils to the southern recirculation, to paint a picture resembling a foetus. The opposite circulation in the north creates a set of wings, carrying away the foetus cradled in the south.”
Vincent Lyne proves his nonsense by quoting papers authored by V. or M. Lyne, as the key authorities on MH370, in total 15 times. It is abnormal for a scientific work to rely on other work by the same author(s) to prove a point.
There are the other papers by Vincent Lyne, each paper more crazy than the one before.
Vincent Lyne summarises that this has been a “lonely journey” of analysis to understand the “cryptic pathways” of MH370 and he has “accomplished the job assigned to him” and he has “carried out the task as far as he needs to go.”
I’ve been following the IG group’s research on and off since about 2017 now, first on Victor Ianello’s blog, and now here. I’m very pleased to see more negotiations underway to start the next search.
Until they find that plane, I will probably never stop thinking MH370. It inspires me to see that I will probably never be alone in this. That there are people out there that refuse to give up until the answers are found.
I have a strong feeling in my gut that the next search that happens will be the one to find it. I’ll be checking back here regularly in the coming weeks. Cheers!
@Matthew Neuteboom,
Welcome to the blog! You are definitely not alone in wanting MH370 found and the mystery of its disappearance solved.
We are expecting an agreement between Malaysia and Ocean Infinity imminently.
The plan is to conduct a new underwater search starting in November 2024.
I also believe this next search will find MH370.
@Richard
You said “The plan is to conduct a new underwater search starting in November 2024.”
The news out of Malaysia is deafening, and the last time OI offered to search, Malaysia did not move an inch until Seabed Constructor was half way across the Indian Ocean.
Given your remark referenced above, (which could be interpreted as indicating you possess some inside knowledge) is it your understanding that OI is going to unilaterally deploy again, and if that so, do you have any idea when, from where, with what asset(s), and lastly, to which search area ?
@ventus45,
As far as I am aware OI has not changed their proposal for a November 2024 underwater search for MH370.
As far as I am aware Malaysia still has not agreed to the proposal.
Both OI and Malaysia are tight lipped at the moment.
I am only privy to work being done by Prof. Simon Maskell and his team using the WSPRnet database.
The Royal Aeronautical Society (Australian Branch – Canberra) has finally released (after 6 months) video of Peter Foley’s presentation at ADFA on the eve of the 10th Anniversary of the vanishing of MH370.
https://vimeo.com/997685457?&login=true
@Richard Godfrey
Do you know what the current status of this study/analysis is:
“Simon has collected all the ADS-B data globally during a 24 hour period. There are on average 21,538 aircraft in the air at any one time. Simon has all the WSPR data globally for the same time period and has developed a processing chain to produce a ROC curve based on around 1,000 flights of a Boeing 777. Long haul aircraft like the Boeing 777 make on average 2 flights per day with an average flying time of 8.58 hours each. This gives around 500,000 rows of data for the ROC curve.”
A possible 6 month time frame was mentioned by Maskell in the BBC documentary. That has now passed. Should we still look forward to this being published before the end of the year or has it been abandoned etc.?
@Puuhöylä,
It is up to Simon to publicise his results, when he is ready. I know that he and his team have completed their processing chain and are making a few refinements. I know Simon wants a peer review and has already engaged with a number of other academics. Any talk of the research being abandoned is fake news.
Simon took part in the presentation to the Malaysian Minister of Transport given by Ocean Infinity. Simon is acting as a scientific advisor. The goal is to give guidance to the team from Ocean Infinity as to where the next underwater search for MH370 should focus.
In a separate study, I have used my latest fully automated system to track a small sample of Boeing 777 aircraft in every region of the globe, in every season, month of the year, day of the week, time of the day, type of weather, solar flux level, etc. as a validation exercise. Every Boeing 777 in the sample was detected and tracked using the WSPRnet data. WSPRnet results were tested against FlightRadar24 ADS-B data.
I have also analysed a few of the sample Simon is using from 1st August 2023. There are a number of WSPRnet database entries with 4 character Maidenhead Grid locators. The histogram for transmitter antennas with 4 character locators shows a distance error with a peak at 66 km and a few are even > 100 km. I have shared my antenna database with Simon, which gives the antenna location of transmitters and receivers to within 50m. The 6 character Maidenhead Grid locators are accurate to within 2.3 km.
On 1st August 2023, there were 2,934 distinct tx_sign values and 1,296 distinct rx_sign value, totalling 4,230 call signs. 528 call signs are both transmitters and receivers. 4 call signs are invalid and around 423 appear to be balloon based transmitters. 139 contain a “/“ and 26 contain a “-“, which means they are have a prefix or suffix, that could simply be an enumerator of multiple installations or type of setup. 12 were portable. That leaves around 3,097 valid call signs for correction, of which 884 have already been corrected in the table I have shared.
