It’s December 3, 2025, and the Malaysia Government has just announced that the private underwater survey company Ocean Infinity will officially recommence the seabed search for MH370 in three weeks’ time. Today, we’re going to talk about why they’re doing it now, where they’ll look, and whether they’re likely to succeed.

Ocean Infinity’s state-of-the-art offshore support vessel, Armada 86 05, is currently on duty in the Philippines, about halfway through what is expected to be a two-week expedition to search the San Bernardino Strait for historical shipwrecks. Once it’s done, it will need to resupply, and then it will likely head to the southern Indian Ocean to once more take up the seabed scan that one of its sister vessels, Armada 78 06, carried out for several weeks in March. In today’s episode, we look at where I think it will go first, and I dive into the mathematics of probability to explain why Ocean Infinity likely thinks that their chances of success are quite high — and why they might have miscalculated.

Last December, the Malaysian government announced that the American ocean survey and salvage company Ocean Infinity would once again take up a search of the Indian Ocean seabed in hopes of finding the missing Malaysian airliner, MH370. The company had searched a considerable area of the ocean floor in 2018, but had thrown in the towel after finding nothing. This time around, a single custom-built ocean exploration vessel arrived in the search area in late February, 2025, scanned about 5,000 square kilometers, and then left at the end of March. The company made no official statement about when it would be back, but the Malaysian government said it would be at the end of the year, and reputable sources close to Ocean Infinity said that it aimed to return in November. So we’re all on tenterhooks, waiting to see what will happen and when. In today’s episode, I reveal the latest insights from Kevin Rupp, who has an excellent track record for correctly reporting on what the company is about to do.

Two episodes ago, I revealed that with the help of two volunteers on the island of Zanzibar I had been able to retrieve the first data showing how Lepas anatifera barnacles grow out on the open sea in the western Indian Ocean, where debris from MH370 was collected. In order to understand what this could tell us about the debris’ origin, I needed to measure the barnacles — more than 700 of them! — and perform a rudimentary statistical analysis. Today I present the results of that analysis. I think they go a long way towards resolving the myster of the missing plane.

As the facts have emerged in the case of Air India 171, which crashed while taking off from Ahmedabad, India on June 12, it’s become increasingly clear that in all probability it was a case of mass murder suicide on the part of the captain. Mass murder suicide by pilot is a rare phenomenon, but until now they have all followed a certain pattern. Air India does not fit that pattern. In today’s episode, I make the case that the plane’s captain figured out a way to kill himself that is faster, easier, and more difficult to thwart. I fear that other suicidally minded airline pilots might be inspired to copy him, putting the flying public at risk.

Helping me to understand the phenomenon of pilot murder-suicide is Dr Alpo Vuorio of the University of Helsinki, who co-authored a 2023 paper in the journal "Safety" entitled "Commercial Aircraft-Assisted Suicide Accident Investigations Re-Visited—Agreeing to Disagree?" You can find the paper here: https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/9/1/17

This week mark the 10th anniversary of the discovery of the first piece of physical evidence in the case of the missing Malaysian Airliner, MH370. When the badly damaged right flaperon washed ashore on La Réunion, a French island in the western Indian Ocean, on July 17, 2015, it immediately caused a worldwide sensation. Scientists realized that the barnacles found growing on the flaperon could provide important clues as to where it had drifted from — and that, presumably, would at last reveal the plane’s crash site. At a time when the seabed search had proven frustratingly empty, they hoped that this information could provide the key to finally solving the case. But scientists were missing an important piece of context: a robust understanding of how exactly Lepas anatifera barnacles grow when floating in the open ocean. For years, that understanding proved elusive. However, using data from the Atlantic Oceonographic & Meteorological Laboratory in Miami and the assistance of volunteers living by the ocean’s edge, I’ve finally been able to collect specimens of known age that put the growth of the flaperon barnacles in context and reveal when the object went into the water. It turns out that scientists’ initial expectations were way off the mark.

So far we’ve been focused on the physical and electronic evidence left behind by whoever took MH370. But there’s also a lot we can infer about the psychology of those who did the deed based on the actions that they carried out. In today’s episode, we zoom in five segments of the disappearance and discuss how they can help us narrow down the list of possible perpetrators.

As we wait for the seabed search for MH370’s wreckage to restart, it’s worth taking the time to reflect about what we’ve learned from the search thus far, and what future scanning will tell us about the plane’s likely fate. Under the principles of Bayesian inference, the more of the seabed is searched without the plane’s wreckage being discovered, the greater the probability becomes that the plane simply isn’t there at all. But there’s an escape hatch to this logic: according to an idea called Cromwell’s Rule, the probability will not change so long as we are 100 percent confidant in the proposition that the plane is somewhere in the ocean. In today’s episode whether such confidence is merited, or whether the widespread refusal to consider an alternative is due to a mental blockage or blind spot. I also discuss my new feature article in Vanity Fair magazine about mounting concerns about cyber attacks against airliners around the world — and now, for the first time, in the United States.

Trying to understand what’s going on with the latest seabed search for MH370 is like reading tea leaves. Neither the Malaysian government, which is responsible for solving the mystery, nor Ocean Infinity, the marine survey company looking for the plane, has been very forthcoming about what they’re doing. So it was a nice change of pace when the Minister of Transport, Anthony Loke stood up at a press conference on April 2, 2025, and dropped two important pieces of information in quick succession. The good news was that Malaysia and Ocean Infinity has finally signed a contract for the search, under which Malaysia will pay $70 million if the plane’s wreckage is found. The bad news was that the search, which had been moving along at a brisk pace in previous weeks, would be suspended until the end of the year. To make sense of what is really going on, I turned to the person who has proven to be the best-sourced observer of the seabed search, Kevin Rupp, who shares marine tracking data and other insights on his Facebook page, Ocean Infinity News and Updates. In today’s episode Kevin reveals what was behind the decision to pause the search and what likely lies ahead.

On Friday March 28 the ship scanning the seabed for MH370, Armada 78 06, stowed its AUVs and set sail to the north, putting an end to the second phase of the third seabed search. It is currently underway for Singapore, about 2300 nautical miles to the north, and is scheduled to arrive on April 8.

In today’s episode I discuss what Ocean Infinity accomplished during this last search phase and what might lie in store—and why those of us expecting hard answers from the seabed search are likely going to have to wait a little while.

Last week I took a look at one of the leading lights of the MH370 community, Victor Iannello; today I explore the more complicated back story of Richard Godfrey. I revisit some of the extraordinary claims he has made and unveil the actual nature of his expertise. It turns out to be quite different from what institutions like the ATSB and the BBC have stated to the public.