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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
As the report says, when they were recovered they were switched off and when tested working OK.

Wouldn't it be more believable to claim that whoever the saboteurs were threw them overboard before the ship started sinking so that they couldn't be activated by the crew?

As the Mayday message was received and acted on it is a moot point anyway.
Click to expand...

I think we gotta hand it to the saboteurs. Not only did they steal the EPIRBs in order to deposit them on a beach[1], they grabbed a bunch of life jackets and other floating stuff and dropped it all in the same area, thereby ensuring even more deaths. That's planning ahead.

Except for the part where they dropped it on a beach that actual floating stuff would never, ever drift to[2]. That's a bit of an oversight.

[1] Yes, yes, I know they were found by fishing boats.

[2] Again, just parroting what I've learned from Vixen.
 
phiwum said:
The highlighted may or may not be true. You're relying on the testimony of the Mariella captain (I think) and there's no reason to think he's untrustworthy, but he can only report what he heard. He only heard the Europa's reply, but that doesn't mean that other stations or ships were not also replying. It does mean that none were close enough in these conditions for him to hear anyone else replying.

I don't know that anyone else replied, mind you. Maybe others here know. My only point is that you immediately conclude that only two radio operators replied when your evidence is merely that one captain heard no other replies.
Click to expand...

Already posted the sequence of events and radio responses from the official report today.
 
Vixen said:
Not if the signals were blocked.


How do you know a Mayday had not been attempted previously?

Couldn't see the reference to Estonia in your link.
Click to expand...

All of Chapter 19 is about the Estonia.

It is titled 'CHAPTER 19 DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS AFTER THE ACCIDENT'
 
Jack by the hedge said:
And it's beyond a moot point if the conspiracy theory says saboteurs wanted the ship to sink to destroy part of its cargo. Disabling the buoys is pointless.

The buoys wouldn't be activated if the sinking didn't happen. Once the ship has sunk, their evil mission is accomplished and they can go down with the ship, happy in the knowledge that they've killed themselves doing their duty for Mother Russia and it no longer matters whether the ship's location is known or not. In the event, distress calls worked faster than the EPIRB system would have worked anyway, even if it was operating. The saboteurs did nothing to secure all the radios. The storyline of the evil plot falls apart.
Click to expand...


Yes. And irrespective of either the EPIRBs or any Mayday calls, even if these evil conspirators had managed to engineer it so that the Estonia sank with nobody else knowing at that time that it was sinking/had sunk....

..... it wouldn't have taken the authorities very long to a) realise that the ship must have sunk, and b) locate the wreck. The Estonia was sailing in a pretty tightly-defined shipping lane, and even its erratic final moments afloat kept it within that lane. And there would have been plenty of bits of evidence narrowing down the Estonia's most likely point of sinking.

This would never have been a Titanic or MH370 scenario. (To take the Titanic comparator, 1912 technology meant that it was immediately extremely hard to put any kind of decent fix upon the area of the wreck. And, very importantly, the area of the ocean floor where she sank was/is extremely deep and undulating - the Titanic wreck is something like 3,500m deep. By contrast, the deepest point of the entire Baltic Sea is something like 450m, and the Estonia lies at a depth of around 80m-90m)
 
Steve said:
Any sentence in that report that does not contain the word Estonia could be about pretty much anything really.
Click to expand...

I suspect that is exactly the game Vixen is playing here. Even though the entire report relates to the sinking, that particular chapter doesn't use the word 'Estonia'. She'll probably be along at some point to claim some kind of victory'
 
Matthew Best said:
No need to wait. I can declare victory for Vixen right now.

I'm pretty sure this thread has gone, and continues to go, in exactly the way intended so I mark this one down as a win for V!
Click to expand...

Round in circles like the Bismark after its rudder got mangled.

Can some mod put it out of its misery (and ours!) by torpedoing it? ;)
 
LondonJohn said:
Perhaps this link might aid Vixen in her woefully poor comprehension:

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estoni...t4.8mGfLNbs-1635681468-0-gqNtZGzNAmWjcnBszQhR


Quoted from the above (my bolding for emphasis):




Something like this would have been laughably easy for someone with a sincere attempt to understand the truth to have sought out. I dunno: maybe in Vixen's worldview, even the people running this (reliable) website are either stupid or in on the conspiracy themselves..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That article is dated 2019. Something written twenty four years in retrospect. That is not a proper citation. That is just an assumption by the author.
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. Too many respondents to a Mayday can be almost as bad as none at all. From a comms perspective, it can jam, heterodyne or cause cacophony on the emergency channel. And from a logistical perpective, too many ships converging on the scene can cause problems of their own - especially in the case of larger ships which obviously cannot turn on a dime.

But hey: the likes of you and I live in the world of the rational, the (reasonably) intelligent, the analytical, and the well-informed. Not a world that everyone inhabits, evidently......
Click to expand...

London John is getting abusive again... a clear sign he has lost it.
 
Vixen said:
That article is dated 2019. Something written twenty four years in retrospect. That is not a proper citation. That is just an assumption by the author.
Click to expand...

It was 'additional material' to the report linked by Captain Swoop, the report you avoided commenting on as it destroyed your claim.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Vixen appears to be clinging to the idea that the Estonia's EPIRBs, which were found switched off, might have had automatic activation.

It just occurred to me that she is conflating the function of a manual on/off switch with a different switch which could disable automatic activation. Those are very different functions.

Vixen, if you would like to show us any model of EPIRB Estonia might have carried which has such a switch, to disable automatic activation, I would be happy to consider it. A YouTube video showing its operation would be fine. Otherwise I'll regard the existence of the type as imaginary.
Click to expand...