Following on from the validation exercise, I have now completed an analysis of the region between the 6th and 7th Arc from 7.5°S to 42.5°S every 2 minutes from 00:10 UTC to 00:20 UTC. I have noted every intersection of anomalous WSPRnet links and looked for any series of intersections that match both the Boeing 777-200ER performance and the BTO and BFO Inmarsat satellite data at 00:11:00 UTC, 00:19:29 UTC and 00:19:37 UTC. This analysis only includes accurate antenna locations for every transmitter and receiver.
Few MH370 analysts dispute that the aircraft was near the 6th Arc on 8th March 2014 at 00:11:00 UTC and again near the 7th Arc at 00:19:29 UTC and 00:19:37 UTC, as indicated by the Inmarsat satellite data. MH370 could not have crashed further North, as it would have been found in Java. MH370 could not have crashed further South, as according to Boeing the maximum fuel range only goes just beyond 40°S.
I have found 7 candidates and am currently analysing each one, to see which candidates closely match the Boeing and Inmarsat data. One candidate aligns with the previously announced WSPRnet crash point.
As Simon has made clear his processing chain will produce a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC). This is a test of sensitivity against specificity, whether we can detect the aircraft more often when it is a true positive, than we generate detections when an aircraft is not there, a false positive.
Hello Richard,
I’m sure there will be a blog post outlining these 7 candidate locations, but out of curiosity, does one of them line up with Ed Anderson’s “Javanomaly” site 40 nmi off the coast of Java? His research shows a significant seismic event happening 55 minutes after MH370 would have crashed. Whether this is the plane or not has obviously not been solved, but it would be interesting to know if multiple methods of data collection can show an event occurring.
We are well past the August date of information of a new search from the Malaysian government, hopefully we get some news soon.
@Pierson R,
Welcome to the blog!
There are no WSPRnet anomalies in the area from 7.5°S to 12.5° between the 6th and 7th Arc.
The seismic event near the Java coast is unrelated to MH370, in my view.
@Taryn Noone,
Mobile phones are not designed to withstand being submerged in water. I would expect the electronics to be corroded and any information irretrievable.
Yeah, especially in salt water.
is there any update on the approval?
@Abhishek,
Welcome to the blog!
There is no update from the Malaysian government giving approval to a further search for MH370 by Ocean Infinity, but approval is expected imminently.
@All,
Few MH370 analysts dispute that the aircraft was near the 6th Arc on 8th March 2014 at 00:11:00 UTC and again near the 7th Arc at 00:19:21 UTC and 00:19:37 UTC, as indicated by the Inmarsat satellite data.
I have now scanned all the anomalous WSPRnet links between 00:10 UTC and 00:30 UTC in the entire area around the 6th and 7th Arcs from 7.5°S to 42.5°S using my latest fully automated passive radar system.
MH370 could not have crashed further North, as it would have been found in Java.
MH370 could not have crashed further South, as according to Boeing the maximum fuel range only goes just beyond 40°S.
I am looking to see if there are intersecting anomalous WSPRnet links around 15 km to the North West of 6th Arc at 00:10 UTC and again between the 6th and 7th Arcs at 00:12 UTC, 00:14 UTC, 00:16 UTC, 00:18 UTC or just beyond the 7th Arc at 00:20 UTC as well as further out from the 7th Arc up to 00:30 UTC.
I am looking to see if multiple intersecting anomalous WSPRnet links match the ground speed of a Boeing 777 at around 500 knots in that time frame.
I have now completed the scan and found seven candidates that match the criteria (please see table linked below):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hkkaxgt80y6m4fym4y2f5/Summary-of-Results.png?rlkey=blhvwo5jvsby0ab3g6oj1x8j9&dl=0
The highest scoring candidate matches the WSPRnet based flight path from Kuala Lumpur to the Indian Ocean.
There is only one candidate that matches all the Inmarsat BTO and BFO data at 00:11 UTC, 00:19:21 UTC and 00:19:37 UTC, the altitude calculated from the BTO data, the ROD calculated from the BFO data, the Boeing 777 performance data (speed, fuel range and fuel endurance) as well as a series of WSPRnet anomalous intersections.
This candidate (marked as ‘c’) is as defined in our case study, titled MH370 Flight Path Analysis and dated 31st August 2023.
The crash location is 29.178850°S 99.85352°E, which is 39.3 nmi South East of the 7th Arc.
How about slower speeds Richard? If pilot was active I do not really favor he stayed at high altitude/high speed until fuel exhaustion.
@TBill,
One of the candidates was very slow at 262 knots and another at 266 knots.
@All,
I have been asked: “How do you derive the Inmarsat Score and WSPR Score respectively?”
The Inmarsat score is matching the BTO and BFO data as follows (number of green boxes):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4nuz50mdohraxy60qtupn/Summary-of-BTO-and-BFO-Results.png?rlkey=s49c8iuhqvwb29l6nnefkghc6&dl=0
The WSPRnet score is the number of anomalous WSPRnet links as follows:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9d9p1ak6kwa0qufarpj7l/Summary-of-WSPRnet-Anomalous-Intersections.png?rlkey=9vk7r989p2xtw06q71ih4l8jw&dl=0
@All,
I have been asked: “What area has been covered by this new case study of the 6th and 7th Arc?”
