The new technology proposed in this 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. The initial project, where this new passive radar system was used, was to locate flight MH370, which went missing in 2014. Radio amateur data from 7th/8th March 2014 was retrieved from the archives at www.wsprnet.org and the flight path following diversion into the southern Indian Ocean was reconstructed. The crash location was determined to highly likely be in an area with a radius of 30 km centred on 29.128°S 99.934°E. This area is around 1,560 km West of Perth, Australia.
The paper can be downloaded here
There are over 3 million radio amateurs. Many of them send test signals to find out how radio waves propagate around the globe. They want to know what is the best time of day and what is the best frequency to use to talk to their radio contacts around the world. Prof. Joe Taylor is a Nobel laureate and a radio amateur who invented the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) protocol. Taylor used his expertise in systems designed to measure weak radio signals over long distances to benefit the radio amateur community. The WSPRnet database currently contains 8.5 Billion global radio links archived back to 2008, but additions are being made at the rate of around 7 Million each day.
The protocol used was designed to test the propagation of high frequency ionospheric radio transmissions, but can also be used as a passive radar system with the applicable post processing. There are currently on average around 7,500 WSPR links between transmitters and receivers every 2 minutes offering both a near real time as well as historic passive radar capability.
The difference between active and passive radar is that the transmitter is controlled by the radar system in the active case, whereas passive radar uses radio transmissions from other sources. You can think of a passive radar like tripwires going around the globe. When an aircraft crosses a trip wire it disturbs the signal level or the signal frequency. These disturbances are recorded in the WSPRnet database. There are currently on average around 7,500 WSPR links or tripwires between transmitters and receivers every 2 minutes, offering both a near real time as well as historic passive radar capability.
The passive radar system described in this paper combines two long established scientific principles of physics. Firstly, long distance radio communication using High Frequency (HF, 3 – 30 MHz) ionospheric (or skywave) propagation has become standard practice. Secondly, radio waves can be reflected from aircraft that happen to fly through the beam, which is how radar works. We combine the reflection of radio waves by aircraft as used in classical radar, with ionospheric propagation and the WSPR protocol to detect and track aircraft over long distances.
Prof. Simon Maskell is leading a team at Liverpool University conducting a large scale study into using the WSPR signals from radio amateurs to detect aircraft. The team are tracking thousands of aircraft and comparing the results captured in the WSPRnet database from the radio amateurs with the ADS-B position data transmitted by the aircraft. An international team of academics are being asked to peer review the results of the study prior to publication.
@All,
An interview with Geoffrey Thomas on the new paper can be found on YouTube at the following link: https://youtu.be/6gw8zMmeRTI
The proposed global passive radar system is explained and how this new technology can be used in the search for MH370 is presented.
Hi Mr Richard Godfrey, is there explanation for how did MH370 avoid collide with other planes, since the change of flight route is not known to ATC and transponder is off ??
@kk,
Welcome to the blog!
There were very few other aircraft crossing the Indian Ocean during the flight of MH370.
All other aircraft would be assigned an altitude with 1,000 feet vertical separation. You only need to fly at an interim altitude with, say 500 feet vertical separation, to be safe from collision.
so I’ve been a fan of your work for a few years now and check in periodically, but I found a linked page disputing your results and data, basically flat out dismissing the capability of wispr to achieve these results, and showing fairly clearly how the system just can’t be utilized that way.
now you’re obviously vastly more qualified than me, and i find it really hard to believe you’d have been at this for years if there wasn’t substantial data and successful tests to back it up.
I’m just curious if you had a rebuttal or explanation that disputes what they counter with
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2021/12/19/wspr-cant-find-mh370/
it’s a few years old, you might have been sent it before. but they make a pretty solid case against it and it would be really illuminating if you could make a counter point, even in layman’s terms or simplified.
thanks!
Happy New Year 2025 Mr Richard Godfrey,
and thank you for your work in the search for the missing flight MH370.
I have been following the information on your website for years.
I would be interested to know whether this passive radar principle with WSPR-Signals
has now been taken up by technical-aviation-equipment-suppliers in order to possibly establish it commercially?
All the best and kind regards
@Jürgen Lederer,
Happy New Year and welcome to the blog!
We are still in the research phase, which is currently self funded.
The next step would be to consider commercial applications.
Wouldn’t space based radar be far more effective? Doesn’t cost much to launch small satellites these days, just attach a radar too it. Easy enough for it to communicate with star link internet network for quick data processing back down to Earth. Just have a network of space based satellites in geo synchronous orbit covering areas of remote ocean not covered by ADS-B or radar coverage. (middle of Indian Ocean N/S, Pacific N/S and any Atalntic ocean area not covered by ADS-B, radar)
Sidenote: do you have any idea which areas Ocean Infinity are targeting in the new search announced? Was it Mentour suggesting both theories be covered in the new search areas?
Great work on your website, really informative!
@Leon,
Several countries have military space based radar (SBR) systems. The US Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Analysis Improvement Group (OSD CAIG) state that the acquisition and 12-year operations cost of the current SBR program of record – a 9 satellite constellation – would cost $34 billion. The CAIG was not asked to estimate the cost of an objective SBR constellation of 21 to 24 satellites, but the cost of such a constellation could exceed $60 billion based on the current understanding of program requirements and technology. As these are military programmes, there is no publicly available database, either for near real time or historic data enabling the detection and tracking of aircraft.
Commercial satellite tracking systems are not yet fully implemented for tracking aircraft, but this is planned. The FAA did a cost benefit analysis on the upgrades and service costs for ADS-C and space-based ADS-B and found that ADS-C with enhanced surveillance technology was far more cost effective, according to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). In 2027, when all Open Interest steps considered in their Cost Benefit Analysis are expected to be fully deployed and in operation, the yearly benefits start to exceed the yearly costs at around $500 million.
Meanwhile a global passive radar based on WSPRnet data uses an infrastructure already provided and funded by the radio amateur community. The WSPRnet database is publicly available for both near real time and historic data.
Hi Richard, fascinating work on using WSPRnet to investigate MH370’s possible location! I’m really interested in learning more about it and experimenting with the data myself. Would you be willing to share the source codes, software, and data used in your research as mentioned u in the YouTube Airline news with Geoffrey Thomas?
@Vikas,
Welcome to the blog!
I will send the software package to your email address.
I suggest we arrange a Zoom conference call, so that I can walk you through how the software works.
Thank you so much, Richard! I really appreciate your willingness to share the software and your time. I’m excited to learn more about it.
I’m a 19-year-old student and an aviation enthusiast, and this project really fascinates me. However, I’m a bit busy at the moment, but when I’m ready, I’ll definitely let you know and we can schedule that Zoom call. Thanks again for your support!
Dear Hannes, dear Richard, dear Simon,
congratulations on your most recent article for the beginning of 2025. A lot has been achieved
since the first idea in Mid July 2020, the first interview at Radio DARC in Novmber 2020, the first HamSci paper in March 2021, the short presentation at Rohde & Schwarz in Munich for Professor Rohde in October 2023 and on and on.
More than four years are a short time span in technology and science to achieve real progress, just see the searches for Titanic, Amelia Earhart, Endeavour of Shackleton,….lasting for decades.
Your papers have been getting better and better now culminating in this latest publication in 2025!
This can only be achieved by discipline, engagement, persistance, resilience and a strong will to succeed.
