Ocean Infinity presented a new MH370 underwater search proposal to Anthony Loke, the Malaysian Minister of Transport in Kuala Lumpur on 2nd May 2024. Anthony Loke said that based on discussions held on Thursday, the company had submitted a proposal paper along with evidence and information for examination by the relevant parties under his ministry.
Josh Broussard, the Chief Technology Officer, of Ocean Infinity led the team making the presentation, together with their Commercial Manager.
Pete Foley, the former ATSB search director, also attended the meeting in Malaysia. Pete has been campaigning for a new search for several years and is advising Ocean Infinity on the new search.
Prof. Simon Maskell, from Liverpool University, is a scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity and was also in attendance at the meeting. Simon leads a team investigating the possibility of using WSPR to detect and track aircraft. Simon plans to add the WSPR data to the particle filter developed by the Australian Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) described in their book titled “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370” in order to refine the new MH370 search area.
The new search for MH370 is expected to start in November 2024. Anthony Loke said the whole process of examining the new proposal, including cabinet approval would take about three months. Two representatives of the Association for Families of the Passengers and Crew on board MH370 also attended the meeting. The Association welcomed the new proposal and thanked everyone involved.
@Richard,
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Malaysia from April 15th – April 17th 2025..
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/13/xi039s-visit-to-malaysia-sparks-hopes-for-stronger-ties-boost-in-high-tech-investments
@Jafni,
Next thing you know, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announce an agreement between China and Malaysia to search for MH370. 🥹😂
@Richard
Many a true word said in jest!
When this Chinese ship turned up I did wonder whether the Malaysians might have signed a contract with them rather than OI, but I dismissed the idea because it wasn’t something anyone had suggested.
However, it would explain much: OI’s silence, the departure of Armada 78 06 from the search area, and Loke’s rather cagey statement in the Star TV clip that the contract had been signed the previous week, but without naming the counterparty.
Whatever the contractural position it’s now obvious that the Chinese are searching for MH370, so would you prefer the WSPR hotspot to be searched by the Chinese this season, or OI next season?
@Duncan,
I am a straight forward person and I like things to be done in a straight forward manner.
I do not appreciate stoney silence from Ocean Infinity, nor cagey statements from the Malaysian Minister of Transport.
I do not expect the Malaysians to have signed a contract, either publicly or secretly, with both Ocean Infinity and the Chinese government.
Frankly, I would like MH370 to be found and the mystery of its disappearance to be solved, by whomsoever, whenever, wherever and however. Whatever the outcome.
I follow the old adage, first come, first serve.
In my book, Ocean Infinity has shown willing since 2018. The Chinese have a right to search anyway, especially since Armada 7806 left for its home port Singapore. If the Chinese leave the MH370 search area without a result, then I would welcome any other organisation with the capability to search for MH370 to take up the open challenge to find MH370.
I notice that Ninetyeast Ridge (30 S, 87 E) is listed as a priority bathymetric survey area for the Seabed 2030 project and that “relatively close to MH370 search area” is mentioned under “other considerations”.
https://seabed2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AtlanticIndian_CallforDecadeActionsNo2.pdf
(page 6)
Bathymetric survey equipment may be back in the area and OI is listed as a project partner.
Richard, recently you mentioned that the air conditioning airflow seems higher than expected. Looking into the Boeing maintenance manual I tend to agreed with you. The mass flow rate should be about 300lb/min. As you point out the MH370 ACARS report has a mass flow rate of about 435lb/min(I’m assuming the report lb/s is an error).
As you point out, this increase could be explained by 2 of the 4 recric fans being switched off, the increase in flow rate is 67lb/min/fan.
Fuel flow increases .3% per off fan.
If this is the case we don’t know why the fans were off. It may have been a normal procedure for Malaysian pilots to do this, to improve air quality for some reason.
Back in early 2024, the Malaysian Transport Minister (LOKE) announced his enthusiasm about a new MH370 search by Ocean Infinity TO BE AWARDED BASED UPON THERE BEING NEW CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. He restated the intention to award a “no find/ no fee” contract for an O.I. search planned to begin in November 2024. However, 3.5 months later, the Malaysian Cabinet was still dilly-dallying over actually awarding a contract, with a Cabinet Paper later released stating that a contract was being prepared, but that “a few critical items” were still under active consideration. In April 25, a much “cagier” Minister Loke claimed that an agreement had been reached. Later he stated that an actual contract had been signed. Soon after this, the O.I. search vessel departed the area of the 7th ARC for the Northern hemisphere. Loke’s interpretation was that O.I. would return to recommence their search in November 2025. Meanwhile the sophisticated Chinese subsea research vessel Tan Suo Yi Huo turned up to start scanning the 7th ARC area with AUV’s (only a few days after Ocean Infinity’s Armada 7806 had departed the area).
What construct should one put upon this weird chain of events and contrived delays? What might be happening behind the scenes? There have been many opinions that Malaysia has no enthusiasm for locating the MH370 debris field. Why?
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaF4800en18
The Chinese research vessel is still underway in the Broken Ridge area:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7saga2o0ibwpyez7es5vy/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-14APR2025-0557-UTC.png?rlkey=lo91tx2kq57wpxaazpp8gb32k&dl=0
We ran a survey of viewers on our YouTube channel and 734 people responded to the question: “What do you believe happened to MH370 ?” The result was that 88% of the respondents believe it was a murder/suicide by the Captain Zaharie Shah.
4% said hijacker, 4% fire, 2% co-pilot and 2% multiple aircraft failures.
Hi Richard,
You’ve been very keen to say that all the search areas around the seventh arc should be looked at, and I think that is the right approach to take, yet I am guessing that deep down you feel the others can’t be correct if your WSPR analysis is? Would the discovery of MH370 in one of the other search areas (or an area outside all of them!) negate your findings, or would it be possible to reconcile them? Setting aside critics’ personal animus as a reason for not believing WSPR can be used as a tracking tool, is there one particular criticism that has given you most pause for thought?
@Paul,
Welcome to the blog!
We are still in the research phase on WSPR.
We listen carefully to all our critics and take each point seriously.
If MH370 is found in the WSPR area, it will be a milestone in the development of this new technology and will encourage Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and myself to further research and development.
If not, we will congratulate the finders, revisit our assumptions and check our calculations.
@Richard
To be honest, I am looking forward if TSYH does move in to WSPR hotspot..
Thank you for your daily work on your blog and the daily updates together with Geoffrey on YouTube.
I fully share your view that it is no longer a question of who and when, but that MH370 will finally be found.
China commissioned a new search vessel at the end of 2024. Like the two older ones, it operates on behalf of the Institute of Deep Sea Science and Engineering CAS.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/29/WS677146b0a310f1265a1d57d1_1.html
All the equipment currently in use can be found on the institute’s website.
https://english.idsse.cas.cn/pf/ships/
@AvantX670,
Welcome to the blog!
Great information.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7sdblobea8n9r1com2ex7/TSYH-Equipment-Overview.png?rlkey=c5unxn7fomv9r6l9ucg34x7vk&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://youtu.be/uM3RnmQoweo
Armada 7806 is heading towards the Northern Philippines. The Philippines and several other nations including Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia have a long standing dispute with China about their territorial waters in the South China Sea.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/501snjo9qk1evrdhkdvlw/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-15APR2025-0450-UTC.png?rlkey=ar2ffgeydojjoi09gzthywmdv&dl=0
The Philippines assert they have an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nmi around their territory marked in a solid line on the following screenshot and the Chinese claim the original boundary is the dotted line. The Spratly Islands, Scarborough Shoal and the Thomas Shoal fishing grounds are disputed.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/44gx000ifutoqpbqf1dhf/Territorial-Waters-Dispute-in-the-South-China-Sea.png?rlkey=7paebxiv2v1zr2ov85giotm1f&dl=0
TSYH is still in the Indian Ocean near the 7th Arc, but has moved away around 50 nmi from the 7th Arc back along the Broken Ridge, where it again stopped and is showing a restricted status. The most Western point along its path was exactly on the 7th Arc, where the UWA hot spot is also located at the Southern most part of the UWA search area. TSYH is launching or recovering AUVs or HOVs once again along the Broken Ridge. TSYH is showing the typical pattern in restricted status.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mhq9pu2m60gejpoflvql4/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-15APR2025-0529-UTC.png?rlkey=ovhgqux8qz1db6ect6pp6g2ty&dl=0
Dear Richard,
On page 18 of the MH370 Safety Investigation Report issued on 2 July 2018, the following statement appears:
“From 1730:37 UTC [0130:37 MYT] to 1752:35 UTC [0152:35 MYT], what appeared to be MH370 was captured on KL ACC primary radar, coded as P3362, P3401, P1415, P3415 and P3426 (P signifies Primary Radar)”.
Appreciate your thoughts on the following:
Q1) Why would the blip appearing on KL primary radar identify 5 different codes at different points of time for the same flight?
Q2) Are these perhaps different aircraft flying in close proximity to MH370 and at different heights? And if so, why does the report conclude that all the 5 codes relate to MH370?
thanks very much
@Veritas256,
The codes assigned appear to be a running number from the system for each separate detection. P3415 is named P3451 in the text that follows and is a typo. P1415 is not mentioned in the text elsewhere.
In Figure 1.1F and 1.1G the detections by other radar systems are coded P1778, P1793, P1805 and P1812. Each piece of the flight path is given a separate number. They then join the pieces, when the track and speed both match during the gap in between.
The secondary radar with identification of flight MH370 ceased when the transponder was switched off in the cockpit, but primary military and civilian radar still tracked MH370. The civilian radar has been released, but the military radar has never been released.
Richard,
I have been interested in the mystery of MH370 since the day it disappeared. I find it incredible that your track according to WSPR data is so detailed showing many turns. It’s also amazing that it intersects each of the 7 arcs when expected according to INMARSAT handshakes. It seems that your WSPR track has too be correct.
However, I noticed that the flight path (MH370 Flight Path) that you show on the 7 arcs, seems to follow 4 of the arcs (2,3,4 & 5) for a considerable distance. These 4 slightly curved sections do NOT seem to be likely paths of a plane relative to a satellite unknown by the pilot of the plane. How could he be following that slightly curved path at each of these 4 arcs?
Are these curved sections of the plane’s path a result of sparse data for these sections of the flight path or a result of some other contributing issue?
Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You for such a huge effort in trying to locate MH370.
