Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[P45Mustang]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26923235

Next phases

On Sunday, Australia's naval support ship Ocean Shield is reported to have monitored "pings" for some two hours before losing the signal.

If a signal is picked up again, search crews could deploy the autonomous mini-submarine Bluefin-21, which can create a detailed map of the sea bed using sonar, and possibly also spot wreckage.

However, Bluefin 21 can only operate to depths of 4,500 metres, and if debris is lying in deeper water, other more specialised equipment will have to be brought in.

This could include the Remus and Remora unmanned mini-subs, used in the search for Air France flight 447 in 2011, which can operate at depths of up to 6,000 metres.

[P45Mustang]

Meanwhile the PRC news machine is no doubt working successfully because they know they are out of their depth.

Does anybody have the latest news from Xinhua?

[P45Mustang]

There is nothing the PRC hate more than knowing the West is superior.

So, back to the story:

1. Pilot suicide?

2. Socio-political differences between Malaysia, or factions in Malaysia and the PRC?

3. Other?

The black box is NOT in the South China Sea.

[skippybangkok]

There is nothing the PRC hate more than knowing the West is superior.

So, back to the story:

1. Pilot suicide?

2. Socio-political differences between Malaysia, or factions in Malaysia and the PRC?

3. Other?

The black box is NOT in the South China Sea.

I vote 2

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[P45Mustang]

Wouldn't surprise me, put it that way.

[Scott]

A post which was a quote only has been removed along with a reply.

[balo]

I think that the batteries from the black box finally stopped working . So there will be no more signals coming from it.

The good news is that they have narrowed the area down to approximately the size of Scotland.

Which means it could take weeks to locate any wreckage with the remote underwater sub . But at least they know it's in Scotland somewhere.

Edited April 8, 2014 by balo

[tigermonkey]

The equipment being used on Haixun 01 which detected the first two pings last Saturday is designed for local searches for divers in shallow, sheltered waters, such as harbours, hardly the tool for the job in the very deep waters of the southern Indian Ocean. The Benthos Diver Pinger listening device that they were using is designed to identify sounds at depths of less than 1,000 feet, while the ocean bottom in parts of the search area exceeds 14,000 feet. It was also reported that the Chinese did not make any recording of what they heard explained possibly by the fact that recording is not a capability of the Benthos Diver Pinger.

Meanwhile, 300 nautical miles away the Australian Navy ship HMAS Ocean Shield equipped with a Towed Locator supplied by the US Navy looks to be conducting far more promising searches. Yesterday, those leading the Australian-led search effort announced that a detected sonar signal continued for two hours and 20 minutes with a second lasting for 13 minutes. On the second occasion two distinct ping returns were audible, something which was deemed to be the most promising lead yet.

Detection with the Towed Pinger Locator (TLP) is a completely different matter to that with the hand-held device. The TLP is a purpose-built detector, which is towed deep underwater to provide maximum detection range of any pinger signals, says Winter.

Even so, detecting the signal from the data recorder pinger will be highly difficult, even if HMAS Ocean Shield gets close to it.

The ocean is a very noisy place, he says, and there are many noise sources that can be mistaken for the pinger. Steady contact with proper equipment over a significant period of time is the only way to detect it.

The search effort will need to fix on a precise location before sending an underwater vehicle to investigate the finding, in an area of ocean whose depths are at the absolute limit of the unmanned underwater vehicle aboard Ocean Shield.

Also, a phenomenon in the ocean, known as the thermocline, which acts as a horizontal acoustic mirror below the surface makes it difficult for sound to propagate from the deep ocean up through this layer. That means that to detect pings from deep objects, you need to get below this layer, as the TPL is designed to do, says Winter.

There is cause for some optimism in the fact that search chief Air Chief Marshal Houston said there may have been the possibility that on the second run HMAS Ocean Shield detected two signals one from each of the recorders. A slight variation in frequency between the two sonar signals could be because the pingers of the two recorders arent precisely the same age and their acoustic signals could vary slightly as a result.

