The level of presumption here is really quite surprising. Tim Clark, President of the company that operates the largest B-777 fleet, and might just have access that we don't mentions, in an apparent off-the-cuff interview, that there were three things that his qualified crews would not know how to do, THAT WERE DONE and the presumption here is - OH! he must mean VHF com, Transponder(s), and ACARS? So how many 777 qualified pilots don't know how to manage those things? For example, do all aircrew know how to access the flight deck of an aircraft to which they are not assigned?
Isn't it time for a reality check?
Clearly, there is something else and I suspect that as a major operator with the responsibility he has, Mr Clark may know more that he can openly say? So what you, or we, should really be thinking about is what three things could have contributed to the loss of this aircraft that aircrew would not likely know about,but others might? And why is it he assumes that this knowlege boarded the flight and could do so again? Seems to discount all of those fire theories, meteors and structural failure too.
There are far more important issues in play here than LF noise picked up on hydraphones and an anxious lady sailor seeing an aircraft in the early dawn (when it is still dark at sea-level).
It seems that Tim Clark is still asking exactly what was below deck in the hold; amongst other things? That seems to have been brushed aside; as soon as someone found batteries. What else is there that remains unknown about the freight and the people onboard?
Why, then, is it assumed all will be known once the aircraft is found, if it is? Just what do you think the DFDR will reveal about the how and why?
It is time to stop sweating the small stuff and consider the bigger picture.