May I add something to your ideas. First of all the involvement and participation of everybody who is interested in the fate of MH370 and other aircraft tragedies from a technical point of view.
You will not need any investments, such as radios, big antennas to do your own real time and near real time experiments with WSPR-FT (Flight tests). You can get involved and participate from home. You can see new ground, maritime, airborne and spaceborne examples on QRZ.com at DJ4FF to get started today. Just as I mentioned previously „Poor man‘s RADAR network”.
I also recommend the involvement of maritime, airborne and spaceborne assets for remote land and water bodies auch as deserts, mountain areas and the SIO, Pacific etc. to the monitoring system. While VY0ERC is close to the North Pole, I miss one at the South Pole.
A prominent maritime example is the German research vessel Polarstern (DP0POL) featuring WSPR day and night in transmitt and receive. New year‘s eve one of many examples of detection was flight 9H-TQY from Wolfs Fang (WFR) in Antarctica to Cape Town (CPT); a WSPR station on a freight or cruise ship is no big investment, see all the ADS-B receivers installed worldwide and a WSPR rig is less expensive.
Airborne examples are low cost HABs (High Altitude Balloon) with WSPR payload (0,01 Watt) such as LU1ESY floating long distances in the Southern hemisphere at aircraft altitude levels (app. 12.000 m). You can track these HABs at Sondehub amateur and other web sites. These HABs became famous when the US Air Force shot one of them down. Just the WSPR App is needed and any commercial airliner will be an airborne WSPR beacon in case of need as there are no changes to the LRUs for HF (Line Replaceable Item, such as HF transceivers) required.
They are a big help in the analysis of stored secondary WSPR signals from the data base (wsprnet.org) with regard to SNR and drift rates. By means of HAB LU1ESY airliners 1.400 km West of Perth and further out have been detected by WSPR-FT during the christmas holidays 2024 with just 10 mW or 0,01 Watt transmitt power. Receive distances have been up to >19.000 km.
Spaceborne examples are the International Space Station (ISS), the Chinese space station as passive reflectors as well as the latest LEO (Low Earth Orbiting) satellite CatSat from the University of Arizona transverting the HF bands from the upper ionosphere down to earth for propagation studies using WSPR and other technologies under the influence of the ionosphere. Future satellites could also carry a WSPR payload built by NGOs, such as the radio amateur communitiy (AMSAT, IARU) or other noncommercial or commercial entities.
All three categories are not constrained by any major boundaries such as borders and do not suffer from congestions such as a multitude of WSPR stations in the metropolitan urban areas.
On the Receive side please consider the networks of http://www.kiwisdr.com, Receiverbook at http://www.openwebrx.org and others. As an example I retrieve live primary WSPR signals real time from ZL7DX on Chatham Islands, almost on the opposite side on the earth to Germany.
LATAM flights between Chile to Australia and vice versa along the Northern shoreline of Antarctica have been detected with WSPR transmitters on the pensinsula of Antarctica (LU1ZD, LU1ZV) and WSPR receiver ZL7DX (not in data base as there is no upload by ZL7DX).
So, congratulations again, happy new year 2025 and please keep on going despite so many detractors and opposition. Hopefully Ocean Infinity (OI) will be successful pretty soon in finding the wreckage of MH370 ! Thank you very much!
Respectfully
Rob
I note that five days on from the presentation of this paper there hasn’t been any mention of it on the “sceptics’ blog”, where all the talk is currently about the Jeju 2216 crash. I would have at least expected someone to acknowledge its existence and say something along the lines of “I’ll respond when I’ve had a chance to study it”, but there’s absolutely nothing.
I don’t know enough about the underlying physics to be either a sceptic or a convert when it comes to the utility of WSPR for tracking MH370, and take the view that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating – if and when the search finally gets underway.
I say “if” because there’s obviously still some sticking point between OI and the Malaysians. We know from Loke’s positive announcement on 20 December that the success fee ($70m), the definition of success (location of substantive wreckage), and the duration (18 months) have all been agreed, but for some reason the contract still hasn’t been signed. The only potential reasons I can think of are:
(1) Despite the no-find, no-fee nature of the contract, the Malaysians are trying to restrict where OI can search. This would be nothing short of outrageous, but I was troubled that Loke’s announcement specifically mentioned a 15,000 sq km search area, without qualifying this with words like “initially” or “starting with”.
(2) Another possibility is that the parties can’t agree on the future ownership of the seafloor mapping/survey data that OI will accumulate during the search, and/or anything else of value that they may find.
If the search is ultimately unsuccessful and the Malaysians pay nothing, they can hardly expect to benefit from anything unrelated to MH370 that OI may find. But what if they find a valuable shipwreck during the search, and then locate MH370 1000km away from that shipwreck? Does the $70m also buy the Malaysians the rights to that shipwreck?
Anyway, those are the only potential sticking points I can think of, but what do others think? Or are the Malaysians just incredibly slow?
@Duncan,
Some MH370 analysts, academics and students have taken up our offer in the paper to obtain a copy of the software we used free of charge. My recommendation for a sceptic is to try the global passive radar system for themselves.
Ocean Infinity are ready to go and are still waiting for the Malaysian government to sign the contract. The Malaysians have shown in the past that they are very slow and love to run down the clock and agree at the last minute. This reduces the available search time this season.
It cannot be that complicated to come to an agreement, they managed to do so once already in 2018.
I am a retired private pilot and like many interested parties I am interested in this accident being resolved for the benefit of familes etc. I am not interested in
any of the conspiracy theories but hopefully these new technologies will come good in the end and pave the way to a resolution. One point which really surprised me is why the new search area is confined to 15000 square km. The word “patch” is used in one article and I can see why. I did a simple calculation and this is an area of only 78miles x 78miles. Why so small an area when boeing have already determined that a 777 aircraft can glide over 100 miles in the event of such an aircraft running out of fuel. Why is the search area set so small. Is this all the malaysians are allowing in this case. Do they really want this matter resolving or do they just wish it would go away ?
@Barry,
Welcome to the blog!
I am not interested in conspiracy theories either.
Ocean Infinity have told me, that MH370 is “unfinished business”. When they go back out into the Southern Indian Ocean to search again for MH370, they want to keep searching until they find the main wreckage of the aircraft.
The 15.000 km2 is made up of several smaller areas and is only an estimate by Ocean Infinity of the area that needs to be covered.
The proposed contract is for 18 months, which allows for two summer seasons in the Southern Indian Ocean. In that time Ocean Infinity is able to search a significantly larger area, if necessary.
“It cannot be that complicated to come to an agreement, they managed to do so once already in 2018.”
Exactly, and that’s why I think there may be something they can’t agree on this time.
If it’s just a case of the Malaysians running the clock down on this search season, then OI could turn this to their advantage. Assuming an 18 month contract and 6 months on/6 months off search seasons, then the optimum time for OI to sign the contract would be at the very beginning of a search season because that would give them two full seasons totalling a whole year should they need it.
Hi Richard. Re the sceptics silence may well be due to a last ditch hang on to Humboldt’s third principle I.e. “thirdly attempt to give the credit to someone else”. Keep going please
Duncan and Barry
I think your concerns are valid. I have held similar and deeper concerns for some time. In my view, most of the MH370 community (with the recent possible exception of Geoffrey Thomas) have tended to be a little too diplomatic, too trusting, too open minded, and in fact, far too accommodating, even deferential, to the Malaysian Government’s obvious ongoing obfuscations and childish shenanigans.
