NEW DEVELOPMENTS - MH 370
COURTESY WIKIPEDIA:
2025 Ocean Infinity search
[edit]In March 2019, in the wake of the 5th anniversary of the disappearance, the Malaysian government stated it was willing to look at any "credible leads or specific proposals" regarding a new search.[272][273] Ocean Infinity stated they are ready to resume the search on the same no-find no-fee basis, believing they would benefit from the experience they gained from their search for the wreck of Argentinian submarine ARA San Juan and bulk carrier ship Stellar Daisy, with the most probable location still being somewhere along the 7th arc around the area identified previously, the one on which their 2018 search was based.[274] In March 2022, Ocean Infinity committed to resuming its search in 2023 or 2024, pending approval by the Malaysian government, with two new robotic ships to replace Seabed Constructor.[9]
On 8 March 2023, the ninth anniversary of the disappearance of flight MH370, Malaysian Transport Minister Anthony Loke vowed not to "close the book" on MH370, adding that due consideration would be given to future searches if there was "new and credible information" on the aircraft's potential location.[275] In March 2024, days before the tenth anniversary of the disappearance, Malaysia said it would consult with Australia about collaborating on another expedition by the Ocean Infinity team.[276][277][278] In March 2024, the University of Liverpool highlighted that researchers have embarked on studies of the impact of aircraft on Weak Signal Radio Communication (WSPR). Some investigators have explored the use of WSPR statistical data to estimate the final flight path of MH370 along the 7th arc.[279]
On 20 December 2024, the Malaysian government agreed "in principle" to a new search effort conducted by Ocean Infinity.[280]
On 25 February 2025, Loke announced the start of a new search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, to be conducted by Ocean Infinity. The mission was planned to cover an area of 15,000 km2 (5,800 sq mi) in the southern Indian Ocean, to be searched over 18 months. The search would be conducted under a "no find, no fee" agreement with the Malaysian government, which had pledged a $70 million reward for the discovery of the wreckage.[281] On 3 April 2025, Loke stated that Ocean Infinity had suspended its search, giving the reason that it is "not the season". Ocean Infinity plans to resume the search at the end of 2025.[282]
Analysis of hydroacoustic data
[edit]A source of evidence to assist in locating the final resting place of the aircraft is analysis of underwater sound recordings. If the aircraft hit the ocean hard enough, hydroacoustic recordings could have potentially recorded an impact event. Furthermore, the aircraft's flight data recorders were fitted with underwater "pingers", which emit a detectable, pulsating acoustic signal that could have potentially led searchers to their locations.
Impact event
[edit]If Flight 370 had impacted the ocean hard, resulting underwater sounds could have been detected by hydrophones, given favourable circumstances.[18]: 40 [283][284] Sound waves can travel long distances in the ocean, but sounds that travel best are those that are reflected into the 'deep sound channel' usually found between 600 and 1,200 m beneath the surface. Most of the sound generated by an aircraft impacting the ocean would travel straight down to the seabed, making it unlikely that any of these sounds would be reflected into the deep sound channel unless the seabed sloped. Sounds from pieces of the aircraft imploding at depth would be more likely to travel in the deep sound channel. "The combination of circumstances necessary to allow [detection of an ocean impact] would have to be very particular", according to Mark Prior, a seismic-acoustic specialist at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), who also explains that "given the continuing uncertainty regarding the fate of MH370, underwater acoustic data still has the possibility of adding something to the search."[284] When an Airbus A330 hit the Atlantic Ocean at speed of 152 kn (282 km/h; 175 mph), no data relating to the impact was detected in hydroacoustic recordings, even when analysed after the location of that aircraft was known.[284][285] As with the analysis of the Inmarsat satellite data, the hydroacoustic analysis uses the data in a way very different from that originally intended.[285]
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau requested the Curtin University Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST) analyse these signals.[18]: 40 Scientists from CTBTO and Geoscience Australia have also been involved with the analysis. Available sources of hydroacoustic data were:[18]: 40, 47 [283][284][285]
- The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), which operates a system of sensors to detect nuclear tests to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Data was analysed from CTBTO hydrophones located south-west of Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia (HA01) and in the northern Indian Ocean. These stations have two hydrophones each, separated by several kilometres, allowing a bearing to be calculated for the source of noise to within 0.5°.
- Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS).[286] Data from an acoustic observatory (RCS) 40 km west of Rottnest Island, Western Australia, near the Perth Canyon. IMOS stations have just one hydrophone each and therefore cannot provide a bearing on the source of the noise. Several IMOS recorders deployed in the Indian Ocean off northwestern Australia by CMST may have recorded data related to Flight 370. As of 2014, these recorders were not recovered as part of the investigation. These sensors record only five minutes out of every fifteen and are likely to be contaminated by noise from seismic surveys.
- It is unclear what other sources of hydroacoustic data are available in the region. India and Pakistan operate submarine fleets, but the JACC claims they are not aware of any hydrophones operated by those countries. The U.S. Navy operated a vast array of hydrophones—the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS)—during the Cold War to track submarines, which is believed to remain in operation. Asked if any SOSUS sensors are located in the Indian Ocean, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy declined to comment on the subject, noting that such information is classified.
