The search for MH370 has resumed. There is an air of optimism and hope. There is a sense that this might be our best and last shot at finding the plane, but also silent desperation.

Nearly 12 years on, it is quite remarkable to see a search in the southern Indian Ocean still invested in. This, despite the arguments, campaigns and conflicting narratives regarding MH370.

Knowns and Unknowns

It is worth recalling that in the early hours of 8 March 2014, after MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur, heading for Beijing, it disappeared from radar screens, and little was known till some days later, when Inmarsat, a satcom company, produced its data/analysis of communications with the aircraft. In a bizarre twist, they pointed to the flight’s end in the southern Indian Ocean.

Some dismissed the Inmarsat data, questioning its accuracy, while others challenged the methods used to tease out a probable flight path indicating the flight’s end. There were those who alleged that the data was altogether spoofed. Malaysian military radar data, which was significant in building the narrative of the flight’s strange mid-flight ‘turnback’, was not available to independent experts and was therefore deemed unreliable.

In a challenge to official conclusions, debris finds, starting with the flaperon found on the coast of Réunion Island in July 2015 (over a year after MH370 went missing) and confirmed to be a part of MH370, were dismissed as having been ‘planted’. Other pieces of debris found along the African coast were also dismissed. To one not following the MH370 story, it may have seemed a dubious claim that debris landed about 4,000 kilometres away from where the plane was thought to have gone down. Dismissing debris finds was just one step away from dismissing the prevailing view that MH370 met its end in the southern Indian Ocean.

A prominent French journalist and author quite vigorously argued that the plane was shot down (by Americans) early in its flight, and that there was no turnback at waypoint Igari, as widely believed, as it was approaching Ho Chi Minh FIR (Vietnamese airspace). A science journalist and author insisted for a long time that the plane flew to Kazakhstan and suggested that Russians were involved in the plane’s disappearance.

There were reports of sightings by fisherfolk, local folk, an oil rig worker and even psychics from various places. The Maldives entered discussions as a potential crash site—a long shot. No search was attempted there. Studies based on underwater acoustic signals picked up by hydrophones were mooted to pinpoint the plane’s crash location. Data from the pilot’s flight simulator at home were offered as incriminating evidence of a practice run towards the Antarctic. Predictably, this was contested, and (to the best of my recall) remains unproven. Then there were suggestions of a wormhole through which the plane may have passed, rendering it out of reach. Few took this seriously.

Affected families of passengers were buffeted by fantastic claims, conflicting and sometimes unverified information, and hypotheses about what or who was responsible for the flight’s disappearance. It was hard to disbelieve and simultaneously difficult to trust any source.

Lines of Best Fit

We have witnessed experts singly and collaboratively argue passionately as they attempted to construct a narrative that best fit the available facts. One has even heard of death threats that some MH370 enthusiasts and experts have received, heightening a sense of conspiracy and shadowy goings-on. There have been sharp differences among those involved in, or commenting on, MH370’s disappearance. This has been disconcerting at times.

The paucity of information regarding the flight spawned multiple scenarios to explain the disappearance and identify the crash site. Certainty is a luxury. It became evident that experts’ prominent but divergent conclusions had different underlying assumptions, and beyond a point, what held their stories together were speculations and conjecture, not evidence. What has emerged are several ‘probable hotspots’ depending on what experts have taken as initial flight conditions and the assumptions made about the fight characteristics up until the crash. Available fuel, rate of fuel burn, speed, altitude, whether there was a live pilot flying or a ghost flight are just some of the variables that are assumed to have impacted where the plane may have crashed. Not much is known about these.

Potential crash sites identified for search may seem close to one another on a map, but on the ground (or rather, in the ocean), they translate into hundreds of kilometres between locations. The weather and sea conditions in the southern Indian Ocean are suitable for search operations only in the summer months, approximately from end-November till mid-April. One other factor that is hard to ignore is the sea floor. The ocean’s depth varies anywhere from 3 to 6 kilometres, and the floor is uneven, marked by mountains, ridges and rock.

The search is a daunting task and an expensive one, and given the probabilistic nature of search recommendations, it would be premature to place high hopes on a successful find.

The Official Narrative Rules

Note that the ‘official’ narrative on the crash zone has prevailed. The Malaysian government’s search efforts have been confined to the southern Indian Ocean. World over, the official narratives/positions of governments and institutions are suspect, known more for what they remain silent about than what they shed light on. Critics of the search effort have questioned the fixation with the southern Indian Ocean, some even going so far as to allege a cover-up and the search itself to be a smokescreen. However, they have been unable to convince Malaysia about other potential crash sites.