For the umpty-ninth time, they were not 'switched off'. They had never been 'switched on'. You cannot switch them off, if never switched on. The inspection the week before established they were in good working order. The Rockwater divers confirm the hydrostatic release capsule was empty. IOW they/it would have automatically floated to the surface to transmit a beam to the satellite system. The hydrostatic release system ensures the beacon buoys are automatically release on contact with ne to four metres of water. These can also be operated by switching the thing on manually by a button. Once switched on the signal is sent. There was never any signal sent, so was never switched on.

The JAIC only mentions the EPIRB on the following occasions. You are flat out lying when you claim they could only be switched on by a crew member who then had to throw it overboard rather than place it in a hydrostatic cage.

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.


7.3.4 EPIRB beacons

No signals from the ESTONIA`s EPIRBs were received.

8.11 The EPIRB beacons

The EPIRB beacons along with some liferafts and lifejackets were found on 2 October 1994 by two Estonian fishing vessels in the vicinity of Dirhami on the north coast of Estonia. The beacons were switched off when found. On 28 December 1994 the condition of the above EPIRBs was tested by the Finnish experts. The radio beacons proved to he in full working order when switched on.

On 24 January 1995 both EPIRBs were activated on board the Estonian icebreaker TARMO, when they worked without interval for four hours. According to the Russian COSPAS Mission control centre, whose area of responsibility includes the Estonian waters, the radio beacons were transmitting the signal in the normal way throughout the test period.


Distress traffic

Mayday calls were received by 14 radio stations including MRCC Turku. At the beginning the SILJA EUROPA took the role of control station for the distress traffic.

The distress traffic was not conducted in accordance with the procedures required by the radio regulations.

The ESTONIA's two EPIRBs were not activated and could therefore not transmit when released.
Click to expand...

If the beacons were not activated, that simply means they were not programmed to the GDMSS which is hard to believe given they had been tested and inspected the week before. This involves green lights flashing for battery power, circuit connection and connectivity by the sound of a beep. Four green lights at the end means all is AOK.

See from 4:00" onwards.



The only conclusion is that they were removed manually from the ship. Had the EPIRB been released all right via the hydrostatic trigger but never floated to the surface to let off a signal, then it should surely have emitted a signal when it finally surfaced, so that is ruled out.
 

Attachments

  • Rockwater re EPIRBs.jpg
    Rockwater re EPIRBs.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 5
Captain_Swoop said:
What would block the signals?

You have had VHF radio explained to you.

To block the signal from the Estonia there would need to be a transmitter close to the ship broadcasting a signal on Channel 16. Every other ship would have heard it.

Channel 16 is monitored all the time, in addition to being the distress channel it is also the main hailing channel and used to broadcast NOTAMS and other information and hazard warnings.
Click to expand...

So why did the Estonian government issue a diplomatic complaint to the Russians about this interference if it was not happening? Likewise, Rear Admiral Heimo confirmed continuous interference from a transmitter on a Russian military of Channel 16 for at least a month leading up to the 28 Sept 1994.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Releasing the buoy does not activate it.

To activate automatically the buoy would need to have a hydrostatic switch.

Those on the Estonia did not have that feature.
Click to expand...

For the umpty-ninth time, if it takes four metres of water to automatically detach the buoy then of course it is not one operated "manually only", as if one has to dive two fathoms under the sea to turn it on.
 
LondonJohn said:
And all of this shows conclusively that:

a) these EPIRBs would have transmitted exactly as designed/intended, had they been manually switched on by a crewmember in the time period between the crew realising that the Estonia was going to sink, and the ship actually sinking;

and

b) in fact, the EPIRB transmitters did not get manually switched on by any crewmember during the timescale outlined above - meaning that they released themselves into the sea "dumb", without transmitting any radio signal, and they ultimately washed ashore with the transmitter switches still in the "off" position.


This is all so, so simple to figure out. For almost anyone.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Not one of the hundreds of rescue vessels, helicopters and aircraft who surveyed the entire scene until late into the night the next day spotted these 'dumb buoys' floating around.
 
phiwum said:
It kind of seems clearer, but I'll bet we'll go round the same circles.

Let me just see if I understand what you wrote. It seems to me that you've acknowledged the EPIRBs were manual, so that one must turn them on before they start signaling. Whether on or off, they will be released when the water rises to the bracket holding them, but being underwater (or floating on the surface) will not activate the device. The only way to activate it is to turn it on by flipping the switch (and once that is done, the EPIRB will begin sending its signal almost immediately, regardless of whether it is wet or dry).

That's what the second paragraph seems to mean to me. Is that what you meant? If so, we can dispense with the bits about how the only explanation for their failure to activate is sabotage, since clearly they would not have activated unless manually turned on.
Click to expand...

As confirmed by the Rockwater divers, they were hydrostatically triggered. These buoys of course can also be switched on manually. However, once switched on, they will have sent a signal. No signal was ever sent, so they were not switched on manually. However, Rockwater confirms the hydrostatically-operated case it/they were in was open, implying either they had been triggered by up to twelve feet of seawater and thus should have floated up to the surface and signalled accordingly, or they/it had been removed.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
As the report says, when they were recovered they were switched off and when tested working OK.

Wouldn't it be more believable to claim that whoever the saboteurs were threw them overboard before the ship started sinking so that they couldn't be activated by the crew?

As the Mayday message was received and acted on it is a moot point anyway.
Click to expand...


Hypothetical question. Let's just stick to what did or did not happen, shall we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom