Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
A Boeing 777 with 239 people vanished from radar on 8 March 2014 and has never been found. This case lists what the records show, marks which records come from Malaysia, Australia’s search agency or Inmarsat, and gives six theories a hearing by the same rules.
The question Where did MH370 go on 8 March 2014, and why has a Boeing 777 with 239 people never been found?
What the records say
The documented story holds up: 9 of 11 timeline steps are Confirmed by the records (score 95).
6 theories checked: 2 disproven, 2 unverified, 2 disputed. A theory is rated by its key claim.
A renewed “no-find, no-fee” search covers about 7,571 km² and finds nothing
confirmedCredible: two independent tier-2 reports. See the step
Down the rabbit hole
The ground line is the documented timeline. Each tunnel is a theory that branches off it; every chamber is a step, coloured by how well the records support it. The deepest chamber is the theory’s key claim. Tap one to open it.
Main timeline
Oldest first- 8 Mar 2014, 00:42confirmed
MH370 takes off from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing with 239 people aboard
Malaysia’s report gives take-off at 00:42 Malaysian time (16:42 UTC on 7 March) with 227 passengers and 12 crew on a Boeing 777-200ER registered 9M-MRO. The captain ordered fuel for 7 hours 31 minutes against a planned 5 hours 34 minutes. AP reports the same flight, route and 239 people.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 1–2involved party: MalaysiaT2AP via PBS NewsHour, 8 Mar 2026 - 8 Mar 2014, 01:19–01:21confirmed
The captain says “Good night”, and about a minute later the plane drops off civilian radar
At 01:19:30 the plane answered Kuala Lumpur with “Good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero”, its last radio call; Malaysia’s report says the captain spoke it and did not read back the new frequency. Its transponder (Mode S) symbol vanished at 01:20:36, and Vietnamese and Thai radars also lost it. The last automatic ACARS report had been sent at 01:07.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 2–3; p. 431involved party: MalaysiaT2Langewiesche, The Atlantic, July 2019§1 - 8 Mar 2014, 01:21–02:22likely
Military radar tracks an aircraft turning back across Malaysia and up the Strait of Malacca
Malaysia’s military radar followed a target west across the peninsula, past Penang at about 01:52, then northwest until 02:22, about 195 nautical miles from Butterworth. The air force did not intercept because it judged the aircraft “friendly”. Thailand later said its military radar saw an unidentified plane that “may have been” MH370 on a similar path. The detailed track is Malaysia’s own data, so this is Likely.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 3–4; pp. 19–20involved party: MalaysiaT2Slate, 18 Mar 2014T2CNN, 18 Mar 2014T2Langewiesche, The Atlantic, July 2019§1 - 8 Mar 2014, 02:25–08:19likely
Satellite “handshakes” show the plane flew on for about six more hours
The plane’s satellite terminal logged on to Inmarsat’s Indian Ocean satellite at 02:25 and answered hourly until a last log-on at 08:19 (Malaysian time). The timing data give rings of possible positions; the frequency data were read as a turn south to the southern Indian Ocean. That analysis is Inmarsat’s and the search’s own, so this is Likely.
T1Ashton et al. (Inmarsat), Journal of Navigation, 2015Abstract; §7 Conclusionsinvolved party: InmarsatT1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017pp. 11–12involved party: ATSB (ran the search)T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 433–434involved party: Malaysia - 15 Mar 2014confirmed
Police seize the captain’s home flight simulator; it holds a route into the southern Indian Ocean
Malaysian police found seven manually entered waypoints which, joined up, run from Kuala Lumpur through the Andaman Sea to the southern Indian Ocean. The ATSB dates the session to 2 February 2014 and says it ended in fuel exhaustion after about 4,200 nautical miles, further than MH370’s fuel allowed. Malaysia publicly acknowledged the route in August 2016.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 27involved party: MalaysiaT1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017pp. 98–99involved party: ATSB (ran the search)T2AP via VOA, 5 Aug 2016T2CNN, 18 Mar 2014Sources disagreeMalaysia’s police concluded there were “no unusual activities other than game-related flight simulations”; the ATSB found “enough similarities” to MH370’s path to weigh it in the search. Malaysia’s report dates the file 3 February 2014, the ATSB the session 2 February. And on 18 March 2014 CNN reported US officials saying the simulator showed none of the unexplained paths. - Mar 2014 to 17 Jan 2017confirmed
The largest search of its kind finds nothing and is suspended after 1,046 days
The ATSB reports 52 days of surface search over several million square kilometres, 710,000 km² of seafloor mapped and more than 120,000 km² searched by sonar. Of 661 areas of interest, 82 were checked; four shipwrecks were found, but not the plane. AP calls it an expensive multinational search that found no clues to the location.
