During the timeframe of the MH370 flight between 7th March 2014 16:00 TC and 8th March 2014 01:00 UTC there are 60,627 WSPR links over distances greater than 1,000 km, thanks to many dedicated radio amateurs world wide. There is an average of 224 WSPR links every two minutes over a total of 270 data points.
After 18:28:15 UTC there are only 7 Inmarsat satellite BTO values which allow a distance between the aircraft and the satellite positions to be measured. This is an average of one BTO value every 40 minutes over a total of 7 data points. There are two large gaps in the Inmarsat satellite BTO data of 72.8 minutes at the start of the trajectory into the Indian Ocean between 18:28:15 UTC and 19:41:03 UTC and 89.6 minutes towards the end of the trajectory over the Indian Ocean between 22:41:22 UTC and 00:11:00 UTC. In addition there is a gap of 10 minutes between the last ADS-B data before diversion at 17:20:35 UTC and the first civilian terminal area radar capture at Kota Bharu at 17:30:33 UTC.
It will be interesting to see what information can be gleaned from the 270 WSPR data points to help fill in the gaps we have in the MH370 flight path analysis. A paper describing the process of using WSPR to help find MH370 with a worked example can be downloaded here
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas at Airline Ratings has summarised the MH370 flight path up until 23:08 UTC in the linked article:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/what-we-have-learned-so-far-from-the-revolutionary-new-tracking-of-mh370/
Hi Richard, I’ve been following your search for some time now and am impressed. When your final results are publicized, what do you envision happening? Having search subs map the ocean floor at the location you identify? How wide a circle would you envision them having to look? Also, would you want other scientists/engineers to attempt to replicate your course using the same WSPR data before the search continues? My personal prediction is the aircraft will be found by 2023. Does that seem right to you?
@Ian H,
Welcome to the blog!
You ask a number of interesting questions …
1. When your final results are publicized, what do you envision happening?
I expect to continue documenting the 42 position and 103 progress indicators out of the 234 events every two minutes over the 7 hours 48 minutes between 7th March 2014 16:42 UTC and 8th March 2014 00:30 UTC.
2. Having search subs map the ocean floor at the location you identify?
There are a number of parties willing to use AUVs to search the location I identify.
3. How wide a circle would you envision them having to look?
40 nm radius.
4. Also, would you want other scientists/engineers to attempt to replicate your course using the same WSPR data before the search continues?
I will continue to publish all the backing data so that other analysts can replicate my findings.
5. My personal prediction is the aircraft will be found by 2023. Does that seem right to you?
I expect that MH370 will be found in H2 2022.
hi richard.
i wanted to get an idea where your wsprnet track was heading in relation to the completed searches so i superimposed your track over the completed search areas.
have added a link incase anyone else wants to see:
https://ibb.co/PzPJSZD
heres another showing the sea floor:
https://ibb.co/PZy3PM2
@david: Thanks for combining them, but I am confused by your graphics: THe 6th arc of Richards new drawings approximately matches the 7th arc of the search area. Weren’t they distinct?
maybe just slight differences in the 2 sources for the arcs, all I’ve done is match australia from richards drawing to 2 other drawings,
i believe the 6 and 7th arcs are quite close to each other anyway so i guess it gives a rough idea where it was heading.
looks as though the original searches were pretty close.
WSPR and flying season in Antarctica:
While the flying season in Antarctica has started in October 2021 from airports CHC, CPT, HBA, PUQ, space weather has been benign after the solar eruptions around 2021.11.04 with lots of Aurora Aurealis, Kp between 2 and 5, SFI app. 70 etc. The Antarctic continent is chosen for WSPR validation to minimize ambiguities if lots of aircraft are to be seen
(see earlier report in March 2021 at https://hamsci.org).
