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.
Following BOAC flight 781’s catastrophic disintegration in the air near the island of Alba on Jan 10,1954, locals reported seeing a fireball and falling debris. However, it was seagulls circling the debris field which helped fishermen guide their boats to the scene.
In the case of MH-370, I was wondering whether certain ocean-dwelling seabirds may have circled, and/or descended to the water at the time. What are the chances that any of these ocean dwellers may have been of a particularly rare or endangered species, fitted with some kind of GPS location tracking device, to allow scientists or conservationists to study behaviour such as breeding, migratory habits etc?
Should such data have ever been recorded – whether uploaded in real time, or stored for access at say a breeding colony, I was wondering whether it too wouldn’t be retrospectively available and indeed useful in refining or augmenting the WSPR derived, as well as Blelly-Marchand proposed search sites?
Being realistic, though, I suppose only a really large bird such as an albatross would be capable of carrying a radio based tracking device and its battery pack. Still, who knows, tracked or not, perhaps some of nature’s creatures were the only witnesses?
That is a bloody good idea Globe, and it should be pursued with vigor.
Birds, seals, whales, even sharks have been fitted with GPS tracking tags going back well before 2014.
@Globe great idea !!.
I found a lot of 370 floating debris, but never thought of that. My method was to let the ocean do the work for me, so why not the birds too !
I used to work on expedition travel ships sailing in the Southern, Indian, and Atlantic oceans to Antarctica. Some albatrosses range from about 30°S to 50°S in the Indian Ocean. Albatrosses were often tagged, and I remember one was tracked flying around the world without stopping on land.
Albatrosses and seagulls and other birds would definitely be attracted to surface floating debris. Your bird tracking idea should have been pursued by authorities long ago, but it’s not too late to try now.
I did, when the initial search was underway, propose this theory to the Australian ATSB authorities. Who knows, there may be nothing in it? Still, It makes logical sense that a B-777 hitting the water in some sort of ditching attempt would have no doubt created a great disturbance. It would have been daylight local time, and most birds, as we know, are VFR creatures. To them, the scene may have looked like a breaching whale, with lots of fish brought to the surface, naturally attracting their curiosity. Again, whether any tracking device fitted to a large ocean-dwelling creature could report its position in real time is doubtful, since I would image such a device could receive and record GPS coordinates at a given moment in time, yet perhaps not be able to rebroadcast, or upload such information until interrogated by someone on land.
Movebank might be worth a try ?
“Movebank is an online platform helping thousands of researchers and wildlife managers worldwide to manage, share, analyze and archive animal tracking and other animal-borne sensor data.”
https://www.movebank.org/
Looks like it started capturing datasets in 2012.
@Dave,
Many thanks for the useful link.
Perhaps something also to consider here is the floating flaperon. After some time in the water it becomes home to barnacles and some sea birds feed on barnacles.
So bird tracking data could perhaps help reveal the location of the flaperon and then this in turn could then be used to fine tune the debris drift analysis.
The flaperon didn’t sink, so it gives a much larger period of time to detect activity.
@Dave,
Good idea!
I believe the pilot, being the sole person on board with enough knowledge to do what was done regarding flight path and elimination of certain systems, the onloading on extra oxygen prior to flying, and various maneuvers before he ultimately ditched the plane as softly as possible, hoping to minimize debris and lose the whole plane and that the flaperon was thus worn on its trailing edge and that the right wing likely detached and the cockpit may have separated and if not, the pilot could have possibly deployed a life raft and escaped prior to the plane sinking…which may have been his plan, which involved killing all on board in retaliation for the sodomy charge and probable imprisonment of his relative, Anwar Ibrahim, whom he backed vehemently, even charting his doomed course on his home flight simulator. Thanks for your updates. Been following this story since MH370 vanished. I believe the pilot glided as long as possible and that the plane is up to twenty five miles south of the 7th arc and perhaps near Broken Ridge.
@David Dooling
Do you have any idea how big & heavy a folded deflated life raft is? If you do, how do you think the pilot could have taken it on board & stored it without raising any questions?
Do you even know the conditions of the sea on the date & time the plane crashed?
Let’s say he did have a life raft as you speculate; how far do you think he could have gotten in a small life raft out in the middle of the Indian Ocean?
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oElxfeWftjQ
Armada 7806 has now reached the 1st survey area and is working its way North Eastwards. The survey area covers the edge of the previous survey area but extends out another 10 nmi from the 7th Arc.
The weather in the area is holding just. There is a Force 5 Fresh Breeze at 31 km/h or 17 knots. The wave height is 2.4 m or 7.9 feet. Tropical Cyclone Courtney is taking a Westerly course and is a long way further North of the MH370 search area.
Some of you have asked about the validity of the MH370 Families announcement that a contract has been signed as there has been no comment from either the Malaysian government or Ocean Infinity. The next of kin were informed that there would be no signing ceremony this time and the contract was signed remotely with no ceremony at all.
Today we look at pilot suicides. This is a very delicate subject and the reason we are discussing it today is that within the airline industry it is assumed and alleged that the captain of MH370 took his life and that of 238 other people. While the Malaysian government has exonerated him and the copilot saying there is no evidence, there is sadly considerable circumstantial evidence implicating the captain.
There are 38 million flights a year – that’s just over 100,000 a day. Discounting acts of terror and confining the discussion to just commercial revenue passenger flights there have been 13 pilot suicides.
Richard, you are utterly misleading people saying that “within the airline industry it is assumed … that the captain of MH370 took his life and that of 238 other people”. Some people do think that Captain Zaharie brought down MH370 deliberately, but it is by no means an industry-wide assumption. What is sad, in fact, is that so many mainstream journalists, particularly in Australia, give considerable unchallenged, unquestioned airplay to such people as Byron Bailey. With this video, you and Geoffrey are adding fuel to the fire. I would not describe the circumstantial evidence you speak of as “considerable”. (At least you add in the word ‘circumstantial’; Geoffrey doesn’t do this in the actual video.) There is no proof that Captain Zaharie brought down MH370 deliberately! All this unfounded speculation about a man who cannot defend himself is appalling. With his unfounded claims in yesterday’s video, Geoffrey has sparked a wave of horrendous accusations in the comment section.
@Annette Gartland,
There are two opposing views, as you well know.
One view is the Captain is innocent and as you say, this is all: “unfounded speculation about a man who cannot defend himself”.
Another view makes the accusation that the Captain is responsible for the murder of 238 innocent people.
Please explain to me the following evidence:
It is a fact that Captain Zaharie Shah simulated a flight of a Boeing 777 to fuel exhaustion in the Southern Indian Ocean. It was the only simulation he deleted from his hard drive, but the data was recovered by the FBI.
It is a fact that Malaysian Airlines hired a number of consultants to help them, following the disappearance of MH370, they were all told right from the start by the airline, that it was the Captain.
It is a fact that Tony Abbot said: “My very clear understanding, from the very top levels of the Malaysian government, is that from very, very early on, they thought it was murder-suicide by the pilot”.
This why we may never find MH370, we are tripping all over the pilot blame issue. I happen to agree with Richard’s assessment, and do not think we will find MH370 unless we put our minds in the cockpit with intent to hide the aircraft. And furthermore, that seems unlikely.
Useful video from OI showing how they collect and process the data:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_75y12ydJE&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
So it appears they don’t instantly have sight of the sonar imagery on the ship. Instead it is sent away for processing.
@Theo,
Many thanks for reminding us of this video from the 2018 search for MH370.
The video was made 6 years ago.
Ocean Infinity have improved their technology and processes considerably in the last 6 years.
This video from the NTSB may be of interest given the number of questions about the flight recorders.
“Tour of NTSB flight-data and cockpit-voice recorder laboratories”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWLBPtLu_JY
@Dave,
Many thanks!
Just a word of caution, the video is 10 years old.
Hi Richard,
thank you for your daily updates much appreciated i read then daily.
I was just wondering, since OI have surveyed a large no of area already, to complete the search now would they have to re do that area again but search this time??
or will they use the survey data gained already to search, it has taken them time, effort and cost to survey and will possibly take the same to do it again before the search has even started, they haven’t got to your Hotspot yet either, and the concerns of the weather closing in is a factor,
sorry I just don’t understand survey the area to go back and do it again hope you can provide more understanding
thank you
@Brad,
Welcome to the blog!
Survey is to produce detailed bathymetric data of the search area.
Search is to find a particular target like MH370 in that area.
@Richard
I have a question regarding the WSPR analysis and protocol put in place to try to find a new location. I read (not every paragraph) most of your document, but I for sure missed this part if it exists.
Did you and your colleagues tried it on existing fly paths with success ?
In other words, on a known fly path (perhaps more recent compared to MH370), if you run your algorithm, is the fly path accurately the same as the true fly path of the airplane ?
Because it seems that if the answer is YES, then the survey should be done in your hotspot before anything else as the analysis is based on actual data that exists for the MH370 flight night.
What do you think ?
@Luca,
Dr. Robert Westphal had the original idea to use WSPRnet data to track MH370. I wrote to him on 19th February 2021, which was the start of our wonderful collaboration.
Prof. Simon Maskell and his team at Liverpool University have been studying WSPR for over 3 years now. There are several other academic institutions who have joined them. They have tracked thousands of flights checking the WSPR data against the ADS-B data.
In our most recent paper dated 1st January 2025 and in our most recent New Technology, you can download the paper – A Proposed Global Passive Radar.
We describe how the new technology proposed in the paper is a global passive radar using radio amateur test signals. A total of 48 Boeing 777 aircraft flights were detected in all regions of the globe.
Regards the OI search strategy, please see my comment to Chris yesterday …
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-8/#comment-4042
@Richard
Very interesting !
For the test flight Air Austral Flight REU888 departed Bangkok, Thailand on 18th July 2024 at 02:22:00 UTC
Is there a picture showing both the actual flight path and the WSPR path ?
Because from what I understood of this technical paper, the results are showing the frequency anomalies and how you can track the aircraft but I didn’t see the calculated WSPR path next to the actual fly path to understand its precision.
@Luca,
The Air Austral flight was one of 48 Boeing flights analysed. It is used as a worked example.
The last ADS-B data is at a position 4.25818°N 92.328674°E at 03:57:06 UTC and the next ADS-B data is at a position 18.749771°S 60.300423°E at 08:38:48 UTC. These two positions are 4,336.465 km apart and 4:41:42 or 16,902 seconds apart. The average ground speed between these two points is 498.7 knots.
There is a large gap across the Indian Ocean, where the aircraft is out of range of any ADS-B receiver. The ground speed at the start of this gap was 522 knots and at the end of the gap was 467 knots.
We know the flight route from the flight plan and we know the wind speed and direction at altitude along the flight route. We calculated the position of the aircraft at 06:10:01 UTC and 110.6 seconds later at 06:11:51.6 UTC. The ground speed was 498.6 knots and the track 232.5°T.
At the time of writing the paper we analysed all WSPRnet anomalies passing within 2 km of the aircraft track and concluded a 55.6% sensitivity in detecting the aircraft.
A Boeing 777-300ER has a wing span of 65 m, so now we would analyse all WSPRnet anomalies passing within 65 m of the aircraft track and which results in this case in a 66.7% sensitivity in detecting the aircraft.
At 498.6 knots in 110.6 seconds, the aircraft would travel 28.369 km. We only have WSPRnet data every two minutes, so the accuracy is limited to how far an aircraft can travel in two minutes, which in this case is 31 km.
Thanks Richard.
For the example Air Austral Flight REU888 departed Bangkok, Thailand on 18th July 2024 at 02:22:00 UTC
Is there a figure showing the path constructed by WSPR compared to the true path of the flight?
Or maybe on the figures in the document the actual fly path is the doted line ?
