I’ve asked the very same questions way back in this thread. It seems inconceivable with all the tech at our disposal why this can’t be done. It would immensely ease the finding of any downed aircraft, and give an immediate indication of what occurred in the cockpit. The fact that current FDRs only have enough memory to store 2 hours worth of data appears to be quite limited in this scenario. Compressing the data and sending via satellite should be achievable, considering the other data streams that already appear to be in place.

It seems inconceivable that all airliners can’t be fitted with a simple GPS transmitter, allowing continuous location, speed and directional data to be monitored, without having to rely on primary and secondary radar systems. If MH 370 had something like this, we would have known immediately where it went. I hope with this and the Air France accident a few years ago, there is some initiative towards introducing such systems.

Something that’s occured to me, it’s astonishing that we haven’t heard anything much from Boeing in all this time.

It is not a problem unless you make it a problem by over complicating your objections with superfluous unnecessary qualifications. Occam’s Razor is a direct result of basic applied probability theory. Occam’s Razor is a process of stripping away superfluous arguments.

It is a problem when you either don’t know what Occam’s Razor is or how to apply it in this case.

Or, as we would put it today, don’t make any more assumptions than you have to.

You mean like all the assumptions you’ve just made? Is there any data or evidence to suggest a fire? Is it any more or less likely to assume it was a human factor at play? Why should we assume a fire is more likely to have occurred than human intervention? If you’re applying Occam’s Razor and come to the most likely conclusion being a fire, doesn’t it also imply that an SOS call of some form would also be the most likely event to follow?

There was no distress call… ipso factor… there must have been a sudden and dramatic event overtaking the crew, or one in which actually flying the aircraft took precedence over making a distress call.

And yet the data also suggests the aircraft flew for a significant amount of time after this catastrophic event taking place, which managed to incapacitate both pilots, knock out multiple electronic systems, but yet at the same time wasn’t too catastrophic enough that led to the cockpit and the rest of the aircraft disintegrating? Really?! Occam’s Razor at work?!

An electrical arcing flashover, or explosion is not unknown in aircraft. Indeed I just published photos of a fire in a Boeing 777 at the gate in Jedah in 2011.

A fire that occurred while the aircraft was on the ground. Really?! More of Occam’s Razor at work?!

Here’s a thought, how many instances have there been of a cockpit fire which disabled both pilots, comms and other equipment, and then resulted in the aircraft flying for over 6 hours? I mean applying Occam’s Razor, you would expect there to be loads of examples right, given that this is the most likely explanation, right?!

Furthermore applying Occams Razor yet again none of us know how or why the heading course change occurred. There is no evidence it was programmed into the autopilot. There is no evidence the autopilot was even functional. Indeed if we accept that there was an electrical fire under the cockpit or in the cockpit, then there is strong likelihood none of the systems including autopilot were functioning at all.

Applying Occam’s Razor, there is no evidence of a fire, so why should we accept there was a fire? Even if we did accept there was a fire, why then should we accept that this fire was severe enough to disable both pilots and vital equipment, without causing complete breakup of the aircraft….for over 6 hours?!

B52 were trained to fly nap-of the earth flight (500 – 1000ft).
Even KC135 did train for that (Fr FAS).

If you are flying slowly (to enhance fuel consumption) it might be feasible. Don’t forget that we have a top of the notch flyer supposedly behind the Joke (if he had to do that for whatever reason).

That’s true, although military aircraft like the B-52 have specific equipment that enables them to fly so low like FLIR, NGV and terrain following radar, which are absent on airliners. Besides, the aircraft was flying at night, it would take one heck of a pilot to attempt nap of the earth flight without those aids.

Regarding the destination, I wonder why no-one has so far advanced Somalia. We are discussing Piracy here. They (at least the pirate that have settled themselves there) do not own the exclusivity of that activity, but still…

I was wondering about that myself, would the aircraft have enough fuel to get to Somalia? Besides, if it was a case of Somali piracy, wouldn’t they have demanded a ransom by now? After all, it seems money is all they ever seem to be interested in.