Now space weather improved (SFI>90, (March 2014 >> 100), Kp <1 and we saw lots of WSPR signals, i.e. again TX DP0GVN to ZL2005SWL as RX from a 2-engine propeller aircraft from Kenn Borek at Australian Davis Station (the helicopters will be shipped in December 2021), even change in frequency band from 14 MHz to 18 MHz and back. WSPR signal 18 MHz from TX DP0GVN (Neumayer III) via aircraft at Davis Station even to BA8… in China.
Also DC3s and other type of aircraft from Neumayer III stations, the Russian airfield, Wolf range airfield and IL76-TD as well as Icelandair (B767) from Union Glacier Camp have been detected. 9H-SOL (A340) is flying from CPT to Antarctica and vice versa.
Aircraft around Cape Horn can be detected on the links between DP0GVN (Neumayer III station as TX) to Alaska (KL3, KL7) as RX as well as California (KFS, others).
Occasionally WSPR signals from McMurdo Station KC4USV on 14 MHz from 2021.11.23 RX and following days TX still under investigation but seem to have resulted in two detections of propeller aircraft around Davis station via link 14 MHz DP0GVN as TX to KC4USV as RX.
Data are publicly available so anybody who is really interested can double check and verify these statements on FR24 etc. and http://www.wsprnet.org. Best detections if line of flight is not along the baseline between TX and RX, as bistatic radar theory will tell us (Thanks to Karl H.). Start looking at airports CHC, CPT, HBA, PUQ and airports in Antarctica that provide ADS-B data (QAD, QAN, QAO, QAP, QAS, QAT,…, only available since 2020 at FR24)
I will comment only to those individuals who really investigate the WSPR signals by observation in practicing as well as theory.
Supportive help for future analysis will be more than welcome. Especially in preparation for the 8th anniverary in March 2022 to monitor live WSPR signals via KiwiSDRs and other means under similar space weather conditions as in March 2014 in various time zones.
A team of 5 to 10 would be great. You will need lots of interest and patience, Notebook, Internet and some basic physical knowledge as well as endurance in time and patience! We are in a new solar cycle (25), sun spot numbers and SFI will improve in regard to 2021 in the months to come. Preparation of experiments will have to start now.
Richard, keep on going with your detailed WSPR analysis!
@Rob,
A massive thank you for all the fundamental research you are doing. I hope that you get your team together. This is a great opportunity for anyone with a basic knowledge of physics, an internet connection and a desire to contribute to research into WSPRnet and aircraft detection.
@Bejamin, @david,
I use the Mercator projection for the maps and charts I produce with GDTAAA.
There are many other alternative map projections and overlaying maps with different projections does not always work easily.
I calculate the 7th Arc at 11,650 feet and all other Arcs at 36,320 feet.
The arcs can be calculated at different altitudes and sea level is not always assumed. This will also result in small differences. ATSB used both an altitude of 0 feet and 20,000 feet for the 7th Arc.
The WSPR / GDTAAA analysis indicates that the actual flight path now looks as though it included a very distinctive racetrack pattern as well as zig-zag course changes.
In the light of this new evidence, might it be worth looking again at satellite imagery for any supporting evidence of contrails matching these distinctive features of the flight path?
If MH370’s contrail can be picked up, visually or thermally, it might help in defining the focus of the search area more accurately
@TommyL,
It will be well worth looking again at the satellite imagery for any supporting evidence of contrails matching the MH370 flight path.
Yes I see why you think that. I don’t know if GPS works well in that part of the world for the PIC to know exactly where he is throughout or not. If so it’s certainly avoidance if not, he may have been using the coast, other locations for bearings, it’s all got south in it and 180′ is certainly a round south number used more than once, it seems odd to be in a hold early if trying to hide, odd to delete MSFS files, odd to have a heading at some point to the end point on his MSFS though it could be as coincidental as the following of one of the arcs for a time, we know the PIC was intent on southerly for all zigs and zags, and I assume that the MSFS endpoint doesn’t look like it’ll be the actual endpoint, unlikely the MSFS endpoint then was the intended one and it seems an intent not to be found so appears it would end in a tough to find place, a deep ugly part of that ocean floor. It does look like there’s no doubt from what you’ve done so far that the PIC of MSFS and the plane are one and the same, and that intent was not to be found, that seems obvious already. Best of luck in finishing and I bet it’ll feel strange when you have finished, and with all the bad intent of the pilot, thinking he was smart and covered all bases, he didn’t know about WSPR or radio hams!