@Luca,
The dotted line is the flight path assuming the aircraft kept to the flight plan.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuqNEeqvu6g
Armada 7806 has now been at sea 22 days on this swing. The weather is holding and Ocean Infinity continue their methodical survey work. Armada has a maximum endurance of 35 days and will need 5 days to transit to Fremantle. That means there is a week left in the MH370 search area before heading for port.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h7x49bpda6xermbho4w3v/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-28MAR2025-0606-UTC.png?rlkey=2d6nua03tiax396aumgf8xecv&dl=0
Armada 7806 is following a corridor about 20 nmi wide North Eastwards. The current position is North East of the Captain Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand area and South of the IG area.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/axtgue63uxk1xqmzfo2dh/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-28MAR2025-0606-UTC-Zoom.png?rlkey=hjuh4lnbfuednim40ejt85ja8&dl=0
If we take a look at Google Earth, the redline is the 7th Arc. The original bathymetric data stretches either side of the 7th Arc. The hot spots defined by Blelly/Marchand, IG, UWA and WSPR are marked along the 7th Arc. The circles are where Armada 7806 is currently working at the edge of the original survey area and extending out around 10 nmi into a new area.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9fgrgjhzilc3x47mlx0pr/GE-28MAR2025.png?rlkey=4er69b1jakhfw8vkn76efl49v&dl=0
Annette Gartland stated on my website: “This is unfounded speculation about a man who cannot defend himself”.
Others make the accusation of mass murder of 238 innocent people based on evidence.
It is a fact that Captain Zaharie Shah simulated a flight of a Boeing 777 to fuel exhaustion in the Southern Indian Ocean.
It is a fact that Malaysian Airlines hired a number of consultants to help them following the disappearance of MH370, they were all told right from the start by the airline, that it was the Captain.
It is a fact that Tony Abbot said: “My very clear understanding, from the very top levels of the Malaysian government, is that from very, very early on, they thought it was murder-suicide by the pilot.”
It’s probably more helpful to focus on finding the wreckage rather than speculate endlessly about an unsolved crime on the basis of disputable evidence and opinions.
It certainly would be foolish to rule out the pilot suicide theory at this stage.
It would be equally foolish to presume that Captain Shah was the pilot, acting alone.
Until more, incontrovertible evidence is recovered, it would be foolish to rule out any possibilities, including, for example, the fanciful possibility that the plane was specially adapted prior to the flight to be remotely controlled, and was controlled by somebody on board who parachuted out at the last minute, eg by blowing a hole at the back of the aircraft, over a prearranged rendez-vous point.
A tv documentary made in 2012 and broadcast in 2013 demonstrated the basic technology required to control the pitch, roll and thrust of a Boeing 727 remotely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment
Hi again Richard, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Vincent Lyne paper from 2024:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3B8A244FB86B058D36A406BE6EB17345/S0373463324000262a.pdf/final-two-mh370-communications-suggest-controlled-eastward-descent.pdf
I appreciate some of his comments are out of place (like, ‘solved by science!’), but is there any credibility in his research/hypothesis that the BFO places the final location towards the east at the end of the journey? Could be interesting to cover on your daily video if time allows. Thanks
@Theo,
Please see:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-8/#comment-3962
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-8/#comment-3953
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-8/#comment-3874
It looks like Armada 78 06 will arrive in Singapore on April 8th
@All,
As reported by Edward, Armada 7806 has left the MH370 search area and is heading to Singapore, where it is expected to arrive on 8th April 2025.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gu7zr511lpoklsrsu5qqo/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-28MAR2025-1438-UTC.png?rlkey=oabncqxdnjpz1iddwsf6de6ze&dl=0
Thanks for the update. Interesting, any thoughts as to why Singapore rather than Fremantle?
@Ed,
Welcome to the blog!
Fremantle, if they wish to continue their work this search season.
Singapore is home base, if they are not planning further work in the MH370 search area this search season.
Thanks, Richard. Do you think that it’s likely OI will release a statement to confirm one way or the other, particularly if this signals the end of operations for this search season?
@Ed,
Reuters reports that when they asked Ocean Infinity whether a contract has been signed, their reply was that they have: “no additional information to provide at this stage.”
Ocean Infinity has not released a statement or press release on MH370 this year.
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Oliver Plunkett, the CEO of Ocean Infinity, is quoted as saying on 20th December 2024 the Malaysian government’s decision was “great news”, adding: “We look forward to sharing further updates in the new year once we’ve finalised the details and the team gets ready to go.”
The team has been in the MH370 search area, but there are no further updates.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssJOP0pbro
In today’s report we discuss the decision made for Armada 7806 to leave the MH370 search area and head to its home port of Singapore.
Armada 7806 is not using the full extent of the November to April search season.
Armada 7806 is not going to Fremantle, which would have allowed another 6 days before leaving the search area and one more swing back to the search area, before the search season ends.
The weather is still good in the search area.
Tropical cyclone Courtney is now a category 4 but is way further North.
If Armada felt the need to avoid upcoming weather, it would be safer to head for Fremantle.
There has been no news from either Malaysia or Ocean Infinity. I am sure there is a clause in the contract about press releases.
Malaysia did issue Weekly Reports during the 2018 search by Ocean Infinity.
Oliver Plunkett, the CEO of Ocean Infinity, is quoted as saying on 20th December 2024 the Malaysian government’s decision was “great news”, adding: “We look forward to sharing further updates in the new year once we’ve finalised the details and the team gets ready to go.”
The Ocean Infinity team has been in the MH370 search area since 23rd February 2025, but there have been no further updates as promised.
Was the current bathymetric survey being conducted in isolation or on the behalf of / in collaboration with, the likes of Geoscience Australia or the Seabed 2030 project ?
Any partners receiving the results of the bathymetric survey however would also presumably have access to any anomalies that may have been found during the survey of the first two areas.
As suggested in the update, the last short AUV runs could simply have been due to the survey work having been completed in that area.
@Dave,
Ocean Infinity normally shares its bathymetric data with its partners.
How many AUVs can a single Armada vessel support concurrently ?
Could it simply be the case that Armada 7806 returned to Singapore instead of Fremantle in order to pick up additional AUVs at the same time as an early resupply/crew change ?
That would perhaps allow them to cover a larger area in a shorter time for the remaining 10 day window until the end of season and perhaps even a bit longer if the weather remained favourable.
@Dave,
2 AUVs and their containers is in the Armada 78 and 86 specification.
3 AUVs will fit on the aft deck, as is the case currently for Armada 7806.
Hi Richard, thanks for today’s update. How do we know that the NOK have not been advised of why the ship is going to Singapore, given they were told about the signing? And could it be going for repairs or something else that can’t be done in Fremantle?
@Richard
Having just watched the latest video, I agree with your assessment that the most likely explanation for Armada 78 06 leaving the search area is that the families’ Facebook post was wrong, there is no contract yet, and Ocean Infinity have finally had enough – at least for the time being.
However there are two other potential explanations:
(1) Ocean Infinity’s primary objective in sending Armada 78 06 to the search area before a contract was signed was always to pressure the Malaysians into signing. Now that objective has been achieved they can return at their leisure, as and when they don’t have other projects with guaranteed payment at the end.
(2) Ocean Infinity have found MH370, and Armada 78 06’s work is done because it doesn’t carry salvage equipment.
@Duncan
I suspect that they would have deployed the ROV first to document the find before even thinking about any salvage operation.
According to what Richard has said previously, salvage would require approval from the state of registration of the aircraft, which may not be part of any currently agreed contract. Until then it is survey and document but not disturb.
Although, as I mentioned previously, not sure how you can confirm with 100% certainty that any debris found is from a particular aircraft in order to accurately determine the state of registration, until after recovering it first for further analysis.
@Duncan,
I suspect your explanation 1 is correct.
Richard, do you think Armada 8601 might be heading to the search area? It’s left Singapore for Cape Town, but I feel like if it were going to the southern Indian Ocean it would have left the regular shipping lanes already and headed in that direction. Maybe there is weather it has to avoid? What do you think.
@Hazel Gabe,
Armada 8601 is heading directly to Cape Town and not to the MH370 search area.
@Richard didn’t Armada 7806 also go to Cape Town, before Mauritus, then onto the search area? If yes, then perhap 8601 is following the same plan? If not, then I wonder if OI have certain ports they need to visit before heading to the search area, or whether they can simply head to the search area from anywhere within range.
@Theo,
Armada 8601 is going direct to Cape Town and is not heading to the MH370 search area. Armada ships do not have to go to Cape Town first as a general rule. Armada 7806 went to Cape Town to collect some equipment left there, after a previous search in the Antarctic.
The families Facebook post was not wrong. The contract has been signed by the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity.
@Annette Gartland
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how do you know this?
Six days on from the families’ Facebook post, neither the Malaysians nor Ocean Infinity have confirmed it.
My biggest frustration is, the WSPR hotspot was not even surveyed since OI started in Feb. 25.
I think a lot of readers are also hoping MH370 wreckage is in the WSPR area…
@Jafni,
Ocean Infinity has indicated a possible 18 month timeframe for any new search. They have only spent 27 days surveying in 2025. There is still a lot more work to do and this has waited 11 years so far.
@All,
A large number of observers believe that MH370 has already been found or has possibly been found.
I would like to point out that:
1. Ocean Infinity has been surveying in the MH370 search area for a total of 27 days.
2. This was survey work and not search work. The search has not yet started.
3. If Armada 7806 had found MH370 during the survey work, then it would cease surveying and concentrate on one particular location.
4. Every day Armada 7806 has moved from location to location within the survey area.
AF447 and CI611 are the only comparable events of a modern aircraft crashing in the middle of an ocean with over 200 fatalities.
AF447 wreckage was found on 2nd April 2011, nearly 2 years after the crash on 1st June 2009.
The sea floor debris field was 600 m x 200 m = 120,000 m2, at a depth of 3,900 m.
It took 17 days from 26th April 2011 to 13th May 2011 to recover the FDR and key items of wreckage.
It took 13 days from 21st May 2011 to 3rd June 2011 to map the debris field.
CI611 wreckage was found almost immediately, after the crash on 25th May 2002.
The sea floor main wreckage debris field was 2,778 m x 2,222 m = 6,172,716 m2, at a depth between 50 m and 70 m.
It took 16 days to map the debris field.
It took 25 days to find the FDR and CVR, which were found 610 m apart.
I do not believe, that MH370 has been found already and that fact is being kept secret.
Ocean Infinity will be back next search season, starting in November 2025.
@Richard
I think most of the comments mentioning the fact that « they believe wreckage is found » are linked to an emotion rather than a scientific fact.
After so many years, it feels better to think in an optimistic way rather than believing the search is not done and that it will need to continue in November.
I can understand the public is tired and wants an end to this.
Especially because there is no official statements from one side or the other. It leaves the room to interpretations. Malaysia AND ocean infinity are the one to blame for this.
@Luca,
As you state: “The public may be tired and wants an end to this.”
How do you think the MH370 Families feel after 11 years?
@Richard
For sure way worse then the public.
But I’m quite sure they aren’t getting more information compared to the public, unfortunately.
For me, it looks like the contract has strong clauses of confidentiality and that’s why OI can’t communicate to the public. They are in a way handcuffed by the authorities. At least that’s what I feel.
@Luca,
You are not correct. Oliver Plunkett knows the contract details and said:
“We look forward to sharing further updates in the new year once we’ve finalised the details and the team gets ready to go.”
Whoever thinks they found MH370 is probably guilty of wishful thinking. I feel like we are searching in all the places where MH370 is NOT located, because looking where MH370 is actually located requires politically incorrect thinking.
@TBill,
Why are we “searching in all the places where MH370 is NOT located”?
Is it really just “politically incorrect thinking”?
Re:Is it really just “politically incorrect thinking”?
The answer to that question is currently trapped in a war of attrition in No Man’s Land, somewhere between the Streetlight Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
and the McNamara Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
Might it be time for Rolls-Royce, on behalf of Interpol and the global civilian aviation population, to hire OI, or another search team, to go and retrieve two stolen Trent 800 engines that are quite probably rusting on the ocean floor in the SIO?