T1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017Executive summaryinvolved party: ATSB (ran the search)T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 20–21involved party: MalaysiaT2AP via PBS NewsHour, 8 Mar 2026 - 29 Jul 2015confirmed
A wing part washes up on Réunion; France confirms it is from MH370
The right flaperon was found at Saint-Denis on the French island of Réunion and examined in Toulouse under a French investigating judge. On 3 September 2015 the Paris prosecutor’s office said serial numbers inside it matched the Spanish maker’s records, confirming “with certainty” it came from MH370.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 154involved party: MalaysiaT2CNN, 3 Sep 2015T2CBS News/AP, 3 Sep 2015 - 2015 to 2016confirmed
More debris from MH370 turns up on East African shores and Indian Ocean islands
Malaysia’s report counts 27 significant items: the flaperon, part of the right outboard flap (Tanzania) and part of the left outboard flap (Mauritius) confirmed, and 7 more almost certainly from MH370. Damage suggests the flap was retracted, and the ATSB says the plane was not set up for a ditching. Whether it broke up in the air or on impact could not be determined.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 435involved party: MalaysiaT1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017Executive summaryinvolved party: ATSB (ran the search)T2The Guardian, 6 Mar 2019 - 22 Jan to 29 May 2018confirmed
A private search by Ocean Infinity covers more than 112,000 km² and finds nothing
Malaysia signed with the seabed-search company Ocean Infinity on 10 January 2018 for a search in the area judged most likely. It ended on 29 May 2018 without finding the plane. AP reports the 2018 private search found nothing.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 21involved party: MalaysiaT2AP via PBS NewsHour, 8 Mar 2026T2AP via NPR, 20 Mar 2025 - 2 Jul 2018confirmed
Malaysia’s investigators say they cannot determine why MH370 disappeared
The report says the course changes “likely resulted from manual inputs” and that a system failure could not be ruled out: “The possibility of intervention by a third party cannot be excluded either.” It concludes the team “is unable to determine the real cause”. Without the wreckage and flight recorders, the cause remains open.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 432, 442–443involved party: Malaysia - Mar 2025 to Jan 2026confirmed
A renewed “no-find, no-fee” search covers about 7,571 km² and finds nothing
In March 2025 Malaysia agreed terms with Ocean Infinity to search a new 15,000 km² site, with US$70 million payable only if wreckage is found. Malaysia’s accident bureau said on 8 March 2026 that 28 days of searching, on 25–28 March 2025 and 31 December 2025 to 23 January 2026, had produced no confirmed finding. No date to resume was given.
Branches
Go down oneA branch is only as strong as its weakest step so far. The count is how many sources back each step.
“The captain did it”
Did Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah deliberately fly MH370 into the southern Indian Ocean?
Ten days after the disappearance, CNN reported that investigators’ leading theory was a deliberate act by “someone who knew what they were doing”, and that the pilots’ computers had been searched. William Langewiesche set out the case against the captain at length in The Atlantic in 2019.
- 66% (26% very, 40% somewhat) US adults who said it was very or somewhat likely that the pilots or crew caused the disappearance (CNN/ORC) as of 2–4 May 2014 T2CNN/ORC poll, May 2014
- 13,192,550 YouTube views, Green Dot Aviation “What Netflix got WRONG - Malaysian Flight 370” (argues someone on board was responsible) as of 12 Oct 2026 T3YouTube: Green Dot Aviation, 2023
- 59,880,000 Netflix hours viewed, “MH370: The Plane That Disappeared” (whole 3-part series; episode 1 is “The Pilot”), first week as of week to 12 Mar 2023 T1Netflix Top 10 data, weekly globalT2Chicago Sun-Times, 7 Mar 2023
The captain had flown a route into the southern Indian Ocean on his home simulator
Langewiesche cites engineer Victor Iannello: of the flights recovered, this was the only one not flown continuously, and it ran until the fuel was gone.