Mark
@Mark W,
Welcome to the blog!
In the Indian Ocean, MH370 followed a flight path always to a waypoint, but never joined a flight route. MH370 made a number of turns, but at each turn tracked towards another waypoint. Each time an aircraft turns, the effect of the wind will result in an adjustment of the heading in order to maintain a particular track. This adjustment will depend on the strength of the cross wind component, but is usually quite small.
The Arcs are circles, but with a very large radius. Any appearance of following a curve is an illusion, as the lines are drawn as straight lines between the turning points by the computer program.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOircLmBCXs
Armada 7806 is heading around the Northern Philippines and will be arriving at its destination soon.
TSYH is back tracking along Broken Ridge and reached the point where it stopped for AUV or HOV operations on 7th April, 9 days ago. It is now heading North West over Broken Ridge, but still showing a restricted status.
Prof. Simon Maskell gave an interview, which is reported today in The Diplomat.
“The analysis we did indicated that there are three explanations that appear to be approximately equally consistent with the information we had at the time: there is a chance that a freak accident occurred and the crew were unable to communicate or land the aircraft elsewhere, or it was a murder-suicide with the murderer alive when the descent occurred, or a murder-suicide with the murderer no longer alive when the descent occurred.”
“Given the plane has not been found and the area that has been searched is underpinned by assumptions that involve there being no human intervention during the descent, it now seems more plausible that there was human intervention during the descent, that therefore slightly nudges up the probability that there was someone alive in the cockpit during the descent.”
“However, all three explanations remain commensurately likely.”
“While it transpires that our calculations indicate that an accident would be a commensurately rare event to there being a successful attempt at murder-suicide, all the explanations imply
that something like this happens very rarely indeed.”
does the new search area cover the area that is indicated by WSPR?
@freddie,
Welcome to the blog!
The new search is expected to get underway later this year around November, when the weather improves in the Southern Hemisphere.
The search for MH370 is expected to cover a number of areas, that have been proposed by various experts, including a search area based on the WSPR data analysis.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1Z19946y4
Armada 7806 is still underway to the East of the Philippines and is heading out into the Pacific Ocean.
TYSH is still going backwards and forwards along Broken Ridge in restricted status.
Today we look at what information about MH370 is not in the public domain.
There is a large volume of data, that might be helpful in solving the mystery of the disappearance of MH370, 11 years after the event.
This ranges from military intelligence to individual eye witness accounts.
Radio, radar, satellite and mobile phone data.
Aircraft sightings, ship sightings and debris finds.
Seismic, hydroacoustic, tsunami early warning system data.
CCTV, emails, social media and home flight simulator data.
@Richard
https://www.facebook.com/MH370Families
How do you understand the report from the Family group on Facebook that there was an actual “search” going on from March 25th to March 28th ?
Does that mean that there was search following a survey that indicated something more ?
If they are talking about the survey, why just mention those 3 days although the ship stayed longer in the zone ?
@Luca,
The report is from the Malaysian Airlines System (MAS), which is part of the Malaysia Aviation Group.
Please see the headline of the report in the link you are referencing:
“An update to the families from the MAS Family Support Centre, Malaysia Aviation Group”.
This is “to” the families and not “from” the families, as you say.
@Luca
Thanks for posting the link to this very interesting document. Three points:
(1) Can you, @Richard or anyone else find the document on any Malaysian Government or MAS website? I can’t, so in case it disappears I suggest Richard uploads it to Dropbox and posts his own link to it.
(2) Assuming the document is genuine, the numbers in the the table are so precise that they can only have come from Ocean Infinity, and I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t have released this information unless they had a contract. So why have they STILL not announced that contract?
(3) The document seems to have been knocked up and released in great haste, as evidenced by the author’s failure to use the tab key after 2.0, 3.0, 3.2, 4.0 and 4.3. This would have taken just a few seconds to correct, so why the failure to do so?
@Duncan,
(1) A Google Image search does not find the document on any Malaysian Government or MAS website:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nq8x3x5ttu42ds3boyhzw/Google-Image-Search-17APR2025.png?rlkey=ia3pqccw11ojbih9dy6bk0ep4&dl=0
Here is a direct link to the document:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8egyyi5uhcos9c8ajj9xl/Facebook-Page-17APR2025-0251-CET-screenshot.png?rlkey=x5z71a2otyfd18muowo7bc5ok&dl=0
(2) There is still no announcement from Ocean Infinity concerning a new search for MH370. If the table of data came from Ocean Infinity, as you suggest, then the Ocean Infinity PR people are Celicourt Communications (London, UK) and The MTM Agency (Southampton, UK). Celicourt and MTM use UK English for all their work. Why does the report, then use American English, such as “demobilization” and “favor” ?
(3) I cannot find any press release or public statement from Ocean Infinity with spelling mistakes such as “AUVsfrom” or “inearly” or formatting errors, as you point out.
I find it strange, that the Malaysian Airlines System (MAS) Family Support Centre and the Malaysia Aviation Group (wholly owned by the Malaysian government) has now taken over the PR function for Ocean Infinity from Celicourt (who show a testimonial from Oliver Plunkett on their website) or MTM. In my view, it would be nice if the search operator would make a statement about the search operations.
I have sent an email to Ocean Infinity, Celicourt Communications and MTM asking for clarification.
Hi Richard,
I was wondering… if the aircraft was found by Ocean Infinity would you receive any remuneration for the significant work you did to identify a new search area?
I know the more important thing is finding the aircraft for the family to bring closure but after the dust settles surely you’d deserve a proportion of the 70m.
All assuming it’s located in the area you’ve identified.
Has anyone approached TYSH’s handlers, or Chinese authorities, to ask for comment? In caution I think it would require the asker to have a native appreciation of the nuances of the language. I once wrote to a Chinese Ebay seller to thank them for their excellent service, using an online translation service. They did not understand what I thought was my simple thanks, and I received an endless supply of apologies and complimentary stuffed toys.
@Chris L
No unfortunately he won‘t get anything (I asked the same question a few weeks ago).
@Richard
I too find the posting of the families weird. It‘s not clear at all what was going on there between february and 25th march. And also between 25th and 28th march there seems to be inconclusive information.
Also in the comments on Facebook are the same persons as always stating that there never was a bathy survey and also that the ship itself would use sonar for this. As far as I know the ship itself can not do this and needs AUV/ROV… for any kind of operation, is that correct?
@Cessi and @ChrisL,
Many thanks for the kind thought, but I am not looking for a financial reward.
@Cessi,
There are many ways to conduct a bathymetric survey, using satellites, ships, deep towed devices or AUVs.
Echo sounders, sonars, radar, lidar, satellite optical spectral sensors, doppler sensors, etc.
Ocean Infinity published a paper on using AUVs for bathymetric surveys and claim this is both accurate and efficient.
ROVs are only used for investigating specific areas of interest in a bathymetric survey.
A ship can perform a bathymetric survey by using devices attached the bottom of the ship’s hull.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qq2nz-Lv6M
Armada 7806 arrived on 17th April at 08:35 UTC at its destination East of the Philippines, around 143 nmi (265 km) off the coast of Northern Philippines. This location is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nmi from the coast. Armada 7806 is just North of the East Luzon Trough or Trench, where the water is around 5,500 m deep. The Philippines Energy Plan 2018 to 2040 has identified a number of new survey areas for oil and gas exploration.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3s823jw0twgn4a813tq90/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-20APR2025-0431-UTC.png?rlkey=vozxhem1bj1c46s4tk6p461ww&dl=0
TYSH has departed the Broken Ridge area and is heading home for Sanya in China. TYSH left on 19th April at 00:30 UTC and is expected to arrive in 11 days time on 30th April 2025.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/li7ed0vlxxy5tq3m0ogqc/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-20APR2025-0509-UTC.png?rlkey=3aar52x2vid3kmpzni3bi78lm&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD2Tkp9k5Q
How do we ensure MH370 never happens again ?
What steps is the aviation industry taking to ensure that something like MH370 does not happen again ?
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has issued a set of standards. “The Standards became applicable in Nov 2018 and were intended to provide some degree of certainty that either the ATC or the Operator was receiving regular position reports from an aircraft in flight.”
The objective was:
i. detection and subsequent tracking of aircraft in distress;
ii. identification of the accurate location of end of flight;
iii. retrieval of Flight Recorder Data; and
iv. effective Search And Rescue operations and Accident Investigation.
The ICAO introduced the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS) to ensure the position of an aircraft in distress is known every minute and the crash location would be immediately known to within 6 nmi.
Initial implementation will be limited to requiring new aircraft to be fitted with these systems. Eventually all aircraft of over 27,000 kg produced after 1st January 2024 will be required to be fitted with a distress tracking system.
There are two key types of system:
i. Autonomous Distress Tracking (ADT) systems.
Ii. Location and Data Recovery (LADR) systems.
Artex, Skytrac, Safran, Collins, Dukane and Blue Sky Network all have new ADT systems.
Honeywell, FLYHT, L3Harris, FDS Sentry all have new LADR systems or combined ADT and LADR systems
New‑build Boeing airliners are equipped with crash‑survivable ELT‑DT beacons, namely Dukane Seacom’s AeroELT DK‑406‑DT or ACR/ARTEX’s ELT 5000 DT or Blue Sky’s HawkEye ADT, which automatically transmit one‑minute position updates under distress. Boeing has also certified the Honeywell HCR-25 system for the B737, B767 and B777.
Airbus has line‑fit its latest jets with an integrated ELT‑DT beacon developed together with Safran Electronics & Defense to automatically broadcast one‑minute position updates under distress. Installations began on the A330neo in April 2023, followed by the A350 in May 2023, and the A320/A220 families by the summer 2023.
Embraer has ADT, Bombardier, Comac C919 not as standard. Smaller aircraft Beech King, Citation, Falcon, … not as standard.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oik4xi5g3rnkkl1z2cvna/Screenshot-Aircraft-with-ADT-available.png?rlkey=sd2nuqslo9vzpk9it742kaxk8&dl=0
In summary all new large aircraft will have the systems and some older aircraft depending on the airline.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4qptu5anc4b5q3q5tgag5/Screenshot-Airlines-ADT-Retrofit.png?rlkey=5k3elja0h7ha78b8kezis3ksu&dl=0
There is a long list of countries that have not yet implemented the Regulatory Framework for ICAO GADSS ADT Standard.
All European, most South American, all Middle Eastern, most Asian countries have implemented the regulation.
USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil have not.
Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, North Korea have not.
Australia, New Zealand have not.
All African countries have not.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/84twknkvc7whtove3di6i/Screenshot-Regulatory-ICAO-GADSS-ADT-Standard-Not-Implemented.png?rlkey=gj69ceo0upd4nbz9aphg0uib1&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV0XD02gTGI
Armada 7806 is still in the survey area East of the Philippines, around 143 nmi to 165 nmi off the coast of Northern Philippines. This location is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nmi from the coast.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ou7usf448kl053kbl0z8/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-23APR2025-0554-UTC.png?rlkey=clyomnx86gc2qn8lmczogbkl6&dl=0
TSYH is heading home for Sanya in China, but has stopped a number of times en route. TSYH was initially expected to arrive back home on 30th April 2025, but has now updated the ETA to 3rd May.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4nmen4j2uwk8pj5sbtyn6/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-23APR2025-0606-UTC.png?rlkey=j387uet6ih58tbv7k9wlimv3m&dl=0
We are also running another poll. The keyword is “POLL” and the question is quite simple;
“Will MH370 be found?”
If you want to participate, please leave a comment on the YouTube channel Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas, with your answer as follows:
1. Yes.
2. Neutral.
3. No.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYoItA13Ols
There were six coordinates recovered from Captain Zaharie Shah’s home flight simulator. The last coordinate is 1,249 km (674 nmi) from the 7th Arc.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/931y1xbupzn7zqf3b2did/ZS-Home-Flight-Simulator-Coordinates.png?rlkey=3p1e216e1rkcv88t2d6lzmo3a&dl=0
On 25th August 2016 Victor Iannello and I published a paper titled:
“Possible Flight Path of MH370 towards McMurdo Station, Antarctica”.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/769t2wl3a9p6soyr318v4/2016-08-25-MH370-Path-Towards-McMurdo-Station.pdf?rlkey=z0kee73f8f5rnvgll82iakmqf&dl=0
We mapped the track as defined by the coordinates found on the home flight simulator (marked in black).
We also reproduced the track in Microsoft Flight Simulator with the exact settings as explained in the paper (marked in yellow).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1ec9d1zlobftpmnxixlmh/ZS-Home-Flight-Simulator-Map.png?rlkey=o5oiapi19lh1nsag5efqyscx4&dl=0
The track in yellow crosses the 7th Arc at 26.9°S 100.6°E.
The track in black crosses the 7th Arc at 29.2°S 98.9°E.
The point where the original track defined by Captain Zaharie Shah crosses the 7th Arc is 29.2°S 98.9°E.
This point is only 56 nmi from the WSPR defined crash location at 29.128°S 99.934°E, which is 33 nmi further from the 7th Arc, because I believe the aircraft glided for around 33 nmi and possibly up to 48 nmi beyond the 7th Arc.
I mentioned yesterday an excellent paper by Victor Iannello and Yves Guillaume (an expert in Microsoft Flight Simulator) dated 29th November 2016 (a must read if you want to analyse the home flight simulation):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nfxiq0yk6ee5b7nc66bdl/2016-11-29-Further-Analysis-of-Simulator-Data-Victor-Iannello-and-Yves-Guillaume.pdf?rlkey=h29na8akua73pij5h8wuuudw9&dl=0
That was very good work on the flight sims, if not extraordinary analysis because only a partial amount of the available data was leaked. However, the work was not updated when more data became available. Except that herein, Richard has kindly guest posted my update analysis several years ago. I now feel even more convinced that the inferred NZPG destination target was probably wrong, and instead the target was the Magnetic South Pole , in other words, Magnetic Heading flight mode (CMH) not and not LNAV to NZPG Antarctica. The significance of this profound, that the actual MH370 flight may have simply followed the simulator path. This implies crossing Arc7 in the 30-31s region, probably with spare fuel. Furthermore I do not think it is too hard to see this, rather we face a body-politic more interested in searching in the wrong places, than finding MH370 (is why I said Poll=No)
@All,
Armada 7806 has left the survey area in the Philippines and is heading to Vung Tau, Vietnam, where the Ocean Infinity ship yard is located and is expected to arrive in 4 days time.
Armada 8602 is currently moored in Vung Tau.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c6u970d50va87ochaw8l5/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-25APR2025-0349-UTC.png?rlkey=mpud5wh46qlz4s5elre8ca8ot&dl=0
After eleven years the final location of MH370 remains elusoive, though the search continues and is progressing.
In searching for the remains of the aircraft it is importatnt to consider whatever fragments of data are made available.
This, of course, includes the data from the Captain’s flight simulator, which has been studied at length,
Other crumbs of useful information include the fact that MH370’s Filed Flight Plan included an incorrect ICAO code for the destination.
The Flight plan indicated that after four hours and fifty miniutes the aircraft would be at location ZPE.
ZPE, which is a valid ICAO code for Osnabruck Airport Railway Station, was used instead of ZBPE, the correct code for Beijing Capital International Airport.
The official safety investigation report recognised this error and stated that the error did not “invalidate” the flight plan.
While the ICAO code ZPE is a valid code, it is nonetheless, erroneous in the context of a flight between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing.
The error in the filed flight plan could have caused human and / or software confusion with regard to the aircraft’s intended route and destination.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utqrvemETxs
Armada 7806 has left the survey area in the Philippines and is now headed to Vung Tau, Vietnam, where it is expected to arrive in 3 days time on 29th April 2025. Vung Tau is where the Armada ships are built at the Vard Shipyard. Armada 8602 is currently moored in Vung Tau.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x5kby5isk0pm3vae3csaf/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-26APR2025-0510-UTC.png?rlkey=bsw9lzzxta7zaihbvmenm5y4x&dl=0
TSYH is heading home for Sanya in China and is close to the Sunda Strait. TSYH is expected to arrive back home on 3rd May.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gd0pl7v0do2kqg5n4xf1x/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-26APR2025-0432-UTC.png?rlkey=nouwjkhi85u0vqmwrlabf1k4q&dl=0
We have a large amount of aircraft data, engine data and environmental data from MH370. This has been analysed before, but we have now received data from a previous flight to be able to make an in-depth comparison. Many thanks to the ATSB and Inmarsat for providing the data under a Non Disclosure Agreement.
We can analyse if there was anything abnormal happening. The aircraft appears to have functioned 100% normally. The pilot in command not only deviated from the flight plan, but it appears took measures to reduce the electrical load and reduce the fuel usage.
Here is a sample of the data in the public domain from MH370:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wqln9lc7eni7hsr15jvub/MH370-Aircraft-Data.png?rlkey=yn8n7hd5rqfm42xcfkeiohbxn&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k2inrjhm4eyd4chdqo4a1/MH370-Aircraft-Environmental-Data.png?rlkey=5joycv9s24p64fui0og7gtjug&dl=0
Re:”The pilot in command not only deviated from the flight plan, but it appears took measures to reduce the electrical load and reduce the fuel usage.”
It has not yet been established whether at the time of the diversion the pilot in command, Captain Shah, was the pilot flying, the pilot monitoring. or the pilot incapacitated.
How about:
“The pilot flying not only deviated from the flight plan, but it appears took measures to reduce the electrical load and reduce the fuel usage”.
or more simply
“The pilot not only deviated from the flight plan, but it appears took measures to reduce the electrical load and reduce the fuel usage”.
@TommyL,
You state: “It has not yet been established whether at the time of the diversion the pilot in command, Captain Shah, was the pilot flying, the pilot monitoring or the pilot incapacitated.”
I disagree.
1. It has been established by Prof. Dr. H.J. Künzel of Marburg University, Germany, in his study of the MH 370 speaker recognition analysis of voices from the cockpit, in association with ACP Azari Abdul Rahman, Royal Malaysian Police Forensic Laboratory during his visit to Kuala Lumpur on 11th May to 13th May 2014, that “the speech segments contained in ATC DELIVERY, LUMPUR GROUND and LUMPUR TOWER originate from the co-pilot Mr. Fariq whereas the speech segments contained in LUMPUR APPROACH and LUMPUR RADAR (AREA) originate from captain Zahari.”
The last radio communication was therefore made by the Captain Zaharie Shah at 17:19:30 UTC “Good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero”.
2. At 17:19:30 UTC the aircraft was 15.7 km from waypoint IGARI and tracking on a bearing of 25.4°T directly towards waypoint IGARI, according to the official ADS-B data from the Terengganu Airport receiver.
3. At 17:20:33.61 UTC the ADS-B data shows loss of altitude data, when the transponder switch in the cockpit is moved to the ALT RPTG OFF position.
4. The transponder was switched off in the cockpit at 17:20:34.55 UTC, when the transponder switch in the cockpit is moved to the STBY position. This was only 65 seconds after the last radio message from Captain Zaharie Shah. The aircraft was now only 981 m from waypoint IGARI and the timing of the transponder being switched off coincides exactly with passing waypoint IGARI.
5. The co-pilot’s mobile phone was detected at 17:52:27 UTC over Penang Island, around 32 minutes later.
6. Meanwhile the flight MH370 had been diverted back across Malaysia.
7. If the cabin was depressurised, then oxygen masks are deployed in the cabin automatically, which will give around 20 minutes supply, which is designed to be enough time to descend to 10,000 feet, where you can breathe normally.
8. The pilot and co-pilot (if in the cockpit) are supposed to don their emergency full face oxygen masks within 5 seconds.
My working hypothesis is the following sequence:
(a) Co-pilot left the cockpit and was locked out around 17:19:30 UTC, but before 17:20:35 UTC.
(b) Captain Zaharie Shah switched off the transponder, SATCOM, IFE and cabin phones and messaging and diverted the aircraft.
(c) Captain Zaharie Shah donned emergency his oxygen mask and depressurised the aircraft.
(d) Co-Pilot grabbed a portable oxygen bottle, when the cabin masks deployed.
(e) Co-pilot realised he was locked out of the cockpit and the aircraft was not descending, so activated his mobile phone as a last resort to try and communicate.
(f) Co-pilot used a second and possibly a third portable oxygen bottle (there were a total of 15 on MH370) and was still alive and trying to communicate at 17:52:27 UTC over Penang Island.
(g) The passenger oxygen lasts only 20 minutes and even less, if there is no descent towards 10,000 feet.