Hi Richard de Peter VK3PB
Hi I have 2 questions.
1. Have you used you methodology to track an aircraft, say from Singapore to Hong Kong to provide proof of concept?
2. How do you eliminate the reflections from all of the aircraft, commercial and military, in south east asia at the time?
Hi again. Please disregard my questions above. I see you have done a POC exercise. I shall read the paper. However if not covered in the paper i would like to know how you deal with the issue of so many planes being in the air at once in the south east asia region. Thanks
@Peter Berrett,
Welcome to the blog!
I have the official ADS-B data for the entire region, which gives the movements of all other aircraft.
I have previously published these charts which shows the position of all other aircraft in the vicinity of MH370.
Just after take off at 16:50 UTC:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxh7swmckrymohq/GDTAAA%20V5%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201650%20UTC%20PRG%20Local%20View.png?dl=0
Just after diversion at 17:32 UTC:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8140x1buanyemk8/GDTAAA%20V5%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201732%20UTC%20N%20Local%20View.png?dl=0
En-route in the southern Indian Ocean:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5oigjdjs2lqyfc/GDTAAA%20V5%20MH370%2007MAR2014%202046%20UTC%20PRG%20WSPRnet%20Detections.png?dl=0
Just after take off there are 21 other aircraft in the vicinity, at diversion there are 6 other aircraft in the vicinity and in the middle of the southern Indian Ocean there was only one other aircraft UAE425 from Perth to Dubai at FL340 but a long way from MH370.
@All,
Geoffrey Thomas of AirlineRatings has published a new article on his website:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/godfreys-mh370-tracking-mh370-gains-expert-support/
@All,
An article in the Sunday Times – London today:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lm28jd0c3fcg9eq/Sunday%20Times%20Article%2005DEC2021.jpeg?dl=0
Richard,
Your analysis of the WSPR signals sounds impressive but I remain highly skeptical of this.
I note that you have discussed the situation of other aircraft in the south-east Asia region at the time, but what about the other areas of the globe where there are multiple aircraft in the air, such as the European air space? With the radio signal making multiple hops between Europe and Australia I find it hard to believe that only one aircraft would have an impact on the signal.
I also believe that the signal would not follow an consistent path with refraction through the ionosphere. I would have thought that there would be some variability in height which possibly would have some effect on the doppler measurement as well.
Lastly the signal would make multiple paths at multiple angles through the ionosphere before being received in Australia, as you have discussed in your paper. I do agree with you that there would be some back-scatter and forward-scatter off the aircraft but I find it hard to believe that this would be measurable given the other possible variables.
Sir, I take my hat off to you if your theory is indeed correct and the aircraft is finally located, but personally I find it hard to believe.
We will wait and see.
@Dave,
A WSPR “Spot” record exists for the transmission by HB9CZF in Switzerland and successful reception by VK1CH in South Eastern Australia at time recorded of 1716 hours UTC on March 7th 2014
At this time the Transmitter was in the early evening, in fact very close to sunset. The receiver was in dark in the early morning and had about another two and a half hours before dawn.
Thirty four minutes after take-off from Kuala Lumpur the position of Aircraft 9M-MRO conducting Flight MH370 was recorded by, or via, ADS-B. It was also in the dark it being 0116 hours local time.
Richard has explained and detailed how the radio transmission path would have bounced back and forth between the ionosphere and the surface of the earth (and sea) across Europe, Asia (including South East Asia) and much of Australia before being received by VK1CH in South East Australia.
