Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[JesseFrank]

Note: This post is just to put things in perspective regarding one theory of a water landing.

Example of an ocean landing when it ran out of fuel, this is the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 hijacking. Even though it appears to be a fairly slow water landing attempt, the damage was catastrophic. So not so easy to get it down in one piece by attempting to ocean land it.

How about landing it vertically but backwards, where the engines provide upward pressure, so that it slides into the water relatively smooth ?

[P45Mustang]

Tywais, on 10 Apr 2014 - 10:54, said:

Experts give reasons for lack of debris from Flight MH370

EXPERTS inside the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370 Joint Agency Coordination Centre believe there are just two possible explanations for the lack of debris on the ocean surface from the downed jet.

The wide-bodied Boeing 777 was either flown under control into the ocean, largely intact and sank to the bottom in one piece or its wreckage was scattered by a cyclone that passed through the search area soon after the search began.

In late March there were fears that Cyclone Gillian, which set off a cyclone warning in the southern corridor, could hamper search and rescue operations.

More here - news.com.au

Personal note: From the photos in the link, the seas in that area appear to be very calm and smooth so their statement of flown in is plausible.

Dispersal of debris looks more likely then?

[NeverSure]

I'm not a pilot, but pilots on this thread can tell me whether a plane might have been ditched, with as little structural damage as possible, in the following manner: maneuver down close to sea level, as if ditching at sea to save passengers, except in this scenario, saving passengers is not the goal (they may already be dead, anyway). When close to touching down, point the nose up, thereby slowing the craft even more. That's a similar maneuver to some modern fighter planes which suddenly point their noses up, in order to slow dramatically, and thereby force closely pursuing craft to pass it. Granted, 777's maneuver more cumbersomely than fighter jets, but the concept is similar.

When slowed as much as possible, the commercial craft falls in to the sea - thereby causing least amount of structural damage. If the pilot was intending to ditch in as inaccessible a region as possible, he was successful. Furthermore, he may plausibly have been planning to cause as little floating debris as possible. If so, this too was a success. In sum, I allege he committed suicide/mass murder, with the intent of leaving as small a 'footprint' as possible - and was successful.

If a commercial airliner 'falls in to the sea' I guarantee that will not be the least amount of structural damage. Have you ever belly flopped jumping into water?

A controlled water landing requires plane configuration of minimum descent rate, gear up, flaps at maximum and at minimum controllable airspeed. I've never had to do one but have been trained for the proper configuration and practiced the maneuver.

Yes, but you've done it gear down using the short field landing technique. I've done it a lot of times with power clear back, slightly steep approach with a side slip to control speed, then when just at the right spot and speed, straightened the plane and begun a flare to stretch my glide right to the edge of the runway. When I touched down, I was just above stall speed and able to stop short.

As an aside, one day I did that and landed smoothly in the dirt about 5 feet short of the runway. No harm done because it was all very smooth in case that happened.

When I walked into the office, an airline pilot asked me, "Did I just see you land short of the runway?" I said, "No, you didn't. I landed short, but you didn't see it."

[P45Mustang]

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

[RubbaJohnny]

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

options offered here none of which seems proof to me

http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/20osbx/probabilities_of_no_debris/

[fasteddie]

http://www.eutimes.n...ure-by-us-navy/

[RubbaJohnny]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/the-depth-of-the-problem/931/

good graphics show depth of search task

[balo]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

Maybe the black box was planted there by the enemy whoever that might be.

[Carmine6]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/the-depth-of-the-problem/931/

good graphics show depth of search task

Seriously? 15,000 feet down and they have manged to find it in the middle of nowhere. Now they're optimistic about finding wreckage “within a matter of days.”

Isn't that out of range of the equipment they currently have available for recovery? Can they even get some kind of visual or echo signals of stuff that far down with what they have?

[Tywais]

How deep is deep? Imagining the MH370 search

(CNN) -

Just how hard is it to find a plane at the bottom of the ocean?

Imagine standing on a mountain top and trying to spot a suitcase on the ground below. Then imagine doing it in complete darkness.

That's basically what crews searching for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have been trying to do for a month.

Thursday is Day 34 in the search for the plane that disappeared March 8, taking with it 239 passengers and crew members.

Officials believe the Boeing 777, while en route from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, crashed in the southern Indian Ocean.

Pinning their hopes on signals they think came from the plane's black boxes, they narrowed the focus of their search Thursday to a 22,400-square-mile (58,000-square-kilometer) area -- about 45 times the size of Los Angeles.

