Radio Data Narrows MH370 Crash Site as Experts Urge Search Restart

Mentour Pilot

Historical radio-wave scattering and satellite anomalies indicate a pilot manually navigated MH370 past fuel exhaustion into an unsearched sector of the southern Indian Ocean, justifying an immediate resumption of recovery operations.

AI-assisted summary of A NEW Trace! The FULL MH370 Story, so Far.. — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2024-03-16

Key ideas

Ten years after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 vanished with 239 people on board, new research combining Inmarsat satellite data, operational piloting models, and Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) radio analysis has yielded two distinct, refined candidate search areas in the southern Indian Ocean. (0:00)
Satellite oscillator data confirms the Boeing 777's Satellite Data Unit suffered a major electrical power interruption before rebooting at 02:25 UTC, consistent with intentional bus-stripping and cabin depressurization to incapacitate passengers and crew. (40:20)
Analysis of the flight's initial turn at waypoint IGARI and subsequent navigational track indicates manual, aggressive hand-flying carefully hugging Thai and Indonesian radar boundaries rather than an autopilot system running on a generic heading. (24:07)
WSPR passive tracking suggests the aircraft flew a deliberate figure-eight pattern around the time of fuel exhaustion, indicating active manual pilot intervention until the final descent rather than an unguided 'ghost flight' spiral dive. (49:08)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on March 16, 2024, by the YouTube channel Mentour Pilot, this 56-minute video examines the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 ten years after the event. According to the description, the video aims to present what is currently known about how a modern Boeing 777 vanished and to advocate for restarting search efforts using new data and technology.

## TL;DR Host Petter Hörnfeldt provides a detailed operational breakdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, tracing its departure from Kuala Lumpur, the deliberate deactivation of secondary surveillance systems near waypoint IGARI, and its manual diversion across the Malay Peninsula. Drawing on primary radar data, Inmarsat satellite communications (BTO and BFO calculations), and operational assessments, the analysis explores scenarios involving intentional electrical bus-stripping and cabin depressurization. It highlights recent findings from Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) technology alongside independent flight reconstructions by veteran aviators. The video concludes with a direct appeal to authorities to launch a renewed underwater search targeting refined candidate zones in the southern Indian Ocean.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation carries a somber, intensely focused, and analytical tone, driven by Petter Hörnfeldt's measured, professional delivery as an experienced airline captain. Rather than indulging in sensationalism, the narrative maintains a clinical respect for engineering facts, avionics logic, and human physiology. As the technical evidence systematically exposes deliberate cockpit actions, the atmosphere tightens into a chilling realization of the flight's final hours, culminating in an earnest, emotionally grounded plea for closure on behalf of the victims' families.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=0s) Ten years after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 vanished with 239 people on board, new research combining Inmarsat satellite data, operational piloting models, and Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) radio analysis has yielded two distinct, refined candidate search areas in the southern Indian Ocean. - [40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2420s) Satellite oscillator data confirms the Boeing 777's Satellite Data Unit suffered a major electrical power interruption before rebooting at 02:25 UTC, consistent with intentional bus-stripping and cabin depressurization to incapacitate passengers and crew. - [24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1447s) Analysis of the flight's initial turn at waypoint IGARI and subsequent navigational track indicates manual, aggressive hand-flying carefully hugging Thai and Indonesian radar boundaries rather than an autopilot system running on a generic heading. - [49:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2948s) WSPR passive tracking suggests the aircraft flew a deliberate figure-eight pattern around the time of fuel exhaustion, indicating active manual pilot intervention until the final descent rather than an unguided 'ghost flight' spiral dive.

## Key takeaways - [02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=142s) Flight MH370 departed Kuala Lumpur for Beijing with 239 occupants and 7 hours 31 minutes of fuel endurance, crewed by an experienced Captain and a First Officer transitioning onto the Boeing 777. - [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1153s) The Captain made an unusual redundant level report at FL350 seven minutes after reaching cruise, which may indicate checking radio activity after briefly stepping off frequency. - [21:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1291s) Secondary radar contact ceased abruptly at 01:21 UTC near waypoint IGARI after the transponder was manually switched to 'Altitude Off' without a proper frequency readback to Ho Chi Minh. - [24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1447s) Boeing engineering simulations revealed that the sharp, high-speed left turn off airway M765 could only be replicated by disconnecting the autopilot and hand-flying an aggressive steep bank. - [27:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1646s) Operational pilots hypothesize an intentional electrical bus-stripping and cabin depressurization at FL350, which would exhaust emergency passenger oxygen canisters within 22 minutes while cockpit bottles supplied oxygen for hours. - [33:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2010s) Breakdowns and delays in ATC coordination between Ho Chi Minh and Kuala Lumpur, coupled with military assumptions of an operational turnback, delayed search and rescue alerts by hours. - [35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2121s) Primary radar tracked MH370 navigating northwest along airway N571 in the Malacca Strait using raw VOR radio guidance until radar contact ceased near waypoint MEKAR. - [36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2215s) Inmarsat's Burst Timing Offset (BTO) and Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) data provided critical distance arcs and Doppler speed metrics establishing the aircraft's route into the southern Indian Ocean. - [40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2420s) Frequency error analysis of the Oven-Controlled Crystal Oscillator proved the Satellite Data Unit experienced a cold restart at 02:25 UTC, after which ACARS was manually prevented from transmitting identifying data. - [46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2773s) WSPR historical radio propagation archives have been applied as a distributed passive radar network to reconstruct the flight's trajectory through radar gaps and international borders. - [49:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2948s) WSPR tracking identifies a deliberate figure-eight holding maneuver between the sixth and seventh handshakes, a behavior inconsistent with the Boeing 777's automatic rudder trim compensations during single-engine drift. - [52:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3123s) A pilot managing fuel exhaustion could have manually deployed the APU to maintain hydraulic control and flaps for an extended glide of up to 67 nautical miles beyond the 7th Inmarsat arc. - [53:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3183s) Physical debris recovered across the western Indian Ocean confirms severe structural breakup upon ocean entry, while modern models provide sufficient precision to justify reopening the seabed search.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=0s) Introduction: A Mystery That Leaves a Trace

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 remains one of the deepest puzzles in modern aviation. A Boeing 777, among the largest and most technologically advanced passenger aircraft in service, cannot simply vanish into thin air without leaving any evidence behind. As the host emphasizes:

> "Everything lost leaves a trace."

Flight MH370 vanished with 239 people on board. Over the ensuing decade, the sheer volume of competing theories and unanswered questions made it nearly impossible to address the topic without wandering into pure conjecture—the very reason the host avoided covering it for ten years. However, marked by the ten-year anniversary of the disappearance, an exception is made with a clear objective:

> "This story is created with one goal and one goal only, and that is to persuade the authorities to restart the search for the missing Boeing 777."

Beyond seeking closure for the families—some of whom were contacted prior to the production of this analysis—the renewed push rests on fresh potential evidence. This analysis leverages technology refined and enhanced over recent years that offers new, precise clues regarding the final resting place of the aircraft. The recounting begins from what is solidly documented, leading up to the final routine radio call from the cockpit: *"Good night, Malaysia 370."*

---

[02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=142s) Pre-Flight Preparations and Dispatch Planning

On the night of March 7, 2014, the flight crew reported for duty at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KUL) for an overnight passenger service to Beijing Capital International Airport (PEK). On paper, the trip was routine and manageable: - **Planned flight time:** 5 hours and 34 minutes - **Scheduled arrival:** Mid-morning the following day in Beijing - **Captain check-in:** 22:50 local time at the Malaysia Airlines crew room - **First officer check-in:** Approximately 23:15 (25 minutes later)

The sector was scheduled as a training flight. The first officer was finishing his transition type rating from the Airbus A330 to the Boeing 777. His progress had been flawless, and a satisfactory performance on this leg would see him recommended by the captain for his final line check on the subsequent duty. Because the two had never flown together before, the captain arrived early—a standard instructional practice allowing instructors time to review a trainee's training records for areas requiring particular supervision.

Once together, the pilots reviewed the dispatch package: - **En-route weather:** Generally fair, dominated by a subtropical high-pressure system over Thailand. - **Destination weather:** Favorable conditions reported at Beijing. - **En-route turbulence:** A strong jet stream with elevated winds was forecast across roughly two-thirds of the flight path, presenting the only minor operational concern. - **NOTAMs:** None affecting the planned route. - **Fuel load:** With two alternate airports selected for Beijing, the crew ordered 49,100 kg of fuel—an entirely standard figure neither unusually high nor low. - **Endurance:** The fuel provided approximately 7 hours and 31 minutes of endurance, giving roughly two hours of reserve past the planned flight time.

---

[04:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=287s) The Flight Crew Profiles

The flight deck was staffed by two pilots with starkly different levels of experience, creating a naturally steep cockpit authority gradient:

The captain had served 33 years at the airline with an impeccable record. Outside work, he was an active member of a local political opposition party, assisted with grocery deliveries to the elderly, tinkered with electronics, and ran an active YouTube channel demonstrating domestic appliance repairs and his custom-built home flight simulator. Although the simulator's hard drives had been wiped weeks prior to the disappearance, investigators recovered manually entered waypoints from backup storage files, none of which yielded conclusive findings. He maintained stable personal finances, had no documented medical illnesses, and was viewed as an upstanding member of his community.

The first officer had no major recent life disruptions, held a stable financial situation, and was well-regarded by colleagues. Both pilots were fully rested within legal requirements, holding up-to-date licenses and valid medical certificates.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Cockpit Crew Experience Hierarchy accDescr: Diagram illustrating the significant disparity in flight experience and cockpit hierarchy between the Captain and First Officer.

subgraph Captain_Profile["Captain (53 yrs old)"] C1["18,400+ Total Hours"] C2["8,659 Hours on B777"] C3["Check Airman / Examiner (TRI / TRE)"] end

subgraph FO_Profile["First Officer (27 yrs old)"] F1["2,800+ Total Hours"] F2["39 Hours on B777"] F3["Transition Trainee from A330"] end

Captain_Profile -->|"Steep Authority Gradient / Instructor Role"| FO_Profile ```

---

[07:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=469s) Boarding and Aircraft Setup: ACARS and SATCOM

After finishing the briefing, the pilots met their ten cabin crew members—a veteran team whose junior member had 13 years of flying experience and senior purser had over 35 years. The aircraft assigned to the flight was a Boeing 777-200ER powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 892B turbofan engines. The aircraft maintenance log revealed no defects; the only pre-flight maintenance action had been a routine top-up of the cockpit crew oxygen bottle.

The pilots assigned the first officer as Pilot Flying (PF) for the outbound sector. Settling into the right-hand seat, he carried out cockpit initialization: - **23:54:** The aircraft's Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) powered up and established an operational datalink via Satellite Communications (SATCOM). - **23:56:08:** The first officer entered the flight identification and airline parameters into the Flight Management Computer Control Display Unit (FMC CDU), which was immediately logged and relayed groundside via ACARS. - **Antenna Architecture:** The SATCOM link relies on two distinct satellite antenna types (high-gain and low-gain), automatically alternating based on whether the aircraft's internal inertial navigation systems are operational. - **Cargo / NOTOC:** The first officer received an ACARS Notification to Captain (NOTOC). While commonly used for hazardous cargo, this manifest carried no dangerous goods, but rather a special perishable cargo consignment: several tons of fresh mangosteens, monitored due to their propensity to leak moisture and juice during transit.

[10:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=642s) Cargo Details, Passengers, and Departure Clearance

The Notice to Captain (NOTOC) confirmed that the special cargo loaded on board had been thoroughly inspected and was free of any leaks. What the document did not explicitly emphasize, however, was the presence of nearly 2.5 metric tons of lithium-ion batteries. Because these batteries were individually packaged and stored strictly according to safety regulations, they were not categorized as dangerous goods; investigators have consequently ruled them out as a causative factor for the impending disaster. Once the captain completed his external walk-around inspection, the two pilots finalized their preflight preparations and briefing routines in the cockpit.

At 23:25 UTC, the first officer contacted Kuala Lumpur Delivery to request their en-route departure clearance. The controller cleared Malaysia 370 via the PIBOS-1A standard instrument departure off Runway 32R, instructing them to climb initially to 6,000 feet with a transponder code of 2157. The first officer read back the clearance verbatim, and under two minutes later, requested pushback and engine start, which was promptly granted. The Boeing 777 pushed back from the gate, accepted taxi instructions, and slowly rolled out toward Runway 32R through the Malaysian night—the final moment anyone would ever see the airframe with their own eyes.

Aboard the aircraft were 227 passengers representing 14 different nationalities, alongside 12 crew members, bringing the total complement to 239 people. The largest passenger demographic consisted of 153 Chinese nationals, followed by 50 Malaysians and seven Indonesians. Although two passengers traveled under stolen European passports, they were later identified as Iranian nationals seeking asylum who posed no security threat; none of the passengers or operational crew displayed any suspicious profiles before takeoff.

- Special cargo: Approximately 2.5 tons of lithium-ion batteries, individually packaged and stowed, ruling out a cargo fire as the cause. - Total souls on board: 239 (227 passengers and 12 crew members). - Passenger demographics: 153 Chinese, 50 Malaysian, 7 Indonesian, and travelers from 11 other nations. - Departure runway: Runway 32R at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). - Assigned initial squawk code: 2157.

---

[13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=793s) Takeoff and the Initial Direct to IGARI

At 00:40:37 local time on March 8, Kuala Lumpur Tower cleared Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 for takeoff on Runway 32R. With the first officer acting as the pilot flying, radio communications were handled by the captain. Once the engines stabilized, the first officer engaged the Takeoff/Go-Around (TO/GA) switches, sending the widebody accelerating down the runway. At 00:42, the aircraft's SATCOM system logged that the jet was airborne, automatically transmitting routine aircraft identification and technical parameters that confirmed completely normal aircraft performance.

In accordance with standard local operating procedures, the crew immediately transferred to the Kuala Lumpur departure frequency after takeoff. Upon checking in, the departure controller canceled the PIBOS-1A departure routing, clearing the flight direct to waypoint IGARI and to continue climbing to Flight Level 180 (FL180). This direct routing was an ordinary operational convenience routinely granted in the late hours due to sparse traffic. The captain acknowledged the transmission, entered waypoint IGARI into the Flight Management Computer (FMC), and watched as the first officer cross-checked the entry, pressed execute, and dialed FL180 into the Mode Control Panel (MCP). The captain's voice on the air traffic control recordings remained utterly calm, relaxed, and indistinguishable from thousands of routine flights.

Handed over to Lumpur Radar on 132.6 MHz—the sector controller responsible for the flight until the FIR boundary with Vietnam at IGARI—the captain confirmed the frequency transfer smoothly. The controller cleared the aircraft to climb to FL250, followed three minutes later by final clearance to their cruising altitude of Flight Level 350 (FL350).

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: MH370 Departure and Initial Climb Sequence accDescr: Sequence of clearances and actions from departure clearance to cruising altitude at FL350.

subgraph Departure["Ground & Departure Operations"] A["Delivery: Cleared PIBOS-1A, Squawk 2157"] --> B["Line up Runway 32R & Takeoff Clearance (00:40:37)"] B --> C["Airborne Logged by SATCOM (00:42)"] end

subgraph EnRouteClimb["Climb Operations"] C --> D["Departure Controller: Cancel SID, Direct IGARI, Climb FL180"] D --> E["Lumpur Radar (132.6 MHz): Climb to FL250"] E --> F["Cleared to Cruise Altitude FL350"] end ```

---

[17:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1024s) Understanding Primary vs. Secondary Radar

As Flight 370 climbed toward the northeast, it was tracked clearly by civilian air traffic facilities via both primary and secondary radar systems. In modern civil aviation, controllers depend heavily on secondary surveillance radar (SSR). This system relies directly on an active transponder aboard the aircraft, assigned a specific four-digit octal code (using digits 0 through 7). The active transponder replies to ground interrogations by beaming down real-time data packets containing the aircraft's precise identification, altitude, velocity, and even control panel selections. The transponder also broadcasts ADS-B signals picked up by tracking services like FlightRadar24 and enables onboard Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) to coordinate resolution advisories between converging aircraft.

By contrast, primary radar operates on the classic principle of bouncing a raw radio pulse off a target's physical fuselage and measuring the returning echo to calculate its distance and bearing. While primary radar allows controllers and military operators to track non-cooperative objects that do not broadcast data voluntarily, shortwave primary radar signals feature a much more limited operational range. Furthermore, primary radar provides poor, imprecise estimates of an aircraft's altitude and groundspeed—a critical technical limitation that would heavily complicate subsequent analyses of MH370's path.

---

[19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1153s) The FL350 Level Call and the Seven-Minute Anomaly

At 01:01:14 local time, the captain checked in with Lumpur Radar to report that the flight had leveled off at their cruise altitude of Flight Level 350:

> “Level flight level 350.”

The controller acknowledged the report. While checking in upon reaching cruise altitude was not an operational requirement—acting more as an informal courtesy—the captain’s tone was thoroughly relaxed, featuring a recognizable falling intonation toward the end of his transmission.

However, roughly seven minutes later, the captain keyed the microphone again and repeated the identical report that they were level at Flight Level 350. Official investigative teams noted this double transmission in the final report as an anomaly but dismissed it as having no operational significance.

Experienced airline pilots typically make redundant level reports for one of two distinct reasons. The first is momentary forgetfulness, though the call was non-mandatory to begin with. The second, more telling operational reason occurs when a pilot has been absent from the active ATC frequency—perhaps due to troubleshooting radios, managing cabin issues, or turning down the audio volume:

> “You see if we make that call again and ATC just responds, 'Roger' or something similar, well then we know that they haven't been trying to call us because if they would have, they would now repeat any other messages that they had previously tried to send.”

The seven-minute gap between these identical reports suggests that something occurred inside the cockpit that pulled the captain’s attention completely away from his monitoring duties between 01:01 and 01:08.

[21:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1291s) Radio Tone and the Last Words over IGARI

A close listening of Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s voice transmissions reveals an important psychological shift. While official accident investigators concluded they could not detect any physiological stress in the cockpit voice recordings, Petter Hörnfeldt notes a striking shift in vocal delivery between the initial and subsequent calls: “In the first, the captain sounds relaxed with a clear dropping intonation towards the end and in the second, he just sounds busy, like he's working on something at the same time that he's making that call.” As a flight instructor, Petter frequently hears that exact cadence during heavy cockpit workloads in both training aircraft and full-flight simulators.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Sequence of Handover and Disappearance at IGARI accDescr: Chronological events showing radio communications, transponder shutoff, and radar tracking over the FIR boundary.

subgraph Malaysian_Airspace["Malaysian Airspace"] A["01:19:24 KLATCC instructs handoff: Contact Ho Chi Minh 120.9"] --> B["Last transmission: 'Good night, Malaysian 370' (No frequency readback)"] B --> C["01:20:43 Aircraft crosses waypoint IGARI"] end

subgraph FIR_Boundary["FIR Handover Gap"] C --> D["+5 seconds after IGARI: Mode S transponder disabled"] D --> E["+37 seconds later: Secondary radar return lost entirely"] end

subgraph Evasion_Maneuver["Manual Diversion"] E --> F["Abrupt manual left turn (Steep bank bypassing Thai ADIZ)"] F --> G["Raw primary radar tracks southwest toward VPG beacon (Penang)"] end ```

Shortly after that exchange, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) transmitted its final routine position report via satellite communications (SATCOM) to the ground station. From that moment forward, the aircraft's SATCOM terminal went completely dark for nearly one hour and 17 minutes.

At 01:19:24 local time, the Kuala Lumpur Area Control Centre (Lumpur Radar) directed MH370 to transfer communications: “Malaysian 370, contact Ho Chi Minh 120.9, good night.” Flight 370 was roughly one minute away from passing waypoint IGARI, remaining within Malaysian airspace but fast approaching the boundary of Vietnamese jurisdiction. The captain delivered the flight's final radio words: “Good night, Malaysian 370.” Crucially, the pilot omitted the standard radio procedure of repeating the assigned frequency (120.9), an error strongly indicative of an operator multitasking under high workload rather than delivering a theatrical sign-off.

[24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1447s) Disappearing from Radar and the Sharp Left Turn

Just five seconds after crossing waypoint IGARI, the aircraft’s transponder Mode S capability went dead. The selective deactivation of Mode S while maintaining other transponder functions for a brief window can only be executed deliberately by rotating the transponder selector knob on the center console from the TA/RA (Traffic Advisory/Resolution Advisory) setting to "Altitude Off." Had the transponder suffered a catastrophic power loss or system failure, all broadcast signals would have vanished instantaneously; instead, it took an additional 37 seconds for the secondary surveillance radar return to disappear completely from air traffic control screens.

Immediately following the secondary radar blackout, MH370 abandoned its filed route to Beijing. Raw primary military radar showed that after a momentary veer right toward waypoint BITOD, the twin-engine jet executed a hard left reversal of nearly 180 degrees. Boeing subsequently attempted to reproduce this maneuver in engineering simulators:

- Standard Boeing 777 autopilot logic restricts bank angles to safe passenger thresholds and could not recreate the recorded turn radius and groundspeed timings. - The only simulation runs that matched the primary radar profile required manually disconnecting the autopilot and hand-flying the widebody jet with an aggressive, steep bank angle. - “The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that someone had now started interfering with the flight's trajectory on purpose.”

The execution of this diversion exploited air traffic control boundaries. Crossing from the Kuala Lumpur FIR into the Ho Chi Minh FIR meant the Malaysian controller assumed the flight was transferring away, while the Vietnamese controller took no immediate action because the crew had not yet checked in on 120.9. Just north of IGARI lay the airspace border of the Royal Thai Air Force’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), marked on high-altitude en-route charts by parallel purple dotted lines. By tightly hugging the border without penetrating the ADIZ, whoever was hand-flying avoided triggering Thai military intercept protocols. Furthermore, the turn slotted the aircraft precisely between the Thai ADIZ and Airway M765, avoiding oncoming international air traffic.

[27:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1646s) The Southwest Crossing and the Electrical Blackout Theory

After completing the hard U-turn, the 777 tracked southwest across Peninsular Malaysia directly toward the Victor Papa Golf (VPG) VOR navigation beacon situated on Penang Island. Raw radar echoes exhibited subtle track wandering characteristic of manual flying rather than Flight Management Computer (FMC) lateral navigation. The aircraft likely descended slightly to pick up higher true airspeed as it dashed over the mainland. During this transit, a ground cellular tower operated by Celcom on Penang briefly registered a connection attempt from First Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid’s personal mobile phone. Crew standard operating procedures mandate switching mobile devices off prior to departure, indicating a crew member may have powered on a phone in an attempt to transmit distress messages, though no voice call or data transmission cleared the network before contact was lost.

Simultaneously, the aircraft's internal communications network experienced an extraordinary failure. Terrestrial ground stations attempted to uplink a normal ACARS message at 02:03 local time, but received no acknowledgment from the aircraft's SATCOM terminal. A routine cockpit deactivation or internal software crash of ACARS still preserves the underlying satellite data link, which would report that the application layer was unreachable. Because the satellite link failed to complete a handshake, the entire onboard Satellite Data Unit (SDU) had lost electrical power.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Intentional Depower and Depressurization Scenario accDescr: Flowchart showing how cockpit controls can deliberately isolate power buses and depressurize the aircraft cabin.

subgraph Electrical_Sabotage["Cockpit Electrical Isolation"] direction TB G1["Overhead Panel: Turn OFF L/R Gen & Backup Gen"] --> APU_Block["APU auto-start initiated by aircraft logic"] APU_Block --> APU_Cancel["Pilot cycles APU switch ON then OFF (Aborts APU startup)"] APU_Cancel --> RAT_Deploy["Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deploys automatically / manually"] RAT_Deploy --> RAT_Pwr["RAT powers bare essentials: PFD, ND, basic Nav (Autopilot & SATCOM remain DEAD)"] end

subgraph Cabin_Subjugation["Deliberate Depressurization"] direction TB Valves["Pilot manually opens outflow valves"] --> Air_Clean["Packs remain ON (Cockpit stays heated at FL350)"] Valves --> Pax_Deprec["Cabin altitude climbs to 35,000 ft"] Pax_Deprec --> Pax_Drop["Passenger oxygen masks deploy (Chemical generators last ~22 min)"] Pax_Drop --> Incap["Passengers and cabin crew succumb to hypoxia"] Air_Clean --> Pilot_Mask["Flight deck oxygen cylinder (Topped up morning of flight: Lasts 27 hours for one pilot)"] end ```

Analysis by experienced Boeing 777 operational pilots proposes an explanation:

- A pilot in the cockpit disconnected the primary left and right engine generators as well as the backup electrical generators using the overhead electrical control panel. - To prevent the aircraft's automated systems from compensating via the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), the pilot had to cycle the APU selector switch to ON and immediately back to OFF to kill the automatic start sequence. - This complete drop of primary alternating current buses dropped the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) into the slipstream to furnish basic flight instruments (Captain's Primary Flight Display and Navigation Display) while leaving non-essential services—including passenger lighting, ACARS, and the SATCOM terminal—entirely dead. - Manual handling remained available because the twin engines continued running, powering all hydraulic lines to the flight control surfaces.