The total area covered was 4.8M km2. An increasing range from the 7th Arc was used between 300 km and 800 km. The northern most range was 300 km and the southern most range was 800 km.
The total length of the 7th Arc covered was 5,112 km between 7.5°S and 42.5°S.
The area covered is shown in the map at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bxf0drjx5k9ihftowfcy0/MH370_08MAR2024_0010_UTC_to_0020_UTC_6th_and_7th_Arcs.png?rlkey=ymili4nb5mwvp0xqhpi4h20o5&dl=0
Nice blog, I came across this website a few days ago.
Appreciate for your hard work. Everyone on the earth wants to know what happened to MH370.
I wish we could reveal the secret soon, which could relieve the pain of the family who lost their loved ones
Good morning. I know this question has already been asked. But as of today, September 23rd, so close to November, which is the date planned by OI to search in that part of the Indian Ocean. Is there no approval from Malaysia? Sincerely, Omar. P.S. I am very intrigued by this case since it has never happened in history that someone flies a plane for more than 7 hours to commit suicide. If I had committed mass suicide, what does it matter to hide the evidence??? I have already commented on this in this blog months ago. I do not believe that Captain Zaharie is responsible. The evidence found points to that but I am very very sure that there must be another explanation. What happens is that when that evidence is found, all the focus is given to that. Sincerely, Omar.
@Omar López,
The Malaysian government discussed the OI proposal at cabinet level in August 2024. They did not approve the OI proposal, instead they asked questions, both relevant and irrelevant.
The Minister of Transport Anthony Loke pointed out to his government, that the OI proposal is a no find, no fee deal.
On a no find, no fee basis, Malaysia are not taking any financial risk, if MH370 is not found.
If MH370 is found, then obviously Malaysia will have to pay and different groups in Malaysia are saying that Malaysia is not able to pay, or should not pay, or has other budget priorities.
I can see that Malaysia will not approve a new underwater search by OI in the near future.
OI had hoped to get a go ahead for a new search starting in November 2024. The delay by the Malaysians means there is little time for OI to mobilise their team and assets for a search start in just 6 weeks time. The new search may have to be delayed as a consequence.
The reason that Captain Zaharie Shah wanted to hide the evidence, is to protect his family from accusations that he was a perpetrator of a mass murder suicide. It is not possible to judge Captain Zaharie Shah by what you would do, if you wanted to commit mass murder suicide.
None of us like the thought of a mass murder suicide or such a tragedy ever happening again, so it is important to find the wreckage and conclusively solve the reason for the disappearance of MH370.
Thks you very much for the news, and for you repply. I Cant believe Malasian Goverment cant accept the OI proppose.
“On a no find, no fee basis, Malaysia are not taking any financial risk, if MH370 is not found.”
There is no risk if MH370 doesnt will be found, to Malasian Goverment to pay. Only if it is found. So I have high suspicions that THEY DO NOT WANT MH370 TO BE FOUND.
Thks again in advance, for you repply and explain.
Sinceraly
Omar
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas has published an article questioning whether the Malaysian government is serious about finding MH370.
https://www.airlineratings.com/articles/malaysia-isnt-serious-about-finding-mh370
Hi Richard. Thanks again for the hard work you are doing on this project, I am fascinated and inspired at a whole new scientific technique that has been invented with the WISPR technology.
I also am keen to hear the confirmation about the hopefully upcoming OI search etc. I had two questions.
1. If the latest search is approved will OI look in the WISPR location first? (this makes sense to me but I haven’t seen anything about it online).
2. If the plane is found do you think there will be any useful information recoverable from the wreckage to help us understand what happened in more detail?
Thanks so much,
Jenny
@Richard & All.
Geoffrey Thomas should be highly commended for finally and publicly grasping ‘the elephant in the room’ (https://pwyp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room-cover.png) by the tusks, with both hands, and ‘calling a spade a bloody spade’, once and for all.
With the benefit of hindsight – when you look back on it all – with your eyes wide open – it has been blatantly obvious to everyone – from the earliest days – that Malaysia clearly knew what had happened on day one, by whom, and why he had done it.
Malaysia ‘played the mainstream media off a break’ with those farcical press conferences, from day one, and have done everything that they could to hide the facts ever since and continue to do so.
If Malaysia refuses to ‘come to the party’ (so to speak), then we should all donate towards the cost of a brand-new Elephant Gun for Geoffrey, and as much ammunition as he may wish to use, and for the cost of then shipping the carcass direct to the front porch of ICAO HQ in Toronto Canada.
That video in the referenced article is his best ever (in my view). It’s blunt, to the point, and it is ‘a wakeup call to the rest of the journalistic world’, but I wonder if they will hear it. Actually, there is no need to wonder, we know they won’t.