This current “pantomime” about “contracts” and the (hidden to the public) “conditions” thereof, is nothing more than a game of “duck and weave” for the Malaysian Government, that they are actually enjoying, because they know that they are winning it, hands down.
If you look at the history, and connect the dots, it will become clear to most, that all of the Malaysian Governments, those of Najib Razak (at the time of the disappearance of MH370), that of Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad (interim) and now the current government of Anwar Ibrahim, never wanted it found, do not want it found, and will never want it found, not even if there are ten more governments between now and when some oil company eventually stumbles across it. If anyone doubts that, consider the fact that Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad publicly stated that “the search cannot continue indefinitely” and Anwar Ibrahim publicly “poured cold water” on the new proposed OI search when he was in Australia, when he said at a press conference in Melbourne (with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at his side) that “he did not want to raise false hopes” for a successful search.
I said above that the MH370 community has been far too deferential to the Malaysian Government’s obvious obfuscations and childish shenanigans, for a reason. If you look at the history with 20-20 hindsight, you only have to begin with the primary condition for even considering a future search, “new, compelling, evidence, leading to a specific location”.
The Malaysian Government could never, and would never, actually come out and say that the search is over, that it is abandoned, because they know that would have been unacceptable to everyone. So they decided that it would just be “suspended”, (officially), but that list was specifically designed by the Malaysian Government of the day (the government of Najib Razak) to set an impossible threshold for ever approving any future search.
So far as all three of the Malaysian Governments that have been in office since MH370 vanished are concerned, “suspended” is in fact nothing but a ruse. The reality is that “suspended” means “suspended indefinitely”, which effectively means “until hell freezes over, and then thaws again”, which equates to “abandoned”, which it always really was, and it always will be, as far as Malaysia is concerned.
The Chinese government knew that immediately, at the end of the first ATSB managed seabed search, when the “new, compelling, evidence, leading to a specific location” became the policy. It was said to be a “tripartite decision”, but was it ? One has to wonder, given that the Chinese withdrew, and have been conspicuous by their absence ever since, and their obvious disinterest, indeed their studied indifference (given that half the people on the aircraft were Chinese), is more than suspicious by itself.
A decade has now passed, very nearly eleven years, and most people still can’t see that they have been deceived by the Malaysians, or, if they can see it, they are not willing to admit it, which raises the rather obvious question, why not ?
What is even more concerning is that the mainstream media didn’t pick up on “the game” right at the beginning, and they still haven’t. How did they get duped into swallowing “suspended” in the first place, hook line and sinker, when with a little hindsight, or just a little thought, it was so obvious ? Clearly, so called Investigative Journalism is not of the caliber it once was, even only one generation ago, but I can’t blame them alone, we, who should have known better, and had concerns long ago, have remained silent for far too long. You have to hand it to the Malaysians though. They have played a very good game, haven’t they. (Note to self – never play poker in Malaysia).
If you still need to be convinced that the Malaysians never wanted MH370 found, and have done everything that they can to prevent it being found, let’s just break that seemingly innocuous list of “conditions” down into it’s component parts, one criteria at a time.
NEW.
What could “new” have been ?
At the time, there was nothing “new” in the way of information “on the search horizon”. The Malaysians probably thought (with some confidence) that they had everything “tied up and under control”.
Primary Radar Data. The Malaysian primary radar data was deliberately withheld on the spurious grounds of so called National Security (the civil radar for years, and the military radar has never been released), and for some reason, the surrounding counties played the same game. Why the secrecy?
Inmarsat Data. Obtaining the public release of the Inmarsat data was like “pulling teeth”. It took many months to obtain even a partial release, and many more months to get it all. Why the withholding?
Captain’s Simulator Data. This information was never meant to see the light of day, and it would not have, if it had not been leaked. Even so, further investigation has revealed that what was leaked is not the entirety of what it contained, since the ATSB has since confirmed some details that it could not possibly know unless it had more information than what is publicly known. Why the secrecy?
Debris. Once the air searches had finished, there was no further “official search by any government” for debris, at sea, or on any coastline of any country. Why the disinterest in even searching?
By the end of the ATSB managed seabed search in 2018, only the flaperon and a number of other items of debris had been found, not by organized searches, but by chance in the case of the flaperon, and most of the others by the independent efforts one motivated individual, Blain Gibson, who was guided by independent advice from a highly respected subject domain expert, UWA Professor of Coastal Oceanography Charitha Pattiaratchi that the ATSB had deliberately ignored. Why ?
Then came WSPR. Now that definitely was new, something “out of the box”, totally unexpected to Malaysia, and just about everybody else. Just as most of us were trying to get our heads around what it was, what it could mean, it seemed that everyone involved in the radio world immediately mobilized to discredit the idea, and in particular, it’s creator / inventor / proponent. Why ?
COMPELLING.
What would the Malaysians classify as “compelling” ? Frankly, I can’t think of anything, and that is their joker in the pack.
EVIDENCE.
What do the Malaysians classify as evidence ?
Frankly, the answer is nothing. Malaysia don’t want any more evidence.
There are multiple items of debris, that are almost certainly from a B777, that have been given to the Malaysians, that they refuse to even examine, let alone do forensic reports on. Why ?
Furthermore, there are additional candidate debris items, still in other countries, that Malaysia refuses to even collect. Why ?
SPECIFIC LOCATION.
This is the biggest “go take a flying leap fob-off in recorded history”.
The Malaysians have really excelled themselves here. They have been very clever. They never defined what a specific location was. There was a very good reason for that. It left them with the option of later adopting or defining a degree of precision of position an order of magnitude smaller than any likely practical search proposal could ever provide. It could theoretically be interpreted by them to mean a precision of position measured in centimeters, even millimeters if they wanted to be any more puerile than they already are.
@ventus45
The various hurdles you list were all effectively cleared on 5 November when Loke announced in parliament that the Ocean Infinity proposal was credible.
He went even further in his 20 December press conference, when he announced that the cabinet had agreed in principle to accept the proposal, making it very difficult for them to now back out without giving a good reason for doing so. And what reason could they possibly come up with?
“We’ve been unable to finalise an agreement with Ocean Infinity because if the wreckage isn’t found in the initial 15,000 km² search area, they want to extend the search to other areas. This wouldn’t cost us any more, but we really don’t want them to do that.”
Whatever spin they tried to put on it, the mainstream media and the world at large would see through it, and the accommodating and deferential (your words) treatment they’ve enjoyed to date would end at a stroke, making their position untenable.
For that reason alone I think a contract will eventually be signed. It’s just a question of when.
Duncan
I would like to think that you might be right, but unfortunately, experience tells us otherwise. I don’t have the level of confidence in the mainstream media that you seem to have.
First off, I don’t think the mainstream media really care one way or the other, MH370 is a “stale story” to them.
Secondly, I don’t think they would “see through it” as you put it, (modern journalists are not the brightest of pins) and even if they did see through it, they are not going to make a big song and dance about it, meaning, they would remain largely accommodating and deferential, as they have been for so long.
Therefore, Thirdly, I think it is highly unlikely that the mainstream media would turn on the Malaysian Government in any meaningful, let alone effective way, so I hardly think that the Malaysian Government’s position would become in any way “untenable”. They would just continue to stonewall, nothing would (or will) change (in my view).