@All,
Jeff Wise has published a report on me and my work in a recent YouTube video.
Here is what Jeff Wise missed in his investigation:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jl9kcoc0s1ove3dowkmfj/What-Jeff-Wise-Missed-30MAR2025.pdf?rlkey=0nsjtgzt61sjxakbxoal86fa2&dl=0
Richard, I came across Victor Iannello’s blog and replied to a recent comment from a user. I have to assume he deleted my comment (or rather, didn’t approve it) because it doesn’t seem to fit the “accepted” opinion allowed in his comment section. I was wondering why there are only WSPR sceptics on his blog, but I think I have my answer now.
I find it unbelievable what JW is doing. I can’t understand how you manage to stay so calm while being accused of things by such an idiot (sorry for the strong words, but this is the most socially acceptable description that came to my mind).
You always take the time to respond to every comment and every doubt someone raises, which shows that you have nothing to hide. This is how science works. Unfortunately, many people seem to forget that and let their ego take precedence—as if this was some sort of competition.
Stay strong, Richard. I’m rooting for you and the WSPR research. Haters gonna hate, no matter what.
“A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends.”
@Cessi,
I have great respect for sceptics. I am a sceptic too.
I have no respect for “ad hominem” personal attacks on people who don’t agree with you. An opponent should make his rational argument in good faith and provide supporting evidence.
If I didn’t have any opponents, I would be worried that what I was working on might be irrelevant.
Well put Cessi. Richard’s patience and mature attitude is an example to all. If I’m right, retrospective WSPR analysis has been shown to agree with known flight paths in at least some cases, so his opinion of where to look is surely worthy of being taken seriously for some form of further realworld investigation at the least. I can’t understand why it would be completely dismissed out of hand by anyone credible.
@Nginmu,
Many thanks to your kind words. We have meanwhile run tests with thousands of flights, checking the WSPR data against the ADS-B data.
I see that a BBC journalist by the name of KT Hodgson has just posted on the Families’ Facebook page that she’s sent them an email about their contract announcement.
So it looks like the mainstream media have belatedly grasped that we have a counterintuitive – verging on bizarre – situation where Ocean Infinity search when they don’t have a contract, and stop searching immediately they do have a contract.
@Duncan,
I wonder what the BBC email says …
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ifkblfo6j9wb7tddjyax/KT-Hodgson-BBC-London.png?rlkey=9lves8geji19k2573wzedhcb6&dl=0
I imagine she’s asked for their source, and whether they might have just misinterpreted Malaysia’s 19 March press release – although I don’t really see how that would be possible given that the press release clearly refers to the signing in the future tense.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4UqqYWY3tA
Armada 7806 is underway to Singapore, with 7 days remaining until it arrives on 7th April 2025.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6lxjpct3njqom7ttkpy72/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-31MAR2025-0502-UTC.png?rlkey=fnb9rp9jnlq77yby3w24mddyx&dl=0
Armada 8601 is underway to Cape Town, with 14 days remaining until it arrives on 14th April 2025. It is not going to the MH370 search area.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k72gjevt2u71i5vpgc1o6/Armada-8601-Vessel-Finder-31MAR2025-0538-UTC.png?rlkey=ykazn4y5t459oj6cejut11eec&dl=0
Intense tropical cyclone Courtney with winds of up to 185 km/h is expected to start reducing to a remnant by Tuesday.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eb923t04autdkmrw9zwkt/Weather-31MAR2025-0530-UTC.png?rlkey=9kx222k0ivzuq5bg31ykvniyq&dl=0
In today’s report we answer the question, whether MH370 has already been found, with a no.
We discuss the investigation into my person, career and work by Jeff Wise in a recent podcast, where he questions “Is Godfrey really, who he says he is?”
We issued a paper yesterday, titled: “What Jeff Wise Missed” in his investigation into me and my
work.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jl9kcoc0s1ove3dowkmfj/What-Jeff-Wise-Missed-30MAR2025.pdf?rlkey=0nsjtgzt61sjxakbxoal86fa2&dl=0
We give an update on the observation by Captain Martyn Smith of an unidentified aircraft, which made an incursion into the airspace assigned to his flight EK407 on 8th March 2014. This was a serious airprox incident.
It’s a very interesting investigation. Do I understand correctly that in this case the Poseidon was used as an airplane to search for debris on the ocean surface (apparently)?
I’m a little confused about the time, was the Poseidon plane supposed to fly to Arc 7 by the morning of March 9th? To what point on the 7th arc would such a course lead him? Is it possible to check how the search was conducted by this aircraft on the 7th arc that day using WSPR? Is it possible to assume that if they did not find anything in that place and really launched a search on the surface somewhere in the 7th arc, then this is an argument that MH370 did not crash near this place?
@Edward,
My apologies that you are confused about the time of Captain Martyn Smith’s observation.
The time was 8th March 2014 at 18:46 UTC.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5wdn8ox3vqmf5cn3lu2nc/EK407-from-Melbourne-to-Dubai-08MAR2014-1846-UTC-Waypoint-MUTMI-Back-and-Forward-Track.png?rlkey=kvm2zw25b2ci5lgsckos322ih&dl=0
In the same way that the flight path of EK407 has been mapped against the flight path of FlightXX, would it be possible to map the flight path of MH370 against those of MH88 and JAL750 the previous night?
Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere.
The reason I ask is that it has been reported that the pilots of JAL750 and MH88 heard and identified the voice of the co-pilot of MH370 at approximately 1:30 am (17:30 UTC) as it approached the Malaysian town of Kota Bharu.
By using WSPR to map the flight paths of MH370 against those of JAL750 and MH88 it might help to establish whether the audio heard and reported by the two pilots was authentic or not?
If it was authentic, this would suggest that the co-pilot was in the cockpit and conscious at that time.
@TommyL,
It is perfectly possible to monitor MH88 and JAL750 in the same way. But JAL750 is a flight from Ho Chi Minh (SGN) to Tokyo (NRT), whereas MH88 is a flight from Kuala Lumpur (KUL) to Tokyo (NRT).
If MH370 diverted after waypoint IGARI back across Malaysia and the Co-Pilot’s mobile was detected near Penang at 17:52:57 UTC and after the SDU reboot MH370 was detected at 18:25:27 UTC at the 1st Arc, the VHF radio range (which is dependent on the altitude of both aircraft in the communication) will depend on the position and altitude of all three aircraft at 17:30 UTC.
Hi Richard, I have been reading your website and papers on WSPR tracking for a few years now. Congratulations on all you have achieved for science and technology to date.
I wanted to understand your thoughts on the tracked aircraft sorties from Diego Garcia and wrap my head around who would have known what when, over and above what you mentioned in the video.
From what I can gather (via Wikipedia and your videos w/Geoffrey) All dates/times UTC
7th March 2024
16:42 – MH370 takes off
17:21 – MH370 disappears from screens.
18:22 – last primary radar contact with 9M-MRO over Andaman Sea.
18:25 – 00:11(8th March) – Various log on requests and handshakes to Inmarsat.
23:24 – Press release declaring aircraft missing.
8th March 2014
00:19 – Last Inmarsat contact with the aircraft.
01:15 – 9M-MRO does not respond to hourly automated handshake request.
15:11-15:18 (21:11 local) – Aircraft XX, YY and ZZ depart Diego Garcia.
~18:30 UTC – Aircraft XX, YY and ZZ near ELATI and MUTMI.
In a previous video you surmised that it is apparent that US would have had the outputs of the Inmarsat data analysis and in this video you mentioned that Boeing ran some scenarios.
1. Would it have been possible for someone, somewhere to crunch the BTO and BFO data and place the aircraft in the SIO within that time frame (~13 hours), or do you think that there is more to it? e.g. other classified military radar contact not yet disclosed. I understand that crunching the BTO and BFO data is a very laborious task and was done intensively by the ATSB to help define the underwater search areas.
2. When did Boeing run those scenarios? Seems like a lot of work, done very quickly to get to the ‘first pass’ MH370 path shown at 14:43 in this video.
3. Would it be not incorrect to say that flying three surveillance aircraft to the same area was a bit of a ‘hail-mary’ to find any trace of MH370?
I guess it is all academic, really, as we now have better data and studies to define search areas.
Thanks again and keep up the good work.
@OliverL,
Welcome to the blog!
Inmarsat, Lockheed Martin and Thales worked out how the satellite BTO and BFO data could be useful to track aircraft following the AF447 crash in 2009. In 2011 Inmarsat updated its ground stations to archive the BTO and BFO data for all aircraft using their SATCOM system, which included MH370. In 2011, Inmarsat and other industry partners were prepared to use the BTO and BFO data, should another event like AF447 occur.
Boeing run simulations all the time on the fuel range and endurance of their aircraft given the True Air Speed (TAS), Mach setting, altitude, outside air temperature, engine type, engine performance degradation allowance, winds and temperatures encountered on a particular route at any point in time.
It would not take long after the announcement that an aircraft is missing, for Inmarsat, Lockheed Martin, Thales and Boeing to run their data. The process does not take long and the runs are computer automated.
The US Navy could well have been aware of the initial flight path estimate for MH370 on 8th March 2014. The US Navy has a comprehensive Search and Rescue (SAR) capability and the P8-Poseidon aircraft is one of the most advanced SAR aircraft in the world. This was not a stab in the dark.
Richard thanks for sharing information about your Stirling career achievements.
As you indicated, It’s fascinating to know that there were US Navy search planes out in the Indian Ocean after just one day.
This raises a couple of questions such as:
1. How is it possible that based on their flight archival initiative, Inmarsat was able to extract and pass the BFO BTO data to Boeing, who were in turn able to determine that MH370 did fly south to the Indian ocean and who in turn passed that info to the US Navy for their search, all within 24 hours?
2. While you seemed certain the planes were on a search for MH370, couldn’t they be on some other mission or purpose?
3. However if this was a search for MH370 debris, what possible reason could they have for not getting the full search party focussed on the Indian ocean right away on 9th March instead of nearly 10 days later?
4. Does the WSPR track for the US planes indicate the location where they were searching and is it around the 7th Arc?
thanks very much
@Veritas,
Oliver L. asked similar questions, you can see my response:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-9/#comment-4159
Anything is possible, but I point to the following data:
1. These unidentified flights took place in the middle of the Indian Ocean, just 24 hours after the disappearance of MH370.
2. The unidentified flights were traced back to the US facility at Diego Garcia.
3. The unidentified flights were following the flight path assumed for MH370 defined by Boeing and Inmarsat, which was later made public.
4. The unidentified flights were at the typical cruising speed and cruising altitude of a P8 Poseidon aircraft.
5. The unidentified flights were en route to the location around 36°S on the 7th Arc and time to arrive at first day light.
6. The US Navy either did not share this information with the Malaysian authorities or the information was only followed up on at a later date or it took until 17th March 2014 to organise a multi-national and multi-asset search and rescue operation involving both military and civilian ships (14) and aircrafts (29), with several hundred personnel in a search area initially assessed as being 4.7 Million km2.
hi Richard,
When will the journal by Prof Simon Maskell & his team be published on wspr?
@Tph,
The IEEE AWP letters publication has a relatively fast turn-around (probably about 3-6 months from submission to publication).
A version of the submitted paper would be posted on arXiv immediately after the paper is submitted. That should mean that a version is available for people to read, well before publication of the accepted version.
@Richard
Is your billionaire friend aware of the current situation? There would still be time to search the WSPR area. The behavior of OI is frustrating (even if they are tied by Malaysian authorities). I guess contract will never be signed. Malaysia needs to be kicked out of this. This is only games with families left behind.
@Mikko,
He is certainly following events closely. There is a lack of transparency in the situation and no clear communication on what is going on.
I will ask him, what his take is, but I guess he will say it is premature to come to a conclusion at the moment.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyZZoPywRFE
We discuss the controversial scientific discussion around WSPR and accept that there are people who think we are wrong.
We respect people like Victor Iannello who take the time to write a paper explaining why he believes WSPR cannot be used to detect and track aircraft.
He lays out his arguments like:
1. WSPR was never designed to detect and track aircraft.
2. The WSPR signals are too weak to detect anomalies.
3. The distances involved, from a transmitter to the aircraft and then back to the receiver, are too long.
4. There are over 20,000 other aircraft in the air, which also could be the source of an anomaly.
5. There are many reasons why there are fluctuations in the ionosphere that will affect the signal to noise ratio (SNR) or received frequency (Doppler shift) measured by the receiver.
We answer these points and a number of viewer’s questions.
I have been following this blog since I saw you on 60 Minutes Australia three years ago. My father was an aeronautical engineer, and your thoughtful, deliberate, and caring manner reminded me of him. I read your supporting documentation and felt confident that you’d cracked the case. Nothing I’ve read or heard since has caused me to doubt that conclusion.
Regarding recent attacks against your research and character, it’s been my experience that the cream eventually rises to the top. Sometimes it can take an agonizingly long time, but when you take the high road, stick to your guns, and any other idioms that may apply, you will be vindicated.
Like most people who’ve followed the story of MH370, I’d like the plane to be found as soon as possible wherever it may lie on the ocean floor, but I have a burning hope that it will be found exactly where your work has led and you will finally receive the recognition that I believe you deserve. Thank you for your dedication to solving this mystery and bringing closure to the families.
I want to bring up again the idea of crowdfunding to search the WSPR area. I think it will only take a few days to get it searched by another company since the area is relatively small. There are a couple of companies which could do this and maybe it would be interesting to request prices so an estimation could be done on how realistic this is and if the amount could be funded through crowdfunding. Because we don‘t even know if OI is coming back in november. And if they will we don‘t know for sure if they are planning to search the WSPR area or not…
@Cessi,
The funding has already been secured and is not the issue. It is a multi million dollar operation.
Ocean Infinity have made it clear that they are willing to fund the search for MH370 on a “no find, no fee” basis. Ocean Infinity have proposed $70M compensation, if successful.
Ocean Infinity’s ship Armada 7806 is returning to its home port of Singapore, because no agreement has been reached with Malaysia yet.
If it becomes clear that an agreement between Ocean Infinity and Malaysia cannot be reached, there are other companies with the capability and interest to search for MH370. This includes at least one company willing to self fund the operation.
@Richard
The day before yesterday @Annette Gartland stated that “The contract has been signed by the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity”:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-9/#comment-4138
I asked her how she knew this but she hasn’t replied yet.
Now you state with equal certainty that “no agreement has been reached with Malaysia yet”.
So I would ask you the same question: how do you know this?
I think that on the balance of probabilities you are more likely to be right, but I wouldn’t put it any higher than 60/40.
@Duncan,
Two emails from Ocean Infinity:
1. 7th March: “Should it be the case we carry out a search then no doubt someone in the business will put out a statement.”
2. 1st April: “There will be an announcement when it is an appropriate time to make one.”
Personally, I don’t think either of those quotes tell us anything about whether the contract has been signed.
The first was twelve days before the Malaysians announced that they were ready to sign, and the second might just mean that the contract has been signed, but OI have some reason for not wanting to announce it yet.
@TommyL,
There has been no official confirmation that either JAL750 or MH88 were able to contact MH370 via VHF radio.
On 7th March 2014 17:30 UTC (8th March 2014 at 01:30 am local time) MH370 was inbound towards Kota Bharu, Malaysia following an air turn back. JAL750 had just taken off from Ho Chi Minh (SGN) and was at around 11.752°N 107.010°E at 23,975 feet. MH88 was in the cruise at around 12.971°N 108.385°E at 35,000 feet.
At 17:30 UTC, the VHF line of sight radio horizon would have allowed communication between JAL750 and MH370, but not MH88, which by then was 48 km over the radio horizon.
At the time of the diversion 17:20:35 UTC, MH88 would have been within communication reach, but after the air turn back of MH370, the distance between the two aircraft was increasing rapidly and at some time around 17:26 UTC would have been beyond the radio horizon.
Richard- I tend to assume it was MAS88 that heard the mumbling, but that’s the problem MAS88 was so far away from MH370 that it probably was not MH370 that they heard. As the (MAS88) pilot reportedly said, if he had heard MH370, many other planes and ships would have also heard it. This incident gets far more attention than its worth… but I thought it might poss be radio distance if both planes at FL350
@TBill,
I would hope that the investigators followed up with other aircraft and ships in the region, whether they had picked up any communication on the emergency frequencies.
Malaysia is long since guilty of lack of transparency, and the alleged radio call is just one example of “eyewitness” account that Malaysia could have and should have addressed with public FAQs.
Thanks Richard,
Re:”There has been no official confirmation that either JAL750 or MH88 were able to contact MH370 via VHF radio.”
The news was reported in The New Straits Times on 9th March 2014
The Wikipedia page about The New Straits Times indicates that:
“The New Straits Times is considered a ‘Newspaper Of Record’ for Malysia”.
In the circumstances, that might be as close to official confirmation as we will ever get.
It may be that for one reason or another the identities of the flights as reported in the newspaper were not accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Straits_Times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#cite_note-nst-pilot-17
The referenced archived newspaper article seems to disappear shortly after being displayed, so here is the relevant text:
‘INTERFERENCE’: Pilot in another plane was flying 30 minutes ahead of MH370
SEPANG: A BOEING 777 pilot, who was flying 30 minutes ahead of the missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft, said he established contact with MH370 minutes after he was asked to do so by Vietnamese air traffic control.
The captain, who asked to not be named, said his plane, which was bound for Narita, Japan, was far into Vietnamese airspace when he was asked to relay, using his plane’s emergency frequency, to MH370 for the latter to establish its position, as the authorities could not contact the aircraft.
“We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked them if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace.
“The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie (Ahmad Shah, 53,) or Fariq (Abdul Hamid, 27), but I was sure it was the co-pilot.
“There were a lot of interference… static… but I heard mumbling from the other end.
“That was the last time we heard from them, as we lost the connection,” he told the New Sunday Times.
He said those on the same frequency at the time would have heard the exchange.
This, he said, would include vessels on the waters below.
He said he thought nothing of it, as the occurrence (of losing contact) was normal, until it was established that MH370 never landed.
“If the plane was in trouble, we would have heard the pilot making the Mayday distress call. But I am sure that, like me, no one else up there heard it.
“Following the silence, a repeat request was made by the Vietnamese authorities to try establishing contact with them.”
Re:MH88, from the positions of the aircraft it seems likely that the pilot of MH88 heard the messages from HCM ATC and from JAL750, but was too far away to pick up the weak signal from MH370.
The JAL750 pilot, in the New Straits Times article, refers to being sure it was the voice of ‘the co-pilot’ that he heard.
Would that mean the First Officer, who in this case was the pilot flying, or the Pilot in Command, Captain Shah, who was at that time, at least theoretically, the pilot navigating.
I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that he meant First Officer Hamid.
Dear Richard,
I have been following your work with great interest and believe that WSPR could be a crucial key in the search for MH370. To gain broader acceptance for this method and convince the Malaysian government to approve a new search, independent validation is essential.
I propose collaborating with experts in radio propagation, aviation navigation, and data analysis to set up a controlled experiment. This could involve:
1. Testing with known flights – Using publicly available ADS-B and radar data as a reference to compare with WSPR signals.
2. Analyzing WSPR data – Checking if disturbances systematically correlate with aircraft movements.
3. Publishing the results – If successful, the findings could be published in a scientific journal and presented at conferences.
Such validation could help gain more support, both scientifically and politically, and potentially open the door for a renewed search effort by Ocean Infinity.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Best regards,
@Jos,
That is exactly what we are doing and have been doing for the last 4 years.
I have answered you in full in today’s episode of Daily Airline News.
Granted, A LONGER WAIT FOR RELATIVES.
OI searching November 2025 CAN BE VIEWED FAVORABLY.
OI state, ‘WE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MH370 IS FOUND’.
IF OCEAN INFINITY CONTINUED INTO APRIL, HALTING OPERATIONS WHEN SEARCHING DUE TO LIMITING WEATHER OR EQUIPMENT, COULD MEDIA PROMTLY ACCUSE OI OF SUPERFICIAL FALIURE?
No doubt DAMAGING OI’s Public Relations.
November 2025 AIDS THEIR QUALITY METHOD, LIMITING POSSIBLE CORPORATE MISFIRE.
I don’t know about analyzing Inmarsat data and WSPR data. I do know about 370 debris and the ocean, and I know about people. I know Richard Godfrey, and he is totally dedicated to finding MH 370. He sincerely believes that his WSPR tracking and other work will help find her. Richard does not deserve the vicious personal attacks and character assassination he is undergoing now. It is time for this extreme hostility, vitriol, and toxicity in the 370 “community” to stop.
@BG 370,
Many thanks for your kind words of support.
I cant wait until the day he is vindicated. Absolute melts taking shots need to have a word with themselves.
I totally agree with BG370. Everyone who is discrediting WSPR as a tracking tool or Richard personally should be reminded that Sildenafil, commonly known as Viagra, was originally developed as a treatment for angina. It is used for a totally different purpose today….
@Chris,
There are countless examples across history and modern technology.
You mention Viagra, another commenter mentioned the microwave oven.
Here is a list from ChatGPT:
Coca-Cola: Originally developed in 1885 as a medicinal tonic to treat ailments (including morphine addiction), it was later transformed into the world’s most popular soft drink.
Lysol: Initially marketed as a surgical antiseptic, floor cleaner, and even as a “feminine hygiene” product (and oddly, at one point even as a form of contraception), it eventually found its niche as a mouthwash to combat bad breath.
Post-it Notes: A 3M scientist accidentally created a weak, reusable adhesive while trying to develop a super-strong one. After a colleague used it to bookmark a hymnal, the idea was reworked into the handy sticky note we use today.
Bubble Wrap: Invented as a textured wallpaper (and later as greenhouse insulation) by sealing two shower curtains together, it was only after a failed start that its value as protective packaging was discovered by IBM.
Play-Doh: Originally formulated as a wallpaper cleaner to remove coal soot, its fate changed when its non-toxic, moldable nature was discovered by children—and it became a beloved modelling clay.
WD-40: Initially designed to protect missile parts from rust and corrosion (after 40 failed attempts to develop a water-displacing formula), it’s now a staple for household repairs.
Teflon: First used for military sealing applications, it later revolutionized kitchens as the non-stick coating on cookware.
The Internet (ARPANET): Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense as a robust, military communication network, it evolved into the public global network we use today.
Needless to say Blaine has been victim of horrific character assassination by Jeff Wise and others. Richard is a bona fide MH370 expert, not saying I agree with everything. Wise is actually not too bad as an expert either when he sticks to facts. But my opinion nobody is making the leap successfully from facts to the next step, which is a judgement call of what the facts mean as far as crash location. Pilot probably flew the sim case, that simple I feel, and that is forbidden logic. And the sim case probably crosses Arc7 near the WSPR crossing.
@TBill,
Victor Iannello and Yves Guillaume published a study dated 29th November 2016 on the subject of the home flight simulator of Captain Zaharie Shah, where they concluded the simulated flight path crossed the 7th Arc at 26.9°S 100.6°E.
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
This is the same crash location as put forward in a previous paper by Victor Iannello and Richard Godfrey:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/769t2wl3a9p6soyr318v4/2016-08-25-MH370-Path-Towards-McMurdo-Station.pdf?rlkey=z0kee73f8f5rnvgll82iakmqf&dl=0
Captain Smith’s testimony raised an interesting point. Eventually, he confirmed that he flew on March 8 actually. But focusing on March 7, 2014, UTC in the southern Indian Ocean, after flying around Sumatra, flight MH370 likely crossed paths with a very small number of other flights. Data retrieved from the FlightAware web pages shows that it likely crossed paths with four other flights. Using the piloted flight path reconstructed by Captain Blelly and J-L. Marchand as a reference trajectory, the shortest estimated crossing distance is only 12 nautical miles for two of these flights. Flight MH370 could not have avoided seeing them. These flights did not see it because of the dark, moonless night, because its external lights were probably off and because it was likely at a lower flight level. The flight formation of these two aircraft flying between flight levels FL320 and FL380, one directly above the other, suggests that flight MH370 crossed them from below, which corroborates the flight level FL300 calculated in the reference trajectory.
