The loss of MH 370 has inspired much interest and controversy. A new search is planned for early November and the following is drawn from GROK analysis. Will the WSPR data pay off?
No, I do not have direct access to any proprietary or internal WSPR research data and analysis relating to MH370's flight path and endpoint. However, I can access and summarize publicly available information on this topic through web searches and analysis of open sources. It appears WSPR stands for Weak Signal Propagation Reporter—a global network of amateur radio signals used to test low-power propagation. Researchers have analyzed historical WSPR data for anomalies (e.g., Doppler shifts or signal reflections) that might indicate MH370's passage through the Indian Ocean after its disappearance on March 8, 2014.
### Key Publicly Available WSPR Research on MH370
The primary proponent of using WSPR for MH370 tracking is aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey, who has published analyses since 2021 suggesting the plane's path can be reconstructed by identifying signal disturbances caused by the aircraft acting as a reflector. His work draws from the WSPRnet database, which archives signals from 2008 onward. Here's a summary of the main findings, criticisms, and status:
#### 1. **Proposed Flight Path and Endpoint**
- **Godfrey's Analysis**: Godfrey claims WSPR data reveals over 130 signal anomalies on the night of the disappearance, aligning with Inmarsat satellite pings (BTO/BFO data) and fuel constraints. The path starts from the last radar contact (over the Andaman Sea around 18:22 UTC), turns south, and follows a great-circle route toward the southern Indian Ocean.
- Key waypoints: After the "final major turn" south (around 19:41 UTC), the path passes near waypoints like IGOGU, NOPEK, BEDAX, and ends near the 7th Inmarsat arc.
- Endpoint: Approximately 35°S 92.5°E (or variations like 34°S 93°E in some models), about 1,500–2,000 km west of Perth, Australia. This is north of the previous official search area (centered around 36–40°S) and consistent with debris drift models (e.g., 43 pieces of confirmed debris washing up on Réunion Island and African coasts).
- Alignment with other evidence: Godfrey notes the path matches a route from Captain Zaharie Shah's home flight simulator (extracted by Malaysian authorities) and avoids exceeding the Boeing 777's fuel range (max ~40°S). A 2023 update (August 31 report) scored this path highest among candidates, with the plane descending slowly before impact around 00:19 UTC on March 9.
- **Supporting Claims**:
- Tests on known flights (e.g., THY161, a Turkish Airlines route) reconstructed paths with high accuracy using WSPR, detecting the plane at distances up to 10,000 km.
- Debris analysis (41 pieces examined by Malaysia) and ocean drift simulations support an origin north of 36°S.
- In 2024, Godfrey proposed this location for Ocean Infinity's new underwater search, submitted to Malaysian Transport Minister Anthony Loke on May 2.
#### 2. **Criticisms and Scientific Skepticism**
- **Technical Limitations**: WSPR signals are extremely weak (low-power, 110-second transmissions on HF bands), and aircraft reflections would be drowned out by noise, atmospheric interference, or other planes. At MH370's distances (up to 13,000 km), signals are "too weak by many orders of magnitude" for reliable tracking.
- Nobel Prize winner Joe Taylor (WSPR's creator) has repeatedly dismissed the idea: "It's crazy to think that historical WSPR data could be used to track... MH370." He argues it can't distinguish aircraft scatter from natural propagation variations.
- **Independent Reviews**:
- Victor Iannello (MH370 Independent Group engineer): WSPR alone can't pinpoint paths due to ambiguity (e.g., multiple planes or ionospheric effects). Blind tests (e.g., mistaking another aircraft for MH370) show errors up to 18 nautical miles.
- University of Liverpool's Simon Maskell (2024 BBC documentary "Why Planes Vanish: The Hunt for MH370"): Ongoing statistical analysis of WSPR data for anomalies, but preliminary results are inconclusive. Maskell's team is testing if planes increase anomaly rates, but no definitive MH370 link yet.
- Jeff Wise (aviation journalist): Calls it "viral but flawed," noting it hasn't led to wreckage despite 10 years of claims.
- **Plausibility Debates**: Quora and Reddit discussions (e.g., r/MH370, r/amateurradio) highlight that while short-range tests (100–1,000 km) work, long-range application to MH370 is unproven. Some see it as pseudoscience; others view it as a novel passive radar idea worth exploring.
#### 3. **Broader Context and Status**
- **Integration with Other Data**: WSPR analyses often combine with Inmarsat "handshakes" (last at 00:19 UTC on the 7th arc), radar tracks, and hydroacoustic/seismic data (e.g., from 370location.org, suggesting endpoints like 8.36°S 107.92°E based on infrasound, but not WSPR-specific).
- **Search Implications**: No confirmed wreckage from WSPR-derived areas. The official search (2014–2017, 120,000 km²) focused south; a 2024 Ocean Infinity proposal (25,000 km²) incorporates Godfrey's endpoint but awaits Malaysian approval. As of September 2025, no new searches are active, but Minister Loke has pledged to consider "credible" evidence.
