Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Andy_Ross]

If they were transmitting the whole time, wouldn’t they have been detected at some point before the batteries ran down, while the Estonia was going backwards and forwards across the Baltic, or in port?

They would have been detected within a couple of minutes of being turned on

 

[Mojo]

They would have been detected within a couple of minutes of being turned on

I expect the fact that this wasn’t reported is just evidence that the conspiracy was far wider than previously thought.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I expect the fact that this wasn’t reported is just evidence that the conspiracy was far wider than previously thought.

Global

 

[Vixen]

They are tested by pressing a test button that confirms the batteries are still charged.
They are not 'switched on' at any time apart from when a distress signal is to be sent.

What do you not understand about this?



Which means they were never switched on and activated when the ship sank.



Where are you getting a manual for the Kannad 406 F?

All I can find is the Kannad 406 AF which is an aircraft unit and completely different to a marine unit.

If they weren't activated when the ship sank then no signal will have been received.

Why are you belabouring this ?

Is it normal for EPIRB buoys not to be switched on in a passenger ferry? I thought they were compulsory...?

 

[Vixen]

No. It's not curious in the slightest.

Your main mistake (aside from that nonsense article you quoted at the end) is your continued reliance on estoniaferrydisaster.net as a trusted source.

In this particular instance, you're led astray by the boneheaded and incorrect "conclusion" from those technical geniuses over at EFD when they write, wrt the condition the inspectors would have left the EPIRBs:




Y'see Vixen, your friends over at EFD don't understand how these EPIRBs worked any more than you do. It's the blind leading the blind. If the inspectors had "left (the transmitters on the EPIRBs) in "switched on" condition", their batteries would have discharged completely long before the Estonia ever set sail from Tallinn on the night it sank.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: stop using EFD as a trusted source. They are simply not to be trusted. OK?

What do you mean, EFD is not a trusted source? Who do you think you are dictating what sources can be used and which not?

What a disgraceful comment without providing any reason for it.

The source looks perfectly fine to me. They seem to have done their homework.

What do you mean 'my friends'? Presumably my 'friends' also include the BBC and YLE, by your criteria.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Is it normal for EPIRB buoys not to be switched on in a passenger ferry? I thought they were compulsory...?

How many times?
If they are switched on they are transmitting a distress signal.
They are switched on when the ship sinks.

Is this deliberate trolling now?

 

[GlennB]

Is it normal for EPIRB buoys not to be switched on in a passenger ferry? I thought they were compulsory...?

Covered many times already and clearly explained. Why are you asking again?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Where are you getting a manual for the Kannad 406 F?

All I can find is the Kannad 406 AF which is an aircraft unit and completely different to a marine unit.

If they weren't activated when the ship sank then no signal will have been received.

I'm curious about which model of EPIRB was carried by the Estonia. I can't find a Kannad 406 F either. The information I can Google tells me that 406 is not so much a model number as an indication that it transmits on 406MHz and the manufacturer has had a whole series of these models. The service info I found from 2006 says their then-current range (3rd and 4th generation) includes manually activated and automatic versions and all float free types appear to be automatic. But it also says models then over 12 years old don't meet current regulations so should be withdrawn. Sadly that means it has no info about early 1990s models.

<edit to add> The report says "3.4.4 Emergency beacons
The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F. The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the accident by the radio operator. The check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order."

 

[Vixen]

I'm curious about which model of EPIRB was carried by the Estonia. I can't find a Kannad 406 F either. The information I can Google tells me that 406 is not so much a model number as an indication that it transmits on 406MHz and the manufacturer has had a whole series of these models. The service info I found from 2006 says their then-current range (3rd and 4th generation) includes manually activated and automatic versions and all float free types appear to be automatic. But it also says models then over 12 years old don't meet current regulations so should be withdrawn. Sadly that means it has no info about early 1990s models.

<edit to add> The report says "3.4.4 Emergency beacons
The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F. The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the accident by the radio operator. The check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order."

The EDF page from whence the information came, seems to be based a lot on the German Group of Experts, who themselves were advocating on behalf of the Meyer-Werft shipbuilders, so presumably, they have the original specifications of the various parts of the ship.

From what I can gather, the Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB's), radiotelephone-like devices designed to send a satellite signal of its location to COSPAS-SARSAT (see diagram) which, when released from their cage, initiate a rescue service. Now it seems to me, if the cage releases them on sinking - contact with a substantial amount of water being the trigger to release them, then how come Rockwater found the EPIRB cages empty, which seems to suggest something triggered their release yet they were found switched off, washed up in Dirhami, a port in western Estonia, together with a load of life rafts and vests. Rockwater doesn't say what condition the EPIRB cages were in. How did the EPIRBs get thrown out of the ship if there was no power to trigger their release ('not switched on')? I suppose air/water pressure.

The beacons were tested by the Finns for the JAIC in December 1994 and one operated for four hours in the Estonian icebreaker Tarmo and a continuous signal was picked up by the Russians.