For those reasons, I don’t think a contract will ever be signed, they don’t want one.
However, even if by some miracle the Malaysians did eventually sign a contract, it has to be on their terms, not OI’s.
We know that there is still the rather murky question of “the condition”, NONE of which have been made public.
I think that we can quite reasonably and logically infer from OI’s recent withdrawing of their ships from the region, that there must be some condition (or conditions plural) that Malaysia is demanding, that are clearly totally unacceptable to OI and are effectively a deal breaker.
One could only wonder what that (or they) could be, but given the history, I would be more than happy to bet, that it (they) is (are) something entirely spurious, and deliberately contrived, by the Malaysians, specifically to be a deal breaker.
Effectively, as I see it, the Malaysians are forcing OI to walk away, so that criticism does not fall on the Malaysian Government.
@ventus45
This is the most complete video I can find of the English part of Loke’s 20 December press conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIXvht18sA
Question: If the Malaysians’ objective is to avoid another search, then why did Loke call this press conference and say these things, which are completely counter-productive to that objective?
He could easily have cited various physicists – including the Nobel prize-winning designer of WSPR – who don’t think it can be used to locate MH370. I’m sure he could have been equally dismissive of other theories as to the location.
In short, why make it harder to back out when you don’t need to?
@ventus45,
Many thanks for your penetrating analysis of the current situation. I agree with your conclusions.
The Malaysian government has shown little interest in solving the mystery of the disappearance of MH370 over the years. We have had to rely on leaked information, independent analysis of the flight path, crash location and debris finds and the only hope was the various initiatives of independent researchers in hydro acoustics, drift analysis, marine biology and passive radar.
Armada 7808 will arrive in Mauritius later today. The reason for choosing Port Louis as the next destination is not clear. Armada 7804 stopped briefly in Port Louis on 29th December 2024 and is now about to arrive in Cape Town tomorrow. If Armada 7808 follows 7804 to Cape Town, then Ocean Infinity are not going to receive a signed contract in early January 2025 as promised and the new underwater search will not be taking place.
Hello Richard!
Are those other search companies you have been in contact aware of the current situation and are they still willing to search even without compensation? It seems that when Malaysians are involved things aren’t happening at all.. This is so frustrating…
Mikko
@Mikko,
I know of one other company that is willing to search, but does not require compensation if MH370 is found.
Better the search not take place with no goodwill in place from the malaysians. Its time the malaysians came clean with the issues they have. It is all looking very much smoke and mirrors on their part. Is it money being asked for that is the issue / is it a cover up of some sort on the technicalities they hold and wish not to disclose ? Ultimately they will have to say what their issue is or perhaps not so in this case.
Perhaps they just want the whole lot privately funded and that is all there is to it. On this basis assuming OI do this search as a private venture can Malaysia stop it taking place ? I cannot see how this cannot be a private venture. The overall interest in a resolution to this worldwide will surely be sufficient to fund any search. Perhaps this is what the malaysians are looking for – a way not to have to pay – barry
@Barry,
My understanding is that in international waters you can search without permission, but you cannot salvage without permission.
If someone finds and films the wreckage, the Malaysian government cannot in good faith withhold permission to salvage.
What a rollercoaster ride. I had somewhat high hopes on the 10th anniversary that a new search was going to be commenced, then nothing for almost 10 months. At that time I was convinced it was all a bunch of bluff from the Malaysian govt. Then the annoucement in December 2024 that the Malaysian govt. had approved a search commencing in “early January”. Now it seems that the Malaysian govt. is again dragging its feet.
What’s stopping a philatrophic billionaire from funding an indepdendent search that is not hampered by the strings of the Malaysian govt.? And if we do find the black boxes, would we have any useful data as they would have been down at depths for more than 10 years. The only comparable example is AF 447 but only 2 years had passed before its black boxes were recovered. If I remember correctly the FDR of South African Airways 295 which crashed in 1987 has never been recovered.
@Muhammad S.,
Welcome to the blog!
The Malaysian government promised the contract with Ocean Infinity would be signed early in January 2025. In my book, early January expires on 15th January in one week from now.
If there is no contract signed by then, I do not expect Ocean Infinity to wait any longer. Mauritius is a good holding point between the search area if a signature is forthcoming and Cape Town if there is no signature.
Armada 7804 arrived in Cape Town today and it would not take long for Armada 7808 to reach Cape Town as well.
Ocean Infinity requires compensation, if they find MH370. This is not the case with my philanthropist friend, who is willing to fund an underwater search for MH370, so he does not need a contract with Malaysia. He will need a salvage agreement, if he locates the MH370 wreckage.
The black boxes will still be readable after all this time. It is non-volatile memory, that does not require any electrical power to preserve the memory state.
Armada 7804 seems to have departed for Las Palmas (Spain?) and Armada 7808 appears to be on its way to Cape Town with an estimated arrival date of January 21st.
@Francesco,
Many thanks, see also the comment on a New Search linked below:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/05/05/new-search/comment-page-3/#comment-3165
How “willing” is your philanthropist friend in funding an independent search? I’m not aware of any other companies out there with a reputation like Ocean Infinity. They’ve found many other wrecks such as the Argentinian submarine. Could your philanthropist friend “independently hire” Ocean Infinity? If this is a possibly, my concern is that Ocean Infinity won’t accept an indenpendent search if say the Malaysian government says to Ocean Infinity “If you search without our approval, you won’t get any more of our contracts”. The only other company that I’m somewhat familar with is the one that may have found Amelia Earhart’s plane some months ago.
@Muhamad S,
There are a number of companies with a track record of successfully delivering underwater search projects with AUVs for both commercial enterprises and the military.
Ocean Infinity have a great track record, as you say, but the key issue is that they want $70M compensation from the Malaysian government, if they find the main wreckage of MH370.
The company that may have found Amelia Earhart’s aircraft is called Deep Sea Vision and they also have an AUV capability and have also successfully delivered projects. As far as I am aware Deep Sea Vision also requires payment from Malaysia in order to search for MH370.
My philanthropist friend is willing to fund the entire search. He does not need to hire Ocean Infinity or any other company with underwater search capability, as he owns a number of companies including a company with the required capability.
Amelia Earhart’s plane turned out to be a rock formation, but the media being what it is, that revelation didn’t attract quite as much attention as the original “discovery”.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/image-believed-show-amelia-earharts-plane-was-rock-formation-not-crash-rcna181578
@Duncan,
Tony Romeo and Craig Wallace at Deep Sea Vision were very disappointed to announce the sonar image was a rock formation, but they haven’t given up searching for Amelia Earhart’s plane.
Here is a picture of the deceptive rock formation:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qkkuyr0r3l51jfkywzbqi/Amelia-Earhart-s-Plane-is-a-Rock-Formation.png?rlkey=pgqs0m3parhr199uvtjjczat1&dl=0
What would be the “trigger point” for your philanthropic friend to conduct an independent search? From your interview with Geoffrey Thomas and Blaine Gibson, it seems that Ocean Infinity has more or less given up on the Malaysian government as one of their ships is heading for Mauritius. And how quickly can this hypothetical independent search start if your philanthropic friend ordered/funded an independent search today?
@Muhamad S,
The trigger point would be an official announcement by the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity, that their proposed search will not take place.
Another pre-condition is that no other company such as Deep Sea Vision is willing to take up the underwater search for MH370.
