In episode 6 we discussed a recent paper by Usama Kadri that examined whether the crash of MH370 should have been detected by a network of underwater microphones. Kadri argued that it should have been easily detected. The paper received a lot of attention in the mainstream press. Among the community of marine hydroacoustic researchers, it stirred some consternation. In today’s episode Dr David Dall'Osto of the University of Washington explains his misgivings about Kadri's work.

In the earlier episode, titled “Tracking the Sound of a Plane Crash,” we talked about how Kadri’s analysis presented something of a “Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time” situation, because while Kadri found an event that was similar in timing and location to the presumed crash site of MH370, it wasn’t close enough to really be a plausible match. Since earlier in the paper Kadri had made a compelling case that if a plane had gone in the water it should have been detected, based on historical analogues, then the fact that there was no good match implied (I argued) that the plane hadn’t impacted the ocean.

Kadri’s paper got a lot of attention in the popular press, which for the most part presented his work uncritically. But as I’ve argued over and over again, science isn’t just about retrieving data and interpreting it. It’s about arguing about the data and what it means. Because all of us are imperfect. We make mistakes, we leap to unsupported conclusions. Only by hashing things out collectively can we make sense of the world around us.

Among those critical of Kadri’s paper is David Dall’Osto, a senior research scientist at the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboraory. He studies hydroacoustic detection and last year coauthored a presentation with Alec Duncan of Curtin University in Perth, Australia, called “Revisiting the acoustic detections made in the Indian Ocean at the time of the loss of MH370.”

There were three main questions I put to Dr Dall’Osto. First, did he agree with Kadri’s conclusion that hydrophone network had historically been able to detect even low-speed, low-energy airplane crashes? Secondly, did he agree that the event that Kadri highlighted in his paper might be associated with MH370? And finally, did he agree with Kadri’s proposal that we try to nail down the sensitivity of the hydroacoustic network by deploying bombs (or some other way of creating noise) near MH370’s presumed crash location?

It turns out that not only does Dr Dall’Osto have deep concerns about Kadri’s paper, he has reason to question whether search officials are even looking in the right part of the ocean.

MH370 is a mystery, but more specifically, it’s a murder mystery. It was an action carried out with a perpetrator with nefarious intent. That’s a lens that we can use to gain perspective on what happened.

As you know this is a podcast all about trying to understand aviation’s most perplexing mystery. We not only talk about the evidence of the case in great detail with the help of leading experts, but we also try to find new ways to frame what we know, to see if by looking at the facts from a different viewpoint we can gain new insight.

In Episode 28 of Season 1 we looked at the case from the lens of stage magic, which uses a practical understanding of applied psychology to get inside the audience’s perceptual feedback loop in order to fool them.

In today’s episode we’re going to look at the case from a similar but somewhat different perspective, that of the criminal deceiver, who like the magician is always probing his targets for perceptual weaknesses, hoping to find or widen a gap between reality and what the subject thinks is real.

Because one thing about MH370 is crystal clear: the perpetrators, whoever they were, outwitted the officials who set out to figure out their deed.

It might not surprise you to learn that I’m always thinking about MH370, and I find relevant tidbits everywhere I look. Recently I was watching the Netflix series “Ripley,” which is a retelling of the story of the con artist and murderer Tom Ripley written by Patricia Highsmith in the 1950s.

The new show stars Andrew Scott as Tom Ripley, and I found the show wonderfully stylish and entertaining. If you’ve already seen the 1999 movie with Matt Damon you’ll already know the plot but I don’t think will spoil the fun. All the same if you haven’t seen the new show and would like to, you might want to pause the podcast now and then come back to it afterwards because a lot of spoliers lie ahead.

Anyway, as I was watching and enjoying the show I was really overwhelmed by the parallels between the web of deception Tom Ripley weaves and the strange set of clues that we have in the case of MH370.

I wanted to talk about this with someone who is an expert in the genre of murder mysteries, so I reached out to Jackie Raimondi, the co-host of a delightful podcast called Killer Fun, in which Jackie and her co-host Christy Norman watch and break down crime shows. Jackie agreed to come on the show and talk to me about Ripley and the art of weaving a web. Jackie is also a psychologist and brought a wealth of insight about real-world human behavior.

I had a lot of fun talking with her and I think that you will enjoy the conversation, too.

In Episode 5, we discussed how MH370's captain might have planned an elaborate murder/suicide in a way that would create the body of evidence we have today. In this episode, we re-run the exercise from a different perspective, guessing at the methods and motivations of a Advanced Persistant Threat actor.

In 2011, the US was flying one of its most advanced drones over Iran when they lost control. To their shock and embarrassment, they came to realize that the Iranians had used Russian electronic warfare technology to take over control of its navigation system. They seized the drone, decrypted its secrets, and reverse-engineered its technology to build their own version. It was a painful lesson — but have we learned it well enough to avoid such catastrophes in the future?

A new paper published by a researcher at Cardiff University in the UK explores whether the hydrophone network maintained by a nuclear test-ban monitor should have detected the ocean crash of MH370, and analyses the signal that seems to be the most likely to have come from the missing plane.

Whoever took MH370 did so in a lightning coup de main that showed decisiveness and a sophisticated knowledge of airspace, air traffic control procedure, and avionics. Formulating the plan would have required substantial planning. In today's episode, we explore how the plane's captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, might have laid the groundwork for such an operation. (In a future episode we'll look at how hijackers outside the cockpit might have laid their plans.) I'm extremely fortunate to be joined by the experienced 777 captain and prolific YouTuber Ron Rogers, who makes videos about a wide range of aviation topics, including classic aircraft and his own contemporary flying adventure.

This is the audio version of the episode 4 of the Finding MH370 podcast

.

An interview with foreign affairs journalist Melik Kaylan

Who was Nikolai Brodsky, and why was he on MH370?

Welcome to the new season of the world’s only in-depth podcast about the disappearance of MH370. For the full show notes, click here.