Scientists from the CTBTO analysed their recordings soon after Flight 370 disappeared, finding nothing of interest. However, after the search for the flight shifted to the Indian Ocean, CMST collected recordings from the IMOS and found a clear acoustic signature just after 01:30 UTC on 8 March.[283] This signature was also found, but difficult to discern from background noise, in the CTBTO recordings from HA01, likely because HA01 receives a lot of noise from the Southern Ocean and Antarctic coastline.[283]
The CMST researchers believe that the most likely explanation of the hydroacoustic data is that they come from the same event, but unrelated to Flight 370.[18]: 47 They note that "the characteristics of the [event's acoustic signals] are not unusual, it is only their arrival time and to some extent the direction from which they came that make them of interest".[18]: 47 If the data relates to the same event, related to Flight 370, but the arc derived from analysis of the aircraft's satellite transmission is incorrect, then the most likely place to look for the aircraft would be along a line from HA01 at a bearing of 301.6° until that line reaches the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge (approximately 2.3°S, 73.7°E). In the latter possibility, if the acoustic recordings are from the impact of the aircraft with the ocean, they likely came from a location where water is less than 2,000 m deep and the seabed slopes downwards towards the east or southeast; if they came from debris imploding at depth, the source location along this line is much less certain.[18]: 47 The lead CMST researcher believed the chance the acoustic event was related to Flight 370 to be very slim, perhaps as low as 10%.[287] The audio recording of the suspect detection was publicly released on 4 June 2014;[283][285] the ATSB had first referenced these signals in a document posted on its website on 26 May.[285]
Underwater locator beacons
[edit]The aircraft's flight recorders were fitted with Dukane DK100 underwater acoustic beacons—also known as "underwater locator beacons" (ULBs) or "pingers"—which are activated by immersion in salt water and thereafter emit a 10 millisecond pulse every second at a frequency of 37.5±1 kHz. The beacons are limited by battery life, providing a minimum of 30 days and have an estimated maximum life of 40 days, according to their manufacturer. The nominal distance at which these beacons can be detected is 2,000–3,000 metres.[18]: 11 Because the flight recorders to which they are attached could provide valuable information in the investigation, an intense effort was made to detect the beacons' pings before their batteries expired.
HMS Echo made one possible detection on 2 April—the same day the ship joined the search effort. The following day, following tests, the detection was dismissed as an artefact of the ship's sonar system.[18]: 11 [116] On the afternoon of 5 April Perth time, HMS Echo detected a signal lasting approximately 90 seconds. The second detection was made within 2 km from the first detection.[288]
MV Haixun 01, operated by the China Maritime Safety Administration, detected a signal at 37.5 kHz pulsing once per second on 4 April and again on 5 April at a position 3 km west of the first detection.[133] HMS Echo was sent to the location of the MV Haixun 01 detections and determined that the detections were unlikely to originate from ULBs attached to the plane's black boxes due to the depth of the seafloor, surface noise, and the equipment used. A submarine sent to the location made no acoustic detections.[18]: 13
ADV Ocean Shield was sent to the search area with two Phoenix International TPL-25 towed pinger locators (also known as "towfish"). Shortly after one of the towfish was deployed, while descending, an acoustic signal was detected at a frequency of 33 kHz on 5 April. Further detections were made on 5 April and on 8 April, but none could be detected when the ship passed the same location on an opposing heading.[18]: 12
Independent analyses of the detections made by ADV Ocean Shield determined that the signals did not match the performance standards of the ULBs attached to the aircraft's black boxes. However, although unlikely, they noted that the signals could have originated from a damaged ULB.[18]: 13
Between 6–16 April, AP-3C Orion aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force deployed sonobuoys, which sank to a depth of 300m to detect the acoustic signature of the ULBs attached to the aircraft's black boxes. Sonobuoy drops were carried out at locations along the calculated arc of the final satellite communication with Flight 370 where seafloor depths were considered favourable, near the MV Haixun 01 detections, and along the bearing determined by the Curtin University research team of a possible impact event. One AP-3C Orion sortie was capable of searching an area of 3,000 square kilometres (1,200 sq mi). No acoustic detections related to the ULBs attached to the aircraft's black boxes were made by the sonobuoys.[18]: 13
The interim report released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport in March 2015 mentioned, for the first time publicly, that the battery for the ULB attached to the flight data recorder had expired in December 2012. The battery's (and thus the ULB's) performance may have been compromised, but this likely was not significant in the search, given the close range at which the detection must be made and the vast search area.[289][290]
Cost estimates
[edit]The search for Flight 370 is the most expensive search operation in aviation history.[291][292][293][294] In June 2014 Time estimated that the total search effort to that point had cost approximately US$70 million.[295] Malaysia's Ministry of Transport revealed that it had spent RM 280.5 million (US$70 million) on the search through February 2016.[296] The tender for the underwater search was AU$52 million (US$43 million or €35 million)—shared by Australia and Malaysia—for 12 months.[297]