The useful search time in this summer season in the Southern Hemisphere from December 2024 to March 2025, where there is generally better weather, is coming to a close.
I would expect a new search would then take place between December 2025 and March 2026.
@Duncan,
Anthony Loke (Malaysian Minister of Transport) claims he wants the search for MH370 to go ahead.
Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysian Prime Minister) does not want the search for MH370 to go ahead.
Ibrahim keeps questioning whether the search for MH370 is a prudent use of public funds.
The Prime Minister wins.
If the PM always intended to veto a new search but allowed that press conference to go ahead, then he threw Loke under the bus big-time.
And if Loke held the press conference without the PM’s approval, then why hasn’t he been sacked?
@Duncan,
Or is this the game plan agreed between Loke and the PM?
@Richard
Spot on – they are playing the same game they have all along.
@Duncan
To be clear. You have to listen carefully. What he said is in two parts.
Part 1 is his prepared statement, which is positive yes.
But then came part 2, when the reporters asked questions, which I will call where he introduced his “escape clauses”.
From 1minute 44seconds “Of course there are other terms (note PLURAL) and conditions (note PLURAL)……
From 1minute 57seconds “And all the other terms and conditions ………..
In short, he keeps saying “other terms and conditions” without specifying anything. Given the fact that the 18 months is given, and given the fact that he said OI has chosen “their 15000km^2”, what ls of relevance to an actual search is there ?
He is deliberately giving himself an escape route to not signing if these “other terms and conditions” cannot be agreed, which brings me back to what I said in my previous post.
1. “We know that there is still the rather murky question of “the condition”, NONE of which have been made public.”
2. “One could only wonder what that (or they) could be, but given the history, I would be more than happy to bet, that it (they) is (are) something entirely spurious, and deliberately contrived, by the Malaysians, specifically to be a deal breaker.”
3. “Effectively, as I see it, the Malaysians are forcing OI to walk away, so that criticism does not fall on the Malaysian Government.”
So to address your question “In short, why make it harder to back out when you don’t need to?”
My answer. He isn’t making it harder (Part 1) that is a ruse, and the media are falling for it – yet again.
He is playing a game with the media, the “meat of the matter” is the points 1, 2, and 3 above.
@ventus45
Sorry, but I just don’t buy what you’re suggesting.
The idea that this is all an elaborate charade to make it look like it’s OI which is walking away is just too convoluted and, if I may say, conspiratorial.
I don’t dispute that the Malaysians are luke warm about a new search, or that the cabinet is divided on the issue, but if they had really wanted to avoid one they could have just said that the proposal wasn’t credible and cited Joe Taylor in support of that position. It would have been game over unless and until a philanthropist stepped in.
As for other terms and conditions needing to be negotiated, that is to be expected. For example, how much of the wreckage, and which specific parts, OI have to locate in order to earn the success fee. This is something that’s discussed from 4:15 in this alternative video from the press conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1fY8tiSZaY
@Duncan.
I think we will just simply have to agree to disagree on the true motives of the Malaysian Government(s). (Plural is deliberate).
Personally, I think that you (like most other people) have been (and remain) far to “trusting” of the Malaysian Governments and their true motives. It seems that these days, the default retort to anyone who “challenges the official narrative” is to label them a conspiracy theorist, either directly, or indirectly by inuendo.
Your retort that my outlook on the overall historical situation, leading into the current situation with OI “…..is just too convoluted and, if I may say, conspiratorial” is proof of that (to me). My response to you (and most others) is: “please wake up and smell the roses”, it is way past high time that you all did (especially the mainstream media). The history clearly shows that all of the Malaysian Government(S) have indeed been conducting “an elaborate charade” (your words), consistently, from the end of the ATSB underwater search (if not before).
The proof of that, began with their response to the FIRST OI search with Seabed Constructor. When OI made their first ‘no find no fee’ proposal, Malaysia’s initial response was to treat them with distain, they just simply “fobbed them off”. OI did not take that lying down, they deployed Seabed Constructor from Durban anyway (good on them).
I don’t dispute that the Malaysians are luke warm about a new search, or that the cabinet is divided on the issue, but if they had just said that the proposal wasn’t credible and cited Joe Taylor in support of that position it would have blown up in their face. The fact is the current WSPR spot is very near other people’s preferred search areas. If the Malaysian government had just used WSPR as the reason for rejection, everyone else involved would have seen that as a Malaysian “cop-out” to indirectly discredit and reject everyone else’s work too. The reaction to that would not have been to their liking, now would it.
With regard to your “As for other terms and conditions needing to be negotiated, that is to be expected. For example, how much of the wreckage, … and … This is something that’s discussed from 4:15 in this alternative video from the press conference ….”
I will hold fire on responding to that, because I have very definite views on that subject, which I will keep to myself until the wreck site is actually found.
@ventus45
Yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
For the record I’m neither trusting of, nor a cheerleader for, the Malaysian government. I think they’ve dragged their feet and only come to the party reluctantly. The current negotiations should have taken place months ago, with the contract signed in good time for the beginning of current search season.
However, they have now (almost) arrived at the party in that they had a get-out-of-jail free card but they didn’t play it. For that reason alone I think a contract will be signed and the search will go ahead.
We shall just have to wait and see which one of us is right.
Duncan,
There are many reasons why Malaysia does not want MH370 found, and they are central to avoiding signing a contract for a search.
The article referenced below was written on an Australian site on the 29th January 2015.
https://auntypru.com/mh370/
The last points, 3 and 4, explain all.
Nothing has substantially changed since.
@Richard. My interpretation of what the Prime Minister (also Minister of Finance) has said is that broadly he supports this new search but would be inclined to draw the line at that.
About your billionaire’s willingness to do a search without reward, would that include the salvage operation?
Presumably the approval for that and direction of the survey beforehand would be with Malaysia, together with approval of the salvage means and scope. Malaysia thence would receive all recoveries for its continuing investigation.
As to scope, aside from recovery of the voice and data recorders, included would be those whose physical state needed further investigation, while detailed in-situ photography might be required for others.
Further, Malaysian decision would be needed as to the recovery, handling and future of any body parts needed for the investigation’s identification. Presumably there would be no disturbance sought of other, or of personal possessions and clothing.
As to data recovery, aside from the above recorders I assume that other recorded information in the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System and, in particular, equipment state and recent usage data recorded for subsequent maintenance analysis and monitoring purposes, would be irretrievable.
If your billionaire can offer a like capability to OI’s yet entailing nil cost to Malaysia (and presumably others which might provide support such as Australia) why wouldn’t Malaysia seriously have considered that, instead continuing with the OI proposal?
Presumably he would need to include the OI’s area but suppose he would extend that to include the WSPR and Pattiaratchi sites at least?
@David,
There are various different interpretations of the stance taken by the Malaysian government, Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Anthony Loke as Transport Minister and other members of the cabinet.
In the absence of any public statement by the Malaysian government on a decision to sign a contract with Ocean Infinity for a new underwater search for MH370, there will be much speculation.
Fact is, that as of 10th January 2025, no agreement has been signed.
I doubt any other party will want to search until the situation with Ocean Infinity’s proposal is clarified. On one hand, it would not make sense for two independent parties to be searching the same area. On the other hand, any other party will want to know why Ocean Infinity’s proposal failed.