More here Source

Your quote of Patplan's post on Airline Pilots Central leaves us rather short of full information. Firstly, we have no idea of the technology that the Chinese have available in this search for the pulses from the pingers, and I am quite sure that they are not going to make their technology public! I watched a 1/2 hour report on CCTV ( Central China TV) channel 4 yesterday which featured their RIB being lowered into the water and zooming about with frequent close-ups of the Benthos detector.- it was very obviously a staged event for the folks back in China, and bore no resemblance to sensible facts - they were also listening on ear buds, not the bone conduction earphones or full coverage headsets of the Benthos.

Interesting that Angus Houston does not seem to share the same skepticism about China's capabilities. In another part of he same report, you could see, in the background, the Chinese lowering some sort of device into the water. It was about 3 meters long and yellow with a shape like a torpedo with a cable attached to one end. It certainly did not look like a Benthos!

Patplan/Expatoilworker mentions thermoclines - thermoclines are merely the beginning of the problems of locating the source of the pings. You can also have convergence zones and 'pipelines' which can change the direction of the signal, and cause it to be heard at what would seem to be impossible distances.

One interesting note about what Ocean Shield has heard is that the signals were at 33.3 kHz instead of the expected 37.5 - nothing seems to be 'normal' about this disappearance.

[P45Mustang]

Metaphorically speaking of course.

Wouldn't want anybody getting the wrong idea, would we.

PS. Absolute confirmation that batteries are dead is as yet unproven.

Reports I have read suggest the possibility that they might hang on in there for a few days.

But you never know.

[P45Mustang]

PRC won't find it.

[tigermonkey]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26923235

Next phases

On Sunday, Australia's naval support ship Ocean Shield is reported to have monitored "pings" for some two hours before losing the signal.

If a signal is picked up again, search crews could deploy the autonomous mini-submarine Bluefin-21, which can create a detailed map of the sea bed using sonar, and possibly also spot wreckage.

However, Bluefin 21 can only operate to depths of 4,500 metres, and if debris is lying in deeper water, other more specialised equipment will have to be brought in.

This could include the Remus and Remora unmanned mini-subs, used in the search for Air France flight 447 in 2011, which can operate at depths of up to 6,000 metres.

Apparently the Chinese have submersible that is certified to a depth of 7,000 meters.

[P45Mustang]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26923235

Next phases

On Sunday, Australia's naval support ship Ocean Shield is reported to have monitored "pings" for some two hours before losing the signal.

If a signal is picked up again, search crews could deploy the autonomous mini-submarine Bluefin-21, which can create a detailed map of the sea bed using sonar, and possibly also spot wreckage.

However, Bluefin 21 can only operate to depths of 4,500 metres, and if debris is lying in deeper water, other more specialised equipment will have to be brought in.

This could include the Remus and Remora unmanned mini-subs, used in the search for Air France flight 447 in 2011, which can operate at depths of up to 6,000 metres.

Apparently the Chinese have submersible that is certified to a depth of 7,000 meters.

Apparently the Chinese have a lot of things.

They won't find the box in Scotland.

[tigermonkey]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26923235

Next phases

On Sunday, Australia's naval support ship Ocean Shield is reported to have monitored "pings" for some two hours before losing the signal.

If a signal is picked up again, search crews could deploy the autonomous mini-submarine Bluefin-21, which can create a detailed map of the sea bed using sonar, and possibly also spot wreckage.

However, Bluefin 21 can only operate to depths of 4,500 metres, and if debris is lying in deeper water, other more specialised equipment will have to be brought in.

This could include the Remus and Remora unmanned mini-subs, used in the search for Air France flight 447 in 2011, which can operate at depths of up to 6,000 metres.

Apparently the Chinese have submersible that is certified to a depth of 7,000 meters.

Apparently the Chinese have a lot of things.

They won't find the box in Scotland.

Why the big hate for the Chinese ? They are taking a considerable role in the cooperative effort

[P45Mustang]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26923235

Next phases

On Sunday, Australia's naval support ship Ocean Shield is reported to have monitored "pings" for some two hours before losing the signal.

If a signal is picked up again, search crews could deploy the autonomous mini-submarine Bluefin-21, which can create a detailed map of the sea bed using sonar, and possibly also spot wreckage.