On 17 January 2017, the official search for Flight 370 was suspended after yielding no evidence of the aircraft apart from some marine debris on the coast of Africa.[298] Reported costs of the search varied between US$135–160 million.[299][300][301][302] In February 2017, Malaysia's Transport Minister stated the cost as RM 500 million (US$112.47 million).[303]
Contribution to geophysics and oceanography
[edit]The seafloor sonar data obtained during the underwater search for Flight 370 gives scientists an unusually-large section of deep-ocean seafloor mapped at high resolution; most seafloor bathymetric data at such high resolution covers either a small area or shallower seafloor on continental shelves.[304][305] Previous maps of the seafloor in the region of the underwater search were at a spatial resolution of 1 pixel per 5 km (3.1 mi).[306] The bathymetric survey had a spatial resolution of 40–110 m (130–360 ft).[305] During the October 2014–January 2017 underwater search, the spatial resolution of the side scan sonar used by the towfish varied, but was sufficient to detect a 2-cubic-metre (71 cu ft) object,[b] while the spatial resolution of the synthetic aperture sonar used by the ProSAS deep tow vehicle aboard the GO Phoenix and Dong Hai Jiu 101 had a resolution of 10 cm (3.9 in).[195]: 8–10 By comparison, topographic maps of the Moon, Mars, and Venus have been conducted at 100 m (330 ft) resolution and the most remote land areas on Earth have been mapped at 50 m (160 ft) resolution.[306]
Data from the bathymetric survey revealed numerous subsea volcanoes and evidence of large submarine landslides with slide scarps—cliff faces at the top of the origin of the landslide—up to 180 m (590 ft) high and 10 km (6.2 mi) wide and debris fans more than 150 km (93 mi) long.[306][305] Data from the bathymetric survey and underwater search may be used for oil, gas, and mineral exploration. Two features within the search area—Broken Ridge and the Kerguelen Plateau—potentially contain oil and gas deposits, while a field of manganese nodules—which also contain iron ore, nickel, copper, and cobalt—on the seafloor could also be exploited.[307] Geoscience Australia published some of the underwater survey data in March 2017[304] with a high resolution dataset hosted at NCI Australia.[
GROK:
- Leverage Hydroacoustic Data More Effectively: The analysis of underwater sound recordings, such as those from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) and Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), could be prioritized. While a 2014 acoustic signal detected by Curtin University was deemed unlikely to be related to MH370, re-analyzing this data with modern machine learning techniques could identify subtle patterns missed previously. Collaboration with seismic-acoustic specialists to model potential impact or implosion sounds in the deep sound channel (600–1,200 m depth) could refine the search area.
- Integrate WSPR Technology: Research from the University of Liverpool and independent investigator Richard Godfrey suggests that Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) data could estimate MH370’s final flight path. This passive radar system, using amateur radio signals, has shown promise in tracking aircraft. Validating and integrating WSPR data with Inmarsat satellite data and debris drift models could further narrow the search zone, potentially identifying areas missed in prior searches.
- Enhance International Collaboration: The Malaysian government should deepen cooperation with Australia, China, and other nations with stakes in MH370. Australia’s expertise from the 2014–2017 search, including bathymetric survey data from Geoscience Australia, could guide Ocean Infinity’s operations. Engaging the U.S. Navy’s Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS), despite its classified nature, could provide access to historical hydroacoustic data from the Indian Ocean. A multinational task force could also pool resources for continuous monitoring of the search area.
- Improve Seasonal Planning: To mitigate disruptions like the April 2025 suspension, Ocean Infinity should optimize its operational schedule for the January–April window, when weather conditions are most favorable. Pre-positioning vessels and equipment in ports like Henderson, Western Australia, could minimize downtime for resupply and refueling, as seen in March 2025. Predictive weather modeling could also help anticipate optimal search periods.
- Engage Independent Experts: Involving independent researchers, such as those studying WSPR or hydroacoustic data, could provide fresh perspectives. Crowdsourcing analysis of publicly released datasets, similar to the 2014 Tomnod satellite imagery initiative, could harness global expertise to identify anomalies in sonar or bathymetric data.
- Focus on Underwater Locator Beacons (ULBs): Although the ULB battery on MH370’s flight data recorder was expired by December 2012, the cockpit voice recorder’s ULB may still have been operational. Deploying advanced towed pinger locators, like those used by ADV Ocean Shield in 2014, in areas with favorable seafloor depths (<2,000 m) could detect faint signals from a damaged ULB. Future searches should prioritize regions along the 7th arc with sloping seabeds, where acoustic signals are more likely to reflect into the deep sound channel.
- Public Transparency and Family Engagement: To maintain trust, the Malaysian government and Ocean Infinity should provide regular updates to families and the public, addressing frustrations like those voiced by Chinese relatives in March 2025. A dedicated communication portal for families could ensure timely information sharing, reducing reliance on media reports.
Comments
Post a Comment