My understanding is that any other party can search without permission. If successful, then an agreement with Malaysia would be required to salvage any wreckage. As you point out, the recovery of any human remains is a delicate personal, ethical and legal issue.
At best, data recovery will be limited to the Flight Data recorder (FDR) with over 1,000 data items for the whole flight and the Cockpit Voice recorder with the last 2 hours of flight. As you point out, the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) data will not be available, except major system states and caution and warning events recorded in the FDR and audible warnings recorded in the CVR.
My friend is willing to fund a search without compensation from the Malaysian government and would be free to search where he chose. The question of salvage of the wreckage and recovery of human remains is an entirely different matter that would require the agreement of all parties concerned and raises a number of investigation, legal, financial, ethical and personal questions in several jurisdictions.
The search area proposed by Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi is 129,000 km2 and is not planned in its entirety. The WSPR area is 2,830 km2 and is planned in its entirety.
@Richard,
The exchange rate US Dollars to Malaysian Ringgits is currently 1 USD = 4.49 MYR.
Malaysia’s 2025 budget was tabled in Parliament on 18th October 2024. It is the largest in the country’s history.
Revenue: The government projects revenue at RM340 billion (US$75.7238 billion).
Spending: The government has allocated RM335 billion (US$74.610245 billion) for operating expenditure and RM86 (US$19.153675 billion) for development projects.
This adds up to a total expenditure of RM421 billion (US$93.76392 billion) which is a DEFECIT Budget of RM81 billion (US$18.0401 billion).
OI’s potential reward of US$70 million = 314.3million MYR (which is only 0.3143 billion MYR) is only 0.07465558 percent of all expenditures, and even if compared to the planned deficit, it represents an increase of the defecit of only 0.388025 percent of the deficit.
Seriously, with all due respect, the money is NOT the issue, it is a drop in the bucket, it is only a distraction.
@Richard
Additional Malaysian Budget details here:_
https://budget.theedgemarkets.com/budget/2024/index.html
@ventus45,
The budget shows RM 7.07B (US 1.57B) for Transport (Pengangkutan).
The Ministry of Transport costs RM 1.70B (US378.6M), which comprises emoluments of RM 0.61B (US 135.9M) and “other expenses” of RM 1.09B (US 242.7M).
US 70M is a big chunk of “other expenses”.
@ventus45,
I agree that the money can’t be the issue.
However, there are a number of politicians in Malaysia that are making it an issue.
Anwar Ibrahim is quoted as saying: “In my view, the government must balance the need to continue searching for MH370 while ensuring that public funds are spent wisely and efficiently.”
Official Malaysian Ministry of Finance Website
https://belanjawan.mof.gov.my/en/
Does this mean the search is no longer? Does it mean other organisations/individuals could step in and fund a new search? Would it be possible for Ocean Infinity to search anyway?
@Jesse,
There has been no official statement from either the Malaysian government or Ocean Infinity on their reaching an agreement for a new search.
Ocean Infinity have stated that they will only search, when the Malaysian government agrees.
If the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity fail to reach an agreement, then other organisations would be free to step in.
Ocean Infinity have said that they are willing to fund a new search, so funding is not the sticking point. The sticking point is the $70M compensation, if MH370 is found. There are some in Malaysia that say this is not a prudent use of public money.
I Wonder what is holding other search companies back? They should step in and stop this nonsense between Malaysians and OI. I’m a little bit disapointed in OI as well as they don’t put an end to this game.
Probably our only hope is if Anwar supports searching. I would assume Anwar does support some search, or Loke would not have offered in March. I don’t immediately see any reason why Anwar would change his mind, but I assume many in Malaysia would like to see the issue go away. Agreement to this (last) search, even if unsuccessful re: finding, could be considered closure as best as possible under the circumstances.
@TBill,
There has been much public discussion in Malaysia, as to whether $70 M for a successful new search by Ocean Infinity is a prudent use of government funds.
@Richard, Ventus45, Duncan. Re your 9th – 11th discussion above, whatever action Malaysia induces now it will remain responsible for salvage should the sunken wreckage be found, as seems quite likely, sooner or later.
If OI perceives procrastination with the contract as intended to induce it to search with no reward it will have the choice of going ahead anyway or walking away.
Were it to walk away that would mean leaving the field to others, whereas searching and concealing the whereabouts of a find should assure that it was awarded the salvage task.
However Malaysia in turn might see that a contract with sufficient provision for location disclosure to obviate such a ‘monopoly’ might have an offset worth pursuing.
Also, to prevent OI retaining its search monopoly (with reward) indefinitely it might oblige OI to disclose details of its new search results and how it was done (including such as system calibration, quality management, other processes and procedures) such that these could be released to other contenders for any follow on searches.
On the other hand OI might be insisting that the current contract sees to it that it will be awarded the salvage contract.
Some issues that might be in play.
@David,
You make a good point that irrespective who finds the wreckage of MH370, the salvage contract has to be agreed with Malaysia under international salvage law.
The fact is that as of 12th January 2025 no contract has been signed with Ocean Infinity and the promise of a signature latest in early January 2025 is running out. You point out what may be some of the sticking points.
I would point out two further considerations:
1. Malaysia cannot grant Ocean Infinity exclusive rights to search in international waters. Any other party can search for MH370 should it choose to do so. However, it would be ineffective to have multiple parties searching in the same locations.
2. Any party that finds MH370 will not be able to keep the AIS details of the location of any search vessels secret. It will only be able to keep the exact underwater location secret.
@Richard
What is the source of “early January 2025”?
In the English part of the press conference Loke just said “expected to be finalised in early 2025”, but he may have specified January in the Malay part of course.
1:14 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIXvht18sA
@Duncan,
Unfortunately I am not fluent in Malay, so I have to rely on media reports in English. Things might get lost in translation.
Wikipedia states “Ocean Infinity has requested approval from the Malaysian government to resume the search, with an expected date of commencement from November 2024.”
A Malaysian newspaper called the Star reported Anthony Loke talking about the agreement in principle with Ocean Infinity in the online version as stating “early January”:
Latest – News
The Star
https://www.thestar.com.my › news › latest › latest
Nation · Cabinet agrees in principle to resume MH370 search with Ocean Infinity … MH370 by Ocean Infinity, says Transport Minister Anthony Loke. … early January …
The full text is no longer available on their website.
Another Malaysian newspaper called The Strait Times reported Anthony Loke announcement on 20th December 2024 and quoted him as saying:
“Transport Minister Anthony Loke announced on Dec 20 that US-based private marine exploration company Ocean Infinity has been tasked with resuming the undersea search for the plane’s wreckage within a 15,000 sq km area off the coast of Western Australia.”
“They have informed us that the best time for searching is between January and April. We are trying to finalise the contract as soon as possible. They have committed that the search will begin once the contract is signed,” Mr Loke said.
“He told reporters in Putrajaya that the Cabinet agreed in principle on Dec 13 to proceed with another search. The Transport Ministry is negotiating the terms of the contract with Ocean Infinity, and it will be finalised in early 2025.”
If the reporter from the Strait Times quotes Anthony Loke as saying “best time to search is between January and April” and if the contract “will be finalised in early 2025”, it is of course possible that the reporter from The Star made the abbreviated logical conclusion of “early January” rather than stating “the best time to search is between January and April and therefore the contract will be finalised in early 2025”.