Richard has also explained how this transmission path may have aligned, or did align, with the aircraft position in flight at altitude.
Richard has yet to explain and detail how, and in what manner, the aircraft “disturbed the signal ultimately received in Australia”.
The WSPR “Spot” record which is available via WSPRnet.org has very limited information. Perhaps, the Receiver, VK1CH, recorded more information, even spectra, in addition to the WSPR “Spot” record . And perhaps Richard has that information.
It is to be hoped that Richard will soon provide us all with a detailed explanation of how exactly the presence of the aircraft “disturbed the signal ultimately received in Australia”.
@George G,
Thank you for your explanation!
As you mention, I am working on two further papers with more information. Unfortunately in this case we were not able to elicit any more information from VK1CH about the reception despite trying via different channels.
We have detailed information from Dominik Bugmann (call sign HB9CZF) regarding the transmission but no information from Craig Hunter (call sign VK1CH) regarding the reception.
@Dave,
Welcome to the blog!
As previously explained I filter out and do not use short line of sight WSPRnet radio links. I only use long distance ionospheric propagation paths. An example is shown in the diagram linked below:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dejftrmipn6bnol/GDTAAA%20V4%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201716%20UTC%20PRG%20Hops%20EA%202.8942.png?dl=0
The WSPRnet radio waves in this example have an elevation angle (or take off angle) of 2.8942° and are refracted in the ionosphere at heights between 200 km and 300 km.
We know that this signal sent by HB9CZF in Switzerland was received by VK1CH in Australia as it is recorded in the WSPRnet database.
Aircraft cruise between 18,000 feet and 41,000 feet so are generally confined to the lower 12.5 km of the atmosphere. Aircraft are also required to maintain a minimum separation according to aviation regulations. In this case HB9CZF and VK1CH are also not near an airport and there are many radio amateurs who prefer to install their antennas on high ground surrounded by a terrain fall off and clear of obstacles.
In this example, the only possibility of interference by aircraft is near the 4 interim landing points in the hops between Switzerland and Australia. For the rest of the time the WSPRnet radio waves are much higher than any aircraft traffic. MH370 was exactly at the location of the landing point after the 3rd hop and disturbed the signal ultimately received in Australia.
The WSPR protocol is designed to handle “Weak” signal propagation. The effect of an aircraft passing through the radio propagation path(s) is measurable.
Please try for yourself:
One simple test: Go to http://www.wsprnet.org and look for WSPR signals from or to the islands of Reunion (FR, F61695), Mauritius (3B8) and monitor a WSPR station in Western Australia (VK6) in the data base and/or live at http://www.kiwisdr.com.
Where do most of the peaks in SNR of the WSPR signals from the islands FR, 3B8 originate from? Look for day (14 MHz and above) or night (7 MHz) on the radio path!
Yes, aircraft approaches and departures from the islands. Double check in FR24, flightaware……you can do that almost daily if SFI is not too low ad Kp stays low. Also see overflights of SIA478 and SIA479 on a daily base! Reception over thousands of km!
Just an easy validation test for the WSPR method to end the most fundamental discussion on WSPR detection capabilities. You can also try it in your backyard (home airport)!
Hallo – recently, I had analyzed the topic “WSPR, Aircraft Scatter and tracking Flight MH370”. I already had my doubts when Dr. Robert Westphal published his some time ago. But only now I had the time to take a closer look and to explain my skepticism in more detail on my blog:
https://dk8ok.org/2021/12/06/mh370-and-wspr-aircraft-scatter-on-hf-a-critical-review/
@Nils Schiffhauer,
You are not welcome on this blog!
You were thrown out of the German Radio Amateur Club (DARC) in 1992. Despite 3 appeals at regional and national level as well as in court, you are still excluded from membership 29 years later. There are very good reasons for this.
You interview yourself in your “Funktelegramm” and protest your innocence to yourself as interviewer! You claim you have been mobbed for the last 29 years by all the other DARC members!