T2Langewiesche, The Atlantic, July 2019§“The Pilot”The premise: confirmedTrue that the route was on the simulator: Malaysia’s report, the ATSB and Malaysia’s transport minister all say so. Malaysia’s police found nothing unusual in it, and the ATSB says the simulated flight went further than MH370’s fuel allowed.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 27involved party: MalaysiaT1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017pp. 98–99involved party: ATSB (ran the search)T2AP via VOA, 5 Aug 2016The plane went dark at the handover between Malaysian and Vietnamese control, with no distress call
Langewiesche asks how hijackers could have known to act “precisely during the handoff to Vietnamese air traffic control”.
The premise: confirmedTrue. The “Good night” was at 01:19:30 and the transponder vanished at 01:20:36, as the plane neared the waypoint where Vietnamese control began. No distress call was received.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 2–3involved party: MalaysiaThe turns after the handover were flown deliberately, not by a failing aircraft
The Atlantic says radar shows a turn so tight it “had to have been flown by hand”, then a bank around Penang and a run up the Strait of Malacca.
The premise: likelyMalaysia’s report says the manoeuvres are “difficult to attribute” to any system failure and more likely due to the systems being manipulated. That is Malaysia’s reading of its own radar; Thailand’s radar supports only the turn back west.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 432involved party: MalaysiaT2Slate, 18 Mar 2014Official reports brushed over signs that the captain was troubled
Langewiesche writes that the official portrait of a placid family man “is contradicted by multiple indications of trouble”.
The premise: unverifiedNo record of the captain’s state of mind was read for this case. Malaysia’s report found “no evidence to suggest any recent behavioural changes” in either pilot, but Malaysia investigated its own airline’s crew.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 431involved party: Malaysia
- confirmed
The Atlantic’s 2019 investigation argues the captain is the one who diverted the plane
William Langewiesche writes that whoever was at the controls depressurised the cabin and hand-flew the turns, and that it is the captain “who raises concerns”. Engineer Victor Iannello, whom he quotes, believes the captain was responsible.
StartStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - confirmed
Malaysia acknowledges the simulator route, and says it was one of thousands
In August 2016 Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said the route was on the simulator but “one of thousands”, and “There is no evidence to prove that Captain Zaharie flew the plane into the southern Indian Ocean.”
T2AP via VOA, 5 Aug 2016T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 27involved party: Malaysia= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - confirmed
Australia’s search agencies: the simulator shows only “the possibility of planning”
The ATSB said the data “does not reveal what happened on the night”, and that the best evidence of the plane’s location remained the satellite data.
= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - confirmed
Malaysia’s 2018 report finds no recent behavioural change in either pilot
It also found no sign of anxiety or stress in the pilots’ radio calls, while noting the captain did not read back the last frequency. It could not determine the cause.
T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 431; p. 443involved party: Malaysia= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - disputed
Key claim: the captain deliberately flew MH370 into the southern Indian Ocean
For it: the simulator route and the deliberate-looking turns. Against it, or at least short of it: no record shows who was at the controls, and Malaysia’s report says a system failure and third-party intervention cannot be excluded.
T2Langewiesche, The Atlantic, July 2019T1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017p. 99involved party: ATSB (ran the search)T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 442–443involved party: Malaysia▼ WeakerStrength so far:disputed· 3 sources on this step
Bullshit meter
- No step is Unverified or Disproven.
- Key claim contradicted by tier 1? No. No tier-1 record contradicts it, and none proves it: Malaysia’s 2018 report could not determine the cause, and Australia says the simulator shows only the possibility of planning.
Fluff meter: possibly planted
- Can’t be traced to an original record. Absent: it rests on real records, the simulator data in the Malaysian and ATSB reports.
- First appeared from new or anonymous accounts. Not measured.
- Coordinated identical wording. Not measured.
- Cited source doesn’t exist. Absent: the simulator data exists (Malaysia’s report, the ATSB, Malaysia’s transport minister).
- Later contradicted. Absent: no independent record read contradicts it; none proves it either.
● present · ○ absent · – not measured. Lists signals only. It never accuses anyone.