The report with its video summary and the data are available at https://www.mh370-caption.net/index.php/possible-mh370-encounters-in-the-southern-indian-ocean/
The data is in csv format for the ease of use.
@Jean-Luc Marchand,
Many thanks for sharing this information.
Waypoint MUTMI seems to be quite a meeting place in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I find it strange that there were no reports of any near misses, air proximities or evidence from other pilots in the MH370 official investigation.
When Captain Martyn Smith reported his sighting on 8th March 2014, Australian ATC denied any knowledge of any other aircraft in the vicinity. When we asked the Australian ATC for confirmation, we were told “no comment”.
I can confirm your report of flight SQ478 (SIA478), which we included in our paper on MH370 Flight Path Analysis dated 31st August 2023.
I can confirm your report of flight EK407 (UAE407), which we are still investigating on 7th March 2014, with the help of Captain Martyn Smith.
Your report of flight EY461 (ETD461) is new to me, but equally likely.
Your hypothesis is that MH370 was below the altitude of these other flights at FL300. Our hypothesis in the MH370 Flight Path Analysis was, that MH370 may have departed from its original FL350 to an interim flight level, such as FL345 or FL355.
We also note in the MH370 Flight Path Analysis dated 31st August 2023, that there were two step climbs at 21:14 UTC and 23:18 UTC.
We both agree that the pilot of MH370 took care to avoid other aircraft traffic, whilst en route to the Southern Indian Ocean and passing by waypoints such as KETIV or MUTMI.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_10w4fsXfA
In today’s report, we give a short update on Armada 7806 followed by a number of viewer’s questions.
1. What is the difference between Survey work and Search work ?
2. How does Ocean Infinity conduct Survey work ?
3. What is the scientific validation process of using WSPR to detect and track aircraft ?
4. When will papers be published in scientific journals ?
@Duncan,
1. 7th March: “Should it be the case we carry out a search then no doubt someone in the business will put out a statement.”
We agree, that so far in 2025, there has been no statement from Ocean Infinity concerning the search for MH370.
2. 1st April: “There will be an announcement when it is an appropriate time to make one.”
We agree, that the appropriate time to make an announcement has not yet come.
3. We agree that Ocean Infinity initially indicated the best time to search is from November to April.
4. We agree that the MH370 Families announced on 26th March 2025, that a new search agreement has been signed.
5. We agree Armada 7806 left the search area on 28th March 2025 and is on its way back to its home port of Singapore.
You originally concluded: “So it looks like the mainstream media have belatedly grasped that we have a counterintuitive – verging on bizarre – situation where Ocean Infinity search when they don’t have a contract, and stop searching immediately they do have a contract.”
You stated: “I see that a BBC journalist by the name of KT Hodgson has just posted on the Families’ Facebook page that she’s sent them an email about their contract announcement.”
Do you still believe that the BBC were trying to verify the MH370 Families source(s) for their statement?
You asked @Annette Gartland the source(s) of her statement that “The contract has been signed by the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity”.
Did you see an answer on her website or anywhere else ?
Annette Gartland based her statement on information posted by MH370 next‐of‐kin on their Facebook page. In that announcement, the families reported that a “no find, no fee” contract had been signed between Malaysia and Ocean Infinity.
However, note that later statements and press releases from the Malaysian Ministry of Transport indicate that the agreement is still “being finalised,” so there appears to be some discrepancy between what the next‐of‐kin report and official government communications say.
Her article dated 26th March 2025 on Changing Times explains that the news came from the MH370 Families Facebook page, even though no full press release or further confirmation had yet been issued.
@Richard
To answer your questions:
“Do [I] still believe that the BBC were trying to verify the MH370 Families source(s) for their statement?”
Yes, I still think this is the most likely reason for KT Hodgson’s email.
“Did you see an answer on [Annette Gartland’s] website or anywhere else ?”
No, but before I asked the question she said in her 29 March article that: “A source close to the negotiations has told Changing Times that the contract between Malaysia and Ocean Infinity specifies an 18-month search…” so I suspect it’s the same source, whoever that may be.
As per my earlier post, and looking at all the evidence, I think that on the balance of probabilities you’re probably right that there is no contract yet, but you’re going out on a limb by stating it with such certainty.
More generally, I think that the Malaysians and OI really need to put out a joint statement as soon as possible to let the next of kin and the world at large know what on earth is going on. Their current omerta is just going to fuel conspiracy theories, and when it comes to MH370 there are quite enough of them already.
@Duncan,
Ocean Infinity have always said, that they will not search without an agreement with Malaysia.
They are currently not searching.
They were recently in the search area.
They could have stayed in the search area and provisioned in Fremantle, Australia, but they chose not to take that option.
You agree that there is probably currently no signed search agreement.
I estimate that probability as highly likely or almost certainly the case.
I laid out my case with 5 points of evidence. You answered my questions, but you did not answer the 5 points of evidence that I raised, but still conclude I am going out on a limb.
If you expect me to also publish copies of private emails from Ocean Infinity, I am not going to do that.
@Richard
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were expecting a response to your five statements.
I agree that 1, 2, 3 and 5 are circumstantial evidence that there is no contract yet. However, there are other potential explanations for OI making no public statement and leaving the search area a month before the end of the season.
On the other hand, 4 is hearsay evidence that there IS a contract.
If you have additional evidence that is not in the public domain, such as private emails from OI after 26 March explicitly stating (or heavily hinting) that there is no contract yet, then I’m happy to accept that you’re not going out on a limb.
And no, of course I don’t expect you to publish private emails.
@Duncan,
On 19th March 2025 Reuters reports: “Malaysia agrees terms for restarting MH370 wreckage search.”
They also reported:
“A ship that will look for the missing plane was deployed to its Indian Ocean search zone late last month, ship tracking data showed, even though a deal had yet to be signed with the government.”
“It was not immediately clear how long the search contract with Ocean Infinity would be. Loke had previously said it would cover an 18-month period.”
On 20th March 2025 Associated Press reports: “Loke said his ministry will ink a contract with Ocean Infinity soon but didn’t provide details on the terms. The firm has reportedly sent a search vessel to the site and
indicated that January-April is the best period for the search.”
So terms are agreed on 19th March, but the contract is still to be inked on 20th March.
Today, Anthony Loke said live on Star TV Malaysia: “Yes, the agreement has been signed. The agreement has been signed last week.”
“Ocean Infinity will resume the search efforts at the end of this year.”
In the absence of any confirmation from Ocean Infinity, which we and others have requested, I reserve judgement on the statement from the Malaysian Minister of Transport.
@Richard
I’ve just watched the Star TV video you refer to.
If the contract was signed last week, it’s very strange indeed that OI still haven’t said anything.
I’m left wondering whether Malaysia might have altered the contract in some way, signed it, then announced that it’s been signed in an attempt to present OI with a fait accompli.
If so, it’s an extraordinary way to do business.
There’s a statement from MH370 families that a contract has been signed 25th of March but due to other responsibilities OI has suspended the search and will return on November this year.
@Mikko,
Here is the latest statement by the MH370 Families:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/40cpm9jcom76icpa4v4m5/MH370-Families-Announcement-02APR2025.png?rlkey=7o7cbzujadovxobhycs6tayfz&dl=0
It was backed up by a statement by Anthony Loke on Malaysian TV:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3iihfz1jxsxw1mcp2cyty/BERNAMA-MH370cAGREEMENT-WITH-OCEAN-INFINITY-SIGNED-SEARCH-TO-RECOMMENCE-YEAR-END-LOKE.pdf?rlkey=f5btmvxbpc4d2au5h5rmex8w0&dl=0
No comment from Ocean Infinity and it takes two parties to sign an agreement for it to be binding.
@OliverL
@Veritas
@Richard Godfrey
Further to the circumstances surrounding the Major AIRPROX Incident in the Indian Ocean, in the vicinity of waypoint MUTMI that was reported by Captain Martyn Smith who was operating Emirates Flight EK407 from Melbourne to Dubai on the night of the 8th/9th March 2014.
Both OliverL and Veritas have raised some very interesting points re the time frame of the US response to the vanishing of MH370. Richard Godfrey has provided some interesting insights into Inmarsat’s capabilities which were developed as a result of AF447 in 2009, but as Richard also said, anything is possible.
Although the technical ability and infrastructure was in place within the commercial companies involved, the essential issue however remains, “the incredible speed of the US response”.
I think that the inertia within each commercial company would not have allowed them to react, coordinate, and respond quickly enough, but in light of the recent revelations of Captain Martyn Smith of EK407on the night following the vanishing of MH370, and in light of the fact that Richard Godfrey has since used WSPR records to identify THREE unknown aircraft flying in close proximity to EK407, (apparently operating ‘due regard’ i.e. without having lodged a flight plan with Melbourne Oceanic ATC) there is only one other plausible explanation remaining.
First, let’s step back in time for a moment, and look at ‘the big picture’. Bear with me.
As a result of ‘The Cold War’ of decades past, the US is widely known to have created a vast array of secret ELINT spy satellites (which it not only maintains, but continuously enhances with the regular launch of new and highly enhanced satellites), which whiz around, crisscrossing the earth in LEO, that routinely ‘suck up all RF transmissions like vacuum cleaners’ (for later analysis by the Intelligence Agencies).
Those ELINT satellites certainly would have received and recorded the L band ping exchanges between MH370 and the Inmarsat satellite; there is absolutely no doubt of that.
When it became known that MH370 was missing, it is almost certain that the US Intelligence Agencies would have immediately gone on high alert, and thought, ‘probable hijack, possible terrorist attack’, and asked ‘where has MH370 gone, what is its probable target’ ?
All technical means of tracking MH370 would have been immediately thrown at the problem by all US agencies, (who all operate 24/7/365.25). It would not have taken very long at all (a few hours at the very most) for the US Intelligence Agencies (specifically the US NRO) to find out details of 9M-MRO’s Inmarsat Identifier and log on codes etc, so the US NRO would have very quickly known what signals they were looking for in their data records.
I think it is highly likely to the point of a near certainty that the US NRO ‘zeroed in’ on MH370’s pings very quickly, certainly within a very few hours. Once having identified those signals, it would have been ‘standard routine’ for them to analyze those recordings in exactly the same way that they have been recording, analyzing and plotting ‘targets of interest’ for decades, indeed, the process is almost certainly highly automated, and can probably give virtually ‘real-time’ results in an operational scenario.
But this analysis was not ‘real-time’ it was some hours later, but only a few hours later.
Since the NRO knew the positions and orbital velocities of all of their own satellites with precision, (and remember, there are many of these spy satellites up there, so MULTIPLE satellites would have been crisscrossing the Indian Ocean in different orbital planes at the time of EACH PING) so there would have been multiple recordings from these multiple satellites for each ping, so the process of triangulating the position of 9M-MRO at each ping would have been easy.
So what would have happened next ?
First, since it was only a few hours before the US Intelligence Agencies knew that 9M-MRO had gone deep into the Indian Ocean, the ‘level of alarm’ (within US Intelligence Circles) would have gone down a notch or two on the ‘possible terrorist scale’, but they still would have wondered “why” a commercial airliner had gone down there, to a remote, empty ocean.
Second, and quite obviously, the US knew that if it must have either crashed or ditched, but in either case, they should have received signals from the ELT’s, but they had not, or at least, none had been recorded.
None the less, if it had ditched, (like the Ethiopian B767) then no matter how unlikely, there may be survivors, and if so, they had to be found and rescued.