Lets assume the current data is correct, lets assume the aircraft was still sending out some form of data after 6/7 hours of flight, and based on the data, lets assume the northern and southern routes are the possible headings the aircraft could have taken. Of these two, I find it difficult to believe it could have been the northern route across southeast asia and into central asia, as any airliner flying with its transponders switched off would have been challenged at least once, if not more given the number of countries that route involves. So realistically that only leaves the southern route as the likely route it could have taken for flying so long without being detected, given that it’s mostly over water. If it were my decision, I would look in the southern indian ocean. As to the motive, that can only be answered if/when the aircraft is found, or any of its wreckage.

I can’t see how it could have overflown a significant area of landmass without being seen on radar. If it was flying over countries with its transponder switched off, and if it was spotted on radar, it certainly would have been challenged to identify itself, maybe even the airforce of whichever nation it was flying over to scramble fighters to intercept and identify the aircraft it it made no response.

I think given the lack of any solid details from the Malaysians and frustration from any reasonable explanation, people are assuming wild conspiracy theories. But have to say, the Malaysian military have today come out and explained that the radar track they saw was an “unidentified flying object” and they “think” it “could” be the missing flight, but not 100% sure. Given all the information/misinformation, or rather lack thereof, I’m beginning to suspect we may never see any trace of this aircraft or anybody who was on board again, especially as time goes on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/business/international/worlds-biggest-arms-importer-india-wants-to-buy-local.html?_r=0

World’s Biggest Arms Importer, India Wants to Buy Local

NEW DELHI — Of the 30 countries that attended a defense exposition last month to sell weapons to India, the world’s largest arms importer, only the Russians had the chutzpah to dress up their tanks and guns with women in tightfitting camouflage.

The confident and sexy display reflected Russia’s longtime position as India’s dominant military provider, but decades of effort by India to make its own hardware may finally be bearing fruit. India recently rolled out its own fighter jet, a tank, a mobile howitzer and a host of locally made ships.

If India succeeds, the Russians could be in trouble. Russia has nearly $39 billion worth of military equipment on order by India, representing nearly a third of Russia’s total arms exports.

India’s defense minister, A. K. Antony, said at a news conference during the exposition that the country’s reliance on foreign arms makers must end. “A growing India still depending on foreign companies for a substantial part of our defense needs is not a happy situation,” he said.

Whether India can break its import addiction is anyone’s guess, but many arms analysts are skeptical. India is expected to spend about $11 billion this year buying weapons from abroad, despite decades of effort by the government to create a domestic military manufacturing sector.

“I don’t think there’s another country in the world that has tried as hard as India to make weapons and failed as thoroughly,” said Pieter D. Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which studies global security.

Mr. Wezeman said he was skeptical that India’s new products would change that history, saying that its fighters, tanks and guns were “of questionable quality.”

India ranks eighth in the world in military spending. Among the top 10 weapons buyers, only Saudi Arabia has a less productive homegrown military industry. China, by contrast, has been so effective that it is beginning to export higher-technology arms.

India’s main problem as an arms manufacturer is a corrupt and inefficient government sector that has neither the expertise to develop top-notch weapons nor the wherewithal to make them in abundance, said Manoj Joshi, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a policy group based in New Delhi.

In one telling example, India could buy fully assembled Russian Sukhoi fighters for about $55 million each, but instead mostly relies on kits that are sent to the government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, which assembles them at a cost of about $68 million each — nearly a quarter more. In another example, government labs spent billions trying to develop an aircraft engine, only to abandon the effort and buy engines from General Electric for the recently introduced fighter, the Tejas.

“While it’s more complicated assembling Sukhois than putting together an Ikea flat-pack, it’s not that hard,” said Samuel Perlo-Freeman, a program director at the Stockholm institute. “And it’s far from an independent and autonomous development of a new weapons system.”

India has tried to encourage private companies to make arms in India, both in partnerships to the government and independently, but few of these efforts have succeeded. Most of India’s homegrown arms are developed in 50 government labs and built at eight large government manufacturing facilities and 40 government ordnance factories.

Companies have mostly been unwilling to work with the government, and the government has not allowed foreign makers to own more than 26 percent of any Indian factory. It has agreed to raise that limit to 49 percent, but no company has applied for the exception.

Mr. Antony dismissed criticisms of the government’s chokehold on arms production. “Indian scientists and Indian industry are more efficient, and the government will have to support them,” he said.

But Mr. Joshi said India’s government needed to get out of manufacturing. “Our defense industrial base is hopelessly out of date,” he said. “It needs to be dismantled and handed over to the private sector.”