Personal interest meter
- Malaysia’s government, investigated its own national airline’s flight and crew; its report found no behavioural evidence against the captain. T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018p. 431involved party: Malaysia
- The captain’s family, said he “loved life” and would never crash the plane deliberately, as The Guardian reports. T2The Guardian, 6 Mar 2019
“Has a documented interest” only, each one sourced. Never an implication of guilt.
Correlation meter
- The Réunion flaperon, main timeline step 7, and the evidence against the Kazakhstan and shoot-down branches; Diego Garcia theorists cite it for their side. T2CNN, 3 Sep 2015
- The captain’s home simulator, main timeline step 5 and the pilot branch; Godfrey says the WSPR spot lies on its path. T1ATSB, The Operational Search for MH370, 2017pp. 98–99involved party: ATSB (ran the search)
- CNN/ORC poll, May 2014, traction for the pilot, ghost-flight and Kazakhstan branches. T2CNN/ORC poll, May 2014
- Netflix’s 2023 series, one episode each on the pilot, hijack (Kazakhstan) and intercept (shoot-down) theories; its viewing hours are for the whole series. T2Chicago Sun-Times, 7 Mar 2023
- Malaysia’s 2018 report, says a system failure and third-party intervention cannot be excluded, which leaves room for every branch. T1Malaysian safety investigation report, 2018pp. 442–443involved party: Malaysia
- Thai military radar, supports the turn back west in the main timeline (step 3) and contradicts the shoot-down branch. T2Slate, 18 Mar 2014
Links to other cases appear once those cases exist.
Who worked on this
This case was assembled by the site from public records. Contributions are not open yet. Nothing here is invented, so the counts are zero.
This is the first published version of the case.
Sources
- T1involved party: Malaysia “Safety Investigation Report, Malaysia Airlines Boeing B777-200ER (9M-MRO), 08 March 2014”, MH370/01/2018, by the Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370, issued 2 July 2018. Malaysia’s government ran the investigation into its national airline’s flight. Copy read: the report as filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (case 1:16-mc-01184-KBJ, document 102-1, filed 1 Aug 2018). Pages cited are the report’s own printed page numbers.. www.mot.gov.my · copy read: images.law.com
- T1involved party: ATSB (ran the search) “The Operational Search for MH370”, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, investigation AE-2014-054, final report, 3 Oct 2017. The ATSB coordinated the underwater search, so this is the search’s own account of itself. Pages cited are the report’s printed page numbers.. www.atsb.gov.au · copy read: web.archive.org
- T1involved party: Inmarsat Chris Ashton, Alan Shuster Bruce, Gary Colledge and Mark Dickinson (all of Inmarsat), “The Search for MH370”, The Journal of Navigation 68(1), 1–22 (Jan 2015; online 7 Oct 2014), doi:10.1017/S037346331400068X. Open access. Inmarsat operated the satellite whose data the search relied on.. doi.org
- T1Netflix Top 10, “all-weeks-global” data file (weekly hours viewed by title), Netflix. Read 12 Oct 2026. Netflix’s own viewing data for its own service.. www.netflix.com
- T2Associated Press, “Renewed search for missing Flight MH370 comes up empty 12 years later as families press for answers”, PBS News, published 8 Mar 2026 (updated 10 Mar 2026). www.pbs.org
- T2The Associated Press, “Malaysia approves a new search for MH370 wreckage in the Indian Ocean”, NPR, 20 Mar 2025. www.npr.org
- T2William Langewiesche, “What Really Happened to Malaysia’s Missing Airplane”, The Atlantic, July 2019 issue (online, updated 17 Jun 2019). An investigation that argues the captain diverted the plane; a record of that argument as well as of the facts it reports.. www.theatlantic.com · copy read: web.archive.org
- T2Josh Voorhees, “Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago”, Slate, 18 Mar 2014 (quoting the Associated Press and Royal Thai Air Force spokesman Air Vice Marshal Montol Suchookorn). slate.com