This created a severed dilemma for the US authorities.
The US jealously guards its technical methods and means of ELINT for National Security reasons. Protecting those secrets is paramount. Thus, they could not just come out and tell the Civil Aviation or Marine SAR Authorities where to look, because the first question they would ask is, ‘how do you know’?
This brings us to the nature of the ‘US response’, (since it had to remain secret). A plan had to be devised, in a hurry.
The only asset that the US had in the Indian Ocean Region at that moment that was capable of mounting an immediate response, was a P8 that just happened to be on Diego Garcia at the time. There was time to task that P8 (with tanker support) to fly the track from ‘ping position to ping position’ (as determined above) the next night, at about the same time, so that it could descend to low level over the sea at dawn and search the area where it was presumed that the aircraft had either crashed or ditched.
How do you keep such a mission secret ?
Simple. I will now assume the role of the (hypothetical) Intelligence Briefing Officer:
‘OK gentlemen, (to all in the room) this is a Top Secret – ‘NEED TO KNOW ONLY’ briefing.’
‘The cover story for all of your ground crews, wives, girlfriends, children, and everyone else, is that you are just going on another routine submarine hunting exercise tonight.’
(looking directly at the P8 crew)
‘I have a very unusual mission for you guys tonight. This is not going to be ‘the hunt for Red October,’ it is a ‘the hunt for a missing airliner’, MH370.’
(Pause to let all that ‘sink in’ to the crews)
‘I’m not kidding. As some of you may have already heard on the news, a Malaysian Airlines B777, Flight MH370, which was on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing diverted from its flight path last night and vanished from civilian ATC radar systems (pause for effect) but not from us’.
‘As you can see from this chart that my people have prepared for you, we know it’s position at the times indicated. You can see by inspection that it tracked down into the SIO via these positions, to these last two positions, (pointing at chart) here and here.’
‘Now, these last two positions are ‘a bit rubbery’. They are very close together, only a few miles apart, but the recorded Doppler Measurements of the aircraft’s last two signals indicate that the aircraft was no longer cruising in level flight but appears to have been in descent.’
‘Information available to us indicates that the aircraft would have been flying on fumes by then, so we can only assume that it either crashed or ditched somewhere proximate to these last two positions, at, or very soon after, 00:20 Zulu, which was at local dawn this morning.’
(Pause to let all that ‘sink in’ to the crews)
Continuing:
‘We do not know at this time why the aircraft took this flight path, but that is not our concern.
The simple fact is that it is a commercial airliner with 239 passengers and crew aboard.
Therefore, we have to consider the remote possibility that it ditched, and no matter how unlikely, there may be some survivors, and if so, we need to find them quickly, so attempts can be made to rescue them before they succumb to the elements.
It’s not swimming weather down there gentlemen.’
‘Therefore, should you find anything; the sub hunting exercise cover story then becomes the real story, and your finding of survivors, or floating bodies, will be billed as a fortuitous miracle.’
(Pause to let all that ‘sink in’ to the crews)
‘As you can see, this is going to be a very long mission, and tanker support will be critical to its success, and indeed, your very survival.’
‘Good luck gentlemen.’
‘Dismissed’
The crews of the single P8 and the two KC-135’s then went about their detailed flight planning, getting the latest weather reports, arranging the refueling points (times, positions, headings speeds altitudes etc) and subsequently proceeded to their aircraft, and took off into the gathering night sky, tracking NE from Diego Garcia, with the intention to intercept the plotted assumed flight path of MH370 from the position of the nearest ping, which was the 19:41utc ping, which, given the time of the AIRPROX event, must have been in close proximity to waypoint MUTMI.
Thus, it is highly probable that the aircraft that Captain Martyn Smith of EK407 saw that night, (the night of the 8th/9th of March 2014) was one of these three (presumed) US military aircraft.
END
Further thoughts.
It has to be assumed that the P8 did not find anything next morning, and it is also highly probable that the low level visual and radar search mission may have been repeated on the third and possibly even the fourth days, possible with one or more P8’s and more KC-135’s that may have been “flown in” from either Guam or elsewhere to assist.
Supporting evidence for this scenario comes from the fact that Diego Garcia Airport is known to have been “closed” to all “non-operational flights” for a number of days, which disrupted the normal ‘rotation of base personnel and their families’ in and out of Diego Garcia, for about a week.
By the third or fourth day, the US NRO would have completed fully analyzing any other data they had from other reconnaissance satellites operating in the visual and IR bands, perhaps even Synthetic Aperture Radar Satellites that they use for hunting for nuclear submarine hump wakes.
It has to be assumed, that one or more of these satellites did see something that corroborated the ELINT data, and the by now known Inmarsat data, because the White House felt the need (presumably on humanitarian grounds if nothing else) to publicly force Malaysia to transfer the search to the SIO, by Jay Carney’s press conference on the 14th March 2014.
See the press conference video here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/carney-additional-search-area-may-be-opened/2014/03/13/c175c78e-aae2-11e3-b8ca-197ef3568958_video.html
@ventus45
@OliverL
@Richard Godfrey
Ventus45, thanks very much for your detailed response, where you provide a remarkable picture of the capabilities of the US intelligence apparatus and a scenario of how it may have engaged with this event in those early hours of the disappearance while maintaining the need for secrecy.
As you indicate, it’s possible that the search continued for a couple of days with additional resources in view of the urgency to save lives.
While the SIO is a vast expanse, based on the surveillance capability at hand, the target area of this initial search would have been narrowed down considerably and would be quite specific. Therefore, it is surprising that there was no debris identified, and such locations passed on to the official civilian search which was to follow soon.
@Richard, I wonder did your WSPR analysis indicate the area covered by the initial US search by the planes?
And how does it compare with the search area identified and covered by the civilian search thereafter and over the years?
thanks very much.
@Veritas
@OliverL
@Richard Godfrey
Personally, I think that is pretty much what actually happened, and they were on the right track, but obviously they did not consider maximum glide range to ditch with the aircraft operating on RAT alone. They simply did not go far enough south. If they had have gone another 100 miles, they would have found it, for sure (in my opinion).
@Veritas,
The WSPR analysis of the unidentified aircraft in the Indian Ocean will take a month to complete.
The initial findings indicate the aircraft were heading for an assumed MH370 crash location at around 36.0°S 93.3°E. At the P8 Poseidon maximum cruising speed of 490 knots, it would take around 3 hours 20 minutes to get there, arriving at around 23:50 UTC (06:50 local time on 9th March).
This location of 36.0°S 93.3°E is the central point of the area defined by the ATSB Australia for the first underwater search, that commenced on 26th September 2014. This location was the most northern point of the DSTG Australia analysis published on 30th November 2015. Incidentally, 36.0°S 93.3°E was exactly the area, that Armada 7806 was mapping recently before leaving for Singapore.
After waypoint MUTMI, the track of the unidentified aircraft heads to waypoint BEBIM, which is only 119 nmi from the Cocos Islands. It would be interesting to know, if there were any P8 Poseidon aircraft refuelling in the Cocos Islands that night.
@ventus45
Just curious here. If the sub hunting exercise cover story was good enough for explaining the finding of survivors/bodies without giving away any secrets:
“…the sub hunting exercise cover story then becomes the real story, and your finding of survivors, or floating bodies, will be billed as a fortuitous miracle…”
then why would the same sub hunting exercise cover story not also be good enough for reporting a known aircraft position to authorities ?:
“…Protecting those secrets is paramount. Thus, they could not just come out and tell the Civil Aviation or Marine SAR Authorities where to look, because the first question they would ask is, ‘how do you know’?…”
It sounds as if the ability to snoop Inmarsat comms isn’t much of a secret, so a simple “hey guys, have you checked your Inmarsat data yet for any handshake pings ?” would perhaps have guided the authorities away from continuing the search in the North, sooner than they did.
However, if the unidentified P8’s were really deployed as part of a rescue mission, then why did they appear not to (WSPR track) fly direct to a known final location and search outward from there in growing circles, as seconds would count, as would conserving fuel. This suggests to me that they didn’t have any more real-time information about MH370’s final location beyond the intercepted handshake pings, so would have to start somewhere on or around the 7th arc.
@Dave
My hypothetical scenario is just that, a hypothetical, and it wasn’t “real-time”, it was some hours later.
There were 2 reasons to “fly the track between the ping positions”.
First, they had to “verify” the pings by making real time readings of their own P8 flying south emulating the presumed flight path of MH370″.
They had heaps of high-tech gear and some very smart people in that aircraft, who could do all that, in real time.
Second, if it all seemed to “fall into place” during that P8’s flight south, then they would “continue the mission” to eventually descend at dawn to search.
As for releasing any information, it all hinges on two things.
1. The desire to “find” something floating, debris or survivors.
2. You can only say anything if you actually “FIND” something.
Only then you can justify why you were down there in the first place, as being just an exercise hunting a nuclear submarine.
Unfortunately, they did not “FIND” anything, so they had to keep their mouths shut.
It is that simple really.
A statement by Captain Martyn Smith and published with his permission.
The original statement was published on Jeff Wise website.
“MH370 Search Update + New Hoax [Finding MH370 S2Ep30]”
_________________________________________________
“Mr Wise, well done on a thoroughly libellous statement without any apparent fact checking – or even the courtesy to try to see what it was that I had seen.
The following is an excerpt from an email that I had written to another party but it does pick up on the points that you said about my late reporting of this incident (actually I immediately reported it to ATC).
Quote “I am very pleased that there appears to be data confirming what I saw that night. I take your point about the sceptics; however, view it in light of what was known at the time. When we landed in DXB and learned that Malaysian had a missing 777, we discounted that straight away. It had departed KL (guessing off the top of my head at least 7-800 nm from our track and bound for Beijing, going completely the wrong way for what we had seen! There hasn’t been a navigation cock-up like that since ‘one-way Corrigan’ landed in Ireland!!
At the time it was presumed crashed in the South China Sea and there were reports of fire on the water, wreckage, witnesses etc – all of which eventually were discounted. But the search there continued. Gradually, after what seemed a long time, inmarsat began to espouse the idea that it had turned and that it may be on either a northern or a southern arc. This all seemed very theoretical at the time but gradually began to crystallise into a theory that it had gone south.
In the meantime, I occasionally read of these theories but was busy in my day to day flying routine. Quite suddenly I was taken very seriously ill with Pancreatic Cancer and then spent a year fighting for my life, having had a whipple operation, 12 days in intensive care, been on life-support for 24 hours and followed by weeks in a hospital ward. Frankly, 370 could not have been further from my mind. I then was followed up with 6 months of intensive chemotherapy. I was told that I had a 2% chance of living to see the next 10 years.
Once that ordeal had stabilised, I was again reminded of 370 when wreckage began to appear in Reunion. The drift analysis seemed to me, at least, to have proved that 370 had indeed gone south and crashed. There seemed little point in raising my voice to say that I had seen an unknown aircraft with no definite position to give. I felt that my information was of little or no value and I did indeed wonder myself what the sceptics would say! My information had been superseded, or so I thought.
Recently, however, the mentour pilot site hosted a video that made mention of Richards work with the WSPR technology and it seemed that he was onto something. I thus wondered if my flight could also be tracked and would this be of any use and hence contacted petter. That was some months back. It didn’t appear to go anywhere, so when I learned of the new search underway, I sought Richard out myself and managed to make contact just this week. The results appear to be very interesting and appear on the face of it to corroborate what I saw.
It was all rather unfortunate how slowly the theories took to come out and to solidify into something more concrete, coupled with my serious illness running at the same time. I had bigger fish to fry than to worry about what happened to that jet at the time. Recovery was a long and difficult process and when I was fit enough, I just assumed that since I had no actual proof, who would believe my late call?