- **Public Resources**: Full details are in Godfrey's reports (e.g., on mh370search.com, including maps and PDFs like "MH370 Flight Path Analysis – 31st August 2023"). WSPRnet database is public for further verification. This WSPR research remains controversial and unverified by official bodies like the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) or Malaysian government.
The principles of WSPR remind me of a previous post:
https://koombanarevisited.blogspot.com/2019/11/wireless-where-is-mzp.html
Was the final act one of a high speed impact or ditching? GROK tackles this question:
- High-Speed Impact Hypothesis: The recovered debris, particularly the flaperon and other wing components, shows signs of significant damage, such as fraying, crushing, and tearing. For example, the flaperon found on Reunion Island had damage consistent with high-energy forces, suggesting it was subjected to extreme stress, possibly from a high-speed impact or violent breakup. A high-speed crash into the ocean would likely cause the aircraft to fragment into smaller pieces, with heavier components sinking rapidly to the ocean floor and lighter, buoyant items being scattered across the surface by currents.
- Controlled Ditching Hypothesis: A controlled ditching, where the plane is deliberately landed on water with minimal speed and impact force, would typically result in larger, less fragmented pieces of debris. In such cases, we might expect to find more intact items, including personal belongings like luggage, clothing, or flotation devices (e.g., life vests, seat cushions), as seen in other ditching incidents like US Airways Flight 1549 (the "Miracle on the Hudson"). The absence of such items in MH370’s case leans against a controlled ditching scenario.
- Ocean Currents and Dispersion: The southern Indian Ocean, where MH370 is believed to have crashed, is vast and subject to powerful currents, such as the Indian Ocean Gyre. Lightweight, buoyant items like shoes, bags, or life vests could have been carried thousands of miles from the crash site, potentially sinking, degrading, or washing ashore in remote, unpopulated areas where they were never found. The debris that was recovered took months to years to wash ashore, indicating how far and wide the wreckage spread.
- Material Degradation: Items like clothing, shoes, and flotation devices are typically made of materials (e.g., fabric, foam, or plastic) that degrade over time in harsh marine environments. Exposure to sunlight, saltwater, and marine life could cause these items to break down or become unrecognizable before reaching shore. By contrast, the recovered aircraft components, made of durable materials like composites and metals, are more likely to survive long periods in the ocean.
- Sinking of Heavier Items: If MH370 experienced a high-speed impact, much of the aircraft’s contents, including luggage and heavier personal items, would likely have sunk to the ocean floor along with the main wreckage. The ocean in the suspected crash area is extremely deep (up to 7,000 meters in some parts of the southern Indian Ocean), making recovery of sunken items nearly impossible with current technology.
- Limited Search Scope: The shoreline searches for debris were opportunistic, relying on local residents, volunteers, and occasional organized efforts in places like Reunion Island. Vast stretches of coastline in the western Indian Ocean remain unmonitored, and items like shoes or life vests may have washed ashore in remote areas or been mistaken for general marine debris.
- High-Speed Impact: In a high-speed crash, the aircraft would likely disintegrate upon impact, with most contents, including luggage and flotation devices, either sinking immediately or being scattered widely. The violent forces could also damage or destroy less durable items, reducing the likelihood of their recovery. The debris that was found—primarily aircraft components—supports this scenario, as these items are more likely to survive both the impact and prolonged exposure to the ocean.
- Controlled Ditching: In a ditching scenario, the aircraft would remain relatively intact upon hitting the water, potentially allowing more personal items and flotation devices to float free and remain buoyant for longer periods. The recovery of such items was common in cases like Air France Flight 447, where life vests and personal belongings were found alongside aircraft wreckage. The absence of these items in MH370’s case suggests that the plane did not remain intact long enough for such items to be released in large quantities.
- Flotation Devices Not Deployed: If MH370’s end was catastrophic or the crew and passengers were incapacitated (e.g., due to hypoxia from a depressurization event), flotation devices like life vests may not have been deployed. This would reduce the likelihood of finding them, regardless of the impact type.
- Search Bias: The debris recovery efforts focused on identifiable aircraft parts, as these were critical for confirming the crash site and investigating the cause. Smaller, less identifiable items like shoes or bags may have been overlooked or not reported, even if they washed ashore.
- Comparison to Other Crashes: In cases of high-speed ocean crashes, such as Air France Flight 447, some personal items were recovered, but these were typically found closer to the crash site during active search operations. For MH370, the lack of a confirmed crash site and the vast search area mean that similar recoveries are less likely.
The absence of baggage and flotation devices in the MH370 debris record is not entirely surprising, especially in the context of a high-speed impact. Such an event would likely cause most of the aircraft’s contents to sink or become widely dispersed, with only durable, buoyant components like aircraft parts surviving long enough to be recovered. While a controlled ditching might increase the chances of finding personal items or flotation devices, the condition of the recovered debris (e.g., the damaged flaperon) and the lack of intact wreckage lean heavily toward a high-energy impact. The harsh oceanic environment and the vastness of the search area further explain why items like shoes or life vests have not been reported.
No comments:
Post a Comment