I have complained to Christian Entsfellner DL3MBG, the current Chairman of DARC, about your demands to protest against my work and that of Dr. Robert Westphal (DJ4FF) officially on the DARC website regarding MH370 and WSPRnet.
Your paper is plain wrong and your arguments are misplaced.
I suggest you go elsewhere as I am sure there are other MH370 websites who will welcome the likes of you. Und Tschüss!
Hi, Richard – any arguments, scientifically? Plain ice, e.g., still a good reflector? ITU recommendations have to be written new? Elevation angles of under 3° still suitable? False positives still the proof? 2D simulation still doing the job where 3D is available (but doesn’t work in this case …)?
Undoubtedly, your “protest” (not: any arguments) to DARC president Christian Entsfellner, DL3MBG, will fall on fertile ground. He will embrace your opinion. Because, I presume, he will not understand any arguments, technically speaking, to and fro. You seem to sharing the same bias. “Plain wrong” was my paper? Where are there any arguments?
73 Nils, DK8OK
@Nils Schiffhauer,
Again I say you are not welcome on this website!
I have made a large number of scientific and technical points in my various papers, posts and comments on this blog and elsewhere.
I am already convinced that you are not listening and you have your own preconceived ideas and preconceptions/misconceptions. You arrogantly demand that I answer your criticisms of my work. You seem to love provoking arguments for the sake of it. I am keeping to a scientific approach and unlike you I am avoiding any political statements. You love to attack the amateur radio community in the press. You refuse to rejoin the German Amateur Radio Club unless they get rid of a whole bunch of honorary and regular members that you don’t happen to like. I do not like your style!
With 143 WSPRnet detections during the flight of MH370, I find it difficult to explain them all away as irrelevant. I am writing two follow up papers to my preliminary report on MH370 and WSPRnet. The first paper will give the WSPRnet analysis every two minutes during the 7.5 hour flight of MH370. The second paper will give the technical details of each candidate detection, WSPRnet links, Proplab Pro V3.1 propagation path, etc. I am sure you will disagree with those papers as well!
@All,
I have discussed the issue of elevation angle with Dominik Bugmann (HB9CZF), who sent a WSPRnet signal on 7th March 2014 17:16 UTC that I used as a worked example of MH370 detection. This WSPRnet signal was one example out of 143 WSPRnet detections during the flight of MH370. This particular signal was received by VK1CH in Kambah, Australia and was included in the WSPRnet database as were all the other WSPRnet detections that I have incorporated in my MH370 analysis.
Dr. Hannes Coetzee (ZS6BZP) has analysed this particular transmission and points out that it is important for radio amateurs who are looking into this WSPRnet transmission to understand that an important aspect in all the WSPRnet analyses of this particular case is the performance of Dominik’s antenna.
I published the results previously in a paper titled “How Can WSPR Help Find MH370?” dated 11th October 2021:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wif8oqzgm74sdqv/GDTAAA%20V4%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201716%20UTC%20Paper.pdf?dl=0
Recently Dominik kindly sent me the following information on his ARRL Antenna together with a HF Terrain Assessment. In the screenshot linked below he added his Terrain File (GT_090.PRO) direction 90°T (81.7°T will not be much different) and a 2 el Antenna 15 m above ground. FLAT.PRO is a second antenna sitting on flat ground:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/038wf5ct7tscxxx/Dominik%20HFTA.jpg?dl=0
His terrain profile in the direction 90°T:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/17esjlj6uyl8bpb/Dominik%20Terrain%20Profile.jpg?dl=0
The next diagram in the link below shows Dominik’s take off angle. The vertical lines in purple show the take off angle between Switzerland (HB) and Oceania. This is an average for all Oceania, any sunspot number in the 11 year sunspot cycle, any month of the year. The red line is a 2 el yagi on flat ground and for a take off angle of between 2° and 3° the antenna produces a gain of between -2 dBi and -5 dBi. His antenna is in blue and for a 2 – 3° take off angle he shows about 12 dB stronger. (Note: HFTA only works for horizontal polarised antennas)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g37vcv62harvo6t/Dominik%20HFTA%20Output.jpg?dl=0
Not all amateurs have the infrastructure to launch meaningful signals at elevation angles of < 3˚at 14 MHz. Due to ground losses and ground reflections it becomes physically challenging to launch HF signals at meaningful power levels at elevation angles < 3˚. To overcome this challenge very high antennas (in terms of wavelengths) or a very clear take-off such as the edge of a cliff, or a combination of the above is required.