However, Bluefin 21 can only operate to depths of 4,500 metres, and if debris is lying in deeper water, other more specialised equipment will have to be brought in.

This could include the Remus and Remora unmanned mini-subs, used in the search for Air France flight 447 in 2011, which can operate at depths of up to 6,000 metres.

Apparently the Chinese have submersible that is certified to a depth of 7,000 meters.

Apparently the Chinese have a lot of things.

They won't find the box in Scotland.

Why the big hate for the Chinese ? They are taking a considerable role in the cooperative effort

Apparently.

[P45Mustang]

There is nothing the PRC hate more than knowing the West is superior.

So, back to the story:

1. Pilot suicide?

2. Socio-political differences between Malaysia, or factions in Malaysia and the PRC?

3. Other?

The black box is NOT in the South China Sea.

I vote 2

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

I vote 3.

Any suggestions apart from mechanical failure?

[P45Mustang]

So option 3 could be:

Hijack/Theft?

And if so does this preclude option 2?

[RubbaJohnny]

Have these been 100% discounted

meteor,

Small bomb onboard,

fire,

ccidental missile .

Obviously the switching off of various devices points to onboard or remote interference.

Could a plane be remotely taken over then flown,drone tech suggests not impossible?

If either pilot wanted just to die,easy lock other out agter errand toiet pretext and ditch,why turn?

Of course had an attack been planned or perceived any nation in 25000km arc may have shot it down on purpose,or in error or not knowing the target.

You would think it would be the job of Viet,Maly,Thai Indo Sri Lanka India Dago Garcia to stop incoming.

Obviously protocols ID yourself,challenge and if still oncoming down.I'm not up to speed with modern Air Force jargon but bandit at 12 O'clock springs to mind.Change course or escorted out/down by fighters?

This singularly appropriate clip springs to mind combinng submarine intel with reality and how the Irish overcame the challenge of a captian's intransigence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5BVlg6MuJE

Of course no one will admit to this,fault turned off systems and caused attempt to land,Looking at a claimed route map over many war torn zones Yala,Aceh in addition to Northern Malaya Peninsula

The Bumi govt would hardly admit there was one of national fleet AWOL possibly planning a revenge attack even if this was not the plan.

As for deep sea search they'll be lucky not sure how many hectares.acres the subs can do per day but having dome a few hands and knees mass searches an area flat on dry land the size of Scotland where aerial supprt,night sitesand sniffer dogs is daunting enough,it took days to find Moat in a Northumberland village.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt

As an optimist I trust there was no foul play and some resolution.Of course if it is a technical fault with the plane this is of concern to all passengers

In addition to sloppy local practice,false passports and will ensure longer check in and for a while better radar and ping battery systems.

Sadly I see it going the way of the Marie Celeste and fodder for the conspiracy nuts. RIP to all the poor souls,

Edited April 8, 2014 by RubbaJohnny

[hawker9000]

An area the size of Scotland?! To be searched with an underwater vehicle?? To take weeks???

Wouldn't it be more like lifetimes? (And that's assuming the area defined for the search IS actually where the aircraft is.)

[Thai at Heart]

still no debris though to go with the pings

Yes.

I don't know what aviation experts say about whether a plane can be flown into the ocean without leaving a trace.

Not being an expert, it seems the best way would be to go in vertical.

But I'm not a pilot.

Hi,

I think with skill and lots of luck involved you could ditch fairly much intact, but some panels would no doubt come off during water contact. If so then why no attempt at getting out prior to sinking if passengers and crew still alive.

Because no one was alive, or it hit the water with such force , everyone died on impact, or it broke into bits and dispersed all over the place.

[mdmayes]

**PING**

[hawker9000]

I disagree with the notion that this aircraft could have been ditched intact.

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.

[canuckamuck]

It also makes very little sense that if they had enough control to make water landing that they would be out in the middle of the Indian Ocean at all. It would be a strange way to end a suicide mission and if it wasn't suicide and they had control, why not head for land. IMO, there is no way this Aircraft entered the ocean gently. Most plausible is uncontrolled entry with decimation of aircraft at impact. Funny no one has seen any bits yet.

[NeverSure]

I disagree with the notion that this aircraft could have been ditched intact.