But the real challenge is the depth of the water they're dealing with.

Staggering depths

The underwater pulses that were detected Saturday, and again Tuesday, came from the ocean floor 15,000 feet below the surface. That's 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometers). On Thursday, said officials said another signal may have been detected from sonar buoys.

More here - click2houston

[hawker9000]

I'm not a pilot, but pilots on this thread can tell me whether a plane might have been ditched, with as little structural damage as possible, in the following manner: maneuver down close to sea level, as if ditching at sea to save passengers, except in this scenario, saving passengers is not the goal (they may already be dead, anyway). When close to touching down, point the nose up, thereby slowing the craft even more. That's a similar maneuver to some modern fighter planes which suddenly point their noses up, in order to slow dramatically, and thereby force closely pursuing craft to pass it. Granted, 777's maneuver more cumbersomely than fighter jets, but the concept is similar.

When slowed as much as possible, the commercial craft falls in to the sea - thereby causing least amount of structural damage. If the pilot was intending to ditch in as inaccessible a region as possible, he was successful. Furthermore, he may plausibly have been planning to cause as little floating debris as possible. If so, this too was a success. In sum, I allege he committed suicide/mass murder, with the intent of leaving as small a 'footprint' as possible - and was successful.

No. And explained already.

I've been following this entire thread, and may have missed a prior explanation. Please tell us why 'no'.

See #3527.

The issue is rough water and a huge airframe. If you attempt to ditch at minimum controllable airspeed, with gear up, assuming you don't dip one wingtip (which is unlikely in itself given rolling seas in which you're landing parallel to the swell, and 200ft wingspan), the tail will contact first (remember, gear are up so none of the "ground clearance" they usually provide). If the tail should be the thing that contacts the water first, it will meet immediate near-total resistance while the rest of the 400,000lb mass continues its forward momentum (which is prodigious), resulting in (1) the beginning of airframe disintegration while that which is still moving battles with what's just contacted the water, and (2) a violent pitching moment bringing the nose crashing down into the water, again with most of the roughly 400,000lb airframe moving at about 140K (abt 160mph). If something else contacts the water first, the initial destruction merely begins in a different place. Water at these speeds isn't some soft, pliable, forgiving medium that will instantaneously part and give way benignly to some plunging object like an airplane. And an airliner isn't like an armor-belted battleship with wings. Water in this case is more like a concrete surface (that's uneven, moving perpendicular to your flight path, and rolling & heaving), and the airliner is more like a big, heavy, egg being thrown at it.

You could try and land faster than MCA in order to try & avoid the tailstrike specifically (to reduce the pitch angle; not actually sure if that could be avoided at any reasonable approach speed or not), but you'd still have the swell vs wingspan problem to somehow avoid, and, well, those extra knots would only increase the destructive forces involved once contact with the water begins.

People see videos of smaller, lighter, aircraft landing on relatively calm water, and extrapolate what they see to this. Even a 737, airliner that it is, has a little over half the wingspan and less than a third of the weight. WWII carrier aircraft one occasionally sees videos of ditching at sea after being shot down were also MUCH smaller & lighter, and specifically engineered to withstand the forces of carrier landings not to mention some amount of battle damage.

This is all kind of academic, as I doubt very much the pilot flew all those extra hours and miles out into the middle of a particularly rough area of ocean just to end up conducting a precision ditching drill. Much more likely I think that the aircraft, if it did indeed come down there, came down without power, on its own without pilot control, in a high rate of descent, and with no regard or planning for wind direction or sea state.

Edited April 10, 2014 by hawker9000

[boomerangutang]

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

This is all kind of academic, as I doubt very much the pilot flew all those extra hours and miles out into the middle of a particularly rough area of ocean just to end up conducting a precision ditching drill. Much more likely I think that the aircraft, if it did indeed come down there, came down without power, on its own without pilot control, in a high rate of descent, and with no regard or planning for wind direction or sea state.

Thanks for the details. Since there are so many oddities about the plane's disappearance, I'll add another possible scenario: pilot was still alive near end of odyssey, and timed ditching for right before fuel ran out - in order to power an abrupt nose-up turn upwards, just above sea level. Granted, he would have known about rough seas, and the dynamics of a fuselage of a large plane breaking upon impact on water. Yet, it fits with the supposed scenario of him wanting his crime to be as un-findable as possible - along with the odd route the plane purportedly took - to a remote region.