The fact is that Ocean Infinity has missed the initial intended search start in November 2024 and is now missing some of the best search time between January and April 2025. There will come a point, where it will be better to wait for November 2025.
@All,
The sceptics are at it again!
Here is a recent email from Nils Schiffhauer addressed to the co-authors of our latest paper in this post Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee, Prof. Simon Maskell (please see above), as well as Dr. Robert Westphal, the German Amateur Radio Society, two German Amateur Radio Magazines and several other people. His emails landed automatically in my deleted emails folder, as I blocked him after calling both Dr. Robert Westphal and Christian Entsfellner (Chairman of the German Amateur Radio Society) Nazis.
“Hi, all – to check the “anomality” of links, I would like you to suggest three examples from Table 5 of your paper from where I can see this “anaomality”. At least one example should be a link with a distance under, say, around 500km. Another one should include mixed-band logs.
For reasons of time alone, I am not able to fully re-calculate all of this, as Prof. Simon Maskell recommended.
All the more so since the crux of my scepticism is that I do not understand your concept of HF propagation, link budget and system loss. If you could give me one or two references here that support your view that the link between two stations barely 500km apart with 200mW transmission power on 80m or 40m can be impressed by an aircraft more than 10,000km away, I would be grateful.
I would like to include relevant comments from your side in my text, which deals with your paper. The editorial deadline is a bit pressing, but I have to hand in my manuscript next Monday.”
Nils ignores the Solar Flux Index (SFI) measured at 2.4 GHz and Kp (for coronal mass eruptions by the sun). A high Kp can have a negative impact on propagation. We have told him numerous times to read the papers by DSTG (Australian Defence Science and Technology Group) dealing with RCS (Radar Cross section) at HF of a Boeing 777 and providing a model with calculations of detection ranges in a bi-static scenario at HF for a B777 cruising between Australia and New Zealand, at two very different sets of SFI.
As for the argument about distances of 10,000 km or more, Nils should take a look at the example of the radio sondes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, meanwhile 100 AU (astronomical units) or 25 billion km away from earth. In the beginning the data rate was around 1,200 bits/s, now it is below 100 bits/s. In the coming years they expect even at 40 bits/sec to be able to recover the signal out of noise. WSPR by comparison has a data rate of about 1.5 bits/sec.
MIT provides a good description of applications and interpretations of the radar equation as does the DSTG. Nils is just ignoring many of these parameters.
With respect, we don’t understand what Nils thinks he will achieve by analysing a total of four measurements in place of one. As previous emails attempted to make clear, he needs to consider much more data, as he is looking at a very noisy sensor. As we also tried to make clear in previous emails, we think he can be justified in highlighting the disparity between his application of the theory and the empirical results that we have obtained. It would be a pity, in our view, if he went beyond that position.
@All,
Several commenters have mentioned the search for Amelia Earhart’s aircraft and the ongoing search for the aircraft by Tony Romeo and Craig Wallace of Deep Sea Vision.
With the discussion on new technology, it is interesting to digress for a moment and look at old technology from 1937.
Here is a short report on how Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan planned their flight to Howland Island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The small island was supposed to be a refuelling stop on the way to Hawaii, but sadly they never made it.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/99f5ia6kp7ggup5z22ygx/Amelia-Earhart.pdf?rlkey=ui3vppxc4kugb7e83qxwpah4m&dl=0
Would it be possible to search outside of the preferred search time of December 2024 to March 2025 for this independent search funded by your philanthropic friend?
@Muhamad S,
Sometimes the weather in November and April is stable enough in the Southern Indian Ocean, otherwise it is a risk to any ship dropping off or picking up AUVs.
@Kaladin,
Welcome to the blog and thank you for the kind words.
You comment: “I found a linked page disputing your results and data, basically flat out dismissing the capability of wspr to achieve these results, and showing fairly clearly how the system just can’t be utilized that way.”
You say: “I’m just curious if you had a rebuttal or explanation that disputes what they counter with. They make a pretty solid case against it and it would be really illuminating if you could make a counter point, even in layman’s terms or simplified.”
The post on Victor Iannello’s website is from 19th December 2021 and, as you say, is a few years old. The research into detecting and tracking aircraft using WSPRnet data has advanced significantly in the last 4 years.
First a bit of background, on 9th March 2020 I published a paper titled “The Final Resting Place of MH370”, which I co-authored with Victor Iannello, Bobby Ulich and Andrew Banks. I wrote the paper together with inputs collated from Bobby Ulich (193 submissions), Victor Iannello (65 submissions) and Andrew Banks (14 submissions). The paper was checked by all authors before publication. The paper has since become known as the “UGIB” paper, which stands for Ulich, Godfrey, Iannello and Banks. We agreed that Bobby Ulich would be the lead author, who had the final say should all authors not agree on any particular point. The paper took 4 months to write and has 396 backing files. The paper was the result of 8,224 email exchanges between the various authors.
Ocean Infinity (OI) had previously searched the area centred on the so called “IG Hotspot”, which is 34.234°S 93.788°E, which was taken from the “UGIB” paper. The OI search in 2018 covered almost 120,000 km2, but unfortunately failed to find MH370. The main reason for the failure was the issue of “straight line thinking”, which has been discussed at length in over 90 comments on this website. Most analysts agree, that just after waypoint IGARI, MH370 started a 180° turn back across Malaysia. Civilian radar showed another turn around the island of Penang. Finally there was another turn in the Malacca Strait near the Andaman Islands southward to the Indian Ocean. After all these turns, most analysts assume that MH370 flew in a straight line for several hours until fuel exhaustion.
There have been several comments on this straight line thinking on this website. The first comment was on 18th November 2021: “ATSB, DSTG, Inmarsat, Boeing, IG and just about every other analyst assumed that MH370 flew in a straight line due south.” This was followed by another comment and graphic:”Boeing, Inmarsat, ATSB, DSTG, Mick Gilbert, Captio, Ed Anderson, Victor Iannello and UGIB have all presented analyses of MH370 of the flight of MH370 following straight lines:”
The UGIB paper and these various “straight line” analyses have since been superseded by the work on WSPR. Not many people are familiar with WSPR, so how about a proposal to search all three locations (WSPR, Captain Belly-Jean Luc Marchand, and Victor Iannello) in one search?
Mick Gilbert, another WSPR sceptic, comments on Victor Iannello’s website, in regard to our WSPR research: “In other words, their methodology is essentially a random classifier with no discriminatory ability. This is all basic statistical stuff that I would expect an Intro Stats undergrad to grasp. The notion that we have two PhDs signing on to this pap should be worrying.”
Back in 2024, OI were still not yet fully convinced of the utility of WSPR to define a search area for MH370. Victor Iannello states on his website: “The search area, which may be refined later, extends along the 7th arc from about 33°S to 36°S, and out to about 45 NM (83 km) on either side of the arc.” Ocean Infinity state that the 2024 proposed search area is ≈ 15,000 km². The two new search areas marked on the map from OI are each 15,114 km². So is the area that they are planning to search ≈ 15,000 km² and Victor Iannello and the map are correct, or, has OI got their calculation wrong and they are really planning to search ≈ 30,000 km² ?
The OI view on WSPR changed with the presentation of their new search proposal to the Malaysian Minister of Transport Anthony Loke on 2nd May 2024. The WSPR technology was presented by Prof. Simon Maskell at that meeting and discussed at length. Prof. Simon Maskell, from Liverpool University, is a scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity for the MH370 search.