One thing I whole heartedly agree with Peter Foley on, is his remarks about the mainstream media, as he expressed in the first few minutes of his presentation at ADFA on the eve of the tenth anniversary (7th March 2024).
See from 2min 10sec to 3min 17sec in the video at https://vimeo.com/997685457?&login=true.
Watch the whole video actually; it is quite a good presentation.
@Jenny Smith,
Welcome to the blog!
OI have not disclosed the locations they plan to search.
Prof. Simon Maskell is acting as a scientific advisor and the WSPR technology has been discussed at length.
When MH370 is found there will be a wealth of information to help resolve the mystery of its disappearance. The flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder, damage to the wreckage, DNA samples. etc. will all give clues as to what happened and why.
Any chance of a Go Fund Me to fund the hoped for OI search in November or later? Surely Bezos & Musk can afford to throw in some ((tax deductible) contributions to this eminently deserving charitable cause ?
@Mike,
Welcome to the blog!
1. Ocean Infinity are requesting payment, if they find MH370, in a “no find, no fee” deal. Malaysia has not actually refused to pay, but they also have not agreed to pay. Malaysia had indicated a decision would be made in August 2024, but it was postponed pending questions being answered. Some of the questions were relevant, some were purely political.
2. If Malaysia cannot pay or will not pay Ocean Infinity, then the ICAO as the governing body for International Civil Aviation should fund the new underwater search.
3. If the ICAO will not fund a new search, then there is an anonymous philanthropist willing to fund a new underwater search for MH370. This philanthropist knows Bezos and Musk, but does not appear to need their help for this project.
A very clear explanation. In my opinion, Malaysia DOES NOT WANT to find the plane. If OI doesn’t charge if they don’t find it, I don’t see the risk.
I am from Argentina, and Occean Inffinity found the Submarine ARA SAN JUAN, on the Atlantic Ocean, it was the same project “no found, no pay”.
@Richard. “Some of the questions were relevant…” Can you impart the nature of them?’
A Chinese documentary may be made, possibly stirring interest there. Lack of evidence of that hitherto has been striking.
http://www.china.org.cn/arts/2024-10/06/content_117467875.htm
Incidentally, for those who might be curious about the Lisbon Maru, here is an account:
https://www.theroyalscots.co.uk/lisbon-maru/
@David,
The nature of the relevant questions were concerning how Ocean Infinity defined the search area that they have proposed. In a “no find, no fee” proposal, this is a moot point. Ocean Infinity are taking the financial risk, that the proposed search area is incorrectly defined and that they fail to find MH370. It appears that some people in Malaysia are worried that Ocean Infinity will succeed in finding MH370 in this new underwater search.
The nature of the irrelevant questions were concerning the sources of funding for Ocean Infinity and in particular, if certain countries, with which Malaysia is not on friendly terms, were amongst the backers. Since Ocean Infinity is privately funded, this is irrelevant and a purely political point.
I am not at liberty to be specific, but Malaysia did not want to be seen backing a proposal funded by, what in their view are the ‘wrong’ countries or ‘wrong’ people.
It is a matter of public record that Ocean Infinity Group Limited, which has many subsidiaries in various jurisdictions, is registered in the Cayman Islands and the UK. The beneficial owners are three private individuals, Anthony Clake, Oliver Plunkett and Ross Hyett, who are all British citizens and all have significant influence or control over the company.
On your other point, it will also be interesting to see if funding for a Chinese documentary on MH370 is forthcoming. They have been seeking funding for some time and so far without achieving their goal.
@Richard. Thank you.
” It appears that some people in Malaysia are worried that Ocean Infinity will succeed in finding MH370 in this new underwater search.”. i Think the same. It Is weird i Remember malasian goberment telling tò the families on March 2024. ” We are talking With OI ror a new search on november 2024″ and now It Is the time of search. and actually they are refusing tò search. i am sure they dont want to look. but the most important thing It Is: why OI doesnt search anyway. and then if the found the Plane malasian goberment Will be push tò pay. i dont get It so far the risk for Malaysian goberment It Is 0 if OI doesnt found the Plane. By the way i am still thinking Captain Zaharie Is innocent. only in my opinion. regards from Argentina!! Omar.
OI’s Armada 78’s #04 and #08 are still waiting patiently in Singapore.
https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9924273
https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9924314
Looks like #08 is on the move.
@All,
An interesting article by Changing Times with a good summary of the current state of the search for MH370:
https://changingtimes.media/2024/10/14/next-of-kin-await-malaysian-governments-decision-about-new-search-for-mh370/
Apologies if this question has been asked and answered elsewhere in the blog, but could Malaysia’s blatant foot-dragging be due to a difference of opinion with OI over the status of the proposed new search?
As I understand it OI see the new search as a continuation of their previous search, and therefore want the success fee to start at the same $70m level it was at when the previous search ended.