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.

Agree 110%. I give you an A+.

Further back there's a quote of an "expert" who predicted that if the plane when in nose first and vertical, that the wings would tear off and sink, but the fuselage wouldn't be significantly harmed and would simply go into the water and sink. I throw the BS flag. It would have shattered to bits.

Somewhere else in this thread there's an article that says the typical wave height in that area is 5 meters, or 15 feet. So if you're alive and controlling the plane, what to you do? Land parallel to the waves and if so in the trough or try for a wave top, both of which are moving? Or do you land perpendicular to the waves and plow into them?

I think either would be impossible and would destroy the plane.

[NeverSure]

It also makes very little sense that if they had enough control to make water landing that they would be out in the middle of the Indian Ocean at all. It would be a strange way to end a suicide mission and if it wasn't suicide and they had control, why not head for land. IMO, there is no way this Aircraft entered the ocean gently. Most plausible is uncontrolled entry with decimation of aircraft at impact. Funny no one has seen any bits yet.

"Funny no one has seen any bits yet."

That has been bugging me from the beginning. If it turns out that the plane was flown to a remote part of a terrorist friendly country and hidden in a hangar because there was something valuable on board, I will not be shocked.

Not that I have a clue what happened, of course.

[tigermonkey]

It also makes very little sense that if they had enough control to make water landing that they would be out in the middle of the Indian Ocean at all. It would be a strange way to end a suicide mission and if it wasn't suicide and they had control, why not head for land. IMO, there is no way this Aircraft entered the ocean gently. Most plausible is uncontrolled entry with decimation of aircraft at impact. Funny no one has seen any bits yet.

There are two problems with finding any wreckage. Firstly, one needs to ask if they are looking in the right place. Obviously they have no better place to look than the best "guesstimate " on the southern arc, in between the two possible ULB pings. It is not a certain location.

The second problem, which is not mentioned is that a cyclone went through the search area about 2 weeks ago, while the SAR efforts were elsewhere. This event would have sunk, broken up and dispersed any remnant which had not already drifted out of the area.

I'm afraid that looking for wreckage at this point is primarily a PR exercise.

[hawker9000]

I disagree with the notion that this aircraft could have been ditched intact.

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.

Agree 110%. I give you an A+.

Further back there's a quote of an "expert" who predicted that if the plane when in nose first and vertical, that the wings would tear off and sink, but the fuselage wouldn't be significantly harmed and would simply go into the water and sink. I throw the BS flag. It would have shattered to bits.

Somewhere else in this thread there's an article that says the typical wave height in that area is 5 meters, or 15 feet. So if you're alive and controlling the plane, what to you do? Land parallel to the waves and if so in the trough or try for a wave top, both of which are moving? Or do you land perpendicular to the waves and plow into them?

I think either would be impossible and would destroy the plane.

Well, there is training gouge, for smaller aircraft anyway, which dictates that you land parallel (and into the wind if possible, but more important not to nose into a swell). But hitting the surface of the water nose-first at somewhere around 200+ knots, or much more if actually in a steep dive, you might as well be smashing into a concrete wall. Literally. Don't know where the other poster got his information about just "shearing the wings off" and leaving the fuselage intact. That's pure fantasy and totally untrue.

[canman]

An area the size of Scotland?! To be searched with an underwater vehicle?? To take weeks???

Wouldn't it be more like lifetimes? (And that's assuming the area defined for the search IS actually where the aircraft is.)

Certainly more than weeks but less than a lifetime. A multibeam and/or side scan sonar surveying a swath of 1km wide at 5km/hr (5km2 coverage/hr) should have a bin size small enough to pick up large debris pieces. Scotland is 78,772 Km2. One vessel should in theory be able to cover the area in 15,754 hours or 656 days. Put 4 vessels out there and you cover the area in 164 days. In reality there would be time lost for turn arounds, weather, technical problems etc.

It is practical to seach this area, its all a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.

[tigermonkey]

I disagree with the notion that this aircraft could have been ditched intact.

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.

Agree 110%. I give you an A+.