(h) No mobile connection is possible at the location of the diversion because the aircraft is out of range of any mobile phone towers. In 2014 the typical maximum range of a mobile phone was 35 km at ground level and substantially less at 35,000 feet.
(i) Kota Bharu airport civilian radar, the Terminal Area Radar (TAR), picked up an aircraft thought to be MH370 at 17:30:53 UTC, when the aircraft is 106.8 km from the radar.
(j) It is not until 17:36:35 UTC that the aircraft is ≤ 20 km from the coast and possibly still at 35,000 feet or possibly even higher.
Neither Captain Zaharie Shah, nor the co-pilot appeared incapacitated at the time of the diversion. Captain Zaharie Shah made radio contact 62 seconds beforehand and the co-pilot activated his mobile phone, which was either powered off or in flight mode.
The fact that the co-pilot’s mobile phone was activated is an indication that he was trying to communicate. The regulations state, that mobile phones should be switched off, but we know Captain Zaharie Shah last WeChat activity was at 00:40 UTC after the aircraft had departed the gate and was lined up on the take off runway. The co-pilot was on his last flight before becoming fully certified on the Boeing 777 and would be careful not to break the rules. If the co-pilot was not locked out of the cockpit, then he would not reactivate his mobile phone. He must have had a reason.
In the space of 62 seconds and synchronised with passing waypoint IGARI on the FIR border and knowing the last radio contact with Lumpur Radar had taken place, it is extremely unlikely for a third party hijacker to take over control of the aircraft. My conclusion is that Captain Zaharie Shah was in control of the aircraft and locked the co-pilot out of the cockpit.
Pre take-off, in accordance with standard MAS procedures, according to the safety report, the First Officer was in charge of communications, and the Captain was controlling aircraft.
After take-off these roles reversed. The Captain took over responsibility for communications and monitoring, and the First Officer became the pilot flying.
Sixty-two seconds before diversion all available evidence suggests that the First Officer was the pilot flying and that the Captain was the pilot monitoring.
There is very little evidence to show who or what directed the aircraft to divert from its scheduled flight path.
There are many theories, most based around the ‘containing narrative structure’ of the mass murder suicide by the Captain.
If the audio evidence of the pilot who believed he heard the garbled voice of the First Officer is ignored or sidelined, then there is no audio evidence that the roles of pilot flying and pilot monitoring were switched back to their pre-take-off designations.
https://www.mh370search.com/2023/02/26/the-ongoing-search-for-mh370/comment-page-1/#comment-1978
The signal from the First Officer’s mobile phone near Penang could have arisen because his phone was switched on and was not in flight mode, perhaps even plugged into a usb socket in the cockpit or in the main cabin.
It has been noted elsewhere that the downgrading of the software controlling the Panasonic In Flight Entertainment System on the day of the flight could have left possible security vulnerabilities in the system, eg from malware covertly embedded in a mobile phone, if the phone was plugged in to the IFES via a usb socket.
Did many airlines downgrade their EPESC software on any of their aircraft close to 7th March 2014 and if so, for what reasons?
More speculatively, if a stolen, prototype “Boeing Black” secure phone was on the flight, plugged in and tampered with, could it have had unforeseen consequences?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Black
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/140302/sunday-times-2/boeing-black-this-smartphone-will-self-destruct-87218.html
Richard
In Today’s episode (26 April 2025), you mentioned an Excel file.
Grateful if you could send me the link as I am unable to see it on your website.
Best regards
@Ahmad,
Welcome to the blog!
You can find the MH370 Flight Path Model V19.8 Work Space in Excel or Numbers format at the following link:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-6/#comment-3630
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gYdRKGwGns
In the first episode of the Plane Guys, we cover the tragic Silk Air 185 crash in 1997. Geoffrey Thomas covered this crash as the South East Asian Editor for Aviation Week and Space Technology.
On December 19, 1997, SilkAir Flight MI185, a Boeing 737-300 registered as 9V-TRF, departed from Jakarta International Airport, Indonesia, bound for Singapore’s Changi Airport.
Approximately 35 minutes into the flight, the aircraft entered a rapid, nearly vertical dive
from its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, crashing into the Musi River near Palembang, Sumatra. All 104 individuals on board, 97 passengers and 7 crew members, perished in the crash.
The incident remains one of the most controversial and enigmatic in aviation history, with investigations yielding differing conclusions and sparking debates that persist to this day.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeUQqBqecBE
Today we answer some of the hundreds of questions we are getting on the YouTube channel and our websites. We also get questions by email, sms, phone calls and various social media.
For example, one person asked:
“On the YouTube channel “today I learned science” there is an interview with Jean-Luc Marchand, in English. I have much respect for M. Marchand. In the interview, he states that there is a gap of 6 years in the company medical records of Capt. Zahari Shah. Yes, 6 years. He also states that “we know there were numerous phone calls in a short lapse of time with the doctor.”
We are only given the last two routine medical reports 30th June 2003 and 3rd December 2013 in the leaked Royal Malaysian Police report. We were also given the only report of a hospitalisation and operation. This report was from 2007 for an operation on his spine to relieve a problem of lower back pain resulting from spinal compression and rhizolysis and not a routine medical report.
In my view, it is misleading to imply there was a 6 year gap in company medical records. There is no evidence that these medical checks did not take place regularly. It is possible they took place in a private clinic, like the 2007 operation, that is also not on the company records provided by Malaysian Airlines.
There is actually evidence to the contrary. No visits to the doctor, never rejected for military service on medical grounds, never rejected for insurance on medical grounds, never failed a medical on a routine pilot check.
The last medical shows the schedule for the next medical in 6 months, with a due date of 30th June 2014. The next ECG June 2014, the next hearing test June 2015, the next chest x-ray June 2017.
Although we don’t have all the routine medical reports, there were sufficient checks to establish general fitness, eyesight, hearing, no current medication or need to visit a doctor and therefore no reason to raise a concern about his ability to fly an aircraft.
@Richard Godfrey
Perhaps no physiological reason to raise a concern about his ability to fly an aircraft, but what about the other 50% of health and wellbeing, namely psychological assessments?
@John Matheson,
Welcome to the blog!
I consulted 3 doctors and showed them the last medical report of Captain Zaharie Shah from Klinik Medi-Utama dated 3rd December 2013 and leaked in the Royal Malaysian Police report.
His last medical reveals nothing negative, but the first page is self assessment and the second page looks like a very perfunctory tick box form filled out by the doctor. Head neck and scalp as well as neurology all ticked normal …
I asked a specialist doctor for neurological disorders and showed pictures of Captain Zaharie Shah over the years, which like me reveal a one sided droop in the face. This can be an issue with facial nerves or something more serious.
Her opinion is that the droop is not a problem of the facial nerves, but a brain disorder such as a TIA or small tumour. BUT, only a brain scan could confirm such a possibility and that is not part of the standard pilot’s medical check.
So we don’t know for sure.
Mental health issues can be picked up by a doctor in a medical examination, even when the patient says “I am sleeping well” or “I do not suffer anxiety attacks” or “I have never felt down or depressed” and “certainly never suffered black outs or white outs”.
This is done by observing behavioural and physical cues.
Thyroid function tests to rule out endocrine causes of mood changes. Complete blood count and metabolic panel to identify anaemia, infection, or metabolic derangements. Substance screening can be performed, if there are any signs.
Hi Richard,
Following the latest video with Geoffrey, I thought I would pass on my thoughts and my experience with regards to the F/O’s mobile phone on MH370.
When I first l learned that the F/O’s phone had been detected over Penang Island, I immediately assumed that the phone had been left switched on and most likely still in the flight deck.
I am a retired A320 Captain with 25 years experience in the airline industry. My opinion comes from observing that pilots often leave their phones switched on even though passengers are asked to switch their phones off before take-off.
Pilots frequently leave their phones either by their seat or in their flight bag when they leave the flight deck to go to the toilet or to take a break and it is quite common to hear that phone ‘ping’ as it registers a signal. It is not normal, in my experience, for a pilot to leave the flight deck temporarily with the phone in his hand. In fact, as a Captain, I might be inclined to ask him why he was taking his phone with him when, of course, it should be switched off.
The modern smart phone has become larger and larger over the years but even in 2014, its size would have been an awkward fit inside a trouser pocket.
We will likely never know for sure why the F/O’s phone was detected and I don’t discount the possibility that he was trying to contact someone for help.
I simply wanted to share my experience.
@Godfrey Jack,
Many thanks for the insight into the common practice regarding mobile phones.
I think it would be worthwhile if the people searching for the plane would consider the search area of Capt. Simon Hardy, a pilot of a 777 plane. He has calculated mathematically where he thinks the plane went down and his calculations are very impressive.
@Tina,
Simon Hardy uses a 2D print out of Google Earth, which is a true 3D globe, but not a conformal map projection.
Google Maps is a conformal Web Mercator cylindrical projection, preserving local angles, at the cost of area distortion away from the equator, but this is not used.
Google Earth is a WGS 84 ellipsoid view and not a conformal or equal-area projection. There is no intermediate planar projection involved. Google Earth displays the planet as a virtual sphere, draping satellite and aerial imagery over the non conformal projection.
Simon Hardy draws lines and measures distances on a Google Earth print out.
Simon Hardy uses a start point of waypoint ANOKO at 18:36 UTC, without explaining this assumption or providing any evidence for his start point.
He then assumes a constant heading for the rest of the flight, where we know MH370 was in constant track navigation mode up until this final turn.
He makes no mention whether this is a constant magnetic heading or a constant true heading.
He assumes no further turns, where we know MH370 made several turns prior to this point.
He also assumes a constant speed for the rest of the flight, where we know MH370 changed speed several times prior to this point.
He does not account for wind speeds and wind direction en route to the Southern Indian Ocean, which have a significant effect on ground speed and heading.
He does not make any mention of altitude or changes in altitude, which have a significant effect on true air speed and fuel consumption.
He claims his flight path matches the Inmarsat satellite derived arcs, but there are significant errors when compared to the BTO at each arc of between 45 km and 60 km, as well as significant errors in the BFO of up to 14 Hz.
Captain Simon Hardy’s flight plan (as generated in a professional flight planning system) was published on
David Learmount’s web site on the 14th December 2016.
Route Map
Route Page 1
Route Page 2
Route Page 3
Route Page 4
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv1Q3c4NctI
The normal operation of the air conditioning system on a Boeing 777 is with both air conditioning packs (left and right) AUTO and all four recirculation fans ON (upper and lower, forward and aft).
