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

[Andy_Ross]

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!>

Once again the Estonia did not have automatic buoys, they had manually activated items.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

I don't care about your personal incredulity. They relied on someone switching them on if the ship was in distress. They didn't strictly need to be thrown overboard as they would float free if the ship did indeed sink. Nowadays such models are indeed only for private people in small boats etc. and that regulation change came about because of the Estonia disaster.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Astoundingly arrogant response. Did you actually read the link? Do you really think that website, which is entirely dedicated to safety at sea, does not know anything about the history of EPIRB devices or the regulation of them and how that developed over time? Did you at least see that the quote was one of the items listed as what happened as a consequence of the Estonia disaster?

You have just got your fingers in your ears now and going laa laa laa can't hear you. You are just wrong. I see how you hate to admit it but you are just plain wrong.

 

[junkshop]

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!>

Vixen,
Regarding my first highlight: as has repeatedly been pointed out you, the bouys the Estonia carried did not have automatic activation. The mechanim that released them and the mechanism to activate them were not related to one another.

Regarding the second: they weren't "mysteriously 'switched off'", they were negligently not switched on.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here are manual release brackets.
On the right is a 'float free' bracket, on the left a hydrostatic release.

Here is a picture to show the size of an EPIRB buoy.

 

[Vixen]

Rockwater Report confirms Estonia EPIRAB's to be Hydrostatic Activated

See attached Rockwater report extract: it very clearly states that the EPIRB was a hydrostatically activated one together with a 'man overboard' buoy.

This settles it the matter once and for all. The EPIRB on the Estonia was automatically released and activated by hyrdostatic pressure.



If the Estonia EPIRB's were found 'switched off' and covered in sand on a beach in Western Estonia, the JAIC should have made an effort to investigate how and why.

 

[Andy_Ross]

See attached Rockwater report extract: it very clearly states that the EPIRB was a hydrostatically activated one together with a 'man overboard' buoy.

This settles it the matter once and for all. The EPIRB on the Estonia was automatically released and activated by hyrdostatic pressure.



If the Estonia EPIRB's were found 'switched off' and covered in sand on a beach in Western Estonia, the JAIC should have made an effort to investigate how and why.

A release mechanism is not the buoy itself. It is the bracket that holds it.
If it was on the bridge how could it have even been in use? Are you sure that doesn't mean the Bridge Wing?
That is the usual location for an EPIRB buoy or a man overboard beacon,

 

[GlennB]

See attached Rockwater report extract: it very clearly states that the EPIRB was a hydrostatically activated one together with a 'man overboard' buoy.

This settles it the matter once and for all. The EPIRB on the Estonia was automatically released and activated by hyrdostatic pressure.



If the Estonia EPIRB's were found 'switched off' and covered in sand on a beach in Western Estonia, the JAIC should have made an effort to investigate how and why.

Where does it say 'activated' ?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... 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.

You're surely just pretending to be this bewildered. It can't be real. The containers automatically deploy the beacons on immersion. But the beacons do not automatically turn themselves on. That type of beacon is no longer approved.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This settles it the matter once and for all. The EPIRB on the Estonia was automatically released and activated by hyrdostatic pressure.

<Sigh> No. It says hydrostatic release. It does not say hydrostatic activation.

The divers did not see the buoys themselves because they weren't there any more. They had been released and floated away.

Seriously, Vixen, I begin to worry about your reading comprehension. I don't mean that in any abusive or mocking way. I mean quite sincerely that you appear to be having more trouble grasping the meaning of what you are reading than seems quite normal.

 

[Disbelief]

See attached Rockwater report extract: it very clearly states that the EPIRB was a hydrostatically activated one together with a 'man overboard' buoy.

This settles it the matter once and for all. The EPIRB on the Estonia was automatically released and activated by hyrdostatic pressure.



If the Estonia EPIRB's were found 'switched off' and covered in sand on a beach in Western Estonia, the JAIC should have made an effort to investigate how and why.

It's easy to investigate, they were never switched on as was required for that type of EPIRB. Not sure why you continue to lie about this.

 

[GlennB]

It's easy to investigate, they were never switched on as was required for that type of EPIRB. Not sure why you continue to lie about this.

Because, for some people, admitting to error is intolerable?

 

[Disbelief]

Because, for some people, admitting to error is intolerable?

Possibly, especially in the conspiracy section.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Once again it appears you are confusing what the facts are with what you believe or desire them to be.

 

[abaddon]

See attached Rockwater report extract: it very clearly states that the EPIRB was a hydrostatically activated one together with a 'man overboard' buoy.

This settles it the matter once and for all. The EPIRB on the Estonia was automatically released and activated by hyrdostatic pressure.