Nils Schiffhauer, a regular commentator on Victor Iannello’s blog, addressed a recent email to the co-authors of our latest paper in this post (Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee, Prof. Simon Maskell), as well as Dr. Robert Westphal, the German Amateur Radio Society, two German Amateur Radio Magazines and several other people. His emails landed automatically in my deleted emails folder, as I blocked him after calling Dr. Robert Westphal and Christian Entsfellner (Chairman of the German Amateur Radio Society) both Nazis.
Nils Schiffhauer commented: “the crux of my scepticism is that I do not understand your concept of High Frequency (HF) propagation, link budget and system loss. If you could give me one or two references here that support your view that the link between two stations barely 500km apart with 200mW transmission power on 80m or 40m can be impressed by an aircraft more than 10,000km away, I would be grateful.”
Nils Schiffhauer, like Victor Iannello, ignores the Solar Flux Index (SFI) measured at 2.4 GHz and Kp (for coronal mass eruptions by the sun). A high Kp can have a negative impact on propagation. We have answered them both numerous times and suggested they read the papers by DSTG (Australian Defence Science and Technology Group) dealing with RCS (Radar Cross section) at HF of a Boeing 777. DSTG provides a model with calculations of the detection ranges in a bi-static scenario at HF for a B777 cruising between Australia and New Zealand. The DSTG model is shown at two different times, with very different sets of SFI.
As for the argument about distances of 10,000 km or more, the sceptics should take a look at the example of the radio signals sent by the NASA Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, meanwhile 100 AU (Astronomical Units) or 25 Billion km away from earth. In the beginning the data rate was around 1,200 bits/s, now it is down to 160 bits/s. In the coming years, up until 2050, they expect even at 40 bits/sec to be able to recover the signal out of noise. WSPR by comparison has a data rate of about 1.5 bits/sec. The US military conducted experiments with HF ionospheric propagation that went around the world (40,075 km) in around 135 ms and were received back at the same location as the transmitter.
MIT, where Victor Iannello received his doctorate in nuclear engineering, provides a good description of applications and interpretations of the radar equation as does the DSTG. The sceptics are just ignoring many of these parameters. With respect, we don’t understand what Nils Schiffhauer thinks he will achieve by analysing a total of four measurements. As our previous emails attempted to make clear, he needs to consider a much larger dataset, as he is looking at a very noisy sensor. As we also tried to make clear in previous emails, we think he can be justified in highlighting the disparity between his application of the theory and the empirical results that we have obtained. It would be a pity, in our view, if he and other sceptics went beyond that position.
Meanwhile there has been 3 years of software development and extensive testing of WSPR. The whole WSPRnet based processing chain has been fully automated to detect and track aircraft. A database with the exact latitude and longitude of all the WSPR transmitting and receiving antenna locations has been built.
The crash location of MH370 was determined to be at 29.128°S 99.934°E, which was published in August 2023 and is still confirmed today, after further work on using passive radar systems to detect and track aircraft. This system has now been tested against confirmed ADS-B and ADS-C positions using thousands of aircraft. ADS-B data mainly uses land based systems with a range of around 500 km. The main advantage of the ADS-C protocol is the use of satellite communications (SATCOM) to extend connectivity to remote regions. The same processing chain has been used to detect and track MH370, where the aircraft went out of the range of ADS-B or radar systems.
There are over 3 million radio amateurs. Many of them send test signals to find out how radio waves propagate around the globe. They want to know what is the best time of day and what is the best frequency to use to talk to their radio contacts around the world. Prof. Joe Taylor is a Nobel laureate and a radio amateur who invented the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) protocol. Taylor used his expertise in systems designed to measure weak radio signals over long distances to benefit the radio amateur community. The WSPRnet database currently contains 8.5 Billion global radio links archived back to 2008, but additions are being made at the rate of around 7 Million each day.
The protocol used was designed to test the propagation of high frequency ionospheric radio transmissions, but can also be used as a passive radar system with the applicable post processing. There are currently on average around 7,500 WSPR links between transmitters and receivers every 2 minutes offering both a near real time as well as historic passive radar capability.
The difference between active and passive radar is that the transmitter is controlled by the radar system in the active case, whereas passive radar uses radio transmissions from other sources, in this case radio amateurs. You can think of a passive radar like tripwires going around the globe. When an aircraft crosses a trip wire it disturbs the signal level or the signal frequency. These disturbances are recorded in the WSPRnet database. There are currently on average around 7,500 WSPR links or tripwires between transmitters and receivers every 2 minutes, offering both a near real time, as well as a historic passive radar capability.
The passive radar system described in our latest paper combines two long established scientific principles of physics. Firstly, long distance radio communication using HF (3 MHz to 30 MHz) ionospheric (or skywave) propagation has become standard practice. Secondly, radio waves can be reflected from aircraft that happen to fly through the beam, which is how radar works. We combine the reflection of radio waves by aircraft as used in classical radar, with ionospheric propagation and the WSPR protocol to detect and track aircraft over long distances.
Prof. Simon Maskell is leading a team at Liverpool University conducting a large scale study into using the WSPR signals from radio amateurs to detect aircraft. The team are tracking thousands of aircraft and comparing the results captured in the WSPRnet database from the radio amateurs with the ADS-B position data transmitted by the aircraft. An international team of academics are being asked to peer review the results of the study prior to publication. The research work at Liverpool University is ongoing. Development has been completed, but testing is still taking place. Initial discussions have taken place with academic peers on the method employed. A formal peer review is planned, when testing is completed.
Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and I have shared all our findings with Ocean Infinity as well as Pete Foley, ATSB, DSTG and others. We had a video conference call with Andy Sherrell of Ocean Infinity and Pete Foley explaining our WSPR research and findings.
In a separate study, I have used my latest fully automated system to track a small sample of Boeing 777 aircraft in every region of the globe, in every season, month of the year, day of the week, time of the day, type of weather, solar flux level, etc. as a validation exercise. Every Boeing 777 in the sample of 48 aircraft was detected and tracked using the WSPRnet data. WSPRnet results were tested against FlightRadar24 ADS-B data.
Many academics are researching MH370 with an open mind. I have been privileged to have participated in many of the discussions.
Prof. Simon Maskell of Liverpool University in England.
Dr. Hannes Coetzee of Pretoria University in South Africa.
Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi of the University of Western Australia.
Dr. David Griffin of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.
Prof. Frederik Gustafsson of Linköping University in Sweden.
Asst. Prof. Simo Särkkä of Aalto University in Finland.
Dr. Larry Stone the Chief Scientist of Metron in the USA.
Dr. Samuel Davey of Adelaide University in Australia.
Dr. Neil Gordon of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Ian Holland of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Mark Rutten of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Jason Williams of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Prof. Simon Godsill of Cambridge University in England.
Prof. Thomas Schön of Uppsala University in Sweden.
Victor Iannello and Prof. Simon Maskell have had a number of telephone calls and exchanged a number of emails, but unfortunately Victor Iannello’s scepticism remains.
Many thanks to the thousands of radio amateurs who upload WSPR data to the WSPRnet database, without whom our research would be impossible. The ability to go back in time to 7th and 8th March 2014 and track MH370 across the Indian Ocean is really important in helping solve the mystery of the disappearance of 239 passengers and crew in this tragedy.