[F4UCorsair]

Got this , some korean kid managed to hack the remote control of the plane and while thinking its a simulation making the crazy turns and turning off the devices crashed it somewhere , just theory no source exept braincells

Send with Commodore 64 using Thaivisa Connect Mobile App

Not a Korean kid but someone with the expertise...like the CIA,FSB ,Mossad et al..

Remote takeover of airplanes is a reality but obviously don't expect the big players to announce it.

http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and-threats/airplane-takeover-demonstrated-via-android-app/d/d-id/1109503

I think Hugo Teso has his hand down the front of his pants!!

[F4UCorsair]

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

This is all kind of academic, as I doubt very much the pilot flew all those extra hours and miles out into the middle of a particularly rough area of ocean just to end up conducting a precision ditching drill. Much more likely I think that the aircraft, if it did indeed come down there, came down without power, on its own without pilot control, in a high rate of descent, and with no regard or planning for wind direction or sea state.

Thanks for the details. Since there are so many oddities about the plane's disappearance, I'll add another possible scenario: pilot was still alive near end of odyssey, and timed ditching for right before fuel ran out - in order to power an abrupt nose-up turn upwards, just above sea level. Granted, he would have known about rough seas, and the dynamics of a fuselage of a large plane breaking upon impact on water. Yet, it fits with the supposed scenario of him wanting his crime to be as un-findable as possible - along with the odd route the plane purportedly took - to a remote region.

An aircraft doesn't necessarily break up on contact with the water, viz the A320 on the Hudson, nothing broke off to my knowledge. If the sea was relatively calm, the same may have happened. Airlines run simulator sessions on ditching, and the technique should result in minimal structural damage to the aircraft if performed correctly.

It may be that they were unconscious, and it flew onto the water on auto pilot, but the chances of both engines simultaneously quitting, due to fuel exhaustion, is remote, and if one ran out of fuel before the other, the auto pilot couldn't maintain authority, and lack of control would result, with a huge debris field.

The autopilot scenario is less likely in my opinion. It would have been following the programmed route and speed of the Flight Management Computer, and the descent would have been at high speed to 10,000', then 250 knots. Impact with the water, in a slightly nose down attitude, would almost certainly result in some degree of breakup if the engines were powered at the time. If fuel exhaustion had occurred simultaneously, a most unlikely scenario, the nose down attitude would have been significantly greater to maintain the programmed speed, resulting in a greater degree of breakup.

Edited April 11, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[hawker9000]

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

This is all kind of academic, as I doubt very much the pilot flew all those extra hours and miles out into the middle of a particularly rough area of ocean just to end up conducting a precision ditching drill. Much more likely I think that the aircraft, if it did indeed come down there, came down without power, on its own without pilot control, in a high rate of descent, and with no regard or planning for wind direction or sea state.

Thanks for the details. Since there are so many oddities about the plane's disappearance, I'll add another possible scenario: pilot was still alive near end of odyssey, and timed ditching for right before fuel ran out - in order to power an abrupt nose-up turn upwards, just above sea level. Granted, he would have known about rough seas, and the dynamics of a fuselage of a large plane breaking upon impact on water. Yet, it fits with the supposed scenario of him wanting his crime to be as un-findable as possible - along with the odd route the plane purportedly took - to a remote region.

Huh? So, suicide? Or not? If yes, then why an absurd attempt at an impossible ditching. If not, and he had some expectation of personal survival, why not turn back toward land at some point, rather than choose the roughest, most remote seas accessible to him instead? And if he wanted "unfindable", and wasn't expecting to survive, then why not a steep or vertical dive, a la Silk Air, which would grind up the aircraft about as finely,and leave as little to be found, as possible?

OK - I'm saying that if he DID attempt a controlled ditching, whatever the convoluted reasoning behind it, he wouldn't have succeeded. Period. He might as well have attempted to hide the evidence of his crime by trying to fly it into outer space.

The whole intended ditching concept in those search areas is just too far-fetched. But you seem pretty locked in to this idea of a ditched aircraft waiting to be found. Well, maybe some giant methane bubble burst to the surface like a monster airbag precisely at the right location and just before the 777 crashed down, or maybe an alien tractor-beam caught MH370 and set it down gently on the water. Whatever.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, they make those black boxes to survive the most catastrophic mishaps, so I think it's reaonable to hope they won't have been destroyed. Whether they can be found & retrieved off the bottom, however deep & uneven it actually is there, is another question I couldn't even guess at. 'Sure hope so though.

[F4UCorsair]

So what's the answer for lack of debris do you reckon?

