RICHARD GODFREY'S 'PLAN B'

 

GROK:

Richard Godfrey's "Plan B" refers to a privately organised, independent underwater search operation targeting the specific WSPR-derived "hotspot" zone in the southern Indian Ocean that he and his collaborators have long advocated.

Godfrey has discussed it publicly in recent interviews (notably March 2026 episodes of Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas, including “Shades of Plan B”), describing it as already “in the wings,” with the relevant vessel or team “actually traveling at the moment.”
He has been clear that it would only activate if Ocean Infinity (OI) ultimately decides not to search the WSPR area (or abandons the effort), and that it is prepared to proceed with or without Malaysian Government approval or OI involvement. He has explicitly kept the operational details “under wraps” for now.
Who “Plan B” is likely to be
No specific operator, vessel, company, or funding source has been publicly named — that is deliberate. From the context of Godfrey’s statements and the surrounding discussion in the MH370 advocate community:

• It is not an official Malaysian, Australian, or OI-led effort.
• It appears to be a small, privately backed independent team aligned with Godfrey, Geoffrey Thomas, and the core group behind mh370search.com.
• It is almost certainly a commercial marine-survey or deep-ocean exploration outfit (or a one-off charter) that already possesses (or can quickly mobilise) the necessary autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), side-scan sonar, and support vessel.
• Funding is likely private — possibly a mix of donor contributions from MH370 families, supporters, or high-net-worth individuals frustrated with official delays — rather than any government or corporate “no-find-no-fee” contract.

In short, Plan B is the “shadow” contingency that the WSPR proponents have quietly lined up as a last resort once the current OI contract window (which began in 2025 and has already seen suspensions) appears to be closing without covering their zone. Legal, practical, and political challenges they would face
Operating without Malaysian approval or OI involvement would place Plan B in a legally and diplomatically precarious position. Key issues include:

1. Malaysian sovereign rights and ICAO Annex 13
   Malaysia is the State of Registry and the accident investigation authority. Under international aviation law, it retains primary jurisdiction over the aircraft, wreckage, flight recorders, and any evidence. An unauthorised search could be treated as interference with an ongoing investigation. If Plan B finds the wreck, Malaysia could legally demand immediate handover of all data, debris, and black boxes — and could pursue civil or diplomatic action against the team or vessel owner.
2. International maritime & salvage law
   The WSPR zone lies in international waters (high seas), so no coastal-state EEZ permit is needed. However, the 1989 Salvage Convention and UNCLOS rules on underwater cultural heritage still apply. Malaysia could assert ownership of the wreck as state property and argue that private salvors have no automatic rights. Any recovered items could become the subject of protracted legal disputes over title, chain of custody, and admissibility in court or safety inquiries.
3. Potential injunctions or port-access blocks
   Australia (the most practical base port — Fremantle) could be pressured by Malaysia to deny berthing, refuelling, or resupply to a vessel engaged in an “unauthorised” search. Insurance, classification society approvals, and flag-state oversight could also become problematic once the operation becomes public.
4. Contractual overlap with Ocean Infinity
   OI’s “no-find-no-fee” deal with Malaysia gives them a degree of exclusivity in the current search corridor. A parallel private effort risks accusations of “poaching” or bad-faith competition, which could trigger legal pushback from OI or Malaysia.
5. Practical and financial realities
   • Deep-ocean search is extraordinarily expensive (tens of millions of dollars even for a limited campaign). Without an official payout mechanism, the operation would rely entirely on private funding that could dry up quickly.
   • Logistical support (AUV maintenance, data analysis, 24/7 operations in the rough Southern Ocean) is complex and weather-limited.
   • Any find would still need rapid, credible third-party verification (experts, Malaysian observers, etc.) to be accepted by the wider community and authorities — otherwise it risks being dismissed as unverified or contested.
6. Political and reputational risk
   Malaysia has shown caution (some would say reluctance) about expanding the search, especially into zones that might strengthen “pilot-in-control-to-the-end” theories. An independent success could embarrass Kuala Lumpur and trigger a political backlash, while failure could further marginalise the WSPR hypothesis.

Bottom line:
Plan B is a bold, determined private initiative born of frustration with official timelines, but it would be sailing into a legal grey zone. Its best chance of success would be to locate the wreckage discreetly and then immediately invite Malaysian and international experts aboard to take over the investigation — turning a potential confrontation into a fait accompli that forces everyone to the table.
Whether the necessary funding, legal shielding, and operational secrecy can be maintained long enough to make that happen remains to be seen. The community is watching the next few weeks closely, especially as the current OI contract window winds down.

Yes, there is a clear element of irony here, and it's one that several observers in the MH370 community have noted.

Richard Godfrey has repeatedly and publicly criticised the Malaysian Government and, to a lesser extent, Ocean Infinity for insufficient transparency — particularly around delays in search agreements, limited information shared with next-of-kin (NOK), redactions or perceived withholding of data, and slow progress on resuming underwater searches. He has framed these as failures of accountability that leave families in the dark after more than a decade.
Yet his own "Plan B" — a privately prepared independent search operation targeting the WSPR-derived hotspot — is being kept deliberately opaque. In recent interviews (e.g., March 2026 discussions on Airline News with Geoffrey Thomas), Godfrey has described it as "in the wings" with a vessel or team "actually traveling at the moment," while explicitly stating that operational details are being held "under wraps" for now. He has not disclosed the vessel operator, exact funding sources, precise timeline, or full team composition.
Why the secrecy from Godfrey's perspective

From what he and his collaborators have indicated, the reasons appear pragmatic rather than sinister:

• Operational security and legal protection: Revealing too much prematurely could invite injunctions, diplomatic pressure from Malaysia, interference from Ocean Infinity under their existing agreement, or logistical sabotage (e.g., port access issues in Australia). In international waters but under the shadow of ICAO Annex 13 jurisdiction, full public disclosure could make the operation harder or impossible to execute.
• Avoiding false hope or media frenzy: Past MH370 claims have attracted intense scrutiny, debunking, and emotional toll on families. Keeping it quiet until closer to activation may be intended to manage expectations.
• Funding and partnership sensitivities: Private backers (possibly including frustrated NOK supporters or donors) may require confidentiality to avoid public backlash or legal exposure.

The valid counterpoint on irony and consistency
Critics (and some neutral observers) argue this approach mirrors the very "cloak and dagger" behaviour Godfrey condemns:

• It limits information flow to the broader public and many families until the last moment.
• It relies on a small, trusted inner circle (Godfrey, Geoffrey Thomas, and a handful of aligned analysts) rather than broader, verifiable disclosure.
• If Plan B succeeds in finding something, the initial secrecy could complicate chain-of-custody, verification, and acceptance by authorities — potentially fuelling further conspiracy narratives rather than resolving them.

In short, while the operational constraints of mounting an unauthorised (or semi-authorised) private deep-ocean search are real, the decision to mirror the opacity he has criticised does create a credibility tension. Many in the advocate community support the determination behind Plan B but wish for more proactive, structured communication — perhaps through regular anonymised updates or a clearer commitment to immediate NOK/authority notification upon any finding.
This isn't unusual in independent investigations of high-profile mysteries (think private searches for other wrecks or cold cases), where secrecy is a tool for success but can undermine the moral high ground on transparency.

Godfrey's strongest defence would be rapid, full disclosure to Malaysian authorities and families the moment any credible data emerges — turning the private effort into a catalyst for official action. Whether that happens remains to be seen as the current OI window winds down. The frustration on all sides is understandable after 12 years.