Dominik Bugmann has antennas 15 m high sitting on a ridge at an altitude of 585.4 m with a considerable drop off of terrain in the direction of VK1CH at an initial bearing of 81.7°T. I have seen radio amateurs build remote radio shacks on the top of mountains, on the side of a ridge or even fly antenna on tethered balloons to significant heights.
Layman here, backgound as a computer programmer. I find this work very impressive regardless of whether it will turn out correct or not. The following question comes to my mind: There is this theory of the flight captain staging the disappearance of MH370 to fake his death and be able to join up with a woman he had an extra-marital relationship with. The theory holds that he conducted a parachute jump into the sea to the south-west of the island of Sumatra after he had set the aircraft on auto-pilot, to be picked up by a boat that was waiting for him there. (I believe it was some journalist who came up with this theory. I forgot who that journalist was and how the theory was published.) My question is, can this theory be ruled out based on the findings that have been laid out here? Or could it actually be consistent with the flight path as it has been determined from the WSPR data? What I find intriguing is the race track pattern. Would that not be what you would expect if someone in control of the aircraft wanted to parachute away from it at a specific point? Then the follow-up question is: Could the subsequent flight path have been programmed into the auto-pilot? Or is that out of the question given the zig-zagging etc., falsifying the theory?
Hi Richard,
Congratulations for your impressive work on MH370 path.
I had my senior colleagues in my Mumbai college during graduation who went on to pursue his post doc in Beijing. His parents and younger brother were onboard MH370 to attend his convocation in Beijing. Since there was no direct flight from Mumbai to Beijing, they opted to fly via Kuala Lumpur but fate had other ideas. May their soul rest in peace !
Now coming to the questions.
Apologies if you have already answered these earlier.
1) Considering that it had been almost 8 years now since MH370 disappeared, is there any realistic chance of recovering bodies of passengers especially if the flight is resting at 4km deep in the seabed where pressure would be high? Won’t the bodies of passengers get unfastened from seats at some point of time and get scattered in such a high pressure environment?
2) Is it possible for aircraft fuselage/hull to remain roughly at the same location when water current is strong at such depths?
3) Assuming MH370 is found either in 2022 or anytime later, will it be possible for analysts to reproduce actual events in the absence of flight and cockpit data recorder? (presuming their batteries had drained out and data recovery is not possible after 8+ years of the incident)
4) For a person with Physics background with internet connection available and interested to learn aviation stuff, how and where to begin using this WSPR?
Thanks in advance.
@Sameer Barve,
Welcome to the blog and sorry to hear of the loss of your colleagues family being on MH370.
1. At a depth of 4,000 m it is not only an extremely high pressure environment but also extremely cold.
2. Any wreckage may be covered by silt or volcanic ash.
3. A flight data recorder uses non volatile memory.
4. For beginners with WSPR we are about to publish a paper describing how.
@Michael,
Welcome to the blog!
Please note that using a fake email address will result in your comment being held in an approval queue.
The first problem with the parachute theory is that you have to bring a parachute on board in your cabin luggage. Commercial airliners do not carry parachutes.
The cabin of a Boeing 777 aircraft is normally pressurised on the ground as soon as the engines are running. The doors of the aircraft cannot be opened because of the differential pressure. At cruising altitude the pressure differential on an aircraft door is several tons. The cabin altitude of a pressurised aircraft is normally maintained at and altitude of 8,000 feet.