This is all kind of academic, as I doubt very much the pilot flew all those extra hours and miles out into the middle of a particularly rough area of ocean just to end up conducting a precision ditching drill. Much more likely I think that the aircraft, if it did indeed come down there, came down without power, on its own without pilot control, in a high rate of descent, and with no regard or planning for wind direction or sea state.

Thanks for the details. Since there are so many oddities about the plane's disappearance, I'll add another possible scenario: pilot was still alive near end of odyssey, and timed ditching for right before fuel ran out - in order to power an abrupt nose-up turn upwards, just above sea level. Granted, he would have known about rough seas, and the dynamics of a fuselage of a large plane breaking upon impact on water. Yet, it fits with the supposed scenario of him wanting his crime to be as un-findable as possible - along with the odd route the plane purportedly took - to a remote region.

Huh? So, suicide? Or not? If yes, then why an absurd attempt at an impossible ditching. If not, and he had some expectation of personal survival, why not turn back toward land at some point, rather than choose the roughest, most remote seas accessible to him instead? And if he wanted "unfindable", and wasn't expecting to survive, then why not a steep or vertical dive, a la Silk Air, which would grind up the aircraft about as finely,and leave as little to be found, as possible?

OK - I'm saying that if he DID attempt a controlled ditching, whatever the convoluted reasoning behind it, he wouldn't have succeeded. Period. He might as well have attempted to hide the evidence of his crime by trying to fly it into outer space.

The whole intended ditching concept in those search areas is just too far-fetched. But you seem pretty locked in to this idea of a ditched aircraft waiting to be found. Well, maybe some giant methane bubble burst to the surface like a monster airbag precisely at the right location and just before the 777 crashed down, or maybe an alien tractor-beam caught MH370 and set it down gently on the water. Whatever.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, they make those black boxes to survive the most catastrophic mishaps, so I think it's reaonable to hope they won't have been destroyed. Whether they can be found & retrieved off the bottom, however deep & uneven it actually is there, is another question I couldn't even guess at. 'Sure hope so though.

hawker, why do you contend that it was 'an absurd attempt at an impossible ditching' and a controlled ditching would not have succeeded? Five years ago. Capt Sullenberger ditched an A320 very successfully on the Hudson River, and there have been others over the years, not recently of heavy category aircraft though. A B777, by virtue of its size, could handle quite rough water, i.e., it would not have to be river smooth, if flown well, and that would be with or without power from the engines.

An IAI Westwind was ditched off Norfolk Island a couple of years ago, at night, and all 6 aboard survived. See the report here http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072.aspx

I think the pilot suicide scenario unlikely, because in the two known/established suicides by pilots of RPT aircraft, Silkair and Egyptair, the action was spontaneous, the aircraft was pitched down violently, and the overspeed caused a degree of in flight breakup, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable and unrecoverable from that flight regime. It's difficult to imagine flying the aircraft for several hours after the decision is made to kill 238 people plus yourself.

I'm as intrigued as the next person as to what happened on MH370, but we will know, some time in the future.

Edited April 11, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[boomerangutang]

When pilots study how to do a controlled ditching upon water, The aim is to A. save lives, and B. save the craft. That's clearly not the scenario with the missing Malaysian plane. A nose first scenario, like the Silk Air disaster, would disintegrate the craft (as would a belly flop or any uncontrolled contact with the sea), and one would expect lots of floating debris - particularly seat cushions, but also luggage and such. I'm not saying there is a damage-free way to ditch, simply that there are one or two maneuvers that would cause less debris than others. If the pilot was intending to create as small a debris field as possible, with his flight experience, he could have done so.

Edited April 11, 2014 by boomerangutang

[F4UCorsair]

Note: This post is just to put things in perspective regarding one theory of a water landing.

Example of an ocean landing when it ran out of fuel, this is the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 hijacking. Even though it appears to be a fairly slow water landing attempt, the damage was catastrophic. So not so easy to get it down in one piece by attempting to ocean land it.

It wasn't easy for that pilot, being bashed around the head with a fire extinguisher by one of the hijackers.

If that aircraft had ditched in a wings level attitude, it wouldn't have been nearly so catastrophic.

[hawker9000]

hawker, why do you contend that a controlled ditching would not have succeeded? Five years ago. Capt Sullenberger ditched an A320 very successfully on the Hudson River, and there have been others over the years, not recently of heavy category aircraft though. A B777 could handle quite rough water, i.e., it would not have to be river smooth, if flown well, and that would be with or without power from the engines.

