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

[Jack by the hedge]

Why do you keep making the same false statement?

I's reworded a bit each time. Eventually you reach a point where it's not wrong any more because the subject has morphed, for example from "this is how it was" to "this is how it would have been if I ran the zoo".

That's the key. Finding a way to appear not to have been wrong.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

Today they are mandatory because...of the Estonia disaster...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...
In colloquial American technology jargon we have a verb "to frob" (or more fully, "to frobnicate"). Its meaning is fully contextual: it directs no action without its direct object. Hence it means, "Do, with the thing I'm about to name, that which is obvious to do once you hear what the thing is." If I say, "Frob the lightswitch on your way out," you would instinctively know I was asking you to do, because there are only so many things you can do with a lightswitch.

Oh, I like that.

 

[Vixen]

When they are switched on they start to transmit a distress signal.
They are not switched on until the ship is sinking.
Why do you keep making the same false statement?

Sorry, it is simply not logical. If they 'shoot' out of their casing when water pressure triggers the mechanism holding them - and we assume they did on the night of 28 September 1994 as they were missing from their 'cages' when Rockwater divers did a recce - then how can they be turned on only after the ship has started sinking? They could be anywhere in the sea! Or is a crew member supposed to don a snorkel and flippers to go and search for them to switch them on. Or perhaps swim out to it as it bobs along in the water, jumping perilously off the side of the ship into twenty-four foot waves. Or don't tell me, the beacon doesn't light up either, so you can't see it in the dark, as you need to switch it on first.

 

[Vixen]

I agree. If the device has nothing more than a battery-test button and an on-off switch, then the Finnish verb must refer to one of those operations, regardless of issues of etymology or translation.

In colloquial American technology jargon we have a verb "to frob" (or more fully, "to frobnicate"). Its meaning is fully contextual: it directs no action without its direct object. Hence it means, "Do, with the thing I'm about to name, that which is obvious to do once you hear what the thing is." If I say, "Frob the lightswitch on your way out," you would instinctively know I was asking you to do, because there are only so many things you can do with a lightswitch.

Here we just say pää for on and pois for off. Finnish is a very simple language.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, it is simply not logical.

Your estimation of what you think should be the case is no substitute for what is known factually to be the case. Consider that you may have to revise such estimates in the face of fact instead of clinging tenaciously to them and going into straw-man hysterics about how to reconcile your broken understanding with the evident facts.

 

[Axxman300]

I watched an hour and a half-long video of the original December 1994 dive on the Estonia, this one in fact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcHY2AOQe_8

The first look at the bow area and car ramp begin at 8:56.

They return to the bow at 32:00.

Start working at the ramp at 39:00

41:50 the diver notes deformity at the ramp (he's also annoyed that his depth is about meters deeper than the survey people told him is would be).

42:25 a component of the visor system comes into view - no blast damage.

43:20 interior of the ramp shows a lot of damage consistent with being wrenched open by massive weight of visor, and getting pounded by waves.

46:29 the footage switches back to the ROV at the side of the bow WHERE DAMAGE ON THE EXTERIOR INDICATES HAMMERING FROM THE LOSE VISOR IN HEAVY SEAS.

48:20 one visor hinge shows zero sign of explosive damage.

The rest of the video follows the divers as they make an attempt to get inside by entering a cabin only to find too much debris to safely proceed. They end up searching the bridge and recording the instrument panel. They find an uninflated life raft on the bridge as well.

This is the clearest footage from that dive I've seen, the bow visor failed, no doubt about it. This CT is a waste of time.

The video is worth your time mostly because the divers are Scotsmen with wonderful gallows humor.

 

[lobosrul5]

Ugh not this old donkey again. It's just plain wrong. Even a conversation about last night's football result down the pub requires any participant in it to have a decent level of knowledge about the game and its outcome, if that participant is to contribute anything of any value to the conversation.

Likewise, an awful lot (probably most) of what you've written in this thread does not constitute a valuable contribution.

This thread is becoming the equivalent of: "Thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in."

 

[Disbelief]

Sorry, it is simply not logical. If they 'shoot' out of their casing when water pressure triggers the mechanism holding them - and we assume they did on the night of 28 September 1994 as they were missing from their 'cages' when Rockwater divers did a recce - then how can they be turned on only after the ship has started sinking? They could be anywhere in the sea! Or is a crew member supposed to don a snorkel and flippers to go and search for them to switch them on. Or perhaps swim out to it as it bobs along in the water, jumping perilously off the side of the ship into twenty-four foot waves. Or don't tell me, the beacon doesn't light up either, so you can't see it in the dark, as you need to switch it on first.

That's all well and good, but you were already given a link that stated they were manual and the requirement to use automated was because of the Estonia disaster. Your continued whining about what should have been has no bearing on what actually was.

 

[Agatha]

The font of all knowledge.

Fount of all knowledge.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, they should be ready to activate their signals when there is sufficient water pressure t set them off.

In a emergency, evacuating passengers and helping them into life vests and onto life boats is of far more importance and priority than pissing about with minutiae.

Current requirements are for buoys that are activated on immersion. This has been pointed out several times.
At the time the Estonia sank there was no requirement for an automatic function.

This has been posted a good number of times.
You seem to ignore it.
Activating the buoys is not 'pissing about with minutiae, it is part of the procedure for abandoning ship.
Assisting passengers is a delegated responsibility for some of the crew members. manning the boats and rafts is another. Following emergency alarm and signal procedures is another.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think they just mean calibrate, which likely happens when you switch it on. In the same way your smart phone searches for a signal when you get off the plane in a foreign country.

Instead of thinking random things, why not find out?

They are sealed units, there is one switch to turn them on.
Any other servicing, 'calibrating' battery changing etc is performed by a service centre.
The buoys have a fixed life after which they are returned and exchanged for new units with fresh batteries.

No calibrating, tuning or anything else is done by the user.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This may have some basis in fact. Older electronics have warmup periods during which they may operate out of spec. This is why older avionics, both military and civilian, have a STBY switch position, and why the rendezvous radar was left on during Apollo 11's landing, causing the infamous computer program alarms. It's conceivable that an older EPIRB would require several minutes after being powered on for its transmission signal to drift into the narrow band that's the actual distress frequency. It's 406 MHz, but with an associated bandwidth to allow for slightly out-of-tolerance transmitters.

However, unless the EPIRB in question has a separate standby mode -- which it appears it doesn't -- then the warmup period begins when the device begins transmitting.

There is usually a time delay between activating the switch and the start of transmission, this is usually measured in tens of seconds, it is there to allow a unit that has been switched on by accident to be switched off again before transmission starts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, it is simply not logical. If they 'shoot' out of their casing when water pressure triggers the mechanism holding them - and we assume they did on the night of 28 September 1994 as they were missing from their 'cages' when Rockwater divers did a recce - then how can they be turned on only after the ship has started sinking? They could be anywhere in the sea! Or is a crew member supposed to don a snorkel and flippers to go and search for them to switch them on. Or perhaps swim out to it as it bobs along in the water, jumping perilously off the side of the ship into twenty-four foot waves. Or don't tell me, the beacon doesn't light up either, so you can't see it in the dark, as you need to switch it on first.

They do not 'shoot out' due to water pressure, they float out due to being buoyant.
On the older manual operated units they are supposed to be removed from the cradle and turned on.
On those units operated by immersion they can either be removed and turned on with a switch which is the preferred method, or, they will float free and self activate if the ship sinks and the crew didn't activate them for some reason.

Manual units are supposed to be switched on by a crew member before the ship sinks.
Even the self activating type are supposed to be manually operated, the immersion switch is there as a failsafe.
If the ship sinks with the buoys still in the cradles there is a chance they will fail to deploy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sorry, it is simply not logical.

At that point you should have considered whether it was more likely the manufacturers and users of emergency buoys were all half wits or if perhaps you had failed to grasp the basic concept again.

 

[Mojo]

Wrong! They should be routinely switched on at the start of the journey, not 'when the ship is sinking'.

No, because then they would be transmitting a distress signal and location from the start of the journey.

I can think of some people who might need to do that…

 

[Mojo]

Fount of all knowledge.

No, Comic Sans.

 

[LondonJohn]

I trust the Estonia Ferry Disaster page to quote the JAIC accurately, and we find that yay indeed, it does.

But then it adds its own interpretation of the JAIC Report, which is often biassed, misleading, or a lie.

That is the problem.

If you want to quote from the JAIC Report....... go to the primary source: the JAIC Report itself. Don't quote from another source that is quoting (and amending) the JAIC Report. This is entry-level research technique.

 

[LondonJohn]

This thread is becoming the equivalent of: "Thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in."

I was at the recording of that episode! (And the one where they bunk off, and Moss ends up in prison). The floor manager for that show is a friend of mine.

 

[LondonJohn]

At that point you should have considered whether it was more likely the manufacturers and users of emergency buoys were all half wits or if perhaps you had failed to grasp the basic concept again.

Ah, but in bizarro-world (AKA "I'm always right, even when it would to all intents appear that I am wrong" world), different rules apply......