It is of course possible to depressurise an aircraft at cruising altitude, but then you have the next problem. Loss of cabin pressure triggers confusion, then sleepiness and ultimately death. You may succumb to hypoxia, because of a lack of oxygen.
It is of course possible to descend to a low altitude where you do not need an oxygen mask, but then you have the next problem. If you manage to get the door open, a large aircraft like a Boeing 777-200ER even at low altitude and with flaps up and gear up at a holding speed is travelling at over 200 knots. When you jump out of the door the wake of the aircraft at 200 knots will slam you against the side of the fuselage and will likely knock you unconscious. So even if you miss the engines and wings from a door at the front or the tailplane from a door at the rear, you might not be conscious to pull the rip chord.
Finally, you can’t shut the door behind you. Even if you set the aircraft on autopilot and programmed the autopilot to climb back to cruising altitude and head south until fuel exhaustion, the open door will cause an asymmetric drag and unbalance the aircraft. A flight continuing for several hours without degradation of the fuel range and endurance, under autopilot control at cruise altitude and cruise speed is impossible. As cross winds increase the aircraft will become unstable and experience a loss of aerodynamic control and will likely crash much earlier than evidenced by the Inmarsat satellite data and WSPRnet analysis on 8th March 2014 at around 00:20:24 UTC. There is also no evidence in the WSPRnet data of the aircraft descending to a low level and slowing to a low speed.
In my view, the parachute theory is not possible.
Thank you, sounds convincing.
Hi Richard,
Today, the 8th anniversary of the disappearance of MH370, and there is all this news and information. I spent the entire day reading researching and working with my radios.
A little history about me. I have been an Amateur radio operator since 1991 and currently hold a United States Extra Class Amateur radio license with the vanity callsign of WM7Y.
This incident holds a special place in my heart and life. I happened to be in the Philippines at the time and was preparing for my return to the states at the end of March when it happened.
I spent the next week and a half while I was there, on the computer and internet crowd sourcing site looking at satellite photos of the Indian Ocean, looking for the plane or debris and not looking forward to my flight home.
Which brings me to today. I was ecstatic to hear of these recent developments that I had to do my research.
I am very active on Ham Radio, on SSB, AM, CW and FT-8. To be honest, I had seen WSPR on my FT-8 program but didn’t understand the inner workings of it so I left it alone until today. I spent the rest of the day today working on the radio, reading and learning about WSPR, and ultimately making WSPR work for me.
I was so impressed that I’m planning on working more with the WSPR mode as well as other modes on WSJT-X just to make sure I’m not missing anything.
This incident hits very close to home with me. I was a first responder back in the 1980’s with the Fire Department and have worked several aircraft crashes. I know the wounds and the scars they leave, and this one was no different.
Best of luck and my hopes and prayers are with you all to find closure with finding the aircraft and the answers that come with it. I know closure never comes though, I still remember the three I was on like they were yesterday.
God Speed!
Eric
@Eric
Just had to poke some fun at you, as my callsign is WM7O, though I got it for free. Was about to say “old fashioned way”, but vanity calls happened back before my time too. Got mine in ’88 I think. Curious why you chose it….
@Richard
Was not going to stick nose in here, I don’t want to dis your blog with trivial ham QRM. Very fascinating stuff you are doing. I was skeptical after reading the skeptics, but I do not see how they can let their criticisms stand when there is evidence. You may not yet have the comprehensive explanation or even description of all that is involved, but you do not need that to use the information. Oliver Heaviside’s most famous quote was,
“Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion? No, not if I am satisfied with the result. ”
…which I have always thought was a lousy idea for a scientist or engineer to embrace. Yours is a case where it seems to fit perfectly.
Best of the best to you
73,
Kent
@Eric,
Welcome to the blog and for your kind words and prayers.
Congratulations on getting WSPR up and running for you.
Good luck with your investigations.