The cabin air is recirculated (25%) and ventilated overboard (75%).
Bleed air from the engine contains 21% oxygen by volume and is mixed with recirculated air from the cabin with a mix ratio typically 50% / 50%.
The mix ratio is controlled by the Environmental Control System (ECS) automatically.
There is a filtering of the recirculated cabin air to remove bacteria, viruses and particles.
There is a filtering of bleed air at high altitude to remove Ozone.
There is no oxygen replenishment or enrichment of either bleed air or recirculated air.
The reason people can faint on an aircraft is because the cabin altitude is maintained at between 6,000 feet and 8,000 feet. The partial pressure of oxygen at 7,000 feet is around 77 % of the value at sea level.
It is the same if you climb a mountain to 7,000 feet, the air is thinner and the partial pressure of oxygen is around 77%, but the oxygen volume is still 21%.
The partial pressure of oxygen at 35,000 feet is 24% and at 40,000 feet is 18%, that is why oxygen masks drop from the cabin ceiling automatically, if the cabin pressure is not maintained.
Cabin masks drop automatically when the cabin altitude reaches 13,500 feet or when the cabin oxygen switch is pushed in the cockpit.
There is no override position in the cockpit of a Boeing 777 as one private jet pilot asked, who flies into high altitude airports. There is a LDG ALT switch where you can set the landing altitude.
There are oxygen generators above each set of seats. There are two oxygen generators above the centre set of seats.
The oxygen generator is a chemical reaction to produce oxygen, which is stated by pulling on the mask which releases a pin. Once started it cannot be stopped and lasts 22 minutes.
There are more masks than passengers and crew. Masks are available in the door areas, toilets, crew areas and there is an extra mask in each set of seats.
One viewer asked why I showed only 225 passengers on MH370 and not 227. The reason is, I was talking about seat information. There were 225 seats occupied and 2 no seat infants. That is one reason for extra masks in each set of seats.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaDw26HTSno
AF447 took off from Rio de Janeiro on Monday 1st June 2009 and it was bound for Paris.
There were 216 passengers and 12 crew members on board.
The aircraft was an Airbus A330-203 manufactured in 2005.
I was working in Brazil at the time and was booked on AF447, but had to stay on business another two weeks. I rebooked on Lufthansa direct from Sao Paulo to Frankfurt.
When I heard that AF447 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, I thought there but for the grace of God, go I.
The aircraft crashed mid Atlantic.You fly for around 2 hours over Brazil following the coast, then you leave the coast of Brazil near Fortaleza and head out into the Atlantic towards the Cape Verde Islands, then Dakar, Senegal.
AF447 crashed at 02:14:28 UTC, around 3 hours 45 minutes into the flight, near waypoint TASIL on flight route UN873 at 3.1°N 30.6°W. This is 1,761 nmi from Rio and 3,231 nmi from Paris.
It took 6 days for the French and Brazilian navies to find floating debris. Around 1,000 items were eventually found and recorded in a database.
The main wreckage was located on the sea floor on 2nd April 2011, almost 3 years later, at a depth of 3,900 m. The main wreckage covered an area of 600 m by 200 m.
The Harvard Review published an article titled “The Tragic Crash of Flight AF447 Shows the Unlikely but Catastrophic Consequences of Automation.”
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0tkhyws1vj56dlps0mfwt/Harvard-University-The-Tragic-Crash-of-Flight-AF447-Shows-the-Unlikely-but-Catastrophic-Consequences-of-Automation.pdf?rlkey=qssoihn6nkjlcehn92h4eerv7&dl=0
@ventus45,
Many thanks for posting the interview that Captain Simon Hardy gave David Learmount.
Captain Simon Hardy is widely reported in the press as follows: “Hardy points to peculiar pre-flight actions, such as requesting extra fuel and oxygen”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/108361207.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
However, in the interview with David Learmount dated 14th December 2016, which you kindly forwarded Hardy explains:
“I deduced a route mathematically using my technique, which has no relation to how much fuel was on board. Months later I used an airline system and entered this route to see where the aircraft would run out of fuel. Inputting the actual MH370 takeoff fuel of 49.1 tonnes – and allowing the system to do the usual route flight levels and speeds – resulted in a predicted fuel starvation within 12sec of where it should, after 7h 38min.”
So was the take off fuel accurate or peculiar ?
One time 49,100 kg is “peculiar” and one time 49,100 kg “resulted in a predicted fuel starvation within 12 sec of where it should be, after 7h 38 min”.
The YouTube video by Captain Simon Hardy, which I quoted was dated 20th September 2016. The interview with David Learmount is dated 14th December 2016.
So why are the positions different at the 4th, 5th and 6th Arc between the YouTube video and the Flight Plan ?
Why do neither match the Inmarsat BTO and BFO data ?
Why does Captain Simon Hardy say “Months later I used an airline system and entered this route to see where the aircraft would run out of fuel”, when the date on the flight plan is 5th June 2015, which is over a year before either the YouTube video or the David Learmont interview.
Which came first the flight plan or the drawing on a Google Earth print out ?
Why does the flight plan route make turns off up to 0.5216° at each point ?
My critique still stands … apart from the fact that FL400 is now specified and a constant true heading is inferred. I therefore withdraw the statements not in bold. Many thanks for the correction.
Simon Hardy uses a 2D print out of Google Earth, which is a true 3D globe, but not a conformal map projection.
Google Maps is a conformal Web Mercator cylindrical projection, preserving local angles, at the cost of area distortion away from the equator, but this is not used.
Google Earth is a WGS 84 ellipsoid view and not a conformal or equal-area projection. There is no intermediate planar projection. Google Earth displays the planet as a virtual sphere, draping satellite and aerial imagery over the non conformal projection.
Simon Hardy uses a start point of waypoint ANOKO at 18:36 UTC, without explaining this assumption or providing any evidence.
He then assumes a constant heading for the rest of the flight, where MH370 was in constant track navigation mode up until this final turn.
He makes no mention whether this is a constant magnetic heading or a constant true heading.
He assumes no further turns, where we know MH370 made several turns prior to this point.
He also assumes a constant speed for the rest of the flight, where we know MH370 changed speed several times prior to this point.
He does not account for wind speeds and wind direction en route to the Southern Indian Ocean, which have a significant effect on ground speed and heading.
He does not make any mention of altitude or changes in altitude, which have a significant effect on true air speed and fuel consumption.
He claims his flight path matches the Inmarsat satellite derived arcs, but there are significant errors when compared to the BTO at each arc of between 45 km and 60 km, as well as significant errors in the BFO of up to 14 Hz.
@TommyL,
I disagree again.
You say “There are many theories …”, what is your theory ?
You appear to ignore the facts.
It is a fact that Fariq Hamid made the radio calls between 16:25:52 UTC to 16:40:40 UTC.
The aircraft was then cleared for take off and departed at 16:41:43 UTC.
It is a fact that Zaharie Shah made the radio calls between 16:42:50 UTC to 17:19:30 UTC.
It is a fact that all airlines had an ICAO regulation in 2014 saying that it was mandatory for both pilots must be in the cockpit for take off and landing. Most airlines in 2014 extended take off to include the climb until the cruise was established.
It is a fact that MH370 reached the cruising altitude of 35,000 feet at 17:01:06 UTC.
After that time, we only have evidence that Zaharie Shah was in the cockpit. There is no evidence that Fariq Hamid either remained in the cockpit or not.
It is a fact that the airline regulation requires Fariq Hamid to switch off his mobile phone, prior to engine start at push back, although we know this was ignored by the Zaharie Shah.
It is a fact that Fariq Hamid’s mobile phone was switched on and detected near Penang Island at 17:52:27 UTC.
My inference that Fariq Hamid was trying to communicate is valid and based on fact, not as you infer an assumption without foundation.
The purported radio contact from other aircraft has been discussed previously.
The EPESC Controller software downgrade was in response to a fault in the IFE registered on a previous flight.
There is no evidence that a Boeing Black was used on board MH370 or that the IFE was hacked by using a mobile phone or any other device.
Thanks Richard,
Re your first three comments:
1.”I disagree again”.
It’s ok to disagree, in fact it’s an essential part of the process. I respect your thorough, disciplined, meticulous, approach, as well as your continuing dedication on behalf of the MH370 NOK and the global aviation community.
2. “You say “There are many theories …”, what is your theory ?”
I don’t have a particular theory. I am prepared to consider any possibility that matches the available, non-disputed facts.
I would currently hazard a guess at the following coarse probabilities:
Unknown: 25%
On-board emergency: 25%
Hijacking: 50%
– Hijacking by the Captain: 30%
– Hijacking by someone else on board, other than the pilots:10%
– Hijacking by the First Officer: 5%
– Electronic or remote hijacking: 5%
Finding and recovering the wreckage will clarify the cause and, hopefully, put an end to the speculation, intrigue and politicking that has dogged the search.
3. “You appear to ignore the facts.”
I agree with all of the facts that you listed, and do not see any fundamental incompatibility between any of them and the comment I made.
@TommyL,
Many thanks for your response and please accept my apologies for harping on about appearances.
You demonstrate that you are a gentleman and a scholar.
I can only learn from people I disagree with and enjoy a discussion with people like you, who keep an open mind.
I have unfortunately been inundated with people who put forward bizarre theories.
I find it easy to filter out stupid ideas like aliens, but it not so easy when people correctly point out that the IFE Controller software was downgraded on 7th March 2014, but then start to discuss whether this opened up possible security vulnerabilities in the system, eg from malware covertly embedded in a mobile phone, if the phone was plugged in to the IFES via a usb socket.
Other experts have then extrapolated from this fact to the realm of speculation:
(a) This was done by CIA agents as part of a conspiracy to divert the aircraft to Diego Garcia by hacking into the flight management and control systems.
(b) This was done by Russian agents to divert the aircraft to Kazakhstan.
(c) This was no coincidence that it happened on 7th March 2014 and was probably requested by Captain Zaharie Shah as part of his plan.
(d) This enabled hacker(s) to remotely divert the aircraft to a disused airport in a remote location, e.g. in the Philippines.
If we assume deliberate diversion by pilot, we know a little less about fate of co-pilot and/or if others were involved. It is widely assumed the young co-pilot would not have been involved. Exactly how and when the co-pilot might have been incapacitated is speculation with different possibilities. I personally assign near zero evidence weight to the far distant MAS aircraft pilot who heard possible mumbling…that pilot said, he was so far away that other planes/ships would have heard much more clearly. Thus I assume, if the unconfirmed report is true, the MAS pilot must have heard some other radio traffic. Exactly where the FO cell phone was is speculation also, as well as if he was still alive during the tower connect. All we can say is that is very important evidence confirming the reported radar. I’d say we have no evidence of a live co-pilot after 16:42 to my knowledge. One school of speculative though, that I tend to agree, the goal may have been to incapacitate all occupants fairly quickly after UTurn and before the aircraft reached the shores near Kota Bharu. Meanwhile if it is me interpreting the evidence, to find the aircraft I personally assume it was the pilot hiding aircraft and that the home sim data (properly interpreted) is approx actual flight plan that the pilot was following.
@TBill
You said: “I’d say we have no evidence of a live co-pilot after 16:42 to my knowledge.”
In the interest of promoting a rational fact based discussion would you mind to reference the evidence of a deceased co-pilot after 16:42?
All I am saying, based on Richard comments of 30-April, the pilot ZS made all radio calls after 16:42:50. That fact surprises me, I would not have guessed the FO did not make any radio calls after wheels up. Therefore I am not aware of any definitive evidence the FO was alive after that point, given I do not believe the distant aircraft (MAS 88) heard MH370, and I am not sure how or why the FO cell phone was captured. If you see something I missed, pls let me know. I made the statement as a preliminary deduction based on Richard’s account of the radio transcripts.
Re your request to TBill,”… would you mind to reference the evidence of a deceased co-pilot after 16:42?”
By ‘co-pilot’ I assume you are referring to First Officer Hamid.
Given that Captain Shah was supervising First Officer Hamid, at 16:42, immediately following take-off, Captain Shah should have taken on responsibility for radio communications (pilot monitoring role) and First Officer Hamid should have taken charge of the aircraft (pilot flying role).
As such, it could be considered that First Officer Hamid, at that time, was ‘the pilot’, and Captain Shah was ‘the co-pilot’.
There is, as far as I am aware, no clear, irrefutable evidence that First Officer Hamid was dead at, or immediately after 16:42.
Equally, there is no clear, irrefutable evidence that First Officer Hamid was alive after 16:42.
However, there is extremeley strong evidence that somebody on the plane was alive and controlling the plane after the final voice communication at 17:19:30 and there is a very high likelihood that the plane was being controlled at that time by either Captain Shah or First Officer Hamid, whether of their own volition or under duress.
There is a very remote possibility (I would guess less tha 0.01% probability) that there was nobody alive on MH370 at 17:19:30 and that the plane was being remotely commandeered to be dumped in an extremely remote location.
For this to be the case it would mean that the final communication at 17:19:30 was made by neither Captain Shah nor First Officer Hamid, but was a synthetically generated message.
As already stated, the likehood of this is extremely low.
However, looking back at the Factual Information Report, Appendix 1.18A-1.18F, (communications transcripts) it is clear that every time First Officer Hamid references the flight pre take-off he says “Malaysian Three Seven Zero” with no pause or interjection in between the word “Malaysian” and the number “Three Seven Zero”.
It is also clear that every time that Captain Shah. post take-off, references the flight identity he does so with an “ahh’ or an “err” in between the word “Malaysian” and the number “Three Seven Zero”.
This may simply have been a stylised pronunciation to add clarity or emphasis to the number, or it could be a sign of fatigue.
It’s worth noting also the erroneous partial repetition of flight level at 17:07:56, where Captain Shah is recorded as saying: “Ehhh…Seven Three Seven Zero maintaining flight level three five zero”.
No doubt Captain Shah’s colleagues and the many ATC operators he interacted with will know whether it was usual for him to enunciate the flight identity with a stylised “ahh” or “err” before the numeric part of the ID.
The style of the final communication at 17:19:30 is “Goodnight Malaysian Three Seven Zero”, with no “ahh” or “err” in between the word “Malaysian” and the number “Three Seven Zero”.
Thus the final communication appears to be in the normal style of First Officer Hamid, but is recogniseable by speech specialists as being the voice of Captain Shah.
The untypical style of the final message is hardly an earth-shattering anomaly, but in the light of the eleven long years that have passed already, the strange incongruity in the final message might be a weak signal that is worth propagating and reporting.
Here is a link to the Factual information Report with the Appendixes included:
https://www.mot.gov.my/my/Laporan%20MH%20370/Factual%20Information%20Safety%20Investigation%20For%20MH370.pdf
I also do not know exactly what happened and when. I was putting logical time constraints based on known facts. For sure there is a multitude of opinions of what may have happened and when.
Added- Part of what I am observing in the above, is that the FO was apparently complacent with an incorrect recirc fan setting at take-off. Brings up some question, in my mind, what else was going on settings-wise that might have been unorthodox?
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGs5A49BS2Q
China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 on the 21st March 2022, is yet another possible pilot suicide, which is on our list to discuss in depth.
No Final Report: Three years after the crash, China’s aviation regulator has not released a comprehensive final report detailing the cause of the disaster.
Missed Updates: Beijing missed the annual deadline for interim statements in March 2025, contrary to both domestic and international guidelines for air-crash investigations.
Inconclusive Findings: Despite recovering both flight recorders and years of analysis, the CAAC has not determined whether a mechanical failure, aerodynamic upset, human action, or other factor precipitated the dive.
Conclusion: No official cause has been established for Flight 5735. The investigation remains open and “in-depth,” with authorities citing the accident’s “complicated and rare” characteristics as reasons for delay. Until the CAAC publishes its final report, any explanation—mechanical, structural, or intentional—remains unverified.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr0zlf7X21Q
Armada 7806 is heading back to Singapore and expected to arrive in 2 days time on 4th May 2025. It will be interesting to see what its next assignment will be.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bepgcfuij7xbbjz6vh563/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-02MAY2025-0609-UTC.png?rlkey=ipx1j287f9rrgvytcdacaf22t&dl=0
TSYH has stopped in the middle of the South China Sea in area where the depth is 4,200 m. TSYH has put back its ETA at the home port of Sanya by 9 days until 5th May 2025. The current location is exactly 200 nmi offshore from the Philippines just inside international waters and might be regarded as more of a political statement, than marine research or a combination of both.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b97lheefxrb12tfe3gpsm/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-02MAY2025-0532-UTC.png?rlkey=y1k8jy2ri5ce7zdqrcu81hoqw&dl=0
I had a hour long video conference call with Prof. Simon Maskell and one of his team yesterday discussing their latest research and findings. We are preparing papers for peer review and publication. Such research takes years and it will take months before getting something published.
@Tim,
Many thanks for your comment about the Recirculation Fans.
The Boeing Flight Manual states that the recirculation fans are switched ON in the Receiving Aircraft Procedure, except when ground air conditioning is available. In hot weather the recirculation fans are switched ON to give maximum cooling.
There are four recirculation fans, two upper and two lower, in each case one forward and one aft.
When one or both RECIRC FANS are OFF, the packs operate at full flow, the cabin air exchange rate is increased, and fuel consumption increases 0.7% for each fan switched OFF.
The fans are switched ON or OFF in pairs.
When two RECIRC FANS are OFF, the 0.7% fuel increase x 2 = 1.4% increase, which is offset by at least a 4.4% saving, net 3.0% fuel saving.
With two of the recirculation fans switched off, this reduces the electrical load by 8%, which in turn reduces the fuel flow rate by 4.4%, which is 3% overall.
The higher environmental bleed flow rate and the higher pack flow rate is just a valve setting, which does not alter the electrical loading.
The Integrated Drive Generators (IDG) electrical loading also increases the fuel consumption by around 4% during galley oven operation.
In an extreme case, you can save fuel by switching all the recirculation fans off and not using the galley ovens.
Hi Richard,
Re the recirc fans.
Where do you get a fuel saving of 4.4% if you turn both recirculating fan switches off?
Yes there is less electrical load but it is the change in pack flow rate that has the largest effect on the fuel flow.
One of the main design features of the recirculating system is to reduce fuel burn, by reducing the load on the packs.
Richard- My current interpretation would be excess bleed air seen on MH370 causes excess fuel consumption above the electric savings for turning fans off. The MH370 excess bleed air setting (on take-off and climb) seems very unusual and possibly suspicious. What I would say is that excess fresh air coming in, presumably keeps the outflow valves wider open than normal, to let all the air out. This I see this as possibly a factor in one of the next steps coming up, which is thought to possibly be cabin depressure, either deliberate or due to unknown operational issue. I am personally suspecting the deliberate explanation, but from the other side, here is finally some evidence for a mechanical issue that could have caused the diversion. Meanwhile you are implying quite some fuel savings for (later in the flight) turning off both bleed air + recirc fans. I would say even more could be done to save fuel such as say disengage Rt IDG.
@Tim,
We have two sets of data from previous flights of 9M-MRO.
1. MH092 from Tokyo (NRT) to Los Angeles (LAX) – MAS Engineering Data under a first NDA. This flight data was referred to as MHXX Engineering Data in the UGIB paper.
2. MH370 from Kuala Lumpur (KUL) to Beijing (PEK) – ACARS Data under a second NDA. This flight data is for a previous flight on the same flight route on a previous date.
@Richard
Thanks very much for your ongoing updates on MH370 and responses to so queries from the public.
1) In your recent episode with Geoffrey, you enumerated a considerable amount of valuable information that has still not been released by various authorities including Malaysian Airlines with regard to certain maintenance records. While the MH370 Safety Report indicates that the plane was not fitted with a Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP), can this be taken as a fact in view that the full maintenance records for the plane have not been made public?
2) I wondered if the ICAO and Relatives have raised a legal case against Malaysia to press for the release of all (commercial and military) data relating to the flight?
thanks very much
@Veritas256,
There is still information being withheld by the Malaysian government, Malaysian Airlines, Royal Malaysian Air Force and information they have received from other countries.
To my knowledge, no aircraft has ever been fitted with a Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP).
The ICAO does not take legal action against any member state.
There are a number of legal actions brought by relatives of those lost on MH370 in various jurisdictions. Some are ongoing, some have been settled out of court. The purpose of these actions appears to be compensation and the release of data is required to prove negligence.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0f54vFVcs
The Erebus disaster causes in my view were:
(1) The long history of McMurdo waypoint mis-programming.
(2) The error in entering the update to the flight plan the night before.
(3) Concealing the update from the cockpit crew.