Perhaps Malaysia takes the view that OI should regard the previous search as a sunk cost (no pun intended), and that any new search should be on the same basis as the previous search, with a success fee starting at $20m if the plane is found in the first area searched, and only rising to $70m if it’s found in a much larger area.
@ Duncan
Money is not the issue Duncan. The amounts are trivial, it doesn’t even rate as “small change” at government budget levels.
Regardless of what Malaysia’s Transport Minister Anthony Loke said to the NoK in public, it is now crystal clear to everyone that Malaysia does not want it found, and that they never did.
The official search for 9M-MRO was abandoned long ago. 9M-MRO has been abandoned to the deep by the ICAO (by their inaction) and all the Governments involved (with the possible exception of the French).
The ‘hunt for 9M-MRO’ is now a hunt for ‘a holy grail’, just like the sporadic hunts for Amelia Earhart’s NR16020.
Whoever finds either (or both) will write their own page in history.
If I were Oliver, I would just go for it, regardless.
@ventus 45,
I agree with you that money is not the issue. Both Malaysia and Ocean Infinity have deep pockets.
Ocean Infinity has three vessels waiting in the area not far from Malaysia.
Armada 78 04 and 78 06 are currently moored in the port of Singapore. 78 04 arrived on 19th September 2024, which is almost a month ago. 78 06 arrived on 1st October 2024.
Armada 78 08 was moored in the port of Singapore, it arrived on 10th September 2024 and departed on the 12th October 2024, having stayed a month.
Armada 78 08 has now moved to a position 6.24286°N 109.68948°E and is almost stationary in the South China Sea between Vietnam and Borneo at the edge of the NW Borneo Trough. 78 08 moved 300 m due North on 17th October 2024.
Keeping three vessels waiting for a decision from the Malaysian government is expensive.
I am not sure how long Ocean Infinity will keep waiting, but at the moment they must be still hopeful that Malaysia will make a positive decision.
@Duncan,
Welcome to the blog!
Ocean Infinity has three vessels waiting in the area not far from Malaysia.
Armada 78 04 and 78 06 are moored in the port of Singapore.
Armada 78 08 was moored in the port of Singapore and has now moved to a position 6.24286°N 109.68948°E and is stationary in the South China Sea between Vietnam and Borneo at the edge of the NW Borneo Trough.
When the Malaysian government met to discuss the new search proposal from Ocean Infinity, they asked a number of questions, supposedly for clarification.
I am not privy to the details of payment amounts and payment conditions in the Ocean Infinity proposal.
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas has published a new article titled: “Ocean Infinity’s High Tech Ships Poised For MH370 Search?”
https://www.airlineratings.com/articles/ocean-infinitys-high-tech-ships-poised-for-mh370-search
@All,
Ocean Infinity’s ship Armada 78 08 is returning to Singapore and is expected in port on 20th October 2024 at 17:22 UTC.
Ocean Infinity’s ships Armada 78 04 and 78 06 are currently moored in the port of Singapore.
As at 10:00 UTC 21Oct2024, there are Three of OI’s Armada 78’s in Singapore Harbour.
Armada 78 04 and 06 are moored together, starboard to port respectively, outboard of the Paragon Sentinel, and Armada 78 08 is anchored in the ARAFR Reserved anchorage.
Given that MH370’s final voice communication took place while the aircraft was in the Singapore FIR, and that the wreckage is most probably located within the Australian SAR region, perhaps a new search could begin with authorisation from the Singporean and Australian governments, as long as there was no official objection from Malaysia, China, Indonesia or any other interested regional states.
Infrasound is a subject that seems to have been drowned out by other noises in recent years.
As the quest for “new evidence” remains, I think a fresh look at Infrasound records is warranted, as a possible source of such evidence, since it appears that at the time, such data was mostly secret.
Has that data been declassified for 7/8th March 2014 yet ?
@ventus45,
A complete analysis would comprise the full CTBTO data set (without gaps) from HA01 Cape Leeuwin, HA04 La Crozet Islands and HA08 Diego Garcia. There is scientific data from the Australian IMOS system and secret military data from the US SOSUS system. There are infrasound stations at IS04 Shannon Australia, IS06 Cocos Islands and IS23 Kerguelen Islands, that may add useful information to the hydroacoustic stations.
Usama Kadri published the Cardiff University findings in Nature on 2nd May 2024. Out of about two decades of hydroacoustic data available from the CTBTO, a comprehensive study was undertaken of 100 hours of data identified as having the potential for containing signals pertaining to acoustic signatures of aircraft crashing into the sea. Ten historical aircraft accidents that occurred in open sea locations were selected for this study.
The idea was first put forward in 2014 by Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University, Australia who is cited in the new research. Nature published an article on 12th June 2014 titled “Sound clue in hunt for MH370”, but the results were inconclusive.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) has hydrophone stations around the Indian Ocean. Dr. Tom Kunkle, Dr. Richard Stead and Dr. Ed Fenimore of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA have also analysed the data and also say the results are inconclusive.