That has left the door open for countries like Russia, whose arms deliveries to India reached a record level in 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, rising 50 percent from 2011. In the previous five years, India bought 12 percent of the world’s arms imports, and Russia accounted for 79 percent of India’s deliveries, according to the Stockholm institute. American manufacturers have recently won several orders for transport and maritime patrol aircraft, displacing some Russian equipment, but the Russians are still by far India’s dominant arms supplier. In 2012, Russia delivered to India the second nuclear-powered submarine ever exported by any country.

Alexander Kadakin, Russia’s ambassador to India, dismissed any notion of a slowdown in sales to India. “It is inappropriate in my view and even incorrect to speak about Russia allegedly losing its leading positions in the Indian market,” he told an exposition publication.

Because of poor infrastructure, stultifying labor rules and difficulties acquiring real estate, making anything in India is hard. The country’s manufacturing sector is declining and now represents 13 percent of the total economy — about the same share as in the United States.

But its military and civil aviation markets are so enticing that major manufacturers are opening facilities in the country anyway. In 2010, Sikorsky Aircraft, part of the American conglomerate United Technologies, opened a plant in Hyderabad that it operates jointly with Tata Advanced Systems. The facility assembles the cabin for its midsize helicopter, the S-92. The helicopter’s cabin was previously made at a Mitsubishi facility in Japan.

Production was transferred to India not because costs were lower (surprisingly, they were not), but because having a local facility might encourage sales in India, said Ashish Saraf, program manager for the Tata-Sikorsky joint venture, of which Sikorsky owns 26 percent.

But the challenges have been immense. New roads had to be built to the venture’s 11-acre site, and they came slowly. The company had to build its own facilities to treat water, handle sewage and harvest rainwater. It eventually got power from the state but operated initially from six backup generators, which must be kept operational for occasional power cuts.

Employees needed considerable training in aerospace manufacturing and in the early days often left for higher-paying jobs as soon as their training was complete. “Our talent got poached all the time,” Mr. Saraf said. So in addition to expensive training, the company had to undertake an employee retention program.

Shipping has been a challenge. Some of the Tata-Sikorsky plant’s most important equipment was damaged on the trip from the port in Mumbai by India’s terrible roads, delaying production. The plant sends its helicopter cabins back to the port; from there, they are shipped to Pennsylvania, where the aircraft are fully assembled.

To safeguard against damage to the cabins, the company has hired the operator of a fleet of specially made suspension trucks that travel more slowly, at less than 30 miles an hour, and never at night. As a result, the 450-mile journey takes five days. At least two people are needed for each journey, since one must repeatedly get out with a long stick to push low-slung electrical wires up and out of the way of the truck.

“Our early expenses were very high, as we were breaking ground in almost every area we wanted services — Internet, phone, water, sewage, electricity. Everything,” Mr. Saraf said. “The challenges continue in terms of logistics and transportation.”

To encourage local manufacturing, India now requires private foreign arms companies to undertake at least a third of their manufacturing in India, as measured by the value of the weapons. But because of the difficulties in making high-technology equipment in India, billions of dollars’ worth of products from these so-called offsets have been piling up unused.

A $16 billion deal to sell 126 Rafale fighters from the French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation has been in limbo for years, in part because the French have balked at India’s manufacturing requirements. With India’s economy struggling, expensive purchases like the Rafale may no longer be feasible anyway, said Ajai Shukla, defense consulting editor at the Business Standard newspaper.

“We are at a watershed moment, because we cannot afford to keep importing every piece of equipment we need,” Mr. Shukla said. “We have just produced a fighter, a tank and a range of warships. For the first time, India can realistically indigenize.”

Much of India’s military, in any case, does not want Indian-made equipment. So many Russian fighters assembled by Hindustan Aeronautics have crashed in recent years that the Indian Air Force calls them flying coffins. India’s Russian-made submarines and naval equipment have experienced deadly mishaps in the past year as well, leading the country’s naval chief to resign last week. The distrust between the civilian builders and military users has turned the made-in-India effort into an even tougher sell. If the two sides cannot agree, the Russians are ready to step in.

“You cannot blame the Russians for taking advantage of the situation,” Mr. Shukla said.