Further back there's a quote of an "expert" who predicted that if the plane when in nose first and vertical, that the wings would tear off and sink, but the fuselage wouldn't be significantly harmed and would simply go into the water and sink. I throw the BS flag. It would have shattered to bits.

Somewhere else in this thread there's an article that says the typical wave height in that area is 5 meters, or 15 feet. So if you're alive and controlling the plane, what to you do? Land parallel to the waves and if so in the trough or try for a wave top, both of which are moving? Or do you land perpendicular to the waves and plow into them?

I think either would be impossible and would destroy the plane.

My training years ago in the USAF was to attempt your ditch parallel to the swell. This area is excellent for that since the swells are relatively smooth and well spaced - one of the best places in the world for ditching. Having said that, a controlled ditch under power close to stall speed would give you your best chance. Doing that, you might have one chance in a thousand of success if everything went well.

[Carmine6]

It also makes very little sense that if they had enough control to make water landing that they would be out in the middle of the Indian Ocean at all. It would be a strange way to end a suicide mission and if it wasn't suicide and they had control, why not head for land. IMO, there is no way this Aircraft entered the ocean gently. Most plausible is uncontrolled entry with decimation of aircraft at impact. Funny no one has seen any bits yet.

"Funny no one has seen any bits yet."

That has been bugging me from the beginning. If it turns out that the plane was flown to a remote part of a terrorist friendly country and hidden in a hangar because there was something valuable on board, I will not be shocked.

Not that I have a clue what happened, of course.

Well let's think about this. Finding a plane 4,000 feet down on the ocean floor without knowing where it went in is near impossible. On the other hand, debris floating on the surface is almost always found particularly when all manner of planes, ships and satellites is trying to find it. I think there's even been oil slicks found with no trace of debris.

This time, the nearly impossible one may have been achieved, while the easier has not. I certainly wonder about that. Of course the more time that goes by, the probabilities maybe reverse as floating things get waterlogged and sink, and disperse. But why no satellite photos of anything given several countries have been pointing satellites at this area for weeks?

[hawker9000]

Well, there is training gouge, for smaller aircraft anyway, which dictates that you land parallel (and into the wind if possible, but more important not to nose into a swell). But hitting the surface of the water nose-first at somewhere around 200+ knots, or much more if actually in a steep dive, you might as well be smashing into a concrete wall. Literally. Don't know where the other poster got his information about just "shearing the wings off" and leaving the fuselage intact. That's pure fantasy and totally untrue.

One of the big problems with a ditching and a 200ft wingspan, into any kind of swell at all, is I believe preventing one wing tip from contacting the water before the other (and remember, the swell moves, and will be moving perpendicular to your final flight path; it's NOT a stationary landing environment!) Any asymmetric contact with the water will send the aircraft totally out of the pilot's control and bring about the ultimate smashup. In a much smaller aircraft, at slower approach speeds in say a light Cessna or somesuch (maybe 60-70K), one might avoid a breakup if reasonably well executed and the sea state isn't too bad. But a huge airplane like a 777, even IF slowed to its normal approach speeds (which you really can't do 'cause that would have the aircraft pitched up and contacting the water decidedly tail first which would then bring the nose crashing down pretty violently - therefore you'd actually have to land faster than normal), just isn't going to be able to find a nice big flat place on a rough ocean to land on. And the moment one piece of the aircraft contacts the water, whether that's an engine, the tail, a wingtip, the nose, or what, THAT piece will immediately meet total resistance and want to come to a dead stop while the REST of the 400,000lb mass @ 200K just keeps going, which begins the disintegration process.

Again, pilot colleagues couldn't even successfully reproduce CAPT Sullenberger's ditching success in the simulator, in a much smaller aircraft on a relatively calm river under much more controlled conditions (although his engines were out). Most consider that episode a "miracle". This thing in the southern Indian Ocean would be exponentially MORE difficult, and I really believe, impossible. The breakup would have been near total I think. 'Like putting the airplane through some huge wood chipper. 'Not saying you can't get a 20ft piece of skin or some cargo that's still intact, etc., but an aircraft just "disassembled" into wings, fuselage, tail, etc., and now sitting on the bottom somewhere waiting to be found like Titanic was, nope - I don't think that's at all likely.