How can anyone RELY on any speculation on here?
Indeed.
On the subject of ELTs...
Most airliners these days seem to have top fuselage-mounted VHF/UHF ELT transmitters which activate under high g-forces (dedicated shark fin type antenna outside, battery-operated transmitter inside). These are now compulsory in some regions. I assume satellites have the ability to pick up their UHF signals. However, I seriously doubt their ability to transmit underwater (as claimed here). Radio waves do not propogate very well in water
Water is the realm of short-range ultrasonic transmitters mounted on the front of the very heavy "black boxes" (which definitely do not float).
Whilst creating ELT's that detatch and float is not beyond the realms of possibility, the mechanisms allowing them to automatically eject from pressurised aircraft on or prior to impact would probably be more more harmful to human life than beneficial.
On the subject of lightning strikes ...
People claiming that lightning can't bring down modern aircraft are treading on very thin ice. There have been fuel tank fires, total glass instrumentation failure, holes punctured in composite materials, etc, which could quite easily lead to aircraft loss (with far fewer holes than James Reason's model).
On the subject of ACARS transmission ...
The fault reporting system can be programmed to do whatever is desired (including position data, instant fault data, etc). The ACARS system has access to as much data as the flight recorders (if not more).
Anyway, let's hope the moderators have enough patience to get rid of all the chaff... and perhaps correct a few of those embarrassing spelling mistakes that so-called professionals seem to make (e.g. "loosing"(sic)), perhaps making PPRuNe more publication-worthy