An IAI Westwind was ditched off Norfolk Island a couple of years ago, at night, and all 6 aboard survived. See the report here http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072.aspx

It has gotten to be a long thread, hasn't it. See #3527. 'Specifically addressed that comparison already. Apples & oranges, for a variety of reasons. And Sullenberger's accomplishment shouldn't be minimized. Most of his peers thought it nearly miraculous.

And the Westwind? Which would YOU rather try & ditch, having to dodge between even light swells at sea, a 13,500# aircraft with a 45ft wingspan, or a 400,000# aircraft with a 200ft wingspan?! (I'll bet the Westwind lands a little slower, too.) And the Westwind at Norfolk, in the controlled ditching you're referring to, broke in two.

[P45Mustang]

Anyway, it all points to the conclusion that somebody did their level best to ensure that nobody would know where the hell it went.

Hide the flight path, and drop it in a remote place where nobody would find it.

If it was suicide, there was nothing 'spontaneous' about it.

And if it was suicide, any wheeling and dealing by Malaysian Airlines, could be entirely unrelated to why it happened.

But might explain lack of info or questions about credibility of info coming out of Malaysia.

[P45Mustang]

I think it was suicide, or an act of revenge (possibly related to treatment of ethnic minorities), btw.

Just a hunch.

Edited April 11, 2014 by P45Mustang

[balo]

What if there was a fatal technical error onboard the plane and both the rudder that controls the plane and communication stopped working so they had to follow the path into the southern indian ocean , then the pilots did their best to control the plane to land in the ocean , maybe even some of them survived for a few minutes hoping there would be ships nearby to rescue them . I think this theory is more likely than suicides or hijackers.

If that's the case , the black box will reveal the last 2 hours of voice communication between the brave pilots trying to save everyone.

Edited April 11, 2014 by balo

[khwaibah]

MH 370 Black Box Found.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/unconfirmed-report-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box-has-been-found/story-fniztvnf-1226880483186

[coma]

Note: This post is just to put things in perspective regarding one theory of a water landing.

Example of an ocean landing when it ran out of fuel, this is the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 hijacking. Even though it appears to be a fairly slow water landing attempt, the damage was catastrophic. So not so easy to get it down in one piece by attempting to ocean land it.

It wasn't easy for that pilot, being bashed around the head with a fire extinguisher by one of the hijackers.

If that aircraft had ditched in a wings level attitude, it wouldn't have been nearly so catastrophic.

Notice how the pilot attempted to put it down near land ? Making a salvage/ rescue operation timely and with limited logistical problems. That isn't the case with 370.

[P45Mustang]

MH 370 Black Box Found.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/unconfirmed-report-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box-has-been-found/story-fniztvnf-1226880483186

Come on you Aussies.

[coma]

MH 370 Black Box Found.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/unconfirmed-report-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box-has-been-found/story-fniztvnf-1226880483186

Search coordinators say there has been no major breakthrough in the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, contradicting prime minister Tony Abbott's comments that authorities were confident they know the location of the black box.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/04/11/13/10/mh370-black-box-within-reach-abbott

Edited April 11, 2014 by coma

[P45Mustang]

What if there was a fatal technical error onboard the plane and both the rudder that controls the plane and communication stopped working so they had to follow the path into the southern indian ocean , then the pilots did their best to control the plane to land in the ocean , maybe even some of them survived for a few minutes hoping there would be ships nearby to rescue them . I think this theory is more likely than suicides or hijackers.

If that's the case , the black box will reveal the last 2 hours of voice communication between the brave pilots trying to save everyone.

We are forgetting important points of detail.

SOMEBODY switched off comms soon after departure from KL.

[khwaibah]

MH 370 Black Box Found.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/unconfirmed-report-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box-has-been-found/story-fniztvnf-1226880483186

Search coordinators say there has been no major breakthrough in the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, contradicting prime minister Tony Abbott's comments that authorities were confident they know the location of the black box.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/04/11/13/10/mh370-black-box-within-reach-abbott

11 April 2014 Last updated at 03:47

Share this page

• Print

• Share
• Facebook
• Twitter

Missing plane MH370: Abbott 'confident' over signals

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26984162

[coma]

MH 370 Black Box Found.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/unconfirmed-report-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box-has-been-found/story-fniztvnf-1226880483186

Search coordinators say there has been no major breakthrough in the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, contradicting prime minister Tony Abbott's comments that authorities were confident they know the location of the black box.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/04/11/13/10/mh370-black-box-within-reach-abbott

11 April 2014 Last updated at 03:47

Share this page

• Print

• Share
• Facebook
• Twitter

Missing plane MH370: Abbott 'confident' over signals

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26984162

Thai news is reporting the same. So it must be correct.

[F4UCorsair]

hawker, why do you contend that a controlled ditching would not have succeeded? Five years ago. Capt Sullenberger ditched an A320 very successfully on the Hudson River, and there have been others over the years, not recently of heavy category aircraft though. A B777 could handle quite rough water, i.e., it would not have to be river smooth, if flown well, and that would be with or without power from the engines.

An IAI Westwind was ditched off Norfolk Island a couple of years ago, at night, and all 6 aboard survived. See the report here http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072.aspx

It has gotten to be a long thread, hasn't it. See #3527. 'Specifically addressed that comparison already. Apples & oranges, for a variety of reasons. And Sullenberger's accomplishment shouldn't be minimized. Most of his peers thought it nearly miraculous.

And the Westwind? Which would YOU rather try & ditch, having to dodge between even light swells at sea, a 13,500# aircraft with a 45ft wingspan, or a 400,000# aircraft with a 200ft wingspan?! (I'll bet the Westwind lands a little slower, too.) And the Westwind at Norfolk, in the controlled ditching you're referring to, broke in two.

Paste post # 3527

US Airways Flight 1549 (A320, wingspan 112ft) ditching in the Hudson was one thing. Trying to put a 777 (wingspan 200ft) down in the middle of the ocean would be quite another. CAPT Sullenberger successfully ditched his aircraft on a calm river, and holes were torn in the fuselage even so. I don't think I've seen any informed guesses as to the sea conditions specifically in the areas which have been the focus of recent days' searching, but generally I have to guess that they couldn't have been anywhere near as benign as the Hudson River on the day of Sullenberger's ditching. It doesn't take much to catch a wing tip or the tail on a wave top; it's difficult enough even on smooth water. CAPT Shah's flying experience, though he WAS an instructor pilot, was not quite as extensive as Sullenberger, who is an ex-USAF fighter pilot who at the time of the accident had logged over 19660 hours, 4765 of them in type. He's also an air safety expert and glider pilot. Furthermore, if MH370 came down having run out of fuel and deadstick, perhaps without even a living pilot in the cockpit, and just hit the water in a steep glide (best case; nose-first worst case), I think it almost certain the aircraft would have been torn apart by the impact. ...torn apart to the extent that the remains consist of small pieces now widely dispersed, as TaH has suggested. Even if CAPT Shah was alive, and controlling the aircraft, under power, at the time of a ditching attempt, I'd consider the possibility of him doing it successfully beyond remote.

Of course comparing a B777 with a Westwind is like comparing apples and oranges, but landing one of either on water (or land) isn't all that much different, and I'd guess that approach speeds aren't much different either, but I haven't bothered to check. The Westwind may be marginally less because because it doesn't have a swept wing, but the B777 has LED's and they reduce the approach speed significantly, typically 20+ knots less than with trailing edge flaps only. They both have V2's of about 140 knots, so approach speeds wouldn't be a lot different, and my guess would be not more than 15 knots, but certainly 20 as an outside figure.

The weight and size are irrelevant because the wing will effectively lift the weight of each and that's what is important. The B777, by virtue of its size, will handle much rougher water than a smaller aircraft. I would prefer to ditch a 777 than a Westwind.....anytime, same logic as crashing in a Lincoln Continental rather than a Morris 850; there's a lot more airframe to absorb impact forces.

I think you're placing way too much importance on experience levels. Based on straight experience, I should/would do a much better job than Sullenberger, but on the day, who knows?? There would be a lot of variables and unknowns to take into account, one of which would be that your butt hole would be puckering so fast that it would be cutting washers out of the seat. I think the ability to remain cool under enormous pressure, and that's part of the pilot psychological profile, would be a far greater attribute than experience. When we're considering actual manipulating ability, there is only so much 'experience', after which one doesn't improve any, or at all. When considering overall aeronautical experience, one never stops learning.

Yes, the Westwind did break in two on contact, but we don't know that the 777 didn't. What we do know of the 777 is that there has been no major wreckage spotted, but even from a few hundred feet, seat cushions are invisible, and that may be all that was released from the wreck if impact was gentle. I've participated in searches in years gone by, and even larger pieces can 'disappear' in water due to varying light conditions. Even on land wreckage can be difficult to see.

Edited April 11, 2014 by F4UCorsair