The EPIRB and pressure trigger are on a wall bracket (they might have a plastic case today), on passenger boats, usually on a cabin roof, on the mast wall or railing. In Estonia's time, it was a cylinder-like, orange stump about 50 cm long. Another similar one may have been inside the bridge, or on the other side of the ship in the rack. In the optimal situation, that buoy is taken into the life raft or boat and launched manually, but often it detaches as the ship sinks and automatically begins to send a signal when in the water.

It was suspected that the Estonia's EPIRB buoys had clung to the structures of the boat when they detached, and came up to air later. Therefore, the alarm did not go to the satellite, but they were found later.
In the past, EPIRBs could be in a "cage" that was a frame with a pressure trigger. On a spring so that when the pressure release was triggered, the frame "shoots" off the buoy. Many current plastic cases work in the same way.

EPIRBs on Estonia did not have a test switch as in the current ones. This was placed in a horizontal position and it fired after being upright long enough.

Estonia's electrician had inspected the buoys' activities about a week before the accident were found to have been operating normally. The Kannad 406 F's were tested as follows: the buoy's "cage" was carefully opened and the buoy was raised. When the indicator light started flashing, the cap was opened and the switch was turned to the OFF position. In that case, the alarm had not yet switched on, but the buoy put in place.

Both EPIRB's in Estonia were turned off when found, would the buoys be left turned off after the test? Maybe, to save batteries when in dock but it seems no-one thought of it when the ship really was sinking. So the EPIRB buoys were fired off from their cases when the ship sank, by force of external pressure, yet didn't also automatically turn on. That has to be a defect in design. How they then both (?) made it back to northwest Estonia to be found together, and with life jackets and raft is another weird coincidence. Unless of course someone dumped them there. Bearing in mind the Estonians found them before the Rockwater dive in Dec 1994.

 

[whoanellie]

Estonia's electrician had inspected the buoys' activities about a week before the accident were found to have been operating normally. The Kannad 406 F's were tested as follows: the buoy's "cage" was carefully opened and the buoy was raised. When the indicator light started flashing, the cap was opened and the switch was turned to the OFF position. In that case, the alarm had not yet switched on, but the buoy put in place.

Did you make this up?

 

[Disbelief]

Both EPIRB's in Estonia were turned off when found, would the buoys be left turned off after the test? Maybe, to save batteries when in dock but it seems no-one thought of it when the ship really was sinking. So the EPIRB buoys were fired off from their cases when the ship sank, by force of external pressure, yet didn't also automatically turn on. That has to be a defect in design. How they then both (?) made it back to northwest Estonia to be found together, and with life jackets and raft is another weird coincidence. Unless of course someone dumped them there. Bearing in mind the Estonians found them before the Rockwater dive in Dec 1994.

At the time, they were not required to turn on automatically and the ones on Estonia were manually activated. One of the changes after this disaster was to require automatic EPIRBs.

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estonia-sinking-one-of-the-deadliest-accidents-in-european-waters/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_6NhaMnvx3DcsvYblyuBn2yLOMQKs38TSpSdwlYCANH4-1635425427-0-gqNtZGzNAmWjcnBszQlR

Furthermore, Estonia’s distress beacons or EPIRBs had to be manually activated, something that did not happen. If they were activated, they would have made it immediately obvious that the ship had sunk and the location would have been clear. As a result, All EPIRBs were then required to be automatic, while it is considered that the accident played a key role to legislate Voyage Data Recorders.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

At the time, they were not required to turn on automatically and the ones on Estonia were manually activated. One of the changes after this disaster was to require automatic EPIRBs.

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estonia-sinking-one-of-the-deadliest-accidents-in-european-waters/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_6NhaMnvx3DcsvYblyuBn2yLOMQKs38TSpSdwlYCANH4-1635425427-0-gqNtZGzNAmWjcnBszQlR

So at that time they could have been float-free types yet not start transmitting automatically on immersion. That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Vixen]

At the time, they were not required to turn on automatically and the ones on Estonia were manually activated. One of the changes after this disaster was to require automatic EPIRBs.

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estonia-sinking-one-of-the-deadliest-accidents-in-european-waters/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_6NhaMnvx3DcsvYblyuBn2yLOMQKs38TSpSdwlYCANH4-1635425427-0-gqNtZGzNAmWjcnBszQlR

ISTM that if they were automatically sprung out of their casing whilst the ship was sinking you'd think the same mechanism would also switch them on. Hey ho.

Since nobody saw them bobbing about in the water then who knows how they ended washed up on a beach as found be a couple of fishermen...

According to committee notes of the JAIC:

Estonian emergency buoys were a forgotten tuning.

The two emergency buoys of the car ferry Estonia did not send a signal to the rescuers because they had not been tuned on board. Emergency buoys burst to the surface properly as the ship sank. Turma's International Commission of Inquiry has investigated the activities of the emergency buoys that drifted off the Estonian coast. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not send anything untuned, says Commissioner Kari Lehtola. The committee closed the two-day meeting on Friday in Helsinki. The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had been recently serviced and had been placed in place in accordance with the rules.

So that all right then.