In the past, there have been criticisms of the Malaysian government’s lack of transparency. Its commitment to see the search and investigation through to their logical conclusion by staying steadfast and doing everything necessary—source and share credible information, elicit independent expert analysis, initiate and evolve protocols with other countries along the African coast to scour for debris and expeditiously bring them to chosen labs for analysis, to mention just a few—hasn’t matched, for the most part, its stated commitment to search and facilitate closure for next of kin.

The 2018 report of the official safety investigation mandated under international conventions drew a blank. We were no wiser about where to look, and clueless about why the plane diverted from its original flight plan. Between 2014 and 2017, over 120,000 square kilometres of the southern Indian Ocean had already been searched with resources and technical and logistical support from Australia, to no avail…

The year 2018 was also when Ocean Infinity, a maritime exploration company, undertook for the first time a ‘no find, no fee’ search of a 25,000-square kilometre area identified at that time as a high probability search area. The search was unsuccessful and the next of kin were faced with another wave of disappointment. Ocean Infinity’s unsuccessful search effort however served as a best-in-class technology demonstrator, and in marketing terms, its investment on the search upfront was perhaps a masterstroke that drew serious global attention. The company is at the forefront of underwater exploration and imaging technology, and has since 2018 added many vessels to its fleet and possesses more advanced search and imaging aids.

More Questions amidst a Search for Answers

Will the latest search by Ocean Infinity be successful? Many commentators in the media seem optimistic. In some cases, it isn’t the expertise and familiarity with details speaking but just the practise of being on camera with the broad outlines of oft-repeated information.

There is the possibility that the search areas identified are incorrect or too narrowly defined. There is also the possibility that critical debris may be in nooks and crevices that render them ‘invisible’. Some of the terrain on the sea floor can be difficult for the autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) to navigate and manoeuvre. So, the next few weeks are going to be a tense affair. We are dependent on the Malaysian government for updates on the search effort.

What if the plane is found? Assuming there is a discernible debris field, would efforts be made to retrieve them? If the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) are not found, would other debris be of interest? Realistically, what can the CVR and FDR tell us even if they have survived both the crash and 12 years under immense pressure of the deep sea? Would that be the subject of a separate negotiation and contract?

Would a new team be constituted to analyse debris and offer acceptable explanations for who or what was responsible for the disappearance of the plane? Will it help us rule out conclusively that it wasn’t a case of pilot suicide and mass murder as many allege? Will it settle questions around a ghost flight, an uncontrolled vertical crash or an attempted ditching? Will we know if the trigger for the turnback that set off the events leading to the flight’s disappearance were any of the following—an electrical fire, lithium-ion batteries’ explosion, or oxygen tanks’ explosion? Based on where it is found, will it lend weight to one of the approaches/methods among many that led to arriving at the correct crash location?

I have many questions. Others too have these and more questions, perhaps.

What if the search returns empty-handed again? Do we have any credible basis to look elsewhere? Are there lines of inquiry/investigation still not exhausted, however improbable they may seem at this point? Will the government have the appetite and bandwidth to stay engaged? Will the government end the search permanently? How do we imagine Malaysia will make its case with the families, with ICAO, and with the travelling public? Will we be condemned to never finding the plane? Does the possibility of an aircraft’s disappearance become normalised as an acceptable (but low probability) risk in civil aviation? I am not comfortable with a flag state that remains silent unless nudged. We are not there yet.

For now, it is wait and watch.

How do I feel about the search? I am not at peace with many unanswered questions. While the passage of time has helped settle the emotional unrest and the void arising from loss, not knowing what or who caused the disappearance of the plane remains a troubling mystery. If a successful search also helps to unravel the mystery of the disappearance, some of the turmoil that festers in the background will hopefully settle. For families from certain cultures and faiths, concrete evidence is essential for their final journey to acceptance. It enables them to lay the dead to rest respectfully and with dignity, in accordance with their religious/cultural practice. It is crucial for their peace and well-being. I hope the search offers concrete evidence that meets these needs.

The trigger for this piece came from a conversation I had with close friends a couple of days ago. They had many questions regarding MH370. They were out of touch with developments in the search in recent years and had asked what my thoughts were.

Image: Matt Hardy on Unsplash