My co-author Prof. Simon Maskell is the Scientific Advisor to Ocean Infinity for the recently proposed underwater search for MH370 planned for November 2024. He has a member of his team looking at the CTBTO data. Simon reports that it doesn’t look like there’s any positive evidence of the sensors having a confirmed detection of having “heard” the aircraft hit the sea. However, he thinks we can use that “negative information” to help localise the search area. He has someone using models for acoustic propagation through the oceans assessing whether there is anything useful we can extract from the data and the lack of data.
There would only have been noise for the sensors if there was a high speed impact. This “negative information” would support that there was a controlled ditching.
@John Finlay,
I disagree. There would only be noise for the sensors if there was a high speed impact and a SOFAR channel clear of obstacles and the noise was not contaminated by underwater seismic events (Earthquakes, Volcanoes), exploration companies setting of explosives when conducting seismic surveys or ice breaking off from the Antarctic.
The speed of sound in the ocean varies with depth. In the deep ocean at mid-latitudes, the slowest sound speed occurs at a depth of about 800 to 1000 meters and creates the SOund Fixing And Ranging (SOFAR) channel.
Sound is focused in the sound channel because the sound waves are continually bent, or refracted, towards the region of lower sound speed. The SOFAR channel acts like a wave guide for the sound.
The way in which sound speed changes with depth is not the same everywhere in the ocean because the ocean temperature and salinity profiles that determine sound speed can differ greatly from one location in the ocean to another.
Whenever sound reflects from the rough ocean surface or seafloor, some sound energy is scattered and lost. A sound wave that hits the ocean surface or seafloor many times will be too weak to be detected.
Sound that does not hit the ocean surface or seafloor will still lose energy to absorption. Low-frequency sounds lose very little energy to absorption, however. The result is that low-frequency sounds that do not interact with the ocean surface or seafloor can be detected after traveling long distances through the ocean.
The amount of absorption increases as the frequency of the sound increases, and higher frequency sounds are therefore only detectable at shorter distances. The distances at which sounds can be detected depend on the frequency, how loud the source is, and how loud the background (ambient) noise is.
Sound waves traveling in the sound channel follow many different paths. When the sound source and receiver are located at the depth of the sound speed minimum, called the SOFAR or sound channel axis, sound waves travel nearly straight down the axis and cycle above and below the axis, almost reaching both the surface and bottom.
Although sound travels away from a sound source in all directions, only sound traveling away from a source on paths that leave the source at specific angles will reach a receiver at a specific location. The sound waves traveling on these different paths have slightly different travel times. A single explosive source will therefore be heard as a number of separate arrivals, leading to the characteristic signature of a SOFAR transmission building up to a climax.
Sound paths from a source near the surface come together, or converge, creating regions of higher sound pressure at about the same depth as the source every 50-60 km away from it. These regions of higher sound pressure are called convergence zones. In between the convergence zones, there are regions of lower sound pressure called shadow zones.
In addition to the complexities of detecting the crash of MH370 in the SOFAR channel, there is evidence from the 41 floating debris finds recovered to date, which show a large scale disintegration of the aircraft. There are items of debris from the interior and exterior and from every part of the aircraft, nose to tail, fuselage to wings. This was not a soft landing or controlled ditching, like the Hudson River ditching, where the aircraft remained largely intact.
Hi Richard, I’m impressed of your work.
just a question: what location coordinate of new search MH370 will start on November, 2024?
Are OI ships in Singapore planning to send ships into the Indian Ocean search area independently of Malaysia in any case during November 2024?
@Edward,
Welcome to the blog!
I do not know whether OI will send ships into the Indian Ocean search area independently of Malaysia during November 2024. Up until now, OI has maintained the position, that they want an agreement with Malaysia and they want compensation if they find MH370.
What I do know is that three OI Armada ships 7804, 7806 and 7808 are currently all moored in the same dock in Singapore harbour. I do not believe that OI would keep three ships on hold, without a reasonable hope of reaching an agreement for a further underwater search for MH370.
Legal question: if OI (or anyone else) retrieves the FDR and CVR without having been commissioned to do so by Malaysia, who would get to decide where and by whom they were analysed?
And on a similar note, did anyone other than the Malaysian authorities get to analyse the hard drive from the captain’s flight simulator?
Duncan,
Welcome to the blog!
My understanding of salvage law is that Malaysia is the owner of the MH370 wreckage including the FDR and CVR. Therefore Malaysia will determine who will analyse the contents.
The ATSB has made it clear that the hard drive from the Captain’s home flight simulator was analysed by the FBI as well as the Malaysian authorities.
@Richard, thanks for your reply.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to admit that Malaysia’s delaying tactics certainly give the impression (whether rightly or wrongly) that they don’t want to uncover the truth. It follows that they’re the last people who should be entrusted with examining the FDR and CVR.
If OI go it alone (or with non-Malaysian sponsorship), and are successful, there’s a strong case to be made that they should give the FDR and CVR to the AAIB or the FAA before they even announce that the plane has been found. That would present Malaysia with a fait accompli.