This intentional bus-stripping theory dovetails with the hypothesis of cabin depressurization. To subdue cabin crew and passengers without physical resistance, someone at the controls could manually force the cabin outflow valves fully open while leaving the air conditioning packs running to keep the flight deck warmed. At a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, cabin decompression prompts the overhead chemical oxygen generators to drop, but these canisters provide passenger oxygen for only 22 minutes. In stark contrast, the cockpit high-pressure crew oxygen bottle, which had been serviced and topped up at Kuala Lumpur that very morning, can supply a single pilot on an emergency mask for 27 hours, leaving whoever remained in the flight deck conscious while the occupants in the cabin succumbed to hypoxia.

[32:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1936s) Physiological Limits and Manual Control After Depressurization

At cruising altitudes above thirty thousand feet, the time of useful consciousness without supplemental oxygen is brutally short: about one minute at high cruising levels, extending to only a few minutes around thirty thousand feet. Anyone exposed to an unpressurized cabin environment without an oxygen mask would rapidly lose the capacity to make rational decisions before slipping into unconsciousness. If oxygen is not restored, irreversible brain death follows within roughly twenty minutes. Mentour Pilot stresses that investigators still cannot declare as absolute fact what transpired aboard the flight, stating, “But like I said before, we don't know for a fact what happened and we won't know more until the aircraft is found which is why it is so important that we continue the search.”

Hand-flying a massive jetliner under degraded systems while wearing an oxygen mask and relying solely on rudimentary standby navigation instruments is an exhausting, demanding task. This physical strain offers the most plausible explanation for the minor, erratic heading variations observed on primary radar tracks as the Boeing 777 navigated south of Penang and banked right into the Strait of Malacca. Despite occasional brief dropouts in raw radar coverage across civilian and military sensors, the radar returns demonstrated purposeful, managed flight. Mentour Pilot observes, “There were temporary lapses in the radar coverage but all in all, it painted a fairly clear picture of an aircraft flying in a controlled way and not in any way random.”

- **Time of useful consciousness:** Approximately one minute at high cruising altitudes, extending to a few minutes at 30,000 feet. - **Hypoxia progression:** Cognitive degradation leads rapidly to unconsciousness, with death occurring within approximately 20 minutes if supplemental oxygen is withheld. - **Flight characteristics:** Small heading oscillations on radar reflect the physical burden of manual flight under emergency oxygen with limited cockpit instruments.

---

[33:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2010s) Breakdown in Air Traffic Coordination and Failed Interception

A disastrous combination of misunderstandings between air traffic control centers and Malaysia Airlines headquarters allowed the rogue aircraft to slip through the region unnoticed. Under international procedures, an air traffic controller must raise a query within five minutes if an expected aircraft fails to report at a waypoint. When MH370 vanished from primary secondary radar displays near IGARI, roughly twenty minutes elapsed before the Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center contacted the Malaysian controller in Kuala Lumpur to ask where the jet was. Because this occurred at an airspace boundary in the dead of night, controllers were juggling other traffic and were not monitoring their flight progress strips closely.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: ATC Confusion and MH370 False Tracking Flow accDescr: Diagram illustrating how inaccurate airline tracking data misled air traffic controllers while MH370 escaped unnoticed. subgraph Reality["Actual Aircraft Track"] A["MH370 turns southwest at IGARI"] --> B["Flies around south of Penang"] B --> C["Enters Strait of Malacca"] end subgraph Confusion["ATC & Airline Response"] D["Ho Chi Minh ATC delays query by 20 min"] --> E["Kuala Lumpur ATC contacts MAS Ops"] E --> F["MAS Ops reports plane over Cambodia"] F --> G["Controllers search forward route"] end Confusion -.->|"Faint primary radar echo ignored"| Reality ```

When the Malaysian controller—technically still responsible for the flight—began investigating, he contacted Malaysia Airlines flight operations. Airline dispatchers replied that their tracking screens showed the aircraft proceeding normally over Cambodia. Controllers down the line immediately focused on downstream sectors along the filed flight plan, attempting to raise the flight on radio frequencies. This misdirection blinded them to the solitary primary radar return sneaking southwest. The airline’s operations software was not displaying real-time telemetry; in the absence of incoming data, it was merely plotting projected positions based on the scheduled flight plan. Meanwhile, Malaysian military radar operators saw the sharp left turn off airway M765, but because the aircraft did not infringe on unauthorized airspace, they assumed it was a standard operational air turnback and never scrambled interceptor jets. Mentour Pilot remarks, “It was only later, with the help of radar playbacks that the picture of MH370's true path became clearer.”

- **Handoff delay:** Ho Chi Minh controllers waited approximately 20 minutes before querying Kuala Lumpur, well beyond the standard 5-minute protocol. - **Flawed dispatch tracking:** Malaysia Airlines dispatch erroneously reported MH370 in Cambodian airspace because their flight-following software generated dead-reckoning predictions when actual transponder data ceased. - **Military response:** The Royal Malaysian Air Force tracked the turnback but treated it as an unexceptional domestic maneuver, declining to scramble interceptors.

---

[35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2121s) Navigating the Malacca Strait Toward Waypoint MEKAR

After turning northwest into the Malacca Strait, the radar target tracked directly toward waypoint VAMPI. Because the aircraft's SATCOM terminal had not yet re-established contact, the jet was almost certainly operating in an electrically degraded state, possibly sustained only by emergency standby power from the Ram Air Turbine (RAT). Even under such stark conditions, basic navigation remained straightforward. The VPG VOR transmitter on Penang Island remained within reception range, permitting raw radio navigation, and waypoint coordinates could still be displayed on the captain’s navigation display, allowing whoever was at the controls to align the nose with the course.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Waypoint Navigation along the Strait of Malacca accDescr: Sequence of waypoints and navigational markers followed by MH370 up to the edge of conventional radar coverage. VPG["VPG VOR (Penang)"] -->|"Raw data tracking"| VAMPI["Waypoint VAMPI"] VAMPI -->|"Airway N571"| MEKAR["Waypoint MEKAR"] MEKAR -->|"02:22:12 UTC"| Dark["Radar Horizon / Signal Loss"] ```

The flight crossed VAMPI and continued along airway N571 toward waypoint MEKAR. Just after tracking slightly south of MEKAR, at precisely 02:22:12 UTC, the aircraft faded from civilian and military radar screens entirely. While classified mobile or fixed military radar installations in neighboring countries might have captured returns past this mark, national defense sensitivities have kept any such data hidden. From that moment forward, the physical trail went dark. Mentour Pilot explains the shift in evidence: “So this means that from this point onwards we are now going into the unknown and with that, comes speculation or hypothesis which you all know I try to avoid on this channel so let's instead try to stay with what we do know.”

- **Key waypoints:** Tracked northwest toward VAMPI, then along airway N571 toward MEKAR. - **Navigation capability:** Even with main generators offline, raw VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) data from Penang (VPG) provided reliable lateral guidance. - **Radar disappearance:** All recorded primary radar returns ceased at 02:22:12 UTC just south of MEKAR. - **Data withholding:** Geopolitical and military sensitivities over operational radar capabilities have prevented surrounding nations from releasing potential extended primary radar recordings.

---

[36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2215s) Reverse-Engineering Inmarsat Satellites: BTO and BFO

To track a ghost aircraft across open water without radar, an international coalition of accident investigators, satellite engineers, and scientists had to repurpose telecommunications data in ways never intended by its creators. The aircraft’s Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) utilized an Inmarsat geostationary satellite link. Mentour Pilot highlights the novelty of the method: “The signals these satellites were sending were never designed to track aircrafts but since there were signals exchanged with MH370, those signals could be reverse-engineered to provide a crude singular position indicator every time that they appeared.”

Investigators calculated positions using principles borrowed from GPS mechanics. A GPS receiver computes its distance from a satellite by measuring how long a time-stamped radio signal takes to travel across space at the speed of light, placing the receiver on a sphere of a given radius. Similarly, whenever MH370 transmitted an automated electronic signal to the ground station via the Inmarsat satellite, the ground equipment recorded the exact round-trip propagation time. This value, termed Burst Timing Offset (BTO), allowed analysts to calculate the precise distance from the satellite to the aircraft, drawing a circular distance arc along the Earth’s surface for each of the seven hourly handshakes.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Inmarsat Signal Analysis Architecture accDescr: Breakdown of how BTO and BFO parameters were extracted from satellite handshakes. subgraph Signal["Satellite Transmission"] HS["Inmarsat Handshake Ping"] end subgraph BTO_Branch["Burst Timing Offset (BTO)"] HS --> BTO["Propagation Delay Measured"] BTO --> Arc["Distance Arc from Satellite"] end subgraph BFO_Branch["Burst Frequency Offset (BFO)"] HS --> BFO["Doppler Frequency Shift Measured"] BFO --> Motion["Relative Motion & Vertical Profile"] end ```

Beyond distance arcs, engineers analyzed Burst Frequency Offset (BFO). Just as an ambulance siren shifts to a higher pitch when approaching an observer and drops to a lower frequency when receding—the Doppler effect—radio transmissions experience measurable frequency shifts depending on the transmitter's relative velocity toward or away from the satellite. Because the satellite hovered thousands of miles over the equator, the line-of-sight vector was largely vertical relative to the aircraft's position. Analysts therefore used BFO variations to evaluate whether the aircraft was climbing, cruising level, or descending during each hourly ping.

- **Seven handshakes:** Automated hourly polling signals exchanged between the aircraft's Satellite Data Unit (SDU) and the Inmarsat ground station. - **Burst Timing Offset (BTO):** Measures the round-trip signal travel time at the speed of light, establishing a geometric distance arc on the Earth's surface. - **Burst Frequency Offset (BFO):** Measures the Doppler shift between transmitted and received radio frequencies to evaluate the aircraft's speed, track angle, and vertical climb or descent profile.

---

[40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2420s) The 02:25 UTC SATCOM Reboot and the Oscillator Clue

A major technological mystery occurred at 02:25:27 UTC, nearly an hour after the turnback at IGARI, when MH370’s inactive satellite terminal unexpectedly initiated a fresh logon request with the Inmarsat ground station. This event constitutes the famous first handshake. Notably, the Burst Frequency Offset on this initial transmission displayed a significant frequency anomaly, rendering it unreliable for normal Doppler calculations. The root cause lay in the physics of the aircraft’s avionics: the quartz crystals in the SATCOM radio transmitters are housed inside an Oven-Controlled Crystal Oscillator (OCXO) designed to maintain an ultra-stable internal temperature to prevent transmission drift. Following a prolonged electrical outage, the oven requires several minutes to reach operating temperature. The high initial BFO error confirmed that the transmitter had just experienced a cold restart. Mentour Pilot emphasizes the significance: “And this is how we know that the aircraft was likely powered down up until just prior to this point. Science is truly amazing!”

Furthermore, this first logon transmission lacked the customary airline flight number and company identification codes that the aircraft had broadcast throughout the early stages of the flight. If electrical power was manually re-established in the cockpit around 02:25 UTC, an operator seeking to remain undetected would know that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) would automatically attempt to reconnect and dump ACARS performance logs. To silence the system, the pilot would need to bring up the Multifunction Display (MFD), navigate directly to the communications management page, and manually disable ACARS messaging before the SDU finished establishing its link. This deliberate override wiped the company identification header from the handshake packets, matching the exact anomalies recorded in the Inmarsat data stream.

- **Reboot timestamp:** The SDU initiated an unexpected logon request at 02:25:27 UTC, roughly 60 minutes after the turnback at IGARI. - **Thermal evidence (OCXO):** The uncalibrated BFO value on the 02:25 UTC transmission proves the oscillator oven was still warming up after an extended electrical power interruption. - **Absence of flight ID:** Manual deactivation of communications via the MFD communications manager page before full SDU boot-up stripped the standard airline flight number and company identity from the logon message.

[42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2567s) The Seven Inmarsat Handshakes and the Search Area Dilemma

Analyzing the satellite communication records reveals far more about the aircraft’s final hours than simple timing. For instance, investigators can verify that the navigation system remained operational simply by observing which antenna the SATCOM system selected when it began transmitting. In total, the Inmarsat data confirms that the aircraft flew long enough to complete seven satellite handshakes. The first and seventh pings were actually logon requests initiated by the aircraft itself, both most likely triggered by power interruptions. The final logon at 08:19 Malaysian time occurred after approximately 7 hours and 35 minutes of flight—a duration that aligns remarkably well with the endurance calculated from the aircraft's fuel load.

Under normal conditions, the SATCOM system automatically transmits an hourly ping if no other activity takes place. However, two of the recorded handshakes resulted from ground-based satellite calls placed by the Malaysia Airlines Operations Center. Although these calls rang through to the cockpit unanswered, they reset the hourly countdown timer, explaining why the intervals between the seven handshakes were not spaced precisely one hour apart.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Sequence of MH370 Inmarsat Handshakes accDescr: Flowchart illustrating the timeline and triggers of the seven Inmarsat satellite handshakes recorded from MH370.

subgraph Initial ["Initial Flight & Recovery"] H1["Handshake 1: Logon Request (Power restoration after blackout)"] end

subgraph Routine ["En Route Pings & Calls"] H2["Handshake 2: Scheduled Hourly Ping"] C1["Unanswered Ground Call (Resets hourly timer)"] H3["Handshake 3"] C2["Second Unanswered Call (Resets hourly timer)"] H4["Handshake 4"] H5["Handshake 5"] H6["Handshake 6"] end

subgraph FinalStage ["End of Flight"] H7["Handshake 7: Final Logon Request (08:19 MYT - Fuel starvation)"] end

H1 --> H2 H2 --> C1 C1 --> H3 H3 --> C2 C2 --> H4 H4 --> H5 H5 --> H6 H6 --> H7 ```

Because all of this data originated from a single geostationary Inmarsat satellite, each handshake defines an arc rather than a discrete geographic fix, creating a massive array of possible flight paths and a daunting search area. Several highly accomplished pilots and investigators, notably Captain Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand, have developed plausible reconstructions showing how the Boeing 777 navigated after its last military radar contact. Most analyses conclude that the aircraft turned from its northwesterly track near waypoint NILAM onto a southwesterly heading, skimming past Banda Aceh at the northern tip of Sumatra before turning south into the remote expanse of the southern Indian Ocean. Petter Hornfeldt argues that a passive "ghost flight" scenario does not fit the profile of whoever was in control:

> “It feels a bit unlikely given how active this person was during those initial parts of the maneuver, and I wouldn't be surprised if he continued to be as active until the very end.”

- **Total Recorded Handshakes:** 7 handshakes, beginning with an initial logon after power loss and concluding with a fuel-starvation logon at 08:19 Malaysian time. - **Flight Endurance:** Approximately 7 hours and 35 minutes, matching the known fuel reserves onboard 9M-MRO. - **Missed Inbound Calls:** Two satellite phone calls dialed into the cockpit by airline dispatchers went unanswered but successfully reset the terminal's hourly transmission schedule. - **Key Routing Points:** Waypoint NILAM and the northern tip of Sumatra near Banda Aceh marked the turn toward the southern Indian Ocean.

---

[46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2773s) WSPR Technology: A "Poor Man's Primary Radar"

Proving that an active pilot guided the aircraft to the very end requires physical evidence, and a groundbreaking avenue of investigation has emerged from an unlikely source: amateur radio. In 2008, American astrophysicist Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr.—who shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for his research on binary pulsars—developed the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter protocol, or WSPR (pronounced "whisper"). Designed to study how low-, medium-, and high-frequency radio waves propagate over vast global distances, WSPR software logs low-power transmissions. When these radio waves travel across continents and oceans, they scatter upon encountering physical obstacles, resulting in minute variations in signal strength. Radio amateurs around the world have uploaded these reception reports into a centralized, publicly accessible database that has continuously archived signal data since 2008.

Taylor never intended WSPR to track aircraft, nor did he believe it could be adapted for such a purpose. However, in 2021, avionics systems engineer Richard Godfrey proposed that this massive repository could be paired with modern algorithms to detect concurring anomalies across multiple crossing radio paths, effectively functioning as a distributed "poor man's primary radar." Because global stations log thousands of these transmissions every two minutes, the archive offers dense temporal sampling. Working alongside Dr. Hannes Coetzee and Professor Simon Maskell, Godfrey published a comprehensive study on August 31, 2023, asserting that WSPR data contains verifiable, historical reflections corresponding to the passage of MH370.

> “So, just like with DNA that couldn't be used much during the early years, but has since been refined to incredible accuracy, maybe there actually is something hidden inside of these signals.”

- **Origins of WSPR:** Created in 2008 by Nobel laureate Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr. to explore long-distance radio propagation. - **The Physical Phenomenon:** Radio signals scatter when striking airborne obstacles, causing micro-distortions in signal-to-noise ratio and frequency drift. - **Archival Record:** Historical transmission logs sampled globally every two minutes have been preserved continuously since 2008. - **Research Team:** Avionics engineer Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee, and Professor Simon Maskell.

---

[49:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2948s) The WSPR Flight Path and the Mysterious Figure-Eight

The reconstructed trajectory derived from Godfrey’s evolving WSPR algorithms aligns with existing evidence while filling in critical blanks. Initially, the WSPR tracking matches recorded radar returns closely until just prior to waypoint VAMPI, where it shows the aircraft adopting a slightly more westerly course and paralleling the assumed path on a southerly offset. This minor variance could reflect the inherent resolution limits of WSPR analysis, radar inaccuracies at the extreme edge of receiver range, or both. Crucially, the WSPR flight path continues northwest and intersects the arc of the first Inmarsat handshake at precisely 02:28:15 UTC. From there, the data tracks the jet past waypoint SANOB before it executes a left turn toward waypoint URDAM—mirroring the path experts believe was chosen to skirt Indonesian military radar and avoid civil air traffic scrutiny.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Reconstructed MH370 Routing to the Southern Ocean accDescr: Flowchart showing the route segments indicated by WSPR and radar tracking, avoiding established airways down into the Southern Indian Ocean.

subgraph NorthwestTrack ["Northwest Evasion Track"] VAMPI["Prior to VAMPI (Westerly turn)"] --> SANOB["SANOB Intercept (02:28:15 Handshake 1)"] SANOB --> URDAM["URDAM Turn (Circumventing military radar)"] end

subgraph SouthernTrack ["Jagged Southerly Flight"] URDAM --> Waypoints["Offset Waypoint Vectors (Avoiding airways & TCAS traffic)"] Waypoints --> Climbs["Speed Drops (Possible step climbs)"] end

subgraph TerminalArea ["Terminal Phase"] Climbs --> Handshakes["Intersects Inmarsat Arcs 2-6"] Handshakes --> FigEight["Figure-Eight Pattern (Between Handshakes 6 & 7)"] FigEight --> Flameout["Final Descent & Handshake 7"] end ```

Rather than tracking in a rigid line into the Southern Indian Ocean, the WSPR analysis reveals a series of jagged legs. Each segment aimed directly toward a recognized aviation waypoint without following any published airway. This deliberate routing kept the airliner away from commercial air corridors where an unlit, transponder-silent aircraft could risk an unexpected mid-air collision—especially since TCAS was disabled and the pilot had no traffic display. Periodic speed reductions along the southerly track point to step climbs as fuel burned off. Most importantly, the path intersects all seven Inmarsat handshake arcs.

Between the sixth and seventh handshakes, at the exact time the fuel tanks were running dry, the WSPR data indicates that the aircraft entered a distinct figure-eight holding pattern. A Boeing 777's flight computers would not fly such a maneuver on their own, even under asymmetric thrust after an engine flameout, because the aircraft's rudder-compensation systems automatically counter adverse yaw. The execution of a figure-eight points toward manual pilot control, possibly taking advantage of daylight and clear skies to scan the ocean surface for ships to ensure the ditching would go unwitnessed.

> “The aircraft wouldn't do that by itself, because the radar-compensating system in the Boeing 777 is designed to compensate for the asymmetric thrust after an engine failure, so if this pattern was actually flown, it must have been a deliberate act by whoever was in controls.”

---

[52:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3123s) Terminal Descent and Controlled Ditching Theories

The Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) calculations from Inmarsat’s seventh and final handshake reveal a rapid rate of descent, reaching as high as 14,500 feet per minute during the terminal logon sequence. While this high vertical velocity has often been cited as evidence of an uncontrollable death spiral following fuel exhaustion, Captain Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand propose a very different, highly calculating scenario. They suggest that when the right engine flamed out from fuel starvation, the pilot took immediate action to preserve aircraft control: starting the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and opening the fuel crossfeed valve to scavenge all remaining fuel.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Engine Flameout and APU Scavenge Procedure accDescr: Technical diagram showing fuel tank suction differences between the main engines and the APU standpipe during final fuel starvation.

subgraph FuelTanks ["Left and Right Main Fuel Tanks"] EngPumps["Main Engine Fuel Pickups (Higher standpipe level)"] APUPump["APU Fuel Standpipe (Lower bottom pickup)"] end

subgraph CockpitActions ["Deliberate Cockpit Management"] Flameout["Right Engine Flames Out (Fuel exhaustion)"] --> StartAPU["Start APU Generator & Open Crossfeed Valve"] StartAPU --> CutLeft["Manual Shutdown of Left Engine (Conserves fuel exclusively for APU)"] end

subgraph AircraftSystems ["Maintained Capabilities"] CutLeft --> Pwr["Full Electrical & Hydraulic Systems Restored"] Pwr --> Flaps["Flap Extension Enabled for Ditching"] Pwr --> Log7["Final SATCOM Logon Completed"] end

EngPumps -.->|"Unusable fuel remains"| Flameout APUPump ==>|"Drains lowest tank fuel"| StartAPU ```

Because the APU fuel standpipe draws from a lower point in the tank than the main engine feed lines, it can draw on fuel reserves inaccessible to the GE90 engines. By manually shutting down the remaining operational engine, the pilot could conserve this residual fuel exclusively for the APU. Keeping the APU generator running was essential: it powered the electrical buses and hydraulic systems, giving the pilot full authority over all primary flight controls and allowing flap deployment—a configuration impossible to achieve on unpowered emergency batteries alone—in order to execute a smooth, low-speed ditching on the open ocean.

- **Final Vertical Descent Rate:** BFO data indicates a descent rate reaching up to 14,500 feet per minute during the final handshake event. - **Engine Flameout Asymmetry:** The right engine flamed out first, prompting a system restart that restored electrical buses. - **APU Standpipe Architecture:** The APU fuel pickup sits lower in the fuel tank than the engine pickups, allowing it to scavenge fuel that the main engines cannot reach. - **Flight Control Authority:** Power from the APU preserves hydraulics and electrical systems, enabling controlled gliding and trailing-edge flap extension for ditching.