(4) Concealing the update from McMurdo US ATC.
(5) The sector white out forcing the crew to rely on the Flight Management System and the Inertial Navigation System telling them they were on track to the erroneous co-ordinate.
The lessons for MH370 which can be learnt out of the Erebus disaster:
(1) Oversight of 100% government owned airlines like Malaysian Airlines (63 countries have 100% ownership of 74 airlines).
(2) The paper, that I wrote with Victor Iannello, titled “MH370 Path Towards McMurdo Station”
dated 25th August 2016, proves that Captain Zaharie Shah had considered the Erebus disaster in his planning.
(3) A number of analysts, including a former airline Captain, and others experts using pseudonyms like TBill or LCDR Lucas E. Mangosteen (Retd.) point out the fact that KUL to AMS is 5,529 nmi (which Captain Zaharie Shah had recently flown) and KUL to McMurdo is 5,240 nmi. This is evidence that it was a possible for a Boeing 777 to fly to McMurdo, which was discounted, probably because there were 2 sets of cockpit crew on board.
Richard-
Re: MH370 flight sim cases- do not recall ever specifically mentioning the Amsterdam flight, but I do feel the MH370 sim cases represent a flexible plan to fly all the way to the Magnetic South Pole (per my paper posted on this site)(this implies I feel the plan had in mind the possibility of a Frankfurt or Amsterdam fuel loading). The flexible plan had different ways to get onto the flight path, and alternate end points along the path, depending on the actual MAS flight employed. Unfortunately researchers probably made several errors interpreting the flight sim data (especially the ghost flight assumption mandate(no maneuvers)) which prevents recognition that the sim data is the actual generic plan followed. Also I think the planned sim case destination may have been Magnetic South Pole (180S CMH) and not McMurdo (LNAV to NZPG). Bottom line, I believe the flight sim path is the real life MH370 path that the pilot directed the aircraft to follow. One weakness is that I cannot pinpoint end point, but I know it hit Arc7 30-32s area.
Bill, crime equals motive, means and method.
The simulator data only represents evidence of a planned method (flight plan) of diverting off an assumed means (flight).
You, like most everyone else, are in denial of the most crucial first point, motive. Without motive, there is no need to have a plan in the first place, let alone working through to a specific method, entailing the use of specific means.
In this case, the motive for “the taking of MH370” was clearly political, and that is what everyone is steadfastly denying. The fact that the Malaysian Government has denied any possibility of Crew involvement is clear evidence that they know the truth, that it was an action target directly at UMNO and the corrupt Ministries.
1. The fact that all attempts by the then opposition to get an independent parliamentary enquiry or an independent Royal Commission are clear evidence of that.
2. The fact that a special briefing was held for UMNO MP’s only in a hotel and NOT the Parliament is clear evidence of that.
3. The fact that (I think it was Tim R on Victor’s blog way back) a squad of senior UMNO Party Officials had literally “invaded” KL ATC in the very early hours (2am to 3am time frame) is clear evidence of that.
4. The fact that Vietnamese ATC could not get any sensible answers and ultimately lodged a formal complaint is proof of that.
5. The fact that the RMAF took no action at all, and the fact that Malaysia’s Defense Minister and acting Transportation Minister, Hishammuddin Hussein made the utterly inane “shoot down” comment is proof of that.
6. Anwar himself inadvertently, but effectively, listed all the reasons why Zahari would be more than capable of planning and conducting such an action.
References:
Points 1, 2 and 4, 5 and 6.
Caro Meldrum-Hannah of Four Corners (ABC Australia) interview with Anwar Ibrahim 19thMay2014 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourcorners/video/20140519_4c_ibrahim_iv_288p.mp4)
There are many other interviews with Hishammuddin Hussein on YouTube which can only be interpreted as thinly veiled lies, obfuscation, and breathtaking arrogance. If Zahari needed evidence to justify his actions, Hishammuddin Hussein is Exhibit A your honor.
Two among many:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulzHDfX3XCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uumbezo9Fw (NOTE: The SEALED EVIDENCE).
Anwar’s back flip (now that HE is IN Government) is slam dunk proof positive that Zahari did it, and that his motive was political. Now that Anwar is PM, he has been “read into the secret”, so although he would probably love to use that knowledge politically, the simple fact is that he can’t, because acknowledging the true underlining cause of the vanishing of MH370 would be disastrous for the country as a whole.
The point is, Zahari was opposed to ‘the systemically corrupt “system” in Malaysia’, political and legal, and the resultant social and economic inequities and impacts on the people.
Whether he likes it or not, Anwar is part of that political system, and he has to work within it, if he is to survive. Now that Najib is out of prison, he has to be doubly careful.
Ventus- I believe sim data is the map of the actual flight path that was merged onto. In other words: at Arc7, the sim path is the path MH370 was on. This is what the BTO/BFO also show, if we can ever free ourselves from the ghost flight to Arc7 mandate, I realize 38-40s advocates feel the sim data is some kind of false evidence. I do not think so.
As far as motive, political protest works for me as a preliminary guess. I believe the evidence is consistent with active pilot to end with objective to hide aircraft, probably quite far from Arc6 (Arc7 may have been a little (actually big) mistake).
@TBill, @ventus45,
We have discussed the huge amount of data still missing in the MH370 investigation from many countries.
There is still information being withheld by the Malaysian government, Malaysian Airlines, Royal Malaysian Air Force and information they have received from other countries.
The Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called for a Royal Commission as an independent enquiry into MH370, when he was opposition leader.
Does he still call for the full release of all civilian and military information on MH370 (cargo manifest, military radar data, data offered by other countries who are Malaysia’s allies in the region, etc) from Malaysian government departments, MAS, RMAF, foreign governments ? No.
Does he still call for a royal commission and independent enquiry into MH370 ? No.
Does he fully support a new underwater search by Ocean Infinity ? No.
There is still an ongoing debate on whether Captain Zaharie Shah worked alone or with co-conspirators.
I have reported that I spent a weekend with a criminal psychologist studying the evidence in this case. My personal view is that Captain Zaharie Shah worked alone. For example, we analysed Captain Zaharie Shah’s posts on his Facebook site. These posts include a favourite poem about a lone warrior and the legacy of this lone warrior, which I think is quite telling of his state of mind.
The standard approach for a criminal investigation is to consider means, motive and opportunity.
There is a large body of opinion that defends Captain Zaharie Shah because he is no longer able to defend himself.
I disagree with this large body of opinion. If we are not allowed to question means, motive and opportunity, how are we going to solve this case ?
Not solving this case is exactly what the Malaysian authorities want to achieve.
It is time that the ICAO took over the investigation of MH370.
Re:”The standard approach for a criminal investigation is to consider means, motive and opportunity.”
This approach is used to assess suspects.
Before assessing suspects it important to establish that a crime has taken place, rather than to start by assuming that the diversion of MH370 from its flight path was unlawful.
If the diversion was unlawful then it is reasonable to consider both of the pilots as high up on any list of potential suspects, as quite clearly they both had the means (they knew how to fly) and the opportunity (they were in the cockpit of the plane).
However, there is no clearly established motive for either of the pilots.
Speculating, it is possible that Captain Shah wanted to draw international media attention to Malaysia at that time.
On the other hand, it is equally possible that a third party wanted to draw world media attention away from Crimea at that time.
And it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of an unplanned onboard emergency that put the flight, unintentionally, into a “special operations” mode.
In normal circumstances, a pilot who diverts a civilian flight and flies it back over Malaysia past Penang might expect to be challenged by some representative of the Malaysian, Singaporean, Australian, New Zealand or UK military authorities, especially if he flies incognito and in silence within a whisker of the Butterworth HQ of the Five Powers Defence Alliance.
Such a dramatic interception, if reported in mainstream media, would certainly have drawn worldwide attention to the Malaysian government.
However, it would be a very risky thing for a pilot to do, endangering the lives of so many international civilian passengers, effectively holding them hostage until his unstated demands were met.
Speculating further, if the pilot had a coherent plan, it is quite possible that whoever was flying the plane believed that he was working as part of a team, but, as they say in the movies, “If anything goes wrong, you’re on your own”.
Perhaps there were highly placed officials within the Malaysian and other regional defence forces who knew exactly what was unfolding and, for whatever reason, let the pilot of MH370 and his hostages “hang out to dry”.
In that case, the SIO flight becomes the pilot’s contingency plan, (dump all evidence somewhere remote), rather than the primary plan.
A more sinister, but in some ways less complicated possibility is that somebody lost a lot of money and prestige in the 1MDB scandal, and engineered the destruction of both MH370 anf MH17 in order to exact revenge on Malaysia.
Much of this conjecture could be resolved by locating and recovering the wreckage.
It’s worth considering, before assuming the guilt or innocence of any party, the advice given in an early episode by a widow to the fictitious Sicilian detective, ‘Inspector Motalbano’ regarding ‘The Shape Of Water’.
In the episode a senior politician dies and his political enemies (his closest friends) frame the investigation into the circumstances of his death to maximise his and his party’s discredit to their own political and commercial advantage.
Or to quote Bernard Woolley from Yes Minister explaining the role of ‘guidelines’ in inquiries:
“Trains, theoretically can go anywhere, but if you lay down the lines, that’s the way they go.”
Richard- ICAO gives Malaysia the right to request NTSB assist (as per EgyptAir 990 and SilkAir 185). We know what happened in those past cases, lack of agreement with NTSB findings, and also those countries disallowed FBI involvement. NTSB will normally request FBI assist in cases where it looks like a non-aviation human deliberate action may be the crash cause. In the lack of a proper (NTSB) investigation, we are trying to solve MH370 by crowd sourcing, but as one NoK has put it, we face compromises of competing interests. I do not think that bodes well for finding the crash site.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfEgFolFrpo
We consider a number of questions, including how far could MH370 have glided ?
There is a possibility that MH370 recovered from the steep dive at 00:19:37 UTC, which is indicated by the Inmarsat BFO satellite data.
This was the last satellite data communication after fuel exhaustion.
The Boeing end of flight simulations indicate that it is possible to recover from a dive, which in this case was at a descent rate of around 15,000 fpm.
A glide up to 110 nmi (204 km) is theoretically possible for a Boeing 777, depending on many factors including the starting altitude, winds and the skill of an active pilot.
The WSPR analysis shows a crash location up to 48 nmi from the 7th Arc.