Unfortunalely, I don’t expect this will happen because it would probably kill OI’s chance of any future work for Malaysia or Petronas.
@Richard
In Criminal Matters,
“THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF EVIDENCE IS PARAMOUNT”.
If the wreck site of MH370 is eventually found, and if the physical state of the wreckage is clearly prima facie evidence of an attempted piloted alighting (successfully per Cactus 1549, or not so successfully per Ethiopian 961) then the site instantly becomes a crime scene, not an accident site, and it’s discovery must be immediately reported to the country with legal coverage of that location, which, assuming it is found east of 75 degrees east longitude, is Australia.
As a crime scene, the site may not be further surveyed or tampered with in any way, without the specific approval of, and the direct oversite of, the appropriate legal / police / coronial / judicial authorities.
You will remember that when AF447 was found, the French Police were there, on the boat, and took immediate custody of those boxes, transported them back to France, where the legal authorities got the BEA to download them, under their direct authority and supervision.
You will remember that in the case of TWA800 the FBI took command of the scene, and the NTSB had to play second fiddle until such time as the FBI determined that it was not a criminal event after all.
In short, in events where there is clear and compelling circumstantial evidence that a crime has or most probably has been committed, legal crime scene procedures apply.
In this case, if there is anything bigger than the engine cores or the MLG’s, neither salvage law nor Annex 13 will apply.
@ventus45,
International law that underpins international air transport and that is relevant to the search for the missing airliner MH370 and the investigation of what caused the accident is complex. If MH370 was harmed deliberately, then international law is even more complex.
Criminal investigations and legal proceedings have been initiated in Malaysia, Australia, China, France, US and by Interpol. The US legal proceedings in the court in the District of Columbia were closed on 21st November 2018, deferring jurisdiction to the courts in Malaysia, but the FBI investigation is still open. Judiciary proceedings are ongoing in France. The Interpol investigation is also still open. There are legal proceedings in several countries regarding compensation.
International law is based on a number of Conventions, Declarations, Protocols and Cases. These include inter alia the Paris Convention 1919, the Warsaw Convention 1929, the Chicago Convention 1944, the Rome Convention 1952, the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970 and the Montreal Convention 1971. Each convention defines the rights and responsibilities of the signatories to that convention.
The Chicago Convention established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which became a UN agency in 1947. Aircraft accident and incident investigation is covered by Annex 13 of the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices.
International law differentiates between the state of occurrence of an accident and the state of registration of the aircraft involved in the accident.
MH370 is either known to have passed through or possibly passed through the airspace of a number of states including Malaysia, Singapore (delegated to Malaysia), Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka and Australia. At which point the accident or incident occurred is unknown and the final location is unknown. The occurrence was after MH370 left Malaysian airspace and the final location is highly likely in Australian airspace. In any event MH370 crashed in international waters. In the event that the state of occurrence is unknown, then the state of registration (Malaysia) must take responsibility for the investigation.
MH370 was possibly subject to an act of hijacking or terrorism and the 239 passengers and crew were victims of the possible hijacking or terrorism. The passengers came from China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, India, France, US, New Zealand, Canada, Ukraine, Iran, Netherlands, Russia and Taiwan. All these countries have a legitimate interest in the investigation and can issue legal criminal proceedings if a hijacking or terrorism is suspected.
The cause of the accident is not known. Anyone may search in international waters for MH370, but I agree that no one can disturb, interfere or remove any of the wreckage without the agreement of the state of registration. Malaysia may ask other countries to help with the investigation and this is already the case with the US (FBI, NTSB and Boeing), Australia (ATSB and DSTG), France (BEA and Thales) and UK (AAIB and Inmarsat).
Any attempt to remove MH370 wreckage without the agreement of the state of registration would be illegal under international law.
I just wanted to say my point of view that we should put a stop to it in the near future and find out the coordinates of MH370. As I understand it, this is legal. You can be 99% sure of the success of the operation even without diving, only by taking pictures of the bottom with characteristic debris like AF447. After that, Malaysia will not be able to keep silent and one way or another the wreckage will be investigated, as well as the black boxes.
Personally, I hope that the OI and the government will be able to agree on an acceptable cost for this search and a compromise will be found, especially if ICAO or philanthropists are also ready to help. So what I meant was that the OI could do the most important thing at the moment – point out the specific resting place of MH370, reawaken widespread interest in this disaster and make it impossible for Malaysia to behave as if nothing had happened.
@Richard @Edward
As I understand it, anyone may look for it, whether in international waters or not, but no one who finds it may actually touch it (interfere with the scene) until, and unless, they are specifically authorized by the appropriate legal authority to do so.
Notwithstanding your extensive list of the various “conventions” in place regarding aviation “occurrences, incidents and accidents”, (which I have not delved into in any depth) it is generally agreed I presume that the location of the wreckage determines the jurisdiction of the state responsible for the investigation of “accidents” (emphasized). That state may delegate responsibility to another country’s aviation “accident” investigative agency if it so chooses.