[53:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3183s) End-of-Flight Scenarios and Physical Evidence

The final satellite transmission lacked data from non-essential systems, including the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system. In Boeing 777 electrical architecture, this absence makes complete technical sense if the jet was operating solely under Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) generation following dual engine flameout. When the APU generator comes online as the only source of alternating current, electrical load-shedding automatically depower passenger convenience systems like the IFE to conserve power for flight instruments and critical systems.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Terminal Flight Path Possibilities accDescr: Diverging scenarios for MH370 after fuel exhaustion at the 7th arc based on pilot input versus gliding profile.

subgraph Arc7["Seventh Arc Event (Fuel Exhaustion)"] Flameout["Dual Engine Flameout & APU Auto-Start"] end

subgraph Scenarios["Calculated Trajectories"] Dive["Uncontrolled Rapid Dive Impacts very close to 7th Arc"] Glide["Controlled Maximum Glide (Flaps 30) Travels up to 67 NM South"] end

subgraph Evidence["Oceanic Evidence"] WSPR["WSPR Last Detected Position Time: 08:19:37"] Debris["Right-Wing Flaperon & Internal Panels Washed ashore in East Africa"] end

Flameout --> Dive Flameout --> Glide Dive -.-> Evidence Glide -.-> Evidence ```

Calculations by Captain Patrick Blelly indicate two divergent physical paths after passing the 7th arc, depending on pilot actions. If the aircraft entered an unguided, rapid spiral dive after running out of fuel, the crash site would sit extremely close to the 7th arc. Conversely, if an active pilot controlled the aircraft to maximize its glide distance—setting up for a ditching with flaps 30 extended—it could have traveled as far as 67 nautical miles further south before contacting the water. Concurrently, analysis of Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) radio data registered a final correlated anomaly at 08:19:37 UTC, after which no further flight-related disturbances appeared.

That the aircraft went down in the Southern Indian Ocean in or around the primary search corridor is beyond dispute due to physical oceanographic recoveries. Confirmed wreckage includes the right-hand wing flaperon discovered on Réunion Island, alongside numerous other components that have been verified or attributed with near certainty to MH370. These fragments drifted westward on Indian Ocean currents, washing ashore along the coastlines of East Africa and surrounding island nations. Because several of these recovered fragments originated from inside the passenger cabin, the airframe almost certainly fragmented upon high-speed impact with the sea.

- **System behavior:** Missing IFE telemetry during the final handshake indicates the aircraft was operating on APU electrical priority load shedding. - **Captain Blelly's glide calculations:** Between an immediate plunge at the 7th arc and up to 67 nautical miles south under a controlled flaps-30 glide. - **WSPR timestamp:** Final identified signal disruption logged at 08:19:37 UTC. - **Recovered debris:** Right-hand wing flaperon and cabin interior pieces recovered across East Africa and Indian Ocean islands, confirming hull destruction on water entry.

---

[54:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3259s) Industry Changes and the Plea to Resume the Search

The loss of MH370 catalyzed major overhauls throughout international civil aviation. The catastrophe exposed systemic blind spots, prompting mandated improvements in real-time oceanic flight tracking, extended battery and transmission requirements for emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) and underwater locator beacons, and heightened air traffic control coordination protocols when handovers fail. Yet Petter stresses that the industry and the public cannot consider this chapter closed while the physical aircraft remains unlocated on the seabed.

The objective of compiling this comprehensive technical breakdown is to reignite momentum for an underwater search. In the video description, two distinct, well-researched methodologies point to targeted zones located outside the perimeter of previous search zones. One proposal relies on operational modeling and performance calculations by two veteran Boeing 777 captains, while the second relies on the controversial but increasingly verified application of historical WSPR radio propagation data, which has recently succeeded in tracking other flights across vast distances.

Petter concludes with a passionate appeal that the definitive answers owe themselves to the victims' relatives:

> “The only thing that I want to achieve is to get the search going again for the sake of the families left behind.”

He urges international authorities and commercial search contractors to deploy survey vessels to these two tightly defined candidate zones and bring true closure to the mystery:

> “Please get the boats out there and let's get to the bottom of this literally.”

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=0s) This story is created with one goal and one goal only, and that is to persuade the authorities to restart the search for the missing Boeing 777. — Petter Hörnfeldt

## Mentioned Malaysia Airlines, MH370, Boeing, Boeing 777-200ER, 9M-MRO, Rolls-Royce, Rolls-Royce Trent 892B, GE90, Petter Hörnfeldt, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, Fariq Abdul Hamid, Captain Patrick Blelly, Jean-Luc Marchand, Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr., Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee, Professor Simon Maskell, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport, Celcom, Inmarsat, Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center, Kuala Lumpur Area Control Centre, Royal Thai Air Force, Royal Malaysian Air Force, ACARS, Satellite Data Unit (SDU), Oven-Controlled Crystal Oscillator (OCXO), Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), Ram Air Turbine (RAT), WSPR, BTO, BFO, TCAS, Penang Island, Sumatra, Banda Aceh, Réunion Island, East Africa, Indian Ocean, VAMPI, MEKAR, NILAM, SANOB, URDAM

## Video description Use code “pilot” at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/pilot ----------------------------------------------------- How can a Boeing 777, one of the biggest and most modern aircraft in the world, just vanish without a trace...?

...It can’t......EVERYTHING LOST...... leaves a trace.

This is the story about Malaysian Airlines flight #MH370 and what we now know. ----------------------------------------------------- If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👉🏻 https://www.patreon.com/mentourpilot

Our Connections: 👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: https://mentour-crew.creator-spring.com/? 👉🏻 Our other channel: youtube.com/mentournow 👉🏻 Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot 👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: https://boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets

Social: 👉🏻 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MentourPilot 👉🏻 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mentour_pilot 👉🏻 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MenTourPilot 👉🏻 Discord server: https://discord.gg/JntGWdn

Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.

SOURCES ----------------------------------------------------- Final Report: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf

Capt. Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand study: https://www.mh370-caption.net/wp-content/uploads/3-known-trajectory-and-recalculated-trajectory.pdf

The WSPR study: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nn3eedtd9ew15f81n2xx7/MH370-Flight-Path-Analaysis-31st-August-2023.pdf?rlkey=c72bo3kc2vv74swr3wll3e4j9&dl=0

Capt. Blelly’s website: https://www.mh370-caption.net/

Richard Godfrey’s (WSPR) website: https://www.mh370search.com/

Latest WSPR tracking test of other aircraft (Feb 15th 2024): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vzftcvfx01lhbt3xfgyu5/How-Does-WSPR-Detect-Aircraft-over-Long-Distances-15FEB2024.pdf?rlkey=p8dcu8q3ww741joa922bdikng&dl=0

Details of the ocean search: https://web.archive.org/web/20200310104643/https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for-mh370_final_3oct2017.pdf

KLATCC Building: https://img.astroawani.com/2021-09/41630490738_freesize.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipONCLoK-FgBm7kUr1UR9_g0e-4qFl9H_cRvcYSC=s680-w680-h510 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipPmJtzFqK3akIcSyAg_nPhknzg41V5T3GCeTCwn=s680-w680-h510 https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationAuthorityOfMalaysia.Official/photos/a.1588651788047979/2971320536447757/?type=3 https://buletinklatcc.blogspot.com/2014/10/alpha-on-night-shift.html

News Footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_3OUc7nrJc&ab_channel=CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4rXncJjIVk&ab_channel=AFPNewsAgency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aU3IfqS0zk&ab_channel=ABCNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCjIZE237y4&ab_channel=7NEWSAustralia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIbU7YO6NsY&ab_channel=DWNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzVGcx4Dvg8&ab_channel=CBSChicago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pf4oxydPcs&ab_channel=CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHdm_R_O_DI&ab_channel=ABCNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhr6BOyeX38&ab_channel=CBSEveningNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo1rozXtTRs&ab_channel=WION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzVGcx4Dvg8&ab_channel=CBSChicago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bp6LlovuMs&ab_channel=ABCNews

Inmarsat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh1o0DUZ2SM&ab_channel=Inmarsat

Oven Controlled Crystal: IMSAI Guy https://www.youtube.com/@IMSAIGuy

Malaysia 1980 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIu0ZHOMMN8&ab_channel=BACAirportVideoChannel

Fokker F27 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysian_Airline_System_Fokker_F-27-500_Friendship_Green-1.jpg

Boeing 737-200 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysian_Airline_System_Boeing_737-200_Rees-1.jpg

A300 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysian_Airline_System_Airbus_A300_Rees-1.jpg

Fokker 50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_2133#/media/File:Malaysia_Fokker_50_Kuching_MGK.jpg

Boeing 737-400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysia_Airlines_Boeing_737-400_Prasertwit-1.jpg#filelinks

A330 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysia_Airlines,_A330-300,_9M-MTK_%2821030619416%29.jpg

Malaysian 777 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Malaysian DC-10 https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=File:Malaysian_Airline_System_McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10_Fitzgerald-1.jpg

Oven Controller Crystal: IMSAI Guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-KXTXe9U8s&ab_channel=IMSAIGuy

Joe Taylor Jr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ynije-xwbo&list=PLRgP6cqiM2BQnuqCus8gPPNFRnzdJrC6L&ab_channel=ARRLHQ

Nobel Prize: Lars Åström archive https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1993/taylor/photo-gallery/

Dr Coetzee: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannes-coetzee-5a2a4561/?originalSubdomain=za

Prof. Maskell https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26383713/mh370s-search-new-technology-mystery/

WSPR Spot Database https://www.wsprnet.org/olddb

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk)

中文简报

无线电数据缩小MH370坠机范围专家敦促重启搜寻历史无线电波散射与卫星异常表明，有飞行员手动操纵MH370在燃油耗尽后飞入南印度洋未搜寻区域，为立即重启打捞搜寻作业提供了充分理由。主持人彼得·赫恩费尔特（Petter Hörnfeldt）对马来西亚航空MH370航班进行了详细的运行分解分析，追溯了其从吉隆坡起飞、在IGARI航路点附近蓄意关闭二次监视系统，以及手动改道穿越马来半岛的过程。该分析基于一次雷达数据、海事卫星（Inmarsat）通信（BTO与BFO计算）及运行评估，探讨了蓄意切断电气汇流排和机舱失压的情景。此外，分析重点展示了弱信号传播报告器（WSPR）技术的最新发现，以及资深飞行员独立进行的飞行重建。视频最后直接呼吁有关当局启动新的水下搜寻，重点针对南印度洋更精确的候选区域。在载有239人的马航MH370航班失踪十年后，结合海事卫星数据、操纵飞行模型和弱信号传播报告器（WSPR）无线电分析的最新研究，在南印度洋确定了两个明确且更为精确的候选搜寻区域。 (0:00) 卫星振荡器数据证实，这架波音777的卫星数据单元曾遭遇重大电力中断，并在协调世界时（UTC）02:25重启，这与蓄意切断汇流排供电、造成机舱失压以使机组人员和乘客丧失行动能力的情形相符。 (40:20) 对该航班在IGARI航路点的初始转弯及后续航迹的分析表明，这是紧贴泰国和印度尼西亚雷达边界进行的手动激进操控，而非自动驾驶系统在常规航向上飞行。 (24:07) WSPR被动追踪表明，飞机在燃油耗尽前后飞行了一个刻意的“8”字形航线，显示出直到最后下降前都有飞行员的主动手动干预，而非无人操纵的“幽灵飞行”式螺旋俯冲。 (49:08)

Reading summary

Mentour Pilot synthesizes operational flight evidence, satellite telemetry, and recent radio propagation analyses to argue that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 was deliberately flown until fuel exhaustion, urging authorities to restart the underwater search in newly refined target zones. The Diversion at IGARI and Deliberate Cockpit Intervention (21:31) The disappearance of MH370 began at the boundary between Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace immediately following the captain's final sign-off, 'Good night, Malaysian 370,' which notably omitted standard frequency readbacks. Five seconds after crossing waypoint IGARI, the aircraft's Mode S transponder was manually switched off, followed 37 seconds later by the loss of civilian secondary radar. Boeing simulator engineering trials demonstrated that the ensuing near-180-degree hard left turn could not be performed by standard autopilot modes without manual hand-flying at aggressive bank angles. The diversion exploited procedural gaps: Malaysian air traffic controllers assumed the flight had transferred to Vietnam, while Ho Chi Minh controllers delayed inquiring about the missing jet for roughly 20 minutes. The aircraft skirted the boundary of the Royal Thai Air Force Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) without crossing it, thereby avoiding military intercept alerts, while slipping southwest across Peninsular Malaysia toward Penang. Intentional Depower and Cabin Depressurization Theories (27:26) Operational analysis offers an explanation for why the aircraft's Satellite Data Unit (SDU) and ACARS went dark for over an hour: a pilot may have manually disconnected the engine and backup generators on the overhead panel while aborting the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) auto-start. This configuration would deploy the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) to power minimal flight instruments while leaving non-essential systems, including communications and cabin utilities, completely unpowered. This electrical shutdown aligns with a hypothesis of deliberate cabin depressurization to neutralize resistance from passengers and cabin crew. Opening the cabin outflow valves at 35,000 feet causes hypoxia rapidly; passenger oxygen masks deliver flow for approximately 22 minutes via chemical canisters, whereas the flight deck high-pressure oxygen bottle—topped up the morning of the flight—could supply a single pilot on an emergency mask for up to 27 hours. Errant heading oscillations observed on primary radar around Penang and into the Strait of Malacca reflect the high physical workload of manually controlling the aircraft under degraded instruments and emergency oxygen. Inmarsat Handshakes and Cold Reboot Telemetry (36:55) Tracking across the open ocean relies on seven automated satellite handshakes logged by Inmarsat. The first handshake at 02:25 UTC was initiated by the aircraft itself via a logon request, signaling a cold electrical restart after an extended outage. This was corroborated by anomalous Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) values indicating that the transmitter's Oven-Controlled Crystal Oscillator (OCXO) was still warming up. The transmission also lacked standard flight identification codes, consistent with an operator accessing the Multifunction Display to silence ACARS messaging before full connection. By measuring the Burst Timing Offset (BTO)—the round-trip signal propagation delay—engineers derived concentric distance arcs for each hourly ping, confirming the aircraft flew for 7 hours and 35 minutes until fuel exhaustion at 08:19 Malaysian time. Two unanswered satellite phone calls placed from Malaysia Airlines operations reset the automated hourly timers, explaining the uneven intervals between handshakes. WSPR Radio Tracking and Terminal Gliding Models (46:13) Newer search proposals leverage the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) database—historical records of global amateur radio transmissions archived every two minutes since 2008. Analysis led by Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee, and Professor Simon Maskell treats radio scatter from crossing signal paths as a distributed radar network. Their reconstructed route aligns with Inmarsat arcs, showing the aircraft flying direct waypoint-to-waypoint vectors outside established airways to avoid commercial traffic, as well as an apparent figure-eight pattern between the sixth and seventh handshakes. At final fuel exhaustion, two end-of-flight scenarios emerge. BFO telemetry indicates a terminal vertical descent reaching 14,500 feet per minute, suggesting a rapid dive. Alternatively, operational analysis by Captain Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand suggests the pilot scavenged remaining fuel with the APU to power hydraulics and flaps, gliding up to 67 nautical miles beyond the 7th arc for a controlled ditching. Oceanographic debris found along East African coasts confirms the airframe fragmented upon impacting the water. Mentour Pilot concludes that physical wreckage confirms the flight went down in the Southern Indian Ocean, arguing that new data from pilot operational models and WSPR signal analysis provide two specific candidate zones outside previous search boundaries to justify resuming search operations.