If the Estonia EPIRB's were found 'switched off' and covered in sand on a beach in Western Estonia, the JAIC should have made an effort to investigate how and why.

1. The EPIRBs float.
2. The prevailing Baltic surface current leads from the Estonia's sinking location right along the west coast of Estonia.
3. The EPIRBs do not wash ashore by picking the most popular beach somehow. It could have been any beach along that coast.
4. Waves and tides move sand around and lots of it.
5. The Rockwater report says nothing about "activation" hydrostatic or otherwise, you simply made that up.
6. The Kannad 406F is a manual activation type, now obsolete. The standards were improved BECAUSE of the Estonia disaster.

 

[LondonJohn]

1. The EPIRBs float.
2. The prevailing Baltic surface current leads from the Estonia's sinking location right along the west coast of Estonia.
3. The EPIRBs do not wash ashore by picking the most popular beach somehow. It could have been any beach along that coast.
4. Waves and tides move sand around and lots of it.
5. The Rockwater report says nothing about "activation" hydrostatic or otherwise, you simply made that up.
6. The Kannad 406F is a manual activation type, now obsolete. The standards were improved BECAUSE of the Estonia disaster.

I get the distinct feeling that we're all "shouting into the abyss" with these factual statements. It's rather tiresome.

 

[abaddon]

I get the distinct feeling that we're all "shouting into the abyss" with these factual statements. It's rather tiresome.

Well, I almost posted the technical details of Baltic currents in a peer reviewed paper that demonstrate the route the EPIRBs would likely follow. The surface currents would initially take them SW, then circulate around and drift NE up along the Estonian coast. Wouldn't you know, there is the offending beach jutting out into the sea ready to trap them on the tide.

But I didn't post it. It was quite technical. Alas, some people struggle with technical documents.

You can have it via PM if you wish. Its public access, no paywalls. I will offer to give it to any via PM if they wish. It ain't easy reading though.

 

[Vixen]

You're surely just pretending to be this bewildered. It can't be real. The containers automatically deploy the beacons on immersion. But the beacons do not automatically turn themselves on. That type of beacon is no longer approved.

The ones activated by hydrostatic release are designed to automatically activate when immersed in anything between one to four metres of water.

Or do you really believe passengers and crew are expected to go diving to to switch them on?

Use your common sense.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The ones activated by hydrostatic release are designed to automatically activate when immersed in anything between one to four metres of water.

No that is wring, the mount for the buoy is a separate item to the buoy itself.
They have a hydrostatic release to ensure they will only release if the ship has sunk.

Or do you really believe passengers and crew are expected to go diving to to switch them on?

Use your common sense.

Manual buoys were supposed to be activated and thrown in to the water.
Even the automatic buoys are supposed to be turned on manually and thrown in to the water to ensure they are working.
Relying on the hydrostatic release can result in a buoy not coming free or being entangled with the sinking ship.

It is the duty of a designated member of the bridge crew on each watch to ensure the buoys are activated and released.

Automatic activation is a fallback in case this doesn't happen.


Use your common sense.

 

[Vixen]

1. The EPIRBs float.
2. The prevailing Baltic surface current leads from the Estonia's sinking location right along the west coast of Estonia.
3. The EPIRBs do not wash ashore by picking the most popular beach somehow. It could have been any beach along that coast.
4. Waves and tides move sand around and lots of it.
5. The Rockwater report says nothing about "activation" hydrostatic or otherwise, you simply made that up.
6. The Kannad 406F is a manual activation type, now obsolete. The standards were improved BECAUSE of the Estonia disaster.

That is not so.

The Baltic Sea has no noticeable permanent currents. The fresh water flowing into the sea from rivers travel as a thin layer above the salt water and turn to the right because of the earth’s rotation. The fresh water eventually mixes with the sea water. There is a large, slow, southerly coastal current along Sweden’s coast.

smhi


Dirhami is south -south -east of the wreckage and a southerly current along Sweden's coast means the wind is from the south, causing waves to move northwards.

Statistical results indicate that the southern Baltic Sea is dominated by westerly winds and the 50 year-averaged wind speed is 7.5 m s−1 in the Darss-Zingst area. The ratio of westerly winds (hours) to easterly winds (hours) is about 18:11.

Science Direct.

In other words the EPIRB buoys should have on average washed up somewhere along Finland's south - south-western coast, having been carried east to north easterly from where they should have been released.

Utter rubbish: hydrostatically released EPIRB's have been around a long time. The Rockwater Report was in December 1994 so within three months of the disaster.

The missing EPIRB's should have been a huge red flag to the JAIC instead of:

7.3.4 EPIRB beacons

No signals from the ESTONIA`s EPIRBs were received.

Full stop. Period.