So this version has the buoys released OK - rather than caught up in the ship's structures and sunk, to be released later - yet no-one saw them bobbing about. Despite 97 vessels in the rescue parties and dozens of helicopters and aircraft all looking out for survivors in the sea in the aftermath.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

ISTM that if they were automatically sprung out of their casing whilst the ship was sinking you'd think the same mechanism would also switch them on. Hey ho.
...

So this version has the buoys released OK - rather than caught up in the ship's structures and sunk, to be released later - yet no-one saw them bobbing about. Despite 97 vessels in the rescue parties and dozens of helicopters and aircraft all looking out for survivors in the sea in the aftermath.

ISTM automatic starting on immersion would be a better design, and it seems others agree as it is now mandatory.

I now wonder whose duty it was to switch them on and in what circumstances.

They're only small, though they have flashing beacons on the top so you can spot them. But they don't flash if they're not switched on. It doesn't seem odd to me they weren't found at sea.

PS I assume in the stuff Vixen quoted above there's a mistranslation. "Tuning" is more likely something like "activation". "...they had not been tuned on board" doesn't make a scrap of sense, but noting they had not been activated, or switched on, does.

 

[Disbelief]

ISTM that if they were automatically sprung out of their casing whilst the ship was sinking you'd think the same mechanism would also switch them on. Hey ho.

You would think, but you don't know that or if something had damaged them so it couldn't occur. The fact remains that they were manual and not automatic.

 

[Disbelief]

So at that time they could have been float-free types yet not start transmitting automatically on immersion. That makes sense. Thanks.

Yep, it was fairly interesting to me since I know a bit more about CVRs and FDRs than I do about these (same basic principle). I would have thought some type of automated system would be the standard, but apparently not at the time.

 

[whoanellie]

ISTM that if they were automatically sprung out of their casing whilst the ship was sinking you'd think the same mechanism would also switch them on. Hey ho.

Since nobody saw them bobbing about in the water then who knows how they ended washed up on a beach as found be a couple of fishermen...

According to committee notes of the JAIC:




So that all right then.

So this version has the buoys released OK - rather than caught up in the ship's structures and sunk, to be released later - yet no-one saw them bobbing about. Despite 97 vessels in the rescue parties and dozens of helicopters and aircraft all looking out for survivors in the sea in the aftermath.

So you just made up everything in post #769 above about how the EPIRBs worked and were tested.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Older buoys could be tested by turning on and off again as there is a delay before transmission starts.
A separate battery test button is more normal

Estonia had manual operation buoys. Automatic buoys were available but not mandatory.

 

[JayUtah]

What do you mean, EFD is not a trusted source? Who do you think you are dictating what sources can be used and which not?

...says the person who insists we have to respect sources like Anders Björkman, whom we know to be entirely discredited. And who relies constantly upon herself as an authority, despite having no relevant qualifications in ships, shipping, shipbuilding, or forensic investigations of engineering accidents.

The source looks perfectly fine to me. They seem to have done their homework.

But you haven't done your homework, and as such are a poor reference for determining what are good sources on this subject and what aren't. I pointed out, for example, about how you didn't know enough about metallurgy to determine whether their metallurgical analysis was honest and complete. Further, even when the sources are ostensibly reliable, such as professors Amdahl and Westermann, you can't help but restate, "correct," and reinterpret their comments to fit a particular narrative that you've been pushing. You're not a good example of respecting sources.

If all you can muster is performative indignance with respect to challenges to the reliability of your sources and methods, what does that say about what you did to vet them? Your opponents in this debate, who are generally more qualified and knowledgeable than you about the topics it covers, are certainly well within their rights to challenge the neutrality and accuracy of your sources.

 

[Vixen]

ISTM automatic starting on immersion would be a better design, and it seems others agree as it is now mandatory.

I now wonder whose duty it was to switch them on and in what circumstances.

They're only small, though they have flashing beacons on the top so you can spot them. But they don't flash if they're not switched on. It doesn't seem odd to me they weren't found at sea.

PS I assume in the stuff Vixen quoted above there's a mistranslation. "Tuning" is more likely something like "activation". "...they had not been tuned on board" doesn't make a scrap of sense, but noting they had not been activated, or switched on, does.

Nope. The Finnish word is 'viritys' from virittää = tune, tune up.

So maybe they needed to be tuned to 406khz?

Estonian hätäpoijuistaoli unohtunut viritys

Autolautta Estonian kaksi hätäpoijua eivät lähettäneet signaalia pelastajille, koska niitä ei ollut viritetty laivalla. Hätäpoijut pulpahtivat pinnalle asianmukaisesti laivan upotessa.

Turman kansainvälinen tutkimuskomissio on selvittänyt Vironrannikolle ajautuneiden hätäpoijujen toimintaa. Poijujen akut olivat täydessä varauksessa, mutta ne eivät voineet lähettää mitään virittämättöminä, kertoo komission jäsen Kari Lehtola.

Komissio päätti kaksipäiväisen kokoukseen perjantaina Helsingissä.