精炼阅读摘要

Mentour Pilot（Petter Hörnfeldt）基于民航操作规范、卫星数据逆向工程及最新技术证据提出，马来西亚航空MH370航班的失踪绝非被动的“幽灵飞行”，而是极可能在高度专业的人为干预下受控偏航并最终坠入南印度洋。该内容的核心诉求在于结合最新细化的定位线索与弱信号传播记录协议（WSPR）分析，呼吁有关当局依据新证据重启水下搜寻。航线交接处的关键异常与人工偏航 (21:31) 客机从吉隆坡起飞后各项指标完全正常，但在巡航高度FL350时出现了相隔七分钟的两次相同平飞报告。专业飞行员分析认为，此类非强制性冗余呼叫通常意味着机组在此期间曾因处理机舱或通信事务而分心。在01:19:24吉隆坡雷达发出空域移交指令后，机长做出了未按规程复诵频率的简短告别“晚安，马来西亚370”，其语调反映出处于高工作负荷下的匆忙状态。在客机越过IGARI航路点仅5秒后，机载二次雷达应答机的Mode S模式便被手动切换至“Altitude Off”，并在37秒后彻底脱网。这种阶段性关闭排除了全机突发灾难性断电的可能。军用一次雷达记录显示，客机随即执行了接近180度的大坡度急转弯。波音公司的工程模拟机验证表明，常规自动驾驶逻辑受坡度保护限制无法飞出此种转弯半径与速度曲线，必须脱开自动驾驶进行人工手飞。该机动精准贴合泰国防空识别区（ADIZ）边缘并避开M765主航路，显示出对空域边界与雷达盲区极其熟悉的规避企图。机载电气系统隔离与客舱释压假说 (27:26) 客机转弯向西南横越马来半岛期间，机载通信寻址与报告系统（ACARS）与卫星通信（SATCOM）完全断联。专业飞行员推断，驾驶舱人员蓄意在头顶电气面板上手动关闭了左右发动机主发电机及备用发电机，并通过快速拨动APU电门切断了辅助动力单元的自动启动程序。这一操作迫使冲压空气涡轮（RAT）展开，仅维持正副驾驶的核心飞行仪表，使客舱照明、ACARS和卫星数据终端（SDU）陷入长达一小时十七分钟的断电。与此同时，人为使客舱释压的假说解释了机组与乘客为何未发生反抗。在35,000英尺巡航高度下，若人为强制全开客舱排气阀，人体在缺氧环境下的有效意识时间仅约一分钟，且客舱化学氧气发生器仅能维持约22分钟的供氧。相比之下，驾驶舱当天清晨刚刚补加满的高压机组氧气瓶可供单名飞行员使用长达27小时。在此期间，客机掠过槟城上空时，副驾驶的手机曾短暂尝试连接地面基站，显示出机内可能曾有人尝试对外联络，但未能成功传输数据。空管协调漏洞与Inmarsat卫星逆向分析 (36:55) 客机偏航未被及时拦截，暴露了严重的空中交通管制协调漏洞。越过IGARI后，胡志明区控在延误约20分钟后才向吉隆坡查询客机去向，而马航签派中心则误将系统内基于航路推算的虚拟轨迹当作实际位置，误导管制员向柬埔寨方向搜寻。马来西亚军方雷达虽捕获了飞机折返，但因未侵入敏感空域而误判为常规操作。客机最终在02:22:12沿N571航线飞掠MEKAR航路点后彻底滑出一次雷达视野。为了在无雷达的公海上空搜寻轨迹，调查组对Inmarsat地球同步卫星记录的7次自动通信握手进行了逆向工程。通过计算光速传播的往返传播延迟（突发时间偏移 BTO），科学家勾勒出每一次握手对应的地表同心距离弧；而依据多普勒频移原理的突发频率偏移（BFO），则用于解算客机的垂直爬升与下降动态。在02:25:27首次握手中，烤箱受控晶体振荡器（OCXO）显示出尚未完全预热的温控频偏异常，且报文中人为抹去了航班号，证实了卫星数据终端在长期断电后刚刚经历人工冷启动。 WSPR无线电追踪与终末段迫降推论 (46:13) 近年来，航空电子工程师Richard Godfrey与科研团队提出利用诺贝尔奖得主开发的弱信号传播记录协议（WSPR）数据，将其作为分布式“被动一次雷达”。该技术通过全球业余无线电台每两分钟记录的海量信号衰减与多普勒漂移，捕捉空中机体造成的扰动。研究重构出的航线切合了7个Inmarsat握手弧，并表明客机在印度洋上空避开常规航路，以曲折折线飞向各个导航点；在第六与第七次握手之间、燃油即将耗尽之际，数据甚至显示客机执行了一个自动飞控系统绝不可能飞出的“8字形”盘旋，高度暗示有人在驾驶舱内目视观察海面。 Inmarsat第七次握手数据显示垂直下降率一度达到每分钟14,500英尺。资深机长Patrick Blelly与Jean-Luc Marchand分析认为，这并非失控的死亡螺旋，而是右发燃油耗尽熄火后，飞行员迅速启动APU并打开交输阀抽取残油，随后手动关闭左发以维系全机液压与电气控制，从而展开后缘襟翼实现平稳迫降。在留尼汪岛及东非沿岸寻获的右副翼（flaperon）及客舱内部破损部件，证实客机最终进入南印度洋并发生解体。根据滑翔计算，受控迫降的最远落点可能在第七弧以南67海里处。 MH370的失踪促成了国际民航界对越洋航班实时追踪、应急定位发射机电池寿命以及空管移交通报机制的全面改革。然而，客机残骸的缺失使得该事件仍是未竟的悬案。Mentour Pilot强调，无论是基于资深波音777机长的气动滑翔推算，还是经过验证的WSPR无线电传播追踪技术，都已将搜寻范围收窄至前期搜寻区外的特定海域；呼吁各国政府与搜救机构重返深海开展精准作业，为遇难者家属揭开最后的真相。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由知名航空科普频道 Mentour Pilot 于 2024 年 3 月 16 日在 YouTube 平台发布。视频简介强调，像波音 777 这样庞大且现代化的客机绝不可能凭空消失，任何失踪事物都会留下痕迹；本期节目旨在梳理马来西亚航空 MH370 航班失踪事件的完整始末，并汇总展示目前已知的最新技术线索与研究成果。 ## TL;DR 在 MH370 航班失踪十周年之际，现役资深机长兼教员 Mentour Pilot 从严谨的专业飞行视角全面复盘了这起航空史上最大的谜团。内容从航前准备、机组资历、货物与航电设置切入，深入拆解了飞机在 IGARI 航路点关闭应答机、手动大坡度掉头、利用管制缝隙横穿半岛等一系列疑似蓄意规避雷达的人为操作，并探讨了全机断电与客舱释压假说。随后，视频详细剖析了 Inmarsat 卫星通信的 BTO 与 BFO 逆向工程测算，并引入了基于全球业余无线电弱信号传播报告（WSPR）的前沿追踪模型与布莱利机长的主动滑翔迫降假说，最终结合已发现的实物残骸，强烈呼吁有关当局依据全新缩小的候选海域重启深海搜寻，为罹难者家属带来迟到的真相与交代。 ## Atmosphere & style 整部影片弥漫着庄严、肃穆且高度理性的基调，打字机音效与低沉的背景乐为叙事蒙上了一层悬疑与悲剧交织的厚重感。主讲人以极其专业克制的教官姿态抽丝剥茧，避免落入无根据的阴谋论泥潭，但在辨析机长语调变化、手动飞行痕迹与客舱缺氧等细节时，流露出难以掩饰的冷峻与痛心。随着卫星逆向分析与前沿物理数据的层层推进，节目在结尾升华出一种深切的人道主义关怀与紧迫感，向观众传递出绝不向未解之谜妥协、务必让深海之下的真相水落石出的执着信念。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=0s) 在 MH370 失联 10 周年之际，结合资深飞行员动力学推算与弱信号传播报告（WSPR）全球无线电数据反演，研究人员锁定了两片全新的潜在搜寻海域，旨在说服相关机构重启深海搜救。 - [23:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1425s) 雷达与通信记录揭示飞机在飞越 IGARI 航路点后遭遇蓄意操控：应答机被手动旋至 Alt-Off、全机常规供电疑似被剥夺，并利用两国空管移交真空期执行了自动驾驶仪无法完成的大坡度手动转弯以规避防空识别区。 - [36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2215s) 国际海事卫星（Inmarsat）的 BTO 与 BFO 逆向工程计算证实飞机在断电约一小时后重新通电，并在经历了 7 次卫星握手通信后，于南印度洋燃油耗尽坠海。 - [53:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3183s) 包括襟副翼在内的多块漂流残骸确认该机坠落于南印度洋区域，残骸包含客舱内部结构碎片，证明客机在撞击水面时已彻底解体碎裂，而非完整沉入海底。 ## Key takeaways - [02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=142s) MH370 航前加注 49,100 公斤燃油，提供约 7 小时 31 分钟续航时间，足足超出原定北京航程近 2 小时，为后续飞入南印度洋腹地提供了燃料基础。 - [04:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=287s) 机长总飞行时长超过 18,400 小时（波音 777 达 8,659 小时）且担任检查员，副驾驶处于改装带飞阶段，驾驶舱内权力梯度陡峭但无私人矛盾迹象。 - [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1153s) 起飞约 20 分钟后机长在相隔 7 分钟内两次重复通报巡航高度，第二次语调显得忙碌且未完整复诵管制频率，表明驾驶舱内当时可能已出现分散精力的突发变故。 - [23:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1425s) 在两国飞行情报区交界处的 IGARI 航路点，应答机 Mode S 被手动切断，飞机断开自动驾驶仪进行了紧凑的手动大坡度左转，巧妙避开了泰国防空识别区。 - [29:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1776s) 操纵者疑似在头顶面板切断了所有主发电机与备用发电机并抑制 APU 介入，导致客舱与大部分航电断电黑障，迫使飞机依靠冲压空气涡轮（RAT）维持应急飞行。 - [31:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1862s) 客舱若被手动释压，旅客化学氧气面罩仅能维持约 22 分钟供氧，而驾驶舱专用的高压氧气瓶足以维持单人供氧长达 27 小时，使机上人员迅速因缺氧丧失行动力。 - [33:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2010s) 地面搜救在早期被严重误导：胡志明管制中心延迟 20 分钟才询问客机去向，马航系统依据推算算法错误显示飞机位于柬埔寨上空，导致空管忽略了一次雷达上的真实回波。 - [36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2215s) 通过 Inmarsat 卫星链路的脉冲时间偏移（BTO）确定距离弧线，并结合脉冲频率偏移（BFO）的多普勒效应，科学家成功反推了飞机的垂直运动与大致空间轨迹。 - [40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2420s) 凌晨 02:25 的首次卫星握手信号中，发射机恒温槽石英晶体振荡器（OCXO）因长时间断电后重新通电预热而产生频偏，无可辩驳地证实机载卫星数据单元曾遭人为断电。 - [42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2567s) 总共记录的 7 次握手中，第一次与最后一次均为电源中断后发起的重新登录请求，其中 08:19 的最后一次登录高度吻合发动机燃油彻底耗尽的理论时间极限。 - [46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2773s) 基于全球业余无线电弱信号传播报告（WSPR）的历史数据库扰动分析，研究团队重建了一条避开既定民航航线的锯齿形南飞轨迹，其航线转弯与 Inmarsat 七次握手弧线高度契合。 - [51:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3073s) 在燃油即将耗尽的末段，WSPR 数据记录到飞机飞出八字形机动，且末次握手期间下坠率高达每分钟 14,500 英尺，推测飞行员可能利用 APU 底部吸油管极力延长关键仪表供电以尝试受控滑翔水上迫降。 - [53:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3183s) 若为无人干预的急剧俯冲，飞机最终坠点将紧邻第 7 弧线；若操纵者实施了最大滑翔并放下 30 度襟翼迫降，落点可向南延伸多达 67 海里。 - [54:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3259s) 该空难促成了远洋飞行监控追踪、应急定位发射机（ELT）电池寿命规范以及空中交通管制跨区交接流程的重大行业性安全改革。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=0s) 开篇：重提 MH370 的初衷在打字机清脆的击键声与低沉肃穆的配乐中，节目开篇抛出了一个困扰全球十年的核心谜团：一架波音 777 这样庞大且现代化的客机，究竟是如何做到人间蒸发而无影无踪的？答案很坚决：它不可能毫无痕迹，“凡走过必留下痕迹”（Everything lost leaves a trace）。世界上有许多未解之谜，但马来西亚航空 MH370 航班的遭遇极为特殊。围绕这起事件的各种疑团与猜测层出不穷，使得任何叙述都极易滑入纯粹臆测的泥潭。正因如此，主讲人此前始终没有制作相关专题。然而，在 239 人音讯全无整整十周年之际，他决定打破惯例。制作这期节目的唯一初衷，就是说服相关部门重新启动对失踪波音 777 的搜寻，并为那些至今仍在等待答案的家属带来迟到的释怀与交代。在制作视频前，主讲人也与部分乘客家属取得了联系。本期内容将分享过去几年中不断改良和细化的新技术手段所带来的全新潜在证据，这些线索或许能为该机最终的坠落位置提供关键指引。 - 航班载员：239 人 - 事件跨度：距 2014 年事发已过去整整 10 年 - 制作主旨：“This story is created with one goal and one goal only, and that is to persuade the authorities to restart the search for the missing Boeing 777.”（制作本期内容有且只有一个目标，那就是说服当局重新启动对失联波音 777 的搜救行动。） ### [02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=142s) 航前简报与燃油计划 2014 年 3 月 7 日晚间，马来西亚航空的一套机组在吉隆坡国际机场签到，准备执飞前往中国北京首都国际机场的红眼航班。除了起飞时间较晚，这原本应该是一趟相当轻松惬意的勤务：预计飞行时间仅为 5 小时 34 分钟，机组预计在次日清晨至上午时分抵达北京并结束工作。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: MH370 航前准备流程 accDescr: 机组成员签到、飞行简报以及燃油计算的逻辑流转关系 subgraph CheckIn["签到阶段 (2014-03-07)"] A["机长签到 (22:50)"] --> C["副驾驶签到 (约 23:15)"] end subgraph Briefing["航前评估与规划"] C --> D["气象分析 (吉隆坡/北京良好；航路2/3处有喷射气流颠簸)"] D --> E["备降场考量 (北京选定 2 个备降机场)"] end subgraph FuelPlan["燃油决策"] E --> F["最终油量：49,100 kg"] F --> G["续航时间：约 7 小时 31 分钟 (比航程多出约 2 小时)"] end ``` 机长率先到达，于当地时间 22:50 在马航机组休息室完成签到。约 25 分钟后，副驾驶也签到汇合。本架次航班被安排为副驾驶的带飞训练航班，因为他正在完成从空中客车 A330 改装换型至波音 777 的过渡机型训练。在此之前，他的带飞训练进展十分顺利；只要本趟航班发挥正常，机长就会推荐他进入后续的最终航线考核（final line check）。这是两位飞行员首次搭档飞行，这也解释了为何身为教员的机长会提前到场——教员通常会提前翻看学员的训练档案，确认是否有需要重点辅导的薄弱环节。随后两人开展了航前简报。当天的天气情况看起来平稳：吉隆坡受泰国上空的高压系统控制，气象适航；目的地北京的天气也相当不错。唯一的潜在扰动是在航线行进至大约三分之二处时，航班将穿过一股强劲的高空急流（jet stream），可能伴随高空大风与颠簸。在确认航行通告（NOTAM）无异常后，机组评估了北京的两个备降机场，最终确定加注 49,100 公斤燃油。这一油量既未过度超标，也未刻意紧缩，可提供约 7 小时 31 分钟的续航时间，足足比预计航程多出近 2 小时，而这多出的燃油将在后续事态中演变为至关重要的变量。 ### [04:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=287s) 机组背景与资历画像执飞 MH370 的机长时年 53 岁，在马来西亚航空拥有长达 33 年且无可挑剔的优秀飞行履历。家庭方面，他已婚并育有三个孩子；在日常生活中，他积极参与社区事务，协助给独居老人运送生活物资，摆弄家用电器，并活跃于当地的反对派政治活动中。他还运营着一个 YouTube 频道，分享小家电维修技巧，并在视频中展示了自己在家中亲手搭建的一套飞行模拟器。这台自制模拟器在事后引起了调查人员的高度关注。尽管模拟数据在事发前数周已被格式化删除，但调查团队仍在备份残存数据中提取到了几个人工手动输入的航路点，不过这些数据最终并未形成确凿的定论。从背景调查来看，机长财务状况稳健，无已知疾病，是邻里眼中沉稳靠谱的长辈。机长于 1981 年入选马航公派飞行学员计划，1983 年考取执照后正式入职，职业晋升路线涵盖了福克 F27、波音 737-200、空客 A300，并在福克 50 上首次升任机长，此后又先后执掌波音 737-400 和空客 A330。1998 年 9 月 22 日，他正式获得波音 777 的机长资质并执飞该机型直至事发当日。凭借过硬的技术与资历，他还兼任波音 777 的型别等级教员（TRI）与检查员（TRE）。截至事发，他的总飞行时间超过 18,400 小时，其中在波音 777 上的飞行时间高达 8,659 小时。副驾驶时年 27 岁，未婚，同样是马航自主培养的学员。他于 2008 年入职，起初驾驶波音 737-400，2012 年转入空客 A330 机队，并在 2013 年 11 月（事发前几个月）转机型至波音 777，因而仍在接受改装训练。他的总飞行时间刚超过 2,800 小时，在波音 777 上的飞行时长仅为 39 小时。事故调查最终报告对其评价为性格和善、财务平稳、近期生活无重大变故。尽管两人在资历、飞行小时数上差距悬殊，且身处带飞考核环境，使得驾驶舱内的“权力梯度”（power gradient）非常陡峭，但没有任何迹象表明二人之间存在私人矛盾或抵触情绪。两人航前休息均充分达标，执照与体检合格证也全部处于有效期内。 - 机长：53 岁，总工龄 33 年，总飞行工时 18,400+ 小时（波音 777 时长 8,659 小时），具备教员及检查员资格 - 副驾驶：27 岁，总工龄 6 年，总飞行工时 2,800+ 小时（波音 777 时长 39 小时），处于改装带飞阶段 - 乘务组配置：共 10 名客舱乘务员，资历极为深厚（资历最浅者入职 13 年，最资深者超过 35 年） ### [08:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=496s) 飞机状态、驾驶舱设置与 ACARS 联机机组二人完成协同与带飞讲评后，与 10 名乘务员碰头完成了快速高效的客舱简报，随后一同登机。当晚执行任务的飞机是一架状况优良的波音 777-200ER，搭载两台劳斯莱斯（Rolls-Royce）Trent 892B 涡轮风扇发动机。机务工程日志（tech log）显示飞机状态近乎完美，唯一的维护记录是航前对机组应急氧气瓶进行了例行充气增压。经机组商定，本赛段由副驾驶担任操纵飞行员（Pilot Flying, PF）。副驾驶进入座舱后随即展开电门检查与 FMC（飞行管理计算机）初始化。在 23:56:08，他通过控制显示组件（CDU）键入了航班号及航空公司信息。地面与调查团队之所以能掌握精确到秒的操作记录，全赖飞机通信寻址与报告系统（ACARS）。该系统通过甚高频（VHF）或卫星通信（SATCOM），在飞机与地面数据提供商之间搭建起双向数字数据链。它允许地面向巡航中的飞机发送最新气象、航线修改指令，甚至支持直连语音或文字通信。在 MH370 的后续追踪中，SATCOM 系统发挥了至关重要的作用。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: ACARS 与机载系统启动交互 accDescr: ACARS 在起飞前通过卫星通信完成握手并记录驾驶舱输入的链路示意 subgraph SatLink["卫星数据链路 (SATCOM)"] S["地面卫星服务商"] <-->|"数据握手 (23:54)"| SAT["SATCOM 天线 (高增益/低增益切换)"] end subgraph Avionics["机载航电系统"] SAT <--> ACARS["ACARS 数字化数据链系统"] CDU["副驾驶输入 FMC CDU (23:56:08)"] --> ACARS NOTOC["接收 NOTOC 报文 (山竹货运提示)"] <-- ACARS end ``` 记录显示，ACARS 系统在 23:54 启动并通过 SATCOM 成功建链；大约 1 分 20 秒之后，系统完整捕获到了副驾驶在 CDU 上的键入动作。这充分证实系统在航前处于正常运转状态。主讲人特别提醒观众留意一个技术细节：波音 777 的卫星通信系统配备了两种不同规格的卫星天线，系统会根据机载导航计算机的工作状态在二者之间自动切换。在副驾驶有条不紊地设置航电时，ACARS 终端弹出了一条名为 NOTOC（特种货物机长通知单，Notification to Captain）的数据报文。通常情况下该报文针对危险品运输，但当晚飞机货舱内并未装载违禁危险品，而是一批数吨重的鲜山竹。由于山竹在运输过程中容易析出果汁与水分，属于需要特别监控防范渗漏的特殊货物。 - 执飞机型：波音 777-200ER - 动力装置：两台 Rolls-Royce Trent 892B 发动机 - ACARS 卫星建链时间：23:54 - FMC 首笔航行数据键入时间：23:56:08 - 特殊装载：数吨易出汁的山竹，已按规定签发 NOTOC 通知单 ### [10:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=642s) 货物、放行与乘客背景机载特种货物通知（NOTOC）确认机上货物已完成检查且未发生泄漏，但文件并未特别强调的是，货舱内还装载了近 2.5 吨锂离子电池。不过，这些电池均采用了独立包装并按特定方式妥善存放，在民航运输规范中不属于危险品范畴，“因此它们已被排除作为后续事件可能起因的嫌疑”。机长扎哈里（Zaharie Ahmad Shah）完成机外绕机检查返回驾驶舱后，与副驾驶法里克（Fariq Abdul Hamid）共同完成了剩余的航前准备与简报工作。世界协调时 23:25（当地时间凌晨），副驾驶联系吉隆坡放行许可席（Kuala Lumpur Delivery）申请离港许可。管制员批准其沿 32R 跑道执行 PIBOS-1A 离港程序，初始爬升至 6,000 英尺，应答机编码设为 2157。副驾驶准确复诵后，不到两分钟飞机便申请后推与启动引擎，并迅速获得许可。在黑夜中滑向 32R 跑道的波音 777 在外人看来毫无异常，但这也是外界最后一次用肉眼目睹这架巨鸟。机上共有 227 名乘客，来自 14 个不同国家：其中中国籍乘客 153 人（人数最多），马来西亚籍 50 人，印度尼西亚籍 7 人。尽管后续调查发现有两名伊朗籍乘客冒用被盗护照登机，但最终证实他们只是为了寻求难民身份，不构成任何安全威胁。机上其他乘客也均未表现出任何可疑迹象。包含机组在内，共有 239 人坐在机舱内，等待着庞大的波音 777 缓缓滑入跑道并推满推力。 - 锂电池货物重达约 2.5 吨，因符合独立包装运输规定，被排除在起火失事原因之外 - 离港程序：32R 跑道 PIBOS-1A 离港，初始爬升至 6,000 英尺，应答机编码 2157 - 乘客国籍分布：中国籍 153 人、马来西亚籍 50 人、印尼籍 7 人，总计 227 名乘客加 12 名机组成员共 239 人 - 两名持被盗护照登机的伊朗人仅为寻求庇护，被排除了恐怖袭击嫌疑 --- ### [13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=793s) 赞助商插播：保护数字足迹（Incogni）在深入剖析航班的离港过程前，视频穿插了来自赞助商 Incogni 的内容。主讲人指出，正如客机在空中飞行会留下各种数据痕迹一样，普通人在互联网上也会留下海量数字踪迹，而数据经纪人（data brokers）行业正是靠收集住址、联系方式、财务信息乃至家庭隐私并倒卖牟利。若要制止这种行为，用户必须逐一联系各大机构要求删除，流程极为繁琐。Incogni 则作为个人隐私管家，代替用户向各大经纪人平台交涉并持续监控以防止个人信息复现，从而有效减少垃圾邮件与骚扰电话。 --- ### [14:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=869s) 起飞、雷达交接与巡航爬升 3 月 8 日凌晨 00:40:37，吉隆坡塔台向马航 370 航班发出起飞许可。此时由副驾驶法里克担任操纵飞员（PF），机长扎哈里负责无线电通讯（PM）。在发动机参数稳定后，副驾驶按下起飞/复飞（TO/GA）电钮，飞机在跑道上加速滑跑。00:42，机载卫星通信（SATCOM）系统记录到飞机正式离地离港，并持续回传飞机的身份代码与标准飞行数据，所有读数均显示一切运转完美。按照吉隆坡机场的运行规范，离地后机组需自行调频至离港管制席。机长调谐频率并报到后，离港管制员指示其取消标准仪表离港（SID），改为“直飞航路点 IGARI（Proceed direct to IGARI）”，并继续爬升至飞行高度层 FL180。在夜间航班较少、空域空闲时，管制员给出直飞指令是非常普遍的操作。机长复诵后在飞行管理计算机（FMC）中将 IGARI 设为活动航路点，副驾驶核实确认后在模式控制面板（MCP）上将目标高度选定为 FL180，一切动作都如同他们过去演练过千万次的那样顺畅自然，录音中机长的语调也极度放松。不久后，客机被移交给吉隆坡雷达席（Lumpur Radar，频率 132.6），该管制员将一路监控他们直到抵达马来西亚与越南飞行情报区（FIR）交界处的 IGARI 点。机长按标准程序复诵新频率与呼号后联系区域管制员，先后获准爬升至 FL250 以及最终巡航高度 FL350。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: MH370 从起飞到巡航爬升过程 accDescr: 展示航班从 32R 跑道起飞、取消离港程序直飞 IGARI 直至爬升至 FL350 巡航高度的空管通信与操作流程。 subgraph Ground_Depart ["起飞与初始爬升阶段"] A["00:40:37 获准从 32R 起飞 副驾驶操纵，推 TO/GA"] --> B["00:42:00 SATCOM 记录离地 遥测数据确认运行一切正常"] B --> C["自主切换至离港席 管制员指令：直飞 IGARI 并爬至 FL180"] end subgraph FMC_Setup ["驾驶舱协同设置"] C --> D["机长 FMC 激活 IGARI 航路点 副驾驶确认并在 MCP 调定 FL180"] end subgraph En_Route ["区域雷达交接与巡航"] D --> E["切换至吉隆坡雷达 (132.6) 管制员批准继续爬升至 FL250"] E --> F["00:49 获准爬升至巡航高度 FL350 机长无线电语调自然放松"] end ``` --- ### [17:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1024s) 一次雷达与二次雷达的技术差异当 MH370 持续向东北方向稳定飞行时，所有地面空管单位的雷达屏幕上都能清晰看到其航迹。为了让观众理解后文的诡异转折，视频在此详细拆解了民用航空依赖的两类雷达原理：民用空中交通管制最依赖的是**二次雷达（Secondary Radar）**。二次雷达并非仅靠无线电回波，而是高度依赖目标机载应答机（Transponder）的主动应答。起飞前副驾驶调谐的四位数字应答机编码（数字 0 至 7 之间）便是用于建立该身份识别。处于工作状态的应答机会源源不断向地面空管传输飞机经纬度位置、高度、地速乃至 MCP 选定高度等丰富参数，同时支持机载防相撞系统（TCAS）的相互协同，诸如 Flightradar24 等追踪软件也是依赖接收其广播的 ADS-B 信号。“但必须牢记的关键在于：应答机安装在飞机内部，一旦机载应答机停止工作，二次雷达、追踪网站以及防撞系统都将彻底瘫痪。” 与之相对的是**一次雷达（Primary Radar，或称原始雷达）**。其原理非常基础：雷达发射天线向外辐射高频电磁脉冲，脉冲打在空中金属物体表面后反射，地面天线根据反射波的方位角与回波时延来判定目标的方向与距离。这种雷达无需目标飞机的主动配合，即便飞机彻底关闭无线电设备，只要具备一定的雷达反射截面积就会被捕捉，因此主要用于军方空防警戒。然而一次雷达的硬伤在于有效探测距离相对有限，且无法精确测定非配合目标的高度与精确空速。 | 雷达类型 | 工作原理 | 依赖设备 | 获取数据特点 | 主要应用场景 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **二次雷达 (SSR)** | 地面询问机发射询问脉冲，机载应答机主动解码并回传编码脉冲 | 飞机机载应答机（Transponder，如模式 A/C/S、ADS-B） | 精度极高：实时高度、身份代码、地速、位置及告警信息 | 民航空管（ATC）、防相撞系统（TCAS）、飞行追踪软件 | | **一次雷达 (PSR)** | 发射高功率电磁脉冲，直接测量物体表面反射的无线电回波 | 无需飞机主动配合，仅需机体具备物理反射截面 | 探测数据粗糙：仅能测定方位与距离，难以精准测定高度与速度 | 军用防空警戒、国境雷达网、非配合目标侦测 | --- ### [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1153s) 凌晨 01:01 的反常呼叫凌晨 01:01:14，MH370 机长呼叫吉隆坡区域管制员，通报飞机已平飞在巡航高度 FL350。管制员简短予以确认。作为资深机长，主讲人指出，在已经获得该高度爬升许可的情况下，这种“已达到巡航高度”的通报在民航操作中并不是强制要求的规定动作，更多是飞行员的一种礼节性习惯。此时从无线电录音中机长语尾微降的语调可以判断，他的状态依然十分放松。然而，主讲人紧接着指出了一个令他感到极其警惕的微小细节——尽管在官方最终调查报告中这一现象仅被一笔带过并归类为“无须过多关注的异常”，但他作为现役飞行员有截然不同的看法：在第一次报告平飞约 7 分钟之后，机长再次按下拉话键，向同一个空管席位一字不差地重复报告了完全相同的内容：“平飞于 FL350”。飞行员通常只会在两种特殊情况下做出这种冗余的重复报告：第一种是飞行员纯粹因为注意力分散忘记了自己几分钟前刚刚报过，为了保险起见重新报一次；第二种情况则是，飞行员可能因为摆弄无线电面板、摘下耳机、调小电台音量或离开驾驶席，离开公共监听频率了一段时间。为了确认自己在离开期间空管是否曾呼叫过自己，飞行员会故意主动呼叫一次——如果管制员仅仅平淡地回复“收到（Roger）”，飞行员就能安心确认空管在此期间没有找过自己；反之，若空管曾呼叫未果，便会借此机会重新宣读积压的指令。从第一次平飞通报到第二次重复通报之间足足相隔了 7 分钟。这一长达 7 分钟的无线电静默与重复通报意味着：极有可能在这短短几分钟内，驾驶舱里发生了某种突发情况，将机长的注意力从常规无线电监控中强行引开。这一细节，极可能是整场离奇悲剧的最早征兆。 ### [21:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1291s) 机长的语调异样与 ACARS 最后的平静在分析吉隆坡空管录音时，主讲人特别关注了机长进行第二次无线电通话时的声音状态。官方调查报告中的语音分析专家指出，他们并未从录音中检测到任何明显的压力迹象。然而，作为一名长期在模拟机和真实航班中带飞的资深飞行员教练，主讲人察觉到了两次通话之间音调的明显变化。在第一次呼叫中，机长的声音听起来十分放松，语尾带有自然的降调；但在第二次通话中，他听起来变得异常忙碌，语气就好像手头正在摆弄或处理其他复杂任务一样。“This, the sound of workload, is something that I often hear in the simulator as well as when I'm doing training in the aircraft and that's why I reacted to it when I heard it.” 尽管空管人员仅仅按照标准程序回应，且主讲人并不想过度解读这个细节，但在随后即将发生的惊人变故面前，这种工作负荷陡增的征兆显得格外耐人寻味。飞机随即沿着批准的航线继续向 IGARI 航路点巡航。在机长结束那次通话后几分钟内，机载 ACARS（飞机通信寻址与报告系统）通过卫星通信（SATCOM）向地面站发送了最后一条完整的例行数据报文。自此之后，该机的 SATCOM 陷入了长达近 1 小时 17 分钟的死寂。这一长时间的信号中断是一个极其关键的调查线索，为驾驶舱内发生的事情提供了极为重要的技术证据。 ### [23:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1388s) 最后的无线电告别与应答机关闭凌晨 01:19:24，吉隆坡区域管制员向 MH370 发出指令，要求其切换至频率 120.9 联系越南胡志明空管。此时距离飞机飞越 IGARI 仅剩大约一分钟，飞机在地理上仍处于马来西亚空域，但即将越过边界进入越南空域。就在这一刻，MH370 进行了有史以来最后一次无线电发话，机长简短地回复道晚安。在外界许多人眼中，这句道别仿佛带着某种不祥的诀别意味，但在专业飞行员听来，这再次反映出机长当时的极端忙碌，以至于他甚至没有按照严格的标准操作程序完整复诵频率。“Like I mentioned before, all frequencies we are given must always be read back to avoid mistakes but that was not done in this call.” 这种未能完整复诵频率的疏漏，标志着常规飞行的彻底终结。在飞机飞越 IGARI 航路点仅 5 秒后，应答机的 Mode S 功能被突然关闭——该模式原本负责向地面空管传输包括气压高度在内的关键辅助飞行数据。在波音 777 的驾驶舱中，要单独关闭 Mode S 而不切断整个系统，唯一的物理操作是将中央操纵台上的应答机旋钮从 TA/RA 位置旋转至“Altitude-off”（高度关闭）挡位。如果是突发的技术故障，所有应答信号本应在瞬间完全消失；然而数据显示，二次雷达反射信号在整整 37 秒后才彻底隐去。就在二次雷达光标熄灭的瞬间，这架原本平稳飞行的巨鸟猛烈地偏离了既定航线。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: MH370 在 IGARI 航路点附近的异常序列 accDescr: 展示 MH370 从移交管制、应答机关闭到手动大坡度掉头的事件流程。 subgraph Handover ["01:19 管制移交"] A["吉隆坡空管指示切换频率至 120.9"] --> B["机长简短道晚安（未复诵频率）"] end subgraph TransponderOff ["飞越 IGARI（01:21 前后）"] B --> C["飞越 IGARI 5 秒后：Mode S 被手动旋至 Alt-Off"] C --> D["37 秒后：二次雷达信号彻底消失"] end subgraph Deviation ["非正常机动"] D --> E["终止既定计划航线（原定飞往 BITOD）"] E --> F["断开自动驾驶仪，执行大坡度手动左转掉头"] end ``` ### [24:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1485s) 精心算计的盲区掉头与空域规避一次雷达（Primary Radar）的原生回波记录下了这架客机随后的惊人举动。在最初向 BITOD 航路点进行了微小的右转修正后，飞机突然做出了一个极为剧烈的、接近 180 度的左转大掉头。波音公司的工程师后来在全动模拟机中试图复现这一机动，但发现如果开启自动驾驶仪，根本无法在对应的时间窗口内完成如此紧凑的转弯。“The only simulation that got close included a manually-flown turn, meaning that the autopilot must have been disconnected.” 自动驾驶仪有着严格的倾侧角保护限制，而要完成雷达上显示的那种近乎垂直回旋的急转弯，飞行员必须断开自动驾驶仪，人工操纵飞机压出极大的坡度。主讲人强调，唯一合乎逻辑的结论就是有人在刻意介入并蓄意篡改飞行轨迹。这一转向的时间点与地理位置绝非巧合，而是经过了老练的战术选择： - **管制移交真空期**：IGARI 航路点恰好位于马来西亚与越南的飞行情报区（FIR）交界处。此时吉隆坡管制员刚刚将指挥权移交出去，注意力不再高度集中在这架飞机上；而胡志明管制员通常要等到机组在无线电中主动呼叫报到，才会开始在屏幕上密切追踪该目标。在两国交接的“灰色缝隙”中切断信号并转向，是将雷达侦测降到最低的最佳时机。 - **规避泰国防空识别区（Thai ADIZ）**：IGARI 航路点北面紧邻泰国的防空识别区（在航图上标示为两条紫色平行虚线）。任何未按报备计划飞行、关闭应答机或未识别的目标闯入该区域，都会立即遭到泰国军方雷达的严格盘查与跟踪拦截。飞机通过剧烈的左转避开泰国防空识别区，同时将航线卡在防空识别区边缘与 M765 航路之间的安全缝隙中，既避免了迎面撞上反向民航流量，又不会触发泰国军方的警报。 - **伪装返航意图**：在仅能看到原生反射波的一次雷达操作员眼中，一架自边界转向西南方向飞行的客机，很容易被下意识地判定为一架正在马来西亚领空内正常执行紧急备降（Divert）的航班。操纵者对该空域结构的熟悉程度令人胆寒。 ### [27:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1646s) 横穿马来半岛与神秘的手机信号完成剧烈的 U 型转向后，MH370 沿着一条大致平直的西南向轨迹横穿马来半岛，朝向马来西亚槟城附近的“Victor Papa Golf”（VPG）VOR 导航台飞行。雷达航迹记录显示，飞行过程中存在着轻微的方向修正摆动，这种微小的航向不稳定性完全符合手动操纵而非自动驾驶仪巡航的特征。由于这些数据仅仅来自没有任何高度和速度编码的军用一次雷达回波，调查人员无法精确计算出其飞行高度与真空速。不过有推测认为，飞机在横越陆地时可能进行了一定程度的下降，以便在更密集的空气层中获取更高的真空速进行高速突防。这一推测在通信记录中找到了微妙的印证：当飞机飞经槟城岛上空时，当地 Celcom 电信公司的一座基站曾短暂捕获到了副驾驶手机发出的基站握手信号。 - 基站蜂窝信号在垂直方向上的有效覆盖高度非常有限，在最理想的大气条件下最大垂直极限大约在 30,000 英尺，而在现实环境中通常要低得多。 - 在大多数现代航空公司的操作规范中，起飞前将个人手机关机是标准检查单程序。副驾驶的手机在深夜高空被地面基站短暂探测到，极有可能是他在机舱发生变故时试图开机进行外界联络。 - 尽管检测到了网络注册脉冲，但并没有产生任何实际呼出或接通的通话记录，该信号仅仅转瞬即逝。 ### [29:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1776s) 故意断电假说与电气架构解析在飞机横穿半岛的过程中，最引人注目的技术谜团莫过于卫星通信系统的状态。按照国际海事卫星（Inmarsat）的标准协议，如果机载终端在一段时间内没有任何数据上行或下行，系统每隔一小时就会自动发起一次握手巡检（Interrogation）。凌晨 02:03，地面基站试图向 MH370 上行发送一条 ACARS 报文，但飞机端没有任何应答。正常情况下，即便驾驶舱关闭了 ACARS 软件或该子系统故障，SATCOM 卫星数据链路仍然会正常握手，并向地面返回“ACARS 离线”的状态报告；若机组通过控制面板手动登出，系统也会保留标准的登出日志。然而这次没有任何日志产生，唯一的解释是整个 SATCOM 系统本身彻底失去了电力供应。由于波音 777 上的卫星数据机具备极其可靠的冗余供电设计，能够从机上多个不同的电气汇流排和应急电源获取电能，系统断电绝非简单的单一保险丝熔断。根据多位顶尖波音 777 机长的系统分析，操纵者很可能在转向后于头顶面板上手动剥夺了整个飞机的常规供电系统。其操纵逻辑相当极端： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 波音 777 驾驶舱极端全机断电操作假说 accDescr: 展示飞行员如何在头顶面板断开所有常规发电机并抑制 APU 自启的过程。 subgraph GeneratorsCutoff ["切断主发电机"] A["头顶面板断开发电机电门"] --> B["左右主交流发电机断开"] A --> C["左右备用发电机断开"] end subgraph APUSuppression ["抑制 APU 自动介入"] B & C --> D{"飞机逻辑触发 APU 自动启动"} D --> E["操纵者迅速将 APU 旋钮打到 ON 后切回 OFF"] E --> F["强制阻止 APU 发电机供电"] end subgraph EmergencyState ["紧急供电状态"] F --> G["系统自动或手动释放 RAT（冲压空气涡轮）"] G --> H["仅为主飞行显示屏 PFD、导航仪供电"] G --> I["自动驾驶仪失电失效；双发机械液压操纵正常"] G --> J["SATCOM、客舱主照明与非关键航电彻底断电黑障"] end ``` 在两台发动机依然高速运转提供源源不断液压动力的前提下，人工推杆拉盘依然轻便灵活，完全不影响手动飞行动作。然而这一操作将导致整个机舱除了应急指示灯外陷入一片漆黑，舱内通信和环境控制陷入混乱。 ### [31:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1862s) 客舱释压与氧气耗尽的残酷悬殊关于机舱后部乘客和乘务组遭遇了什么，官方与民间提出了多种令人不寒而栗的推论。其中最广为流传且符合系统逻辑的假说，是控制飞机的飞行员通过手动干预环境控制面板对客舱进行了蓄意释压。飞行员只需在头顶面板上手动将排气活门（Outflow Valves）完全打开，同时保持机载空调组件（Packs）继续运行即可。保持空调运转至关重要，因为这能为驾驶舱持续吹入加热空气；否则在 35,000 英尺的高空，舱内温度将在几分钟内跌至零下几十度的极寒状态，即便是穿着制服的飞行员也无法抵御。客舱一旦发生释压，后舱乘客头顶的氧气面罩会自动脱落。然而，波音 777 客舱配备的是化学氧气发生器，其化学反应释放氧气的极限时长仅有约 22 分钟左右。相比之下，驾驶舱飞行员使用的是机头专用的超大容量高压气态氧气瓶，这套系统具备调压和 100% 纯氧按需供应功能。 - 在仅有一名飞行员使用的情况下，机头氧气瓶能提供长达 27 小时的充足氧气。 - 尤为巧合的是，正如前文调查所记录，这具氧气瓶恰好在当天清晨刚在吉隆坡地面完成了高压充气维护。 - 这意味着，如果在 35,000 英尺的巡航高度保持机舱释压而不下降，客舱内的乘客和乘务员在 20 多分钟氧气耗尽后，会因为极度缺氧而在短时间内彻底丧失行动能力与意识。在海拔 35,000 英尺的高空，人体的有效意识时间（Time of Useful Consciousness）极其短暂，一旦脱氧，任何反抗或自救都将变得绝无可能。而端坐在驾驶舱内牢牢戴着全面罩供氧设备的操纵者，则可以在寂静与黑暗中，继续从容不迫地驾驶这架庞然大物飞向未知的深渊。 ### [32:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1936s) 缺氧的生理影响与飞机受控飞行的证据在高空暴露于无增压环境中会对人体造成迅速且致命的影响。在30,000英尺以上的高空，没有辅助供氧的情况下，人体的有效意识时间（Time of Useful Consciousness）仅有一分钟左右，稍微降低高度也不过延长至数分钟。在此之后，机上人员将完全丧失做出理性决策的能力，并迅速陷入昏迷。若始终没有氧气供应，大约20分钟后脑死亡就会发生。Mentour Pilot 强调，尽管外界提出了各种假说，但我们至今仍无法确凿证明机舱内究竟发生了什么：“But like I said before, we don't know for a fact what happened and we won't know more until the aircraft is found which is why it is so important that we continue the search.” 在高海拔环境下纯人工手动操纵一架大型客机，同时可能佩戴着笨重的氧气面罩，并且仅依靠极其简陋的备用导航设备，这是一项极其耗费体力的任务。雷达画面上显示出的轻微航向摆动，很可能正是飞行员在这种极度疲劳的状态下操纵所致。飞机在民用与军用初级雷达的监视下继续向西南飞行，绕过槟城（Penang）南部，随后向右转弯切入马六甲海峡（Malacca Strait）。尽管在此期间雷达覆盖出现过短暂盲区，但总体雷达轨迹清晰地表明，这架飞机一直处于人工精准操纵之下，绝非毫无规律的随机漂移。 ### [33:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2010s) 空管沟通失误与军方未拦截之谜既然飞机持续在雷达上移动，为什么民航管制单位没有及时追踪，甚至军方也没有起飞战机进行拦截？这主要是由不同空中交通管制中心之间、以及马来西亚航空运营控制中心（OCC）之间一系列的混乱与沟通误解所导致的。飞机最初从二级雷达上消失后，胡志明市空管中心足足花了大约20分钟才致电马来西亚空管询问客机去向。按照标准操作程序，这种查询应当在目标丢失后5分钟内发起。然而，该事件发生在深夜两个国家空域交界的移交点，值班管制员很可能当时正忙于处理其他航班，未严密监控飞行进程条。当理论上仍对该航班负有监控责任的马来西亚管制员得知飞机失联后，他联系了马航总部。马航方面却给出了致命的错误信息，声称从他们的追踪系统上看，飞机正在柬埔寨上空正常飞行。这导致空管人员开始沿着原定航路盲目联络沿途各国的管制中心，彻底忽略了雷达屏幕西南方向那个孤零零的微弱回波。后来调查证实，马航的航班追踪软件在失去真实数据输入时，会自动使用“预测航迹”生成虚拟位置，从而酿成了严重的误导。至于军方雷达，虽然确实记录到了飞机在 IGARI 航路点后的左转动作，但由于它并未侵入任何未经许可的新防空识别空域，军方值班人员直接将其判定为一次普通的“机动返航（Air Turnback）”，既未拉响防空警报，也未派遣战机升空拦截。直到事后调取雷达回放记录，MH370 的真实轨迹才水落石出。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 空管与马航运营中心的误解链条 accDescr: 展示MH370在失联后，由于系统推算位置错误和空管延误导致雷达回波被忽视的过程。 subgraph GroundConfusion ["地面单位的沟通延误与误判"] A["胡志明管制中心 (延迟20分钟才致电询问)"] --> B["马来西亚管制中心 (仍对航班负有责任)"] B --> C["马航总部运营控制中心"] C -->|"软件基于预测算法生成虚假位置"| D["误报：飞机正在柬埔寨上空"] D --> E["管制员徒劳联系柬埔寨沿线单位"] end subgraph RadarReality ["真实雷达情况"] F["微弱一次雷达回波向西南飞行"] G["军方雷达记录到左转 (误判为普通空中返航未予拦截)"] end E -.->|"导致完全忽略"| F ``` ### [35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2121s) 最后的雷达回波与进入未知区域在完成右转朝西北方向飞行后，客机的航向对准了名为 VAMPI 的航路点。此时机上的卫星通信系统（SATCOM）尚未重新登录，说明飞机大概率仍处于某种供电受限的状态，甚至可能仅仅依靠冲压空气涡轮（RAT）提供基础应急电力。即便电力极度匮乏，领航也完全不成问题——槟城（VPG）的甚高频全向信标台（VOR）仍在其接收范围内，飞行员完全可以利用原始导航无线电数据导向 VAMPI，该航路点也可以直接投射在导航显示屏上，飞行员只需对准航向即可。掠过 VAMPI 后，日益微弱的雷达信号继续沿着 N571 航路朝下一个航路点 MEKAR 飞去。在飞机稍微偏南擦过 MEKAR 航路点后不久，时间定格在凌晨 02:22:12，MH370 在所有常规民用和公开军用雷达的扫描范围内彻底消失。虽然周边国家的军用机动雷达完全有可能在更长时间内捕捉到其踪迹，但出于保密防空雷达阵地部署和侦测精度的敏感考虑，没有任何国家公布过相关情报。自此，所有雷达线索断绝，航班进入了彻底的未知空域。 - **02:22:12**：最后一次被公开雷达记录到的确切时间戳。 - **航路点 MEKAR**：飞机在雷达盲区前飞经的最后一个关键导航点。 - **VPG VOR 台**：为飞机在马六甲海峡超低供电状态下提供原始无线电导航支持的地面台站。 ### [36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2215s) 卫星反向工程追踪：BTO 与 BFO 原理雷达线索中断后，调查人员、科研团队与商业机构只能开辟全新的技术路径，从原本并非用于定位的数据中寻找蛛丝马迹，其中最关键的突破便来自英国海事卫星公司（Inmarsat）。机上的飞机通信寻址与报告系统（ACARS）正是通过 Inmarsat 的地球同步卫星建立卫星通信（SATCOM）。卫星传输这些信号最初纯粹为了数据通信，根本不具备雷达追踪功能，但科学家通过逆向工程计算，成功将每一次信号交互转换为了粗略的位置指示。该算法借鉴了全球定位系统（GPS）的测距原理。卫星以光速向地面设备发送带有精确时间戳的信号，设备响应后，系统计算信号往返的双向延迟时间。由于光速恒定，延迟时间直接决定了飞机与卫星之间的直线距离。以卫星在地面的投影点为球心、以该距离为半径，即可在地球表面投影出一个圆弧，证明飞机在特定时刻必然处于这条圆弧上的某一点。飞机与卫星之间共有7次连接记录，即国际媒体广泛报道的“7次握手（Handshakes）”。利用往返时间差推导位置圆弧的技术被称为**脉冲时间偏移（Burst Timing Offset, 简称 BTO）**。除了距离信息，Inmarsat 的工程师还从微弱的信号波形中提取了另一项关键维度：**脉冲频率偏移（Burst Frequency Offset, 简称 BFO）**。BFO 记录的是卫星实际接收到的载波频率与理论预期发射频率之间的频移差值，其物理本质就是多普勒效应（Doppler Effect）——如同救护车迎面驶来时警笛声调变高、呼啸而去时声调变低一样。由于飞机与同步卫星之间的通信链路在空间几何上主要是高度垂直的，BFO 的频移数据成为了分析飞机当时是在爬升、平飞还是处于急剧下降状态的核心依据。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Inmarsat 卫星数据反向追踪技术原理 accDescr: 说明如何通过 BTO 计算出距离弧线，以及通过 BFO 利用多普勒频移测算垂直机动。 subgraph DataExchange ["卫星握手信号 (Handshake)"] S["Inmarsat 同步卫星"] <-->|"无线电往返延迟与载波"| A["MH370 卫星终端 (SDU)"] end subgraph Metrics ["推导出的两个关键指标"] A -->|"测量信号往返时间 (Ping Time)"| BTO["BTO (脉冲时间偏移) 确定与卫星的距离弧圈 (Arc)"] A -->|"测量多普勒频移 (Doppler Shift)"| BFO["BFO (脉冲频率偏移) 分析相对垂直运动 (爬升/下降)"] end ``` ### [40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2420s) 02:25 的神秘开机与振荡器预热线索此前一直保持沉默断电的 SATCOM 系统，在凌晨 02:25:27 突然出现了极度反常的动态：系统毫无预兆地在网络上重新上线，并向卫星主动发出了登录请求（Log-on Request），这便是著名的“第一次握手”。这一时间点距离飞机在 IGARI 航路点完成急转弯正好过去了大约整整一个小时。更耐人寻味的是技术分析层面的发现：第一次握手信号中的 BFO 测量值存在极大的频率偏差，最初被数据分析师视作不可靠的异常数据。然而，深入硬件底层的物理调查揭开了谜底。卫星通信无线电发射机内部使用了一种极其精密的“恒温槽控制石英晶体振荡器”（Oven-Controlled Crystal Oscillator, 简称 OCXO），必须保持在绝对恒定的温度下才能防止频率发生剧烈漂移。在经历了一小时的长时间断电后，发热恒温槽在断电状态下已经冷却，在重新通电的瞬间，振荡器尚未达到设定的工作温度便仓促发出了第一次登录信号，从而造成了明显的频率漂移。这一硬件层面的物理铁证无可辩驳地证实：飞机的卫星数据单元（SDU）在此刻之前确实经历了长达一小时的人为断电，随后又被重新接通电源。Mentour Pilot 忍不住惊叹道：“Science is truly amazing!” 此外，这一异常的首次握手登录信号中，丢失了之前正常航行时一直发送的有效航班号（Flight ID）和航空公司识别码（Company ID）。若当时飞机是由具有极高专业技能的飞行员在手动操纵供电恢复，他必然非常清楚 SATCOM 启动后会自动连接并向地面暴露位置。因此，为了维持隐匿状态，飞行员很可能在卫星数据单元（SDU）完成全面自检并恢复正常通讯之前，迅速进入座舱的多功能显示屏（MFD），在通讯管理页面（Communications Manager Page）中强行关闭了所有机载下行数据链路。这种紧急的人为切断干预，在底层数据流中正好会导致航班号与公司识别代码被清空，与 Inmarsat 地面站记录到的异常特征完全吻合。 ### [42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2567s) Inmarsat 握手信号与电源中断的线索卫星通信（SATCOM）系统在开始传输时所使用的天线，向调查人员证实了一个关键事实：飞机的导航系统在当时仍在正常工作。通过分析 Inmarsat（国际海事卫星组织）的数据，可以确信飞机持续飞行了足够长的时间，完成了总共七次“握手”通信。在这七次握手信号中，第一次和最后一次是由飞机本身主动发送的登录请求（logon requests）。这些登录请求极有可能是由电源中断引起的。最后一次登录请求发生在马来西亚时间早上 08:19，这很可能是由于飞机在飞行了大约 7 小时 35 分钟后，单侧或双侧发动机燃料耗尽导致发电机失效而触发的。这一时间点与根据飞机起飞前记录的燃油量所估算的极限续航时间高度吻合。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Inmarsat 握手信号产生机制 accDescr: 展示MH370与卫星之间七次握手信号的触发原因与时间逻辑。 A["每小时自动 Ping 信号"] --> D["7次握手通信"] B["地面发起未接听的卫星电话 (重置计时)"] --> D C["电源中断后的主动登录请求 (首次与末次)"] --> D ``` 在正常情况下，该系统被设置为每小时自动发送一次 Ping 信号（除非启动了其他卫星通信活动）。然而，在这期间，马来西亚航空运营中心曾两次尝试从地面向驾驶舱拨打卫星电话。虽然这两次呼叫均未得到驾驶舱的应答，但它们成功重置了每小时一次的自动握手计时，这也解释了为什么这七次握手并没有呈现出完全等间隔的整点规律。 > “正如我之前解释的，这些登录请求极有可能是由电源中断引起的，而最后一次登录很可能是由于飞机飞行了大约7小时35分钟后，单侧或双侧发动机燃料耗尽所致。” --- ### [44:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2645s) 搜索区域的困境与推测的航线尽管 Inmarsat 数据提供了宝贵的线索，但它也带来了一个巨大的难题。由于所有数据仅来自一颗卫星，这七次握手所产生的距离弧线在地球表面投影出了多条可能的飞行路径，从而导致了一个范围极其庞大的潜在搜索区域。为了缩小范围，多位经验丰富的飞行员和调查人员提出了非常合理的推测方案，试图重构出既能符合这七次握手数据、又能避开雷达探测的飞行路线。目前，业内几乎达成共识的观点是：飞机在驶离先前西北向的海岸后，在名为 NILAM 的航路点附近进行了一次转弯，切入了一条更偏向西南的航线。这一航向将引导飞机飞越印度尼西亚北端（靠近班达亚齐）。在此之后的某个时刻，飞机选择了一条向南的航线，直接飞入南印度洋的腹地。法国机长帕特里克·布莱利（Captain Patrick Blelly）与让-卢克·马尔尚（Jean-Luc Marchand）进行了一项令人瞩目的合作研究，详细规划出了一条极具说服力的最终航线。然而，一个一直困扰着人们的疑问是：一个显然经过如此周密策划以规避探测的人，会在将飞机带到这个孤立点后，仅仅是把飞机转向南方，然后静静地等待数小时直到燃油耗尽吗？从该操纵者在飞行初期极其活跃的干预行为来看，这种消极等待的假设显得有些不合常理。操纵者很可能直到最后一刻都保持着积极的控制，但这在缺乏更多实物证据的情况下很难证实。 > “几乎所有人都同意，最可能的航线包括在名为 NILAM 的航路点附近，从之前的西北海岸转向更偏西南的方向。” --- ### [46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2773s) 弱信号传播报告器协议（WSPR）的引入 2008 年，曾于 1993 年因脉冲星研究荣获诺贝尔物理学奖的美国天体物理学家、业余无线电爱好者小约瑟夫·胡顿·泰勒（Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr.）