- T2Mariano Castillo, Catherine E. Shoichet and Evan Perez, “New evidence in Flight 370 search explains plane’s path”, CNN, 18 Mar 2014. www.cnn.com
- T2Jason Hanna and Saskya Vandoorne, “‘Certainty’ that Reunion Island debris is from MH370, French official says”, CNN, 3 Sep 2015. www.cnn.com
- T2CBS/AP, “French investigators: Wing part is from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370”, CBS News, 3 Sep 2015. www.cbsnews.com
- T2Associated Press, “Malaysia Confirms Flight 370 Course was on Pilot’s Simulator”, Voice of America, 5 Aug 2016. www.voanews.com
- T2Naaman Zhou, “MH370: five years of theories about one of aviation’s greatest mysteries”, The Guardian, 6 Mar 2019. www.theguardian.com
- T2“Vanished: Key theories in MH370’s disappearance, and Australia’s new offer for answers”, SBS News (sources SBS, Reuters, AAP), 8 Mar 2024. www.sbs.com.au
- T2Weston Williams, “Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: Why was the flight on autopilot? New clues.”, The Christian Science Monitor, 26 Jun 2014 (quoting the ATSB’s June 2014 report). www.csmonitor.com
- T2Ray Sanchez, “Nearly 80% of Americans think no one survived Flight 370, CNN poll finds”, CNN, 6 May 2014 (CNN/ORC International poll of 1,008 US adults by telephone, 2–4 May 2014, sampling error ±3.5 points). www.cnn.com
- T2Tom de Castella, “Missing Malaysia plane: 10 theories examined”, BBC News Magazine, 18 Mar 2014. www.bbc.com
- T2Lizzie Dearden, “MH370 ‘debris’ discovery sends conspiracy theories into overdrive about ‘shot-down plane’”, The Independent, 31 Jul 2015. www.independent.co.uk
- T2“CNN Analyst’s MH370 Theory: Plane Was Hijacked And Landed In Kazakhstan”, Here & Now, WBUR (Boston’s NPR station), 25 Feb 2015: Jeremy Hobson interviews Jeff Wise about his New York magazine article. A record of Wise’s claim.. www.wbur.org
- T2Richard Roeper, “‘MH370’ review: Netflix doc ‘The Plane That Disappeared’ weighs the theories on Malaysian jet’s fate”, Chicago Sun-Times, 7 Mar 2023. chicago.suntimes.com
- T3Chris Goodfellow, “A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet”, Wired, 18 Mar 2014. An opinion piece by a pilot; a record of his theory.. www.wired.com
- T3Autumn Sword, “MH370: Solving a Mystery vs. Telling a Story”, Skeptical Inquirer (online exclusive), 19 Apr 2023. Commentary; used for what the Netflix series’ theorists say.. skepticalinquirer.org
- T3Publisher’s page for Florence de Changy, “The Disappearing Act: The Impossible Case of MH370”, HarperCollins UK (listed on sale 18 Dec 2020). De Changy wrote on the case for Le Monde.. harpercollins.co.uk
- T3Richard Godfrey, “MH370 Search Area (Updated)”, The Search for MH370 (mh370search.com), 22 Dec 2023. The proponent’s own blog.. www.mh370search.com
- T3Richard Godfrey, “MH370 – A New Hope”, The Search for MH370 (mh370search.com), 16 Mar 2024. Summarises the Mentour Pilot video and the WSPR paper by Godfrey, Hannes Coetzee and Simon Maskell (31 Aug 2023).. www.mh370search.com
- T3Home page of The Search for MH370 (mh370search.com), Richard Godfrey’s blog, listing post summaries including “WSPR Aircraft Tracking” (15 Feb 2024) and “Was the original target MH370 or MH150?” (17 Apr 2024). Read 12 Oct 2026.. www.mh370search.com
- T3“A NEW Trace! The FULL MH370 Story, so Far..”, Mentour Pilot channel (airline captain Petter Hörnfeldt), YouTube, published 16 Mar 2024. Its description lists “The WSPR study” among its sources.. www.youtube.com
- T3“What Netflix got WRONG - Malaysian Flight 370”, Green Dot Aviation channel, YouTube, published 8 Dec 2023. Its description asks “What if somebody on board Flight 370 was responsible?” and credits 777 captain Simon Hardy.. www.youtube.com
- NO TIEROur own note: in what we read for this case we found no independent (non-proponent) test of WSPR aircraft detection, and no published map comparing the WSPR circle with the 2025–26 search area. Not a source tier.