Hope that all makes sense to you. I am interested to see how this all unfolds and can only hope that my contribution can help refine the search area for the wreckage. Bring the sceptics on, I know what I saw.” Unquote
Now, as far as the TCAS thing goes, this aircraft came through our block (you’re not an airline pilot; I doubt that you’d understand why this had us perturbed). I didn’t see a TCAS target nor did I get a TCAS TA/RA. (Actually pleased that my routine scan picked him up visually). This is all rather unusual. Normally you see a TCAS target and then acquire it visually. I got him visually with no TCAS help. Obviously I questioned ATC.
Subsequent to all of this, data appears to show that my mystery a/c was NOT 370 as although we both flew the same day, my departure was a few hours later. My log does not have dep and arr times (old military logbook) and so I had assumed that my sighting on the 8th coupled with 370 disappearing on the 8th were one and the same thing. I now no longer believe this.
If you wish to libel me again, at least have the balls to contact me first….”
_________________________________________________
The part that I find most preposterous about Mr Wise’s comments regarding Richard Godfrey and Captain Martyn Smith is that he calls the information a ‘hoax’.
Quite the claim, coming from a person who spent months publicising that MH370 was taken over by the Russians and landed in an abandoned space shuttle pad in Kazakhstan, with the only actual evidence being that there happened to be two Russians on the plane when it disappeared.
@Joe Perich,
Actually there was only one Russian on MH370, but Jeff Wise included two Ukrainian passengers on his list of suspects as well.
This is the official passenger list from Malaysian Airlines:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/iuoywu0lrpuhnm451ty9r/Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-MH370-Passenger-List.pdf?rlkey=c8w5p6cucpimmz2jodvi6fk62&dl=0
@All
I’m not sure if it was posted here the past few days (because of the high amount of comments) but here is the short video where Malaysia gov. confirms the signature of the contract and that OI will resume its efforts at the end of the year.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NvODzvG3dYI
@Luca
He said AGREEMENT – NOT CONTRACT, they are not necessarily the same thing.
Loke has always been specific in his remarks when talking about negotiations, agreements, and the process of approving a contract.
Loke is under pressure from the NOK, but he is a politician first and foremost, and he is very good at muddying the waters.
Ocean Infinity has not said anything at all, so my question is ‘Why not – if its a done deal’ ?
I think we should be cautious.
@ventus45
I see what you mean about the differences. But I think he’s not that good in English as you are. For him, I’m 99.9% sure that an agreement signed = contract signed.
I do agree that we need to wait for OI confirmation. However, given they are pretty beginners in terms of communication, it’s already a good step to have this from the Malaysian government.
If you take in account the Facebook Family group mention, plus this video, there is strong change that a contract has been signed.
@All,
Another vocal detractor against my work over the years is Annette Mansfield.
She is also against the ATSB, Inmarsat satellite data, Radar data, Drift Models, Fuel Models, Hydro-Acoustics and WSPR.
Here is where she believes MH370 will be found at 43°S, almost 2,000 km from the 7th Arc.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6j0ecwu0t1dkw6lvglsb0/Annette-Mansfiield-MH370.pdf?rlkey=gek55v49zoqeubskxk8pvkej2&dl=0
What’s her technical background/ expertise?
@Tph,
Annette Mansfield is a frequent commentator on MH370, but has not published her technical background or area of expertise,
To me Annette represents a significant but minority sub-group that believes that MH370 made the UTurn at IGARI due to fire, and all aboard perished, and the aircraft flew unpiloted without maneuvers straight south over Indonesia and further south to 45S. The group generally believes the radar data up the Straits was fudged to blame on the Captain, and the Inmarsat data is flawed but approximate (Arcs misplaced). The “proof” of 45S is well known satellite debris sightings out there in March_2014 and debris recovered on Australian beaches that officials are accused of discarding or mis-ID’ed. Also early Kadri acoustics analysis is sometimes lumped in as a proof. Basically several founders/participants of Veritas FB group advocated this vision but Veritas is under new management since about 2020.
Hi, my parents are flying right now on the way from Doha to Brisbane.
Plane is a Boeing 777 with flight number QTR82U or QR898
I am not very educated on these very scentific things but I usually follow FlightRadar to follow up with flights, is it possible to make a WSPR pathway of this flight which is about 14 hours and in flight still.
I still do not know how wspr works as it’s a bit confusing for me.
But…
I am just curious, using the databases today for the WSPR and from back in 2014, is it harder and more time consuming to do it now to track a plane as there would be more traffic in the skies over the years ?
Here is your parent’s flight.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=06a1bd
It just left the hold, inbound about ten minutes.
@Hamza,
Welcome to the blog!
Yes, it is possible to use WSPR to track your parent’s flight, but as you are now aware the flight QTR82U touched down in Brisbane at 07:05:38 UTC (16:05:38 local time) today.
We normally only use WSPR to track flights in an emergency situation, that are out of range of radar or ADS-B receivers.
Credentials can have a tempering effect on information interpretation. The definitive analysis of the evidence from the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 was presented in a book written by Morag Kerr entitled “Adequately explained by stupidity? Lockerbie, luggage and lies”. Dr Kerr is a Veterinarian Pathologist with a wonderful sense of humour.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV9XY1bJDvo
Armada 7806 will arrive back in Singapore in just 2 days from now:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m2hybbo70ssie9pndqge7/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-04APR2025-0506-UTC.png?rlkey=emar45z5x3uqfn190kovng847&dl=0
Armada 8602 is under going sea trials off the coast of Vietnam:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7l7boijcihix6nh4ua17f/Armada-8602-Vessel-Finder-04APR2025-0524-UTC.png?rlkey=ndsiek3muoh1t5vmsnyagcyln&dl=0
We answer 12 questions from viewers.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSKVNBbUNkg
Today we give an update on Captain Martyn Smith’s Observation.
For clarification the observation took place on 8th March 2014 near a waypoint called MUTMI in the middle of the Indian Ocean. This was not MH370, which passed the same point 24 hours previously.
We believe this was a sighting of a US Navy aircraft based out of Diego Garcia. There are a number of conspiracy theorists out there, who have said that we have now proven MH370 was diverted to Diego Garcia. Wrong! The US Navy aircraft were based out of Diego Garcia, MH370 never went anywhere near Diego Garcia, which is 1,244 nmi from waypoint MUTMI.
Really enjoyed reading the hypothesis by @ventus45 and looking forward to seeing if WSPR tracking of these three aircraft is consistent with it.
Richard, you mention it might take a month to have that data available. Is this timeframe indicative of the processing power of the PC used to crunch the numbers?
@Joe Perich,
It takes about 2 minutes on my laptop to run the WSPR process.
If I want to track an unidentified aircraft for 4 hours and there is WSPR data every two minutes, that is 120 runs.
If I want to track 3 aircraft for 4 hours that is 360 runs.
Each run takes 2 minutes, so that is 12 hours.
The analysis of the results takes a similar time 12 hours.
The write up takes 3 hours.
If I get 1 hour, a day to work on this project, then it takes 27 days.
Of course I could stop my research, close my website, refuse to be interviewed on Airline Daily News, go out to dinner with my wife, enjoy a glass of wine on my terrace, or refuse to sleep, then I would have it all done in 27 hours.
The processing power is not the limiting factor.
The fact that you haven’t donated several million dollars to my research fund, so that I can hire a whole bunch of clever people is the limiting factor. 😂🤣😳
Richard, interesting is certainly quite the process. Don’t forget that @Ventus45’s hypothesis involves one or more P8’s (and possibly a KC-135 for refueling) running subsequent searches the following days!
We can’t be impeding dinner with your wife or the regular chats with Geoffrey though.
Many thanks for the updates.
@Joe Perich,
Many thanks for your understanding!
I have not forgotten the @ventus45 hypothesis, for which I am very grateful.
I am keeping an open mind about the aircraft types. Eventually the ground speeds and fuel ranges will both give us some clues.
The round trip from Diego Garcia, to join the assumed MH370 flight path near the Equator, follow the path to 36°S and then head back to Diego Garcia, is a round trip of around 5,350 nmi.
Since the maximum cruising speed of a P8 Poseidon is 490 knots and the maximum operational range is 1,200 nmi with 4 hours on task, that means 1,200 + 1,200 + (4 x 490) = 4,360 nmi. The figure quoted for the maximum range in the specifications is up to 4,500 nmi depending on payload.
The P8 Poseidon would have required mid air refuelling to complete the round trip from Diego Garcia to the MH370 search area and back.
Armada 78 06 will be back in Singapore in a few hours.
The families’ 2 April Facebook post specifically referenced “unavoidable prior commercial commitments” as one of two reasons it had to leave the search area, so it will be interesting to see what it does over the next few days.
On the other hand, the only reason Anthony Loke gave in the Star TV clip was that “right now is not the season”, despite there still being another month remaining in the search season (and probably two months further north).
Having just viewed that clip again, it might be a cultural issue (or my imagination) but he seems very cagey about the whole thing.
Meanwhile, thirteen days after the contract was supposedly signed, the deafening silence from Ocean Infinity continues…
@Duncan,
Unlike Malaysia who have been making regular statements to the press, Ocean Infinity does not see the situation in the same way. OI believe that there isn’t anything important to report to the press on MH370 at the moment, and at least not so far this year.
Ocean Infinity took the initiative to spend a month in the MH370 search area, but then the visit to the search area was cut short, one day after the announcement that the contract was signed.
@Richard
As a result of the Loke/Star TV clip I’ve shifted from being 60/40 that there isn’t a contract yet, to 60/40 that there is a contract – but I’m far from convinced either way.
You were previously confident that there wasn’t a contract – to the extent that you objected when I suggested you were going out on a limb by expressing such confidence.
In view of the Loke/Star TV clip (and any private information you may have access to), where are you on this issue now?
@Duncan,
My position remains unchanged.
We know where Malaysia stands, according to Anthony Loke.
In my view, without any public confirmation from Ocean Infinity, then any agreement or contract signing by both parties is speculation.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kASAoNWtT0
In today’s episode we discuss, what the Chinese Research vessel Tan Suo Yi Hao is doing in the Indian Ocean.
We also discuss a viewer’s comment about Cocos Island airport and previous visits from a number of large US Navy aircraft.
The P8-Poseidons (Australia has bought 14), are significantly wider (37.6 metres) and heavier (85,820 kg), than their predecessor aircraft, necessitating runway expansion and pavement strengthening at a cost of AUD $ 576 Million.
The viewer also pointed out that both ends of the runway started collapsing as the underlying compaction aggregate had deteriorated with tidal influence and suggests that maybe why the runway is undergoing a major upgrade at this time.
Richard – The question for MH370 would be when was Cocos runway damaged? whereas some MH370 theories hold Cocos might have been a diversion plan.
@TBill,
The Australian 2016 Defence White Paper identified the Cocos Island airfield as a strategic asset that needed upgrading to support the new P‑8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.
In its planning, the White Paper noted that the existing runway, which at 2,441 m was designed for older, lighter aircraft like the P‑3 Orion, would be insufficient for the larger, heavier P‑8 Poseidon.
The original airfield was built in 1945:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aulhhybi1eb23p5kqxng6/Cocos-Island-Airport-1945-Newly-Constructed-Airfiled.png?rlkey=k9l2azr6ndwhp6yfxu47e9h5z&dl=0
It was abandoned in 1951:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dtcip0qq0liiuzc2shvpr/Cocos-Island-Airport-1951-Abandoned.png?rlkey=gnl0kk9hgpyct7baef3f2bvcb&dl=0
It was newly constructed in 1952:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bl4ly9af88q5zo4zg6a06/Cocos-Island-Airport-1952-Newly-Constructed-Runway.png?rlkey=43jfz2jqz2icj7ttkvrn3jhyy&dl=0
It was used as a domestic airport in 1972:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wb898yys2s1u9wr6pfmyl/Cocos-Island-Airport-1972-Domestic-Airport.png?rlkey=fvt9l1833mrkxc0gdm2k1dt5e&dl=0
It was used as an international airport in 1985:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kekxkbk1kbx9q3b5it4n0/Cocos-Island-Airport-1985-International-Airport.png?rlkey=ac8983jjd0ukb589y8esyauz4&dl=0
It was first mentioned in as needing upgrading in 2016.