开始开发一种名为“弱信号传播报告器”（Weak Signal Propagation Reporter，简称 WSPR）的协议。这是一种用于低功率无线电传输的协议，旨在探索低频、中频和高频无线电信号在极远距离下的传播特性。泰勒还专门设计了计算机软件来分析这些信号。当这些无线电信号进行跨国或跨洋的长距离传播时，如果途中遇到障碍物，信号就会发生散射。这种散射会在接收端引起信号强度的微小异常。对于业余无线电爱好者来说，这一特性非常有趣，因为他们有时可以利用这些障碍物来改善整体的接收效果。至关重要的一点是，WSPR 协议的一大特色在于，自 2008 年以来，成千上万条此类信号的接收数据已被上传并存储在一个共享的全球数据库中。需要明确的是，泰勒本人在设计 WSPR 协议时，从未想过将其用于追踪飞机，当时他也认为这在技术上是不可能的。然而，这一庞大的历史数据库却为后来的研究者提供了一座未被发掘的物理数据宝库。 > “现在，我想在这里非常明确地指出，泰勒本人从未设计将 WSPR 用于追踪飞机，他实际上也不认为这可行。” --- ### [48:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=2891s) 理查德·戈弗雷与 WSPR 飞机追踪技术 2021 年，航空电子系统工程师理查德·戈弗雷（Richard Godfrey）开始探索利用 WSPR 数据库结合特定算法来寻找多个同时传输的信号中的异常，从而将其作为一种“廉价版的一次雷达”来追踪飞机。从理论上讲，如果已知发射机和接收机的确切位置、具体时间以及其他上百万个环境因子，就有可能通过多个无线电信号中出现的微小且一致的异常波动，来锁定并追踪像飞机这样的大型物体。 WSPR 技术的奇妙之处在于它每两分钟就会对成千上万个信号进行一次采样，这潜在地为调查人员提供了比以往任何时候都更加密集和详尽的信息。戈弗雷与他的同事汉内斯·库切博士（Dr. Hannes Coetzee）以及西蒙·马斯克尔教授（Professor Simon Maskell）自 2021 年起致力于分析该数据库，并于 2023 年 8 月 31 日发布了一份报告，声称他们已经成功找到了 MH370 的飞行轨迹。这种方法就像 DNA 技术在早期阶段并未获得广泛信任、但如今已发展出极高准确性一样，WSPR 信号中或许真的隐藏着未被解读的真相。随着算法的不断演进，该团队的追踪数据较最初的版本已有了显著改善。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: MH370 WSPR与雷达航线追踪流程 accDescr: 展示MH370在雷达消失后，通过WSPR数据重建的航线关键节点。 A["雷达已知航线 (至VAMPI前)"] --> B["转向更偏西航向"] B --> C["拦截首次Inmarsat握手弧线 (02:28:15)"] C --> D["飞往航路点 SANOB"] D --> E["左转飞往 URDAM"] E --> F["避开军用雷达与空中交通管制 (ATC)"] ``` 根据这份最新的报告，WSPR 数据在初始阶段与现有的雷达信息吻合得非常好。在飞机抵达 VAMPI 航路点之前，数据表明飞机向更偏西的方向进行了转弯。随后，它与雷达假定的航线平行，但轨迹比原始雷达显示的更偏南一些。这可能是由于 WSPR 技术本身的局限性，或者是由于当时飞机已处于雷达有效探测范围的边缘。无论如何，WSPR 轨迹继续向西北延伸，并在 02:28:15 准确拦截了 Inmarsat 第一次握手所形成的弧线。随后，数据表明飞机继续飞往名为 SANOB 的点，并在该点左转飞往 URDAM。这一轨迹与多位航空专家此前预测的、旨在规避军用雷达和空中交通管制（ATC）监视的路线高度一致。 > “戈弗雷明白这一点，从2021年至今，他和他的同事汉内斯·库切博士以及西蒙·马斯克尔教授一直在试图分析这个数据库，以寻找 MH370 的踪迹。” --- ### [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3000s) 锯齿形航线与 Inmarsat 数据的完美契合 WSPR 数据所揭示的航线细节表明，MH370 飞往南印度洋的路径并非一条直线。相反，它展现出了一系列有意的转弯，每次转弯都指向现有的航路点，但飞机从未真正切入任何一条既定的民航航线。这种飞行特征非常符合一架仍处于人工操纵状态、但刻意避开常规航路以防止与其他飞机发生空中冲突的飞机。需要记住的是，当时飞机的 TCAS（空中防撞系统）已经关闭，操纵者无法在仪表上看到其他流量，其他飞机也无法通过 TCAS 发现它。如果操纵者的意图是不被发现，这种避开航路的行为在逻辑上是完全合理的，因为即使飞机被部分雷达扫到，其最终目的地也将极难被预测。此外，WSPR 数据还显示，飞机在向南飞行的锯齿形路线中，曾有两个阶段出现了轻微的减速，这可能对应着飞机进行了阶梯爬升（step climbs）。最令人瞩目的是，WSPR 测算出的飞行位置与 Inmarsat 的七次握手弧线几乎完美契合，而 Inmarsat 数据的真实性在行业内是无可争议的。 > “这很好地对应了一架仍有人驾驶的飞机，但它是以一种有计划的方式飞行的，以避免干扰可能发生潜在交通冲突的现有航路。” --- ### [51:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3073s) 最后的时刻：八字形飞行与 APU 燃油管理在飞行的最后阶段，WSPR 数据呈现出了一个非常奇异的现象：在第六次和第七次握手之间（即预测飞机即将耗尽燃油的时刻），飞机似乎在空中飞出了一个“八字形”（figure-eight）的图案。波音 777 飞机在失去单侧发动机推力时，其推力不对称补偿系统（TAC）会自动操纵方向舵进行补偿，以维持直飞。因此，飞机绝对不可能在无人控制的情况下自动飞出这种复杂的八字形图案。如果这一轨迹属实，它必然是操纵者刻意控制的结果。尽管很难推测操纵者为何在此时做出这种举动，但当时该区域已是白昼，天气晴朗，操纵者有可能是通过这种盘旋方式观察附近海域是否有船只，以确保飞机的最终坠毁点不会被任何人目击。根据 Inmarsat 的爆发频率偏移（BFO）数据，飞机在最后一次登录握手期间处于极速下降状态，下降率高达每分钟 14,500 英尺。但这并不一定意味着飞机是直接垂直栽入海中的。根据帕特里克·布莱利机长和让-卢克·马尔尚的优秀报告分析，存在这样一种可能性： * 右侧发动机首先因燃油耗尽而熄火。 * 操纵者随即启动了辅助动力装置（APU），并打开了交叉输油阀（crossfeed valve），以最大限度地利用剩余燃油。 * 由于 APU 的吸油管（standpipe）在油箱中的物理位置比发动机的吸油管稍低，这使得 APU 能够吸到油箱底部更残留的燃油。 * 操纵者随后可能手动关闭了仅存的左侧发动机，以尽可能延长 APU 的运行时间。 * 这样做可以确保飞行控制系统和关键仪表在尽可能长的时间内保持供电，并允许操纵者展开襟翼（在没有发动机或 APU 提供动力的情况下，襟翼是无法展开的），从而尝试在海面上进行一次受控的迫降。当最后一次 Inmarsat 登录请求完成时，飞机的命运也随之定格。 ### [53:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3183s) 最后的电力状态、坠落轨迹计算与残骸证据在客机生命的最后时刻，卫星通信终端发送的数据缺失了部分系统信息，例如来自客舱机上娱乐系统（IFE）的数据。这一现象在工程逻辑上完全说得通：如果双发燃油耗尽熄火，飞机仅依靠自动启动的辅助动力装置（APU）供电，那么系统会自动执行卸载非必要电气负载的逻辑，优先保障关键飞行仪表和核心系统的电力供应。根据帕特里克·布莱利机长（Captain Blelly）的精确飞行力学推算，飞机最终的坠海位置取决于当时的操控状态：如果飞机处于无人干预的急剧俯冲坠落状态，其坠毁点将极其靠近第 7 弧线（7th arc）；但如果当时有飞行员在操纵飞机以实现最大滑翔距离，并最终放下 30 度襟翼（Flaps 30）进行可控迫降，飞机最远可以向南多滑翔 67 海里（nautical miles）。与此同时，弱信号传播报告（WSPR）数据分析指出的最后可能位置时间戳定格在 08:19:37，此后无线电数据链路上再也没有出现任何相关的信号扰动异常。无可辩驳的物理证据已经证实，该机确实坠毁在已经搜寻过的海域之内或其附近，因为属于该机的机身内外部残骸已被陆续打捞或拾获。其中包括一片经官方确认来自右机翼的副翼/襟副翼（flaperon），以及多块几乎百分之百断定属于 MH370 的机体构件。洋流反向漂移模拟显示，在东非海岸及周边印度洋岛屿冲刷上岸的所有残骸，其源头均可清晰回溯至南印度洋这一大致区域。更关键的是，发现的残骸中包含原本位于机舱内部的碎片，这意味着客机在猛烈撞击水面时承受了毁灭性的外力并彻底解体碎裂。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 坠落情景与最终位置推测 accDescr: 比较布莱利机长推算的可控滑翔情景与无人操控急速俯冲情景及WSPR信号末端点。 subgraph PowerState["电力与系统状态"] A["双发耗尽熄火 / APU启动"] --> B["非必要负载卸载 (如 IFE 断电)"] B --> C["SATCOM 重新握手发射终端信号"] end subgraph DescentScenarios["最终坠海路径推算"] C --> D{"操纵状态判断"} D -->|"无人操纵 / 急剧俯冲"| E["紧邻第 7 弧线坠海"] D -->|"主动最大滑翔 + 襟翼30迫降"| F["向南延伸滑翔达 67 海里"] C -->|"WSPR 无线电异常分析"| G["08:19:37 记录到最后已知异常位置"] end subgraph PhysicalEvidence["实体残骸佐证"] H["右翼襟副翼 (Flaperon) 确认"] I["机舱内部构件碎片"] H & I --> J["证实机体剧烈撞击水面解体"] J --> K["东非及印度洋岛屿洋流回溯吻合"] end ``` - **电气卸载现象**：最后握手信息缺少机上娱乐系统（IFE）数据，有力印证了飞机在发动机停转后转由 APU 供电。 - **两极化的终止点预测**：急剧俯冲下客机坠落于第 7 弧线附近；若受控执行最佳滑翔并使用 Flaps 30 进行水上迫降，最远可延伸至弧线以南 67 海里处。 - **最后信号记录**：WSPR 无线电链路在 08:19:37 之后彻底失去相关异常扰动迹象。 - **结构损坏特征**：散落至东非的碎片包含机舱内部结构件，排除了完整沉入水下的假设，证实飞机在水面撞击中破裂解体。 --- ### [54:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3259s) 航空业的改变与重启搜寻的呼吁这场航空史上最惨烈的离奇灾难已经在诸多技术和制度层面催生了长足的行业变革：商业客机在跨洋飞行时的追踪监控手段得到了决定性的改善，应急定位发射机（ELT）的电池工作寿命标准被大幅延长，空中交通管制部门（ATC）监控航班越区移交与应答机丢失的流程也变得更加严密。然而，客机本体残骸若一日未能打捞重见天日，这桩悬案就绝无法真正盖棺定论。主讲人坦言，制作这一详尽复盘视频的核心目的，正是为了促成新的搜寻努力： > “This horrific story have already led to improvements in tracking commercial aircraft over oceans, longer life for emergency locator transmitters and better ATC procedures for tracking aircraft, but we can't lay this to rest before the wreckage is actually found.” > （这场可怕的悲剧已经促成了对远洋商业客机追踪能力的改进、应急定位发射机寿命的延长以及空中交通管制追踪程序的优化，但只要残骸一天未被真正找到，我们就绝不能让这件事随时间尘封。）视频描述中整理并附上了指向两个全新候选搜寻区域的研究理论，它们精确锁定了此前这起航空史上规模最大的深海搜索行动所遗漏的空白区。其中一个方案建立在两位拥有深厚经验的波音 777 资深老机长数十年的专业飞行技术与机动性能分析之上；另一个方案则基于一种饱受学术争议却崭露头角的技术途径——重新挖掘和解析既有的全球民用弱信号传播报告（WSPR）无线电数据网络，且该技术近期在追踪测试其他地区的商业航线时已经展现了其追踪验证的有效性。主讲人并不以权威法官自居去判定哪一方理论绝对准确，而是由衷强调，所有的探讨和技术推进只有一个共同目标，那就是给那些等待了数年、破碎悬心的罹难者家属一个彻底的交代： > “I am not here to judge what is right or wrong. The only thing that I want to achieve is to get the search going again for the sake of the families left behind.” > （我并非在此评判孰对孰错。我唯一想要达成的目的，就是为了那些被留下的家属，让搜寻行动重新启动。）面对这两片范围相对明确且收窄的新候选海域，主讲人向具备深海搜寻能力的相关机构与团队发出了最终呼吁：“请派出搜寻船只（Please get the boats out there），让我们真正下潜到南印度洋的海底，彻底揭开谜底。” - **行业安全升级举措**： - 远洋区域跨洋商业客机追踪技术大幅强化； - 应急定位发射机（ELT）电池工作寿命及水下定位信标（ULB）标准提升； - 空管部门对飞行器雷达信号消失与跨管制区交接（Handover）流程进行了严格修订。 - **两大新搜寻区域理论依据**： - **资深机长模型**：由布莱利机长（Capt. Blelly）与让-吕克·马尚（Jean-Luc Marchand）两位波音 777 资深飞行员联合提出，立足于人工积极操控下的主动滑翔与降落动力学分析。 - **WSPR 数据模型**：由理查德·戈弗雷（Richard Godfrey）等人主导，基于无线电弱信号全球电离层扰动算法，定位出一条特定的离散飞行轨迹及终点坐标。 ## Notable quotes > [54:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=3259s) This horrific story have already led to improvements in tracking commercial aircraft over oceans, longer life for emergency locator transmitters and better ATC procedures for tracking aircraft, but we can't lay this to rest before the wreckage is actually found. — Mentour Pilot > [24:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk&t=1485s) The only simulation that got close included a manually-flown turn, meaning that the autopilot must have been disconnected. — Mentour Pilot ## Mentioned Mentour Pilot, MH370, 马来西亚航空 (Malaysia Airlines), 波音 (Boeing), 波音 777-200ER, 罗尔斯·罗伊斯 (Rolls-Royce), 扎哈里·艾哈迈德·沙阿 (Zaharie Ahmad Shah), 法里克·阿卜杜勒·哈米德 (Fariq Abdul Hamid), 因科尼 (Incogni), 国际海事卫星组织 (Inmarsat), 小约瑟夫·胡顿·泰勒 (Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr.), 理查德·戈弗雷 (Richard Godfrey), 汉内斯·库切 (Hannes Coetzee), 西蒙·马斯克尔 (Simon Maskell), 帕特里克·布莱利 (Patrick Blelly), 让-卢克·马尔尚 (Jean-Luc Marchand), 吉隆坡国际机场 (KLIA), 北京首都国际机场, 胡志明管制区 (Ho Chi Minh ACC), 马来西亚天地通 (Celcom), ACARS, WSPR ## Video description Use code “pilot” at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/pilot ----------------------------------------------------- How can a Boeing 777, one of the biggest and most modern aircraft in the world, just vanish without a trace...? ...It can’t......EVERYTHING LOST...... leaves a trace. This is the story about Malaysian Airlines flight #MH370 and what we now know. ----------------------------------------------------- If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👉🏻 https://www.patreon.com/mentourpilot Our Connections: 👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: https://mentour-crew.creator-spring.com/? 👉🏻 Our other channel: youtube.com/mentournow 👉🏻 Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot 👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: https://boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets Social: 👉🏻 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MentourPilot 👉🏻 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mentour_pilot 👉🏻 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MenTourPilot 👉🏻 Discord server: https://discord.gg/JntGWdn Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode. SOURCES ----------------------------------------------------- Final Report: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf Capt. Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand study: https://www.mh370-caption.net/wp-content/uploads/3-known-trajectory-and-recalculated-trajectory.pdf The WSPR study: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nn3eedtd9ew15f81n2xx7/MH370-Flight-Path-Analaysis-31st-August-2023.pdf?rlkey=c72bo3kc2vv74swr3wll3e4j9&dl=0 Capt. Blelly’s website: https://www.mh370-caption.net/ Richard Godfrey’s (WSPR) website: https://www.mh370search.com/ Latest WSPR tracking test of other aircraft (Feb 15th 2024): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vzftcvfx01lhbt3xfgyu5/How-Does-WSPR-Detect-Aircraft-over-Long-Distances-15FEB2024.pdf?rlkey=p8dcu8q3ww741joa922bdikng&dl=0 Details of the ocean search: https://web.archive.org/web/20200310104643/https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for-mh370_final_3oct2017.pdf KLATCC Building: https://img.astroawani.com/2021-09/41630490738_freesize.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipONCLoK-FgBm7kUr1UR9_g0e-4qFl9H_cRvcYSC=s680-w680-h510 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipPmJtzFqK3akIcSyAg_nPhknzg41V5T3GCeTCwn=s680-w680-h510 https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationAuthorityOfMalaysia.Official/photos/a.1588651788047979/2971320536447757/?type=3 https://buletinklatcc.blogspot.com/2014/10/alpha-on-night-shift.html News Footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_3OUc7nrJc&ab_channel=CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4rXncJjIVk&ab_channel=AFPNewsAgency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aU3IfqS0zk&ab_channel=ABCNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCjIZE237y4&ab_channel=7NEWSAustralia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIbU7YO6NsY&ab_channel=DWNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzVGcx4Dvg8&ab_channel=CBSChicago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pf4oxydPcs&ab_channel=CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHdm_R_O_DI&ab_channel=ABCNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhr6BOyeX38&ab_channel=CBSEveningNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo1rozXtTRs&ab_channel=WION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzVGcx4Dvg8&ab_channel=CBSChicago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bp6LlovuMs&ab_channel=ABCNews Inmarsat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh1o0DUZ2SM&ab_channel=Inmarsat Oven Controlled Crystal: IMSAI Guy https://www.youtube.com/@IMSAIGuy Malaysia 1980 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIu0ZHOMMN8&ab_channel=BACAirportVideoChannel Fokker F27 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysian_Airline_System_Fokker_F-27-500_Friendship_Green-1.jpg Boeing 737-200 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysian_Airline_System_Boeing_737-200_Rees-1.jpg A300 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysian_Airline_System_Airbus_A300_Rees-1.jpg Fokker 50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_2133#/media/File:Malaysia_Fokker_50_Kuching_MGK.jpg Boeing 737-400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysia_Airlines_Boeing_737-400_Prasertwit-1.jpg#filelinks A330 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysia_Airlines,_A330-300,_9M-MTK_%2821030619416%29.jpg Malaysian 777 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 Malaysian DC-10 https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=File:Malaysian_Airline_System_McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10_Fitzgerald-1.jpg Oven Controller Crystal: IMSAI Guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-KXTXe9U8s&ab_channel=IMSAIGuy Joe Taylor Jr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ynije-xwbo&list=PLRgP6cqiM2BQnuqCus8gPPNFRnzdJrC6L&ab_channel=ARRLHQ Nobel Prize: Lars Åström archive https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1993/taylor/photo-gallery/ Dr Coetzee: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannes-coetzee-5a2a4561/?originalSubdomain=za Prof. Maskell https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26383713/mh370s-search-new-technology-mystery/ WSPR Spot Database https://www.wsprnet.org/olddb [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk)

Source quotes

[54:19] Mentour Pilot: This horrific story have already led to improvements in tracking commercial aircraft over oceans, longer life for emergency locator transmitters and better ATC procedures for tracking aircraft, but we can't lay this to rest before the wreckage is actually found. [24:45] Mentour Pilot: The only simulation that got close included a manually-flown turn, meaning that the autopilot must have been disconnected.

Source quotes

[0:00] Petter Hörnfeldt: This story is created with one goal and one goal only, and that is to persuade the authorities to restart the search for the missing Boeing 777.

Original transcript

[0:00] (somber music) [0:03] (typewriter clicking) [0:07] (typewriter chimes) [0:09] (typewriter clicking) [0:12] (typewriter chimes) [0:15] (somber music continues) [0:36] - How can a Boeing 777, one of the biggest [0:38] and most modern aircraft in the world, [0:40] just vanish without a trace? [0:45] It can't. [0:50] Everything lost leaves a trace. [0:57] - And a Malaysia Airlines flight with 239 people on board-- [1:01] - MH370. - Flight 370. [1:03] - Flight MH370... (indistinct) [1:06] - Stay back! [1:07] - There are mysteries in the world [1:08] and then there is the story of MH370. [1:12] This is a story so full of questions and theories [1:15] that it's almost impossible to tell it [1:17] without resorting to pure speculation. [1:21] This is the reason I have refrained [1:22] from covering it up until now. [1:24] But since at the time of this video's release [1:26] it's gone 10 years since 239 people [1:30] disappeared without a trace, [1:31] I've decided to make an exception. [1:34] This story is created with one goal and one goal only, [1:38] and that is to persuade the authorities [1:40] to restart the search for the missing Boeing 777. [1:43] And with that, hopefully also provide some closure [1:46] to the families, some of which I've been [1:48] in contact with before making this video. [1:51] I will, today, share with you new potential evidence [1:53] based partially on a technology [1:55] that has been enhanced and refined over the last few years, [1:58] to the point where it now possibly can provide new clues [2:01] to where this aircraft finally ended up. [2:05] This is the story of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, [2:08] as far as we know it. [2:12] - [MH370 Captain] Good night, Malaysia 370. [2:22] On the 7th of March, 2014, a crew from Malaysian Airlines [2:26] checked in for a night duty which was to take them [2:28] from Kuala Lumpur International Airport [2:30] in Malaysia up to Beijing International in China. [2:34] Except for the late start time, [2:35] it was supposed to be a quite nice duty [2:38] with a calculated flight time [2:39] of only five hours and 34 minutes, [2:41] meaning that they would eventually [2:43] be finished in Beijing around mid-morning the following day. [2:46] The captain of the flight arrived first and signed in [2:48] at the Malaysian Airlines crew room at local time 22:50. [2:53] He was then followed by his colleague, [2:55] the first officer, around 25 minutes later. [2:58] This was planned as a training flight for the first officer, [3:01] since he was completing a transition type course [3:04] over from the Airbus A330 to the Boeing 777, [3:07] which they would be flying on this flight. [3:10] The training had gone really well up until this point, [3:13] and if everything went fine on this flight, [3:15] he would be recommended for final line check [3:17] by the captain for the following duty. [3:20] Having said that, this was the first time [3:22] that these two pilots were planned to fly together, [3:24] which might explain why the captain [3:26] had turned up a little bit earlier. [3:28] You see, it's pretty common for us instructors to do so [3:31] if we need to review someone's training file, [3:33] for example, before the flight [3:34] to check out if there's any areas [3:36] that might require special attention. [3:39] In any case, once the first officer [3:41] had also signed in, the two pilots proceeded [3:43] by going through the pre-flight briefing, [3:45] which from what they could see looked pretty straightforward. [3:48] The weather in Kuala Lumpur was generally nice and dominated [3:52] by a sub-tropical high pressure centered over Thailand, [3:55] and the weather at their destination, Beijing, [3:57] also looked quite good from what they could see. [4:00] The only potential issue was [4:01] that about two-thirds down the route, [4:03] they would be passing through a pretty strong jet stream [4:06] with high winds, which could cause a bit of turbulence, [4:09] but apart from that, it was looking pretty straightforward. [4:12] With that in mind, and no NOTAMs affecting [4:15] the flight either, the pilots then turned [4:16] their attention to the flight plan. [4:19] There were two alternates listed for Beijing, [4:21] and taking into consideration both of these, [4:23] the pilots decided on a final fuel of 49,100 kilos, [4:28] which was in line with the expected amount for this flight, [4:31] neither substantially more nor less than required. [4:34] This fuel would give the aircraft an approximate endurance [4:37] of seven hours and 31 minutes, around two hours longer [4:40] than the anticipated flight time, [4:43] and that will, of course, become very important in this story. [4:47] So who were the pilots [4:49] that were going to be in charge of this flight then? [4:51] Well, the captain was a 53-year-old [4:53] with a 33-year great track record in Malaysia Airlines. [4:57] He was married with three children, [4:59] and on his spare time, he was involved [5:01] in a local opposition party, helped deliver groceries [5:04] to elderly, and tinker with some home electronics. [5:07] He had also started a YouTube channel, [5:09] which by the way is still there, [5:11] where he showed how to mend certain home appliances, [5:14] and also, crucially, where he showed off his home simulator, [5:17] which he had built to be able to practice his trade at home. [5:20] This simulator would later be investigated thoroughly. [5:23] It had been erased weeks before the flight, [5:26] but the investigator still found [5:27] some manually-entered waypoints of interest [5:30] in a backup memory, but without it proving [5:33] to be anything conclusive. [5:35] In any case, the captain had stable finances, [5:38] no known illnesses, and was regarded as a solid, [5:40] reliable member of his community. [5:43] In terms of his aviation career, [5:45] it had started when he was accepted [5:46] into a sponsored program for Malaysian Airlines [5:48] already back in 1981. [5:51] He completed his licenses, [5:52] and then started flying for them back in 1983. [5:56] He then worked his way up the ranks, starting [5:58] on the Fokker F27, and then the 737-200, [6:02] Airbus A300, and finally, [6:04] he got his first command on the Fokker 50. [6:07] This was then followed by command on the 737 -400, [6:10] and the Airbus A330, [6:11] until actually on my birthday,line:1 the 22nd of September 1998, [6:15] he received his command on the Boeing 777, [6:18] which he then continued to operate [6:19] until the day of this flight. [6:22] His good track record and seniority eventually gave him [6:25] the opportunity to also become a type-rating instructor, [6:28] as well as an examiner on this type, [6:30] and it was in this capacity that he was going [6:32] to operate Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 on this evening. [6:36] He had a total experience of just over 18,400 hours, [6:40] and 8,659 of those had been flown on the Boeing 777. [6:45] The first officer was 27 years old and single. [6:48] He had also been accepted into the airline as a cadet pilot, [6:51] started in 2008, and he had been flying initially [6:54] on the Boeing 737-400. [6:57] He had then changed over to the Airbus A330 fleet in 2012, [7:00] and then on to the Boeing 777 in November 2013, [7:03] just a few months before this flight, [7:06] and this was obviously why he was still in training. [7:09] He had a total experience of just over 2,800 hours, [7:12] and very little, only 39 hours on the type. [7:16] There is not much more mentioned about the first officer [7:18] in the final report, except that he was known [7:20] as a nice person with stable economy [7:22] and no recent major changes in his life. [7:26] Now, given the vast difference in experience, [7:28] seniority, and the fact that this was a training flight, [7:31] it can be easily assumed that the power gradient [7:34] in the cockpit would have been quite steep, [7:36] but nothing indicated any personal issues [7:38] between these two colleagues. [7:40] Both of them had also received more than the required rest [7:44] before the flight, and their licenses [7:45] and medicals were all up to date. [7:49] When the pilots had completed [7:50] their pre-flight preparation and training briefing, [7:53] they walked over to their 10 cabin crew members [7:55] that they were scheduled to operate together with. [7:57] This was a vastly experienced crew, [8:00] with the most junior attendant having flown for 13 years, [8:03] and the most senior, over 35 years. [8:05] So the briefing would have been pretty quick and efficient. [8:09] After they were finished, they all walked together [8:11] out to the aircraft that was being prepared [8:13] for them by the ground crew outside. [8:16] It was a majestic Boeing 777-200ER, [8:20] equipped with two Rolls Royce Trent 892B turbofan engines, [8:25] and it was in perfect working condition [8:27] according to the tech log. [8:29] The only point of interest was that [8:30] the flight crew oxygen cylinder had been topped up [8:32] just prior to the flight, but this was a routine maintenance thing. [8:36] Now, there are numerous systems aboard [8:38] this aircraft that will become important for this story, [8:40] and in order to explain it, I will have to become [8:43] quite technical in some places, [8:45] but also that's kind of what we do here on the channel. [8:48] Anyway, the two pilots had decided [8:50] that the first officer was going [8:52] to be pilot flying for this flight, [8:53] meaning that he immediately started completing [8:55] the pre-flight preparation [8:56] as soon as he arrived to the cockpit. [8:59] This included inputting flight information, [9:02] like the flight number and the airline info [9:04] into the FMC CDU, which he did at time 23:56:08. [9:09] Now, you might wonder how we can know that so exactly, [9:13] and this has to do with a system [9:14] that will play an incredibly important role here, [9:17] the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, [9:21] more commonly referred to as ACARS. [9:23] This is a digital data link system, [9:25] which connects data providers on the ground [9:27] directly to the aircraft via either VHF [9:30] or satellite communications. [9:32] It enables people on the ground [9:33] to send things like updated weather, [9:35] flight plans and even make calls [9:37] or send messages directly to the aircraft when it's airborne. [9:40] And the part of this system which is going [9:42] to be most important here [9:44] is the satellite communications or SATCOM system. [9:47] The ACARS system booted up and established a link [9:50] through the SATCOM at time 23:54. [9:52] And about one minute and 20 seconds later, it captured [9:55] the first officer's inputs as I just mentioned before. [9:58] This showed that the system worked fine [10:01] in the beginning of this flight, and it's worth noting here [10:03] that the system uses two different satellite antennas, [10:06] depending on if the aircraft's [10:08] navigation system is working or not. [10:10] Remember that. [10:12] Anyway, as the first officer was working away [10:14] in the cockpit, he soon received an ACARS message [10:16] containing something known as a NOTOC. [10:19] Frequent viewers of this channel will know that this stands [10:22] for notification to captain, and is normally sent out [10:26] if the aircraft will be carrying dangerous goods. [10:28] In this case, there were actually no dangerous goods on board, [10:32] just some special load being loaded, [10:34] consisting of several tons of mangosteens [10:36] which apparently had a tendency to leak juice and water [10:40] and therefore, had to be checked closely. [10:42] The NOTOC message confirmed that the cargo had been checked [10:45] and that it wasn't leaking, but what it didn't say [10:48] was that there were also nearly two and a half tons [10:50] of lithium ion batteries loaded on board. [10:53] But these batteries were individually packaged [10:55] and stored in such a way that they [10:57] were not considered dangerous goods, [10:59] and they have therefore been ruled out [11:00] as a possible cause for what's about to happen. [11:04] Eventually, the captain returned from his walk-around, [11:06] and together with his colleague, they completed the rest [11:08] of the preflight preparations and briefings. [11:10] At time 23:25, the first officer called up Kuala Lumpur delivery [11:14] to request their departure clearance. [11:22] The delivery controller told them that they were clear [11:24] to follow the PIBOS-1A departure [11:27] from Runway 32R and initially climbed [11:29] to 6,000 feet with transponder code 2157. [11:40] This was read back by the first officer [11:42] and less than two minutes later, [11:43] Malaysia 370 also requested push and start, [11:47] which was almost immediately approved. [12:12] After the pushback, the aircraft received its taxi clearance [12:15] and then started taxiing out [12:16] towards runway 32 Right through the dark Malaysian night. [12:20] And for anyone watching the aircraft, [12:21] everything looked completely normal, [12:23] but this was going to be the last time [12:26] anyone saw this aircraft with their own eyes. [12:29] So what about the passengers then? [12:31] Well, there were 227 passengers on board, [12:34] coming from 14 different nations. [12:37] 153 were from China, making those the largest group, [12:40] followed by 50 from Malaysia and seven from Indonesia. [12:44] Two of those passengers were later found to have been flying [12:46] on stolen passports and they were identified [12:49] as Iranians, who were most likely looking [12:51] for refugee status and were not considered a threat. [12:56] None of the other passengers raised any type of suspicion, [12:59] and this means that in total, there were 239 passengers [13:02] and crew on board when the giant Boeing 777 lined up [13:05] on runway 32R and started spooling up its engines. [13:10] And I'll tell you all about what happened next, [13:12] right after this... [13:13] Talking about leaving traces, [13:15] did you know that there's a whole industry out there, [13:17] known as data brokers who live off selling [13:19] your digital traces off to the highest bidder? [13:22] What they do is they snoop up things like your address book, [13:25] contact details, financial data and even family information [13:28] and then sell it on to scammers, financial institutions [13:31] and even spam mails. [13:33] Now this is totally legal unless you tell [13:36] each and every one of them to stop [13:38] and that's where today's sponsor, Incogni, comes in. [13:41] Incogni basically works as a guardian [13:43] of your digital footprint [13:44] and they will work diligently to contact [13:46] all of those companies for you [13:48] and then scrub your name off their lists. [13:51] They will then make sure that you don't reappear [13:53] for as long as you stay with them, [13:54] constantly scanning to make sure [13:55] that your name doesn't appear with any new company. [13:59] When I signed up, I was amazed [14:00] when I looked at my dashboard [14:02] and could see just how widespread my data was [14:05] and it didn't take long after I signed up [14:07] for the amount of spam [14:09] and irritating robocalls to start decreasing. [14:12] So if you are ready to start taking control [14:14] over your online presence then consider giving Incogni a try. [14:17] And if you use this link here below, [14:19] which is incogni.com/pilot with the code pilot, [14:23] you will get an exclusive 60% discount off the annual plan. [14:26] Thank you, Incogni. Now let's continue. [14:29] At 40 minutes and 37 seconds past midnight [14:32] on the 8th of March, Kuala Lumpur tower [14:34] cleared Malaysian Airlines flight 370 for takeoff. [14:46] The first officer was at the controls [14:47] at this point and had therefore, [14:49] handed over the radio to the captain and after the engines [14:51] were stabilized, he pushed [14:52] the TO/GA buttons and the aircraft [14:53] started accelerating down the runway. [14:56] At 42 minutes past midnight, [14:58] the SATCOM system recorded that the aircraft was airborne [15:01] and it then continued to transmit [15:03] the aircraft's identification codes [15:04] together with all of the other normal data [15:07] and this just showed that everything [15:08] was completely normal at that stage. [15:12] The procedures in Kuala Lumpur was for the pilots [15:14] to automatically switch over to the departure frequency [15:16] after takeoff so that's exactly what the captain now also did. [15:21] Once he called up and identified himself [15:23] the departure controller told them [15:24] to cancel the standard instrument departure [15:27] and instead proceed direct towards a waypoint called IGARI [15:30] and continue the climb to flight level 180. [15:33] It's pretty common that controllers [15:35] give clearances like this especially at night [15:37] when there's typically less traffic [15:39] and therefore easier to give these kind of directs. [15:42] The captain just read back the clearance [15:45] and then selected IGARI as the active waypoint in the FMC. [15:49] The first officer would have then verified it, [15:51] told him to execute the routing [15:52] and then selected flight level 180 in the mode control panel [15:55] for the captain to verify just like they [15:57] would have done thousands of times before. [16:01] At this stage of the flight, [16:02] everything was still completely normal [16:04] and when you listen to the ATC tapes, [16:06] the voice level of the captain [16:07] is completely relaxed and routine. [16:10] The aircraft continued its climb [16:11] towards IGARI and they were eventually changed over [16:14] to the next frequency, Lumpur Radar on 132.6. [16:19] This was going to be the controller looking after them [16:21] until they reached IGARI [16:22] and the FIR boundary towards Vietnam. [16:33] The captain read back this handover more or less exactly [16:36] as he should by confirming the new frequency [16:38] and giving his call sign, again sounding completely normal. [16:42] When he called up the new area controller, [16:44] he was told that they could continue [16:45] their climb to flight level 250 which he also read back [16:49] and only three minutes later, they received further clearance [16:52] to climb to the requested cruise level, flight level 350. [16:57] As flight 370 progressed up towards the northeast, [17:00] they were still fully visible on radar [17:02] for all involved ATC units. [17:04] And here, it's probably a good time [17:06] to start explaining a bit about radars in general. [17:09] There are two different types of radar [17:11] to keep in mind for this episode: [17:13] primary radar, which is also referred to as raw radar [17:16] and secondary radar. [17:19] Under normal circumstances, [17:20] commercial air traffic always uses both of them [17:23] but the secondary radar is what gives [17:25] the majority of the information. [17:27] It is dependent on a small radio transmitter [17:29] known as a transponder on board the aircraft [17:32] and this transponder will be identified [17:34] by a four-letter numerical code [17:36] with numbers from zero to seven. [17:39] Remember that was the code [17:40] that the first officer received earlier [17:41] as part of the departure clearance. [17:44] Now there are two transponders on board the aircraft [17:46] and the active one will, [17:47] when it's activated by the pilots, [17:49] send air traffic control loads of information like position, [17:52] altitude, speed and even MCP selections in some cases. [17:56] The transponders also communicate [17:57] with other traffic and therefore enables TCAS maneuvering. [18:01] And it's these transponders that makes apps [18:03] like FlightRadar24 work since anyone can pick up [18:06] the ADS-B signals that they transmit. [18:10] But the key thing to remember here [18:11] is that the transponders are on board the aircraft [18:14] and without them functioning, secondary radar will not work [18:17] and neither will those websites or TCAS. [18:22] And this brings us to the primary radar [18:24] which is an invention that has been with us [18:26] for a very long time by now. [18:29] In this essence, it works on a simple idea [18:31] of sending out a radio pulse and then measuring any waves [18:34] that might hit a target and then bounce back to the receiver. [18:38] The direction those returning waves are then coming from [18:41] will give a bearing towards the target. [18:44] Obviously, this technology has become much more refined [18:47] since it was first invented, making it much more complex [18:49] but you get the general idea. [18:52] This type of radar can be used to see things [18:55] that are not transmitting any information voluntarily [18:58] and is therefore often used by the military. [19:01] But given the nature of shortwave radio signals, [19:04] this type of radar has a quite limited range [19:06] and cannot accurately track altitude and speed very well, [19:09] something that will become important soon. [19:13] At one minute and 14 seconds past one in the morning [19:17] the captain of Malaysian Flight 370, [19:19] called up the Lumpur Area controller [19:21] to advise him that they were now level at flight level 350. [19:32] This was acknowledged by the controller [19:33] but this was not a necessary call to make by the captain. [19:37] It was more of a courtesy thing. [19:39] But you could still hear from the sound of his voice [19:42] that he was relaxed when he made this call [19:44] from the way that his intonation [19:46] kind of dropped towards the end. [19:52] And it's from here on that I have a feeling [19:54] that we can see the first indication [19:56] of something being slightly out of order. [19:59] Now I want to make it absolutely clear [20:01] that nothing in the final report [20:02] has highlighted that whatever happened [20:04] started as early as here [20:05] but I personally reacted to something [20:07] that was just briefly mentioned in the report. [20:11] You see, about seven minutes after the captain called in [20:14] that they were level at flight level 350, [20:16] he called up again and reported the very same thing. [20:25] In the report, this was highlighted as anomalous [20:27] but the experts didn't think [20:29] that it was worth paying any attention to but I disagree. [20:33] You see, we pilots tend to make these extra calls [20:36] for two different reasons. [20:39] The first is that we hav just simply forgotten about it [20:41] and therefore, call again just to be on the safe side [20:44] but like I said earlier, this was not a mandatory call to make. [20:48] The other reason we do it is because we've been away [20:51] from the frequency for a while maybe because we have [20:53] been fiddling with the radios or turned down the volume [20:56] or something else, and we just want to make sure [20:58] that ATC hasn't tried to call us while we were gone. [21:03] You see if we make that call again [21:04] and ATC just responds, "Roger" or something similar, [21:08] well then we know that they haven't been trying to call us [21:10] because if they would have, [21:12] they would now repeat any other messages [21:14] that they had previously tried to send. [21:17] So with that in mind, there were seven minutes [21:19] between the first call and the second call [21:22] which means that something might have happened [21:24] to take the captain away from the radio between those calls. [21:29] The other thing that I reacted to [21:31] was the tone of voice of the captain [21:33] when he made that second call. [21:40] Again, the experts in the report [21:42] said that they couldn't detect any stress [21:44] in the voice from the recordings [21:45] but what I am hearing is a clear difference in pitch [21:49] between the first and the second call. [21:51] In the first, the captain sounds relaxed [21:54] with a clear dropping intonation towards the end [21:57] and in the second, he just sounds busy, [21:59] like he's working on something [22:01] at the same time that he's making that call. [22:12] This, the sound of workload, [22:14] is something that I often hear in the simulator [22:16] as well as when I'm doing training in the aircraft [22:19] and that's why I reacted to it when I heard it. [22:23] Anyway, as expected the controller just responded with... [22:30] Now, this doesn't have to mean anything and I don't want [22:33] to speculate any further on this detail [22:35] but I thought it was worth to highlight, [22:37] given what's soon about to happen. [22:41] So the aircraft continued its cleared track up towards IGARI [22:44] and within minutes of that last call from the captain, [22:47] the ACARS sent out its last complete routine message [22:50] via SATCOM down to the ground station. [22:53] After this, there would be a complete silence [22:56] from the aircraft SATCOM for almost one hour and 17 minutes. [23:00] This detail is super important because it tells us a lot [23:04] about what likely happened in the cockpit [23:06] but I'll get back to that soon. [23:08] At time 01:19:24, the Lumpur Area controller [23:13] instructed Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 [23:15] to contact Ho Chi Minh control on frequency 120.9. [23:24] This happened about one minute [23:25] before the aircraft flew past IGARI, [23:27] so they were still technically in Malaysian airspace [23:30] but would soon pass into Vietnam. [23:33] And this is where the very last radio transmission occurred [23:37] from Flight 370 with the captain simply answering... [23:47] Now for some people, [23:48] that might have sounded like an ominous farewell [23:51] but what I heard was once again someone who was busy, [23:54] so busy in fact that he didn't complete the readback correctly. [23:58] Like I mentioned before, all frequencies we are given [24:01] must always be read back to avoid mistakes [24:04] but that was not done in this call. [24:07] In any case, now things started happening very quickly. [24:11] Five seconds after the aircraft flew past IGARI [24:14] the Mode S functionality of the transponder, [24:16] that was the part that gives [24:17] that extra information was suddenly switched off. [24:21] Now the only way to switch off only that [24:23] is to turn the transponder knob [24:25] in the cockpit from TA/RA to the altitude-off position. [24:30] A technical malfunction would have removed [24:32] all signals completely and immediately [24:34] but in this case, it took another 37 seconds [24:37] for the secondary radar return to completely disappear [24:40] and as it did, the aircraft abruptly [24:42] stopped following the planned route. [24:45] We know this because the primary radar recorded a turn [24:49] and what it registered was that after the initial right turn [24:52] towards a point called BITOD, the aircraft now started [24:55] a sharp, almost 180-degree left turn instead. [25:00] Now Boeing tried to replicate this turn in the simulator [25:03] but weren't able to match up [25:05] the turn and the timings perfectly. [25:07] The only simulation that got close [25:09] included a manually-flown turn, [25:11] meaning that the autopilot must have been disconnected. [25:15] And why is that you might ask? [25:17] Well, the autopilot will only allow certain bank angles [25:20] and this turn was so tight that a much steeper bank [25:23] must have been used, at least, partially throughout the turn [25:26] in order to accomplish it. [25:28] The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this [25:31] is that someone had now started interfering [25:33] with the flight's trajectory on purpose. [25:36] The timing and position of where all of this took place [25:38] also looks far from random. [25:41] IGARI was the point just before the FIR boundary [25:44] between Malaysia and Vietnam which meant [25:46] that the controller from a new country [25:48] would now be taking over the responsibility for the flight. [25:51] The Malaysian controller which formerly still had [25:53] the responsibility had handed the aircraft over [25:55] and therefore, probably didn't monitor it too closely. [25:59] And the new Ho Chi Minh controller would likely wait [26:02] until the aircraft called him up [26:04] before starting to pay much attention to it [26:05] which is also exactly what now happened. [26:09] Given this, it was the perfect place [26:12] to initiate this maneuver [26:13] if the intention was to try to avoid detection. [26:17] And now you might ask why disengage the autopilot? [26:19] Why not just complete the turn? [26:22] Well, just to the north of IGARI, Thailand has something known [26:26] as an Air Defense Identification Zone [26:28] which on a high level chart, [26:30] shows up as two dotted parallel purple lines. [26:34] As the name suggests, the Thai military [26:36] would be monitoring any traffic entering [26:38] into that zone and follow it up [26:40] unless it was properly identified, [26:42] had a working transponder and followed a filed flight plan. [26:47] By carefully avoiding that zone, whoever was now in control [26:50] would also avoid any direct scrutiny from the Thai military [26:53] and given the direction the aircraft was now turning, [26:56] it's likely that anyone looking at the primary radar would assume [26:59] that the aircraft was just diverting [27:01] still under Malaysian control. [27:03] This turn would also position the aircraft [27:05] between that Thai ADIZ and Airway M765, [27:10] which would avoid any opposite traffic. [27:14] This shows us that whoever was now in control [27:16] was likely very well versed with the airspace structure [27:20] over this particular area [27:21] and that this was likely very carefully planned out. [27:26] After the U-turn was finished, [27:27] the aircraft continued in a semi-straight line [27:30] down towards the southwest and a VOR beacon known [27:33] as Victor Papa Golf near Penang in Malaysia. [27:37] The track showed small deviations consistent [27:39] with an aircraft being flown manually and not on autopilot. [27:43] Now since these radar echoes were only captured [27:46] on raw radar, it was impossible [27:47] to get any reliable speed or altitude data from them. [27:51] It is possible that the aircraft descended slightly [27:54] during this segment maybe to gain a higher true air speed [27:58] as it was overflying Malaysia. [28:00] This theory was further corroborated [28:02] by the fact that a Celcom mobile mast on the island of Penang [28:06] briefly detected a mobile phone signal [28:08] which was later confirmed [28:09] to have come from the first office's phone. [28:12] Those