It is certainly difficult to know exactly where to search for the wreckage of MH370 in the SIO, using the available data.
The position where MH370 hit the ocean could most probably have been identified via hydroacoustic analysis many years ago if the BIOT/Chagos node of the IMS had been working.
“The Hydroacoustic Station, HA08 at Diego Garcia was installed in the year 2000 and worked flawlessly until March 2014 when the H08N segment stopped operating due to a cable fault localized at about 190 km from Diego Garcia shore.”
https://conferences.ctbto.org/event/7/contributions/1230/attachments/64/158/P4.4.276%20-%20Haralabus%20ePoster.pdf
@TommyL,
The North Station H08N at Diego Garcia stopped working, but the South Station H08S at Diego Garcia was operational.
H08S comprises H08S1, H08S2 and H08S3 to allow triangulation.
Similarly at Cape Leeuwin H01S1, H01S2 and H01S3 were operational.
Various studies by Alec Duncan at Curtin University, Richard Stead, Ed Fenimore and Tom Kunkle at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Usama Kadri et al. at Cardiff University have used data from H01S1, H01S2 and H01S3 as well as H08S1, H08S2 and H08S3.
Unfortunately all hydroacoustic studies so far were inconclusive in terms of defining the crash location of MH370.
Thanks for clarifying the difference between the northern and southern hydrophones at HA08.
It’s good that independent teams in Australia, the UK and the US have been working to analyse the hydroacoustic data to try to locate the crash site.
If the ICAO does not directly take charge of a potential criminal investigation, perhaps the other Group 1 ICAO member nations could instead add their expertise and funding to the search, (ie Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy and Japan).
Of course, any significant co-ordinated effort by the ICAO to help locate the wreckage of MH370 might first require a re-adoption by ICAO host nation Canada of the General Assembly position on Taiwan.
All the more so at a time when so many of the UN Security Council’s permanent members have, over the last twenty-five years, for whatever reasons, veered so wildly off course from the spirit and letter of the UN Charter.
“The host government, Canada, supports Taiwan’s inclusion in ICAO. Support also comes from Canada’s commercial sector with the president of the Air Transport Association of Canada saying in 2019 that “It’s about safety in aviation so from a strictly operational and non-political point of view, I believe Taiwan should be there.”
If the Canadian position towards Taiwan re the ICAO is strictly operational and non-political, then they would surely realise that UN bodies like the ICAO would equally have to include Tibet, Palestine and all other disputed territories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization
Re:”Unfortunately all hydroacoustic studies so far were inconclusive”
I just re-read a comment from January 2024 where you replied to some questions and suggestions from Martin Reiss:
“Unfortunately data from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) hydroacoustic data from station HA08 Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territories / Chagos Archipelago is missing for 25 minutes around the time of MH370’s impact, which would have allowed a better triangulation with the data from station HA01 Cape Leeuwin, Australia and the data from station HA04 Crozet Islands, French Southern and Antarctic Lands. The HA08 data has not been released by the US Government under their treaty obligations and the British and French Government have acquiesced. The HA04 has also not been released by the French Authorities.”
https://www.mh370search.com/2021/01/03/hydroacoustic-data/
As time has gone by and the post fuel exhaustion glide factor has been considered, might it be worth re-visiting the hydroacoustic data that is available for the period one hour either side of the currently calculated crash time of MH370?
Addionally, the IMS has many additional elements, including seismic and infrasound sensors which may have recorded the impact of the aircraft on the ocean.
It might even be worth re-analysing meteorological data to try to pick up the trail left by the plane.
Obviously this would require a lot of effort and processing power, so it could be an ideal candidate for a beneficial, ‘pro-bono’ deployment of AI.
According to recent reports on Australia’s ABC, Bill Gates is currently feeling particularly philanthropic.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhGE_cm-b6k
A Boeing 777 like 9M-MRO can glide up to 110 nmi from 40,000 feet, but how far it actually did glide ?
With WSPR we track an aircraft every two minutes until we no longer detect an aircraft.
We then carry on ensuring non-detections up to and beyond the time it would take to glide the maximum distance and more.
Fuel exhaustion occurred around 00:17:30 UTC. The SDU rebooted and the last ping received at 00:19:37 UTC. We estimate the crash took place at around 00:27:51 UTC. We carried on looking until 01:00 UTC.
Armada 78 06 has chosen a familiar route and is heading to Port Louis. I was expecting Cape Town if they want to return to Europe.
Interesting….
@All, @Edward,
Armada 7806 is underway to Port Louis, Mauritius and expected to arrive in 14 days time on 21st May 2025.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/onml7ijxzcaw6uznir8in/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-07MAY2025-0443-UTC.png?rlkey=d20n1gk4eltj7u898q0xunne4&dl=0
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGbVyNKvQCI
Today Geoffrey Thomas is joined by Blaine Gibson, who gives an update on the search for floating debris for MH370.
One item of debris called the “Broken O” was transported to Malaysia and handed in by the MH370 Families to the Malaysian Authorities. We are still waiting for any official analysis.
One item of debris that was in the custody of BEA Madagascar and awaiting Malaysia to pay for shipment costs, has meanwhile been collected by an “authorised” person from an unspecified country.
I doubt that the authorised individual was from Malaysia, as they have still not analysed other debris that had been handed in to them.
It is possible that BEA France sent someone to collect the debris and it will be very interesting to see what their experts conclude from their analysis.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJoQJNHxEQE
Armada 7806 is heading towards Port Louis, Mauritius and is expected to arrive in 13 days time on 21st May 2025.
Armada 7806 started in a hurry at a top speed of 11.6 knots, the maximum economic speed is 10 knots. The current speed is 10.3 knots.
We will see in 13 days time, how long Armada 7806 stays in Mauritius and where it heads next, but last time the visit to Port Louis, Mauritius was from 4th to 8th February 2025, for a refuelling stop as well as a meeting up with Armada 7808, which came in from Cape Town.
Armada 7806 then left to go to the MH370 search area but first spent 5 days North of Mauritius testing underwater equipment in relatively shallow waters.
Armada 7808 then left for Cape Town, Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Southampton (UK), Amsterdam (Netherlands) for a month, Brest (France) and is now off North West Spain for ROV sea trials.
Here is an overview of the Armada fleet operations:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x7wnrzl4c7l6ccshsxik7/Armada-Fleet-Operations.png?rlkey=fgc5byvvvxium8x9ip2ybr5ph&dl=0
@All,
Armada 8603 put to sea yesterday afternoon for a sea trial off the coast of Vung Tau, Vietnam:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ey5a98ier69bw01rfq5vw/Armada-8603-Vessel-Finder-09MAY2025-0558-UTC.png?rlkey=ydd7wmqa6j8z74moi3rpcy5sv&dl=0
@All,
A paper has been published on 19th December 2024 by the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) in Singapore on the subject of WSPR. The paper is titled “Forward Scatter Aircraft Detection with Amateur Radio Network WSPRnet”.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xkvfgjyuiw0wai1jn3gvz/DSTA-Forward-Scatter-Aircraft-Detection-with-Amateur-Radio-Network-WSPRnet.pdf?rlkey=0flbdfbmtfe6s7ntq8uom5h2a&dl=0
They cite a body of literature from Dr. Hannes Coetzee, Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Robert Westphal and Richard Godfrey. Our hypothesis that WSPRnet data can be used to detect and track aircraft is being taken seriously.
They agree with and quote our observation that WSPR is a noisy sensor.
Unfortunately, our latest paper “A Proposed Global Passive Radar” was published on 1st January 2025 (12 days after their publication) and was therefore missed in their review. Their paper also points to “deficiencies” in our work and cites two opponents of our work Victor Iannello and Steve Kent. We would be the first to admit that there are deficiencies in our earlier work.
Their preliminary verification shows SNR anomalies could be used to detect aircraft, but their conclusion is that the jury is still out and further analysis is required:
(1) “We are unable to conclusively verify that data from WSPRnet can be used to detect and localise aircraft.”
(2) “Our preliminary verification suggests that using standard score to find anomalies in SNR could be used to detect an aircraft flying through a WSPR link.”
(3) “However more research needs to be done to incorporate more data to resolve remaining inaccuracies.”
They recognise the need for a wide scale study with a large volume of data, which is exactly what Simon and his team at Liverpool University are doing. They recognise the need to know, whether any other of the 20,000+ aircraft airborne at any point in time, intercept the WSPRnet links used in targeting a particular aircraft. Fortunately we have the ADS-B data of almost all aircraft airborne globally at the point in time of interest.
They admit that they did not use the precise location of each WSPRnet transmitter and receiver antenna, which would have helped them significantly. “We used antenna locations recorded by WSPRnet which has a ± 5 km error range from the 6-letter maidenhead grid.”
We offer in all our papers to download the software and data we use for free. “The proposed global passive radar system is described in full detail and the source code of the software used in this study can be obtained free of charge on request to richard@mh370search.com. This will enable interested researchers with a Matlab software licence to reproduce the results in their own computer environment.” The offer includes an antenna database, which gives the position of each transmitting and receiving antenna referenced in our various studies to within 10 m.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7g234G77Ns
Today we answer a number of viewer’s questions on the search for MH370, the role of Ocean Infinity, alternative underwater search companies, new items of debris, the need for an independent investigation by the US NTSB, UK AAIB, France BEA and Australia ATSB.
To paraphrase William Langewiesche (The Atlantic/Megyn Kelly YouTube) the ICAO guidelines basically assume a confident western democracy willing to get to the truth on accidents. Countries like China and smaller countries, in essence, have the right to claim no-fault. The flying public does not have the right-to-know in such cases. And furthermore financial liability is quite small. Any changes to this policy would not be retroactive to MH370, and there is no suggestion of reform anyways. I actually equate MH370 to the JFK assassination in the USA, extremely sensitive probable-internal matter that the society cannot handle well.
From Malaysia’s perspective, they followed all Int’l rules, and the rules never required continuous tracking of wayward aircraft, no two in cockpit, did not require any confined space monitoring of safe living atmosphere in the aircraft, only a 2-hr voice recorder, and certainly did not require any of that in a tamper resistant format that could not be turned off by a rogue actor. Thus, ask not for Malaysia to assume guilt, rather ask that the industry make changes that take away the capability to fly off the grid, etc., which it sounds like we are getting close to starting a slow-motion 50-60 year implementation schedule to achieve some of that by 61-71 years after MH370 crashed. What’s not to like?