However, the point I am laboring is this. “A crime is not an accident, period”. A criminal investigation is an entirely different legal animal to an accident investigation.
If the prima facie evidence is as I stated, the state of legal jurisdiction is the state where the physical “evidence” (wreckage) lays. That state’s laws apply, and they cannot be delegated to another state. It is that state’s responsibility to secure the evidence, and investigate the crime, no matter whether it is initially presumed to be a murder suicide / hijack or terrorist event.
Whether or not that state of physical legal jurisdiction invites other legal jurisdictions to assist or participate in the investigation (and you have listed many who may well want to) is another matter entirely, but the owner of the vehicle, or even the state of registration of the vehicle in question, has nothing to do with it.
So, I repeat, if it is found east of 75 degrees east longitude, it will Australia’s responsibility, and initially (I presume) it will be the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police to both establish “the crime scene” and supervise the collection of “the evidence”. What happens after that is for the legal eagles alone, not politicians or bureaucrats.
@ventus45,
Search and Rescue
Australia’s international search and rescue responsibilities are substantial. Australia’s international Search and Rescue Region covers some 52.8 million square km in the Southern Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, and South West Pacific Ocean, an area spanning over one tenth of the Earth’s surface. The same boundaries apply for both aviation and maritime search and rescue. It is within this area that the projected flight path of MH370 falls, calculated from the BTO and BFO analysis of MH370’s ping signals exchanged with the Inmarsat satellite, and where search activities have previously and are now planned to take place.
The surface search was an excellent example of international cooperation, with countries assisting in the search by providing military and civilian ships and aircraft including Australia, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, the UK, the USA, and Vietnam. The ATSB managed an extensive underwater search covering 200,000 km2 and this was followed up by Ocean Infinity with an equally extensive search adding coverage of another 200,000 km2.
The Malaysian government requested assistance under the Five Power Defence Arrangements, which were established in 1971 between Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom, by way of a series of bilateral agreements. Its headquarters, styled the Integrated Area Defence System, is at Butterworth Air Force base in Malaysia. All the Five Power states deployed ships or aircraft to assist in the surface search.
The underwater search was as a result of a tripartite agreement between Malaysia, Australia and China and was led by Australia. The search came to an end on 29th May 2018.
Search and rescue responsibility is not the same as the responsibility for an aircraft accident or incident investigation, which in turn is not the same as jurisdiction for a criminal investigation.
Investigation
Paragraph 5.1 of Annex 13 provides that: The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation to another State or a regional accident investigation organisation by mutual arrangement and consent. The location of the wreckage does not automatically determine the jurisdiction responsible for the investigation.
Paragraph 5.3 of Annex 13 provides that: When the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State, the State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation of the accident or serious incident. However, it may delegate the whole or any part of the investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent.
MH370 is officially missing, the cause of the accident or incident is unknown and the location of the wreckage is not known. If the location of the wreckage is discovered, then it would be up to the State of Registration to determine any recovery and investigation. Australia has always made it clear that they are assisting the Malaysians in their investigation.
The current search area is hundreds of kilometres west of Perth, not merely outside Australian territorial waters, but on the high seas far beyond the 200 nautical mile limit of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone and legal jurisdiction.
Yet if what occurred was a serious mechanical failure over the Gulf of Thailand that left the crew incapacitated and the aircraft flying on autopilot until it ran out of fuel in the Indian Ocean, that failure may amount to an ‘accident’ within the meaning of Annex 13, it being an occurrence associated with the operation of the aircraft in which ‘the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which … adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft’.
In the event of an accident, article 26 provides that ‘the State in which the accident occurs will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident’ in so far as possible in accordance with any procedure recommended by ICAO. The state of registration has the right to have observers present at the inquiry. Territorial sovereignty means that it is inevitable that the state in which the incident occurs should have primacy in conducting the investigation. An article 26 inquiry has not been instituted by Australia as the location of the occurrence is outside its territorial borders.
In accordance with the Malaysian Civil Aviation Regulation (MCAR 1996) and ICAO Annex 13, an independent international investigation team comprising 19 Malaysians and 7 Accredited Representatives (ARs) of 7 safety investigation authorities from 7 countries was established by the Malaysian Minister of Transport to investigate the disappearance of MH370.
The ARs appointed are from the:
• Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of United Kingdom.
• Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) of Australia.
• Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la Sécurité de l’Aviation civile (BEA) of France.
• Civil Aviation Administration of the People’s Republic of China (CAAC).
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of United States of America.
• National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) of Indonesia.
• Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) of Singapore.
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/search-for-mh370-to-restart-based-on-credible-proposal-says-malaysia
My knowledge of the physics involved isn’t sufficient to take a view as to whether the WSPR technique is viable or not, but it would be a great advertisement for the country if the British solution proved to be the correct one.
So good luck Richard!