type of signals generally have [28:14] a very limited vertical range, [28:16] maximum around 30,000 feet and often much lower than that [28:20] but given that atmospheric conditions [28:22] have huge impact on the range, [28:24] it's very hard to speculate here. [28:27] But since turning off the mobile phone [28:29] is a checklist item in most airlines this could indicate [28:33] that the first officer was trying to communicate here [28:35] but no call signals ever came through [28:38] and the signal was only detected for a very short while. [28:42] But what is really intriguing during this segment [28:45] of the flight is another system [28:47] that we have already talked about a little bit [28:49] which is the SATCOM system. [28:51] You see the SATCOM sends out regular interrogations every hour [28:55] if no other information is being transmitted. [28:59] And when the ground base station tried [29:01] to uplink an ACARS message [29:02] at time three minutes past two in the morning, [29:05] it didn't receive any acknowledgement [29:07] back from the aircraft SATCOM. [29:09] So what does that mean then? [29:12] Well if the ACARS system was just switched off or failed, [29:17] the link would still take place. [29:18] It would just communicate the fact that ACARS wasn't working. [29:21] And if the system was manually logged off from the cockpit, [29:25] this would also be shown in that log. [29:28] And because none of that happened, [29:29] the most likely reason for this SATCOM loss [29:32] was a power failure to the system itself. [29:36] Now this system can be powered [29:38] from several different electrical buses [29:40] and from most of the aircraft's redundant power sources [29:43] so this fact has led some [29:45] incredibly-experienced Boeing 777 pilots [29:48] whose excellent work I will be linking to [29:50] in the description, by the way, [29:51] to believe that whoever was in charge of the aircraft [29:54] after that initial turn must have [29:56] manually turned off all of those sources. [30:00] This can be done by deselecting both [30:02] the primary and backup generators [30:04] from their buses using the buttons on the overhead panel. [30:08] After that, the aircraft would react [30:10] by trying to auto start the APU [30:12] in order to replace those systems. [30:13] So the person in charge would then have to put [30:16] the APU switch to on and then back off again [30:18] to stop that auto start from happening. [30:21] If that would happen, that would then trigger [30:23] the Ram Air Turbine, the rat to be activated either manually [30:26] or automatically and it would start [30:28] to provide electrical power [30:30] for the most critical systems like primary flight displays, [30:33] navigation displays and navigation equipment [30:36] but not the autopilot. [30:38] Hydraulic movement of the flight controls [30:40] would not be a problem [30:41] since both engines were still working [30:43] and providing hydraulics so maneuvering the aircraft manually [30:46] would still work perfectly fine. [30:48] Now, of course, removing the primary power sources [30:51] in this way would cause everything else [30:53] except emergency lighting to go black in the aircraft [30:56] and it's likely that this would make things very difficult [30:59] for both the crew and the passengers in the back. [31:02] And while we're on the subject of the passengers and crew, [31:05] I want to point out here that we really have no idea [31:08] about what actually happened to them. [31:11] Some theories suggested that whoever was in charge [31:14] might have depressurized the cabin [31:16] in order to get everyone into their seats [31:18] and keep them under control. [31:20] This is possible to do by just opening [31:22] the outflow valves manually [31:23] whilst still keeping the air conditioning running. [31:26] The fact that the air conditioning was kept running [31:28] would provide heating and make it bearable in the cockpit [31:31] as it otherwise would become freezing cold almost immediately. [31:35] The passenger oxygen masks would then drop [31:37] in the back but the oxygen generators [31:39] in the 777 would only last for about 22 minutes or so. [31:43] But the oxygen cylinder which is providing [31:45] the cockpit crew with oxygen would last a full 27 hours [31:49] in case there's only one person using it [31:51] and it had, like I mentioned before [31:54] been topped up just that very morning. [31:57] This means that if the cabin was kept un-pressurized [32:00] without descending, the passengers [32:02] would become completely incapacitated [32:04] once the oxygen generator stopped working. [32:07] But whoever was still in the cockpit [32:09] would be able to just continue to operate just fine. [32:13] The time of useful consciousness at 35,000 feet [32:16] is about one minute, extending to a few minutes at 30,000 feet [32:20] and anyone subjected to those altitudes [32:22] without supplemental oxygen, would after that, not be able [32:25] to take any rational decisions and soon become unconscious. [32:30] After that, if no oxygen would be provided, [32:32] it would take another 20 minutes or so until death would occur. [32:40] But like I said before, we don't know for a fact what happened [32:43] and we won't know more until the aircraft is found [32:46] which is why it is so important that we continue the search. [32:51] Now flying an aircraft at these altitudes manually [32:54] whilst possibly wearing an oxygen mask [32:56] and with only rudimentary navigation available [32:59] would be quite tiring and that's likely why [33:02] the radar images were showing these small heading variations. [33:06] Anyway, at this stage the aircraft continued [33:09] to be tracked by both civilian and military raw radar [33:12] as it continued its way around the south of Penang [33:15] where it started turning right through the Malacca Strait. [33:19] There were temporary lapses in the radar coverage [33:22] but all in all, it painted a fairly clear picture [33:25] of an aircraft flying in a controlled way [33:27] and not in any way random. [33:30] So why wasn't the aircraft intercepted [33:34] or tracked more closely then? [33:36] Well, this was due to a combination [33:39] of factors and misunderstandings [33:40] between different air traffic control units [33:42] and the operations controllers in Malaysia Airlines headquarters. [33:46] When the aircraft first disappeared from radar, [33:49] it took around 20 minutes before the Ho Chi Minh controller [33:52] called up the Malaysian controller [33:54] to ask about where the aircraft actually was. [33:58] Now this was significantly longer [34:00] than the standard five minutes it should take [34:02] before a query is sent but like I mentioned before [34:05] this happened at an intersection between two different countries [34:08] in the middle of the night, so it's likely that the controllers [34:11] were just dealing with other traffic [34:13] and didn't monitor their strips too closely. [34:17] When the Malaysian controller [34:18] who was still technically responsible [34:20] for the flight was made aware of the missing aircraft, [34:22] he eventually contacted Malaysian Airlines who confirmed [34:25] that they could see the aircraft flying up through Cambodia. [34:30] This meant that the air traffic controllers [34:31] now started contacting their colleagues along the route [34:34] that the aircraft was thought to be flying [34:36] to see if they could get into contact with them [34:39] and this in turn meant that none of them [34:41] saw the lonely faint radar echo [34:44] that was traveling southwest instead. [34:47] It was later found out [34:48] that the Malaysian Airlines' tracking software [34:50] was basing the position of the aircraft on predictions [34:53] when it didn't receive any real data [34:55] and that's what had caused that initial confusion. [34:59] Now the military did see the aircraft turning left after IGARI [35:03] but since it wasn't violating any new airspace, [35:06] they assumed it was just a normal air turnback [35:08] and didn't raise any further alarms [35:10] or send anyone up to intercept. [35:13] It was only later, with the help of radar playbacks [35:16] that the picture of MH370's true path became clearer. [35:21] After the aircraft had turned right [35:23] up towards the northwest it looked like it was heading [35:25] towards a waypoint called VAMPI. [35:28] The SATCOM system still had not logged on at this stage [35:30] so we can assume that the aircraft was still flying [35:32] in a power degraded state, [35:34] possibly only with the ram air turbine as a power source [35:37] but even if that was the case, [35:39] navigation would still not be a problem. [35:42] The VPG VOR was still well within range, [35:45] meaning that the aircraft could use raw data navigation [35:47] to find VAMPI and the waypoint could also be displayed [35:51] on the aircraft's navigation display, [35:53] so whoever was flying could just point the nose towards it. [35:56] VAMPI was soon passed [35:58] and the now more and more faint radar echo [36:01] continued flying up in the general direction [36:03] of airway N571 towards another waypoint called MEKAR. [36:08] And it's soon after the aircraft passed slightly to the south [36:10] of that waypoint, at time 02:22:12 [36:14] that all conventional radar traces [36:16] from this flight completely disappeared. [36:24] Now there is a real possibility [36:25] that there were military radars picking up signals [36:28] from this aircraft for longer than this [36:30] but given the sensitivity around showing military capability [36:34] or positions of mobile radars, [36:36] we haven't seen any such information come forward. [36:39] So this means that from this point onwards [36:42] we are now going into the unknown [36:44] and with that, comes speculation or hypothesis [36:46] which you all know I try to avoid on this channel [36:50] so let's instead try to stay with what we do know. [36:55] In order to further track this aircraft, [36:56] the investigators, scientific community, [36:59] and several commercial companies [37:00] had to start using any data received in completely new ways [37:05] and a great example of this, is the Inmarsat data. [37:09] Inmarsat is, as the name suggests, [37:11] a company providing satellite communication services [37:13] and it was through their satellite [37:15] that the SATCOM system for the aircraft ACARS was operating. [37:19] The signals these satellites [37:21] were sending were never designed to track aircrafts [37:23] but since there were signals exchanged [37:26] with MH370, those signals could be reverse-engineered [37:30] to provide a crude singular position indicator [37:33] every time that they appeared. [37:35] The way this was done was basically [37:37] by mimicking certain parts of the GPS system. [37:41] You see each GPS satellite [37:43] is basically an extremely accurate [37:45] timing device and when a device [37:47] on earth like your phone [37:48] or, in this case, a Boeing 777 connects to one of them, [37:51] the GPS satellite transmits [37:53] a quick signal which basically says [37:55] this is where I am and this is the time right now. [37:58] That signal then travels at the speed [38:00] of light which still takes a certain amount of time [38:03] to arrive to your device. [38:05] That time is measured to determine how far away you are [38:09] from that GPS satellite and with the satellite's position [38:12] and your distance from it, we can determine [38:14] that you are somewhere along the radius of a circle. [38:18] Then obviously your device will connect to multiple satellites [38:21] with each one of them drawing its own circle [38:23] and where all of these circles meet, [38:25] well, that's where you are. [38:28] So in the case of the Inmarsat data, [38:29] this same technique could basically also be used. [38:31] Each time the aircraft connected to the satellite using [38:34] the SATCOM system, the time its system took [38:37] to respond to the satellite signals was recorded. [38:41] The same happened at regular intervals [38:42] when the satellite checked that the plane was still connected [38:45] and each of these connections, [38:48] seven of them in total are the famous handshakes [38:50] that were reported about basically everywhere. [38:54] Every one of those handshakes [38:55] could then be used to place the missing aircraft [38:57] somewhere along a circle at a specific point of time [39:00] and that process of defining a circle or arc [39:03] is called burst timing offset or BTO. [39:06] But this was not the only information [39:08] that the Inmarsat signals could provide. [39:11] Analysts could also pick up another value [39:13] in the signal, something known [39:14] as burst frequency offset or BFO. [39:18] BFO gave information that could help [39:20] the investigators determine how [39:22] the aircraft was moving in relation to the satellite. [39:25] As its name suggests, it involved studying [39:28] the actual frequencies of the signal that the satellite received [39:31] and then how they differed from the expected frequencies. [39:35] Think of this like the way an ambulance siren seems [39:38] to change its tone as it drives towards and then past you. [39:42] When it's coming towards you, [39:43] the sound waves are denser, [39:45] making for a higher frequency and after it goes past you, [39:48] the sound waves moves further apart, [39:50] giving the tone a lower frequency. [39:53] This is called the Doppler effect or the Doppler shift [39:56] and primary radars actually also use this [39:58] in the same way to determine, [39:59] for example, the speed of an aircraft. [40:02] Now I am, of course, oversimplifying these concepts [40:04] a bit here but in the case of MH370, [40:07] since these signals between the aircraft [40:09] and the satellite traveled mostly vertically, [40:12] the burst frequency offset or BFO was instead used [40:15] to help investigators determine [40:16] whether the aircraft was climbing or descending. [40:20] Now those of you who have been paying attention [40:22] will have noticed that I have said [40:24] that the SATCOM system was not working [40:26] so how could the Inmarsat analyst get any of these handshakes? [40:31] Well, here is where we get to a really interesting development [40:35] that happened at time 02:25:27. [40:39] Then, all of a sudden the previously [40:41] non-responsive SATCOM system of MH370 [40:43] suddenly came back to life [40:45] and proceeded to start sending a logon request to the satellite. [40:50] This would later be referred to as the first handshake. [40:54] This happened almost exactly one hour [40:56] after the aircraft had completed its turn [40:58] after IGARI and the interesting bit [41:01] is that the burst frequency offset value [41:03] in this first handshake was deemed unreliable [41:06] due to a quite large frequency error. [41:09] And what's making that so interesting then? [41:12] Well, it turns out that the quartz crystals used [41:15] in the SATCOM radio transmitters needed [41:18] to be kept at a constant temperature [41:20] to avoid big frequency oscillations. [41:23] This was achieved with the help [41:24] of something known as an oven-controlled crystal oscillator [41:28] which was basically a temperature controller [41:30] and it needed time to warm up [41:33] after a lengthy power interruption. [41:35] So it is likely that it hadn't reached the correct temperature [41:39] at this point when the first logon message was sent, [41:41] hence the BFO frequency error. [41:44] And this is how we know that the aircraft [41:47] was likely powered down up until just prior to this point. [41:51] Science is truly amazing! [41:55] Now this first handshake also lacked a valid flight [41:58] and company ID which the aircraft [42:00] previously had transmitted correctly. [42:04] We cannot know this for sure, [42:05] but if the aircraft's power had been manually restored [42:08] at this point, well then the person in command [42:11] would likely also know that the SATCOM system [42:14] would soon boot up and start sending out data. [42:17] So in order to stay hidden, he would have had to manually go [42:21] into the multifunctional display [42:22] and disable all communications [42:24] through the communications manager page [42:27] before the satellite communication unit, [42:29] the SDU became fully operational. [42:32] If this was done this way, this would also raise the flight [42:35] and company info, which is exactly [42:38] what the data also showed. [42:40] So you can see, even though no data was actually sent out, [42:44] with a lot of ingenuity, the signals themselves [42:47] can actually tell us a lot about what was likely going on. [42:51] We also know, for example, [42:52] that the navigation system was working [42:54] because of which antenna [42:55] the SATCOM system was using when it started transmitting. [42:58] Like I said, amazing. [43:01] So using the Inmarsat data, we know for sure [43:04] that the aircraft continued to fly, [43:06] long enough to allow a total of seven handshakes [43:09] where the first and the last were logon requests [43:11] sent by the aircraft itself. [43:14] Like I explained before, these logon requests [43:16] were most probably caused by power interruptions, [43:18] where the last one was likely caused by the fuel starvation [43:21] of one or possibly both engines, [43:23] after the aircraft had flown [43:24] for around seven hours and 35 minutes. [43:28] That last handshake came at time 08:19 Malaysian time, [43:31] which corresponds quite well with the endurance [43:33] of the aircraft based on the recorded fuel. [43:37] These handshakes occurred roughly every hour, [43:39] since the system was sent to send out a ping every hour [43:42] unless other SATCOM activities were initiated. [43:45] Two of the handshakes were caused [43:47] by ground-based satellite calls [43:49] from the Malaysian Airlines Operations Center, [43:51] who reached the cockpit but was left unanswered. [43:54] Even so, they reset the hourly timing of the other handshakes, [43:58] and that's the reason why all of these seven handshakes [44:01] were not happening on the same hourly intervals. [44:05] But of course, we now have a huge problem. [44:11] Since the Inmarsat data was all coming [44:13] from one satellite, the arcs created [44:15] by these seven handshakes created multiple possible routes [44:19] that the aircraft might have flown, [44:20] and therefore an enormous potential search area. [44:24] Several hugely accomplished pilots and investigators [44:27] have come up with very plausible scenarios [44:29] on how the aircraft must have been flown [44:31] after that last radar position to both align [44:34] with all of those seven handshakes and avoid detection. [44:39] Almost everyone agrees that the most likely route [44:41] includes a turn from the previously north-westerly coast [44:44] around the area of a waypoint called NILAM [44:47] onto a more south-westerly course. [44:49] This would bring it down past the northern tip of Indonesia, [44:53] close to Banda Aceh, and sometime after that, [44:56] it might have chosen a southerly course, [44:58] straight down into the southern Indian Ocean. [45:01] I will link to some incredible investigative work made [45:05] by Captain Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Merchand [45:08] in the description of this video, [45:10] which lays out a very plausible final route. [45:13] But what I really want to do now [45:15] is to also look at the possibility [45:17] that there actually might be more physical evidence [45:20] of where this aircraft finally ended up. [45:23] All of the evidence that I've presented to you so far, [45:25] points to a deliberate action from someone on board, [45:28] with expert knowledge of the aircraft, [45:30] its systems, and the airspace it was flying through. [45:34] But a question that has been nagging me [45:36] is that would someone who has obviously planned this [45:40] so thoroughly to avoid detection, [45:42] bring the aircraft out to this point [45:44] and then just turn the aircraft south [45:46] and wait several hours until it ran out of fuel? [45:50] It feels a bit unlikely given how active this person was [45:54] during those initial parts of the maneuver, [45:56] and I wouldn't be surprised [45:58] if he continued to be as active until the very end. [46:01] But again, this will be hard [46:02] to prove without further physical evidence. [46:06] And it now looks like we might possibly have just that. [46:13] You see, back in 2008, an American astrophysicist [46:16] by the name of Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr. [46:19] started working on something [46:20] called the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter Protocol, [46:23] or WSPR for short. [46:25] He had previously received a Nobel Prize in Physics [46:28] back in 1993 for his work on pulsars, [46:31] but he was also a keen amateur radio enthusiast. [46:35] WSPR is a protocol for low power radio transmissions [46:38] that explores how low, medium, [46:40] and high frequency transmissions propagate over large distances. [46:43] And Taylor designed computer software [46:46] that was used to analyze these signals. [46:48] When these signals move over large distances, [46:51] they sometimes scatter when they hit obstacles [46:54] in their path, and this causes tiny anomalies [46:56] in the signal strength. [46:59] This was interesting for radio amateurs [47:00] because they could sometimes use those obstacles [47:03] to improve overall reception, [47:04] and crucially, one feature in the WSPR protocol [47:08] is that the reception from thousands [47:10] of these signals have been uploaded [47:12] into a shared database and stored all the way back to 2008. [47:17] Now, I want to be absolutely clear here [47:20] and say that Taylor himself never designed WSPR [47:22] to be used for the tracking of aircraft [47:24] neither did he actually think that it was possible. [47:28] But back in 2021, an avionics system engineer [47:30] called Richard Godfrey started exploring [47:32] the possibility of using the WSPR database [47:35] together with algorithms to look for anomalies [47:37] in several different simultaneous transmissions [47:40] as a kind of poor man's primary radar. [47:44] Theoretically, if you know [47:45] the exact location of the transmitter and the receiver, [47:48] together with the time of day [47:49] and about a million other factors, [47:51] there might be a possibility to use tiny, [47:54] concurring anomalies in several of these signals [47:57] to track something like an aircraft. [48:00] And the really cool thing [48:01] is that this technology samples thousands [48:03] of signals every two minutes, [48:05] which could potentially give us much [48:07] more information than we previously had. [48:11] Godfrey understood this, and from 2021 until today, [48:14] he and his colleagues, Dr. Hannes Coetzee [48:16] and Professor Simon Maskell [48:18] have been trying to analyze this database [48:21] to try and find traces of MH370. [48:24] And in a report released on the 31st of August 2023, [48:28] they claim that they have actually done just that. [48:32] Again, this video is not about [48:34] whether this technology actually can be used this way or not. [48:37] But what I find fascinating here [48:39] is that it's based on verifiable stored data. [48:42] So, just like with DNA that couldn't be used much [48:46] during the early years, but has since been refined [48:48] to incredible accuracy, [48:50] maybe there actually is something hidden [48:52] inside of these signals. [48:55] This team's trace data have actually [48:57] already improved significantly from their first results, [49:01] as their algorithms have been evolving. [49:03] And this latest report tells a quite fascinating story. [49:08] Initially, the WSPR data coincided nicely [49:10] with the existing radar information, [49:12] up until just prior to VAMPI, where it indicated [49:15] that the aircraft made a turn to a more westerly heading. [49:19] It then paralleled the assumed track [49:21] on a slightly more southerly course than indicated [49:23] by the raw radar, and this could be [49:25] because of the inherent impreciseness [49:27] of the technology, or the same from the radar, [49:30] which at that point, was at the very limit of its effective range. [49:34] In any case, the WSPR track continued up [49:36] towards the northwest, where it intercepted exactly [49:39] the arc from the first Inmarsat handshake [49:41] at time 02:28:15. [49:44] The data then indicates that the aircraft continued up [49:46] towards a point known as SANOB, [49:48] of which it made a left turn towards URDAM [49:51] or very close to what the other experts predicted [49:53] that the aircraft must have done [49:55] to continue avoiding military radars [49:57] and additional scrutiny by ATC. [50:00] Now, I won't go into all of the details [50:02] of the route that the WSPR data indicated, [50:04] but I want to highlight a few important things. [50:08] This data pointed to a track [50:09] that wasn't completely straight down [50:11] into the Southern Indian Ocean. [50:13] Instead, it showed a series of turns, [50:15] each of which was pointing towards an existing waypoint, [50:19] but not ever on the same airway. [50:22] This corresponds nicely with an aircraft [50:24] that was still being piloted, but in a planned way [50:27] to avoid interfering with existing airways, [50:29] where a potential traffic conflict could arise. [50:32] Remember, it would not be seen on TCAS, [50:35] nor could whoever was flying it see other traffic. [50:39] If the intention was to not be detected, [50:41] this type of behavior would make perfect sense, [50:44] since its ultimate destination [50:45] would be very hard to predict [50:47] in case it was partially being monitored. [50:50] The WSPR data also suggested [50:52] that the aircraft slowed down slightly [50:54] during two different intervals [50:56] of its jagged flight down towards the south, [50:58] which could possibly mean step climbs. [51:01] But the thing that really stood out to me was the fact [51:03] that the WSPR data corresponded almost perfectly [51:06] with all of the seven Inmarsat handshake arcs, [51:08] which is data that no one is really disputing. [51:13] Towards the end of the flight, [51:14] the WSPR position also indicated something very strange [51:18] because it looked like the aircraft [51:20] started flying in a figure-eight pattern [51:22] in between the sixth and the seventh handshake, [51:25] which would have been when the aircraft [51:26] was predicted to be running out of fuel. [51:29] The aircraft wouldn't do that by itself, [51:30] because the radar-compensating system [51:32] in the Boeing 777 is designed to compensate [51:35] for the asymmetric thrust after an engine failure, [51:37] so if this pattern was actually flown, [51:40] it must have been a deliberate act [51:42] by whoever was in controls. [51:44] Now, it is very hard to speculate on why someone [51:47] would do something like that, [51:49] but at this time it would have been daylight in that area [51:51] and the weather was clear, [51:53] so it is possible that this was done to look out [51:55] for ships in the area nearby, as a reassurance [51:59] that the aircraft's final resting place would not be seen. [52:03] The BFO from the Inmarsat data indicated [52:05] that the aircraft could have been [52:06] in a very steep descent during the last logon handshake, [52:09] as high as 14,500 feet per minute, [52:12] but that doesn't necessarily mean [52:14] that it just dove straight into the sea. [52:17] Instead, again, according to the excellent report [52:19] of Captain Blelly and Jean-Luc Mérchand, [52:21] there is the possibility that the right engine flamed out [52:24] due to fuel starvation, and that this led the person in charge [52:27] to start the APU and open the crossfill valve [52:30] to maximize the use of the remaining fuel. [52:34] The APU standpipe sits a little bit lower in the tank [52:37] than the engines does so. [52:39] That gives it a little bit more access [52:41] to all available fuel and the person in command [52:43] could then have manually shut down [52:45] the remaining engine to maximize the APU use, [52:48] which would have given access to all flight controls [52:51] and systems for as long as possible, and also enable [52:54] the flaps to be extended, [52:56] which wouldn't be possible without either one engine [52:59] or the APU running. [53:01] When the last Inmarsat logon was completed, [53:03] it lacked information from, for example, [53:05] the in-flight entertainment system, which is logical [53:07] if the aircraft was being powered by only the APU, [53:10] since systems like the IFE would then have been shed [53:13] to prioritize more important systems. [53:17] According to Captain Blelly's calculations, [53:19] the aircraft could have ended up either very close [53:22] to the 7th arc if it was in a rapid dive, [53:25] or as far as 67 nautical miles further south, [53:28] if the aircraft was flown to maximize its glide [53:31] and touch down with flaps 30 selected. [53:34] The WSPR data showed a possible last position [53:36] at time 08:19:37 and after that, [53:39] there were no more correlated anomalies found. [53:42] We do know that the aircraft crashed in the ocean, [53:44] in or near the already searched area, [53:46] because both internal and external parts [53:49] of the aircraft have been found. [53:51] The confirmed piece of debris comes from a flaperon [53:54] from the right-hand wing, [53:55] as well as multiple other components, [53:57] which are almost certainly coming from MH370. [54:01] All of those pieces have been washed up along [54:03] the coastlines of Eastern Africa and islands around, [54:06] by currents that can be tracked back to this general area. [54:10] And given that some of the debris found comes [54:13] from inside of the aircraft, [54:14] it is likely that it broke up upon impact. [54:19] This horrific story have already led [54:22] to improvements in tracking commercial aircraft over oceans, [54:25] longer life for emergency locator transmitters [54:28] and better ATC procedures for tracking aircraft, [54:30] but we can't lay this to rest [54:33] before the wreckage is actually found. [54:36] Again, this is why I created this video. [54:39] Linked below here in the description are two [54:42] different theories outlining two new search areas outside [54:46] of those already searched [54:47] in the biggest search effort in aviation history. [54:51] One of those theories are based [54:52] on the skill and knowledge of two veteran 777 captains, [54:55] and the other on a widely-contested new application [54:58] of existing radio data, but data that has been recently proven [55:02] to work following flights in other areas. [55:09] I am not here to judge what is right or wrong. [55:12] The only thing that I want to achieve [55:13] is to get the search going again [55:15] for the sake of the families left behind. [55:18] So here are two relatively small new areas to search. [55:22] Please get the boats out there [55:25] and let's get to the bottom of this literally. [55:32] (calm music)