Hi Richard,
From my understanding ships have radar (at least most commercial ones do). While I understand that it’s not designed to detect an aircraft, is it possible that any ship within 100 nautical miles could of briefly detected MH370 around the area it crashed? Even the pilot may try to avoid being seen, if you look at Vessel Finder around the 7th arc, plenty of ships pass over that area or at least close to it. Has there ever been any effort to look into that or is it too remote of a possibility that it would have been detected that way? Not sure if it’s possible to see ship location at the time MH370 sent it’s last ping up to the time it crashed.
@JB,
Welcome to the blog!
We checked for any ships in the vicinity of the MH370 crash location at the time and unfortunately there were none, not even in radar distance.
New article/pdf report/video from Marchand:
https://www.mh370-caption.net/index.php/possible-mh370-encounters-in-the-southern-indian-ocean/
https://www.mh370-caption.net/wp-content/uploads/Caption-analysis-MH370-flights-after-FMT.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GuRHr63xI
Would love to hear your thoughts Richard, and perhaps whether you’re able to use WSPR to visualise the flights he mentions?
Thanks
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1XIcNbjdvQ
Armada 7806 has arrived safely in Singapore and has already had a visit from the bunkering tanker, Merlion 31 to refuel for the next voyage:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3qqg38bnhzwqve4bn1ljy/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-08APR2025-1249-UTC-Bunkering-Tanker-Merlion-31.png?rlkey=t4rhbaqv4w4eo5xlird3t7icv&dl=0
The Chinese vessel, Tan Suo Yi Hao is doing marine research around Broken Ridge, is now 250 nmi East of the 7th Arc and getting closer all the time to the MH370 search area.
We answer a number of viewer’s questions, especially on the topic of conspiracy theories.
The Chinese vessel is now near the Vincent Lyne hotspot, -33.09, 101.57 at 09/04/2025 08:05 vs -33.0179, 100.2721 of the alleged anomaly.
Hopefully it will scan the WSPR area too.
@Francesco R.,
The Tan Suo Yi Hao is still 108.8 km (58.7 nmi) from the yellow pixel selected by Vincent Lyne near the Dordrecht Deep.
The Five Deeps Expedition by Victor Vescovo measured the depth of the Dordrecht Deep at 7,019 m in March 2019 at a position of 33.6311°S 101.3539°E, which is only 24.2 km from the Chinese vessel’s position on 9th April 2025 at 04:36 UTC.
The Dordrecht Deep was previously thought to be a little deeper at 7,079 m.
Maybe the Chinese are going to measure again the depth of the Dordrecht Deep and give us their result.
@All,
Armada 7806 has left Singapore on 9th April 2025 at 04:05 UTC and is heading for the Philippines, where it is expected to arrive in 7 days time.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7cqf50xnk3hzvyshlfy09/Armada-7806-Vessel-Finder-09APR2025-0426-UTC.png?rlkey=guyrghbh3hv0r0xq8zdukchum&dl=0
As reported yesterday, the bunkering tanker Merlion 31 was along side Armada 7806 for 4.5 hours to refuel the ship before heading out again.
Interesting. The rapid redeployment obviously supports the families’ Facebook assertion that it left the search area because of “unavoidable prior commercial commitments”.
@Duncan,
The “unavoidable prior commercial commitments”, are presumably not new on 2nd April 2025, when the statement by the MH370 Families was made and would have been previously known by Ocean Infinity for some time and possibly before the statement by the MH370 Families on the 27th March 2025 that the “search contract has been signed”.
Ocean Infinity understandably expressed concern regarding the delay of the Malaysian government to sign a search contract in private emails in February and March 2025. Priority has been given to “unavoidable prior commercial commitments” as a result of signed contracts with other business partners.
I still do not understand why there has been no press release from Ocean Infinity this year on the subject of MH370, which would have helped clarify the situation regarding the search plans for MH370.
Yup, OI’s continuing silence is certainly the elephant in the room.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIM4jfu7zCw
In today’s report we give an update on Armada 7806 heading out to the Philippines as well as the Tan Suo Yi Hao doing marine research near the Broken Ridge.
We discuss the two statements by the MH370 Families and the several statements by the Malaysian Minister of Transport and his team. We would welcome a statement by Ocean Infinity on their plans for a new search for MH370.
We review the various MH370 expert analyses and present the results of a survey conducted.
We launch a new survey of viewer’s opinions: “What do you believe happened to MH370?”
Answers can be submitted from today or any time in the coming week on the YouTube Daily Airline News Channel of Geoffrey Thomas by simply using the keyword “Survey” followed by a sentence stating your answer to the question “What do you believe happened to MH370?”
A general rumination.. could WSPR data analysis be organised in work units and sent out to distributed computing clients along SETI lines? Not that it would particularly further the MH370 search, but maybe as an optimisation for the future? It would also give the ordinary person the opportunity to help in a concrete manner
@Nginmu,
We are still in the research phase on WSPR.
Prof. Simon Maskell and his team at Liverpool University are using the Liverpool Big Data Network to handle the big data involved in their WSPR research,
There are no plans currently to use something like BOINC to enable researchers to utilise processing resources of personal computers and other devices around the world.
Your idea is an interesting proposal for the future.
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuyJKi9N8uE
In today’s report, we discuss Ocean Infinity’s organisation, capabilities and business model:
Ocean Infinity is a major global organisation and one of the leading companies in the world in their field, if not the leader. They have invested heavily, expanded rapidly, partnering with the best and acquiring companies and opening up new subsidiaries.
Ocean Infinity are a marine robotics company who are transforming operations at sea.
There are two completely different aspects to the business model of Ocean Infinity and their subsidiaries, partners and associated companies.
1. With offshore energy, telecommunications, defence, scientific research customers such as government authorities, oil, gas, wind farms, like Shell, Exxon Mobil and many other companies in energy industry, help meet our ever growing demand for energy.
2. The other aspect is treasure hunting. It is said that there is more treasure at the bottom of the ocean, than in all the museums in the world. So far 6 ship wrecks have been found with 7 tons of gold, 247 tons of silver and $17 Billion in valuables by companies like Deep Ocean Search, Argentum Exploration, Advanced Marine Services, Maritime Archaeology, …
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdYfYdozNHc
Has the weather turned in the MH370 Search Area ?
There are no tropical cyclones, the wind is 24 km/h (13 knots), which is a moderate breeze, but the wave height is 3.3 m (10.8 feet), which is certainly nasty.
Tan Suo Yi Hao is still in the same location near Broken Ridge in the Indian Ocean. Their AIS reports a wave height of 3.6 m (11.8 feet).
We have had a massive response to our survey: “What do you believe happened to MH370 ?”
The survey closes on Sunday and we will present the results early next week.
@Richard,
What if Tan Suo Yi Hao ( TSYH) real intention is to search for MH370?
The WSPR hotspot is the only area which is not been survey yet by OI.
So if TSYH which also has AUV’s on board locate MH370 wreckage in the WSPR hotspot, I wonder what is OI’s reaction?
Would TSYH receive any compensation for finding MH370?
@Jafni,
Malaysia has publicly stated they have signed an agreement with Ocean Infinity and not with the Chinese government to search for MH370.
If the Chinese vessel were to search for MH370 without an agreement with Malaysia and if they were to find MH370, then everyone would be very pleased that MH370 is finally found, but there is no basis for any compensation to the Chinese for their efforts.
Ocean Infinity cannot reserve the sole right to search in international waters for MH370.
Under international law, nobody can salvage the wreckage of MH370 without an agreement with Malaysia.
If the Chinese found MH370 it would save the Malaysians $70m, so I imagine they would be delighted (or at least pretend to be) and immediately give the Chinese permission to salvage.
And if the Malaysians didn’t give permission, I don’t expect the Chinese would take any notice. I can just hear them now: “There are 153 of our citizens down there. We don’t need anyone’s permission to investigate what happened to them.
@Duncan,
The Chinese have a strong sense of national pride and would like to show the world that they have the best underwater technology.
Finding MH370 would bolster their international prestige amidst political wrangling over trade agreements and protectionism.
As you say, having lost 153 Chinese citizens, no one could argue against their right to become active in the search for MH370.
11 years ago, the Chinese technology in AUVs, ROVs, ARVs and Submersibles was in its infancy, now they are world class.
Absolutely, finding MH370 would be a huge feather in their cap.
It seems too much of a coincidence that this ship is where it is right now, so perhaps they’re testing their own theories as to where the wreckage is.
And if they don’t find anything, then of course they weren’t looking in first place!
I suppose that’s one advantage of being a dictatorship.
@Duncan,
Agree its more than a coincidence. It is possible OI moved out of the area after getting to know this Research vessel was arriving in the area.
@Richard,
I know China likes to show its modern technological achievement to the world.
However, if TSYH does locate the wreckage of MH370 ( even without getting any USD 70.0m compensation from Malaysia) in the WSPR hotspot, China should at least acknowledge you, Prof.Simon Maskell’s/the WSPR team.
The others who also should be mentioned are Jean Luc Marchand/Patrick Blelly, UW team, Blaine Gibson, the ocean drift experts and the people who worked tirelessly for the past 10 years in locating MH370..
@Jafni
I agree, and thank you
According to Chat GPT, the phrase “tan suo yi hao” (探索一号) translates to “Exploration No. 1” in English.
@Nginmu,
Many thanks for the translation.
Let’s see, if they live up to their name !
@All,
An update today on the MH370 search from Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssJOP0pbro
In today’s episode we give an update on Armada 7806 and the Chinese Research Vessel Tan Suo Yi Hao (TYSH).
The TSYH has now reached the 7th Arc at exactly the UWA hot spot location at the Southern end of the UWA search area at 33.2°S 96.3°E (Location 11 in the UWA paper). TSYH turned South West and is currently following the 7th Arc at 1.6 knots in a South Westerly direction.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw141pcv5iq821lfd4xik/Tan-Suo-Yi-Hao-Vessel-Finder-13APR2025-GE.png?rlkey=jv2wjajvnzqncgk1yourb8gyk&dl=0
TSYH had stopped between 7th April 2025 22:00 UTC and 12th April 01:00 UTC for 4 days. TSYH then progressed further along Broken Ridge and went straight past the Vincent Lyne yellow pixel hot spot until it reached the 7th Arc and then it stopped again.
TSYH is larger than Armada 7806 (95 m as opposed to 78 m in length) and over twice the tonnage (5,073 tons as opposed to 2,373 tons).
It has a moon pool 6 m x 6 m for launching and recovering AUVs. (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles).
It has a dynamic positioning system for launching ROVs. (Remotely Operated Vehicles).
It has a submersible called Striver (Fen Dhou Zhe) on board, which is a HOV. (Human Operated Vehicle). It can take 3 people to depths up to 11,000 m.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/srl7kye4yo87m29i0980y/Kareen-Schnabel-Marine-Biologist-Picture.png?rlkey=xx0gop904521mm7w4cfx5sjd8&dl=0
On 11th November 2020, the TSYH and the submersible Striver set the world record for the deepest dive in the Challenger Deep – Marianna Trench at 10,935 m.
They not only have the world record for the greatest depth, they also have the world records for the longest AUV endurance and furthest AUV range. The Sea Whale AUV-2000 remained underwater for 37 days and travelled over 2,000 km.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hw08x33gg8blkh9cvbxyf/Chinese-AUVs-Picture.png?rlkey=8u89q2m8g0mtsx7endrwlzjl0&dl=0
They also have a range of Micro Dragon AUVs which are miniaturised and highly manoeuvrablemand can go inside ship wrecks and aircraft wrecks.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6mclf7cd68ohb0dpicyfj/Overview-of-Submersibles.png?rlkey=frv38y3qjy6dp2rkkxdmimm21&dl=0