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

[Andy_Ross]

You are playing on semantics: "At the time the Estonia sank there was no requirement for an automatic function."

There is zero evidence the Estonia EPIRB's were 'manually activated' but every evidence they were released from their capsules when immersed in 1 - 4m of water. This is also known as 'automatic'.

It says in the ******* report that they were manual.

If they were immersion activated they would have worked and it would say they were immersion activated in the ******* report.

Regulations were changed after the Estonia sank to make immersion buoys a mandatory requirement for SOLAS certification.

 

[abaddon]

From the words of your own attachment, the Kannad 406 is an automatic hydrostatic release system. We know this, because Rockwater tells us they were released from their containers. This must have happened when they were submerged by one to four metres of water. Otherwise, how did they get out?

Wrong. The document clearly states the FH, PH and WH versions are so equipped. The F version is not, which is the one Estonia had aboard.

In addition, it clearly shows they are programmed (tuned).

Programming and tuning are not the same thing. Which you would know had you actually READ THE DOCUMENT.

The fourth diagram shows the hydrostatic release mechanism.

Sure. For the FH, PH and WH versions. Not the F version.

The big question now is, who removed them from the vessel unactivated - probably never in their designated containers, or removed manually, and dumped in a small fishing port in Estonia 200 km away?

Nobody had to manually remove anything. They float all of their lonesome, because of buoyancy. Another concept you do not understand.

As for the fishing port in Estonia? Oceans and large bodies of water have these things called currents.

So: radio interference,

Odd that we still have recordings of the channel 16 traffic between Estonia, Silja, Marielle, Symphony, Finnjet and Isabella. Stranger still that you pretend that only Mariella and Silja were involved.

removal of EPIRB buoys,

They float. They didn't have to be removed.

which were never switched on, anyway,

Crew failure. The F version has to be manually switched on.

and not automatically released,

The F version has no automatic release.

or they would have activated,

The F version does not have a water sensor.

rapid sinking with virtually zero hope of rescue for 90% of those on board.

Due to faulty bow visor locks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Rockwater divers state the EPIRB's were missing from their 'cages' and the JAIC states they were not 'switched on'. This is contradictory. If they were released on contact with flooding water then they were automatic.


Something is not adding up here.


No way were they automatically released and then found in Dirhami, West Estonia 'never activated'.

What is your evidence for this claim?

Why would they not release from the holders?

What do you think was holding them in?

 

[GlennB]

He's not.

That's not how they're meant to be operated. You turn them on when the order is given to abandon ship. Then the ship sinks and they float out of their cradles into the raging sea, having previously been turned on at the appropriate time.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

She grasps it fine. It's either trolling or some weird kind of face-saving - double-down, rinse and repeat, rather than concede the simplest of points.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From the words of your own attachment, the Kannad 406 is an automatic hydrostatic release system. We know this, because Rockwater tells us they were released from their containers. This must have happened when they were submerged by one to four metres of water. Otherwise, how did they get out?

In addition, it clearly shows they are programmed (tuned).

The fourth diagram shows the hydrostatic release mechanism.

The big question now is, who removed them from the vessel unactivated - probably never in their designated containers, or removed manually, and dumped in a small fishing port in Estonia 200 km away?

So: radio interference, removal of EPIRB buoys, which were never switched on, anyway, and not automatically released, or they would have activated, rapid sinking with virtually zero hope of rescue for 90% of those on board.

That is a system from 2006.
the manual is for the service centre to set them up. It is not an end user manual.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't be silly. How can they be 'manually activated' once they've been released ito the raging sea. Four metres depth of water is twelve feet down. Maybe as well as survival suits, the crew put on their scuba tanks...oh but wait, they were never switched on, so they must have just missed them...dang! They weren't no James Bonds.

Or what was the other scenario? The EPIRB buoys got caught in the ship's structure and went down with the vessel, only to pop up later after everyone had gone, and then made their way to Estonia, with a bunch of life jackets and life rafts.

they are not the units that were on the Estonia, they are from at least a decade later.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He's not.



That's not how they're meant to be operated. You turn them on when the order is given to abandon ship. Then the ship sinks and they float out of their cradles into the raging sea, having previously been turned on at the appropriate time.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

What is supposed to happen is that they are taken out of the cradles, turned on and thrown in to the sea.

Automatic activation is a fallback in case they are not activated, it is not how they are supposed to be used.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Exactly. We have been around this loop all day.

That pdf manual is from 2006 and does not cover the F model fitted on the Estonia. The manual says that all then-current float-free models also switch on automatically on immersion but that older models do not meet current regulation and should be taken out of service.

I sense this is not the first time I've written this stuff today.

 

[abaddon]

That is not the right manual, it has immersion activation.

that is a model from 2006

It covers the F as well. Right up front it is identified that the F has NO water sensor. I believe the F model was de-certified in 1998. There could easily be legacy models floating around (scuse pun).

In any event, they were all built on a common chassis/body. Oddly, the S version had a water sensor, but it was not connected.

 

[JayUtah]

What is supposed to happen is that they are taken out of the cradles, turned on and thrown in to the sea.

Okay, that works too. But Vixen's straw-man method is ... just daft.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Citation please that they were 'manual'.

Ironically, you're asking Disbelief, who is the very person who posted this link just a matter of hours ago:

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estonia-sinking-one-of-the-deadliest-accidents-in-european-waters/

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

 

[Spektator]

Do you understand that "release" and "turn on" are two entirely different verbs?

And the second one occurs before the first. Wink wink, know wot I mean?

 

[LondonJohn]

And the second one occurs before the first. Wink wink, know wot I mean?

Purley? Famous for it!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Pfft, that's a fragrant abuse of admin privilege.

Highly malapropriate behavior. *shakes head*

 

[Mojo]

Purley? Famous for it!

Say no more.

 

[Vixen]

What is supposed to happen is that they are taken out of the cradles, turned on and thrown in to the sea.

Automatic activation is a fallback in case they are not activated, it is not how they are supposed to be used.

Balderdash. Those are for private people in small boats and yachts. No way does a hulking 15,000 tonne passenger cruise ship, with 2,000 capacity, rely on someone throwing it in the sea as the boat is sinking. Utter tosh.

 

[Vixen]

Ironically, you're asking Disbelief, who is the very person who posted this link just a matter of hours ago:

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estonia-sinking-one-of-the-deadliest-accidents-in-european-waters/

That's all derived from inference, from the JAIC report saying 'they were not switched on'.

Had the JAIC considered the very real and likely true situation of sabotage, it might have bothered to investigate this further. It ignores the Rockwater report that the wretched things had been released from their capsules and then the bastards made their way to Dirhami Beach quite unnoticed by anyone, despite their function being both beacons and buoys and had only just been inspected, tested and serviced as fit for use.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Balderdash. Those are for private people in small boats and yachts. No way does a hulking 15,000 tonne passenger cruise ship, with 2,000 capacity, rely on someone throwing it in the sea as the boat is sinking. Utter tosh.

That is exactly how a manually operated buoy works.
How else would it be turned on?
Even on modern units with immersion switches the procedure is to use manual activation and throw in to the sea.
That ensures the buoy is working and afloat broadcasting the distress signal.
Relying on the buoy activating and floating free after the ship sinks is not as certain. What if it doesn't come free? What if it snags after it comes free? etc.
Using a switch and throwing in to the water is a positive action.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's all derived from inference, from the JAIC report saying 'they were not switched on'.

Had the JAIC considered the very real and likely true situation of sabotage, it might have bothered to investigate this further. It ignores the Rockwater report that the wretched things had been released from their capsules and then the bastards made their way to Dirhami Beach quite unnoticed by anyone, despite their function being both beacons and buoys and had only just been inspected, tested and serviced as fit for use.

What are these'capsules' of which you speak?
What is your evidence for sabotage?
How would the buoys be sabotaged?

 

[Vixen]

What are these'capsules' of which you speak?
What is your evidence for sabotage?
How would the buoys be sabotaged?

These things.


Remember: Rockwater divers - who were there in person - specifically went to look for them and reported they had been released, so presumably they were in the capsules in the first place. If automatically released they would have activated at between one to four metres depth of water but they were not switched on, meaning someone removed them manually in advance.

The fact the JAIC studiously avoided mentioning the ruptured starboard or attributing the radio interference, mysterious 'switched off' EPIRB's which were not even there, together with Jutta Rabe's One Eagle expedition showing a super high reading on their Geiger-Müller counter, to anything amiss, means the JAIC knew to stay well clear of any suggestion of sabotage.

<fx broad American twang: Don't go there!>